http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141113141814.htm

"Novel method to prevent, cure rotavirus infection developed"

Could explain why pharma paid politicians are so anxious to add the rotavirus vaccine to schedules - they want mandates for it before a better option takes more money out of their pockets.

@Joel Harrison,
Frankly, I don't believe the numbers you quote from the CDC. I lived through those times, and rotavirus was not on any radar screens - no one was talking about it or how wonderful it would be if we had some vaccine to prevent it. Whatever you may think of the polio vaccine, at least there was a public outcry begging for a preventative vaccine.

As for my suggestion of a non-hospital means of rehydrating, I did not mean to imply that non-medical people should be left to start IVs at home on their own. I had envisioned a facility with a medical staff that could provide these services at much less cost than a hospital. However, I like your idea of in-home care as I remember fondly the days when doctors made home visits. Maybe that's not feasible, but it's a nice thought.

I understand and agree with your distinction between feeling stupid and feeling ignorant, but I don't feel either stupid or ignorant when discussing the pros and cons of vaccines. I don't have a PhD, but I have a decent background in all of the areas you mention. I would also add that a good understanding of ecosystems is quite helpful. I find that some of my friends with PhDs who research very specialized segments of medical science are some of the least knowledgeable when it comes to the pros and cons of vaccines. They don't do the mental work it takes to see the big picture, and they simply accept the proclamations of the CDC. Doctors are frequently guilty of this laziness as well. They're all busy, so I understand it's not really laziness, but that means I can't rely on their opinions without doing my own analysis. I know quite a bit about the history of vaccines, and I'm becoming much more familiar with the political and financial milieu as well. In addition, I have quite a bit of anecdotal evidence of my own. Sometimes that is more powerful than the "evidence based medicine" proffered by entities with conflicts of interests. Whatever happened to doctors actually listening to their patients? I liked our family doctor who came to our home, listened to what my mother had to say (she was quite smart), and jointly came up with a plan for treatment if any was needed.

I liked Star Trek too! It was my favorite show. I remember the episode you mention, but I could turn it around just as well. There would be no vaccines in this alternate world, but our medical researchers would have done their best to maximize treatments for diseases more in line with nature. We would have perfected treatments that supported the immune system rather than artificially ramping it up. I think we had already arrived at this type of treatment with rotavirus before the vaccine came into existence. I worry that some of our kids with their vaccine manipulated immune systems may not be as able to fight what used to be an inconsequential infection.

Joel wrote,

"In the late 1940s and early 1950s there were, on average, 16,000 children paralyzed from polio every year in the U.S. (I knew some of them), then within a few years of the vaccine, almost zero."
--------------------------------------------------
Now for some facts to put that statement into perspective.
First of all, laboratory testing for polio was not the practice before 1958. From p. 230 of Humphries and Bystrianyk's, _Dissolving Illusions, disease, Vaccines and the Forgotten History_:

"Before the vaccine was in widespread use, many distinct diseases were naively grouped under the umbrella of "polio". Only after the vaccine was widely accepted was there an effort to distinguish poliovirus from other types of paralytic disease. The following list represents a few that could have been categorized and documented as polio prior to 1958:

Enteroviruses such as Coxsackie and ECHO

Undiagnosed congenital syphilis

Arsenic and DDT toxicity

Transverse myelitis

Guillain-Barre syndrome

Provocation of limb paralysis by intramuscular injections of many types, including a variety of vaccines

Hand, foot and mouth disease

Lead poisoning

These are all conditions that still exist today and that a polio vaccine could not prevent. The face of polio may have changed, but it was mostly due to the power of the pen, advances in diagnostic and life-support technology, removal of certain toxic influences, and advancements in physical therapy."

Humphries and Bystrianyk state that prior to 1954 the diagnostic criteria for polio according to the WHO was: "Spinal paralytic poliomyelitis: signs and symptoms of nonparalytic poliomyelitis with the addition of partial or complete paralysis of one or more muscle groups, detected on two examinations at least 24 hours apart."

"In 1955, the year the Salk vaccine was released, the diagnostic criteria became much more stringent. If there was no residual paralysis 60 days after onset, the disease was not considered to be paralytic polio. This change made a huge difference in the documented prevalence of paralytic polio because most people who experience paralysis recover prior to 60 days. Dr. Greenberg said:

"The change in 1955 meant that we were reporting a new
disease, namely, paralytic poliomyelitis with a longer-
lasting paralysis. Furthermore diagnostic procedures
have continued to be refined. Coxsackie virus and
aseptic meningitis have been distringuished from
paralytic poliomyelitis. Prior to 1954 large numbers of
these cases were mislabeled as paralytic poliomyelitis.
Thus, simply by changes in diagnostic criteria, the
number of paralytic cases was predetermined to decrease
in 1955-1957, whether or not any vaccine was used."

A famous example is President Roosevelt - who was thought to have polio but is now believed by scientists to have had Guillain-Barre Syndrome.
The book also goes into the history of DDT use on our generation. It was thought to be completely harmless, even beneficial. DDT was sprayed directly on us in our homes and as we played. Our milk and food was heavily laced with it. DDT was sprinkled on our sandwiches.

p.244:
"By the 1960's there was convincing evidence that poliovirus could live quite happily in pesticide-treated cells, and moreover, that the pesticides led to increased susceptibility of viral invasion. (379) DDT was found to enhance the release and intracellular multiplication of poliovirus. (380) Thus, it likely contributed to creating a monster out of a normally benign gut virus...Coincidentally, DDT was phased out of use in the United States and Canada beginning in the 1960s, right around the time that polio was disappearing."

They explain the potentiation caused by refined sugar and flour in the American diet "diets high in refined sugar and flour - has a known impact on susceptibility to severe poliovirus infection." And they also explore the other possible etiologies of paralysis formerly diagnosed as polio.
-----------------
Dr. Humphrie's references for the above:
379. J. Gabliks, "Responses of Cell Cultures to Insectyicides: altered Susceptibility to Poliovirus and Siptheria Toxin," Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine, vol. 120, October 1965, pp. 172-175.
380. J. Gabliks and L. Friedman, "Effects of Insecticides on Mammalian Cells and Virus Infections," annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, vol. 160, 1969, pp. 254-271.
381. F. Van Meer, "Poliomyelitis: The role of Diet in the Development of Disease," Medical Hypotheses, vol. 3, March 1992, pp. 171-178.

The authors explain how the conditions diagnosed as polio were exacerbated by disallowing movement of the affected limbs, for months and even years. We now understand that immobilization and disuse will cause weakness, paralysis and atrophy even without underlying viral illness.

So how does this apply to the incidence of paralytic disease today? Have we eradicated "polio"? One more quote from the book:

"Dr. Douglas Kerr from Johns Hopkins stated in his foreward to The Autoimmune Epidemic pubished in 2009:

"Infants as young as five months old can get transverse
myelitis, and some are left permanently paralyzed and
dependent upon a ventilator to breathe...my colleagues at
the Johns Hopkins Hospital and I hear about or treat
hundreds of new cases every year.(376)"

"Does the public have any idea that there are hundreds of cases of something that is now called transverse myelitis that would have historically been called polio and is now leaving children permanently dependent on a modern version of the iron lung?"

What the book covers is far more extensive than can be summarized here. Chapter 12, "The "Disappearance" of Polio", is available online in PDF form here courtesy of Dr. Jeffrey Dach, MD: http://jeffreydachmd.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Suzanne_humphries_dissolving_illusions_disappearance_polio.pdf

Joel Harrison;

It does seem a little strange to me also that you aren't aware of the general academic consensus that Wikipedia is not considered a credible source. In fact ( cough!) if you look up Wikipedia Academic Use you will find that even Wikipedia itself states in the first sentence that it is not a credible source.

Peer reviewed journal articles are generally part of the academic standard. A 70 page essay that cited Wikipedia repeatedly would not seem to be aimed at an academic audience, so what audience are you hoping to target?

But the real question right now is :are you a specialist in vaccine injury?

How many vaccine injured peoples' charts have you reviewed?

If I go to a mechanic and he says " I know all about tires"... but he then goes on to say he has never seen a flat tire before, that in fact he believes the risk of tires ever going flat is only theoretical, then I have to wonder whether he is actually an expert in tires.

Similarly, if you have never studied vaccine injuries, how can you be an expert in them? If you have indeed studied medical cases of compensated vaccine injuries, then please, tell us about them and what you have learned.

By the way, I think it was earlier that you stated something along the lines of "it ( vaccine injury) would have happened anyway when the person caught the illness. That is indeed a comfortable thought that no doubt helps you sleep at night, but it does not seem to have any real basis in fact.

Perhaps you are familiar with the case of Carolyn Schutte, compensated after vaccines taken at the age of 53 left her unable to walk or talk?

