Study: Rich and poor skip immunizations

[PfcHammer]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/parenting/07/06/vaccine.study.reut/index.html

Study: Rich and poor skip immunizations
Tuesday, July 6, 2004 Posted: 10:13 AM EDT (1413 GMT)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Struggling, inner-city parents are more likely to neglect to completely vaccinate their children, while parents who refuse to vaccinate at all tend to be white and well-off, U.S. researchers reported Tuesday.

The study is the first extensive national survey to look at why some children are not vaccinated, and it shows a big difference between parents who are unable to get their children vaccinated, and those who are unwilling to do so.

By the time they are 3 years old, U.S. children are supposed to get at least 15 different shots. These include combined vaccinations for diphtheria, tetanus, and whooping cough, three doses of polio vaccine, one dose of combined measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine, three doses of Haemophilus influenzae type B vaccine and others for hepatitis B and chickenpox.

[Don_G]

1. I Do Whenever Possible

IT HURTS!!!!!!

[Warpy]

2. It may be Darwin in action

I've met quite a few of these anti-immunization freaks. They all yell about the mercury perservatives but neglect the role that other environmental chemicals (including the crap they pour on their lawns) have on developing brains. They're just like fanatics of all types, and facts won't dissuade them. For instance, consider whooping cough. The recovery period for a kid who gets it is two years! Increasing the pool of unimmunized kids increases the chance that their kids will get it.

No vaccine is 100% safe for 100% of kids 100% of the time. However, they all need to be considered as risk vs. benefit. The diseases all have much higher rates of life long complications and mortality than the vaccines do. Some of the diseases, like mumps, are a nuisance for kids but dreadful for adults, especially men.

I feel sorry for inner city parents who don't have the money it takes for a full set of immunizations and boosters. Public health departments should be taking care of this stuff. I have no sympathy for wealthy suburban parents who should know better but refuse to learn.

[mzmolly]

4. Some considerations for you.

Though I imagine I'll get the typical vitriol and regret my outspoken nature once again, I feel compelled to respond.

To my recollection:

The whooping cough vaccine is administered to protect infants from catching pertussis from other children.

It is not considered especially dangerous children over 6 months of age.

Furthermore, children are not considered fully *protected* until their last booster shot at approx 18 months. So the vaccine itself isn't the issue, it's the high percentage of the vaccinated population that is thought to be effective.

Also, the vaccine is thought to offer only temporary protection, so vaccinating children to save other children is questionable given that babies are exposed to people of all ages many of whom are not considered *protected*.

Additionally, the recovery time is a few weeks not two years.

Recovery from Pertussis is slow. There are usually one to two weeks of common cold symptoms, followed by two to four weeks of severe coughing. Recovery takes three to four weeks, during which coughing is less severe.

It is also a fairly rare disease:

http://www.msdh.state.ms.us/msdhsite/index.cfm/32,1670,194,176,html

Six cases of pertussis were reported in Mississippi in 2001. Five of these cases were in children less than three months old. Children under one year old are much more likely to catch pertussis than any other age group.

I am one of the wackos who hasn't vaccinated my child. Not rich or poor, just came to a different conclusion then you. It would be easier for me to remain silent, but I feel I should comment in support of other so called wackos. :D

I should add I don't dump chemicals on my lawn either. ;)

I question this statement in the article:

As a result, there have been outbreaks of measles and polio in the United States, Smith's team noted. Both viruses can be crippling and even deadly.

Polio has been eradicated in the US according to the CDC. They claim their hasn't been an outbreak since 1979. Also, recent outbreaks of measles occured in highly vaccinated populations from what I have read/heard?

http://www.cdc.gov/nip/vacsafe/concerns/cancer/default.htm

Do we have cases of polio in the United States?

No. We have not had naturally-acquired cases of polio in the US since 1979. This is because most people in the United States have been vaccinated with polio vaccine. Because we now use inactivated polio vaccine we no longer have vaccine-acquired polio either.

Regarding measles:

Measles is rare in the United States, with only 42 confirmed cases in 2003, according to provisional data (2). The limited outbreak described in this report highlights both the success of the U.S. vaccination program and the continuing risk for imported measles despite a high immunity among the U.S. population.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5314a3.htm

Vaccination like any other medical procedure involves risk. Like you, I would hope that everyone considering vaccination weighs the risks and benefits.

In spite of fact that I chose not to vaccinate, I would hope that every parent in this country could do so if they so choose. On this I am certain we agree.

[Egalitarian]

6. Nice response. Thanks (nt)

[mzmolly]

7. Thank YOU.

:hi:

[sandnsea]

10. Question

Have you decided not to vaccinate because there's a low likelihood of your child becoming ill so the benefit isn't worth the risk?

[mzmolly]

16. My reasons are more complex than that.

Here are some lengthy and at times nasty debates I've taken part in on this subject.

I think you'll see both sides represented in the threads I link below.

Though I'm not a medical expert, this will give you and idea as to my thought process on the issue.

All I ask is to have my right to disagree (on this issue) with most of you respected. My decision was an agonizing one, and I struggle with it on occasion, but every time I weigh the issue, I come to the same conclusion. My conclusion is that the known risks outweigh the known benefits. I also consider the many so called unknowns. We don't know what vaccination is doing to our population long term. We don't even know what it's doing short term. (Again, this is my conclusion) Feel free to come to your own.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=228982

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=209535

Here is a link to a recent article which outlines potential long term effects?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=117&topic_id=2875

It wasn't that long ago (when I was a child) that about 5 jabs were required for school children, today the recommendation is close to 50 all told.

[truthspeaker]

12. Read again why there is virtually no polio in the US

Because of the high vaccination rate.

Unfortunately it will be your kids, not you, who will suffer the consequences of your stupidity.

[mzmolly]

14. Thanks for implying that I am stupid and that my child will suffer

because I am "stupid." That's not the first venomous statement I've recieved on the subject from the crowd here, so I'll add it to the list thanks.

However, given the fact that there hasn't been an outbreak of polio in the US since 1979, and the fact that the CDC claims Polio has been eradicated in the Western Hemisphere, I'd say I made a practical choice.

I have a correction to your previous statement. There isn't 'virtually no polio in the us' there is NO polio in the US. NADA, ZIP, ZILCH.

If it's because of the vaccine, then I say good, it's been a success hasn't it?

Did you know that the polio vaccine has/had been linked to cancer? Did you know that the CDC says more research is needed on the possible link?

Google SV40 if you'd like more information. Here is an article for starters:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-03/uotm-mvm032604.php

Did you also know the oral polio vaccine is/was one of the causes of the disease in recent years? Did you also know that people recieving the oral vaccine could spread the disease to others? Did you know that stupid people like me are one of the reasons they eliminated the oral polio vaccine in the US?

I'll try not to imply that your stupid, how bout you do the same?

[truthspeaker]

18. OK, if it wasn't vaccinations that got rid of polio, what was it?

And I stand by my stupid comment. Choosing to neglect your children's health care is stupid. I would also call you stupid if you let your kids ride bikes without helmets or allowed young children to swim unsupervised.

[mzmolly]

21. I never claimed that polio wasn't effected by vaccination.

What I said was the last case of polio in the US was recorded in 1979.

I would mention that many diseases came and went prior to vaccines however.

By the way, I don't let my child swim unsupervised nor do I let her ride a bike without a helmet so what's your point? I presume this is a way to call me irresponsible or stupid again?

I also won't be rushing my child in for her in for a polio vaccine anytime soon as it is not only questionable but not necessary.

See you tomorrow, it's late.

[truthspeaker]

22. Yes, diseases came and went before vaccination

They went away when everyone who wasn't naturally immune died.

Do you like to gamble with your children's lives? Did they give you permission to do so?

[mzmolly]

24. You continue to ask insulting questions.

I suggest it is you that is taking a far greater gamble.

Do you like to gamble with YOUR childrens life, has he/she given YOU permission?

[truthspeaker]

26. I'll take immunizations with years of success over known diseases

any day.

And the reason I keep asking insulting questions is because you are one step short of being guilty of child neglect.

[mzmolly]

28. Has your child had the flu vaccine?

If not are you guilty of neglect?

[truthspeaker]

30. It depends

The flu vaccine is not recommended for all children, just those between 6 and 23 months and those at high risk for complications from influenza.

Who Should Be Vaccinated With the Flu Shot This Season
Emphasis should be placed on targeting trivalent inactivated vaccine (flu shot) to persons at high risk for complications from influenza including: all children aged 6-23 months, adults aged > 65 years, pregnant women in their second or third trimester during influenza season, and persons aged > 2 years with underlying chronic conditions.(source: http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/vaccine.htm)

So, if I had a child who met those criteria, I would be a neglectful parent if I didn't get him or her vaccinated.

As it happens I don't have any kids, but I get a flu shot myself every year. I have researched the risks (negligible) and the benefits (substantial - I have asthma and sinus trouble so respiratory infections hit me pretty hard) and decided it makes sense for me. And frankly the risks are so negligible I'd get a flu vaccine even if I didn't have asthma.

[mzmolly]

33. So one should wait for instructions from the Government before taking

precautions?

About 30,000 people die in the US every year from influenza.

Now, I'll provide you with numbers from on Deaths from various disease in 1999 *the most current year I have available at present*

Diptheria 1
Tetanus 7
Pertussis 7
Polio 0
Measles 2
Mumps 1
Rubella 0

And the most deadly of all diseases currently mandated for children in the US....

Chicken pox 48

It is estimated that in 1999 aprox 1000 to 11,000 perished from vaccines.

And in Now for the sake of argument lets take disease/death data from 1960 in the US *even though many vaccines were either not available or widely used at that time*

Diptheria deaths 69
Tetanus 231 deaths
Pertussis 118 deaths
Polio 3190 cases 230 deaths *by the way as late as 1985 only 54% of all people were vaccinated against polio...
Measles 380 deaths
Mumps 42 deaths
Rubella 12 deaths
Chicken pox (in 1972 as this is the first year deaths were reported) 122 deaths

Total 1,204 deaths related to said diseases prior to many vaccines being mandated. Granted we've had population growth, but take into consideration that vaccine deaths are not properly traced, the fact that we've had many advances in medicine outside vaccination and the fact that vaccines may be linked to cancer, diabetes, sids ect ...

I feel I'm doing right by my daughter. I feel I'm putting her at less risk for death/chronic illness by opting out of vaccines.

Your free to disagree, but I do hope you'll refrain from implying that I'm wreckless/stupid going forward?

[Kiliki]

35. Surely no government agency would ever lie or let us down. n/t

-

[mzmolly]

38. Surely not! Surely money never takes precedence over human life!

Surely the drug companies only have our best interest at heart! :P

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[truthspeaker]

36. The vaccines ARE the precautions

If there were significant risks from the vaccines you mentioned then it would be a different story. But for all the diseases you mention, even chicken pox, the dangers of the disease are far worse than the dangers of the vaccinations.

[mzmolly]

39. This is where we disagree.

"But for all the diseases you mention, even chicken pox, the dangers of the disease are far worse than the dangers of the vaccinations."

I think your wrong here.

For example?

But now SV40 is showing up in a variety of human lung, brain, bone, and lymphatic cancers in adults. It is also appearing in the cancers of some children too young to have received the contaminated Salk vaccine. Is the simian virus spreading within the human population? Or, is it possible, as internal vaccine manufacturer documents appear to indicate, that the vaccine may have been contaminated with the monkey virus more recently as well?



