Should Vaccines be mandated by the Federal Government?

[gully]

I had to post this in my former user name b/c I still need to donate under my new one

~Peace

I am going to try my darndest to stay out of this discussion. :)

Edited to add:

http://www.aapsonline.org

"Nov. 2, 2000

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Contact: Kathryn Serkes [phone]


DOCTORS’ GROUP VOTES TO OPPOSE VACCINE MANDATES

A leading national physician organization is calling for a moratorium on all government mandated vaccines and has passed a resolution to that end at their annual meeting.

Members of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) voted this week at their 57th Annual Meeting in St. Louis to pass a resolution calling for an end to mandatory childhood vaccines. The resolution passed without a single "no" vote. (Resolution and mandatory vaccine fact sheet posted at www.aapsonline.org)

"Our children face the possibility of death or serious long-term adverse effects from mandated vaccines that aren’t necessary or that have very limited benefits," said Jane M. Orient, MD, AAPS Executive Director.

"This is not a vote against vaccines," said Dr. Orient. "This resolution only attempts to halt blanket vaccine mandates by government agencies and school districts that give no consideration for the rights of the parents or the individual medical condition of the child."

http://www.aapsonline.org/press/nrvacres.htm

**Please help me keep this kicked**

[mzmolly]

1. Kickin it.

:kick:

Night :hi:

[mzmolly]

2. I voted NO.

;)

[RICHBUM]

159. ANTHRAX VACCINE causes Brain Damage with Toxic Chemicals

[TAH6988]

3. I voted

no as well. But then, I also believe if you get polio (just an example of a successful vaccine), don't expect the government to spend loads of money taking care of you.

[mzmolly]

8. What if you get the flu, which is far more deadly?

20,000 - 30,000 plus die from the flu every year in the US.

In 1951 "before vaccination" and other advances in modern medicine, polio claimed 1551 lives in the US.

[TAH6988]

13. OK

Same thing.

[mzmolly]

15. Have you and your children been vaxed for the flu?

It's not currently mandated so that's why I ask? :shrug: ;)

[TAH6988]

17. What's your point?

I have no children and I'm a very healthy 43 yo. VERY unlikely I'll get killed by the flu. Either way, it's now MY choice if I want to receive the vaccination--as it is not mandated. If I chose not to, then I live with the consequences. BTW, for 25 years, I had no choice in that matter--I was in the Air Force.

[mzmolly]

18. I was just curious is all.

Also, what are your thoughts on the Anthrax vax? Being former military. I know some are leary of this one. EEK!

I do honestly wonder why there is so much hysteria surrounding say 'measles' when the 'flu' is considered no biggie KWIM?

For example in 1962 measles claimed 408 lives in the entire US. In addition, we have many other advances in modern medicine today that would reduce that # even with out vaccination.

Flu Deaths each year:

http://www.medicalnewsservice.com/ARCHIVE/MNS1444.cfm

"Using new and improved statistical models, CDC scientists estimate that an average of 36,000 people (up from 20,000 in previous estimates) die from influenza related complicated each year in the United States. In addition, about 11,000 people die per year from respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), a virus that causes upper and lower respiratory tract infections primarily in young children and older adults. The study demonstrates that most deaths caused by RSV occur in the elderly."

I want to say I do appreciate having vaccines, and having a choice as to whether or not to use them should an outbreak of ? occur. However, as with any medical procedure I am aware that there are risks involved.

I think they'll probably mandate the flu vaccine in the future huh?

[TAH6988]

22. I did not want to take

the anthrax vax, but would have had no choice. I had to order some troops to take smallpox, though (after I did of course).

No, I don't think "they" will mandate the flu vaccine as a matter of course.

[mzmolly]

23. YIKES!

That would be tough. Glad your here with us and not in the middle east!

~Peace

[maha]

67. There's mandatory, and then there's mandatory

In most if not all states, certain vaccinations are required for children to attend public school, for stuff like diptheria, whooping cough, tetanus, measles, etc. These vaccines are mandatory now and should remain so. You must have had these vaccinations as a child and may be alive because of it.

Flu is an "elective" vaccine, and I think that it should remain so as well.

[mzmolly]

76. Most states have 'some' form of exemption from vaccines:

http://www.access1.net/via/STATES/allstates.htm

In my state vaccines are 'required' but the ultimate authority is with the parents.

"If a notarized statement signed by the minor child's
parent or guardian or by the emancipated person is submitted to
the administrator or other person having general control and
supervision of the school or child care facility stating that
the person has not been immunized as prescribed in subdivision 1
because of the conscientiously held beliefs of the parent or
guardian of the minor child or of the emancipated person, the
immunizations specified in the statement shall not be required.
This statement must also be forwarded to the commissioner of the
Department of Health."

Most parents are not aware they have this authority however.

[politicat]

123. It's unpopular, but I think mandatory if you're in public schools or

communal housing.

Boulder parents know about the exemption, and Pertussis (whooping cough) is out of control here in Boulder County because the parents won't do vaccinations and immunizations. 1300 cases last year.

We have measles outbreaks every year. We have mumps outbreaks (and that one is scary - sterility is nasty.) 200 cases and 170 cases last year.

I have mine, so being exposed is no big deal to me, but I would not want my (hypothetical) child getting hit with measles at 7 months because I took her to daycare and some other parent was irresponsible. (Vaccinations and immunizations are supposed to start at 12 months.)

The autism argument, BTW, has been debunked by merely looking at the rates and where the diagnoses are coming from. (Will cite in morning if someone wants the citation - those files at office.)

Politicat

[mzmolly]

126. The outbreaks you mention didn't appear to result in mass death?

at least I don't see any recent #'s from the CDC that would indicate such.

For example:

I will use the most recent data from 1999 for the entire US.

Diptheria = 1 death
Tetanus = 7 deaths
Measles = 2 deaths
Pertussis = 7 deaths
Polio = 0 deaths (2 cases *caused by vaccines?*)
Mumps = 7 death
Rubella = 0 deaths
Chx pox = 48 deaths

*keep in mind there are higher risk groups in all of these stats, and the people in question may or may not have been 'fully' vaccinated.

Also according to the CDC, The average number of deaths each year from influenza in the U.S. was approximately 20,000 - now it is 36,000. I dont think people who opt out of the flu vax are considered irresponsible are they?

Also flu deaths are on the rise in spite of the vaccine. Though, I know creating flu vaccines poses a greater challenge.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/07/health/main535605.shtml

Additionally, keep in mind diagnoses of disease may be skewed when vaccination history is considered.

For example a fully vaccinated child may have a disease ruled out because of their vaccine status, and have a different diagnosis thus skewing data. *Which is why I look at mortallity rates when weighing information*

I wish we could be respectful of one anothers choices on this issue though. Let's start now huh?

I won't call others sheep if I am not called insane or irresponsible, what's say you? :shrug: ;)

[trotsky]

140. mzmolly, why should death be the ONLY factor?

As others have pointed out, medical resources are tied up treating diseases that could have been prevented with a vaccine. Resources that might better be used saving heart attack victims, or anyone else in the hospital due to unpreventable reasons (accidents, etc.).

Plus, many of the vaccinated diseases leave long-term disabilities, from scars to hearing loss to brain damage. Don't those victims of disease count? You are quick to count possible vaccine injuries for your case, why not those from the diseases themselves, which are established and proven?

[mzmolly]

141. What is the 'cost' of vaccination.

Why not consider the medical resources involved in this process? We are vaccinating virtually 'every' child in the US about 50 times

Keep in mind, vaccines cripple, mame and even kill children. Does anyone consider the medical resources involved in that case?

*Vaccination injuries are also 'established' and 'proven' I might add. Even according to the federal government.


"Vaccinations cost us much more than just the lives and health of our children. The U.S. Federal Government's National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP) has paid out over $650.6 million to parents of vaccine injured and killed children, a rate of nearly $90 million per year in taxpayer dollars. The NVICP has received over 5000 petitions since 1988, including over 700 for vaccine-related deaths, and there are still some two thousand total death and injury cases pending that may take years to resolve. <10> Meanwhile, pharmaceutical companies have a captive market: vaccines are legally mandated in all 50 U.S. states (though legally avoidable in most; yet these same companies are "immune" from accountability for the consequences of their products. Furthermore, they have been allowed to use "gag orders" as a leverage tool in vaccine damage legal settlements to prevent disclosure of information to the public about vaccination dangers. Such arrangements are clearly unethical; they force a nonconsenting American public to pay for vaccine manufacturer's liabilities, while attempting to ensure that this same public will remain ignorant of the dangers of their products."

"It is interesting to note that insurance companies (who do the best liability studies) refuse to cover vaccine adverse reactions. Profits appear to dictate both the pharmaceutical and insurance companies' positions.

I assure you, I have considered the issues.

[trotsky]

147. Missing the point yet again.

Have you compared the number of injuries caused by vaccines to those caused by the diseases themselves in pre-vaccine days?

Your entire objection hinges on an argument from ignorance.

[mzmolly]

151. You missed my point...

You asked ~ "Have you compared the number of injuries caused by vaccines to those caused by the diseases themselves in pre-vaccine days?"

First of all it's difficult to do as the Government hasn't even done so. I think you should pose that question to them as I did.

However the answer to your question is YES I have, and I have provided that information here on occasion.

I have also pointed out here several times...that strangely enough, no one in Government is interested in finding out the "number of injuries caused by vaccines" each year. In fact there interested in poo pooing the fact that they happen.

I have compared 'reported' injuries and calculated that vaccines likely do kill more children each year *even in the short term* then they save. The CDC *who used to acknowledge this* claimed that this is because virtually every child in the US is 'vaccinated' and not every child is exposed to disease.

Is this rationale making any more sense to you then it does to me?

As I said however, comparisons are a difficult task, because "injuries caused by vaccines" are not tracked adequately.

Sloppy estimates from the Government are that anywhere from 1,650-20,000 die in the short term each year from vaccination. However, finding this information is like looking for a needle in a haystack.

Are you concerned that the CDC is making claims that it doesn't back up. Are you concerned that they claim that more children are saved by vaccines then perish from them (when they are not friggin tracking the number of children who perish?)

"Asking the CDC to look into vaccine safety is like asking the fox to guard the chicken coop."--Dr Bernard Rimland ~Research psychologist (Ph.D.). and Director Of the Autism Research Institute.

[trotsky]

156. So your entire point is:

That basically, everyone in the CDC is willfully engaged in a giant conspiracy with the pharmaceuticals to kill children so that they can make more money.

That is a patently outlandish claim, one which requires an abundance of evidence far above what you have been able to present.

Check the CDC links I provided in another response. You attack the CDC for not tracking numbers, well, you're wrong. Period.

[mzmolly]

160. Allow me to clarify...

I dont recall that you have supplied links that provide death/morbidity information regarding vaccines?