Prior to that, she had been the local mayor.

It seems that as long as she did not take those particular vaccines, she was safe.

In terms of genetics, there certainly seems to be a link between a family history of autoimmune dysfunction and autism. In your own studies have you seen a link between autoimmune dysfunction and vaccine injury?

To reiterate; if you are indeed an expert in vaccine side effects, and vaccine injuries, then it would be interesting to know which cases you studied, and what you discovered.

Dr. Harrison; I was born in the mid 1950s. I never heard of it until they made a vaccine for it.

And I have a few hours over a masters degree in microbiology. Just saying!

My kids missed out (thankfully) on the rotavirus vaccine since it wasn't available until they were older. My older son had nearly constant diarrhea when he was an infant and toddler. I always mentioned the issue to my pediatrician at every visit and sometimes by phone calls but she told me not to worry because it was just "toddler diarrhea". Now I realize it was probably all the antibiotics from ear infections and "toddler diarrhea" is not a real diagnosis. When my son was almost a year old, he had yet another bad case of diarrhea that I called about and was again told "toddler diarrhea". It continued, and I finally brought him in, and he needed a trip to the hospital for IV fluids. I think rotavirus was confirmed, but there was no real worry about recovery. The main worry was that he might contract the RS virus that was present on the same floor. Fortunately, he did not, and he went home shortly. After this experience, I still feel that the rotavirus vaccine with all its safety concerns is not warranted in this country, but we could make some changes to decrease the costs and risks of rotavirus infections. First, I would like to see pediatricians a little more concerned about diarrhea in infants so that kids are treated before dehydration is advanced, and second, I think rehydration could be accomplished without the use of an inpatient hospital stay. I think the rates of extremely serious problems with rotavirus in this country were low before the vaccine. Instead of introducing a new vaccine to our already heavy vaccine schedule, we could have found other ways of reducing even further the few serious issues suffered by babies in our country from rotavirus infection. I would choose a less invasive health policy rather than another vaccine. I read as much of Joel Harrison's comments as I could stomach, but, for me, it all comes down to risk/benefit, invasive/noninvasive. I don't see an argument when it is looked at in this way. Unfortunately, the medical policies we have in this country almost never accurately weigh risk/benefit or prioritize noninvasive over invasive. And then people like Joel Harrison try to make us feel like we are ignorant.

um...I started to follow the recent threads. Does it seem strange to anyone else that a guy with a PHD would be citing wiki references?

@John Stone:

You ended your previous comment with: “I think we have really exhausted the conversation, don't you?” Well, I strongly disagree, given that I can, using real evidence and logic refute every single statement in your previous comments. So, you control whether my next comment will be posted or not. If not, then there would be absolutely NO doubt in my mind of your dishonest approach to dialogue. If you do post it, at least you will show your open-mindedness in allowing for an open dialogue.

Though you won’t be happy with the results, based on your comments on my article on Teresa Conrick’s article, I’ve made a few changes. As I explained in my bio on ECBT’s website, I am always open to criticism, when valid, and, in fact, try to get as many opinions/reviews/critiques as possible for each of my article. Several reviewers have allowed me to put their names in the acknowledgments at the end of my articles; but, unfortunately, others only agreed to review my paper if I would respect their anonymity, which I do. On average, at least a half-dozen people have read each of my articles and, when I deem their suggestions valid, I have made appropriate changes. So, based on your criticism of my article, I added a few sentences just to make absolutely clear what most people would have understood anyway. I’ve included the few changes at the end of this comment, assuming you won’t bother going to the article and carefully reading it. For those interested in reading the entire article, it can be found at:

http://www.ecbt.org/images/articles/Another_Anti-Vaccinationist_Wrong_About_Genetic_Research_Autism_-_Teresa_Conrick.pdf

You write in your last comment: “But you see you have given me the answer. The title of the paper is 'Rotavirus coded deaths in children' and then as you say it reports: “Of 38 rotavirus-coded deaths identified in the national multiple cause-of-death database, results of laboratory testing could be obtained for 21 deaths, all of which had confirmation of rotavirus by either microbiologic or histopathologic testing.’ But it looks as if to find any deaths at all they had to go to the ‘multiple cause of death’ database and find cases in which rotavirus was not the main cause of death. The database states: ‘Data are based on death certificates for U.S. residents. Each death certificate contains a single underlying cause of death, up to twenty additional multiple causes, and demographic data.’ And there are about 2.3 of these a year in which rotavirus has been properly identified but is probably not the main cause of death.”

Where in the abstract I posted in my previous comment did it state that “they had to go to the "multiple cause of death" database and find cases in which rotavirus was not the main cause of death.”? What do you base your statement on, e.g. journal article? According to the website: “The Multiple Cause of Death database contains mortality and population counts for all U.S. counties [you left this part out of your quote]. Data are based on death certificates for U.S. residents. Each death certificate contains a single underlying cause of death, up to twenty additional multiple causes, and demographic data.” (About Multiple Cause of Death, 1999-2013. Available at: http://wonder.cdc.gov/mcd-ICD10.html)

They went to this database precisely because it “contains mortality and population counts for all U.S. counties . . . based on death certificates.” Where else would they be able to obtain such data? Since you refer to the webpage, why did you leave the aforementioned out of your quote? And what is your basis for claiming “probably not the main cause of death?” Again, journal article? Just because the database contains the main cause of death and lists additional causes doesn’t mean someone went to it to find the additional causes.

Well, I love the interlibrary loan department. The actual article arrived and it states:

“Rotavirus was listed as the underlying cause of death in 29 (76%) of cases. The most common additional ICD-10 codes were for dehydration and/or metabolic acidosis, which were listed on 20 (53%) of the 38 death certificates. Results of rotavirus laboratory testing and complete clinical information could be obtained from 21 of the 38 (55%) rotavirus-coded deaths.” (Desai et al., 2011 Nov, “rotavirus-coded deaths in children, United States, 1999-2007”, p.986)

Just in case you have a problem understanding the above, I repeat “rotavirus was listed as the underlying cause of death. The additional codes were obviously pointing out the results of severe vomiting and diarrhea.

The above article also stated the study was carried out to see if there had been a change in deaths from rotavirus following introduction of the vaccine. It refers to several pre-vaccine papers on deaths from rotavirus; but, as my point in previous comments was simply that there were lab confirmed deaths from rotavirus I won’t bother with the other studies.

So, without any reason beyond your need to downplay the seriousness of rotavirus, without any supporting evidence, you think I gave you the answer. Not surprising that you would assume that multiple causes of death would mean rotavirus was not the main cause despite what is actually stated on the webpage and without attempting to obtain the actual article.

You also state: “To concede half a point, there are a lot of hospitalisations but they are short stay, often less than a day.” Again, I ask the same question as above, that is, what do you base your statement on, e.g. journal article?

I found the following: “In one study . . . the mean duration of vomiting . . . was longer in the rotavirus positive group than in those who did not have rotavirus (2.6 days versus 0.9 days), Rotavirus diarrhea started later than vomiting but last longer (mean duration, 5 days versus 2.6 days). After infants and children were hospitalized, diarrhea continued for a mean of 2.6 days (range 1 to 9 days) in the rotavirus group. The duration of hospitalization ranged from 2 to 14 days, with a mean of 4 days. (Mary K. Estes & Albert Z. Kapikian. Rotaviruses - Chapter 53 in David M. Knipe & Peter M. Howley (Eds.) Fields Virology Fifth Edition, Philadelphia: Wolter Kluwer, 2007, pp. 1948-9)

I found several more studies; but it is not worth my time and effort to give them, it wouldn’t change your mind. However, I think most reasonable people would consider a mean of 4 days representing something more serious as compared with your “short stay, often less than a day.” So, once more, without any supporting evidence, you downplay the potential seriousness of a rotavirus infection. Absolutely NO indication you did any actual search for articles on the subject.

You write: “Regarding your comments on Wakefield and Urabe I draw your attention once again to the document cited in footnote 60 of your article (Canada Disease Weekly Report December,15 1990): "...Consequently the manufacturer of TRIVIRIX voluntarily discontinued the distribution the vaccine in Canada… It wouldn't have been great if we had in the UK taken on a vaccine withdrawn in Ontario but CDWR states it was withdrawn by the manufacturer in "Canada" and you have ignored this information, even after you had it pointed out to you several times, simply in order to put Wakefield in the wrong.”

