How to Actually Save the Vaccine Program
By Julie Obradovic
Recent estimates are that up to 40% of parents are choosing to selectively vaccinate or avoiding vaccinating their children altogether. As a response, the public can soon expect to be exposed to a campaign to "vaccinate a wary public".
The strategy appears to consist of using fear, imagery, and insults as a way to gain greater compliance. Forthcoming Public Service Announcements with infectious disease victims. Conferences guiding physicians linguistically through tiresome conversations with seemingly misguided parents. Referring to concerned parents as anti-scientific. Censorship by the media at the government's request.
Predictably this strategy will fail miserably and likely only make the situation worse. Why? It misses the point of why parents actually aren't vaccinating.
Parents aren't opting out of vaccinating because they are too young to remember infectious disease. It isn't because they take the threat of infectious disease lightly and want their children to get it. It isn't because they are misinformed by the internet and media.
No, the real reasons parents aren't complying with recommended vaccination schedule are because:
1. Having a child with Autism far outweighs the risk of having or dying from any infectious disease right now, and anything that could possibly be contributing to the development of Autism, even if it means risking infectious disease, will be considered riskier.
2. They don't trust the denial of the role of vaccines in the development of Autism by the medical community or government because they are biased; they will be the entities held accountable for Autism if it is proven vaccines are indeed causal factors. Furthermore, they are both closely tied to the pharmaceutical industry that repeatedly puts profit over safety and has to have products recalled because of it.
3. Their reality is vastly different than what these groups are trying to convince them (that Autism always was this prevalent and problematic). A condition that was unheard of only 25 years ago is now the number one issue facing a generation of children and the only explanation offered for any of it is coincidence. Further, 1 in 20 families now has an affected child, with neighbors, grandparents, relatives and friends being eye witnesses to the regression and recovery of these children.
Those in charge of the "vaccinating a wary public" campaign would be wise to remember that parents who question vaccine safety are by and large a highly educated group, often now related to, friends with, or neighbors with parents who have a child affected by Autism, ADHD, speech delay, learning disabilities, life threatening allergies, asthma and more. They are frightened by the statistics facing their unborn children, and even more so by the lack of urgency and care with which these problems are being addressed. With their own eyes through their own experience they can clearly see something is very wrong with today's children, unlike some in the medical establishment that are trying to pass it off as the norm. That creates distrust and suspicion.
Additionally, they don't take kindly to propaganda or threats, and they most definitely don't like to be insulted. Telling them their choice is to go with the scientific side is juvenile in its approach, suggesting that any parent who researchers both sides of the debate, personally knows someone with a different experience, and disagrees with the one size fits all approach to vaccination is by default, non-scientific. Brilliant.
More important, it's disingeneous to take that position. Vaccines are vastly understudied in the current way they are administered, and there are plenty of questions about their safety left unanswered. Worse, the questions that have been attempted to be answered are inadequate thus far in being able to truly tell us anything meaningful about vulnerable populations and the role of vaccines in their negative health outcomes. And certainly, wondering if whether or not the influence of the pharmaceutical industry and our government on our medical institutions has rendered the science less than objective is a sad reality in this day and age, not conspiracy thinking.
Furthermore, there has been close to $2 billion dollars in settlement payments paid out to victims of unexpected and unfortunate vaccine reactions. Legislation had to be passed on how to handle this kind of compensation not because it might happen, but because it does happen, and worse, that they have no idea who it will happen to or why. Given that vaccines are not studied for safety in the manner in which they are administered (with 2,3,4 or even 5 plus injections being given at once to infants), it is impossible to know precisely how many people have been injured by vaccines. The debate in fact is not if vaccines have hurt people, but rather only how many and how.
Moreover, all parents will choose the safety of their child over that of the general public. Whereas the job of the CDC is protect the public over the individual, the job of a parent is to protect their individual child. The two positions are incompatible from the start, and the medical community is trying to serve both masters. It isn't working. Being able to possibly protect the public from infectious disease is a nice by-product of choosing to vaccinate your child, but it is absolutely, positively not the main motivation of any mother or father I have ever met. In fact, until recently the real reason parents vaccinated so aggressively is because they believed they had no other choice.
So to any of you reading this who are about to embark on the campaign of "vaccinating a wary public", let me help you save a lot of time, energy and money. If you actually want to save the vaccine program and regain the public's trust, here's how you can start:
1. Tell the truth. Stop claiming that science has completely resolved this issue. At best, the limited science thus far (done by those with tremendous conflicts of interest) has shown us that with regard to Thimerosal, it might be good for kids and it might be bad for them, and with regard to the MMR, that for the general population, it doesn't appear to be a problem. That's hardly the same thing as the sweeping statement that all vaccines in any child, at any time, with any ingredients, in any amount, in any combination don't cause Autism. Furthermore, Thimerosal is not gone from vaccines, and the trace amount touted as safe is still far too toxic to flush down a toilet. Plus, according to the Material Safety Data Sheet, it should never be combined with aluminum because of how highly reactive it is, and yet, there are multiple vaccines that combine the two right now. Moving the goal posts? More like clearly identifying the end zone.
2. Acknowledge your lack of objectivity in this matter. By pretending to be unbiased, you lose credibility.
3. Remove Paul Offit as your spokesperson; he is hurting your cause. You have chosen to give a man who has never treated a single child with Autism the authority to speak for your profession on what doesn't cause it: the very product that has made him rich. You must realize how poorly that sits with the parent community you serve.
4. Understand that you are under investigation by the parent community for a crime: medical negligence. Understand that no amount of self-investigation will ever be good enough to convince them of your innocence.
5. Support the creation of an independent vaccine oversight and safety commission with no ties to the CDC, the vaccine industry, or the medical industry. Acknowledge the conflict and that you feel so confident in what you do and how you do it that you are willing to hand it over to a third party for verification of its safety.
6. Reach out to your loudest critics. Rather than dismiss them, recognize these are the parents who listened to what you told them verbatim and are utterly convinced you completely betrayed them and their children. They have nothing left to lose by speaking out until they believe justice has been served. Your campaign will only make them louder.
7. Create a vaccine schedule based on the reality of today's American society. We do not live in the hazardous conditions of the third world, and the majority of us do not live in drug-infested urban squalor; our vaccine needs are different. Categorize the available vaccines based on need, not availability. Base these categories on the risk-reward relationship for each individual child.
8. Welcome media coverage of all sides equally. By requesting limited reporting about the controversy you create tremendous suspicion. Historically, the squashing of free speech about controversial topics does anything but make it go away.
9. Open the Vaccine Safety Datalink Database. Allow independent researchers to verify CDC findings.
10. Get your priorities straight. You are more worried about a measles outbreak in 12 California children than you are about the fact that 1 in 70 American boys has Autism. This is outrageous. You have just as big of an obligation to stop chronic disease as you do infectious disease, and you have an obligation to figure out if in the pursuit of the eradication of one we have increased the incidence of the other. You have yet to do so.
11. Stop playing dumb. Stop pretending Autism has always been with us at the incidence rate it is. Stop suggesting that toxins in the environment could play a role in Autism while simultaneously denying toxins injected into a baby's body do not. You must realize how ridiculous that sounds. Furthermore, stop trying to convince people that everything they know about Autism is a coincidence. You pride yourself on being scientific and yet the only explanation you have for anything about Autism is that it is coincidence. This too is ridiculous.
12. Demand and welcome the independent study of the vaccinated versus never vaccinated immediately, as well as the study of affected children for evidence of vaccine injury. Certainly with such a dramatic drop in vaccine compliance over the last several years you can find a large population of unvaccinated children from with which to draw for these kinds of investigations.
13. Learn to recognize and treat vaccine injury from your peers who are doing so. It happens. It isn't rare. It is treatable.
14. Screen for possible vaccine injury risk factors. Ask about heavy metal susceptibilities and a history of autoimmunity. Do not vaccinate sick children. Do not vaccinate children on or recently on antibiotics. Do not give acetominephine to children before or after vaccines. Do not put convenience over safety.
15. Clean up the vaccines. It is no longer acceptable to inject heavy metals such as mercury or aluminum into a human being, as we continue to learn just how vulnerable we are to amounts we previously thought harmless. To repeatedly pierce the flesh, bypass the natural immune system the body has created in the nose, mouth and digestive tract, and directly inject more and more chemicals, metals, and viruses into it without studying the life long and/or unintended consequences for having done so is no longer a miracle; it is madness.
This is an incomplete list, but it is a good start. Should the effort not be made to accommodate the wishes of parents in this manner, the demise of the vaccination program will likely only accelerate. One can only hope these eye-opening statistics indicate the time has finally come to realize that the only true way to protect the greater good is to meet the needs of the individuals that make it up first.
Julie Obradovic is a Contributing Editor to Age of Autism.
Theresa O
Your comments are thoughtful. I meant my comments to be thoughtful as well.
The reason why people like myself are staunchly and obstreperously opposed to vaccines is because the testing, study, promotion, distribution, implementation and response to the vaccine schedule and its resultant morbidity and mortality which is statistically significant, is not scientific, not ethical, not moral, not compassionate or reasonable, not taken seriously or even paid attention to by the community that promotes these same vaccines. The current vaccine schedule is not considerate of the individual, not considerate of development of the neonate and its immune system, not considerate of the full development of the blood brain barrier and a myriad of basic science tenets that are fundamental to the uninterrupted developmental maturation of a normal human being. Vaccines as they are promoted today are not used for what they were originally intended for, a reliable well tested and safe tool to be used against a devastating disease that scourges and threatens life and limb. Vaccines today are promoted as a panacea for all sorts of ills real and imagined from every epidemiological scenario imaginable without regard to efficacy, risk and reward or reasonableness.