And I'd like to say, I've been over every link you can imagine on the CDC website. I have also watched FAUX news, and I consider the source in both cases. I've seen how the CDC spins information to press their agenda with out regard for the whole story.

You seem to feel I indicate the following ~ "That basically, everyone in the CDC is willfully engaged in a giant conspiracy with the pharmaceuticals to kill children so that they can make more money."

My actual claim is that the CDC is focused on the goal of promoting vaccines. Pharmaceutical companies on the other hand, have the desire to make money. In fact, they were going to get out of the vaccine business because they were fearful of losing too much $$ due to law suits. At that time the Gov stepped in with:

The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (PL-99-660) is a vaccine safety and compensation system which (1) created a no-fault compensation alternative to suing vaccine manufacturers and providers on behalf of citizens injured or killed by vaccines; ...

They assured the pharm co.s that 'we' the taxpayers would absorb much of the cost of vaccine liability.

So you see, I feel the Pharmaceutical companies and the Government work together to accomplish their goals, and they consider the 'cost' worth it in the the long run. I feel they are looking at things through a very narrow scope.

Of course, I don't think the goal is to kill children, I just think that's an end result of the other goals combined.

I still can't get the CDC to tell my how many children die or become seriously unjured from vaccinations. Why aren't they interested in this?

They can tell me that 48 people died of Chicken pox in 1999 and we should all rush out and get a jab so we are not one of the 'victims' of this now :scared: disease.

Interestingly enough, I also recall the CDC stating that the rotavirus vaccine was safe and the controversy surrounding it was sheer nonsense. They espoused that we should 'all' be using it to protect our children from potential death/disease. My child would have had this vaccine.

They did pull it off the market eventually. That's one thing they did do right ;)

[trotsky]

191. Here is one last link for you.

Better than actual death stats, this gives the known ratios of the harmful effects of vaccines to the harmful effects of disease.

http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/6mishome.htm

To save you the click, I'll reproduce the most pertinent part here. But please, if you do nothing else, read the full page. It directly addresses most of the "arguments" you've made against vaccination. Please, I beg you, read it.

Risk from Disease versus Risk from Vaccines
DISEASE

Measles
Pneumonia: 6 in 100
Encephalitis: 1 in 1,000
Death: 2 in 1,000

Rubella
Congenital Rubella Syndrome: 1 in 4 (if woman becomes infected early in pregnancy)

VACCINES

MMR
Encephalitis or severe allergic reaction:
1 in 1,000,000

DISEASE

Diphtheria
Death: 1 in 20

Tetanus
Death: 2 in 10

Pertussis
Pneumonia: 1 in 8
Encephalitis: 1 in 20
Death: 1 in 200

VACCINES

DTaP
Continuous crying, then full recovery: 1 in 1000
Convulsions or shock, then full recovery: 1 in 14,000
Acute encephalopathy: 0-10.5 in 1,000,000
Death: None proven

[mzmolly]

195. Your so sweet to continue with me...

I assure you I've have seen this a number of times, and read the entire piece. As I've said I looked at both sides.

However, their claims don't coincide with their own stats on death and disease rates. They take the most favorable 'statistic' and post it as fact. :shrug:

Also note their 'fair balanced' review of deaths from vaccines.

When I read this info, I become even more frustrated and enraged.

VACCINES

DTaP
Continuous crying, then full recovery: 1 in 1000
Convulsions or shock, then full recovery: 1 in 14,000
Acute encephalopathy: 0-10.5 in 1,000,000
Death: None proven

What do they consider proven. The government pays out 'proven' death claims each year on vaccines. GRRRR!

How on earth can I trust this organization under these circumstances? *sigh*

Thank you though for sharing this...

[politicat]

150. Mortality can't be the only determinant. Morbidity is important, too.

I'm sorry, I do consider it damaging to a child's future health to not take care of easily preventable diseases. (I do agree that vaccines and immunizations should be spaced, one a month at the most.) Morbidity is a far better thing to be examining and looking at the complications and consequences of these diseases.

I am not calling you insane or irresponsible. What I am saying is that if my child gets sick because she's too young to be vaccinated and becomes blind because measles can and does call blindness in infants, can I sue you for the costs of raising a blind child because you did not get your child vaccinated and exposed my child to a disease that is easily preventable?

Or should I force my child's future health costs on everyone else in my insurance company?

I have no problem if you don't want your child vaccinated, but I do have a problem when you bring your sick child into contact with those of the population who are too small, immune impaired or otherwise unable to be vaccinated (such as an egg allergy). This may sound draconian, but I feel that a carrier must be kept isolated if sick. Hard to hear? It's the consequence, I'm afraid of exercising your right not to vaccinate. Don't immunize, quarantine for every illness.

Politicat. (just in the interest of understanding your position, you understand. It's not personal, okay?)

[mzmolly]

152. I understand your point...

"I'm sorry, I do consider it damaging to a child's future health to not take care of easily preventable diseases. (I do agree that vaccines and immunizations should be spaced, one a month at the most.) Morbidity is a far better thing to be examining and looking at the complications and consequences of these diseases.

I wish I agreed with you about the effective nature of vaccination. I don't. There is far to much conflicting information KWIM?

Example.

"The medical literature has a surprising number of studies documenting vaccine failure. Measles, mumps, small pox, polio and Hib outbreaks have all occurred in vaccinated populations. <11, 12, 13, 14 ,15> In 1989 the CDC reported: "Among school-aged children, outbreaks have occurred in schools with vaccination levels of greater than 98 percent. <16> have occurred in all parts of the country, including areas that had not reported measles for years." <17> The CDC even reported a measles outbreak in a documented 100 percent vaccinated population. <18> A study examining this phenomenon concluded, "The apparent paradox is that as measles immunization rates rise to high levels in a population, measles becomes a disease of immunized persons." <19> A more recent study found that measles vaccination "produces immune suppression which contributes to an increased susceptibility to other infections." These studies suggests that the goal of complete immunization is actually counterproductive, a notion underscored by instances in which epidemics followed complete immunization of entire countries. Japan experienced yearly increases in small pox following the introduction of compulsory vaccines in 1872. By 1892, there were 29,979 deaths, and all had been vaccinated. <20> Early in this century, the Philippines experienced their worst smallpox epidemic ever after 8 million people received 24.5 million vaccine doses; the death rate quadrupled as a result. <21> In 1989, the country of Oman experienced a widespread polio outbreak six months after achieving complete vaccination. <22> In the U.S. in 1986, 90% of 1300 pertussis cases in Kansas were "adequately vaccinated." <23> 72% of pertussis cases in the 1993 Chicago outbreak were fully up to date with their vaccinations.<24>

http://chetday.com/dvm1.htm#myth2

You said ~ I am not calling you insane or irresponsible. What I am saying is that if my child gets sick because she's too young to be vaccinated and becomes blind because measles can and does call blindness in infants, can I sue you for the costs of raising a blind child because you did not get your child vaccinated and exposed my child to a disease that is easily preventable?

**Should you be able to sue the parent of a vaccinated child who brings a child around your child when he/she is ill? Should you also be able to sue the vaccine industry for perpetuating the myth that vaccines would protect your child from the illness in question?** For example if I buy a product that claims it's going to prevent such and such and it doesn't, dont I have a case for litigation?

I might ask you a question as well, should I vaccinate my child just to avoid being sued by those who believe in them?

You see, I can't in good conscience do that. Should I let my child be vaccinated when I think they may contribute to cancer, autism, diabetes etc. just to pacify the masses?

You also said ~ Or should I force my child's future health costs on everyone else in my insurance company?

I hope I've addressed this for you ;)

You said ~ "I have no problem if you don't want your child vaccinated, but I do have a problem when you bring your sick child into contact with those of the population who are too small, immune impaired or otherwise unable to be vaccinated (such as an egg allergy). This may sound draconian, but I feel that a carrier must be kept isolated if sick. Hard to hear? It's the consequence, I'm afraid of exercising your right not to vaccinate. Don't immunize, quarantine for every illness."

Guess what, I feel that carriers should be kept home whether or not they are vaccinated. *some call that 'quarantine'* ;)

Also, babies are not considered protected from disease until they are given their third booster in many cases. *which again stirs many questions* Also, a vaccinated ill child is capable of spreading disease and gives our society a false sense of comfort because everyone is lugging sick kids around, IMHO. Vaccination is all about convenience and a false sense of comfort.

"(just in the interest of understanding your position, you understand. It's not personal, okay?)"

Thanks for not being personal... :) I totally understand and respect your concerns...

[LibLabUK]

177. WTF?

"Vaccination is all about convenience and a false sense of comfort."

Do you have sources to back up this OUTRAGEOUS claim?

[politicat]

180. Agreed. Please post links to sources or references in peer-reviewed

journals.

I'm sorry, but I cannot accept anecdotal evidence because anecdotes are far too easy to fake, mistake correllation for causality, and are not reviewed and retested.

It's not that I disbelieve you, I disbelieve the studies.

Politicat

[mzmolly]

183. I've done so over and over again.

The JAMA, THE LANCET and other peer reviewed medical journals are sited of you actually bother to read the links?!

[treepig]

188. but you've constantly refused to consider scientific journals

the lancet, JAMA are medical journals, not scientific journals. similarly the CDC is not the end-all for scientific research (it's more of a public health organization than science research organization).

to get an accurate idea of scientific consensus, you have to search the primary scientific literature, such as you can do at PUBMED:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed

what the political advocacy sites you constantly cite do is cull through the 108,000 or so primary reports on vaccines and list the small number of negative reports that you then tout as peer-reviewed evidence of your views. basically, that's exactly what the white house does with global warming - they cite the 1-2% of studies that agree with their views and ignore the rest. and sure 1-2% of 108,000 is a lot of studies, I imagine you could spend another five years studing them and be even more set in your ways. you'd still be wrong, though!

[mzmolly]

193. Dup

***

[mzmolly]

194. No I haven't refused consideration, I have looked at studies from these

sources and pointed to them to argue that vaccines are not always safe and they are questionably effective.

I dont think anyone is reading my information because I have sited peer reviewed data.

However, I have always maintained 2 things.

1. vaccines may be safe and effective, but the science and 'scientist's contradict one another so the verdict is not in.

2. the dangers we face from not vaccinating today do not merit my panicing to rush my daughter in for a jab.

3. we dont seem to fear many diseases until there is a vaccine, now suddenly chicken pox is 'scarrrrrrry'...

That's the bottom line.

How did we live with so few vaccines to 'save' us folks. Perhaps we can form a group for all that we've endured. :crazy: OK, I'm getting loopy now folks!

[mzmolly]

186. Why on earth should I post another source for you not to read.

I'm sure it's only a matter of time before Quackwatch list's the JAMA on their website. :eyes:

[Wednesdays]

190. 1999 data...