Wakefield writes in his book: “their own Urabe-containing MMR vaccine, sold under the name of Trivirix, was withdrawn in Canada for safety reasons in July 1998” (Wakefield, Callous Disregard, pp. 66-67.) Since the UK began their program in 1988, I assume the 1998 was a typo and Wakefield meant 1988. As I wrote in my article, a Canadian government report makes it clear that the withdrawal was in the Province of Ontario, not all of Canada, and not even all lots of the vaccines in that Province: “In a July 18th memo to all physicians in Ontario receiving vaccines directly from the Ontario Government . . . requested the return of the remaining stock of TRIVIRIX.” (Canada Diseases Weekly Report, November 19, 1988)

Since elsewhere in his book Wakefield refers to an issue of the Canada Diseases Weekly Report, he would have been able to obtain the same information as I did.

You are citing the Canada Diseases Weekly Report from December 15, 1990 which does state the manufacturer withdrew the vaccine following five additional reported cases; but Wakefield is clearly referring to the July 1988 recall. Given Wakefield’s July 1988 and the Canadian report, it is absolutely clear that it was only a withdrawal in Ontario of some lots of vaccine. It doesn't matter how many times you claim I made a mistake, given that your claim is wrong. All of this was in my paper, including the chronology (see section of my paper: DID THE UK GRANT A LICENSE FOR A URABE-CONTAINING MMR VACCINE, AFTER CANADA WITHDREW THE URABE MMR VACCINE? Available at:

http://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOVACJ/TOVACJ-6-9.pdf

The very fact that you can give a URL to the 1990 report is because I managed through e-mails to Health Canada to get the three relevant reports and arranged to get them posted on the web. If you actually take the time to carefully read my paper you will also see that I refer to and give the URLs to quite a number of UK government reports as well.

In addition, the Dec 15, 1990 Canada Diseases Weekly Report Report goes on to state: “the infection follows the course of benign aseptic meningitis.” So how does Wakefield get “dangerous vaccine” from benign?” My paper gives numerous references to aseptic meningitis, though rare, being a benign condition requiring a few days hospitalization with supportive therapy and no sequelae.

Canada officially delicensed it in May 1990, long after the UK began their program. Again, as I dealt with all this in my paper, including a chronology of the various actions, partially based on the British surveillance data which, as I explained in my paper, resulted from the Brits investigation of the first reports from Canada. Again, they decided to switch; but since a few cases of aseptic meningitis was better than a higher number from the wild-type virus and other serious conditions, they continued with using the Urabe strain until they could arrange for a safe supply of the Jeryl Lyn strain. Based on the Canadian reports, the risk of aseptic meningitis was 250 times higher from the wild-type virus. I guess you would have been happy with no vaccine and many more cases of aseptic meningitis and some more serious problems?.

And, as I pointed out in a previous comment, had Canada not had the Jeryl Lyn, I have NO DOUBTS they would have continued using the Urabe strain which is still being used by the WHO because, though a small risk of benign aseptic meningitis from the vaccine, the risk of more cases of aseptic meningitis and other wild-type mumps virus problems, plus research finding the Urabe strain confers longer immunity, which in Third World nations where it is difficult to get people vaccinated, has advantages.

And, though it would take more research on my part, the Canadian manufacturer of the MMR containing the Urabe strain may well have been the manufacturer of the MMR containing the Jeryl Lyn strain which would have made the voluntary withdrawal a no-brainer. The U.S. is a much more litigious society, so had there not been a Jeryl Lyn strain, given that health care is free in Canada at the point of delivery (tax funded), and that aseptic meningitis is a benign condition requiring at most a couple days in the hospital using only supportive therapy with no sequelae, the company would more than likely have not withdrawn the vaccine. But, as opposed to you, I admit that this is pure speculation on my part.

So, despite your pointing out that you have several times criticized what I wrote, I stand by it backed by the documents which I included in my paper’s references. If you had carefully read my paper you would have already known all this and not continued to make false claims that I made a mistake.

Thanks to you in a comment posted on a Forbes blog (Available at: http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2014/01/23/big-data-crushes-anti-vaccination-movement/), I found the following:

One additional example from Wakefield’s book which I should have included in my paper. Wakefield writes (p.78): “doctors in New York in 1992 had reported their experience of five cases of potentially life-threatening anaphylaxis in 2, 789 booster doses of MMR . . . The data from New York indicate that anaphylaxis is likely to be more common and more severe in older children who have previously been exposed to an MCV” (referring to an article by Cutts). The Cutts article states: “An analysis of allergic reactions reported through the United States' vaccine adverse events reporting system in 1991-3 showed fewer reactions among children aged 6-19 years, considered to be second dose recipients, than among those aged 1-4 years, considered to be first dose recipients.” (Cutts, Felicity T. (1996 March 9) Revaccination Against Measles and Rubella, BMJ, Vol. 312: 589-590 Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2350416/) The article gives additional data on particular adverse reactions, though not anaphylaxis; and all were higher from the first dose given to younger children. In other words, Wakefield is claiming in his book the exact opposite of what the Cutts article contains. I’m sorry I didn’t include this in my article, just one more example of Wakefield being wrong!

If you read my article carefully you would have seen how I went to the original articles. You took what Wakefield wrote without going to the original article, just one more example of your poor scholarship and need to believe what confirms your rigidly-held ideology.

So, you are wrong about what I wrote in my paper about the Urabe strain of mumps vaccine and ignore Wakefield’s changing a rare benign problem to a “dangerous vaccine.” But, as with the additional example above, my paper refutes a half dozen claims by Wakefield. Even if you had been correct about the Urabe that would not have invalidated everything else I wrote, though I’m sure in your mind it would. And this is just one of the many problems I’ve seen with articles on Age of Autism and other websites, that is, finding one possible error as the basis to discredit an entire document, book, or researcher. In my nearly 70 years I’ve read lots of papers and books, almost always finding something I disagree with and one or two possible errors; yet, still finding much of value. Life is complex, things aren’t black and white. If you find a valid error in anything I write, I will be more than happy to consider it, and remedy it; but so far, aside from my misattributing authorship of a comment to you, given your name was directly above the comment and closer to it than the above comment which you did write, you have not found any errors; but continue your own errors, either due to not carefully reading my papers, a mind-set that filters what you see, or intentionally twisting to fit your agenda.

As for Conrick, you are wrong; but refuse to admit it. You write: “You continue to misrepresent Teresa Conrick in a similarly convoluted way.”

As for “Conrick’s opinion of the Gaugler [being] based on Hamaker’s opinion of it,” perhaps you missed that Conrick also wrote: “The fact that this study, Population-Based Autism Genetics and Environment Study [press release thus far] is completely denying ANY ENVIRONMENTAL OR TOXIC EXPOSURE is very odd and suspect. Here is that press release and a narrative that appears to add a flavor of “autism is common and NOTHING environmental can cause it.”

Conrick goes on to quote from the press release: “the study found that about 52 percent of autism was traced to common genes . . .” Nowhere in the press release did it state that the Gaugler study “is completely denying ANY ENVIRONMENTAL OR TOXIC EXPOSURE.” Not only is she wrong about this; but, as I pointed out in my article, she didn’t appear to try to read the actual Gaugler study even though it was available on the internet and 52% is certainly NOT 100%.

As I also pointed out, her criticism of the Swedish study ignored the supplement which gave several studies from different countries and ignored what we do know about genetics and environment, that is, while one study may emphasize one or the other, in reality, they both play a critical role. I developed this idea in my paper. And her throwing out various environmental factors such as sunshine, vitamin D, etc. without any supporting documentation is typical of many articles on AOA, namely, poor scholarship and poor science. So, what you consider “convoluted” is my explaining the basics of genetic/environmental studies, that both are necessary in that both are almost always present/contributing and giving actual studies of vitamin D, etc. to show how one makes a scholarly, scientific case, not just throwing them out.

I also dealt with how the mass media portrays things, that is, if research emphasizes genetics, it writes that, if it emphasizes some environmental factor, it writes accordingly. I actually did a quick search and found a balance of articles. Since you choose to believe that vaccinations are the main culprit, any research and any newspaper article that doesn’t reflect this is upsetting to you. The world doesn’t revolve around your belief system. Get over it!

If Conrick simply wanted to explain her own feelings regarding genetics research, she should have done so. Claiming the Gaugler study denied any role for the environment when such is not the case is bad enough; but Hamaker also made NO claim that the Gaugler study denied the role of the environment, just that genetics “trumped” environment, that is, Hamaker’s interpretation of the study that genetics was more important, not what the actual study said.