Vaccines and their sellers represent the ultimate closed market. This is private enterprise with tentacles seen and unseen reaching up to all levels of government and academia exerting incredible and palpable influence. A nefarious cast of unsavory characters known and unknown consorting and conspiring beyond simple capitalism gone amok, this is a genuine thieves market with all kind of driving forces that will never be fully illuminated at this current rate and condition until judgment day when “all things will be revealed”.
Conspiracy theory? Ask Dr. Andy Wakefield if he thinks it is just a conspiracy theory.
Consider this, Instead of teaching hand washing and good personal hygiene after using the bathrooms and wiping ourselves we give Rota virus vaccine, instead of teaching public cleanliness, showering before entering a pool and appropriate levels of chlorination to kill all sorts of viral and bacterial pathogens and appropriate disposal of human sewage we give the polio vaccine. Instead of discouraging deviant and dangerous sexual practices and IV drug use and promoting appropriate sexual contact at a responsible age under responsible conditions we give Hep B vaccines, which only last at most 10 years and probably only 4 years, to 1 hour old neonates and HPV vaccines to 9 year old girls implying by the information distributed and act of vaccination of them that sexual contact is now not only reasonable now but is safe now too. Instead of giving people clean drinking water and the knowledge of how to create clean water we give Hep A vaccine and every other vaccine that is for a pathogen transmitted fecal oral.
We have demonized Chicken pox, Mumps, Measles, and Rubella, formerly referred to as childhood viral exanthems and associated with mild self limiting diseases, into mythical leviathans that gobble up children and spit out their lifeless corpses to spread more pestilence.
We have cited heard immunity as if this term, vomited up all over the web from peanut galleries and the assorted monkeys from them , could possible apply to human beings anywhere in the world. Does anybody think we all look pretty much alike, with the same kind of hair and tail, same kind of birthday suit, generally same height and weight, same sleeping and living conditions same houses and homes, same husbands and wives , same social habits from smoking to drinking to drugs to sex to food to recreation and sports. I have seen guys lock horns over girls before and I did deliver one baby in a cab when I was an intern however I have never witnessed mass child births in field and most of the children are born at all times of the year because we procreate when the mood strikes and not during anyone season at one time during the year and in hospitals which certainly are not all the same. Actually even at a casual glance we are not much of an instinctual heard of animals at all.
Can anyone on this web site honestly say they felt good about the swine flu vaccine promoted under conditions that can only be characterized as media and government hysteria created by Napolitano and Sebelius this past year? Sebelius for her part did in fact indemnify the drug makers against any harm and legal action had the vaccine performed like the previous Swine flu vaccine during the Carter years in the 70’s.
You may recall the infamous statistics of 1 person dying from the Swine flu and 500 people dying from the Swine flu vaccine including untold and unspecified numbers of service men and women.
Finally, I try to be thoughtful when I tell pregnant women and parents of newborns, who come to my office for orthopedic and spinal problems, not to vaccinate and why and I share the story of my beautiful and innocent child who has been injured needlessly and under false pretenses. I try to be thoughtful when I tell them to give their pediatrician my card with my cell phone number on it to have them call me.
MY THOUGHTFUL PROFESSIONAL OPINION IS THAT THE PEOPLE PRODUCING THE VACCINES AND TODAY ANY ALL OF THE VACCINES THEMSELVES ARE NOT SAFE, RELIABLE OR EFFICACIOUS AND THEY SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN TO ANYONE
Should you know any pediatrician that has a received the card of an orthopedic surgeon in California telling him to call to discuss vaccines encourage him to call. I will be direct academic, and thoughtful.
Posted by: WILLIE | May 21, 2010 at 04:10 AM
Suzanne, I don't think you are arrogant or weak. I think you are being thoughtful about a controversial issue, and brave for engaging so many people in conversation about it.
Here are my two cents about the idea of vaccines conferring immunity. It took a global vaccination campaign to eradicate smallpox, roughly 200 years after the invention of the vaccine, and smallpox is the biggest success story that the vaccine complex can boast. Every other disease for which there is a vaccine is still out there.
Diseases wax and wane for reasons of their own, according to the viral ecosystem. Before the chickenpox vaccine, the incidence of chickenpox varied quite widely (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00056339.htm). We cannot be sure how much (if any) of the reduction of the incidence of any disease is due to vaccination.
What the vaccine program in America relies on is the belief of a parent that vaccination of her individual child confers immunity to that particular disease. This belief is by no means well-founded. Just walk to any playground and ask the moms how many of their kids got the chickenpox after being vaccinated against it. The vaccine program in America relies on this belief in order to accomplish its true goal: eradication of infectious disease via universal vaccination.
Why else would the CDC have decided that PCV1 and PCV2 are not good reasons to pause in the administration of the vaccine for a disease that causes little more than an unpleasant few days in America? In the FDA's own words, "The benefits of vaccination against rotavirus disease are substantial, both in the United States ***and the developing world*** and far outweigh any theoretical risk posed by PCV types 1 and 2." (http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/ucm212140.htm)
That's right: the benefits of rotavirus vaccination in the developing world are more important than the yet-undetermined risk posed by injecting PCV1 and PCV2 into American kids.
My other thought on this issue is that even if high (but not total) rates of vaccination against a disease were capable of eradicating it (which has not been shown), it is unwise of us to think that this will not have negative consequences on the viral ecosystem. This is what happened with the original Prevnar: the incidence of the pneumonia strains in the vaccine declined, opening the door for other (more lethal) strains to become more prevalent. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/14/health/14vacc.html?ei=5124&en=d98c7d9bde6faa0e&ex=1381723200&exprod=digg&pagewanted=print)
Prevnar failed. It's nice for Pfizer-Wyeth that they were able to develop Prevnar 13 (which addresses additional serotypes), but should we really sign up for a potentially endless revision of Prevnar until all 91 serotypes are included? (Will Paul Offit sign up for the 91-valent shot?)
Another example in the natural world of this ecosystem behavior is the use of Bt (genetically modified) cotton. Bt cotton has a transgene from a bacterium that allows the cotton to (without additional pesticide application) resist the cotton bollworm. Monsanto would certainly like us to believe that this product is a big success. However, since Bt cotton has been fighting the cotton bollworm, other pests have stepped into the void. After 10 years of reduced pesticide use (which made Bt cotton look like a success story), farmers are now struggling to combat the growing problem of mirid bugs, and turning again to pesticides. (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sci-cotton-bugs-20100516,0,2796333.story)
Things other than viruses pose a threat to human life and health. Predatory animals, for example. If someone asked a parent, however, to treat her baby with a toxin that would repel bears for the dual reasons that (1) it *might* protect her own child from a bear attack and (2) it would likely reduce the number of bear attacks in the developing world, what do you think that parent's answer would be? Universal vaccination, particularly when predicated on the at-least-partially-false promise of protection for one's individual child, is a dangerous way for society to choose to fight disease.
Just my opinion, of course. I've been thinking about what you wrote for the past few days, and I wanted to say something thoughtful in return. Please take my remarks in the context of a dialogue (Suzanne in particular), and not an attack on anything anybody said.
Posted by: Theresa O | May 20, 2010 at 08:13 AM
@Willie - I'm arrogant? Why? All I do is ask questions. I never claim to have all the answers because I don't have them. I don't think you do either - you may have some of them, but not all. I probably should not have said you were being arrogant because that is doing the same thing you did in accusing people here of "getting weak" because they have some different opinions from you - it is name calling and I apologize.
@Sandy - you said: Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear. I never meant to say no one was ever protected from a vaccine. I tried to say that we don't know if, when and how much people are protected.
I say: I have heard so many people use that some people get diseases for which they are vaccinated then assume that nobody is ever protected by a vaccine that I gathered that is what you meant. I am sorry about that and appreciate your clarification.
Posted by: Suzanne | May 19, 2010 at 06:33 AM
Suzanne you are the arrogant one. I will answer your flippant remarks with compassion and calm because as a physician I have a duty to the lay public to actually tell you what I feel to be true and why I feel that way and the scientific basis for that. That is what real doctors do Suzanne. We do not compromise what we know to be true and are not cowed by other physicians that are just following along with the heard. Suzanne you have been let down like everyone else in this room with an autistic child by the medical establishment of this country. You and your child never saw a competent and ethical doctor, you were never truly given informed consent about the injections you were given, never actually knew what you were getting your child or family into. Even so you are convinced these vaccines have value based on your anecdotal reading and experience
Suzanne you saw a doctor that was a company man who may or may not have even known he was a company man but nonetheless acted like one. He was paid to push these shots called vaccines that he really knows nothing about for diseases that he knows a smidgen about, (he is just doing what he is told to do by the people at the various government agencies, CDC, NIH, FDA and they never make mistakes or are involved in corruption). These vaccines allegedly protect your precious child from all of these horrific diseases that you prior knew nothing about have never seen and maybe had only heard of, you may have even seen some pictures of polio and maybe even small pox of.
You personally have absolutely no professional training or experience in the field of medicine, immunology, or virology and cannot confirm scientifically, didactically, epidemiologically, pathologically, clinically on any other level, even one claim made by the pharmaceutical giants. Yet despite this Suzanne you continue to tout their claims both historical and present day as if they are true facts. Incidentally in part this is why I hold many of these parents in this room somewhat in reverence because many of them have seen their children change in front of their very eyes and despite being told that they did not see what they saw these parents have seen through this scientific façade, which you clearly have not seen through, and educated themselves most of them with little or no real scientific background and come to the correct answer. There is only one best answer to the question about vaccines and that is they are all bs, ALL BS.