I will use the most recent data from 1999 for the entire US.

Diptheria = 1 death
Tetanus = 7 deaths
Measles = 2 deaths
Pertussis = 7 deaths
Polio = 0 deaths (2 cases *caused by vaccines?*)
Mumps = 7 death
Rubella = 0 deaths
Chx pox = 48 deaths

I truly doubt that those were the numbers in 1899. The difference? Vaccinations.

I voted "yes," but I wouldn't throw anybody in jail for non-compliance. The government ought to put out "nag" reminders to everyone until as many people as possible get the vaccines. And they should be free, especially for children.

(edited for clarity)

[mzmolly]

196. Your right the #'s in 1900 were far greater and they declined rapidly

prior to vaccination?



Keep in mind, these are 'death' rates.

[gate of the sun]

124. it's not as mandatory as you think

you can refuse under religious preference or something like that .There is alot more to the vaccination story than you may be "alive because of it"..... alot of people alive today have had the measles...me included and whooping cough......even polio is not necessarily a death sentence.
making informed decisions is not exactly the american way but it is something I recommend in regards to vaccinations, I have chosen to not vaccinate my youngest child.My oldest child had a very bad reaction to a DPT shot and suffered a brain reaction. That is it affected her brain being that she was only 6 weeks old it's hard to access the damage.....She has had problems all her life that I have attributed to this shot.

A Nurse told me not to allow any other children I had to have this shot..This was way back in 1980 before we knew about the mercury in the shots. Who's to say what caused it but something did.

[LibLabUK]

58. Question

"In 1951 "before vaccination" and other advances in modern medicine, polio claimed 1551 lives in the US."

How many did it cripple, and how much did it cost to provide them with long term care?

[mzmolly]

63. Here is a long term history of polio in the US.

Also, I am not suggesting we stop vaccinating, I am suggesting it be a medical 'choice'... It would appear that most DU'ers agree with me on that via the results of this poll.



Polio struck 33,300 people in the US in 1950. Also, many people were 'exposed' to Polio, and did not contract the disease.

"In 1977, Dr Jonas Salk who developed the first polio vaccine, testified along with other scientists, that mass inoculation against polio was the cause of most polio cases throughout the USA since 1961. (Science April 4, 1977 "Abstracts")

I'm out for now. :hi:

[trotsky]

69. Please note, mzmolly.

The results of this "poll" are skewed, because your choices constitute a false dichotomy.

You stated it as either:

1) It's your choice to take a vaccine

or

2) The government forces you to take every vaccine

If those were my ONLY two choices, I'd naturally pick #1. But there already exist medical exceptions, and to frame your poll as if they weren't an option is highly dishonest.

[mzmolly]

70. I had an 'other' option. Although you are welcome to start your own

poll and word it how you wish?

My question was clear as far as I can tell. And, most people here seem to respect the rights of individuals to make their own medical decisions.

[trotsky]

74. LOL, yeah, the results of a poll on DU should be considered conclusive.

Heh, good one.

[mzmolly]

77. HUH?

Rest assured I didn't take these results and forward them to the federal government for consideration. :eyes: LOL

I am just glad to know most of my DU friends respect my civil liberties... :)

[PissedOffPollyana]

79. Salk & the others make a lot of sense.

There are those who feel that our over-treatment in the areas of anti-biotics and vaccines is the cause of the virulent strains of illnesses we have seen. I'm inclined to agree.

How can we know the long-term effects of such wide-scale tinkering with our immune systems? Though we may continue to increase the potency of our treatment, the natural evolutionary action of the other force is to do the same or change enough to survive, then surge again when the opportunity presents itself. In the past, we developed antidotes that were designed to save lives from epidemics. Compare the image of the prevention of countless agonizing deaths with a recent commercial depicting the nature of today's treatment.

The commercial depicts a man, stricken with flu, and his co-workers, who are preparing to make "the big presentation" for some very important people. Evidently, nobody actually knows anything about the company-saving, career-making-or-breaking pitch except Mr. Didn't-Get-His-___* (*insert clever-sounding brand name here ). The VIPs have very put out expressions on their faces as the Team flounders. The message to learn here is: You are a bad, selfish, thoughtless, Bad American when you let yourself get sick. Our go-go selves do not have time to slowly develop immunities as our bodies can handle them and live in some level of competitive coexistence with the causes of past epidemics. We have forced nature to accelerate evolution to keep up without considering that it throws a hell of a curveball.

This doesn't even get into the "designer" cocktails that have been force fed to members of our military, causing untold levels of suffering and mystery epidemics. The hubris to think that we can design diseases and have any control over them is yet another thread of the same cautionary tale about being the architect of one's own destruction... another thread for another day.

Either way, it seems foolish to trust an establishment that has proven itself to be so cavalier about promoting the wide-spread doping and dosing as convenience and cure-all. When the same establishment has shown a proclivity to over-exaggeration of mainly benign and particularly rare conditions to promote a larger and more profitable agenda, it seems a good idea to do one's own risk/benefit scenario. I am honestly and deeply afraid of any move toward introducing new mandatory vaccination after reading up on the effects of the military's vaccination program. I would prefer those decisions be made by someone who sees my well-being as being more important than an entry in the "sold" column.

[mzmolly]

80. Wow.

Thank You.

:thumbsup:

[trotsky]

107. The alternative being...?

Letting diseases and maladies run their course, killing as many people as they take, and not doing a thing to fight that?

Would that be your attitude if your own child was sick?

We should be immensely proud of the science that has allowed us to live far longer than the 30-year lifespans of the Stone Age. It gives us time to live, to experience life, to see our children, grandchildren, and many times even great grandchildren grow up. We should never forget that less than a century ago, parents could not reasonably expect all of their children to survive infancy. Now, it has become so rare for an infant NOT to mature into a child, we feel genuine pain, not the pain tempered by what is expected.

Tinkering with our immune systems? What vaccines do is no different than what the actual live pathogen does - they stimulate an immune response. And the immune system is not like a muscle - it doesn't atrophy if it isn't used. You could be born, and grow to the age of 50 and never be exposed to any virus or bacteria, then BAM get hit with something. You know what would happen? Your immune system would identify it, make antibodies, and destroy it. Just like someone who had fought infections (and hopefully survived) their whole lives. This is a medical fact.

But you can certainly choose to live in fear, as the anti-vaccine crowd does. Go ahead and believe that medical science is just one big business conspiracy, out to make a buck over saving lives. Feel free to think that all those government researchers are just paid off to shove untested vaccines and medicines on us.

However, if you actually talk to the people in health care, you will find a far different story. You, I, and nearly everyone else alive today owes a tremendous debt to pioneers like Jonas Salk, hell for that matter Louis Pasteur who got the whole ball rolling by informing us of germ theory.

To dismiss the noble efforts of real people who are trying to help us is perhaps the worst slap in the face we could ever give them. We are so spoiled today with what modern medicine has given us, some of us are ignorantly turning our backs, thinking that we could do just fine on our own. And that's just so sad.

[PissedOffPollyana]

142. Silly trotsky, absolutes are for kids...

It is so sad when there is an equivalent level of absolutism here as in the quarters we distain.

If you actually read my post, you would see that my position is not absolute. I simply feel that, like flu shots, we should have the option of looking into vaccines individually and making an informed decision based upon available data.

There are plenty of people out there that have fallen to believing that all vaccines are bad; that is not my position. My point is that not everything that the establishment touts as "safe and effective" turns out that way in the long run. Some of these "protections" are meant to prevent maladies that are so rare that the risk to the small % of people who will actually contract the disease from the vaccine dose is simply not worth it in the long run.

It reminds me of the compulsory spraying in NYC a while back, when West Nile was the "disease of the moment". Though the data shows that, if anything, the spraying merely makes mosquitoes more resistant, it was done anyway. Though the data shows that West Nile is mainly benign, with the exception of those who are significantly weakened by age and other illnessses, it was done anyway. Though there are health concerns to those who might breathe in the spray, far greater than the potential effects of West Nile, it was done anyway. This is the sort of thing I'm talking about, not polio vaccines and others which have proven to be safe, effective and a line of defense against a disease that was prevalent and dangerous. What I'm talking about is the spurious decisions to foist "preventatives" upon us in response to an over-exaggerated threat using methods that are potentially dangerous or not fully tested for long-range effects. Sometimes, in a serious epidemic, long-term testing is not possible, but this urgency is rarely the case in recent years.

With the fear tactics used daily, to promote panic of West Nile to SARS to Bio attacks with anthrax, small pox and other new versions of disease cooked up in well-funded labs as weapons, we should at least look for facts and not absolutes. When there are still rubber stamp approvals that have come back to bite us on the posterior, it seeems a good idea to keep our say in the matter. I'm betting that the many soldiers who were punished for refusing their 'jabs' would agree, as well as those whose health or lives have been taken by the hubris of those who feel they know better than us what is best for us.

For example, when a company like BioPort, purposely or no, allows soldiers to be dosed with compromised samples, there is reason to hold at least a healthy level of skepticism for vaccines that have seen recent re-introduction or promotion. If we do not at least question why Americans are being dosed for epidemics that do not exist with vaccines that can be risky, there is something seriously awry. What happens when the cure damages us worse than the disease? What happens when we are forced to deal with new & more virulent versions of maladies like Gulf War Illness that, at least much of the data suggests stems from excessive vaccination? These are questions we should all be asking ourselves before we jump into receiving the next big thing in preventative care, at least in my opinion.

Did you know that the thing that financially saved BioPort was the military making the anthrax vacccine compulsory, then allowing a dramatic price increase per dosage after the policy was instituted? The very vaccine that has felled so many healthy American soldiers.

** on edit: Oh, BTW, the anthrax vaccine in question had an "off-label" use crammed through to be considered preventative of the sort of inhalation anthrax our soldiers might face. It is still speculative at best that is has any effect at all against weaponized inhalation anthrax, but I suppose that's just academic???? **

In reading up on the situation and the company itself, I choose to remain firm in my wish to have sovereignity over my own immune system. Those who wish to take their chances with vaccinations that have had a checquered past can do as they wish; that's what America is supposed to be about, right?

[trotsky]

157. Ah, glad we could clear that up.

"There are plenty of people out there that have fallen to believing that all vaccines are bad; that is not my position."

Then you & I are pretty much in agreement, and do not buy into the vaccine fears perpetuated by people like mzmolly.

As I pointed out elsewhere, her poll question was quite misleading, and skewed to create the response she so desperately sought. Do I want the government forcing vaccinations on everyone? Absolutely not!

And so with regards to you wanting "sovereignity over <your> own immune system," I think that's a red herring. No one is advocating that armed troops show up at your door with a syringe to inject in you at gunpoint.