You made the point that Conrick is using the Hamaker paper in order to criticize it. I agree. In fact, you missed that I wrote in my paper: “Though Conrick’s quote is designed to discredit Hamaker’s view and genetic research more broadly, it also increases the quote’s audience in much the same way that repeating a rumor regardless of ones intent can lead to its spread and accords Hamaker some legitimacy.” (p.14)

So, you are pointing out something in order to attack my paper when, in fact, I said the same thing in my paper. However, due to your comments, I decided to make this much more clear, so I wrote the following:
“Conrick partly bases her article on an online article by Paul Hamaker, “Largest Study to Date Shows Majority of Autism is Genetic,” found on the blog “Birmingham Science News Examiner,” which states: “At least 60 percent of autism is genetically inherited through gene mutations. Fifty-two percent of the mutations that cause autism are directly inherited from parents and family. . . The study included the contribution of environmental causes of autism and found that genetics trumps any environmental cause for autism.
It appears that Conrick is using Hamaker’s paper together with the Gaugler paper as straw men, given her belief that autism is all or mainly environmentally determined, to persuade the reader that there is too much research emphasis on genetics, something I refuted above. However, the Gaugler study did not address environmental factors at all, while Hamaker simply claimed it “found that genetics trumps any environmental cause.” Hamaker is also wrong about the study claiming “at least 60 percent of autism is genetically inherited.”
Conrick's claim that the study “is completely denying ANY ENVIRONMENTAL OR TOXIC EXPOSURE,” is just plain WRONG! If Conrick wants to express her belief that too much research is being devoted to genetics, then she should do so; but not by such hyperbole and misrepresenting the research that has been conducted. Unfortunately, from her article there is NO indication she really understands the essential and interacting roles of genetics and environment, apparently basing her position on her beliefs devoid of good science or scholarship. What in Conrick’s opinion would be an acceptable division of research funding and what percentage of genetic contributions to autism would she agree with? And is she be capable of supporting her position with science?”
Again, you can find the above at: http://www.ecbt.org/images/articles/Another_Anti-Vaccinationist_Wrong_About_Genetic_Research_Autism_-_Teresa_Conrick.pdf
I do have a couple of questions for you:
Given what I wrote in my paper on the extensive research being done on genetics, environment, and their interactions, what would be an acceptable percentage? Would you or Conrick accept 60% funding for environmental studies vs 40% for genetics? Or how about 70/40? Or 80/20? Given no indication you understand how they are both necessary, what split would satisfy you? And how would you justify this?
The Gaugler study found genetics contributed 52%; but also reviewed a range of studies. Given that a review would probably find something between 40 - 60%, with 50% probably close, this means approximately a 50-50 split between genetics and environmental contributions. Would you or Conrick have criticized the Gaugler study if they had found genetics contributed 40%? How about 30%? What percentage would have resulted in your not criticizing their study? And how would you justify this?

What angers me most in Conrick’s paper is not her unscientific disagreement with genetic studies, not her misrepresenting the Gaugler study or even Hamaker’s; but drawing attention to a bloggist promoting eugenics, an absolutely despicable doctrine. Her need to exaggerate the role of genetics research should not have resulted in recklessly drawing attention to what would otherwise have been an obscure bloggist. Conrick should have just honestly expressed her disagreement with the amount of research being devoted to genetics, then discussed and given studies to back, for instance, Vitamin D’s role.

You write in your comments:

“As to my own reservations about genetics I simply point out that it is a very slow way to explore environmental insult: how about listening to the parents in the first place? I understand Teresa's exasperation.”. And, in a later comment, you write: “Of course, it not clear with all these fabulously absorbing gene studies (time and money) that there would be any single case of autism without toxic/environmental insult. The rheotrical/institutional bias however is towards blaming the genes rather than the toxic exposures.”

And what do you base your “reservations” on? Your uninformed rigid ideological belief system? What you fail to accept, which I explained in my paper, is that environment acts on genes, that people’s genomes differ, and research on genes, environment, and their interactions are all equally important. “Convoluted” must be your code word for either too complicated for you to understand given you want a world of black and white or just another way for you to express your disagreement. You have decided that vaccines are the culprit, it has become a religion for you, and anything, any research that doesn’t support your beliefs is “fabulously absorbing gene studies (time and money).”

As for “listening to parents”, they submit their reports to VAERS where they are listened to (you may not choose to believe this; but I gave in one of my comments a URL to a webpage that lists numerous investigations based on VAERS reports (Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/library/vaers_pubs.html). Of course, no matter how many studies, for you they will never be enough. And I explained in a previous comment the limitations of VAERS reporting. Parents don’t understand post hoc ergo prompter hoc. For instance, there are genetic disorders where kids develop normally and suddenly begin to regress. if the regression occurs in conjunction with a vaccination, what will the parents think? Parents can also be influenced by news reports or what is written on blogs. And parents memories are subject to recall bias, that is, problems in remembering when something occurred based on some major event, then remembering. There is extensive research documenting this type of recall bias.

You avoid answering two questions I posed in an earlier comment; so I’ll restate them:

If the French investigation finds no connection to the vaccine, will you inform your readers of this?
If Puliyel, upon further investigation, is found wrong, will you inform your reads of this?

Just two examples of how you and other antivaccinationists trawl the internet to find anything negative about vaccines. And you and others continue to use VAERS data as if it were “proven” rather than “allegations.” If you were a journalist and a crime had been committed, would you write about any and all people brought in for questioning by the police, e.g. John Smith, the murderer, is now in police custody? I understand in the UK that one cannot release the names; but in the U.S. they can and often ruin innocent lives. Using your approach to VAERS, it is the same thing. Not everyone interrogated by the police is a criminal, in fact, they may never solve a crime and ALL those interrogated could be absolutely innocent or, perhaps, one may be guilty. If you wrote that VAERS data is only preliminary and further investigation may find no connection or some or all, so that whatever the number may turn out to be, zero or any number above, that would be an honest claim; but it wouldn’t fit into your agenda.

Why am I wasting my time with you?. You have given absolutely NO indication you have even a basic knowledge of genetics, immunology, microbiology, epidemiology, biostatistics (where everything is estimates) or the history of infectious diseases. Neither have you given any indication that you devote much time to research anything. You criticize the use of estimates based on studies carried out or summaries of multiple studies; but find one or two articles that confirm your rigid ideology and write as if they were gospel. You don’t even understand that almost all research is based on estimates. In epidemiology one gives a measure of central tendency; but also a confidence interval. In fact, the word “statistic” basically means an estimate. You admit you didn’t bother to read the supplement or didn’t read it carefully because it was over 100 pages; but criticize anyway. It isn’t clear if you even carefully read my articles or just looked for things to twist. You twist what others say and put words in their mouths.

However, thanks to you I strengthened my paper and now have a dozen new articles about rotavirus in my computer files and have gained additional insights into how people like you think or, better expressed, don’t think, which will help me in writing future articles.

@John Stone: You write: “Or just possibly you are only relying on the sources that you want to hear ie those that project deaths rather account for them.” You wrote in your article: “The issue is particularly controversial because rotavirus itself only causes diarrhoea (and occasional hospital admissions) in the developed world while the vaccines are associated with mortality and the dangerous condition of intussusception.” Since you don’t like any of the articles or chapters I referred to, how about: “Of 38 rotavirus-coded deaths identified in the national multiple cause-of-death database, results of laboratory testing could be obtained for 21 deaths, all of which had confirmation of rotavirus by either microbiologic or histopathologic testing.” (Desai et al. rotavirus coded deaths in children, United States, 1999-2007. Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal, 2011 Nov;20(11):986-8. Unfortunately, I only have the abstract and just ordered the article from Interlibrary Loan. Since many of the years covered by the article are after the vaccine was introduced, the even lower numbers than the “estimated” pre-vaccine era could reflect, at least for some of the years, the post-vaccination lower number of cases. In any case, there were 38 coded deaths and 21 confirmed.

However, once more you avoid the elephant in the room. You wrote: “(and occasional hospital admissions).” Not only did I give statistics for “55,000 to 70,000 hospitalizations each year,” but also referred to six studies with lab confirmations for hospitalizations. I repeat: “the chapter in Field’s Virology list six studies. “Cross-sectional studies of hospitalized infants and young children with diarrheal illnesses have yielded the most compelling evidence for the importance of rotaviruses as etiologic agents of severe diarrhea of early life. For example, during a period of over 8 years, 34.5% of 1,537 infants and young children admitted with diarrhea to a hospital shed rotavirus in their races on admission.” (Estes, MK & Kapikia, AZ. Rotaviruses - Chapter 53 in Donald M. Knipe & Peter M. Howley (Eds.) Field’s Virology (Fifth Edition), Philadelphia: PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2007, p. 1941) they go on to give five additional studies and, of course the references.” Why can’t you just admit you were wrong about hospitalizations being only “occasional?”

And your “the vaccines are associated with mortality and the dangerous condition of intussusception” basis the “associated with mortality” on VAERS data which I discussed in a previous comment. That is, VAERS data is not a basis for determining associaton; but only for information that could lead to a follow-up investigation. As for “intussusception”, in that you are correct, at least for the rotashield vaccine which, based on VAERS data leading to an investigation did find such and led to the withdrawal of the vaccine. The data for intussusception and the rotateq is not clear. Also, you ignore the fact that several studies have indicated that the wild-type virus is associated with intussusception as well.