How did I arrive at that conclusion? Lets review
PEDIATRICS Vol. 101 No. 3 March 1998, pp. 383-387
Acute Encephalopathy Followed by Permanent Brain Injury or Death Associated With Further Attenuated Measles Vaccines: A Review of Claims Submitted to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program
Results. A total of 48 children, ages 10 to 49 months, met the inclusion criteria after receiving measles vaccine, alone or in combination. Eight children died, and the remainder had mental regression and retardation, chronic seizures, motor and sensory deficits, and movement disorders. The onset of neurologic signs or symptoms occurred with a nonrandom, statistically significant distribution of cases on days 8 and 9. No cases were identified after the administration of monovalent mumps or rubella vaccine.
Conclusions. This clustering suggests that a causal relationship between measles vaccine and encephalopathy may exist as a rare complication of measles immunization.
Were you told this could happen to your child because of a vaccine Suzanne? Of course not further had I been told I would have declined all vaccines and looked into them The idea that all treatments have risk is specious as these are normal healthy children and they are not being treated for anything this is preventative care and therefore should have no risk.
As you may or may not know Merck spent $500 million dollars a year for twenty years totaling 10 billion dollars trying to make a AIDS vaccine. After all of those years and money they determined that they finally had a vaccine that would work as it prevented the replication of the HTLV-III virus in the macaques(primates)they had been using in experiments. The vaccine was then used in Africans (blacks being used yet again)to test the efficacy of the vaccine and most if not all of the subjects came down with AIDS. Later when asked about what happened Anthony Fauci of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID) replied that they determined that they had the wrong animal model.
TRANSLATION They spent 10 billion dollars over twenty years on the wrong monkey. This is stupidity on a entirely new level. Generally you figure out which monkeys you use in the first million dollars not the last of 10 billion dollars. Further if the vaccine animal model was wrong for an AIDS virus what made it right for all of the other vaccines they used it for and gave to our children and young adults? NEWS FLASH We should not be using these animal models as they probably in all likelihood are the wrong animal model. How many times have you heard someone say I got the flu shot and got the flu? What a trillion? DO NOT VACCINATE FOR ANYTHING EVER
The pharmaceutical companies and their minions have proven to be not only stupid but completely unethical reckless and irresponsible and caught not only lying but engaging in bribery, mail fraud, wire fraud conspiracy to commit fraud, racketeering the whole lot.
Elsevier (Dutch pronunciation: [ˈɛlzəvir]) publishes medical and scientific literature. It is a part of the Reed Elsevier group. Based in Amsterdam, the company has operations in the United Kingdom, USA and elsewhere.
Elsevier took its name from the Dutch publishing house, but which had no connection with the present company. The Elzevir family operated as booksellers and publishers in the Netherlands. Its founder, Lodewijk Elzevir, (1542–1617) lived in Leiden and established the business in 1580.
The company was founded in 1880. Leading products include journals including The Lancet and Cell, books such as Gray's Anatomy, the ScienceDirect collection of electronic journals, as well as the Trends series, and the Current Opinion series. More recently Elsevier launched the online citation database Scopus and the free researcher collaboration tool 2collab.
ELSEVIER PUBLISHED 8 FAKE PEER REVIEWED JOURNALS AT THE BEHEST OF MERCK WITH PLANS FOR 13 MORE
High Court judge Sir Nigel Davis, whose brother, an executive board member of Elsevier the publishers, was on the Board of GlaxoSmithKline and he passed judgment on Andrew Wakefield
Dr. Poul Thorsen a Danish psychiatrist stole 2 million dollars and published a dubious article with manipulated data on the effects of thimerosal in children
Suzanne, a corrupt Danish publishing company Elsevier that publishes 8 fake journals that were positive marketing tools for Merck drugs with plans for 13 more at the behest of Merck the biggest vaccine maker of them all. Elsevier also has another corrupt Danish psychiatrist, who stole 2 million dollars, ghost a write another fake study that clears thimerosal, and this same corrupt publishing house owns the lancet and has the high court of the general medical council Nigel Davis in their pocket and he passes judgment on a real scientist Wakefield and since they own Lancet they merely discredit Wakefield and retract the article. That is pretty tidy and that is why I will never give credit to any vaccine for anything it is all corrupt BS. If vaccines were actually good they would not need all of this, cloaking, deceit and corruption they would be proud and transparent
Now back to my arrogance
Suzanne you will never know as much about vaccines the diseases that they were meant to defend against, the immune system and autism as I do. You can call that arrogance or whatever you want I call it it truth. I am just as enthusiastic as the other parents here and I have real science training and I am using it.
For example
I am absolutely certain that I can mostly explain why autistic children regress and why vaccinated students are not as smart as unvaccinated students. Can you do that Suzanne?
I am just about certain I know why these children do not sleep. Do you know why Suzanne?
I feel I can prove that circumstantially quite easily that vaccines cause autism .
I treat children with autism all of the time Suzanne that never get treatment and I will continue to do so
DO NOT VACCINATE THERE IS GREAT RISK AND LITTLE GAIN AT THIS TIME
Posted by: WILLIE | May 19, 2010 at 03:58 AM
Hi Suzanne,
Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear. I never meant to say no one was ever protected from a vaccine. I tried to say that we don't know if, when and how much people are protected.
All the best,
Sandy
PS I'm glad you like Vaccination News! I hope more people will avail themselves of the tremendous resource that it is.
Posted by: Sandy Gottstein | May 19, 2010 at 03:00 AM
Sandy, I love your website and agree that you raise some compelling questions. That's what I like, the raising of compelling questions - from all sides.
I don't think, however, that just because sometimes, in comparatively rare cases, some people catch diseases for which they were vaccinated against is evidence that vaccines never protect anyone who gets them. I think in these cases one would need to investigate the individual as well as the vaccine. Some people could be vaccinated several times for a disease or yet a wild strain and never be able to hold immunity. I know people like that...people with certain immune deficiencies. Could these people be among those? I think such questions need to be ruled out before the assumption is made that because a relative few get diseases for which they are vaccinated no person is ever protected any vaccine.
Posted by: Suzanne | May 18, 2010 at 02:09 PM
Excellent points, Grammaknows. I would submit, however, that the vaccines are not even tested for their ability to cause cancer 1) because we really know too little about what causes cancer to know if vaccines are capable of doing so and 2) because the vaccines would have to be followed for decades for us to have any idea what is going on. Given that they are not even followed for years (and usually only weeks or months) and never compared to those who have never been vaccinated, we know nothing about their ability to cause cancer or anything else, for that matter.
Posted by: Sandy Gottstein | May 18, 2010 at 10:23 AM
Suzanne, I believe that titers are merely a reflection of exposure, not necessarily immunity. (Will someone please correct me if I'm wrong?) So if I am correct we really have no idea exactly how effective they really are. And any apparent declines in incidence do not take into account subclinical or mild cases that are caused by the vaccines. These subclinical or mild cases may well be capable of spreading the diseases, including among the vaccinated and in fact are thought to "boost" vaccine-induced immunity. Subclinical or mild diseases also may be equally if not more problematic than full-blown cases. For more on this go to "Scandals - Is the theory of "herd immunity" flawed?" http://www.vaccinationnews.com/Scandals/July_5_02/Scandal23.htm and "Scandals - Appearances are often deceiving" http://www.vaccinationnews.com/scandals/May_31_02/Scandal18.htm . Please note that some of the links may not currently be working, particularly in the second one.
Posted by: Sandy Gottstein | May 18, 2010 at 10:01 AM
WILLIE said:
"I am glad that I checked in with you folks as it appears that some of you are getting weak again"
I say: Is the arrogance of that statement lost on you? Good thing you were able to swoop down and set us straight! We always talk about how "they" don't understand us, how "they call us names and mischaracterize us". Then some of us turn around and do the same, to members of their own community even! It is one thing to disagree with someone's opinion, but to accuse people whose opinion is different than yours "getting weak", that is arrogant. Isn't it generally considered cult-like behavior to expect everyone in a group to agree 100% on everything, then if someone doesn't to marginalize them and call them names- and yes, referring to people as "getting weak" is name calling.
Posted by: Suzanne | May 18, 2010 at 09:55 AM
--Ultimately, there is NO SUCH THING as a vaccine-preventable disease.
**How do you explain the erradication of small pox then? The vaccine was invented in the late 17th century and one hundred years later it was mostly erradicated in all but some rural regions. That cannot be explained by better sanitation because they did not have better sanitition at that time, as they were still dumping sewage in the streets from windows and yet small pox gone. If not the vaccination then what else could it have been? Now granted, I have not doubt there were some people who dropped dead of the vaccine and their lives were no less valuable. I am not arguing that vaccines are entirely safe, just that some of them have been effective.
I don't think a national strategy for deadly infectious disease is "just get to the hospital". I'm not sure what the best comprehensive national strategy is but I KNOW from personal THIS is not it. These diseases come on and progress so fast it is unbelievable. I went to bed healthy one night and woke up completely unable to move, in excruciating pain - I had to be carried. Imagine being unable to move like that while hearing your mother on the phone with her own mother crying that she didn't know if you would make it. At the same time, every time I see one of those pro-vaccination posters at the pediatrician of all the kids suffering from infectious diseases I want to tape a picture of my vaccine injured kid on there. I'm just saying this is an exceedingly complex issue and I don't have all the answers - and quite frankly I don't think any of you do either, or the damn cdc........
Posted by: Suzanne | May 18, 2010 at 09:23 AM
We should remember a few things in this robust dscussion, i.e.,
1. "anti-vaccine" is a media term. Those who protest the aggressiveness of vaccine promotion and delivery, the occurrence and aftermath of vaccine "adverse events" are, by and large, vaccine recipients. We have yet to have any vaccine-promotng media or professional give a satisfactory response to why they are labeling a vaccine recpient with the "anti-vaccine" label.
2. Polio is not gone. Polio has not been cured. Evidence is the reversion of attenuated strains to the original strain characteristics when spread through populations in Africa and the Middle East via contaminated water supplies following the use of live vaccines. Further evidence is the finding of live polio virus in the spinal fluid of post-polio syndrome sufferers...and the acknowledgement that some 60% of those who had polio, will have a return of polio symptoms later in life...no matter what novel name that group of symptoms may be called.