The whole problem here is that the accusations leading you to believe that "vaccinations ... have had a checquered past" are terribly weak. That's the point that I and others have been trying to make on this thread - arguments against vaccination do not have enough valid evidence behind them to be reasonably considered.

In other words, I can respect the right of someone to reject vaccination, but only if they have rejected it based on legitimate evidence.

[mzmolly]

161. I am not trying to perpetuate vaccination fear...

just a counter argument to the one sided claims that made by the CDC and other so called authorities.

I also find it interesting that evidence is rejected when it conflicts with the "vaccine religion" no matter what the source.

The sources I referenced are:

The CDC
The JAMA
The LANCET
not to mention numerous independant clinical studies.

Let me be clear, the only thing I assert is this.

Diseases kills and mame
Vaccines kill and mame

Which one kills and mames more, we dont know because no bodys keeping track of the other half of that equation.

Cheerio :hi:

[trotsky]

163. Time to pay the piper.

Nobody is keeping track, eh?

You obviously didn't look very hard on the CDC site. A couple of clicks and I was led to the VAERS database.

http://www.fda.gov/cber/vaers/vaers.htm

Take a gander. But note the disclaimer: the VAERS database exists only to catalog all CLAIMS of injury from vaccines. No statement is made as to the veracity of the claims. That's why clinical studies are done to evaluate vaccine safety, and so far (after decades of study around the world) there are no definitive links between vaccines and SIDS, autism, cancer, or any of the other things you claim vaccines cause.

[mzmolly]

167. Uhm, I've provided links to this very site on several occasions.

I can only surmise you aren't reading my posts ;)

[trotsky]

178. So then why the claim

that the CDC doesn't track, and worse, doesn't care about the stats?

[mzmolly]

187. Because the CDC doesn't tabulate the VAERS data...

Or at least that is what I was told just yesterday. They said vax deaths are too difficult to prove. *that's convenient isn't it* ;)

[Kellanved]

4. I didn't vote, but...

In the case of Germany I'd say yes. It is not at the moment and Germans don't like vaccinations - :tinfoilhat: (it's bad; the US even considered checking the vaccination record of Germans at the airport to stop dangerously under-vaccinated people from enteing the US).
However this lack of mandatory vaccinations is a reckless thing and endangers the public healthcare system. I honestly don't know why I have to pay for the care of people who could have avoided the illness with little effort for them?

[mzmolly]

9. Should we pay for treating vaccine injurys?

The Government shells out mucho $$ to vaccine injured individuals and their families every year.

It is not legal to sue the drug companies over vaccines, so families must file a claim with the feds. If you child dies from a vaccine, you are compensated $250,000. *Provided they die in a timely manner*

[Kellanved]

12. depends, but yes

If the reaction was unforseeable then yes. No mandantory vaccinations if the medical background of the patient indicates problems.

[goddess40]

16. They just deny that it was the vaccines fault

These companies and the gov't deny that the mercury in vaccines could cause autism is some people.
If they take the poisons out of vaccines I'd be more willing to make them mandatory. With the vaccines that give the worst reactions they need to develop some type of test to see if the person will have a negative response. It isn't right to say that some people are expendable by rationalizing that most arent' adversely effected.

I have an allergy to metals, I can't even hold change in my hand for more than a few seconds. Both of my son's have a form of autism (Nonverbal Learning Disorder, NLD). The youngest has it the worst and he got an additional set of vaccinations when he was born, the hepitiats vaccine was new then. I believe that there is a possible link there but we will never know because they won't look into it because my son's don't matter to them.

[mzmolly]

21. I'm so sorry Goddess.

I am aware of the many controversial practices and data surrounding vaccines. I am also aware of how hard it is to 'prove' vaccine injury by 'their' standards.

My heart goes out to you and yours.

My nephew is autistic *how we dunno?? In addition, I heard that autisim has seen a 400 fold increase in recent years, some claim a link to thimerisol aka mercury *in vaccines* some claim 'better diagnosis' which I don't buy personally.

You may want to contact Congressmen Dan Burton *he's a Rethug :( but, he's taken an interest in vaccines after his grandchildren were injured.

http://www.house.gov/burton/pr5103.htm

:hug:

I am glad the CDC is making 'safer' vaccines.

[lostnfound]

24. I believe you & anyone who saw the Burton hearings 5-6 mths ago would too

My heart goes out to you, too.

Those who say the link between autism and vaccines has been 'debunked' may have been fooled by the presence of 40 or 50 white papers produced on the same set of flawed "research" put out by the drug companies.

It is so tragic that we don't have a purer system for testing medicines and vaccines.

[mzmolly]

26. So true!

I hope change will come.

[Spider Jerusalem]

112. Vaccines DON'T CAUSE AUTISM.

People mistake correlation for causation. Autism becomes noticeable at around the same age young children are first vaccinated. Parents, looking for something to blame, decide it must be the vaccine's fault. All the people making noise about an autism-vaccination link are, however, INCREDIBLY ignorant of the facts...such as: Neurological research shows that the neurological differences which form the core root causes of autism + are of such a nature that they must, of necessity, have been basically hard-coded prior to tissue differentiation, from early in gestation. Also, an exhaustive study conducted in Europe tracked vaccinated and non-vaccinated children, to see if any evidence indicating a link presented itself, and there was a higher rate of autism in the UNVACCINATED group.

Oh, and I'm autistic (Asperger's Syndrome). This is all stuff I found out when I was perseveratively researching the subject, and I have to say the weight of evidence ise against the anti-vax crowd.

Oh, and the MMR vaccine DOESN'T contain thimerosal (mercury preservative), and hasn't for years...

[politicat]

181. Thank you!!! Would you happen to have links or sources?

I had to drop some of my medical journal subscriptions (they're expensive) and so, while I've heard the secondary sources, I'd like to read the originals.

Feel free to PM or email me.

Politicat

[Tyler Durden]

5. As a survivor of the Scarlet Fever epidemic of the 50's...

If you don't vaccinate your kid, you don't get to send him/her to public school. Vaccines sans thimerasol are available, and the autism link is largely debunked.

I was extremely lucky: I can hear, I have minimal damage to the heart, and I can see although my deficits in sight are largely due to the virus. This was pre-vaccine, and it's a damned shame it took another year to get the vaccine out.

In a heavily populated society, there is no other choice for the public good, and I don't know where Dr. Orient gets her information, but my son was tested for immune response before he was vaccinated (he has asymptomatic congentital CMV) and if he was compromised, we would have been allowed to opt out.

By the way, I would suggest anyone campaigning against vaccination go visit the Amish community in Southern Maryland: they refused the Polio vaccine and now have a bunch of handicapped kids. They changed their minds.

[mzmolly]

10. Do you have a link about the polio in Maryland?

The CDC claims polio has been eradicated in the Western Hemisphere. :shrug:

Also, I wonder if they would 'test' a vaccinated person for polio who entered a physicians office with like symptoms? Some believe the faith in vaccines may skew data/diagnosis? I dunno...

Is there a vax against scarlet fever BTW ?

http://www.keepkidshealthy.com/welcome/infectionsguide/scarletfever.html

This is the result of un-treated strep me thinks? Anti-biotics are used to treat SF.

[Lurking Dem]

28. Yes they are.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00050429.htm

They also had a large rubella outbreak in 1990.

[mzmolly]

34. Thanks LD.

The outbreak you refer to appears to have been in 1979.

I guess this explains the claim by the CDC that polio has been erradicated in the WH.

Much appreciation for this information though. I know in 1979 there were 22 cases of polio and 1 death in the entire US so the impact was not profound but it is interesting.

I do wonder though if the Amish have questionable hygine and farming practices which could be a contibuting factor? For example I believe polio can be spread via stool? :crazy:

[sybylla]

68. Live next to and in the vicinity of several Amish communities

Both New Order and Old Order Amish. New Order live in homes just like ours with electricity, phones and plumbing. The other Amish communities live a variety of degrees below that, and at least one extreme community has no electricity, sewer or phones. However, even those with privies have to have licenses for them and they have to be built to specifications mandated by the county. The Amish farms are largely cleaner, neater, and as sanitary as any other in the state. They are no more at risk for contracting contaigions than any other population. Please speak carefully of them. They already suffer a great deal of prejudice. No need to add to it.

On edit: there are other "groups" in our population who routinely refuse vaccinations, like the Christian Scientists for example. But the difference between these groups and the Amish is that they mix in with a general population that has been immunized. The Amish, though they keep to themselves, are a very social community. Being an unvaccinated group means that the appearance of the disease in one person gets magnified with the high likelyhood that more members of their close-knit group will get it.

[mzmolly]

72. I have a great deal of respect for the Amish, and meant not to indicate

otherwise. In fact, I try to support them by buying goods etc. when I can.

I was simply stating that having a certain 'lifestyle' might make disease more easilly spread. By lifestyle I mean 'farming' and using traditional farming methods etc...

http://www2.kenyon.edu/Projects/Famfarm/whatis/tech.htm.

We can draw our own conclusions ;)

For more information about the amish, see here :)

http://www.800padutch.com/atafaq.shtml

[LibLabUK]

62. Umm

"Also, I wonder if they would 'test' a vaccinated person for polio who entered a physicians office with like symptoms? Some believe the faith in vaccines may skew data/diagnosis? I dunno..."

Someone exhibiting the symptoms of polio (paralysis, difficulty breathing and swallowing) would not be walking into the doctor's surgery.

It is impossible to treat polio, other than offering supportive care.

Prevention through vaccination really is the only option.

[mzmolly]

64. I understand your point...

My father in law is a polio survivor, so this is a touchy issue. He was told he'd never walk.

He was treated at Sister Kenny Institute.

http://sjhweb.nsd.org/breakout/2002/Polio/treatpo.html

He has some issues, but he walks daily :)

Not to minimize the disease. I actually think the polio vax may have contributed to the rarety of the disease today?

[sybylla]

36. To my knowledge, there is no vaccine for Scarlet Fever

It is a reaction to a strep infection, as is Rheumatic Fever. I had Scarlet Fever twice in the 70's (rare to have it twice and the doctor didn't believe my mom the second time until he saw me) and my son got it a couple of years ago. If there was a vaccine, we both would have taken it, I assure you.

I have to confess that, upon reading a statement of all the possible reactions and problems with each vaccine given to my children, I have had second thoughts. Though with most vaccines, extreme complications are very rare. But I could not help but think that I was authorizing a vaccination for my baby/toddler that could possibly handicap them if not kill them.

I believe in vaccinations, but I also believe that some of these diseases aren't a big enough problem to put our kids lives at risk. I mean, I went through chicken pox and so did my kids and it wasn't any big deal, but now we have a vaccine for it.