There is much we still do not know. The CDC agrees that more research is necessary on SV40 (polio vaccine) and cancer.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0312278721/ref=cm_cr_dp_2_1/102-2986994-3397703?v=glance&s=books&vi=customer-reviews&me=ATVPDKIKX0DER

You are making a claim that you are simply not in a position to make.

Perhaps we should start a reading group and order the book? I've not read it, but I am curious. I imagine a few others here might also be interested?

I'm going to bed. I'll check in tomorrow LATE.

[UpInArms]

64. sure am glad that you think Dick Armey did the right thing

in protectin Eli Lilly!

http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources/elililly.html%3Fpagewanted=print&position=top

New York Times


November 29, 2002

A Capitol Hill Mystery: Who Aided Drug Maker?

By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

WASHINGTON, Nov. 28 — Lobbyists for Eli Lilly & Company, the pharmaceutical giant, did not have much luck when they made the rounds on Capitol Hill earlier this year, seeking protection from lawsuits over a preservative in vaccines. Senator Bill Frist, Republican of Tennessee, tucked a provision into a bill that went nowhere. When lawmakers rebuffed a request to slip language into domestic security legislation, a Lilly spokesman said, the company gave up.

Now, in a Washington whodunit worthy of Agatha Christie, the provision has been resurrected and become law, as part of the domestic security legislation signed on Monday by President Bush. Yet in a city where politicians have perfected the art of claiming credit for deeds large and small, not a single member of Congress — or the Bush administration — will admit to being the author of the Lilly rider.

"It's turning into one of Washington's most interesting parlor games," said Dave Lemmon, spokesman for Senator Debbie Stabenow, Democrat of Michigan, who has promised to introduce legislation to repeal the provision. "There's a lot of guessing, a lot of speculation as to who did this."

The provision forces lawsuits over the preservative, developed by Eli Lilly and called thimerosal, into a special "vaccine court." It may result in the dismissal of thousands of cases filed by parents who contend that mercury in thimerosal has poisoned their children, causing autism and other neurological ailments. Among them are Joseph and Theresa Counter of Plano, Tex., devoted Republicans whose party allegiance has run smack into family ties.

The Counters' 6-year-old son, Joseph Alexander, was normal and healthy until he was 2, they say. Then he took an unexplained downward slide. Today, the boy struggles with words. He cannot zip his pants, snap buttons or tie his shoes. His parents say tests eventually showed that he had mercury poisoning, which they attribute to vaccines. They sued last year.

<snip>

While Washington debates the origins of the provision, families are fuming. Some say the government fund will do them no good, because they have missed the statute of limitations — three years from the date symptoms first appear — for filing claims. Scott and Laura Bono of Durham, N.C., say that while their son Jackson, now 13, showed symptoms similar to autism six or seven years ago, it was not until August 2000 that they learned he had mercury poisoning. They filed suit just the other day.

...more...

[DemExpat]

51. Increasing vaccinations could be linked to lowered immunity

overal.....I use Homeopathy along with regular medicine, and literature from this field does not advocate vaccinations.

You are doing the right thing with your daughter, Molly, and I know how difficult taking this decision is. You've got guts to resist the stupidity, child abuse, and guilty labels! :thumbsup:

I agonized over it with my 2 babies, and eventually had them take a few basic vaccinations, but the list keeps growing to the point of being ridiculous IMO!

My daughter had a terrible reaction to the whooping cough vaccine, and I am just grateful that it wasn't worse. I saw a documentary over this vaccine's negative reactions in some children - following one child who became autistic from it. :-(

DemEx

[mzmolly]

62. Thanks for your kind words.

I am grateful as I can use all the support I can get.

I like you am surprised at the level of intolerance surrounding the issue of choice and vaccination.

Amazes me really.

[Kiliki]

80. You know, the drug/vax industry has the best propoganda machine...

I've ever seen in action. Better than big tobacco. Better than guns. Better than religion even.

They've tapped into the very soul of our national psyche- protecting our children. They managed to do it in the "quick-fix" way Americans so desperatly want/need. They've got all of the Big Institutions in the country on their side- healthcare, insurance, education, local government. They drum this shopping list of "necesary" vaccines into our heads and they don't emphasize that all diseases innoculated against are not equal. The average American seems to be under the belief these diseases are usually deadly (no matter which disease we're talking about- anything we vaccinate against must be deadly). The drug industry has effectivly marketed fear and miseducation and has elevated themselves to level of savior.

It's an amazing machine to watch in action.

[kimchi]

71. Bullhockey.

My child was one and did not receive a flu vaccine last year; and she developed the flu, from my sister. My sister, 40, was sick for 2 weeks, while my daughter was sick for 5 days. And now she is immune to that flu. Amazing how the human body works, huh?

So much for children having weak immune systems.

[Kiliki]

34. to put a finer point on it, all polio since has been caused by the vaccine

There have been cases of polio in the US since 79, and all of them have been from the vaccine.

http://www.astdhpphe.org/infect/polio.html

In recent yrs the protocal has changed from a live virus to inactive, but there is still live virus vaccine in circulation today.

I think polio was one of vaccinations greatest success stories, but vaccines are not benign- they carry a risk and people should not be looked down upon for weighing that risk against the benefits. For instance polio- is my child at any reasonable risk of contracting polio today? Is there any risk from the vaccine today? I have to answer these questions for myself and make a decision accordingly.

[mzmolly]

40. I thought so, but couldn't find the information when searching.

Thanks ;)

[Kiliki]

45. You're welcome! n/t

:)

[Ilsa]

54. Mmzmolly,

I didn't take the same action as you, but I certainly wouldn't call you "neglectful" because you didn't vaccinate. It appears to me that you have put a significant effort in determining what you thought would be best for your children. That is hardly the same as following the crowd or not bothering with it at all.

We delayed my second child's MMR until he was 2 1/2 years old because his brother has autism, and at that time, there were research papers stating there might be a link. My pediatrician, who is very pro-vax, understood my concerns. He asked if my child was in daycare ("No") and still nursing ("Yes") and he didn't have a problem waiting. He also will not vax until after a baby is two months old if the mother is breastfeeding.

I did let him talk me into the H-influenza B vax. My older son, who received the chicken pox vax, probably got chicken pox last year, but we aren't sure. I still think the Hep B vax for babies is bullshit (all bets are off if they are in daycare, though).

I have also talked with families who cannot vax. They have family histories of anywhere from moderate reactions to severe reactions to vaxes. We had a severe adverse event in our little city about seven years ago. The child is in a nursing home with total care, brain damaged. The family was devastated. They had another child and will not vax. What I find interesting is that people know only by personal contact with the family and word of mouth; you won't find any coverage of such a tragedy in the newspaper, etc for fear of causing a non-vax epidemic.

[mzmolly]

61. Thank you kindly for being supportive though you yourself have made

another decision. I like you, respect your informed choice on this matter. Your words in this tread mean alot.

:hug:

Your right about a lack of coverage regarding the other side of the story. It's akin to not being able to view the caskets of our soldiers who perished in the war. The vaccination issue has been subject to a collective Faux news like balance.

[Occulus]

66. that simply doesn't mean

that if it's been "eradicated" here and a portion of the population stops vaccinating, that it won't come back someday...

[mzmolly]

68. Who said it did? Also given the vaccine coverage levels were at about 55%

in the 1980's and we didn't see one case in the US in that time, what is your issue with choice on the matter?

Note, it also doesn't mean that polio will return if we allow parents a choice right?

[Snow]

79. You might want to be a bit careful here, MzMolly, on polio

Polio is an enteric disease that has a very high proportion of sub-clinical cases. The last case of polio, in 1979, was the last case of paralytic polio. Back in the hey-day of polio outbreaks, which we can still see in Africa, the vast majority of cases were so mild that they were never noticed. This is what the vaccine does for you - it gives you sufficient immunity to dodge the big bullet - paralytic polio - it doesn't mean you won't get a sub-clinical case that you'll never notice - but you'll still be shedding virus, which can & will get into the water stream. This is an important point, and not exclusive to polio - most if not all the diseases we immunize against have other reservoirs where they hang out, not necessarily human or even animal. When systems break down, they can come back with (what should not be) surprising suddeness, because they've always been out there.

[mzmolly]

82. I agree. Many people who had contracted the polio virus, were unaware

they had.

I will say I think the being careful thing goes both ways though? I feel I am "being careful" in my decision.

As you know, one could go off in a totally different direction on this as weave done in the past, but I won't today.

All I ask is that I have a right to a choice in the matter, and you have said in the past that you feel I do, so I haven't an Axe to grind.

However, I would like to compile a group to read a book about SV40 and polio for discussion. Are you interested? We could read other books as well if so desired?

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0312278721/qid=1082399315/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-2986994-3397703?v=glance&s=books

A reader from Washington, D.C.
I was involved in the defense of President Clinton during his impeachment proceedings. The hearings that the Judiciary held during those proceedings left me with a cynical attitude towards our government, but the impeachment proceedings did not shock me as much as the story this book tells about our government giving a contaminated vaccine to millions of children, knowing that it had a monkey virus that had caused cancer in laboratory animals. Worse yet, the medical leaders in our government repressed research showing that this virus could cause cancer in humans. I highly recommend reading this book to find out what they did to the millions of people who were given that vaccine.

[Snow]

87. You can look for the books; I'd be happy to pull together

the current journal literature. There's been some problems recently with the unpleasant discovery that Russian polio vaccine had SV40 in it until very recently. The major question of course, is what does it mean. It could mean an increased risk of a cancer, kidney cancer, that is nevertheless very rare. There is also a hypothesis of an association of SV40 with mesothelioma, a nasty (and rare) lung cancer, but that hasn't been published yet. Something to think about is how much increased risk of a disease should we tolerate? None? A little, if the disease is rare? Or a bit more, if we're uncertain of the association? This is a very common sort of question in public health and in public discourse in general, and addresses how we as a community think about risk.

[mzmolly]

88. It's also linked to other cancers that are on the rise.

http://www.909shot.com/Loe_Fisher/blfsv40testimony.htm

Today, there are scientists associated with the US government who continue to deny that SV40 causes human cancer or that SV40 associated cancers have had any effect on cancer rates since the early 1960’s. However, highly credentialed non-government scientists in multiple labs around the world continue to identify SV40 in human brain and lung cancers of children and adults and are finding that SV40 is also associated with bone cancers and Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphomas. The majority of these independent scientists have concluded that, yes, SV40 does cause human cancers.

Refs here:
http://www.909shot.com/Loe_Fisher/blfsv40testimony.htm#_edn6

Yes pull together your data and lets start a small discussion group. Are you willing to read the book?

When would be a good time for you? I'd like to invite trotsky, treepig and others who have expressed an interest as well.

Say when. ;)

[Snow]

99. Be careful of drawing causal conclusions from that sort

of finding though. We have a lot of bugs floating around our systems, most of them belong there and some don't. It's fairly easy to find any number of bugs associated with illness or unhealthy/cancerous tissue. That's quite some distance to determining causation, though, dissident lab scientists like to think the petri dish holds the final answers.

[mzmolly]

106. I haven't drawn conclusions, but I think think finding an obscure animal

virus in cancer is a bit different than the scenario you note.

From the book I'd like to read/discuss:

Between 1954 and 1963, close to 98 million Americans received polio vaccinations contaminated with a carcinogenic monkey virus, now known as SV40. A concerted government effort downplayed the incident, and it was generally accepted that although oncogenic to laboratory animals, SV40 was harmless to humans.