3. As is repeated presented here at AoA, vaccines are not tested in combination, but more than that, they are also not tested for toxicity, for purity, for contamination, for allergens, for epigenetic effect or for the incitement of auto-immune disorders through molecular mimicry. They are, if any testing is done at all, tested only for the ability to trigger cancer.
4. ALL KNOWN CONDITIONS contributing to adverse vaccine events, such as allergies and mitochondrial disorder evade identification in individuals because there are no routine screenings for the APPROPRIATENESS of vaccinating any individual. There are no pre-tests for existing immunity to protect against over-vaccination or triggering auto-immune disorders through molecular mimicry as a result of vaccination. (This, however is a step a parent can take if they are willing to pay out-of-pocket for the test vs getting another dose that may not be needed, or to identify those with natural acquired immunity who do not "need" a vaccine at all)
Without routine screenings for "susceptible" individuals, adverse events from minor to severe are as guaranteed as the headcount of those who have already had such experiences.
5. Regardless of any person's efforts to research vaccine safety (an oxymoron IMHO), we should all remember the vaccine delivered today is different than the vaccine delivered last month, last year, five years ago, a decade ago and will be different than the one delivered next week next month, next year and beyond - not because the virus itself has changed (although it may have mutated in the vaccine facilities) but because of the way they are cultured, grown and processed. There is a constant evolution of culture media. From animal organs and tissues to vegetable proteins to genetically modified proteins to synthetically generated amino acid baths. This is a race to a cheap and effectively delivered product that doesn't raise red flags. Each and every ingredient in the process is subject to change at a moments notice...and does.
5. Peer pressure is a stupid reason to do anything. Peer pressure is even stupider when it is applied to something that is risky. Delivering a product of any kind that is not tested, analyzed, stable, or consistent is a risky product. The major epidemic has happened, is happening and is not abating. It is the collective debility represented by autoimmune disorders, seizure disorders, cognitive disorders, physical disability and death that occurs every day with the common starting point proximate to vaccine delivery. The mommies and daddies who will come down like a ton of bricks are the ones who have a child diagnosed with one or more of these conditions, not ones who have a child who comes down with a case of polio. We KNOW how to treat polio. The untreatable collective debility is the greater threat to us all.
6. The vaccine court is arbitrary and capricious in applying their decisions. It is subject to politcal and economic pull and is weighted against the petitioners. As such, those who elicit a favorable decision make a very poorly selected population for study. The example of that is none other than Hannah Poling. Following that non-decision, the Vaccine Court could easily have requested mitochondrial testing on all affected with "autism-like" symptoms and granted automatic compensation. They did not.
7. Vaccine manufacturers state clearly in all package inserts that testing is NOT done on the populations intended to receive the product. Vaccine manufacturers state clearly in all package inserts there are populations that should NOT receive the product, but like the bicycle instructions on Christmas Eve, no one reads them, least of all the practtioners who administer them.
One does not have to be anti-vaccine to be anti doing things simply because it is easier to do what one is told than it is to think for oneself. When we get to the point where nursing mothers in third world countries are targeted to STOP breastfeeding in order to deliver a vaccine to a child against a disease the mother's milk prevents, I think there is sufficient proof that vaccines are not now, nor have they ever been intended to promote human health and well-being. They are a vehicle by which a product can be delivered regardless of need to any and all who do not find a voice against it. The tools of delivery include fearmongering, falsehoods and obfuscation. Those who do not speak out against abuse, give permission for it to exist.
Ultimately, there is NO SUCH THING as a vaccine-preventable disease. Whether elicited by a forced or a natural response, contracting a disease and recovering from a disease or brushing past a disease and coming away with immunity is determine by one thing, and one thing only - the abilty of an individual immune system to behave appropriately with the experience. In no human experience will a person be subjected to 9 different diseases simultaneously and intramuscularly at the age of two months, or any age for that matter. In no human experience will a person be subjected to 9 different diseases combined with food protein, petrochemicals, detergents, antibotics, animal virus DNA and metals simultaneously and intramuscularly, with the exception of one experience - and that is the delivery of a vaccine. A person's immune system can only respond to that which the immune system is capable of recognizing and processing, and a vaccine - any vaccine - is not such a thing.
That is why the name-calling, the shunning, the demonization has reached a fever pitch. There is no fact to hold up this or any other vaccine program...and those who promote it, know it.
Posted by: GrammaKnows | May 18, 2010 at 08:33 AM
"You go right on ahead and vaccinate for what you find necessary...I, nor anyone else should tell you not too"
--Who said I was ever vaccinating again? Did you not read about what happened to my son? Make no mistake, I am as mad about that as anyone.
I am merely considering the nuances of this entire argument and reading from both sides. I simply don't agree with you that no vaccine has ever worked in erradicating any disease. Please explain to me then, where Small Pox, the scurge of centuries, went if it was not the vaccine that erradicated it. I agree with you that vaccines as they are currently bound are not safe, but for the most part they are effective. My son's has titers to his vaccines, so I have proof that they worked. And, we don't hear about college kids dropping dead in clusters because of Meninjitis anymore now that they are vaccinated the first week Freshman year. And yet, how many kids do I know that have been hospitalized for mysterious, life threatening illnesses the first week of college, within days of getting the vaccine - quite a few. My point - both the vaccines and the diseases are a problem. This is the most inventive country in the world - surely were there the will the they could figure out a way to protect children from infectious disease, and do so safely. But that will is not there. Vaccine companies like to forget that they are a market based industry just like any other. If people don't want to buy their products because the don't like the aluminum, mercury, that they are injected directly into the blood stream, whatever, then a market based industry should adapt, change the product to meet market demands. But no, they go to state legislatures and try and force people to buy their product, in violation of all free market principles.
Posted by: Suzanne | May 18, 2010 at 06:47 AM
I am glad that I checked in with you folks as it appears that some of you are getting weak again. I am sure that most you who blog here know that I am a physician with a child that has autism and I am not happy about it at all and I express my feelings, when they publish it, and I do not pull any punches ever.
Although this site has many, many intelligent and well read people and I have learned a lot from many of you, especially early on in this painful journey, however at this time I have researched this subject at an extent and on many levels far greater than most of you simply because I have been a surgeon for over two decades and I just know what to look for when I do my literature searches (and I do them almost every day and at all hours of the night)and although this is not condescension by any means(truly I respect many of you) it is true.
To get to the point vaccines are a hoax, a canard, a fraud, a failed scientific experiment, a medical charade with catastrophic consequences whose full apocalypse has yet to be disclosed. Vaccines will ultimately be proven to be responsible for the deaths and sufferings of untold numbers of children and adults from a seemingly myriad of unrelated diseases that all have at their genesis a viral etiology, iatrogenic in nature that will be proven with the identification of the DNA footprinting of the viral genome.
Please do not ever forget that and do not become delusional and think vaccines have some measurable medicinal value as they simply do not. The intent of vaccines was noble (small pox, polio vaccine) however the execution of the vaccine research and subsequent implementation has never arisen to anything more than the level of human experimentation and violation of all ethical codes and principles that make up the blood and backbone of human medical science. The success, efficacy and safety of vaccines been greatly exaggerated and is the result of nothing more than a poorly executed and expensive marketing ploy by pharmaceutical companies who have engaged in incestuous relationships with the government agencies charged with monitoring them. “First do no harm” is the oath and creed that all ethical physicians swore they would work and live by and that has been thwarted perverted and otherwise completely abandoned with the advent of vaccines.
The author of this article clearly means well and has made some points however the bigger picture looms and cast a much greater shadow. Please Do not continue to reach into the vaccine toilette to try to find something good in there, there is nothing good in the vaccine toilette for you or for your family and no matter how many times you reach into this toilette or how far you reach into this toilette you still come up with the same thing that you find in any toilette. So please stay out of this toilette, further stop trying to find a way to share what you think you found in this toilette with others because it is not good for them either and no matter how it is packaged it is still the same thing you find in any toilette.
Posted by: WILLIE | May 18, 2010 at 04:21 AM
Suzanne
Perhaps you missed the couple of posts on here about the effectiveness of the meningitis and whooping cough vaccines. They're at the beginning of the comments sections. Posted by very smart and knowledgeable people.
I wear this label because no one has come closeto proving to me the safety and effectiveness of ANY vaccine. A friend sent me this email today...(thanks to this friend and it made a hell of a lot of sense to me)
"About 3 years ago I got off the defensive and went on the offensive. It is not up to us to prove the dangers of vaccine virus poison. All package inserts testify to the disease, disability and death it can cause. No vaccine virus poison manufacture will claim that their poison will save a life or prevent a disease. It is up to them to prove their vaccines have saved any life or prevented any disease. They demand proof from you. You demand proof from them. Make them put the facts on the table if they have any. Conclusions, guesses, assumptions and half assed theories prove nothing.
No one can prove that Jenners cowpox pus prevented smallpox. No one can prove that Salks vaccine virus poison prevented polio. Such ideas are absurd. This whole idea of taking products of disease was founded in ignorance and given a name in 1823. It was called Isopathy."
I have a cousin (Deb) that survived polio (wild polio from the 50's) She still has a limp and still has issues with her breathing. I do have first hand experience with a "vaccine preventable" disease.
Let the mommies and daddies come down on me like a ton of bricks. I'm ok with that because I should be coming down on them like a ton of bricks. We the American people LET this catastrophe happen. The pharma industry and the government is way to big for it's britches now and WE let this happen. Do you know how many times I've been told this "I'd rather have a child with autism, then a child that is dead from a vaccine preventable disease."? If I had a dollar for every time I've heard this...I would be able to afford to heal my child properly.