Should there be a government mandate - no, IMHO. I would say that there is no government mandate now. You can get exceptions for several reasons and your kids can still attend public school. Should vaccination continue to be encouraged - yes.



on edit: spelling

[mzmolly]

39. I agree fully! Encouraged perhaps, YES...Mandated NO...

:toast:

[amazona]

71. I had scarlet fever twice in the 1960s

The doc had no trouble identifying it the second time but mentioned that it was very unusual.

I haven't heard of any vaccine for this illness either.

I have a permanent scar on my FACE from chicken pox and these scars are not as easily removed by dermbrasion or easily filled in by Botox or collagen...in fact, I've never been able to have anything done about the scar at all. So, considering it's a visual society, if I had a daughter, I would want her to have the chicken pox vaccine. But admittedly this is not a life-threatening issue; it is just a question of what girls and women go through if their faces are subpar.

It's a bit frustrating that there is so much emphasis on side effects that fill people with fear but if the truth about the side effects is withheld then a person can't make a good decision either...sigh...it's so hard to reach a good balance on this issue.

[mzmolly]

73. It is difficult, especially when we get 'one' side of the picture from the

Gov. :(

[Padraig18]

6. Yes, with a qualification.

Overall, it is clear that vaccinations against communicable, preventable diseases are a good thing; one has only to look at the elimination of smallpox, the virtual elimination of polio, tetanus, typhoid (in NA, e.g.), etc. to conclude that society benfits greatly from vaccinations.

That said, individuals should be allowed to 'opt out' for medically valid reasons, but only if a licensed physician and surgeon is willing to certify why receiving the vaccine would likely be more detrimental to the health of the individual involved than not receiving it would be--- in other words, a 'common sense' exception.

[trotsky]

45. Same here, Padraig18.

The overall benefit from vaccines far outweighs their risks. I agree that we cannot have an outright mandate that everyone MUST vaccinate; there must always be the ability to make an exception due to medical necessity.

mzmolly and I went back and forth on vaccination on a thread in LBN. It is interesting to see one of her primary sources exposed for the political organization it really is.

And, to reiterate a point I made on that thread, in a way vaccination is a victim of its own success. People today are SO FAR REMOVED from the horrible ravages of disease (polio didn't just kill, it paralyzed and maimed) that they are free now to worry about the vaccines when it is clear they do a lot more good than harm.

Yes, it's heartbreaking to read about the cases where children were possibly injured or killed by a vaccine. I believe, however, that it was a lot more heartbreaking to see thousands of kids dying from various diseases.

[mzmolly]

47. "PRIMARY" sources 'exposed'?

:eyes:

I didn't use this link as a source of research information. I used it to open up discussion and indicate that there are some in the medical community that think for themselves. Granted I don't agree with much of their 'thought'.

Exposed for what, I might ask? I must have missed something. As I pointed out this so called RW source has come out against Bush and co as well.

Also, this is one of MANY sources I linked Trotzky, including JAMA,THE LANCET, and the CDC *to name a few*

You said~ "Yes, it's heartbreaking to read about the cases where children were possibly injured or killed by a vaccine. I believe, however, that it was a lot more heartbreaking to see thousands of kids dying from various diseases."

Why is a death 'caused' by a vaccine less heartbreaking then something that wasn't caused by the medical community?

Also, it's not only possible that vaccines kill children each year, it's documented by the federal Government. Granted we dont' know the real numbers ...

Additionally, you may want to note that while children were mamed from polio they are NOW mamed from vaccination. Let's not forget that fact. Though, I spose that's 'less' sad?

And you claim: "The overall benefit from vaccines far outweighs their risks. I agree that we cannot have an outright mandate that everyone MUST vaccinate; there must always be the ability to make an exception due to medical necessity."

I don't think that's been proven personally.

Here are some links for those interested in further research. I suggest looking at information pro and con before drawing a conclusion.

http://users.adelphia.net/~cdc/

Here is the Government agency responsible for 'compensating' victims of vaccine injury.

http://www.hrsa.gov/osp/vicp/table.htm

And here is some information from the CDC.

http://www.pharm.ku.edu/intlab/pinkbook/

http://www.ouralexander.org *This child is thought to have cancer from the polio vaccine his mother had. Scientists disagree on the impact sv40 has had on cancer*

Also note this new concern posted in a LBN thread today

http://www.msnbc.com/news/991813.asp?0cv=CB10

Why are they concerned about using animal tissue with respect to 'stem cells' and not vaccines?

I am sure there is an answer, but I find that curious I dunno?

[trotsky]

53. Take a deep breath.

A single death from an illness is certainly no different than a single death from a vaccine.

But thousands of deaths from an illness are most definitely worse than a few deaths from a vaccine. The death of a child is ALWAYS heartbreaking. So why wouldn't you want to minimize the number of them?

That's my point. Why you chose to address a strawman instead, I'm not sure.

You, personally, don't believe that vaccines save more lives than they take. Fine. Some people don't believe we really landed on the moon, and you won't get far arguing with them either.

But there are exponentially more doctors and professionals that agree with me than agree with you.

Accept it and move on, please.

[mzmolly]

54. Again, we disagree.

You said ~ "But thousands of deaths from an illness are most definitely worse than a few deaths from a vaccine. The death of a child is ALWAYS heartbreaking. So why wouldn't you want to minimize the number of them?"

You make an assertion that is not proven. Also, I do want to minimize the number of deaths, thus my position.

I have posted this before and if you read 'nothing else' read this.

http://www.whale.to/v/phillips.html

You musn't have done so, because you bring up the same issues. Please take time to read it all and check the references at the end.

Here is some interesting history on the pertussis vax as well.

http://www.yourlawyer.com/practice/overview.htm?topic=DPT%20Vaccine

If the CDC kept good records on the number of children dying from vaccines, we might have answers to 'unanswered' questions. Instead we get vague propaganda like *vaccines save far more lives then they take* etc.. We get fluff.

Like I said, the year before the measles vax was licenced the no. of deaths from measles was 434. How many deaths are occuring due to the vaccine? How many people are becoming diabetic and dying years later because of the vaccine? How many are developing other possible unknown conditions/allergies in the long term due to vaccination? I find it curious that 'experts' are concerned about using mouse cells for stem cell research *due to unknown animal virus* but they are not concerned with cow/chicken bi-products used in making vaccines? Though there may be an explaination of which I'm not aware.

However, why should I panic about 434 measles deaths in 1962 and disregard the 36,000 flu deaths every year currently? Should I be paralyzed with fear about the flu now? The flu kills far more today in the US then all of the so called vax preventable diseases combined *and currently mandated* did 30 fargen years ago.

Some refs...

http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/conditions/01/07/flu.deaths/

Of course a panel of "experts" paid by the drug industry has probably concluded 'there is no danger from the MMR vaccine.

Unfortunately for us, the CDC isn't tracking the long term effects of vaccination. We are seeing chronic illness like never before, could vaccination be the trigger, we dunno?

The CDC doesn't appear terribly interested in finding that out anyhow. I urge you to call them and ask, how many children died from the MMR vaccine last year? Or, how many cases of reported deaths from that vaccine there were? If you get a # multiply it by 10-100 because they estimate only 1-10% of cases are actually reported. When I asked the CDC they had no specifics. They said things like 'very few' or 'the benefits outweigh the risks.' But, perhaps that has changed?

You said ~ "But there are exponentially more doctors and professionals that agree with me than agree with you."

Pardon me for thinking for myself. Though what you say is true, keep in mind, they are educated by the drug companies about their products and they 'sell' the products accordingly. In addition, vaccines are big $$, though some would have us believe other wise. Imagine the financial impact if pediatricians lost the vaccine business? Though I dont think this is their motivation mind you. I know they believe in what they do.

Also, my opinion is not made up of what is 'popular' or I would have supported the war when 75% of Americans did.

The 'shoot first ask questions later' approach, isn't doing it for me personally.

Again, I respect your right to disagree.

[trotsky]

55. Why only blame vaccines?

Think of ALL the other factors that are different today than 50 years ago: pollution, electromagnetic radiation, food preservatives, trans fats, etc. ad nauseum.

Autism has increased. You blame vaccines.

Chronic fatigue has increased. You blame vaccines.

Incidence of hangnails has increased. Wanna blame vaccines?

Vaccines appear to be to you what Clinton is to the right wing!

And I really think your red herring about the deaths from the flu is getting tiresome. The flu is an entirely different beast - there are dozens to hundreds of "strains," with new ones mutating at an unknown rate. A vaccination program can only ever have limited effectiveness. And besides, you're engaging in an argument from the unknown. Claiming that somehow the 30,000+ flu deaths show vaccination's ineffectiveness. Do you have any idea how many flu deaths are PREVENTED? Those stats will never, and can never be reported. We do know about influenza outbreaks in history, and the millions who died in 1917-18 looks pretty horrible compared to 30,000 today. We don't see outbreaks like that anymore. Why do you think that's the case? Just sanitation? The flu can be airborne - virtually no amount of sanitation will stop that.

Believe it or not, I have read your links. And while you attack all medical professionals and scientists who disagree with you as "sheep," I am not able to trust your sources. One of them keeps pushing the disproven assertion that abortion & breast cancer are linked. If they are wrong on that, and it's been shown, why should I accept anything else they say? Others engage in these ridiculous scare tactics to try and make a point. And ultimately, they dismiss any dissenting opinions by claiming (as you constantly do) that everyone in support of vaccination is just in the back pocket of industry. That's NOT a scientific argument.

And as I have said before, I can accept your decision not to vaccinate, but I absolutely cannot respect it.

[mzmolly]

56. Why credit vaccines? Think of all the other advances in medicine since

1950? Why are vaccines given sole credit for a 'decline' in death from the diseases simply because we have a vaccine for them? In fact, I'm sure there has been a decline in death in many areas since that time.

However, if we look at the history of disease in the US and put that in perspective with vaccine usage, you may be surprised at what you find.

Examples below, please note when the vaccines were licenced, and look at the 'mortallity' rates vs. disease rates. Mortality rates are in blue.











For more charts/information see here:

http://users.adelphia.net/~cdc/Diseases.htm

*Yikes, I didn't know the entire graph would show up - I thought the links would- mods let me know if this is an issue.

Also, I don't blame vaccines for anything really. I simply noted that you can't rule out certain 'issues' because scientists disagree on whether or not there is a link.

In addition, I don't assert the flu vaccine is ineffective when I talk of flu deaths, I simply want to put the panic over not vaccinating for other diseases in perspective.

We have virtually no fear of the flu, yet people panic when we talk about other diseases *simply b/c we have a vaccine* for them. That was my only point. The flu vaccine is not mandated, nor is it widely used so it would make a very poor argument for me to use this data in the way you suggest.

Additionally, you are able to discredit one source for taking an anti choice position, and I'll accept that and toss them out totally. However I would suggest that is your 'red herring' because it is one of many sources I referenced.