But now SV40 in showing up in human cancers, and prominent researchers are demanding a serious public health response to this forgotten polio vaccine contaminant. A gripping medical detective story, The Virus and the Vaccine raises major questions about vaccine policy.

Did we trade cancer for polio? I'm not drawing a conclusion, but I'd sure like to know, wouldn't you?

[Snow]

113. Yes, of course, I'd like to know...

but just for food for thought - did the guys finding the SV40 in the cancer tissue check other body tissues in those patients? Did they check tissues in patients without cancer? If so, the causal argument is strengthened considerably, but without those steps there's plenty of room for other explanations - and often the other explanations are easier to test - in this case, the worrisome question of whether SV40 causes human cancer is tested by following a representative people with exposure to SV 40 for a long enough period that they have opportunity to develop cancers - and this means a lot of time and a lot of people - and then comparing those people with a comparable group who didn't have the SV40 exposure. COnversely, you could gather a group of, say, kidney cancer patients, gather a comparable group of people without kidney (or other) cancer, do a good clinical test of some sort for the SV40, and see if there're differences.

It's easier and more sensible to rule out the other explanations first, and that hasn't been done yet.

By the way, I do appreciate your speedy responses (we've got to get lives!). My eloquent, masterful posts on this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=117x3992
are just sitting there.

[mzmolly]

115. I agree, off to life.

I would respond to your specific questions, but instead all I have to say is:

NIOTIERNVORKGNTROUGBTROVXXIGFJEROFJNERIGURHG QARBIEGURFRUN !

So there!

I'll order the book soon and contact you for discussion, It sounds very well researched and balanced as well?

Ciao. :hi:

[Snow]

100. Yes, anyway, I'll do a little digging.

Why do you ask if I'm willing to read a book in boldface? I dunno; guess that depends on whether it's relevant to the world as it is. I tend to prefer journals because books take a while to get into print, and by that time the world has moved on.

[mzmolly]

105. This book is fairly new, but I welcome any information on the subject.

The book sounds well researched and may give you some journals to consider in the reference area?

I think the book may demonstrate a practice with questions surrounding vaccination that may need to be addressed.

Adding according to the CDC

"The majority of scientific evidence suggests that SV40-contaminated vaccine did not cause cancer; however, some research results are conflicting and more studies are needed."

Guess more studies are needed. Wonder if the drug companies are funding any more studies?

[treepig]

46. ending the use of DDT

according to the information presented here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x10735

moral of the story: DU is not the best of places to get medical/scientific advice.

[DemExpat]

50. The entire Dutch population is stupid then.....nobody wears helmets

on bicycles here.....

:eyes:

DemEx

[LeighAnn]

47. Shouldn't we always trust the gov't & pharmaceutical companies?

They are only looking out for our best interests overall, right???

They would never do anything corrupt, like putting their financial self-interests over the health and safety of our children, now would they?

THREE CHEERS FOR THE FDA AND CDC!!!

[kimchi]

70. I don't think you are stupid.

The article outright states that it is the EDUCATED who are choosing not to vaccinate.

I wasn't going to vaccinate, but bowed to the doctor's pressure. One shot made my child very ill, with what looked like silent seizures, and a very high temperature, for which I gave her Tylenol for 3 days. Scared the bejeezus out of me. She won't get that one again until she's older-if at all. Other than that, she hasn't had any problems that I can detect.

[trixie]

75. I agree..

I see no reason to give a live vaccine. If you read the pamphlet given you will see that adults should wear gloves at all times (especially when changing diapers) as to avoid getting the disease the vaccine is supposed to deter. They don't even mention that in your doctors visit and most people don't know that there is a risk to people around the child after the vaccine.

[demgurl]

56. I admire you for speaking out....

on what you believe in. We struggled with this issue for our children as well. I saw a very scary segment, on 60 minutes, about people who have been crippled as a direct result of vaccines. This was the impetus for us researching whether we wanted any shots for our own children.

We knew we would have to get it for them by the time they were five - or else they could attend school here. I was fraught with worry and we talked about it with our doctors. We also read as much as we could on the subject. Some folks seemed to be whackos and some were educated. We always researched the source to make sure it was not some nut we were listening to.

Our son did get a few shots, but then we stopped. He is going to school next year and we will fully catch up on everything. They both had a catch up session last year when one of them went to preschool.

Perhaps if poorer parents had the same tools we did, they would be withholding shots for a different reason than economics.

When all is said and done, we held off on one of the shots til last year - the one 60 Minutes had talked about. France was doing a lot of research and we felt if they had not come up with anything in four years, we would go ahead and do it. That is what we did. I finally just had to throw my arms up in the air and leave it in the hands of God. He did not let me down.

A lot of people summarily dismiss anything negative, about the immunizations, without even researching it. Sounds like you researched it as much as you could and did what you felt was right for you and your family. No one can make a choice if they do not research it and have the information to make an informed choice.

BTW, we went through the exact same thing with circumcision! We talked about it for six months BEFORE I gave birth. We studied the subject. We talked to people. We talked to doctors. We rented videos. We even fought about it. We finally decided to have it done, but people sometimes do not realize how serious some parents take subjects and how much they mull over it. We did not make the decision until the doctor actually asked us in the hospital. It was a hard decision and nothing we went into lightly.

Good for you to stand up and fight for what you believe in.

[mzmolly]

67. Thank you demgurl. I respect your informed decision on vaccination

I very much appreciate your supportive words. :hug:

I think it's great that you (who came to a different conclusion than I) are able to maintain a respect for people who opt out of vaccination.

I am certain I'd struggle with circumcision should I ever have a son as well. EEK! That's a tough one also.

I respect any INFORMED choice as well.

[LeighAnn]

5. I feel sorry for parents who don't have a choice

Most parents who have concerns and study the vaccine issues would like to opt for some vaccines, but not others. Unfortunately, most doctors (especially Medicaid practicioners) have an all-or-nothing policy, and parents are often bullied into the whole sha-bang without their serious consent.
That's why people have chicken-pox parties now.

:(

[put out]

9. Some children become extremely ill

from the respiratory complications of the herpes virus which causes chicken pox, not to mention the high fevers and absolute misery the disease brings. Some kids die from it. It frequently leaves permanent scars. And the virus lives in the body for the rest of your life.

And then there is the delightful sequella, shingles. Hey, that's a real picnic, especially when it goes on and on, and then reoccurs. It is especially fun for older people or those without a strong immune system. Please don't invite children you care anything about to a chicken pox party. You should invite people you would really enjoy seeing become ill. Herpes zoster virus is the gift that keeps on giving.

[LeighAnn]

11. I've never done it!

I have no intention of infecting children with anything!

All the same, though, everybody I know has had the chicken pox, and I've never known a case like what you mentioned ever (except most people can show you a chicken-pox scar).

The only times I've heard tell of complications is when a person gets it as an adult, which to me is the danger of vaccinating a child against a disease which is it's own cure. A lot of adults don't keep up with their vaccination schedule (no data on long-term immunity from the vaccine), and I have a feeling that 15-20 years from now Adult Chicken Pox is going to pose serious problems amongst our population.

[shanti]

13. an ex-boyfriend

contracted chicken pox when he was 35. he was in MISERY and had a BAD case of it. i couldn't believe that someone had reached such an age without ever catching it, but it's true. i think it was when he started substitute teaching...

[mzmolly]

15. Exactly, I hear Japan is paying the price for vaccination against

pox now because the disease has essentially been transfered into the adult population?

*Japan has been vaccinating for chicken pox for 20 plus years now.

[Kiliki]

31. Yes exactly, there are some serious concerns about varicella vaccine

Chicken pox is in general a benign normal childhood illness that normally confers lifetime immunity. Children who contract chicken pox have a lower mortality rate than adults who contract them.

The varicella vaccine does not guarentee lifetime immunity, there have been widely reported incidents of large groups of vaccinated children contracting chicken pox despite their vaccinated status.

I noticed the comment in another post about CP leading to shingles. I wonder if people are aware that shingles are also a risk after vaccinating (for the exact same reason)? A lifetime risk, the same as when chicken pox are caught in the wild.

My children are immune the old fashioned way, they unwittingly caught chicken pox from a playmate before anyone realized he was "ill". They did not suffer from high fevers (or any fever at all after the first day) and were not miserable, we just lounged around the house and ate a lot of ice cream for a few weeks. Neither suffered any scars- physical or mental, and we don't have to worry about a vaccine wearing off in adulthood and them skipping a booster and becomming more seriously ill then.

[amazona]

59. I have a large permanent irregular scar on my face

Your children are fortunate that they don't have a chicken pox scar. Unfortunately I can assure you that some children ARE left permanently scarred -- I was one -- and because of the irregular contour of the scar, plastic surgeons have told me there is nothing to be done. We live in a visual society and this is not a pleasant thing, to put it mildly, for a woman to have to live with on her face. I don't blame my parents, as the vaccination did not exist when I was a child, and we don't even know where I caught it, but I would never minimize the long-term consequences of chicken pox.

[HuckleB]

3. It's the cost of promised post-shot ice cream treats that's prohibitive...

...not to mention having to figure out a way for those kids to burn off the ice cream calories.

:wow:

Yowsah!

[Don_G]

8. They're VERY Painful To Me

Given almost any intra-musclar injection/innoculation and I can't move my arm for a week.

I'm also 50, had most of the childhood diseases and no children to worry about.

I'm not looking foreward to my passport.

[Solly Mack]

17. For what it's worth. CDC Link on the effects of not vaccinating

http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/fs/gen/WhatIfStop.htm#polio

[drmom]

19. As a pediatrician,

I'm pro-vaccination, but I've stopped arguing the subject on the internet quite some time ago. In my practice, we simply don't take care of families who will not immunize, no questions asked. I also take some comfort in the fact that the Darwin theory seems to hold quite well...so I guess we'll just wait another generation or two to see which group really is the fittest. Since in the not so distant past, large percentages of the population were wiped out by the diseases that we are currently vaccinating against, I'm vaccinating my three children, and placing bets on the vaccination group.

I also noticed that with the recent anthrax scare, it was those non-vaccinators that seems to scream the loudest to get some of the limited available vaccine!

[mzmolly]

23. So the goal is to save lives, but you reject children who are not

vaccinated? I find that very curious.

Thankfully, I have a pediatrician who is respectful of the legal right to choose in my state.

Also, you mention darwin, how bout mixing animal virus's like SV40 into the human population? Any thoughts on that?

[happyslug]

57. As an Attorney

Who have had clients come in to see me and told me that they wanted to declared bankruptcy do to excess debts. When I review their income and on going monthly payments (Utilities, Rent, mortgage, car payments, food, gasoline, insurance payments etc) and upon review found out that their income fell BELOW those bills. I told them unless they are willing to address the reason WHY they have to declare Bankruptcy I would NOT have them as Clients. All I could see is discharging their current debts with a Bankruptcy Petition and then have them back in my office within six months with more debts than they could pay, and given that you can only declare Bankruptcy every seven years, no ability to discharge the debts for 6 more years.