Regardless, I will go back to my original comment...NO ONE has ever provided ANY proof that vaccines are Holy Water. I will continue to be anti vaccine until the cows they were aptly named for come home if I don't get the answers I want and deserve...yes, I said deserve. If I'm expected to inject ANYTHING into my children...then I deserve to have my questions, fears and concerns answered. Not swept under the rug. It's not safe to assume that I'm stupid and that is what "they" believe...we are to stupid to put it all together.
By the way it's JULIE, not Judith. And you are right. She is NOT brain washed. She is asking the same questions that I have whether she is for "green" vaccine or "anti" vaccine.
You go right on ahead and vaccinate for what you find necessary...I, nor anyone else should tell you not too. What I was trying to point out and like I said IF WE ALL reject, then they will HAVE to take notice. If the vaccines aren't selling then they will either have to change their strategy (which they've done over and over again and doesn't seem to be working for them) or conform to the publics demands.
I am anti vaccine.
Have a great evening.
Posted by: rileysmom | May 18, 2010 at 12:16 AM
No Judith, you are not brainwashed - you are a critical thinker.
Posted by: Suzanne | May 17, 2010 at 04:27 PM
There is only one thing I would have said differently. It is not that they haven't studied the vaccines in the combinations currently given, but it is that they haven't studied them period. You won't find any "official" study comparing those vaccinated with one vaccine, be it single or multiple antigen, to the never vaccinated. As for unofficial, I once wrote about the comparison of an official CDC study to a small "unofficial" one here: http://www.vaccinationnews.com/Out_of_Control/2003/Sept_9/OOC1.htm
And for those you unaware of this, wrote about my long-term battle to get just such studies conducted right here on AofA: http://www.ageofautism.com/2007/12/seeking-the-tru.html
Posted by: Sandy Gottstein | May 17, 2010 at 04:00 PM
Julie, You took my breath away with the brilliance of this piece. Bravo.
Posted by: Sandy Gottstein | May 17, 2010 at 03:46 PM
Brain-washed? Ouch.
I think the context of this post has been misunderstood. My suggestions are meant to be for the very likely reality that the vaccine program remains in place for some time to come, not an argument whether or not it should exist at all. That's a conversation worth having, but was not the intent of this article.
Posted by: Julie Obradovic | May 17, 2010 at 01:56 PM
Sylvia, that's why I never say "vaccine-preventable diseases." I say, "diseases for which there are vaccines."
Posted by: Kristina | May 17, 2010 at 01:53 PM
Kids injured or killed by Toyotas? The manufacturer investigates consumer reports, enacts preventive measures, and compensates victims.
Kids injured or killed by vaccines? The manufacturer does not investigate consumer reports, so cannot enact preventive measures, and will not compensate victims.
What's wrong with this picture?
Posted by: nhokkanen | May 17, 2010 at 01:48 PM
To Marvin Lewis: Of course there are other factors in autism in addition to vaccines. But those other factors are difficult to control. It's very easy to say no to vaccines. Also, vaccines, are usually what tips kids over the edge into autism. Without vaccines, most of the kids would not have autism.
Posted by: Kristina | May 17, 2010 at 01:47 PM
It is impossible to save the vaccine industrial complex.
Julie Obradovic is brain-washed.
Posted by: Media Scholar | May 17, 2010 at 12:37 PM
Once you have swallowed the red pill, there's no going back. There is so much deceit, dishonesty, and corruption in medicine/science, with vaccines in particular, that saving people, not programs becomes the focus.
I'm anti-the-dishonesty-we-are-fed from every direction in medicine. I'm pro a healthy, robust, competent, intact, immune system. That doesn't come out of a needle.
Posted by: michael framson | May 17, 2010 at 12:14 PM
Thanks for your article, Julie. Points #10 and #11 really resonate with me. What an inexcusable and indefensible joke to any intelligent person. Unfortunately, the "joke" is on all of us and our children. Absolutely disgraceful.
Posted by: Not an MD | May 17, 2010 at 10:44 AM
Anon said: "If you have ever engaged with any of the talking heads in this debate, then you know that in their eyes, whoever questions any part of this issue, is anti-vaccine."
Response: on yes, you are completely right, I've been there too. I once explained to someone that I think 95% perhaps should be vaccinated to which they screamed at me, "you're anti-vaccine, you're anti-vaccine"!! The word anti means to be comprehensively against something - there is no nuance to the word anti. Therefore, it is not logical or rational to accuse someone who says 95% should be vaccinated as "anti-vaccine". It's absurd. But for such people this is not about logic or rationality - it is about agenda. And that agenda is based on an illogical premise - Just because vaccines are good in general, no aspect of the vaccine program should ever be questioned. So, the fact that no drug is safe for all people should never be questioned. The fact that vaccine companies are shielded from legal liability in vaccine damage cases should not be questioned. That fact that parents are being increasingly mandated to subject their children to more and more vaccines, many for non-life threatening diseases and could this aspect be more about profit than children's health cannot be questioned.
Have we not learned through the gulf oil spill crisis, Vioxx, Aventia, etc. etc., And now another major study linking ADHD to chemicals in plastic and pesticdes (see Time Magazine this week) etc. the U.S. regulatory agencies can be lax on the industries they are charged to regulate? Therefore, we should always question because, simply put, it has been demonstrated over and over that they don't always care if things are safe before they expose us to them, period.
Posted by: Suzanne | May 17, 2010 at 10:16 AM
To protect the greater good is to protect the individuals that make it up.
That should be the main thing.
FDA, NIH, HHS, CDC, the Congress, the Supreme court, The vaccine compensation court, your neighbor, your friends, your relatives, all should have thrown in together and did research on the very first children to have autism. They were ignored. That is the high crime. Because of that I am anti - putting anything in our bodies untill this is addressed, untill these government people remember the constitution. (a little too late for my family).
Suzanne, I figure you had polio?
I too know about polio and diptheria (stories my grandmother told me and I would get them, but pertusin I would recommend not getting it??!!! I'd keep my newborn baby away from everyone-- have it at home even, and after that --well there is intensive care and antibiotics.
This is hardly what I want but nobody cares my house is a home for the insane.
Posted by: Benedetta | May 17, 2010 at 09:13 AM
The term "vaccine preventable disease" is a form of propaganda since most vaccines have a high failure rate and do not prevent the disease they were designed to prevent. And ofcourse additionally they can cause a laundry list of unintended side effects.
So "vaccine preventable disease" is the result of hard working spin doctors, not factual terminology.
Posted by: Sylvia | May 17, 2010 at 09:11 AM
@Marvin Lewis. I think you are right that vaccines are not the only environmental factor triggering Autism in the children of parents you see here. And, since I have online friendships with many of them I know that some of them understand that as well.
I know hundreds of parents of kids with Autism. About 50% can trace the onset of their kid's regression to a shot, they can even tell you which one in a flash, while the other 50% have no such experience. When parents of Autistic kids say they don't know if a vaccine triggered their kid's autism I tell them that it probably didn't then - in my personal experience when it happens it is that obvious. I could tell you in excruciating detail how my healthy, typical baby regressed, after which shots, how old he was....and no, it was not a coincidence of timing. The only people who say such things are those who haven't witnessed such a horror first hand. And no, it is not just about wanting something to blame, as they often accuse. I personally wanted to blame genes. When my son had the whole smattering of tests for Autism genes and showed up with none I sat and cried. I wanted something that would tell me that this would have happened in spite of what I saw happen to him after that shot. I wanted more than ANYTHING for it not to have been that shot, to have an excuse not to believe my own eyes.
Posted by: Suzanne | May 17, 2010 at 08:33 AM
"THerefore, I believe it makes more sense to pressure the government to do genetic research on those who have been vaccine injured to determine what about them made these people vulnerable to vaccine injury"
The same can be said of the diseases that the vaccines are intended to prevent. By and large, they are self limiting - why did a subset of people have complications?
@Suzanne"ANTI-Vaccine label is not going to make the govt/pharma listen, IMO. It is only going to make them and other mommies and daddies come down on you like a ton of bricks when a major epidemic happens and kids start dying."
If you have ever engaged with any of the talking heads in this debate, then you know that in their eyes, whoever questions any part of this issue, is anti-vaccine. People that talk about greening vaccines are scrutinized for not being able to tell them exactly what will make the vaccines safe enough for consumption (ignoring the ecological issues with vaccine manufacture altogether!). In their eyes, everyone who questions vaccines as they are administered is anti-vaccine, anti-science and infectious disease promoters. They don't care that people are injured and killed, because in their minds you can never prove it was due to the vaccine.
I have engaged this circular argument more times than I care to count, and they do not support any reasonable viewpoint. To them, you're just concern trolling and hiding behind your anti-vaccine agenda.
Posted by: anon | May 17, 2010 at 08:17 AM
@everyone who says vaccines do not do what herd immunity says....I suppose we will find out as vaccine rates for the more deadly diseases continue to fall, unfortunately. And if you think our Autistic families are marginalized now, just wait if there is a major outbreak. Please don't make the mistaken assumption that if I just did more research I'll come to the same conclusion as those of you who are comprehensively anti-vaccine. I have done exhaustive research, just like any of you. Remember, I have a vaccine injured kid too. I just don't agree with you that ALL vaccines are unnecessary, though some certainly are. I also don't agree with injecting them directly into the blood stream AND I believe there is a number of people for which it is not safe to vaccinate and they must be idenfied and left alone on this issue. There is much that we agree on and a few things we don't
Posted by: Suzanne | May 17, 2010 at 07:27 AM
What a great post and a variety of excellent comments.
The e-mail said 4 percent of parents are selectively vaccinating or not vaccinating at all. Yet, the article says 40 percent. Is it 4 or 40%?
I still think the simple test that needs to be done is to compare the health of vaccinated v. unvaccinated children, across the country. In addition, it would be a simple step for the gov't to go INTERVIEW some of the Amish parents in PA or to visit Dr. Eisenstein's "Children First" clinic in Illinois.