However, for the sake of argument and simplicity, let's ONLY use data from the CDC...and make this as simple as possible.

I'll post some numbers in a following reply as this one is getting lengthy and I'm out of time...

[trotsky]

57. I will not deny

that modern medical practices (sterilization, medicines, etc.) have most certainly led to reduced numbers of deaths. Heck, the introduction of fever reducers such as Tylenol drastically improved our ability to weather illness without as much serious harm. But even your own data show the drastically reduced number of cases following widespread vaccination. Reduce the number of cases, and you will further reduce the number of deaths. It's problematic arguing with vaccination opponents, because there's just simply no way to know what the world would be like today if we had never vaccinated. You can't track the number of people who "would have" died if they hadn't been vaccinated, but yet your sources like to assume vaccination has done nothing to help. And that's patently absurd.

We are obviously going to keep going round and round on this. You're not going to convince me, and I'm not going to convince you.

You've called all doctors that support vaccinations "sheep," and taken serious offense when your sources have been called "quacks."

I know you claim to have already done all the research, but here's a few links that directly contradict what you say:

http://www.fda.gov/cber/vaccine/thimerosal.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/nip/vacsafe/concerns/thimerosal/default.htm

http://kidsdirect.net/BD/infants/vaccines/faq.htm (Overview on vaccines)

http://www.nevdgp.org.au/other/project/immunemyths/vaccsafe.htm (From an Australian group, addresses many of the myths propagated by your sources, such as links to SIDS, autism, etc.)

http://www.health-report.co.uk/formaldehyde-fact-sheet.htm (Facts about formaldehyde - for instance, the FACT that "Formaldehyde is naturally produced in small amounts in our bodies." If there is truly no safe amount - as many of your sources insist - why would our bodies be making it?)

I'm done with this discussion. And perhaps you could be honest with everyone and admit that you and "gully" are the same person, huh?

[mzmolly]

60. I did so in my first post...

When I said ~ "I had to post this in my former user name b/c I still need to donate under my new one..."

I have made that clear on numerous occasions. Additionally, I don't mean to imply that docs who vax are sheep. I think they are well intentioned and informed by the CDC who are omitting pieces of information.

Also, I make no assertions about vaccines 'causing' anything. The only assertion I make is WE DON'T KNOW...

~Peace, I will respect your decision to opt out.

Gully aka Mzmolly :hi:

[mzmolly]

81. Hey, I know you dont want to reply but...

I checked out the formaldehyde link and the first thing it says is:

"This information is important because formaldehyde may harm you."

In addition the website states:

"HIGHLIGHTS: Everyone is exposed to formaldehyde in air and some foods, products and vaccines. Formaldehyde can cause irritation of the skin, eyes, nose, and throat and may also cause asthma. Exposure to high levels or exposure to long-term low levels may cause some types of cancers. This substance has been found in at least 26 of the 1,467 National Priorities List sites identified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)."

And...

"The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has determined that formaldehyde may reasonably be anticipated to be a carcinogen. *(No long term studies have been done on low-level exposure to formaldehyde from multiple sources absorbed into the system over many years.*

Hmmm, lets inject this (questionable substance) into every two month old child?! Oh and don't forget those booster shots huh. :freak:

And...

Like I said, shoot first, ask questions later ... Sorry, not interested.

Also, our bodies produce cholesterol naturally, that doesn't mean I want to inject it, KWIM?

Thanks for the link though, I did not know our bodies produce this EEK! That may explain why most people will get cancer if they live long enough LOL ;)

*SIGH*

I really WISH I was less of a skeptic about this, life would be far easier.

I realize you opted out of the conversation, but I was very curious about this. As I said, I don't expect a reply.:crazy:

[treepig]

108. just in case anyone is interested in why people actually develop

cancer - it's NOT due trace amounts of toxins such as those found in vaccine. to explain, consult the discussion below and feel free to substitute "formaldehyde from vaccines or dietary sources" whereever it says "radioactivity" - the body deals with both insults in a similar manner:

We all live in a sea of natural radioactivity (formaldehyde) —cosmic radiation pouring in from outer space and naturally radioactive (formaldehyde-drenched) materials in our soil, building materials, food and water. The body cannot distinguish "manmade" radiation (formaldehyde) from "natural" radiation (formaldehyde); in both cases the nuclear particles (chemical species - ok i'll stop the editorializing - if anyone hasn't gotten the point by now . . ) arise from the same processes and have the same characteristics. And our bodies are impacted by some 15,000 nuclear rays or particles every second — over a billion such events every day of our lives from these natural sources.But our bodies face even greater challenges: For example, a million DNA nucleotides in each cell are damaged each day by free radicals created in the normal process of metabolism resulting from routine eating and breathing. Radiation causes more double breaks per event in the DNA than metabolism does, and these are harder to repair than single breaks; but even after making generous allowance for this difference, the mutations (unrepaired or misrepaired damage) from metabolism outnumber those caused by natural radiation by ten-million-fold.

The work in progress by Myron Pollycove and Ludwig Feinendegen et al., summarizes these numbers for each of the body’s 100 million million cells. Some ten billion free radicals are created each day in each cell, and about 1% if these are within striking distance of the DNA. About 99% of these are gobbled up before they can cause any harm, and the remaining free radicals damage the DNA. The corresponding number of DNA alterations caused by background gamma radiation is only 0.005 per day, or one DNA alteration every 200 days. About 99.99% of these alterations are repaired in the metabolic case, and about 1 in 500 in the radiation case (because of the greater difficulty in repairing the double breaks). Finally, about 99% of the damaged cells are removed, leaving 1% of the damaged cells to persist as mutations.These facts raise two questions: first, how can any living organism withstand such an onslaught? How do any of us survive? . . . find out at http://www.lfr.com/news/EBulletins/e-bulletin016.htm

To summarize: our body temperature and normal eating and breathing cause millions of times more mutations in our bodies than the natural level of ionizing radiation (or trace environmental chemicals)


the point here is that the normal process of metabolism resulting from routine eating and breathing is by far the worst thing you could ever do as far as developing cancer . trying to ascribe anything but extremely rare cases to vaccines, formaldehyde, depleted uranium, PCB's (etc etc) ranges between being just plain silly and outrightly bizarre

[mzmolly]

111. Can you explain Gulf War syndrome?

Yikes, I guess I better eat less and lay off them yoga classes :P

And also, you sound like a scientist. Are there scientists in your field that disagree with your premise on toxins etc...?

In addition, I may be understanding your statement, but it sounds like your saying enviromental toxins don't cause cancer?

[treepig]

132. in some cases environmental factors definitely contribute to cancer

in some people. for example if you expose 100 million people to many different things, such as (to give a few random examples) low levels of formaldehyde, peanuts, or penicillin a few of them will die. even if only out of a million people are adversely affected, that's still 100 people.

getting back to the case of cancer, there are now known to be dozens of different DNA repair enzymes that repair basically any possible type of damage that occurs to chromosomal DNA - whether it results from manmade or natural causes (do a search even in google and you'll find lots of information on DNA repair enzymes). in a small number of people (lets say one in a million) one or more of these DNA repair enzymes are defective and therefore a certain type of DNA damage cannot be repaired. for example, in a person with one type of defect even 5 minutes of exposure to sunlight a day is sure to cause skin cancer because the thymine dimers formed by uv irradiation cannot be repaired (most people easily repair this type of damage). in another person with a different type repair defect, perhaps exposure to the polyhydrocarbons found in diesel exhaust or barbecued meet is sure to cause cancer, and so on. so in the context of people with defective abilities to repair DNA, environmental factors can indeed cause cancer.

in the case of people without DNA repair defects, it is still possible for exogenous chemicals (or radiation) to overwhelm a cell's ability to repair DNA damage and thereby start the cascade of events that lead to cancer. but these cases (leaving aside situations when people deliberately dose themselves with carcinogens, such as when they smoke cigarettes) are usually industrial in nature - a few instances might be the industrial workers exposed to formaldehyde (the topic of the original post), pre-WWII workers who painted radium on instrument gauges, or workers who make vinyl siding who were exposed to vinyl chloride. now there might be a gray area where the factories that housed industrial endeavors such as these leaked high amounts of these carcinogenic pollutants into the surrounding community - in that case i suppose that could be considered a highly localized environmental cause of cancer. but in general, healthy people who avoid toxic waste dumps (which might be more difficult to do than most people assume) basically do not get cancer due to environment causes.

i think it's now estimated that about 70% of cancers are dietary in origin (it's very difficult to due these estimates because any particular type of cancer generally requires 5 or 6 distinct things to go wrong in the same cell, therefore strictly speaking it's almost impossible to say that any one thing causes cancer). anyhow, does that mean that dietary cancer is caused by eating the wrong things? or simply, as discussed in my post above, is dietary cancer due to the fact that eating leads to metabolism, which leads to the formation of reactive oxygen species that damage DNA and ultimately some DNA damage slips through the cracks, isn't properly repaired, and caused cancer? in any event, eating foods such as broccoli that contain antioxidants can't be harmful.

[mzmolly]

143. I'm not convinced that vaccines are safe...

In fact I was aware of what you posted. I realize that cancers have many contributing factors.

However, the bottom line is, we do not know if vaccines are 'contributing' to the developement of cancer. Are they considered an *environmental hazzard? I guess once again, that depends on who you ask.

*environment in this case = the human body. ;)

[treepig]

173. using your type of logic

a strong case could be that vaccines contribute to the devlopment of cancer.

Fact #1. Vaccines increase longevity
Fact #2. The occurrence of cancer increases with age.

Therefore, since vaccines allow people to live longer, they contribute to cancer.

[mzmolly]

174. OK...

:hi:

[treepig]

135. and about gulf war syndrome

i don't have my well-documented list of putative causative factors available on the computer i'm using now, but from memory here's a few "verified" agents that can't be good for human health that gulf war I troops were exposed to

chemical warfare agents,
biological warfare agents,
pesticides,
industrial chemicals,
endemic diseases,
sand (El Eskan disease),
food borne illnesses,
water borne illness,
organic and inorganic byproduct compounds from oil well fires, airborne particulates,
asbestos,
cleaning compounds,
low level radioactive materials,
depleted uranium (which might be a chemical hazard, despite what you'll find on the internet it is not a radiation hazard)
immunizations and drugs designed to protect individuals from verified threats.

[mzmolly]

144. I see you included vaccinations...

or as you term them 'immunizations'.

You also noted other possible environmental hazzards. We are in agreement that the cause of Gulf War Syndrome is unknown.

There are also numerous birth defects that have occured since Gulf one. These defects have effected the Iraqis as well as our returning soldiers, thus I think we can eliminate 'sand' from the equation could we not? :shrug: ?????