You then write: “However, Redwood's point - and Latham's - is not self-evidently foolish if we look at the paper: notably the abstract where the 40% figure is not mentioned but the 98% (2%) figure is. You might expect that this was a paper showing how little individual gene make-up affected educational attainment”

So, are you admitting Redwood based her paper on the abstract and didn’t even bother reading the article? Just starting with Rietveld’s abstract, it states: “three independent single-nucleotide polymorphisms” for the 2%. Obviously neither you nor Redwood understand even rudimentary genetics. We have an estimated 20 - 25,000 genes, so the fact that three account for 2% of the variance certainly doesn’t mean as Redwood wrote: fully 98% of all variation in educational attainment is accounted for by factors other than a person’s simple genetic makeup.” As for the 40%, the Rietveld paper summarizes the finding of a number of other papers. Even though you don’t like estimates, it should have been a wakeup call that the 40% estimate given in the article must mean that the 2% represents less than the total genetic contribution. That is, if Redwood even bothered to read the article.

So, your statement: “So, once again you are hanging your case on an estimate when the solid data has failed to support it.” is, as usual wrong. However, given how you write articles based on VAERS data, on individual whistleblowers without anymore proof than they say what you choose to believe, my basing things on estimates from summaries of numerous pieces of research is certainly more valid than anything you write. And what, pray tell, would constitute solid data in your mind? Studies looking at genetics, environment, or their interactions make estimates.

As for: "Supplementary materials" is a document of 172 pages, so a page reference would have been be helpful: however even a word search on "40%" provides no illumination.” Try reading my article carefully. I did give page references, for instance, pp. 7-10 and p.111 I took the time to actually carefully read the “Supplementary materials.”

So, obviously you didn’t attempt to read the entire “Supplementary materials” something I carefully did. Before writing a paper, if I see 40% estimate I want to know how it was derived. No indication either you or Redwood took the time. Instead you cut and pasted sections from the paper that just show how they arrived at the 2%, not that the 2% represented the entire genomic contribution. I really doubt you even understand what you cut and pasted.

Since you don’t understand genetics, I’ll try a simple analogy. Imagine someone writes a paper discussing how they found the vowel “A” in 5% of all words. Later in the paper they also mention that vowels have been estimated to make up 40% of the letters in words. Would you, based on the 5% conclude that consonants make up 95% of the letters in words?

By the way, if you look at the acknowledgements at the end of my paper you will see that two of the Rietveld article’s authors reviewed my paper. I always try to get relevant parties to review what I write to make sure I didn’t misinterpret/misunderstand something. Sometimes I get lucky and they are willing to take the time and sometimes people contacted aren’t; but I always try to get as much feedback as possible.

As for “Conrick’s opinion of the Gaugler [being] based on Hamaker’s opinion of it,” perhaps you missed that Conrick also wrote: “The fact that this study, Population-Based Autism Genetics and Environment Study [press release thus far] is completely denying ANY ENVIRONMENTAL OR TOXIC EXPOSURE is very odd and suspect. Here is that press release and a narrative
that appears to add a flavor of “autism is common and NOTHING environmental can cause it.”

So she might have learned about the study from Hamaker’s article; but then found the press release. She then quotes: “the study found that about 52 percent of autism was traced to common genes . . .” No where in the press release did it state that the Gaugler study “is completely denying ANY ENVIRONMENTAL OR TOXIC EXPOSURE.” Not only is she wrong about this; but, as I pointed out in my article, she didn’t appear to try to read the actual Gaugler study even though it was available on the internet. In addition, as I wrote, it angers me that anyone would even draw attention to someone promoting eugenics, an absolutely despicable doctrine. Whatever her motives, why give an audience to an otherwise obscure bloggist. As I also pointed out, her criticizing of the Swedish study ignored the supplement which gave several studies from different countries and ignored what we do know about genetics and environment, that is, while one study may emphasize one or the other, in reality, they both play a role. I developed this idea in my paper. And her flippant throwing out of sunshine, vitamin D, etc. without any supporting discussion is typical of many articles on AOA, namely, poor scholarship and poor science.

It is obvious from Conrick’s paper that she is using the Hamaker article as a straw man to get the reader to believe that there is too much research on the genetics of autism and too little on environment. Then she throws out several possible contributing environmental factors without any discussion. Her writing “completely denying ANY ENVIRONMENTAL OR TOXIC EXPOSURE is very odd and suspect.” in regard to the press release makes her bias clear. In both my papers I try to explain the complexities behind genetic/environmental research. And I make it quite clear that, despite Conrick’s bias, that funding and efforts represent both and their interactions. Where she just threw out things like vitamin D, I give some of the studies, etc.

As for your similar problems with my article on Wakefield. First, no where did I state Wakefield used the word “de-licensing.” However, I pointed out that where he claimed it was withdrawn in Canada, in actuality, there was a recall of lots of the vaccine in the Province of Ontario and not all lots of the vaccine were involved in that recall. I guess Wakefield doesn’t understand that Ontario isn’t Canada, though probably some who live in the Province may think so. Where Wakefield called it “a dangerous vaccine,” I pointed out that the reports from Canada were that a few cases of aseptic meningitis were caused by the vaccine, that this is a benign problem that resulted in a few days hospitalization for a few kids with no residual problems. I also pointed out that the Brits did investigate this and early on decided to switch to the Jeryl Lynn mumps vaccine; but whereas Canada had a supplier already approved, the UK did not. And given the risks from the wild-type virus as opposed to a benign problem in a few kids, the Brits continued use of the Urabe strain until they could get companies approved to manufacture the Jeryl Lynn. Had the Jeryl Lyn strain not existed, I have NO doubt that the Canadians would have continued its use. Wakefield based his discussion of the Urabe on one UK government document which he misrepresented and an online paper by Martin Walker, The Urabe Farago (it would take too long to review Walker’s paper; but it was appallingly written and poorly documented). I based my discussion on numerous Canadian and UK documents, accurately represented, and dozens of articles on the Urabe and Jeryl Lyn vaccines and dozens on aseptic meningitis. So much for Wakefield’s scholarship.

I would rather be bruised by a seat belt than go flying through the car window. If my only choice was Urabe for a child or no vaccine, the small risk of a benign problem that might require a couple of days in the hospital with only supportive care would be a no brainer for me. Either you didn’t read my article carefully, didn’t understand it, or just are intentionally twisting it to defend the indefensible.

So, as usual you avoid admitting your were wrong about rotavirus and only “occasional” hospitalizations. You display either your absolute ignorance of genetics and/or you and your colleagues poor scholarship in not taking the time to actually read all the available material prior to writing. You missed that Conrick also claimed the Gaugler study, based on the press release, denied any environmental, something I clearly discussed in my paper. And you either didn’t carefully read my paper on Wakefield, didn’t understand it, or, as usual give a dishonest twisted account of what I wrote.

I really don’t know how you live with yourself? If we were discussing religion, I could understand how someone could believe they have the absolute truth; but vaccines are based on science and, yes, they aren’t perfect; but your continuous disingenuous comments, your resorting to ad hominem attacks against me and others, your finding one person who says something about lab confirmed flu cases and ignoring all the other evidence, and on and on it goes.

Someone in a comment earlier mentioned porcine virus being found in a vaccine. I am too tired to research this; but if one understood genetics, they would understand that 1. the human genome has literally 1000s of viral fragments that somehow became incorporated over the ages and have no effect, just using up space 2. the human body has on it and internally an estimated 100 trillion microbes of numerous types and 3. a virus has to have the ability to attach to cells, then enter the cell. Virus are very specific. It is highly unlikely that one that has the ability to attach to one type of cell in one species; but if it does, there likelihood that the virus already is in our environment is always there. I would remind everyone that the quality/safety of our water is partially determined by coliform count, that is how much microscopic feces is in the water, so even “clean” water may have a few microbes attach to microscopic fecal matter. We are literally surrounded by microbes. But, as I wrote, I just don’t have the time nor interest to look into the porcine virus. I am already behind on my reading by wasting time exchanging comments on this site, given that especially Stone will just continue to twist anything I write. I really doubt that anything will change his mind.

I just noticed one more comment by Stone: “Of course, it not clear with all these fabulously absorbing gene studies (time and money) that there would be any single case of autism without toxic/environmental insult. The rheotrical/institutional bias however is towards blaming the genes rather than the toxic exposures.”