One can easily critique those studies that claim no link by going to: http://www.14studies.com. Also, one can simply use common sense if you're not sure what to think of this whole topic: It's NOT common sense to inject a plethora of poisons and neurotoxins into children to try to make them healthier. But when one understands the money that school districts get for each child that receives vaccines and that they're threatened with loss of funding if vaccine schedules are not enforced, one understands that (as Kevin Trudeau would say in "Natural Cures 'They' Don't Want You to Know About"), "It's all about the money."
Actually, it's more complicated than that. Like the continued promotion of that failed program fluoridation, one must continue to PROMOTE that which has proven itself dangerous or less than beneficial or else suffer that horrible fate to which our government will NEVER subject itself: the embarrassment of admitting it was wrong!
Various agencies promoting vaccinations ARE wrong and I stand by parents all across America in asking that our Gov't do a big study: Study the health of children who have NEVER been vaccinated and compare that to the health of children who HAVE BEEN. Sure we can say the Amish are healthier because they eat well, don't watch TV and all that, but MANY non-vaccinated children live in "normal homes", watch TV and eat junk.
Our public health officials need to conduct this study and now. Meanwhile, they also have to stop denying the epidemic that is clearly before us and stop lying about possible environmental factors, like vaccines. Can't solve a problem without being objective and honest about it from the start. Only in this way can we stop this epidemic AND help the thousands of children with ASDs across the country.
Posted by: Tom Petrie | May 17, 2010 at 07:19 AM
@Riley's mom - I will not wear any anti-vaccine label because I am not anti-vaccine. I will not be involved with the efforts of any group that calls itself "anti-vaccine". I can appreciate that others feel that way, but I don't. If some of us wear a GREEN Vaccine or Vaccine Safety label it is because that is what we believe, just as ardently as you do your anti-vaccine one.
Look, I almost died from what is now a vaccine preventable disease AND I have a vaccine injured son. Few living Americans have experienced this issue from both sides as I have. I don't want kids getting vaccine injured, nor do I want any dying from Meninjitis or whopping cough.
I also cannot take ANY medicine, not even at children's doses, without getting very sick, so I am terrified to get a vaccine because they are not calibrated for people like me. The one size fits of it is a huge problem.
The vaccine program isn't going anywhere. THerefore, I believe it makes more sense to pressure the government to do genetic research on those who have been vaccine injured to determine what about them made these people vulnerable to vaccine injury, so others with similar profile can be protected in the future. And, of course, they need to revisit that crap they put in these things.
More people wearing an ANTI-Vaccine label is not going to make the govt/pharma listen, IMO. It is only going to make them and other mommies and daddies come down on you like a ton of bricks when a major epidemic happens and kids start dying. What is more effective, IMO, is to hold them accountable for not studying those who have been awarded damages in Federal vaccine court so children with similar genetic predipositions can be protected in the future. In not doing so they are essentially saying they are fine with some people being damaged in the name of the vaccine program - that some people are expendable. This is not acceptable and the public should not put up with it, IMO
Posted by: Suzanne | May 17, 2010 at 07:11 AM
thankfully I am not a member of the autism community. I do want to point out a few things that some of your community are downplaying.
Toxins and mercury are more prevalent now then previously. Thymerisol (mercury) probably was less of a load biologically in past days and the thymerisol in vaccines could be better tolerated.
Our food supply had a greater amount of bran (plantain AKA dieticians' term for rooughage) which acted as a chelator.
Adjuvants (additives) are under partial control of the manufacturer. this translates to the lids off!
I am trying to say that the Autism epidemic may not be not limited to vaccine induced. There are probably other factors.
Marv
Posted by: Marvin Lewis | May 17, 2010 at 07:08 AM
Thank you, Julie and AoA for hitting the nail on the head.
As children, we had a lighter schedule and, for the most part, did well. But now... five rounds of Tetanus is just plain criminal. I have four boys, two with Autism. All vaccinated. We've been on biomed for over a year and are recovering. My kids are still "due" some vaccines. Vaccinate them again? Over my dead body.
Posted by: ML Garcia | May 17, 2010 at 05:14 AM
Terrific writing Julie
Posted by: GrammaKnows | May 17, 2010 at 04:13 AM
I meant dEstroyed. Sorry, it's late. 3:40am to be exact. I have NO idea why I'm up, oh that's right, Riley is up giggling for no apparent reason what so ever. We get that when there's a bad yeast flair up, along with the orange poop. But according to the medical community at large...he doesn't have not ONE gut issue. I wish someone would tell him that so I can get some sleep. LOL.
Posted by: rileysmom | May 17, 2010 at 03:41 AM
CT Teacher
I am ANTI-vaccine. I wear my "label" proudly. I make no apologies for my stance either. Until someone (anyone) can give me a clear cut answer as to WHY my son was distroyed by something that was supposed to protect him then I will continue to wear that label. Like a badge. Riley has to wear the "label" (his purple heart)of autism (NOT vaccine injured) because mommy was too stupid to question until it was too late.
It is my believe that if more people were willing to wear the ANTI-vaccine label and NOT the green vaccine label, that maybe, just maybe , the government and the pharma industry would stand up and FINALLY take notice. You can't sell a product to people that are 100% against it. They do not make any money from this household.
Don't mean to offend any or all...If they see people are rejecting what they're selling, they're going to have to "shit ot get off the pot". Right?
Posted by: rileysmom | May 17, 2010 at 03:34 AM
I am always going to be anti-vaccine for the following primary reasons:
1.) Injecting toxic concoctions into the human body is not God's idea, and therefore has been contrary my religious beliefs for the past 40 years. I am not Amish but am in good company with thier beliefs against vaccines.
2.) My current experiences with my grandson developing autism literally overnight after his latch batch of vaccines proved the point to the correctness of God's Laws. Although most children develop autism in a less obvious more insideous gradual manner, and therefore the parents are often not initially aware of the vaccines causation, that does not change the fact that the statistics across the board directly point to the vaccines.
3.) My basic knowledge about vaccines when I stopped them for my daughter was that they contained Mercury and aborted fetal tissue and that was all I needed to know at that time to be thoroughly convinced of their physical and spiritual danger. Now that I have researched this subject fully in the past few years, the amount of scientific evidence is massive in condemning vaccines, I realize how blessed I was in being forewarned about thier dangerous potential.
ALTHOUGH my Christian faith was the primary reason that I discontinued vaccines, with what I have learned now, I would be anti-vaccine even if I was an atheist!!!
HOWEVER, it is not logical to imagine that vaccines will ever be discontinued until the time when the King of Kings and Lord of Lords establishes his kingdom rulership over mankind
THEREFORE, in the meantime, removing the heavy metals and many other toxic ingredients, eliminating multiple doses, spreading out the vaccines, and reducing the schedule will obviously eliminate vaccine induced autism for the majority of people who chose to continue vaccinating their children and
THEREFORE FOR THE SAKE OF MILLIONS OF INNOCENT CHILDREN, it would be in the best interests of humanity to institute these changes
HOWEVER since the vaccine industry may never be forced into complying with these changes, it is up to the PARENTS to educate themselves in order to PROTECT THEIR CHILDREN, which regardless of which religion if any that they believe in, it is their natural instinct that God created within them to LOVE their children more than they love their doctor or their politicians.
Posted by: Autism Grandma | May 17, 2010 at 02:21 AM
I AM anti-vaccine, and I am not ashamed of that label. I don't care who knows it or what they think about it. If YOU want to shoot that crap into YOUR body, that is your business. Good luck to you. I only wish I had bothered to look into the issue before my kid regressed. I didn't even know there WAS an issue before my kid regressed. I didn't know many people with kids and no one with a kid with autism.
My kid has had a "vaccine preventable" illness. He caught it from a recently vaxxed kid. Go figure.
If more people realized what vaccine ingredients actually were, I think even fewer would vaccinate. In fact I think they would appalled and sickened.
Interesting point, when I share with anyone that my son has an ASD dx, the first thing 90% of the people ask is "was it the shots that did it to your kid, too?"
The truth comes out by word of mouth, neighbor to neighbor, mom to mom. Marketing campaigns will only work for so long.
Posted by: Lisa | May 17, 2010 at 01:15 AM
I have to agree with rileysmom and Kathy Blanco. I don't think it's possible to green a vaccine. They are filthy and toxic. I also think folks who believe in an alternate schedule or rolling back to the 1980's are not facing the issue squarely. Children would still suffer vaccine injury...albeit less severely or in fewer numbers. The issue is....DO VACCINES WORK AND HOW DO THEY WORK? WHAT ARE THE LONG TERM CONSEQUENCES TO THE INDIVIDUAL? I realize that no one wants to be labeled anti-vaccine, but eventually that is what it will come to....better to face it now. I believe the saying is "shit or get off the pot". I don't think you can have it both ways...at least not with childhood vaccines. Also, the theory of herd immunity is just that...a theory. Have we ever seen studies that prove this theory? Where are the statistics that the evidence-based medicine crowd demand of us? Show us the proof. When all is said and done, if we just give people vaccination choice it will diffuse a lot of the emotion surrounding these issues.
Posted by: CT teacher | May 16, 2010 at 10:43 PM
Great article, but if they even start to be objective they are doomed just like big tobacco. When the truth finally goes mainstream it will destroy to many highly profitable careers so they have to stay the course as long as they can.It is always about the money.
Posted by: Rich | May 16, 2010 at 10:20 PM
Thank you! This is a very thorough enumeration of key issues and steps that need to be addressed or taken.
Posted by: JenB | May 16, 2010 at 08:39 PM
Save the vaccine program? Whatever for?
Posted by: Maggie | May 16, 2010 at 07:12 PM
Once again Julie, You have nailed so many good points right to the wall.