~Peace

[LibLabUK]

162. Hmm

"These defects have effected the Iraqis as well as our returning soldiers, thus I think we can eliminate 'sand' from the equation could we not?"

The Iraqis weren't exposed to sand?

What were things that both the Iraqis and Allies were exposed to?

Hmm... could it be vaccines?

I know the Geneva conventions are quite strict, but I don't think it includes vaccinating the enemy.

[mzmolly]

168. Of course they were exposed to sand, he he...

but they have only recently seen these birth defects, that was my point. Hey, good point about the vaccines though!! It must be the DU? ;) Unless, they gave the vaccines to our allies in wartime? That might make for interesting research.

[treepig]

172. you have an amazing ability to avoid any pretense ofrational risk analysis

for example, an analogy might be if you fell into a swimming pool with your friendly pet turtle and an angry man/woman eating shark.

in your bizzaro world, you would be obsessed with the slight chance of salmonella infection from the turtle and totally ignore the fact that you're going to be gobbled up by the shark within 5 seconds or so.

similarly, you decry vaccines because they may cause 5 instances of a certain disease each year while ignoring the reality that in the absence of said vaccine, 50,000 cases of the disease would occur.

and i really don't know how much of a contribution sand made to GWS, likely it's way down there on the list of risk factors. i'd still wager it's higher than vaccines, though.

[mzmolly]

175. My logic is actually logic...

You see, I am not afraid that my child will die from:

Measles
Mumps
Rubella
Polio
Tetanus
Diptheria
Pertusis etc..

Now, if you fear your child may by all means take your chances. I see no need to suject my child to a ridiculous procedure because you tell me it's necessary, when the actual data says otherwise.

The logic behind herding every child into the doctor to be jabbed 50 plus times with a coctail of some of the following:

aluminum hydroxide
aluminum phosphate
ammonium sulfate
amphotericin B
animal tissues: pig blood, horse blood, rabbit brain,
dog kidney, monkey kidney,
chick embryo, chicken egg, duck egg
calf (bovine) serum
betapropiolactone
fetal bovine serum
formaldehyde
formalin
gelatin
glycerol
human diploid cells (originating from human aborted fetal tissue)
hydrolized gelatin
monosodium glutamate (MSG)
neomycin
neomycin sulfate
phenol red indicator
phenoxyethanol (antifreeze)
potassium diphosphate
potassium monophosphate
polymyxin B
polysorbate 20
polysorbate 80
porcine (pig) pancreatic hydrolysate of casein
residual MRC5 proteins
sorbitol
sucrose
thimerosal (mercury)
tri(n)butylphosphate,
VERO cells, a continuous line of monkey kidney cells
washed sheep red blood cells

seems a bit odd. Especially given the fact that we suffer from less then 10 deaths per year from the diseases we vax against *combined* If you include chicken pox, it's about 60 deaths per year total.

How this 'saves' humanity considering that vaccines are not permanent and thus many formerly vaccinated people are no longer immune, is beyond me.

Goodness how on earth did I live this long, with only 3 vaccines! :eyes:

Also, I find it interesting that scientists are concerned with using mouse cells for stem cell research *due to potential unknown virus's* when cow/monkey/sheep cells which are being used to vaccinate our children, are of no concern?

[trotsky]

179. Arrrrrrgh, mzmolly!!!!

We have so few deaths from those diseases precisely BECAUSE we vaccinate! Don't you understand?

[mzmolly]

189. Let me try once again to explain.

Disease deaths were declining rapidly before the introduction of vaccines. We develope immunities naturally over time.

Additionally, I think it's ridiculous to claim victory and still subject every child to the risks of vaccination. The Polio vaccine case in point.

Now you say the risks are minor. I say the diseases are minor. In addition, most people didn't give two hoots and a hollar about say measles, or chicken pox until we started using a vaccine for them?!

Also, the long term effects of vaccinating are just plain not known. I am not going to risk vaccinating my daugther to protect her from a miniscule threat, when there is an actual threat from the medical procedure itself.

For example 'crying for hours on end' after the DPT shot is considered a 'normal' reaction? I just don't get it folks!!!!!! I am just not there with ya'll... What more can I say. :)

[trotsky]

192. Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

Read this link.

http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/6mishome.htm#Diseaseshadalready

[mzmolly]

197. Trotzky, did you see this?

Now you know why I trust the CDC so much...

Note how the CDC begins with the year 1950, and the data I have begins with the year 1900.

Here is a portrayal of measles deaths.



Here are the fluctuating cases.



Note the references on the charts I submit is the vital statistics of the United States.

According to the CDC there were 364 deaths from measles in the entire US.

[treepig]

185. Goodness how on earth did I live this long, with only 3 vaccines!

umm, because, as you've been told many times, you're the beneficiary of all the people who realize that we live in a society, and assume the small risk posed by vaccines for the greater good. with "the greater good" in this case being protection for people like you who claim to be informed, but are outrageously uninformed.

for example, why post a long list of mostly completely harmless compounds in the hope that people who aren't familiar with them will be alarmed? for example, at least half of the items on the list are compounds used for laboratory culture of human (or other mammalian)cells - these compounds are perfectly benign, and in fact are used specifically because they nuture cells and allow them to grow in an in vitro setting (i.e, they're used to replicate conditions found within a person's body where cells would normally be growing). it's really not that sinister . . . as anybody who had actually done two years of open-minded investigation would be well aware.

[mzmolly]

201. Earth to treepig...

When I spoke of having 3 vaccines, it is because of my age. Vaccines were not mandated by the tens 'years' ago as they are today. I believe 40 years ago we were given about 5 jabs, today children are subjected to 50 plus.

Additionally, lets get off the formaldehyde kick for a moment and assume that injecting formaldehyed into the bodies of 5 pound human beings with no immune system is totally ok.

Answer my question regarding this:

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/health/2214332

"The approved cell lines, created for possible future disease treatments, were initially grown on mouse cells. That could expose humans to an animal virus their immune systems couldn't fight, the panel said. The experts said that safer stem cell lines now exist, but those would not be eligible for federal funding."

Why aren't these scientists concerned about 'sheep/cow/chicken cells being used in vaccines? Is there a difference of which I am not aware? There very well may be, but I have asked a couple of you scientists and am awaiting a reply.

[Name removed]

203. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mzmolly]

204. Consider it accepted...

for now...

I do know there are scientists who are concerned with mixing animal dna and human dna via vaccines - not sure if that's the proper scientific verbage or not?

And, I'll officially change my statement from 'no' immune system to 'a developing' immune system.

[LibLabUK]

206. Hmm

"I do know there are scientists who are concerned with mixing animal dna and human dna via vaccines - not sure if that's the proper scientific verbage or not?"

That's possibly incorrect terminology (as it makes no sense), and highly unlikely to happen as one doesn't use human DNA to create a vaccine and vaccines don't contain animal DNA.

[mzmolly]

208. Actually the chicken pox vaccine was created with

fetal tissue.

However poke around here a bit for a scientific perspective, and be sure to check the references.

"John Barthelow Classen, M. D., M. B. A., is President and Chief Executive Officer of Classen Immunotherapies. Besides overseeing development of the company's products, he has acted as a biotechnology consultant advising several New York investment firms. He advised the biotechnology analyst and several investment bankers at Prudential Securities between 1991 and 1994 . Dr. Classen was employed at the National Institutes of Health in the Laboratory of Immunology, NIAID, between 1988 and 1991 before leaving to found Classen Immunotherapies in 1991. He received his M.D. from the University of Maryland in 1988 and his M.B.A. from Columbia University in 1992."

http://vaccines.net/newpage114.htm

Also,

"There is another polio vaccine risk--"a ticking time bomb," according to Harvard Medical School professor Ronald Desrosier--that public health officials are reluctant to discuss frankly. What is it? The polio virus that is used in both Wyeth-Lederle's oral vaccine and Connaught's injected version is grown on monkeys' kidney tissue. "The danger in using monkey tissue to produce human vaccines," says Desrosier, "is that some viruses produced by monkeys may be transferred to humans in the vaccine, with very bad health consequences." Desrosier acknowledges that you can test monkeys before using their tissue and screen out those carrying harmful viruses. But he warns that you can test only for those viruses you know about--and that our knowledge is limited to perhaps "2% of existing monkey viruses."

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Flats/6997/money.html

[LibLabUK]

213. Umm

What does fetal tissue have to do with using human DNA to create a vaccine?

For the rest, I'll refer back to treepig's reply.

[treepig]

209. once again, you make a completely irrelevant connection

formaldehyde is an extemely small molecule - there is no way it could ever evoke an immune response in anyone, therefore whether a 5 pound person has an immune system or not is completely irrelevant wrt to the response of this person to formaldehyde.

and as another poster has pointed out, bringing stem cells into this discussion is really grasping at straws.

i think the problem many of us have with you is that if you'd just admit that due to your superstitions you do not wish to have your children immunized, we'd basically have to accept that. however, you masqerade your ideas as having a sound scientific basis, which they absolutely do not. you have illustrated over and over that you do not have the slightest clue how science works (i.e., acceptance of the consensus vs. a reliance on a few out-lying studies); furthermore you either do not understand basic biology either (or are being deliberately dishonest by continually throwing in completely irrelevant information in an attempt to confuse the issue).

[mzmolly]

210. Harvard Medical School professor Ronald Desrosier has some superstitions

of his own.

I guess I'm in good company heh?

"There is another polio vaccine risk--"a ticking time bomb," according to Harvard Medical School professor Ronald Desrosier--that public health officials are reluctant to discuss frankly. What is it? The polio virus that is used in both Wyeth-Lederle's oral vaccine and Connaught's injected version is grown on monkeys' kidney tissue. "The danger in using monkey tissue to produce human vaccines," says Desrosier, "is that some viruses produced by monkeys may be transferred to humans in the vaccine, with very bad health consequences." Desrosier acknowledges that you can test monkeys before using their tissue and screen out those carrying harmful viruses. But he warns that you can test only for those viruses you know about--and that our knowledge is limited to perhaps "2% of existing monkey viruses."

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Flats/6997/money.html

As does Dr. John Martin:

""In speaking with an AMA lobbyist, I understood they "would not want the public to know that their doctors were not in the knowledge loop"......The world and, in particular, its children appear to be at risk for stealth adapted viruses. The contribution of vaccines to the formation and dissemination of these viruses should be an open topic for scientific discussion. This is not occurring with those presently in charge of overseeing the safety of the Nation's immunization program." --Dr John Martin http://www.ccid.org/safety.htm#

And...