In effect all my client was doing was DELAYING a reduction in their standard of living is a way that WOULD CAUSE THEM GREATER HARM IN THE LONG RUN. The same with a Doctor refusing to see a Client who refuses to do what is NEEDED. The Doctor (like a Lawyer) has to keep the best interest of his client at heart. If the best interest and what the client wants is NOT the same the Doctor (like a Lawyer) has to tell the client of that unpleasant fact. If the Client still refuses to follow what is being recommended by the Doctor, the Doctor ha the RIGHT TO SAY I WILL NOT TREAT YOU. In my opinion such an action is not only permitted BUT required. It is required because the real expert is the DOCTOR not the Patient. The Doctor as the Expert treating a patient NOT BY THE BEST MEDICALLY DETERMINABLE WAY, is opening himself up to a malpractice suit.

Now a Doctor can protect himself in regards to an Adult by having the Adult signing a paper saying the Adult is Knowingly refusing to follow the Doctor's advice. Production of such a Document will end most malpractice suits brought by an Adult do to the action of the Doctor to follow what his patient wanted (Provided the Adult is given full information as to why the Doctor is advising X, when the Patient wants Y, but that is a separate issue).

The problem is when it comes to Children, Parents can NOT sign away the rights of the Children to bring a malpractice suit. If a Child suffers a harm do to a Doctor FOLLOWING WHAT THE PARENT WANTED, the Doctor is LIABLE to the CHILD for the Harm.

This is best illustrated by the GM Lead Battery case of the 1980s. In the 1980s GM decided to deny jobs in its lead battery section to women on the grounds that lead can cause harm to unborn children (even to ovums stored in women that later would become children). The US Supreme Court Ruled that such discrimination based on Sex was ILLEGAL even if all GM was trying to do was protect itself from subsequent lawsuits regarding children not even conceived. The Court ruled accepted as a legal fact that GM would be liable to such unborn (and even un-conceived) children do to any lead poisoning (But that this was NOT grounds to discriminate based on Sex in Violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act).

Note, the Court ACCEPTED THE FACT THAT UNBORN AND UN-CONCEIVED CHILDREN CAN BRING ACTION DO TO HARM CAUSED BEFORE SUCH A CHILD IS EVEN CONCEIVED and the parents of such children can NOT write away the right of the Child to bring the Action.

All the Court ruled was that GM could NOT use that LEGAL FACT (Parents Can NOT sign away the rights of their Children) to violate the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In the case of a Doctor, they is NO law requiring him to take any client who comes to his door They is NO law requiring him to take on clients who do not want their children vaccinated. Thus if a Doctor DOES take a Client who do NOT want his or Her Children vaccinated and the Children Suffers a harm do to that MALPRACTICE, the Children can SUE the Doctor even if the Parents sign away all "rights to sue".

This is the law today, the Rights of Children can NOT be restricted by their parents. Children have the right to sue in their own name and can not even sign the right away themselves till their become of age (i.e. turn 18 or 21 depending on the state). Even statute of Limitations do not start to run against a child till the child turns 18 (21 in some states). For example if a child's parents says no Vaccine and that Child suffers a harm do to the lack of the Vaccination at age 2, the Doctor who did NOT do the Vaccination can b sued by the Child at any time till he or she turns age 20 (Assuming a two year Statue of Limitation for Torts, which is common, and majority is achieved at age 18. The two years do not start to run till the child turns 18 not when the malpractice occurred even if the malpractice occurred 16 years before the child turned 18).

The best defense to a Malpractice lawsuit is NOT to comment malpractice. Malpractice is generally Not following generally accepted Medical Practice. Giving Vaccine is Generally Accepted Medical Practice so it is NOT Malpractice to give a Vaccine. On the other hand NOT to give a Vaccine is NOT Following Generally Accepted Medical Practice and if the child is Harmed do to the LACK of Vaccine, the Doctor can be liable for Malpractice. This is true even if the Doctor followed what the Child's parents wanted.

Given the above I support the Doctor is refusing to take on clients who will NOT follow his advice. All he is doing is following generally accepted Medical Practice which is the best way to avoid malpractice.

[mzmolly]

63. I find many of your comments questionable.

In effect all my client was doing was DELAYING a reduction in their standard of living is a way that WOULD CAUSE THEM GREATER HARM IN THE LONG RUN. The same with a Doctor refusing to see a Client who refuses to do what is NEEDED. The Doctor (like a Lawyer) has to keep the best interest of his client at heart. If the best interest and what the client wants is NOT the same the Doctor (like a Lawyer) has to tell the client of that unpleasant fact. If the Client still refuses to follow what is being recommended by the Doctor, the Doctor ha the RIGHT TO SAY I WILL NOT TREAT YOU. In my opinion such an action is not only permitted BUT required. It is required because the real expert is the DOCTOR not the Patient. The Doctor as the Expert treating a patient NOT BY THE BEST MEDICALLY DETERMINABLE WAY, is opening himself up to a malpractice suit.

I feel that MOST VACCINES ARE CAUSING GREATER HARM IN THE LONG RUN then most of the disease we are trying to combat.

You are also saying my Doctor has a right to determine MY BEST INTERESTS FOR ME.

Tell me, would you represent a patient in a malpractice suit who was bullied by their doctor into a vaccination that caused their to child suffer or die as a result?

http://www.wdolaw.com/cases/vaccine_injuries.htm

WDOCL represents hundreds of injured children and their families seeking compensation for the devastating mercury-induced injuries caused by the unnecessary exposures to thimerosal. WDOCL attorneys are leaders in the effort to win compensation for the families in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (or "Vaccine Court"), a no-fault administrative program created by Congress to provide relief for vaccine-injured children. Families who file claims for compensation in Vaccine Court also have the right to later seek relief in the court system after they go through the Vaccine Court procedures, and WDOCL represents families in those lawsuits.

[happyslug]

96. By LEGAL Definition

Malpractice is when a Doctor's patient suffers a harm CAUSED by some act of a Doctor THAT DOES NOT MEET THE MINIMAL STANDARDS FOR DOCTOR'S CARE. Note the issue is NOT if someone suffers a harm, or if the Doctor caused the harm, but that the Doctor's Actions or In-action did not meet minimal medical standards.

At the present time such medical standards is to REQUIRE vaccinations. Any Doctor who does NOT encourage vaccinations is committing Malpractice. That is the LEGAL DEFINITION of Malpractice. This is true even if the parent does NOT want the vaccinations (See my previous posts for the reasons why).

As to harm caused by any vaccines (including any caused by additives to a vaccine) that is generally beyond a Doctor's knowledge. Now if a Doctor KNEW that a vaccine was bad he is committing malpractice if he uses it on a patient, but that dependent on the Doctor's KNOWLEDGE NOT OPINION.

If a Doctor (or his patient) believes a vaccine is "bad" but has no evidence to show it is "bad" for that Doctor NOT to vaccinate is to commit an act BELOW the standard for Medical practice. Opinion not based on personal knowledge (Or extensive study and review) is NOT grounds to violate generally accepted Medical Practice.

At the present time the Generally accepted Medical practice is to vaccinate. The propose of the "Vaccination Court" was NOT to protect Doctors but Drug Companies. Over the last 20 years several Vaccines have found to have bad side affects. Several states said these were costs in the use of said Vaccines and since the Vaccines were state mandated and not Voluntary strict liability for the is safety was to be the rule. Other states rules that such vaccines should be viewed like a hammer, yes it can cause harm but its benefits outweighs its bad said affects (i.e. the usability of a hammer to hammer nails exceed the occasional hit on a finger when using the hammer).

Given these two movements in the law, Congress upon lobbying of the Drug Companies set up the so call Vaccine Court. This act withdrew from the States the issue of how much liability the drug companies had and gave that liability to the Federal Government.

Note this had more to do with protecting the Drug Companies than protecting Doctors. It still does not make the use of vaccines optional whenever a doctor is trying to meet minimal standards for Medical treatment.

Remember we are responding to a Doctor's Decision NOT to take on a client who refuses to vaccinate her/his children. My point is any Doctor who does NOT require his patients to follow the standard vaccination regime is violating Generally accepted Medical Treatment and thus is opening himself up to a Malpractice suit by the CHILD even if the Child's parents are the one who refused to have their child vaccinated.

[mzmolly]

97. I was aware of most of the information you provided, but others

will find it interesting.

I realize our Gov is in bed with drug companies, which is part of the issue I have with the whole facade.

I find this noteworthy:

As to harm caused by any vaccines (including any caused by additives to a vaccine) that is generally beyond a Doctor's knowledge. Now if a Doctor KNEW that a vaccine was bad he is committing malpractice if he uses it on a patient, but that dependent on the Doctor's KNOWLEDGE NOT OPINION.

Perhaps this is why doctors are best NOT knowing the adverse effects of vaccination? Keeping doctors ignorant is key to protecting them from liability.

Sad really.

Thanks for your perspective. To my understanding a doctor has to discuss vaccination, but is not subject to liability for a parents choice not to vaccinate.

I'd be interested in any case where a parent declined on their own to vaccinate and a doctor was sued because of it.

[Kiliki]

37. You are offering anthrax vaccine to children?

In what city and for gods sake, why?

[sandnsea]

42. she didn't say that

She said the ones who are opting out of routine vaccinations are the same ones who are first in line to scream for anthrax vaccinations.

Kind of like the people who don't want "socialized medicine" but are the first in line for "estate planning" so they can use govt benefits when they need a nursing home in their old age.

[mzmolly]

43. Well, you'd NEVER see me asking for such a vaccine, and I doubt

anyone educated on the matter would either.

[Kiliki]

44. Where is she seeing this? This is totally contrary to my experiences

the people I know who support/encourage selective, delayed or skipped vaccines seem to be uniformly concerned about a possible anthrax vaccine going public anytime soon.

I guess I am calling BS on her claim.

[thinkingwoman]

48. Darwin theory holds well? LOL

Um, actually, Darwin theory supports NOT vaccinating. If your offspring isn't hardy enough to survive a case of the chicken pox, should they really be here?

Honestly, the level of intolerance on this board is shocking. Dems are supposed to be all about open mindedness and educating people to think for themselves but the first time they step out of the Dem line, wow!

For the record, my kids were vaccinated against the biggies--Polio, DPT, etc. But no way was I having my kids take a shot against chicken pox.

BTW, you turn away patients? What kind of doctor are you? Oh yeah, a pediatrician. We would never have gone to you anyway. I've always considered your specialty a yuppy phenomenon. Family practice doctors took fine care of my kids when they were young.

No offense intended, of course, just as I'm sure you don't mean to offend those families you dismiss "no questions asked."

[DemExpat]

53. You tell 'em....

like it IS!

:thumbsup:

DemEx

[mzmolly]

65. I couldnt agree more!

Honestly, the level of intolerance on this board is shocking. Dems are supposed to be all about open mindedness and educating people to think for themselves but the first time they step out of the Dem line, wow!

:toast:

[NorthernSpy]

107. perhaps you're misunderstanding Darwin...

Darwinian fitness can be summed up in two words: reproductive success. An organism that figures out a way to protect itself from disease (eg, by taking vaccines), and thereby assures itself of living long enough to reproduce, is indeed fit in the Darwinian sense. This sort of fitness has nothing to do with progress toward some ideal of perfect, "naturally"-maintained health.


Mary

[thinkingwoman]

117. maybe I'm not

survival of the "fittest" is Darwin theory. Twisting fitness to mean "figures out a way to protect itself from disease" remsembles the hairsplitting that produced "depends on what the definition of is is."

Seriously. Darwin refers to physical fitness. There are plenty of good, sound arguments FOR immunizing children against diseases. Darwin isn't one of them.