I have to say I agree with Kathy on this one though. I'm past caring about their "herd immunity" because they stopped caring about the individual about 25+yrs ago. I too, am not aware of HOW exactly you can "green" a vaccine. Even slowing down the schedule doesn't prevent injury in those that are susceptible to the injury in the first place. Once it's in, you can't take it back out.
I have a vaccine injured child and I may be called a looney and told "You're just not smart enough to figure this out." but I know damn well what happened to my child and NO ONE and I mean NO ONE, will ever tell me I'm wrong. I am a witness and my son is a silent witness.
Posted by: rileysmom | May 16, 2010 at 06:49 PM
Here is what I want: I want vaccines to be OPTIONAL! No more "vaccines are required to send your child to school"! No more set schedules and no more bullying by doctors.
I want to see truthful information about vaccines given to parents to read over, and then the next time they bring their child in to the doctor, they can CHOOSE to vaccinate.
I am anti-vaccine now. Because I have read enough medical information on vaccines, and have educated myself on them. You can get rid of mercury, aluminum, and all the crap that's in them now, but you still won't catch me injecting myself or my children with cells from monkeys, pigs or aborted fetuses.
I never learned a damn thing in nursing school on vaccines, except that they were required. It took having a vaccine damaged child, along with caring for several vaccine damaged children who went on to die from the damage they suffered by the vaccines they were given, for me to do my own homework.
Great article Julie. But we know that Big Pharma owns the government, and they will NEVER let common sense prevail
Posted by: Judith, RN, BSN | May 16, 2010 at 06:24 PM
Yes, vaccine promoters should do all those things. But they won't.
They are going to fail completely. It's just a matter of time, and they know it. They are just trying to delay as long as possible.
Posted by: Kristina | May 16, 2010 at 04:50 PM
Fox news just their old fart of a medical doctor advise us "adults" about all the vaccines we need now. The list is long and FOS. The reason, they know they cannot keep pushing all the new vaccines coming down the pike on the little folks. People just are not buying the BS anymore. Besides, they aleady have these vaccines and the fact that all adults now need them should be telling us all something....something very serious....they do not work for very long, if at all. So, rather than being exposed and suffering from the chicken pox as a child, now all children will hav to be vaccinated for the rest of their life with boosters for chicken pox...etc., etc.
For example, if you were born before 1957, did you know they are recommending MMR? How interesting since everyone born before 1957 HAD or were exposed to the actual diseases and giving the immunizations for this could wreck havoc with their immune systems.
Everyone should veto TV completely until the pharmaceutical adverstisers (like tobacco) are removed. This will then prevent them from having so much influence on what does and DOES NOT get media attention. As long as big Pharma runs TV, there is no point in watching for truth.
Posted by: anonymous | May 16, 2010 at 03:44 PM
Kat,
As the others mentioned, my point was about parents weighing the risk of having Autism versus the risk of infectious disease right now, not that death is a welcome or better option than Autism. I certainly do not wish you or anyone else dead. I wish you the best.
Posted by: Julie Obradovic | May 16, 2010 at 03:30 PM
Thanks, Julie. I read in one of those typically juvenile pro-vaccine/neurodiverse forums that "the way you know that those autism recovery people are antivaccine is because they never try to recommend safer ways of making vaccines".
Besides the fact that this should be left to actual scientists, it's not as if activists in this realm haven't been making constructive pitches to regulatory authorities all along on ways to save the vaccine schedule. Your article is another example of this. JB Handley, Jenny McCarthy, virtually every visible organization leader for the vaccine injury movement have repeatedly suggested returning to the 1980s schedule or mimicking the schedules of Norway, where child mortality is the best in the world and autism the lowest of all developed countries and which gives a third of the shots as the US. Clearly our side is not overwhelmingly "antivaccine"-- unless those who refuse to drink downstream of a CAFO are somehow "anti-water".
But it may not matter. One of the worst-- and totaly untrue-- accusations against Dr. Wakefield was that he'd tried to invent a "rival measles vaccine". The charge was ridiculous, since even one of the government's own Glaxo-conflicted witnesses admitted on the stand at the GMC that "transfer factor" could never constitute a vaccine and is more like breast milk in terms of its immune relevance (though it appears that breast milk is being seen as a rival vaccine by makers of rotavirus shots).
But this does go to show what could happen if our side attempted to make any specific proposals about safer vaccine tech. And I think this is because the entire profitability of the vaccine market hinges on the toxicity of the current ingredients themselves, since "cheap" and "toxic" are inseparable. Not that there might not be safer ingredients and tech, but that comes at the enormous cost of research and development, which spoils the game of speedy profit turnover and itself casts aspersions on the current technology (saying such and such is "safer" can't be done without saying the old methods and ingredients are unsafe).
I remember Dr. Meryl Nass thinking out loud on her blog about potentially safer vaccine technology. Since she's an expert, her thoughts on this could probably be quite viable-- but of course the CDC and industry aren't seeking out Nass's opinion.
I think that industry only wants to save vaccine technology as it is. Otherwise, if it returns to the boring and conservative field it once was, there wouldn't be such a killing to be made any longer.
But continuing to push for a safer, cleaner, more accountable vaccine industry as you have in this post is exactly what will expose the above, ugly fact to the public.
Posted by: Adriana | May 16, 2010 at 03:23 PM
Kat Bjornstad-- either you're deliberately missing the point or you're proving ours inadvertantly. The point is that the current vaccine schedule is filthy, excessive and dangerous. Even if autism were not one of the conditions induced by the current schedule, there's hugely elevated rates of other autoimmune conditions, cerebral palsy, sudden infant death syndromme, Guillane-Barre, multiple sclerosis, ALS-like conditions. The list goes on.
If you can use the computer, you're high functioning, which is great-- but 70% of children with autism are not high functioning, will never be able to support themselves, will never have and raise their own children-- some may never speak. Many are chronically sick, will die of complications of autism such as seizures, will have doubled rates of cancer and asthma, not to mention the children dying of wandering deaths. Nonverbal children face a grossly elevated risk of abuse in school and the problem is only getting worse as the economy crumbles and as more and more disabled children poor into the system. Adults with autism risk hugely elevated rates of being raped and abused in institutions once their parents are dead. And parents are unsupported and risk more stress related illness themselves, and so will die younger-- no matter how much we want to stay alive forever to protect our injured children.
I wish that more high functioning individuals with autism were like Temple Grandin, who do NOT pull up the ladder behind them and ignore the plight of individuals with severe autism. But I'm afraid that many of you are being brutally used by the pharmaceutical industry, which directly coopted much of the autistic self advocacy "movement", gave you fake, industry-conflicted "leaders" who have convinced you that your fight for self esteem involves denying illness in autism and denying environmental cause for many effected individuals.
You can deny it for yourself but you're part of what's killing children if you deny it for the most severely impacted.
Posted by: Gatogorra | May 16, 2010 at 02:43 PM
Kat,
I don't want to speak for Julie, but when she says, "Having a child with Autism far outweighs the risk of having or dying from any infectious disease right now," I think she is talking about the relative likelihoods of the two events. I think she means that the odds of having a child develop autism are greater than the odds of having a child contract (for example) the measles, or die from the measles.
I don't think Julie is saying that having autism is worse than dying--although of course there are children whose autism contributes to their death, like these:
http://wcco.com/local/Autism.autistic.girl.2.368308.html?detectflash=false
and
http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/autistic-boy-found-dead-460128
Posted by: Theresa O | May 16, 2010 at 02:20 PM
I don't think being autistic is worse than dying. What did I do to you? Why are you insulting me? I'm autistic and I don't want to die.
Posted by: Kat Bjornstad | May 16, 2010 at 02:00 PM
Wow. Outstanding.
Maybe the FEDS will FINALLY listen to reason and do what is right (although I'm not holding my breath on that one.)
When I began my DC journey on this issue 8 years ago, I literally told the "powers that be" if they didn't step up to the plate NOW and admit the truth, correct the problem and help the children that their coveted vaccine program would tank. And the reason it would tank is simple: the numbers (and thus voices) of affected individuals would become too loud to suppress and eventually individuals with "clout" would be pulled into the fray as well.
And we've seen it happen.
So to all those high-ranking FEDS who chose to maintain the "status quo" over the last 8 years (while other children and families joined our unfortunate ranks)AND WHO HAD THE POWER AND AUTHORITY TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE (you know who you are) Welcome to Reality...the vaccine program is tanking and as far as I'm concerned, it's long over due.
You may have been able to "justify" and convince yourselves that all of this was for the "greater good", but trust me, the destruction of children and families will never go unnoticed. God isn't fooled and there will be an accounting one day soon...
Kelli Ann Davis
Posted by: Kelli Ann Davis | May 16, 2010 at 01:29 PM
Outstanding article !, one of the few i opened and had to read the whole thing. i just wish some of this mentality would actually get through at some point.
Posted by: m nagy | May 16, 2010 at 01:13 PM
Let the vaccine industry go as did the tobacco industry.
Smoking used to be a sign of the sophisticated, educated and higher class. Now, it lurks under the surface of society, while everyone knows, universally, that it is bad for you.
No amount of honest studying of vaccines could ever result in supporting a system that accepted even the most conservative "schedule."
Posted by: Cynthia Cournoyer | May 16, 2010 at 01:03 PM
I don't want to save the vaccine industry, I want to save my child, period. I won't listen to the green vaccine crowd, because you can't green toxins, neurotropic autoimmune viruses, or make them effective if they are weakened. I don't like a reduced schedule, because it still doesn't weed out an susceptible child. I don't like thinking that they would be honest and I don't think they know the word safe. I think the childhood diseases are NECESSARY for neurodevelopment, and I think we have overblown the whole necessary crap speech on vaccines. I think a good diet, free from MSG and GMO, and live enzymatic foods build your body to fight simple innocuous diseases, and lifetime immunity is way better than lifetime autoneuroimmune diseases, cancers, and life long autoimmune problems. I really don't trust if vaccines can eve be free of XMRV, or retroviruses or piggy back viruses (literally)...I just think we have lost our perspective. And, I think we have trusted the white coats, WAY too long.