If you had taken the time to carefully read my papers or if you did and understood them, I clearly explained that the hunt for genes is not a bias against environmental causes. I explained how genes and environment are always intertwined. Finding out which genes and which variants react to the environment can lead to many things. Though I can’t be sure, I assume you might agree that vaccines affect different people differently. What if we developed an inexpensive test that found that 2% of infants reacted to some ingredient in a vaccine while the other 98% had NO reaction at all. Then we could test kids, give possibly a more expensive vaccine to the 2% and/or delay giving them the vaccine as they would be protected by herd immunity (something you probably don’t believe in) and give them the vaccine after they have passed some milestone.

I do want to thank you for that last statement as it makes clear your bias, that is believing that the vast majority of researchers are just trying to blame genes, not try to find out the causes of autism and how to prevent it and/or treat it. You really in your paranoid rigid ideology have a negative view of anyone who disagrees with you. Yup, myself and others devoted years to getting educated just so we could blame everything on genes, not out of curiosity of how things work and how we can make a better world. You must be a really unhappy man having such a negative outlook towards your fellow man.

Of course, it not clear with all these fabulously absorbing gene studies (time and money) that there would be any single case of autism without toxic/environmental insult. The rheotrical/institutional bias however is towards blaming the genes rather than the toxic exposures.

@John Stone: Reitveld's paper stated the 2% was for "Three independent single-nucleotide polymorphisms." That is, three genes, NOT ALL THE GENES THAT COULD BE INVOLVED. Are you so dense you don't understand this. In addition, the supplement explained where the 40% came from, a weighted average of several other studies. Again, are you so dense you don't understand this.

Conrick writes: "The fact that this study, Population-Based Autism Genetics and Environment Study [press release thus far] is completely denying ANY ENVIRONMENTAL OR TOXIC EXPOSURE is very odd and suspect." I made it quite clear that Conrick didn't read the actual study or didn't understand it as it specifically stated it was only looking at various types of genetic influences. No where did it even hint at denying the influence of environment. Cornick quotes:"the study found that about 52 percent of autism was traced to common genes and rarely inherited variations." So, she quotes the study's 52% and claims it is denying ANY ENVIRONMENTAL . . . " So, she gets this wrong. 52% isn't 100%. You are really tiresome.

I also explained that there is tons of research on environmental contributions, obviously something Conrick is unaware of.

Posting comments on the site is a waste of time as you cherry pick what I say, twist other things, put words in my mouth, etc.

Please check out my webpage in a month or so when my next article is posted. I'm sure you won't like it. It is, including references, about 24,000 words, more a monograph than article and it has about 150 detailed references. I'm sure you won't read it carefully; but look for something you can take out of context and attack me on.

Joel

Or just possibly you are only relying on the sources that you want to hear ie those that project deaths rather account for them.

Rgarding Teresa, let's keep this simple.

"It appears that Conrick’s opinion of the Gaugler study is based on Hamaker’s opinion of it."

But it doesn't "appear" at all for anyone who reads Teresa's article rather than your account of it. Teresa is berating Hamaker for misrepresenting the signicance of the Gaugler study and making a polemical (very unscientific) point dismissing environmental factors. You are making Hamaker's point Conrick's when actually she was criticising him.

Very similar problems with your nonsensical article about Lyn Redwood which I also compiled notes about:-

You write:

"Redwood’s claim that 98% of educational attainment is accounted for by environmental factors is not what the Rietveld et al study found which attributed 40% to genetics, thus 60% to environment. Redwood’s claim is so extreme that one would expect a scholarly scientific rendition of peer-reviewed findings, not “what [she] instinctively knew.”"

However, Redwood's point - and Latham's - is not self-evidently foolish if we look at the paper: notably the abstract where the 40% figure is not mentioned but the 98% (2%) figure is. You might expect that this was a paper showing how little individual gene make-up affected educational attainment:

"A genome-wide association study of educational attainment was conducted in a discovery sample of 101,069 individuals and a replication sample of 25,490. Three independent SNPs are genome-wide significant (rs9320913, rs11584700, rs4851266),and all three replicate. Estimated effects sizes are small (R2≈ 0.02%), approximately1 month of schooling per allele. A linear polygenic score from all measured SNPs accounts for ≈ 2% of the variance in both educational attainment and cognitivefunction. Genes in the region of the loci have previously been associated with health, cognitive, and central nervous system phenotypes, and bioinformatics analyses suggest the involvement of the anterior caudate nucleus. These findings provide promising candidate SNPs for follow-up work, and our effect size estimate scan anchor power analyses in social - science genetics."

Latham's point is that if educational attainment is heavily determined by genetic variation the paper has not shown it, and this after many decades of research. If we go into the paper this is what it says:

"To date, however, few if any robust associations between specific genetic variants and social-scientific outcomes have been identified likely because existing work [for review see (7)] has relied on samples thatare too small [for discussion, see (4,6,8,9)]. In this paper, we apply to a complex behavioral trait — educational attainment — an approach to gene discovery that has been successfully applied to medical and physical phenotypes (10), namely meta-analyzing data from multiple samples.

"The phenotype of educational attainment is available in many samples with genotyped subjects (5). Educational attainment is influenced by many known environmental factors, including public policies. Educational attainment is strongly associated with social outcomes, and there is a well-documented health-education gradient (5,11). Estimates suggest that around 40% of the variance in educational attainment is explained by genetic factors (5)..."

So, the 40% figure is only an estimate and not a finding of the paper despite many years of gene research. Further if we go to footnote 5 so frequently referenced in the article it only says "Please see the supplementary materials on Science Online." "Supplementary materials" is a document of 172 pages, so a page reference would have been be helpful: however even a word search on "40%" provides no illumination.

So, once again you are hanging your case on an estimate when the solid data has failed to support it.

Joel;
Just in case you have a good soul and are misguided as I was once upon a time I will try to help you understand.

What does Anecdotal mean?
Can you, pray tell. what family histories and for gosh shakes clinicals are?
Since you don't know my experiences, and as a Doctor you do - do clinicals every day right -- well? You can see my confusion when the slap my face with the word anecdotal and they have not even heard my anecdotal story yet?

How do you know it is anecdotal until you hear it?

So I will tell you how it went down. My first mistake was blind faith - worship even, of my microbiology professor. Nothing like having childlike faith jerked out from under you.

But my anecdotal story is; I took my two-three month old, healthy baby son in for a DPT shot. He ran a fever of 105 and scared me; but not too bad since his older sister had done the same - I at the time did not blame vaccines on her Kawasaki disease.

Two days later after that first DPT shot I had to take him back to the doctor, I could tell he was not doing well. He had a heart murmur. The doctor said he probably was born with it. Years later when I finally got hold of his medical records I found that for three months he had been examined by many doctors as just routine, and in his medical records all doctors stated no heart murmur detected. They actually look for it or listen for it rather on a routine basis.
.
Not only that but they did soft X rays that showed a ballooned out left ventricular of the heart -- the heart was boot shaped. They sent us to the heart specialist at the University medical.

My daughter and my son were both due on the same month to get a DPT shot She was five years old and he was four months old. I skipped his vaccine because it was beginning to dawn on me there might be some lies going on. My daughter that day passed out gasping for air with 105 temperature. She had mood problems and female problems when she reached puberty. She was brilliant in school however but She has bipolar.

A couple of months later with the pediatricians assurances all was well - my son received his second DPT shot. HE fell on the floor, He was crawling at that time, gasped for air, was unconscious, spiked a 105 temperature.

I was really late for that third one. I explained to the pediatrician what was going on. I asked him if the shots could be divided up or something. He lied to me and told me the shots all come together or it is nothing. He then talked to me like I have never been talked to - ever. I allowed the third shot.

Six hours later he spiked a temperature, he became catatonic, and I got to watch the pupils of his eyes expand until there was no iris left. I thought he died in my arms. He came out of it, only to turn very white, begin to drool and shake - a seizure and then he fell asleep. I could not wake him.

The next day - he was no longer walking - he had just started to walk the week before - he was nine months going on 10 months old.

He had two more grand mal seizures in regular intervals of two months and then two months again. and then for then on both of my kids ever two months had --LOL here -sarcastically --- so call roseola. .

This is what is going on Joel - when you put that big word anecdotal; not caring what the details of the story is - even though so many of us have about the same story what you are doing with that word is using it to slap our faces.

We get a bit angry. Would not you?

One of the pediatricians years later hinted at what caused my daughter's very typical and very bad Kawasaki, but he would not come right out and say it. Yet, he was a ass hole as always and smirked that I had no idea why my daughter had Kawasaki. I stuttered a virus -- He then smirked and said -- yeah a strange virus. He actually smirked that I was too stupid to see it.

No, I still loved my professor and was not prepared for total betrayal -

"Studies have been done with lab confirmations that found rotavirus in a significant number of the cases. Since I doubt anything I write will change minds on this website, I won’t bother to give a list of such studies."