[NorthernSpy]

120. ah, no "perhaps" about it, I'm afraid...

Darwinian fitness is NOT physical fitness in the athletic, hygienic, or aesthetic senses of the word. It has little necessarily to do with strength, speed, symmetry, or smarts -- or even, strictly speaking, with such apparent goods as longevity past reproductive age and lack of disease. It has everything to do with ones ability to make more of ones kind. A slow, wimpy, wheezy not-very-brightnik who produces many litters of pups is fit; she's passed on her genes. A strong, intelligent, hale, all-around-splendid beast who never reproduces is a genetic dead-end -- hence unfit, so say Darwin.

And, no, I don't cite Darwin as a reason to immunize children. Avoidance of pain and suffering seem pretty good reasons by themselves. It's just that there's so much more to live for apart from mere reproductive success.



Mary

[thinkingwoman]

128. history is regularly rewritten

now science is as well.

Obviously, Darwinian theory holds that the fittest reproduce more successfully and that their offspring survives to reproduce themselves.



But that has "little necesarily" to do with anything, right? Whatever. Rewrite science however you like. This thread has brought me quite a bit of laughs, something I happen to "live for apart from mere reproductive success."

[treepig]

129. behavioral traits play an important role in determining fitness

that's pretty much self-evident i would think.

perhaps it's a stretch to include the specific behavior of choosing to be vaccinated as a genetically-determined trait - but it definitely falls under the umbrella of general intelligence, which certainly has been a major factor in the evolutionary success of homo sapiens in becoming the predominant species on the planet. (with the word "success" used advisedly considering how we've totally fucked up the planet).

[thinkingwoman]

131. my original point

was that Darwinian theory was not soley an argument FOR vaccinating and that it could be used as an argument AGAINST vaccinating as well.

Simple observation really. And highly accurate. Since that post I've read some extremely interesting twisting of Darwinian theory but nothing that actually refutes what I posted in the first place.

P.S. love the disclaimer in parenthesis. I agree.

[NorthernSpy]

134. my point is WAY more modest than that!

perhaps it's a stretch to include the specific behavior of choosing to be vaccinated as a genetically-determined trait (...)


But Treepig, it's a stretch I, at least, didn't make. My mission here is to quash the eugenical misunderstanding of Darwinian fitness wherever it arises. ;)


(...) but it definitely falls under the umbrella of general intelligence, which certainly has been a major factor in the evolutionary success of homo sapiens in becoming the predominant species on the planet. (with the word "success" used advisedly considering how we've totally fucked up the planet).

Or looked at another way, perhaps the truly predominant species on the planet are the various bacteria, and the predominant species among animals are those belonging to class Insecta: after all, insects and germs outnumber us, and also outweigh us in the sense of total biomass.

I do agree with you that we've treated the planet pretty horribly.


Mary

[NorthernSpy]

133. Darwin and the eugenical misunderstanding

history is regularly rewritten(,) now science is as well.

Aye, or else it's probably not science. Science is all about revision in light of new data. No problem there.


Now, I'm not sure you're quite taking in what I've been telling you, but that's not really your fault. I think that most people tend to assume that Darwinian fitness is synonymous with eugenical concerns such as strength, health, intelligence, and so on. There's a tendency to teach Darwin in the context of some putative evolutionary 'progress' from 'inferior' lifeforms to 'superior' ones. But Darwinian fitness really is just reproductive success. And the organism that succeeds in reproducing itself is not necessarily the swiftest, strongest, smartest, or most disease-free. These characteristics may prove useful to varying degrees in the struggle to pass on ones genes (which is beyond obvious -- it's hard to reproduce when one is acutely ill with some deadly disease), but such traits are not simply tantamount to 'Darwinian fitness' -- which you can think of as being more about quantity of offspring, than 'quality' of offspring.

Are you familiar with the so-called Darwin Awards? Those are a prime example of a bad, quasi-eugenical understanding of Darwin. What's really funny is that Darwin Awards fans -- all those self-announced smart folks -- haven't figured out yet that the much scorned Darwin Award recipient likely enjoys greater reproductive success than they ever will. Darwin in action, indeed!


Mary

[thinkingwoman]

135. wow, guess I should ask for my money back

all those biology classes I passed with great grades must have been a sham because I disagree with you.

My husband's biology major must be worthless as well. I have informed him and he is correctly distraut that he doesn't understand darwinian theory either.

Have a nice day.

[bemildred]

136. You just don't know where to start with it, do you?

But I would like to point out that "Darwinian fitness", to make
any sense at all, CANNOT be an attribute of individuals, since it
is a statistical property of breeding populations. Having lots
of offspring may or may not improve the fitness of the gene pool
that you are a part of. In fact breeding populations often go
out of existence precisely because the wrong members get to breed
too much. Sometimes the "wrong" members just get lucky a lot.
Luck has far more to do with it than most of us like to admit on
the scale of an individual lifetime.

But even here we are being very simple minded about it.

About individuals all that one may say is that they did or did not
have lots of offspring, and if one is ambitious one may discuss how
the offspring did and speculate about why. With knowledge about the
genetic makeup of the breeding population and how it has changed over
time, one could speculate about the relevance of individual breeding
behavior to the changes in the gene pool over time.

Just as a thought experiment, what happens to the "darwinian fitness"
of a breeding population if an entirely representative member manages
to have twice as many offspring as normal? Nothing is my guess.

I have read that a super-volcano about 70,000 years ago reduced the
entire human population of the planet to a few thousand individuals.
Does that make everyone else alive at the time "unfit" or just
"unlucky"?

Sorry, the Darwinian drivel sets me off.
:hi:

[thinkingwoman]

137. "CANNOT be an attribute of individuals"--YES

Exactly!

My original post called the pediatrician on the use of darwinian theory in relation to a discussion about vaccinations. I was trying to point out the oversimplification and, frankly, stupidity, of that usage by stating that darwinian theory could be used to argue AGAINST vaccinating as well.

Since then I have read numerous posts which further oversimplify darwinian fitness and breeding success featuring more than a few contradictions (many appearing in the same post, with a few in the same sentence), but none which contradicted my original point that darwinian theory doesn't work as an argument for vaccinating because it could also be used as an argument against it.

I find it funny and sad that many posts responding to mine assume that I:

a. am against vaccinations
b. believe darwinian theory.

Oh well, sorry, the profound lack of reading comprehension has given me a headache.

I do appreciate you bringing up the luck question. It so often is overlooked. I wonder if that has to do with religion and the belief that "everything happens for a reason"? Darwinian theory has always struck me as a desperate attempt to place order on chaos. But that's just me.

Thanks for your thoughtful response.

[bemildred]

138. My pleasure.

I do think the pretended omniscience and authoritarianism
of the modern "health" industry is most amusing.

Since I get headaches easily too, I think I will not pursue
my way into this thorny thicket further.

[muriel_volestrangler]

139. The strict Darwin Awards are meant for people

who "selflessly remove themselves from the gene pool before they have a chance to reproduce", ie kill themselves, or at least make themselves infertile (eg the apocryphal tale of the man who shot himself in the bollocks by substituting a bullet for a fuse in his car), before they've had any children. So the original sense of the awards was valid - these days I think they're more just a collection of 'dumb people' stories.

[mzmolly]

20. One might also consider this website which has some info on the cost of

vaccination?

Provided for a balance.

http://909shot.com/

[Solly Mack]

25. Learning the risk factors for any medicine is something everyone should do

[mzmolly]

27. Thanks Solly for your respectful and reasoned reply.

:hi:

[Solly Mack]

29. You're welcome

I don't take any medication until I research it. No one should.


:)

[truthspeaker]

32. Very little info about "cost" of immunization on that site

I have to give it kudos for not giving out FALSE information, except for continuing to allege the long-discredited immunization/autism link. But it gives you the same information about immunizations you would get from your doctor. Absolutely everyone should get the facts - but don't respond to them with hysteria.

[mzmolly]

41. Where is my hysteria?

There is information about the cost of vacination if you seek it. There are links to other sites and so on.

I could sight numerous websites that provide much information. However, might I suggest hysteria is rushing out every child in the US to be vaccinated for a disease that is no longer? How bout for a disease that takes less than 10 lives per year when the flu takes 30 thousand?

Sorry, I'm not buying it.

Night. I've had this debate before, see post 16 if you'd like to see a more indepth discussion as I've provided links to previous discussions where both sides are discussed at length.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=668789&mesg_id=669356&page=

[Corgigal]

49. for others

who want to read up on this issue and understand why we pause. This article from Mother Jones. You won't get the full article but enough to research other venues.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2004/03/02_354.html

[muriel_volestrangler]

52. Related news from the UK

The only controversial vaccine in the UK is the combined measles, mumps and rubella one. Some say it is linked to autism, though scientific studies overwhelmingly say there's no connection.

Those who do not have their children vaccinated might want to consider if they are 'freeloading' on the backs of those who do - being unwilling to take a small risk of injection complications, and trusting that enough of the rest of the population will take the vaccine so that there isn't an outbreak that risks far more damage.

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3172498

Mumps Cases Soar

In January to March there were 578 reported cases, compared with 331 in the last quarter of 2003.

The Health Protection Agency (HPA) said it was the highest quarterly total since surveillance began in 1995.

The increase may be partly blamed on the scare involving the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) jab, which some parents have claimed causes autism.
...
The HPA said the group at an increased risk of mumps, which can lead to fertility problems, were those aged 14-22.

This was because they either received no MMR jab or only one dose as children.

More than 70% of cases reported in the first three months of this year were among this age group.

[DemExpat]

55. This "freeloading" argument is what led me to make the decision

to have a few basic vaccinations for my children when I was preferring to skip them.....

But increasing numbers of vaccines for all kinds of sickness seems a rather painful and risky business for kids nowadays!

OUCH!

DemEx

[muriel_volestrangler]

58. Good for you!

It's true that in the UK the 'standard' vaccination list is a lot smaller - polio is an oral vaccine, Hib is combined with DTP, flu jabs are optional, hepatitis B is only given to those as high risk, and a chicken pox vaccine is very rare. This ends up as 5 injections by the time the child is 5.

http://www.immunisation.org.uk/whento.html

[mzmolly]

60. Freeloading? I'll add that to the list of unflattering comments thanks.

There isn't one label I haven't worn because of my decision.

Let's see what I'm supposed to *consider*

I'm a freeloader
I'm irresponsible
I'm stupid
I'm reckless
I'm neglectful
I'm an awful parent
I'm endangering others (in spite of the fact that vaccines are quite effective) :eyes:

Also, I don't consider cancer a small complication, I don't consider SIDS a small complication, I don't consider paralysis a small complication, I don't consider death a small complication.

Are you familiar with Bush's "RED ALERT" system here in the US? This article and others like it are IMO scare tactics to keep the vaccinating public fearful and in-line.

Let's use the authors logic for a brief moment:

In 1975 there were approx 1700 cases of pertussis in the US. In 2000 there were almost 8000. In 1975 the vaccination coverage levels for pertussis (whooping cough) were 73% and in 2000 they were 94%. Some people believe that vaccination rates that are too high can be problematic. Perhaps I'm doing you all a favor?

By the way, where is the write up about the failure of this vaccine to prevent whooping cough? Could the same argument be made for vaccination cons based on the type of evidence suggested in the article you presented? I'd say so.

Might I suggest that I am not "freeloading" I'm doing what is right for my child based on the information I have available.