Posted by: kathy blanco | May 16, 2010 at 12:51 PM
our investment is our kids..their investment is profits to be made..their damaged payouts are extremely hard to be awarded..they slapped the face of damaged children this year..they in all their power laughed and ridiculed the families..they damaged..i dont know about anyone else..but i am done..trying to understand..their greater good...we have the power of damaged numbers now..and clearly we can see that we and anyone who touches our life..no longer will CONSENT..to this scheduale anymore..do not concent to there product any more our childrens futures depend on us. its standing up for our rights of what we are consenting to...they are producing products we dont want or trust!
Posted by: candace | May 16, 2010 at 11:34 AM
Suzanne,
I second that the pertussis vaccine is not a factor in herd immunity. Do a little more research on how this vaccine works (and doesn't work). Don't trust the 'do it for Sophie' campaign, read the fine print: It says, “It is unknown whether immunizing adolescents and adults against pertussis will reduce the risk of transmission to infants." This vaccine protects the user from the side effects of the bacteria, not the actual disease causing bacteria.
Secondly, I am sorry you suffered from bacterial meningitis, but again, this is not enough information. We have vaccines for very few of the strains that can cause meningitis. Theoretically, ANY bacteria can become invasive and cause meningitis. The deciding factor is the immune system of the individual. Most carry bacteria in their nose and throats without it ever progressing to meningitis. Meningitis still occurs of course, vaccine strains get knocked out and meningitis then starts being caused by other strains not included in the vaccine. Do a search on sertotype replacement to understand better the limitations of Prevnar, Mencarta and HiB.
Its all about risk/benefit. If docs told the truth and said, 'hey Mencarta will keep you from getting meningitis from strain x, but may INCREASE your chance of getting meningitis from strain y.", or said, 'getting your teen the pertussis vaccine won't keep her from spreading pertussis to your infant, but may mask the symptoms in your teen so she's less likely to know if she's carrying it', some would make a different decision regarding the vaccines.
Posted by: sarah | May 16, 2010 at 11:29 AM
Yes,
I like what you said:
To protect the greater good is to meet the needs of the individuals that make it up, first.
This needs to be said over and over again.
Posted by: Benedetta | May 16, 2010 at 11:25 AM
Great list. Real and practical.
The other day I overheard two parents talking (parents that didn't know me and our story) about a friend who's kid has Asperger's. The mom told the other that the kid didn't speak until about five. The dad corrected her, saying "well, he did speak, then he got his shots and stopped." That's not the internet, that's the real stories between parents just talking everyday. That reality isn't going away.
11. Also stop pretending that the "scientific" answer to stories of recovery is that "some kids just seems to naturally get better" as if by a scientific miracle.
Posted by: Jack | May 16, 2010 at 10:17 AM
FAbulous!!!! I am re-energized!!
Posted by: debbie voss | May 16, 2010 at 09:59 AM
Good theme here, Jule.
These propaganda techniques are hurting too many. By dismissing legitimate concerns, children are at risk still. Also, since CDC does not have actual numbers from current cohorts but use data from 8-year- olds born in 1992 etc, the credibility, honesty and true nature of the numbers is also at risk. Many of your points exacerbate this and they would do well to heed the message of working with us instead of against us.
Posted by: Teresa Conrick | May 16, 2010 at 09:59 AM
we don't have to save the vaccine program in order to respond to disease. can't we be chanelling resources to developing effective treatments instead of vaccines that will inevitably be exposing a healthy person to unnecessary side effects- even if not as catastrophic as autism. but of course, we have the powerful financial incentive of convincing and mandating all healthy persons to buy a product instead of just the unfortunate sick ones who contract the disease. at least we'd have more antivirals developed to treat the people who contracted teh virus from the vaccine, which is also inevitable.
further developing treatment options is far more realistic than being able to scientifically consider the myriad of factors that make someone vulnerable to a vaccine side effect (all of our kids with autism have very different genetic profiles).
Posted by: ginnie | May 16, 2010 at 09:35 AM
Great Job... Will you be stuck in the basement again at AutismOne? You deserve the main stage... Thank you for your great work... Looking forward to seeing you! TannersDad Tim
Posted by: Tanners Dad | May 16, 2010 at 09:22 AM
Julie
If that's what you were saying I am glad we agree. Epidemiology couldn't show that it doesn't happen in individual instances, nor - because of the poor quality - has it convincingly shown that it doesn't happen on a population basis either. Meanwhile, our children and our families bear the consequences of their insouciant incompetence, and bear faced rudeness.
John
Posted by: John Stone | May 16, 2010 at 09:16 AM
Suzanne,
The pertussis vaccine does not prevent carriage or transmission of the bug which causes whooping cough. Therefore this illness will continue circulating as long as the human race exists. It won't matter if we have 99% compliance including adults. The vaccine doesn't do what the term "herd immunity" implies. Never has. Never will.
Posted by: MinorityView | May 16, 2010 at 09:06 AM
Nice job, Julie. Perhaps there's someone out there who can find a way to persuade Mr. Gates to fund a vaccinated/unvaccinated study? The money needed would be a minor gold fleck in his pocketbook, and his stated goal is "giving away his fortune." So far, his efforts have gone to listening to all the wrong people about vaccines. Perhaps when it occurs to him later, he'll be sufficiently horrified, and maybe he'd appreciate being saved from that meltdown.
Posted by: Zed | May 16, 2010 at 08:35 AM
John and everyone else who might interpret that the same way, I definitely didn't mean to give MMR a pass if it came across that way. I just meant to imply the quality of studies done thus far at best, even if they were quality studies (which they are not), could only maybe, sort of tell us that it isn't a problem for most people and likewise, haven't even come close to answering the question of why it is for some; who is vulnerable; and so forth. It was meant to be a critique of the studies' inadequacy, not an endorsement. My bad.
Also, this is an incomplete list; I realize I missed reforming mandates and more. Any additional ideas would be greatly appreciated for a separate initiative I'm working on. Thanks!
Posted by: Julie Obradovic | May 16, 2010 at 07:42 AM
Please also do not forget the data compiled from Japanese sources on CHS about vaccines and autism (including MMR):
http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2009/06/03/japvaxautism/
Posted by: John Stone | May 16, 2010 at 07:31 AM
Julie
Why are we going soft on MMR? The only conclusion that you could possibly draw from detailed reading of the Cochrane review of MMR of 2005 was that they had not out of 5000 studies found any which resolved competently the epidemiological issues, and particularly not in regard to autism. The Danish study - one of the Thorsen studies!!! - came in for serious stick. All that Cochrane really said - underneath the deliberately deceptive public announcements - was that the science had not be done and that safety should be subordinated to policy of targetting the diseases.
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/339/sep09_1/b3658#220537
To conduct so many studies to establish so little shows only the pusillanimous bureaucratic indifference to what happens to our children providing the the industry continues to roll out its only superficially tested and monitored products.
The only officially approved science we've had in this area is an insult. Presumably, everyone can put two and two together - if the studies had been conducted properly they would probably have shown something different. They sift 5000 studies and even then the remaining 31 are no good. We can I think draw a very interesting scientific conclusion from that. Why - after so much activity - is there no evidence base?
John
Posted by: John Stone | May 16, 2010 at 07:07 AM
Fantatic article Judith. I too am concerned about saving the vaccine program AND keeping the vulnerable safe from vaccine injury. Each of these diseases can bear a certain percentage of folks not vaccinated and the diseases won't come back. Whopping Cough can stand only 6%, which most diseases hover at 20%. So, there is plenty of room for those vulnerable to vaccine injury to be protected from both vaccines and infectious disease, as well as the general public. This is why there is no excuse for the NIH member agencies to avoid studying those who have received vaccine damages is FEDERAL vaccine court to learn what was genetically vulnerable to such damage. It could yield information that might protect people from unnecessary harm in the future. This is the direction this whole discussion needs to go, IMO.
I know some people are ardently anti-vaccine. I understand that and the reasons why. I have seen both sides of this - I have been very sickened by Bacterial Meninjitis AND have a vaccine injured child. This has inspired me to geniunely study this issue from both sides.
I think it is important to understand that vaccines aren't going any where. Therefore, I think the best approach is to focus on holding the NIH accountable for not doing basic inquiries into why some people are vulnerable to vaccine injury, so others can be protected from the same in the future. This is a reasonable expectation which I believe would resonate with the general public, who is expected to submit their children to an aggressive vaccine schedule without knowing their individual risks. NIH cannot deny that some people are damaged because, as Judith mentioned, over $2 billion has been awarded to people damaged by vaccines. Why isn't NIH studying these people?
Posted by: Suzanne | May 16, 2010 at 06:59 AM
Right on, Julie.
For too long the entire vaccine industry and their enablers in regulatory agencies have been traveling down the same road of "delay and deny" once traveled by Toyota.
Just three years ago, Toyota had a huge share of the auto market, due entirely to their reputation of producing a car people trusted. Today, those same customers feel, rightly so, betrayed by Toyota's failure to take seriously just few (50?) complaints of "unintended acceleration" problems. Instead, they "denied" the complaints which caused them to "delay" correcting them. Who can trust them now?
So, instead of launching a "vaccinate the wary" campaign, the vaccine industry should be doing exactly what you have suggested they do, address parental greviences they have ignored for at least a decade.
Failing to do so, the vaccine industry will surely find themselves exactly where Toyota is .. producing a product no one trusts.
Posted by: Bob Moffitt | May 16, 2010 at 06:46 AM