Please DO 'bother' to list your 'evidence' Dr Harrison, since you are not only making unsubstantiated statements, but accusing persons on this thread of a lack of logic and even common sense. You also appear to have changed your stance from 'majority' to 'significant' numbers of rotavirus cases. What percentage do you call 'significant'?

You stated:- "given that research has shown the majority are caused by rotavirus, your “belief” is neither logical nor reflects common sense."

A case in point would be Sir Liam Donaldson (UK's Chief Medical Officer at the time). He was challenged in the BMJ to say how many influenza deaths there had been in the last four years (when he and government agencies had been claiming upwards of 12,000). Pushed to give chapter and verse he came up with only 133 as the underlying cause of death, from death certificates (registered cause of death) published late on Christmas Eve 2009! It shows that there isn't any difficulty in a modern state in documenting causes of death even where cases are very few. On the other hand the Department of Health in this instance did not seem to have any difficulty projecting thousands even though there were very few.

http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/01/sir-liams-skeleton-the-uk-department-of-health-fabricates-flu-deaths-to-boost-vaccination.html

Most in the US had ever heard of shingella-- another GI condition which is only serious if you're starving and living in sewage. Now there's a vaccine in development for it-- 1 among almost 300. Expect random outbreaks.

Joel, when I looked up the CDC statistics, I could find "pediatric deaths from diarrhea from all causes," which, before the introduction of the rotavirus vaccine averaged about 300 deaths per year.

That figure has not changed since the introduction of the rotavirus vaccine; however, there are now 400-840 reports to VAERS of very serious (requiring hospitalization) adverse effects associated specifically with rotavirus vaccine, as well as 21 deaths, also associated with the rotavirus vaccine.

It seems quite obvious that rotavirus vaccine has not reduced the number of pediatric deaths from diarrhea in the US, but has either caused or contributed to thousands of hospitalizations and 21 deaths.

And, remember, this is a virus that is spread ONLY by the fecal/oral route--from contaminated feces to a child's mouth. This is not a virus that can be spread by sneezing or coughing, or by breathing on someone.

This can absolutely be preventable without vaccination.

Joel

You really are trying to bamboozle people:

"The article from the MMWR is for 2000 and on. Given that the stats were 20 - 50 deaths, a very small number given the estimated number of cases, it is not surprising that they found zero, especially given most of the stats in the article reflected the vaccine era."

There are zero deaths so you estimate 20-50 (or 60 as you originally had it). But I can promise you that if there were actual deaths (and particularly if they supported the policy) you would hear about them: we only have to think of the nonsense we had over a few cases of measles earlier this year. There is no way they would not be recorded in the British data and almost certainly not in the US. Now you are telling us that the deaths were so few that they were not worth mentioning (statistically insignificant)!

Price of vaccine? Depends which country: India certainly has to purchase them.

Regarding VAERS I wrote in my earlier article:

http://www.ageofautism.com/2015/02/paul-offit-and-rotavirus-vaccine-deaths-on-vaers.html

"While listing on VAERS does not mean a vaccine injury report is confirmed it is also as a passive reporting database likely to under-report by many times and may represent numerically no more than 1 or 2% of cases.(1,2)"

(1)http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1293280/
(2)http://www.vaccinationnews.org/Books/Adverse_Reactions/vaers/credible_estimates.htm

One of the quotes was from the head of the FDA at the time, David Kessler. So, we have problem that while the FDA and CDC who allegedly monitor VAERS seem to regard it as some kind of rubbish dump (in which no case is ever authenticated) it probably only represents a minute fraction of the damage. Having been in place for a quarter of century it will certainly top half a million reports this year, but I do not believe that there has been a single case in which the agencies have acted.

@Joel Harrison "almost all children suffer from several diarrheal episodes and most, though unpleasant, do not result in hospitalizations."

Yes, children and adults get episodes of diarrhoea. The causes are manifold, and include Norovirus,(very common) Campyobactor, (known to infect most uncooked chicken in the UK), or even eating too many plums!!

Only the most serious cases of diarrhoea end up in the Doctor's consulting room, and even fewer in hospital. I agree diarrhoea is potentially more serious in babies, but promoting breast feeding, (which confers maternal immunities) is surely the safest option.

Dr Harrison, what evidence do you have "that research has shown the majority (of diarrhoea infections)are caused by rotavirus", given that most such infections, are dealt with without involving doctors ....or laboratory analyses?

As for Rotavirus deaths, I am thoroughly fed up with statements like these:-
"Although deaths from rotavirus in the UK are rare, the numbers are difficult to quantify accurately: it has been estimated that there may be up to three to four rotavirus associated deaths a year in England and Wales."

Yet quite-and pig viruses might fly!!!

Benedetta: The history of infectious diseases is replete with symptoms and signs where the causative agent was unknown, only to be discovered later. Since the vast majority of infants suffer several bouts of diarrheal diseases without being hospitalized, unless you can claim your children never had a single occurrence of such, you cannot be certain whether it was rotavirus or not. Wikipedia gives the history of the discovery of the rotavirus (Wikipedia. Rotavirus, History, Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotavirus#History)

It would take a much longer paper to discuss Kawasaki disease; but, as with most autoimmune diseases, molecular mimicry is the predominant, albeit not the only, explanation. That is, some aspect of a microbe, e.g. section of protein coat surrounding virus nucleic acids, is similar to amino acid sequence on our own body’s cells, so our own immune system in fighting the microbe also begins attacking our own cells. Since wild-type viruses elicited an exponentially stronger immune response than killed or attenuated live virus vaccines, it is logical to assume that the risk of Kawasaki syndrome is also exponentially higher from a wild-type virus and, if one claims it was caused by a vaccine, then if no vaccine existed, the child would be highly likely to be infected by the wild type virus with resultant Kawasaki disease. Wikipedia states: “Often, a pre-existing viral infection may play a role in its pathogenesis.” (WIkipedia. Kawasaki disease. Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawasaki_disease)

Linda: Since almost all children suffer from several diarrheal episodes and most, though unpleasant, do not result in hospitalizations, given that research has shown the majority are caused by rotavirus, your “belief” is neither logical nor reflects common sense. Are you claiming your children never had bouts of diarrhea or, if they did, you obtained a laboratory analysis of the causative agent?

John Stone: The stats I gave stated: “In the prevaccine era.” The article from the MMWR is for 2000 and on. Given that the stats were 20 - 50 deaths, a very small number given the estimated number of cases, it is not surprising that they found zero, especially given most of the stats in the article reflected the vaccine era. However, the MMWR report you refer to lists in the references an article:

Parashar UD, Hummelman EG, Bresee JS, Miller MA, Glass RI. Global illness and deaths caused by rotavirus disease in children. Emerg Infect Dis 2003;9:565–72. The article states: “Children in the poorest countries account for 82% of rotavirus deaths. . . Of the median 2.1 million diarrhea deaths, 85% (N=1,805,000) occurred in children from low-income countries.” Which implies that 15% occurred in higher-income countries.

In addition, you wrote: “and occasional hospital admissions.” yet US data for prior to introduction of vaccine gives “55,000 to 70,000 hospitalizations each year.” I don’t consider up to 70,000 hospitalizations as “occasional.”

While you refer to lab confirmed cases in the UK after introduction of vaccines, you seemed to have missed : “An estimated 130,000 children will visit their GP and approximately 12,700 children with rotavirus gastroenteritis will be hospitalised in England and Wales every year (Djuretic et al., 1999; Jit & Edmunds, 2007). Although deaths from rotavirus in the UK are rare, the numbers are difficult to quantify accurately: it has been estimated that there may be up to three to four rotavirus associated deaths a year in England and Wales (Jit et al., 2007).” (UK Greenback, Chapter 27b Rotavirus, Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/254913/Green_Book_Chapter_27b_v2_0.pdf ) So, 12,700 hospitalizations in UK, not exactly “occasional,” and “up to three to four rotavirus associated deaths,” not zero.

You also write: “Plainly, if people understand the need for early hydration and they have the means then no deaths should occur.” Really? So, the infants who died under hospital care were not being hydrated. It would be nice if every treatment had 100% success; but not in the real world! The low numbers of 20 - 50 in U.S. and up to four in UK as compared with the Third World reflect the highest level of care.

As for: “Finally, I am sure you would agree with me that even more vital to the health of the infants of the developing world than a supply of vaccines would be a supply of clean water. Without clean water, sanitation, and decent nutrition how are they supposed to respond
favourably to all those over-priced vaccines after all?”