Believe me I've heard it all. NEXT

[muriel_volestrangler]

69. And yet see what happens when vaccination becomes uncommon

Before the introduction of pertussis immunisation in the 1950's, the average annual number of notifications in England and Wales exceeded 100,000. In 1972, when vaccine acceptance was over 80%, there were only 2069 notifications of pertussis. Public anxiety about the safety and efficacy of the vaccine, following a report published suggesting the vaccine was common link between a group of children with brain damage, saw immunisation coverage drop to 30% in 1975 resulting in major epidemics in 1977/70 and 1981/83. As a result more than 200,000 extra notifications and 100 deaths in 1970s and 1980s. Vaccine coverage steadily increased over the next decade as public and professional confidence in the vaccine was restored, reaching 94% in 1995, at which level it has remained. Correspondingly, notifications decreased dramatically during this period with 2000 being the lowest on record.

Despite high vaccination coverage rates, recent international reports have focused on resurgence in whooping cough, often associated with mortality in very young children. The PHLS have initiated a programme of enhanced surveillance to monitor whooping cough numbers and vaccine efficacy. Analysis of data for the years 1995-97 showed that the proportion of pertussis cases in younger, unvaccinated, and to lesser extent adolescents and young adults, is increasing. Mathematical modelling by the Public Health Laboratory Service has demonstrated that a reduction in illness in older age groups and reduced transmission of pertussis to babies too young to be fully protected can be achieved by the introduction of a pertussis booster at pre-school.

http://www.hpa.org.uk/infections/topics_az/whoopingcough/gen_info.htm

[mzmolly]

72. Actually even your article demonstrates that the pertussis vaccine may

be ineffective?

Despite high vaccination coverage rates, recent international reports have focused on resurgence in whooping cough, often associated with mortality in very young children.

One should note however that in spite of what the article implies, death from pertussis is still very rare (in industrialized nations) and generally occurs in infants too young to receive the vaccine.

One might also note that many advances have been made in medicine/clean water and sanitation standards since 1950. And, many diseases have decreased dramatically since then *without vaccination*

Lastly, let me be clear. I am not suggesting vaccines become uncommon. I am suggesting that you and I are allowed to decide on the matter for ourselves without exchanging insults, deal?

[muriel_volestrangler]

74. I don't want to insult you

but I do want parents to be clear on the repercussions of their decisions, for both their own children and others. If a large decrease in vaccination levels can produce an epidemic (not associated with a decrease in sanitation standards), as in 1970s Britain, then people should know that. The danger from vaccination is also disputed; that from non-vaccination (a risk to both the non-vaccinated child, and to others) is clear. If vaccination is not to become uncommon, you have to consider whether your personal decision to not vaccinate your child is justified.

Yes, infants too young to receive the vaccine are at risk - but the best way to protect an infant (assuming it already has general good health) is to stop it catching the disease - since pertussis is highly infectious, vaccination is the best way to do this.

What the figures show is that the vaccination may be becoming less effective. The rates of infection are still far below those of the late 1970s in Britain, which indicates the vaccination still has a significant effect.

[mzmolly]

76. Your acknowledging only one side of the story.

If you'd like to see debate on the subject see post 16 where I have linked other threads on the issue. This debate was fully had on several occasions and I'm tired of the repetition of addressing the same issue/argument over and over again.

With that I shall close.

Peace

[Kiliki]

78. pertusssis vaccine has always had a high failure rate n/t

\

[NorthernSpy]

101. I've actually HAD pertussis, in spite of vaccination...

Pertussis (aka 'whooping cough'): I've had it. Despite having been vaccinated, I caught the disease at age 14, and it made my life a breathless, gasping hell for the next couple of months. I remember collapsing over the history test I was trying to finish -- and nearly blacking out, I was coughing so hard. The infection may have had something to do with the persistent lung problems I've had ever since.

That was a vaccine failure.


But that's not the whole story. There were about twenty-five other kids in my class. Plenty of opportunity to catch pertussis from me, yet not one of them got sick.

That was a vaccine success.


Even if it's not foolproof, or a guarantee of perfect health ever after, immunization is nevertheless a good practice, and one that has spared humans and animals an unimaginable amount of pain and grief and premature death. Seriously -- who really wants to return to the pre-vaccination era, when parents could expect to bury a couple of their children?


Mary

[mzmolly]

108. Are you certain all 25 of the kids in your class were vaccinated?

Curious. I wasn't aware of heavy compliance many years ago.

I also dont recall my great grandmother burying many of her children. One did pass away, but that was due to appendicitis and could have been prevented with a call to 911 today.

[NorthernSpy]

111. well, it's a good bet they'd been immunized...

My state requires all children to receive a number of immunizations -- including one for pertussis -- before they're allowed to enroll in school.

And I think we've had the highest vaccine-compliance rate in the nation for some time now, so I don't think too many people here succeed in getting out of the requirement.


Mary

[mzmolly]

114. Depends on the year. In the 80's the compliance rate was at around

75% nationally.

Also keep in mind the vaccine has a waining effect, and isn't even recommended for kids over 6 so your story could happen in many class rooms today, despite higher vaccination rates.

[Kiliki]

77. Yes absolutely, like say... rotavirus! Look at what happened there-

after children became seriously ill and some began dying from that vaccine and the vaccines popularity waned and was eventually pulled off the shelves by the FDA and the CDC reversed their rotavirus vaccination suggestions we sure saw what happened. Thousands of children every month began dying from rotavirus. The nation went into an uproar over the plague that threatened our very way of life. The media reported one horror story after another. John Ashcroft began an investigation into the possible terror links to rotavirus.

http://www.chiroweb.com/archives/17/24/04.html

Oh wait, thats NOT what happened. What actually happened is children stopped dying from the vaccine, and sometimes they got sick with a naturally occuring illness and found themselves pooping. The species survived, I'm not sure if the drugmaker sharesd the same fate.

Again, its about risk assesment, it's not always riskier to face disease in the wild over vaccination side effects, and the risk of disease in the wild isn't always worth injecting toxins into your small childs body.

[muriel_volestrangler]

86. Interesting; here's an update on that story

http://www.pharmj.com/Editorial/20011020/news/rotavirus.html

However, researchers writing in The Lancet say that admissions to hospital to rectify intussusception did not increase during the period of Rotashield availability and that overall, the incidence of intussusception was lower than before the vaccine was available. For a subset of infants aged 45 to 210 days (the age at which vaccination was considered optimal), a slight increase of 1-4 per cent in the incidence rate was observed. The researchers point out that this contrasts with the projected increase of 23-100 per cent estimated around the time of the vaccine’s withdrawal.

and more current news:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=571&ncid=751&e=2&u=/nm/20040705/hl_nm/health_rotavirus_mexico_dc

New Rotavirus Vaccine Close to Launch in Mexico

[Kiliki]

91. A lawsuit John Edwards might take on....

If I were ROtashield I'd be sending researchers out to exonderate me too!

About the recall-
http://www.adrugrecall.com/rotoshield/rotoshield.html

About the increase in rotavirus after vaccination- http://www.brown.edu/Courses/Bio_160/Projects2004/rotavirus/Rotashield.htm

note- However, shortly after this approval, cases of intussusception were reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a surveillance system which collects information about possible side effects of licensed vaccines. VAERS is a program of the FDA and CDC. Intussusception is a condition in which one segment of the bowel enfolds within another segment, causing obstruction. This condition was seen in the pre-licensure clinical trials, but in rates no higher than rates in non-vaccinated children. However, after licensure, VAERS recorded 76 cases in total, with 70% of those cases occurring after the first dose of vaccine. Due to this surveillance, the CDC recommended that vaccine use be suspended until further studies could be performed. One study found one case in every 5000 to 9500 vaccinated infants, with the highest risk after the first dose.



And now about the lawsuits-
http://www.injuryboard.com/view.cfm/Topic=686
http://www.stromlaw.com/FSL5CS/investigations/investigations64.asp
http://www.defectivedrugsfyi.com/RotaShield.html
www.sarasotalaw.com/sarasotalaw/ vaccines/burtonreport.php

[bonzogeorge]

73. choice

those that don't have children (unless they're medical/scientific experts) have no business entering this discussion. they will never understand the weight of a decision like vaccinating.

no one is stupid enough to argue about the benefits, they are obvious. but it is stupid to attack a parent who doesn't feel that the risks - FOR THEIR CHILD - are clear enough .

not vaccinating your child is actually more of a non-decision. we all want our children protected. protected from the disease and from the side-effects. but we may feel that we only have one side of the story - the benefits - and a whole list of unanswered questions, at least unanswered to our satisfaction.

science these days is corrupt. who believes that any research project carried out these days is done out of a pure motive of finding the "truth". who wouldn't believe that if it were in the financial benefit of some drug corp. to find a link between vaccination and autism, ADD, asthma, whatever, that they couldn't find one with a research study?

[treepig]

83. despite your prejudices and ignorance

science is inddeed done for the sake of "finding the truth." sure, the reasons may be more "real-world" and pragmatic in nature than due to the nobility of the scientists involved, but that makes the reality of the "search for the truth" no less valid. to explain further, there are (at least) 2 reasons:

1) any researcher who publishes does so knowing that his or her results will not be widely believed or accepted without independent verification. and, the results will not and cannot be verified if they have been falsified. any such researcher who publishes un-verifiable results will not be getting their research funded for long (it's not a trivial process getting money from the NIH), and their career is over.

2) natural phenomena are not susceptible to political or social pressures.

[mzmolly]

85. You are not discussing the process for drug approval. The OP

was.

We've talked about the concerns surrounding science that is bought and paid for. It's not quite the same subject as the one you raise.

[treepig]

90. the other poster was quite explicitly describing drug approval

as science. i suggest a re-reading of the last paragraph if you disagree.

maybe the drug approval process has strayed from being scientific. then that problem should be corrected instead of the "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" approach you advocate.

[mzmolly]

93. Dont tell me what I advocate. I advocate real science not science

that is bought and paid for, on this I assume we agree?

[treepig]

94. your posts are profoundly anti-scientific

they in no way support your allegation that you "advocate real science"

"real science" is not found by doing google searches where political advocacy groups cull the literature to present a one-sided (and usually very misleading) synopsis of an issue.

an important part of "real science" is accepting the consensus of the scientific community. that's just the way science works. as i've pointed out before, the scientific consensus on vaccines, or just about any topic, can be found by searching PUBMED:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov (follow the PUBMED link).

what you'll find is that sure, there are lots of problems with vaccines - that's no secret. it's all out there in the open. but, what you and similar naysayers ignore, is that solutions to these problems are being activily sought. instead, you leach onto the 5% negative and ignore the 95% positive.

[mzmolly]

95. I suggest that I have provided "real science."

If you check references from the sources I have provided on NUMEROUS occassions, you'd know that.

My posts largely quote scientists and data from the CDC. I suggest you contact them directly if you have an issue with the data.

Also, most of the information I have provided came directly from scientists and medical journals. *again sometimes it pays to check references*

Lastly, I profess that it is definately NOT ALL OUT IN THE OPEN.

[treepig]

98. your response is indicative of your reasoning throughout this thread

somebody says something, but it's like a tree falling in the forest with no one there to hear it.

specifically, i addressed the issues you raised, but to no avail.

for example, i pointed out that selectively culling the scientific literature - which you do to weed out the vast majority of papers that contradict your viewpoints - is not "real science." then, you tell me to check your references - the problem here in not that you don't have references - it's that you mis-use them.

a case in point is your attempt in post #14 to link sv40-contaminated polio vaccine to cancer. while it's true (and supported by legitimate references)

1) that sv40 does contribute to the development of cancer in certain laboratory animals under certain conditions and

2) that sv40 has been found in human cancers

what has never been established, however, is that the two events are linked in a causative manner. after all, the same two points also apply to water, and nobody seriously claims that cancer is caused by water. of course, sv40 is not water, it is a virus - which has sinister implications that can be couched in scientific language and used for (a) fear-mongering purposes like you do and also to (b) try to establish the case for "further study" like the researchers you link to in #14 are doing.

now, getting back to "real science" - it is not to be found on any old website you link to - sometimes it's not even to be found in the journal known as "Science" - although there's a much higher chance thereof. accordingly, an article in the 25 Oct 2002 issue titled "Creeping Consensus on SV40 and Polio Vaccine" establishes that SV40 has not caused an epidemic of cancer. this conclusion was reached by a panel that excluded "anyone who had ever sat on a government vaccine panel or received money from government of industry for vaccine research" in order to prevent the appearance of a conflict of interest that would have occurred if these evil, evil people had had their say. if you wish to reject their findings, like i said that's fine - but that rejection falls outside of the consensus of the scientific community and by definition cannot be considered to be "real science."

finally, if you were interested in "real science" you'd also throw in some "real facts" such as sv40 has not been in polio vaccine for decades, and is absolutely not a reason to reject polio vaccine today. (science, unlike you, has a strange habit of looking at things objectively and also is based on having a rudimentary understanding of mathematics).

[mzmolly]

103. Talk about a tree falling in the forest with no one there to hear it.

I fear you are too brainwashed to have an open discussion on the matter.

However I have maintained all along that my GOAL is to present THE OTHER SIDE of the story, thus my dismissal of the typical medical propaganda here.

However you seem to miss a couple key things once again.

finally, if you were interested in "real science" you'd also throw in some "real facts" such as sv40 has not been in polio vaccine for decades, and is absolutely not a reason to reject polio vaccine today. (science, unlike you, has a strange habit of looking at things objectively and also is based on having a rudimentary understanding of mathematics).

I also believe I've pointed out that SV40 may not have been removed when some claim:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2001/07/22/MN173141.DTL

http://www.thevirusandthevaccine.com/factsheet.html

Now are you suggesting that SV40 like incidents can never happen again? Are you suggesting that science has identified every potentially harmful animal virus and is able to screen for it? Are you suggesting that polio is an epidemic and I should jump on the fear bandwagon? Sorry I'm not biting.

I have asked snow to read the following book and have a discussion, are you willing to do so?

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0312278721/qid=1082399315/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-2986994-3397703?v=glance&s=books

A reader from Washington, D.C.
I was involved in the defense of President Clinton during his impeachment proceedings. The hearings that the Judiciary held during those proceedings left me with a cynical attitude towards our government, but the impeachment proceedings did not shock me as much as the story this book tells about our government giving a contaminated vaccine to millions of children, knowing that it had a monkey virus that had caused cancer in laboratory animals. Worse yet, the medical leaders in our government repressed research showing that this virus could cause cancer in humans. I highly recommend reading this book to find out what they did to the millions of people who were given that vaccine.


I haven't rejected ANYTHING as I've said on NUMEROUS OCCASSIONS VACCINES MAY BE AS SAFE AND EFFECTIVE AS YOU CLAIM. Now admit that they MAY NOT be.

[treepig]

110. my point is that you're taking an non-scientific approach

if you wish to reject science, i have no problem with that. for example, the undisputed view of the scientific community is that therapeutic agents can/should be developed for the treatment and cure of cancer. if you (or anyone) were to be diagnosed with cancer, in the vast majority of cases, some type of treatment regimen would be advised by the medical or health care provider. in many cases this treatment would be indequate to restore you to complete health, and may indeed cause greater suffering; consequently a fair number of people elect to forgo chemotherapy, radiation treatment, or whatever. these people have chosen to go the non-scientific route, based on what they feel is best for them. i have no problem with that. what i would have a problem with is them claiming (a) they have a better chance of recovery/prolonged life by rejecting medical care and (b) the fact that there are not 100% effective anti-cancer drugs available is the result of a vast conspiracy on the part of dark and highly placed governmental and pharmacetical agents.


even so, if you wish to buy into all the conspiracy theories about how the big evil government and pharmaceutical companies are out to get you - that's fine too. it's just not science - that's my point - stop claiming it is.


clearly, in retrospect, mistakes were made in the early days of polio vaccine. but really, it's only from the luxury of having developed an effective vaccine that we can be armchair quarterbacks and deliver scathing critiques of the efforts of alot of highly dedicated researchers (btw, the vast majority of basic biomedical research in the usa is done by graduate students and post-docs - people who often have 20+ years of education and work 75-90 hour weeks for under $30K a year - i'm sure they're much to busy to be reading this forum but if they were i doubt they'd be all that appreciative of your efforts to demean them).

and just how safe and effective have i claimed vaccines to be? and why should i reject these non-existent claims? what i've said is go to the primary literature and evaluate for oneself how safe and effective they are. the medical and scientific community has done this and found that the miniscule risk they pose to be far outweighed by the benefits to society. perhaps an analogy - only pertinent for the risk analysis aspects - that even you can understand would be found in the risks that i encounter in driving my car down to the supermarket to buy food for my child. now i'm sure you could search the internet and compile a most impressive list of horrifying links proving i'm an awful, awful parent to expose my child to a mode of transportation that kills thousands and badly injuries 10's of thousands of children each year. however, since i'm capable of rational risk analysis, i would stand by my decision as there are much greater risks for not doing (my child will starve).

[mzmolly]

116. Stop claiming this is my conclusion:

you wish to buy into all the conspiracy theories about how the big evil government and pharmaceutical companies are out to get you - that's fine too. it's just not science - that's my point - stop claiming it is.

You have yet to address one point I've made. Is it the long hours your putting in?

the medical and scientific community has done this and found that the miniscule risk they pose to be far outweighed by the benefits to society.

ONE CAN NOT WEIGH THE RISKS IF NO ONE IS TRACKING THEM.

So again I ask you, can you tell me how many children are dying from vaccines every year? Can you tell me how many children are experiencing long term complications?

If you can't then your case is zip.

The CDC HAS PRECISE INFORMATION REGARDING DEATHS FROM DISEASE AND VACCINE COMPLIANCE RATES going back to 1950. Why can't the CDC give me the information I seek regarding death from vaccination? VAERS data is passive and unreliable according to the government and I would again ask why?

If you can't answer my questions the claim you make above is *junk science*

Snow suggested we all get a life, and that's what I am about to do.

:hi:

[treepig]

118. really, no one is tracking the risks?

then how do you explain the efforts of these people?

http://www.iom.edu/project.asp?id=4705

of course, if their conclusions differ from yours, it's junk science and not to be believed.

further, the book you're touting above tells how our government gave

a contaminated vaccine to millions of children, knowing that it had a monkey virus that had caused cancer in laboratory animals. Worse yet, the medical leaders in our government repressed research showing that this virus could cause cancer in humans.

that sounds awfully close to the "conspiracy theory" nonsense you deny propagating. in any event, the efforts to repress research were not entirely successful considering that there are now 14,623 research papers on sv40 available through PUBMED. despite this wealth of data, there still is not conclusive evidence that sv40 is a human carcinogen - which is mighty strange considering at least 100 million people were exposed 4+ decades ago. consequently, two conclusions are possible

1) the "conspiracy theory" government repression of data you now reject or

2) sv40 is the most pathetically weak human carcinogen imaginable.

[mzmolly]

119. Believe me I'm familar with the IOM

http://www.mothering.com/10-0-0/html/10-8-0/update-on-thimerosal.shtml

However this does not answer my question(s) does it?

Regarding SV40, even the CDC isn't as bold and dismissive as you are.

I would suggest that conducting studies and getting the information OUT is not the same thing.

Please clarify, are you saying of the 14 thousand plus studies you note, that the overwhelming majority are independently funded AND conclude that there isn't a causal relationship?

You appear to be making this bold statement. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Here are some additional references for you.

http://www.sv40cancer.com/sci.asp

http://www.sv40cancer.com/pub.asp

http://www.iom.edu/Object.File/Master/7/374/0.pdf

Again, will you read the book I asked about? :shrug:

[javadu]

124. This Seems Somewhat Naive

I agree with you in regards to what science is supposed to be what you describe this is the same thing that I have heard from all of my research methods profs. Indeed, I think that the large majority of all scientists are noble souls.

Nevertheless, the translation of science to policy is fraught with examples of how money corrupts the process. After September 11, one of the top priorities of the Bush admin. was to indemnify the drug companies against harm done by vaccines. Why would they do that? Is it because there was credible evidence that vaccines may do some harm?

I know from personal experience that your statement is true and that it is not a trivial thing to get money from the NIH. However, the NIH has biases about what is and is not important to study just like everyone else has. The idea that science and statistics are somehow "objective" seems like a quaint idea to me. The biggest problem with science is NOT that scientists lie or publish untruths, but the problem is that some things get studied and other things don't.

It may not seem like it from what I have written above, but I am honestly on the fence on this issue. My problem with the anti-vaccine folks is that they can not describe the specific chemical processes by which vaccines do harm. On the one hand I agree with them that there has not been enough research in this area. On the other hand, they need to be able to describe specifically HOW vaccines or the delivery chemicals in vaccines cause harm. In other words, what are the specific chemicals that do harm? What kind of harm do they do? So far, the anti-vaccine folks have not yet convinced me that they know the answer to this.

[treepig]

127. it's not really clear to me what the business and politics

of the relationship of pharmaceutical companies and the bush administration have to do with science. kinda seems like grasping at straws in your efforts to vilify science. i realize that there have been instances where shoddy manufacturing quality control measures have led to bad batches of vaccines being produced and actually used. once again, exactly what these piss-poor business practices of large corporation have to do with science is beyond my (admittedly feeble) comprehension.

and i agree that it's a problem that some things get studied and others don't.

but is it the fault of scientists that the bush administration has but the kibosh on research into sexually transmitted diseases?

is it the fault of scientists that the bush administration has severely restricted stem cell research?

even leaving aside these political considerations, consider that the NIH is able to fund only 8-30% of the scientifically sound research proposals it receives due to budgetary constraints. now let's say that it receives a proposal that will lead to advances in the treatment of some type of childhood leukemia for which there are 20,000 cases annually. it receives another proposal to study the risks of vaccines - for which there is no good biochemical mechanism offered to explain the cellular mechanisms by which the supposed damage is done, neither are their epidemiological studies to support that such risks even exist. i think that most sane people will agree that if only one of these proposals can be funded due to budgetary constraints, it makes sense to fund the first one. anti-vaccine fanatics will seize on this decision to write another chapter in the repression and corruptness of the government-pharmaceutical cabal and its brainwashed minions. meanwhile real children are dying from real diseases - but since they were caused by mother nature, not scientists run amok, that's ok.

going back to the 1950's - consider the scenario if the government had not allowed the polio vaccine to be used because it had not undergone a 50-year testing period to uncover any rarely-occurring deleterious effects. in that case, there probably would have been a few hundred thousand (or million) cases of polio by now and imagine the outrage if an activist discovered that a vaccine had been available five or six decades ago but the government repressed it based on unfounded fears that it might cause a few types of rare cancers. basically, the decision had to be made whether to use the imperfect vaccine or not - personally i agree with the decision that was made. i suspect that most people who lived through the 1940s and 1950's also agree with the decision.