Actually I only partly agree with you. I do not see the world as black and white, either or. I think clean water, sanitation, and decent nutrition and vaccines all play a role in public health, to the enormous increase in life-expectancy in the 20th Century. In fact, reviews of contributions to life-expectancy increases include all of them. However, clean water, decent nutrition, etc. can not guarantee one will not be exposed to harmful viruses and other microbes. As for “over-priced vaccines,” are you unaware that most vaccines in the Third World are supplied free, either by the WHO, their respective countries, or private foundations? Adding “overpriced” just shows your bias.

Stones writes that the vaccine is “associated with mortality, currently 305 on the US database VAERS. From the VAERS webpage:

“Are all adverse events reported to VAERS caused by vaccines?

No. VAERS receives reports of many adverse events that occur after vaccination. Some occur coincidentally following vaccination, while others may be caused by vaccination. Studies help determine if a vaccine really caused an adverse event. Just because an adverse event happened after a person received a vaccine does not mean the vaccine caused the adverse event. Other factors, such as the person's medical history and other medicines the person took near the time of the vaccination, may have caused the adverse event. It is important to remember that many adverse events reported to VAERS may not be caused by vaccines.  Although VAERS can rarely provide definitive evidence of causal associations between vaccines and particular risks, its unique role as a national spontaneous reporting system enables the early detection of signals that can then be more rigorously investigated.” (Available at: http://vaers.hhs.gov/about/faqs#analyzed)

When submitting a VAERS report, the page states: “A report to VAERS generally does not prove that the identified vaccine(s) caused the adverse event described. It only confirms that the reported event occurred sometime after vaccine was given. No proof that the event was caused by the vaccine is required in order for VAERS to accept the report. VAERS accepts all reports without judging whether the event was caused by the vaccine.” (Available at: http://vaers.hhs.gov/data/index)

If Stone had written something to the effect: “Preliminary reports indicate the possibility of up to 305 deaths, Follow-up studies are needed to determine if any, all or none of the reported deaths were caused by the vaccine,” it would have reflected his awareness of the limitations of the VAERS database. As with many antivaccinationists, he simply writes as if associated with 305 deaths.

As an analogy, after some crime police often call in a number of people for interrogation, some as witnesses, some as “persons of interest (previously called suspects).” And some may actually be indicted; but found not guilty. Using Stone’s and other antivaccinationists approach to VAERS, anyone brought in to a police station as a person of interest would be assumed guilty and certainly anyone indicted and tried would be. I repeat, reports to VAERS are not proof of vaccine causation and follow-up studies have found both vaccine causation to be the case and not to be the case. You can find a number of studies related to VAERS reports at: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/library/vaers_pubs.html

And yet Joel - I never heard of the disease -- nope not even once until suddenlty there was a vaccine for it.

I have lived a long time - majored in microbiology - have a few hours over a masters even - and I even had a infectious disease class - but never heard of it.

I have had both measles and mumps - I am that old - and never heard of it.

I have had scarlet fever - pretty bad kind of strep but never heard of this disease.

But I understand it was may just not have been on my radar.
Example: Kawasaki disease - it was not on my radar either.

That is until I watched both of my children have Kawasaki disease typical and atypical.

I also was not all that familiar with roseola either, for according to my children's peds -- kids can have roseola over and over again - periodically about every two months.

But then again when their tongues finally turned strawberry red and their finger and toe tips peeled and the fevers got about 104 - then they were not so sure it was rosela after all. So I guess I am not familiar with roseela after all either.

But nope never heard of this rota virus until 10 years ago when I was looking for anything that mentions Kawasaki disease and I found that word - connected to a vaccine injury for this vaccine.

Which I admit my kids never had this vaccine - since we had never heard of it- but I figure Kawasaki is a common disease you get from a wide range of vaccines.

Hi Joel,

Thank you for your comment. I am partly at fault because the remark was based on an observation in my earlier article and I should have reiterated the detail.

http://www.ageofautism.com/2015/02/paul-offit-and-rotavirus-vaccine-deaths-on-vaers.html

"A table of cases of rotavirus reported by the UK National Health Service between 2000 and 2012 listed a remarkably consistent figure of around 15,000 annually (approximately 200,000 cases): no deaths are mentioned (1). It was evident that when a vaccine, GSK’s Rotarix, was introduced to the British schedule last year it was to prevent diarrhoea not death. (2)"

(1) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rotavirus-laboratory-confirmed-cases-of-rotavirus-infections-in-england-and-wales/rotavirus-laboratory-confirmed-cases-of-rotavirus-infections-in-england-and-wales-2000-to-2013

(2) http://besthealth.bmj.com/x/topic/392792/article-treatment/488599.html

Of course, it would be troubling if there were no deaths in the UK over 13 years but 20-60 deaths a year in the most advanced nation the earth has ever seen, with the highest per capita health costs. As it is I have just been looking at a newly published document about Rotavirus vaccination on MMWR which begins with the following statement:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6413a1.htm?s_cid=mm6413a1_w

"Rotavirus infection is the leading cause of severe gastroenteritis among infants and young children worldwide ... Before the introduction of rotavirus vaccine in the United States in 2006, rotavirus infection caused significant morbidity among U.S. children, with an estimated 55,000–70,000 hospitalizations and 410,000 clinic visits annually..."

But no deaths. No deaths are mentioned in the commentary or listed in the tables which go back to 2000. Evidently, even a few deaths would be reason enough to express concern but there weren't any and indeed there should have been none. Plainly, if people understand the need for early hydration and they have the means then no deaths should occur. Again, I have checked with the Red Book (American Academy of Pediatrics), 2006, 27th edition. 572: no mention of death, no mention of risk of death. I wonder whether the 20-60 deaths may go back to an earlier era, but not to the immediate period before Dr Offit's vaccine was introduced.

Finally, I am sure you would agree with me that even more vital to the health of the infants of the developing world than a supply of vaccines would be a supply of clean water. Without clean water, sanitation, and decent nutrition how are they supposed to respond favourably to all those over-priced vaccines after all?

John Stone, UK Editor, Age of Autism

Just saying: I was old enough to remember my vaccine episode (Sept 1970, I was 5 years old). The "culture" back then was deny, deny, deny. And if that didn't work, lie.
My wife's eldest child had over 30 seizures from the DPT (later found in hospital records), but at the time, she was told she was a nervous new mother and her dog just scared him.

How many others are told the same lies?

In 1970, the doctors said there was nothing wrong when my mother told the intake nurse that I had progressive pain in and progressing up my forearms, less use of my hands over the previous weeks, and greater difficulty in breathing since the MMR booster. By September, I was in an oxygen tent, great birthday present for a five year old! In about 1996, almost verbatim to what my mother told the intake nurse was published a type of GBS (Guillain-Barre Syndrome) in Cambridge University Press, but my mother didn't use specific scientific & medical terms, she was just smart as a tack!

Also my job, first and foremost is to protect my son. And I will not let them do to him, what they did to me. In fact, I'm still suffering the consequences of what they did (in 1998, after a MRI, I was told I have active demyelination of the nerves in my brain, and was having mysterious seizures). That's about 28 years after a certain political figure told my parents that this is "how we do business now", I listened, but did not understand what those conversations meant, now I do! That's exactly 28 years since my medical records showed no history of allergies or asthma, that was 28 years since unimaginable pain was induced in me with GBS, now almost 45 years since this all started, but I remember vividly.

Bob Moffitt, the pig viruses have not been removed from the two rotavirus vaccines. The pig viruses are now listed in the package inserts.

"Porcine circovirus type 1 (PCV-1) is present in ROTARIX. PCV-1 is not known to cause disease in humans."
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/UCM133539.pdf

Offit's vaccine has 2 types of pig viruses, not just the one type in Rotarix.
"DNA from porcine circoviruses (PCV) 1 and 2 has been detected in RotaTeq. PCV-1 and PCV-2 are not known to cause disease in humans."
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/UCM142288.pdf

Personally, I don't feel God/Creator would want any vaccines to enter the human immune system. The human immune system is a wondrous vehicle, designed beautifully and was not meant to be injected with toxic/viral concoctions.

I always remember that famous line said by Jeff Goldblum in the movie, Jurassic Park - "nature always finds a way." In other words, don't mess with Mother Nature...

Birgit, I don't recall that God created even a very few vaccines!

Was man intended to do God's work? What if God liked the way things were going with only a very few really essential vaccines. There is a strange presumption that what some people do in the name of science is divine.

Chicken Egg cells
Dogs organs
Monkey liver (sv40)
Human fetuses
Bovine cells
Porcine organs
just for starters

They'll grow this diabolical filth in any old rubbish , and they'll INJECT into your family .Fairly certain the wizard of Offit is NOT putting this toxic dirt into his own families .

I keep wondering who the baby is -I am concerned if it is okay.

Hi Bob,

Yes, your information is of course correct and also available on the links to this article.

Best,

John