[Corgigal]

130. try this:

My child was Central Auditory processing disorder so I'm up on mercury. CAPD is becoming the benchmark for autism because all austic children have CAPD. However he has no other behavioral or neuro affects.

link: http://www.healing-arts.org/children/vaccines/vaccines-mercury.htm#Origins


The FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation & Research (CBER) began by adding up the total amount of mercury given to children through vaccines in the U.S. immunization schedule. Thimerosal was present in over 30 licensed vaccines in the U.S. in concentrations of 0.003% to 0.01%. According to the agency's calculations, an infant six months old, receiving all vaccine doses on schedule, would receive:

75 micrograms of mercury from three doses of DTP,
75 micrograms from three doses of Hib, and
37.5 micrograms from three doses of hepatitis B vaccine;

for a total of 187.5 micrograms of mercury.

Thimerosal is metabolized in humans to ethylmercury, but guidelines for safe mercury intake relate only to methylmercury. The literature on ethylmercury toxicity was so scant that toxicologists did not know if ethylmercury was more or less toxic than methylmercury. Left with no choice, CBER analysts assumed that the toxicity of the ethyl compound was equivalent to the methyl compound

[mzmolly]

132. Actually there is much information as to *how* vaccines do harm.

Especially in the short term.

Even the CDC acknowleges that vaccines can and do kill children each year. They say it's necessary to *save lives*

I consider myself on the fence on this issue also, believe it or not. I don't suggest we stop vaccination, I suggest a person should decide for themself after balanced information on the subject.

Further, I don't try to prove vaccines cause harm, I simply point out that there are too many unanswered questions/known side effects for me to subject my child to this procedure given the current risk of disease.

Some say, well the risk is low because of vaccines. I say that may be true, but we don't know what the *exchange* is. For example, are we trading polio for cancer? If not, are there other considerations we are not factoring in? Should the way vaccines are manufactured be re-examined?

Encephalitis is one example of the harm that can be done via vaccines. Ironically often times the vaccines have the same potential sickly/deadly outcome as disease.

One example I would like to note is below.
These are the noted side effects for DPT according to the CDC.

I read this while considering this shot.

I decided against at the time because I didn't have a child in day care, and the shot is to protect other children according to the CDC. Kids are not considered at risk above 6 months of age, and the shot isn't considered protective until one has had the last booster at 18 months.

http://www.cdc.gov/nip/vacsafe/concerns/side-effects.htm#dtap

Mild problems (common)

Fever (up to about 1 child in 4)
Redness or swelling where the shot was given (up to about 1 child in 4)
Soreness or tenderness where the shot was given (up to about 1 child in 4)
These problems occur more often after the 4th and 5th doses of the DTaP series than after earlier doses. Sometimes the 4th or 5th dose of DTaP vaccine is followed by swelling of the entire arm or leg in which the shot was given (up to about 1 child in 30).

Other mild problems include:

Fussiness (up to about 1 child in 3)
Tiredness or poor appetite (up to about 1 child in 10)
Vomiting (up to about 1 child in 50)
These problems generally occur 1-3 days after the shot.

Moderate problems (uncommon)

Seizure (jerking or staring) (about 1 child out of 14,000)
Non-stop crying, for 3 hours or more (up to about 1 child out of 1,000)
High fever, over 105F (about 1 child out of 16,000)
Severe problems (very rare)

Serious allergic reaction (breathing difficulty, shock) (less than 1 out of a million doses)
Other severe problems have been reported after DTaP vaccine. These include:
Long-term seizures, coma, or lowered consciousness
Permanent brain damage.
These are so rare it is hard to tell if they are caused by the vaccine.

After reading the side effects, and noting about 5-10 infants die each year from whooping cough, and that children can and do die from vaccination, I opted out.

[Snow]

81. You can add "Doesn't understand denominators" to the list...

and apparently not interested either. The deaths from various diseases occur among how many people? And the deaths from various vaccinations occur among how many people? Divide and compare. I don't have to guess to know that the death and morbidity rates from vaccinations are much lower than from the diseases, since the deaths and morbidity due to disease are occurring in a much smaller segment of the population.

[mzmolly]

84. How bout the "doesn't care if vaccines take more lives than they spare

cause we don't really know, oh well" category?

Also, how can you arrive at at a denominator without adequate data? The reason I look at the specific numbers and make my decision accordingly is because sufficient data does not exist.

As an epidemeologist you should be asking tough questions of the drug makers and the CDC. Especially given you are in a unique position to defend vaccination.

Can you show me what data you are compiling regarding vaccine related deaths? I can't locate any solid data myself. To my understanding the collection of such data hasn't been a priority. Unless you know of something other than VAERS data?

Also, have you accounted for the 10-30 million Americans given SV40 via the polio vaccine? How bout the fact that SV40 related cancer can be transmitted via saliva from person to person? Or the fact that it may be passed on to future generations?

Again, please show me where you are finding solid data on DEATHS FROM VACCINATION in the short and long term. I'd love to see it.

Also, the goal is to save lives is it not? If you have to vaccinate 95% of the population to have adequate protection, your theory is flawed regardless.

[Snow]

89. Well, you're poisoning the well, you see, by

maligining the data resources before I can even get out the door. Think about it this way, though. Suppose you're a typical emigrant to Los Angeles, where I live, and you get increasingly concerned about safety. You note that LA is having hundreds, nay, thousands of murders (okay, maybe it's only hundreds) per year. Fearful, you look for places that have less murders, or even minimal murders, and you happen upon Redclay, Wyoming. Only 2 murders per year. Obviously much safer - great place to raise a family, etc. Arriving there, you add 4 people (with your spouse & 2 kids) to the population, increasing the population of Redclay to 27 - and settle in, feeling much safer.

That's the denominator problem in a nutshell - those who suffer vaccine reactions come from an enormous pool of possible victims, whereas those who suffer from vaccine-preventable diseases come from a much, much smaller pool. I'd rather live in LA, myself, but others may choose Redclay.

[mzmolly]

92. But the enormous pool is necessary for vaccines to be effective.

So as they say *poof* ;)

Hey, I'd also rather live in LA than Redclay, imagine that ... we agree on something.

I like your scenario though. I'll play:

Let's say you were looking to settle in a province in Canada because you heard it's a safer place to raise a family than LA. Let's also assume none of the provinces gathered sufficient data on anything but gun murders because they passed laws restricting fire-arms in 1973. The data demonstrates that murders committed with guns have decreased but data on other causes of murder was deemed not really important because guns were "the problem" anyhow. Let's make it more interesting and say that Canada mandated knives for citizens to carry for protective purposes because no one can have a gun anymore. :P Would you be satisfied with claims that Canada today is safer because of the anti-gun legislation?

Pardon my spelling/grammar in advance.

[Snow]

102. And the enormous pool is also necessary for the rare side-effects

to show up. That's why the numbers can look intimidating; because there's such a large population at potential risk of problems.

Not sure I'm following your counter-murder example. I was simply trying to make a point about what a difference a denominator makes, whereas your example gets away from denominators altogether, and makes a point about a mortality shift, with no corresponding diagnostic shift. It's a bit of a stretch, since I find it difficult to imagine someplace not tracking, say, nunchuku murders while tracking gun murders. Let's see if I can think of a medical example where that's happened (other than the one you're implying)....

Certainly there's less awareness of some causes of death than others. For example, the number of people in the US who die yearly from g-i bleeds resulting from NSAID use (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory meds, a very commonly prescribed medication) is equal to the number of deaths yearly from AIDS.

The number of people who die yearly from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease resulting from smoking is much higher than the number who die from lung cancer resulting from smoking even though the multiplicative risk of lung cancer is much higher (20 times for lung cancer vs 5 time for COPD) because lung cancer is much rarer than COPD.

I don't think I'm really getting at your question, so I'll think on it a bit more.

[mzmolly]

104. My question is simple. How many children are dying from vaccination

every year?

Follow up question: How can you arrive at a comparitive ratio with out that figure?

My point was we are tracking deaths from disease with vigor, but not death from vaccination, why?

[Snow]

109. Yes, I realized what your question was, and the answer,

assumibg your premise to be correct, is that we track deaths from infectious, preventable diseases with more diligence than vaccine deaths because those diseases are transmissable and represent a potential failure in prevention, therefore in community medical care.

I disagree with your premise, however, and offer as argument the huge Vaccine Safety Data Link, which has been running for decades, finding rare outcomes of importance and being instrumental in the post-trial studies of vaccines. It can be much more difficult to track morbidity and mortality from vaccines than from preventable diseases because the latter are much easier to diagnose. A child may fall ill, even die, following a vaccination, but it's very difficult to call that causal, whereas a child ill from measles or pertussis is much easier to identify as ill because of that particular cause.

[mzmolly]

112. The reason it's difficult to track is because ???

I suggest the reason is a lack of interest on the part of the industry.

I have heard it expressed as such:

Doctors are trained to diagnose disease, not to look for vaccination reaction/injury and or death. Many believe that large numbers of deaths from vaccination are explained away as something unrelated because of the collective cognitive dissonance of medical practitioners.

If we put the kind of money/effort into tracking vaccine reaction/death that we do into tracking disease/death, we'd have some answers. But I expect it will continue to be dismissed as insignificant so I shant hold my breath. ;)

Further, one can't criticize my inability to *understand denominators* weigh science and crunch the numbers if the numbers don't exist.

[SW FL Dem]

121. Here in FL and in CA, you can't get your kid into school without them

FL has a recent law that checks again at 7th grade to make sure your kid has all the required shots. Many of my son's friends hadn't had the Hep B series (3 shots) and had to start the series at 12.

[Snow]

122. Those may not work as well in theory as in practice...

don't know here in CA, but in nebraska it was straightforward for parents to get a waiver, with very little in the way of a reason. And years ago, mid 70's, i was a lowly field epidemiologist in southeatern Kentucky, Appalachia, where enforcement of vaccination laws was by the county school superintendent. One county in particular had a superintendent who stayed in office by promising to not enforce the vaccination laws. Well, no surprise, a few years of that and we had a nasty outbreak of pertussis among the lower grade kids there - dozens of kids, really sick. I got called in to help with the outbreak, and it was not pretty. Poor Appalachian kids are not in the best of health to begin with, then to have a serious illness like this was tragic.

[SW FL Dem]

123. My only experience in FL was a series of notes starting in

6th grade stating that my son couldn't start 7th grade unless he had his shots. The school actually suspended kids that didn't have the shots until they produced evidence that they got them. Some kids missed the entire first semester, unless they attended alternative school since the Hep B series had to be administered over 3 months.

[Kiliki]

126. Thats pretty typical

they don't really advertise the exemption/waiver process, typically its only after a parent becomes educated and decides to avoid, delay or selectivly vaccinate that they start to research legalities and learn about the waiver process.

[Kiliki]

125. Not true-

There are waivers in all 50 states.

CA has a very liberal policy, they allow Philisophical or Conscientious Objection exemption (you write a letter and say vaccines are contrary to your personal beliefs or philosophy)

Both CA and FL allow religious exemption.

Both CA and FLA allow medical exemption.