"Even though SV-40 was being screened out, scientists such as John Martin, a professor of pathology at the University of Southern California, warned that other monkey viruses could be dangerous. But government officials rebuffed Martin's attempt to research those risks back in 1978 and again in 1995 when he was denied federal funding and vaccine samples he needed to investigate the effects of simian cytomegalovirus (SCMV), an organism that his studies indicate causes neurological disorders in the human brain."--Money Magazine

Though I'd toss in one more for ya:

""As an illustration, the issue of possible simian cytomegalovirus (SCMV) contamination of live polio virus vaccines has been suppressed since 1972. On the eve of Nixon's war on cancer, a joint Lederle Corporation/FDA Bureau of Biologics study showed that eleven test monkeys, imported for polio vaccine production, tested positively for SCMV. The reluctance of the FDA to act on this matter was revealed in a corporate memo delivered the following year. Even in 1995, following a report to FDA officials concerning a patient infected with a SCMV-derived virus, no new in-house testing of polio vaccines for SCMV has occurred. Moreover, this author's specific requests for vaccine material to undertake specific testing, were denied on the basis of protecting "proprietary" interests."--Dr Martin

[LibLabUK]

215. Oh dear!

Oh would you look at that...

CCID is listed http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/list02.htm

Heheh..

[mzmolly]

219. I am utterly shocked! Have they 'listed' The Harvard Medical School yet?

:P

[LibLabUK]

222. No. I don't expect them to be either.

But take a look at who else is listed on that site... good company to keep?

I think not.

[mzmolly]

225. Explain why 'ratbags' is credible again?

hehehehehehe.

And why a Harvard Medical professor is not?

"There is another polio vaccine risk--"a ticking time bomb," according to Harvard Medical School professor Ronald Desrosier--that public health officials are reluctant to discuss frankly. What is it? The polio virus that is used in both Wyeth-Lederle's oral vaccine and Connaught's injected version is grown on monkeys' kidney tissue. "The danger in using monkey tissue to produce human vaccines," says Desrosier, "is that some viruses produced by monkeys may be transferred to humans in the vaccine, with very bad health consequences." Desrosier acknowledges that you can test monkeys before using their tissue and screen out those carrying harmful viruses. But he warns that you can test only for those viruses you know about--and that our knowledge is limited to perhaps "2% of existing monkey viruses."

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Flats/6997/money.html

As does Dr. John Martin:

""In speaking with an AMA lobbyist, I understood they "would not want the public to know that their doctors were not in the knowledge loop"......The world and, in particular, its children appear to be at risk for stealth adapted viruses. The contribution of vaccines to the formation and dissemination of these viruses should be an open topic for scientific discussion. This is not occurring with those presently in charge of overseeing the safety of the Nation's immunization program." --Dr John Martin http://www.ccid.org/safety.htm#

And...

"Even though SV-40 was being screened out, scientists such as John Martin, a professor of pathology at the University of Southern California, warned that other monkey viruses could be dangerous. But government officials rebuffed Martin's attempt to research those risks back in 1978 and again in 1995 when he was denied federal funding and vaccine samples he needed to investigate the effects of simian cytomegalovirus (SCMV), an organism that his studies indicate causes neurological disorders in the human brain."--Money Magazine

"As an illustration, the issue of possible simian cytomegalovirus (SCMV) contamination of live polio virus vaccines has been suppressed since 1972. On the eve of Nixon's war on cancer, a joint Lederle Corporation/FDA Bureau of Biologics study showed that eleven test monkeys, imported for polio vaccine production, tested positively for SCMV. The reluctance of the FDA to act on this matter was revealed in a corporate memo delivered the following year. Even in 1995, following a report to FDA officials concerning a patient infected with a SCMV-derived virus, no new in-house testing of polio vaccines for SCMV has occurred. Moreover, this author's specific requests for vaccine material to undertake specific testing, were denied on the basis of protecting "proprietary" interests."--Dr Martin

[treepig]

227. you continue at your old tricks

first, vaccines made from cell cultures harboring sv-40 have not been used in human patients since 1963. not really an extant issue.

second, the information you provide makes it sound like there's a cover-up in progress about the effects of sv-40 in vaccines. however if you were to do a PUBMED search on sv-40 and human cancers you'd find there have been 2,952 published papers, with over 1000 of them in the past decade. there's definitely no effort being made to suppress research!!

but what about "scientist such as John Martin" not getting government funding - do you have any idea how difficult it is to get government funding to do research? about 1 out of 8 proposals judged worthy of funding by peer-review actually receive funding (perhaps if the military's budget was flipped with the NIH's that could change, but that's a different topic). the point here is that the vast majority of research proposals are denied funding - and most investigators are mature enough not to go running to Money Magazine with some tale of woe - in this case a cover-up of a medical problem whose cause ended 40 years ago (but i guess due to the efforts of people such as you, vaccines are a hot-button item worthy of airing in the mass media).

[mzmolly]

229. Old tricks?

Cute ;)

Are medical professors trying to trick you also? How bout pathologists? MD's?

[treepig]

231. you have to rely on the information, not the person

peter duesberg, a member of the national academy of sciences and tenured professor at the university of california - berkeley claims that HIV does not cause aids. he's wrong - i think any semi-literature, open-mined tenth grader could asses the scientific literature and come to this conclusion. unfortunately, political "leaders" in africa have used duesberg's outrageous claims to justify doing nothing to prevent the spread of HIV and therefore have made the aids epidemic much worse.

also, two time nobel prize winner linus pauling became obsessed with vitamin c and claimed it could cure almost anything (no doubt it could even prevent the deleterious side effects of vaccines!). in any event, he advocated the intake of such large amounts of vitamin c that they were actually dangerous.

quite frankly, citing individual people or studies means pretty much nothing. here's a link to an online dictionary - i submit that you'd benefit from looking up the meaing of "consensus"

http://www.m-w.com/home.htm

[mzmolly]

232. Treepig....

*sigh*

We could go rounds until the end of time but it's worthless to do so.

I think that the safety of vaccines is questionable, you do not. I shall bite my tounge on the rest of the commentary as I am saying adios' to each of you now.

This has been an interesting and passionate discussion, and I thank you for taking part in it.

Hopefully we will be working toward a common cause in the near future

*The Bush BYE BYE vaccine* ~ :hi:

Back to life..........................................................

[mzmolly]

233. Hugz and kisses to you...

:*

[trotsky]

110. I'll certainly reply

when you have so completely and thoroughly misread and misunderstood the source.

YES, formaldehyde can be harmful. I have never denied that! But note the very words you quote - "Exposure to high levels or exposure to long-term low levels" - tell me, does that describe a vaccine? Why don't you truly inform yourself as to what a "high level" of exposure is. And how long long-term is. And quit scare-mongering, please?

Of course, you completely missed the point of the fact that OUR OWN BODIES MAKE FORMALDEHYDE. Your scary sources say that there's no "safe" amount. But if our bodies make it, there is obviously a safe amount! And considering that formaldehyde is everywhere - in the air, in plants and animals, in chemicals that we come in contact with all the time - I think your fear of it only when it comes to vaccines is rather selective.

After your name-calling and accusing those of us who support vaccinations as being "sheep" or "brainwashed" or simply biased by industry, I'm fed up with your attitude that somehow we're all deluded by the 95% of medical studies showing little to no links between vaccines and injury, and that your 5% of the data is the only correct part. Your smug comments about not wanting to inject "poisons" into your child have also grown old and insulting, as you imply that somehow we don't care for the welfare of our children like you do for yours.

I'm afraid I have gone beyond not having respect for your decision. Now I'm just disgusted, both with the decision itself and your attitude in these threads.

[mzmolly]

113. Sorry to have 'disgusted' you...

I think vaccines could be considered long term low levels, especially considering booster shots? Also, as was stated in the information you posted, studies are lacking.

I'm disgusted with your lack of respect for those that disagree with you.

You said ~ "After your name-calling and accusing those of us who support vaccinations as being "sheep" or "brainwashed" or simply biased by industry, I'm fed up with your attitude that somehow we're all deluded by the 95% of medical studies showing little to no links between vaccines and injury, and that your 5% of the data is the only correct part. Your smug comments about not wanting to inject "poisons" into your child have also grown old and insulting, as you imply that somehow we don't care for the welfare of our children like you do for yours."

I never meant to imply such a thing though I am sure I did. And, I also believe I apologized, but I don't recall an apology in return.

Can you please read how I have been regarded in these threads. I've been called selfish, insane, "disgusting" and have been told my child should be removed from my home. Pardon me for being a bit defensive.

I realize everyone here cares about their children. And, I have said all along that I FULLY RESPECT YOUR DECISION TO VACCINATE. You refuse to grant me the same consideration, and at the same time imply that I have an additude?

Also my 'scary' information regarding formaldehyde was a government agency's assertion. The wording was there is no known safe amount to 'inject' into the human body as I recall?

*Clarifications*

* I respect your decision/right to vaccinate.

* I am certain you love your children every bit as much as I do.

* You may even be right about vaccinations.

[LibLabUK]

82. Hmm

"The overall benefit from vaccines far outweighs their risks. I agree that we cannot have an outright mandate that everyone MUST vaccinate; there must always be the ability to make an exception due to medical necessity."

Is there any doctor that would give an egg-based vaccine to a person with a known egg allergy?

Surely these exceptions already exist?

That said, I don't like the idea of any medical treatment against the will of the patient unless the patient is unable to give consent through incapacity, age or mental illness. To treat without consent is an assualt in the UK.

[mzmolly]

83. Good point.

I didnt respond b/c this is a fellow Dean supporter and I thought I'd refrain from comment. :hi:

Also, most egg allergy's are not 'known' by the time a child is two months old, KWIM? At least, I don't expect most allergies are determined by that age. ;)

[WoodrowFan]

7. The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons

Humm, I started doing some searches on Google about this group. It's also Pro-life and has strongly back the spurious link between Abortion and Breast Cancer. "The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons says the relationship is "highly plausible" and women may reconsider abortion if they are told the facts."

http://www.prolifeinfo.com/nat185.html


They also sued Hillery Clinton over the Health Care Reform hearings in 1993. (near bottom of the linked page)
http://64.21.33.164/CNews/y00/may00/01e9.htm


World Net Daily (a RW source) sure likes them in part for their opposition to futher restrictions on tobacco...
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=18019


They are also antigay (do a search on their website for "homosexual".)
http://www.aapsonline.org/

"The gay male community lacked the restraint normally imposed on heterosexual encounters by the less sexually-promiscuous female gender. In 1978, a survey revealed that only 14 percent of gay males were in a monogamous relationship, while 43 percent had 500 lifetime sex partners and 33 percent had 1,000. By the early Eighties, when AIDS was first identified, the prevalence of syphilis and gonorrhea among gay men was several hundred times that among comparable groups of heterosexuals. Easy treatment for these diseases, as well as the cooperation of public health officials, imbued the gay men with a cavalier attitude toward venereal diseases. Gay men made up about 80 percent of the visits to San Francisco's VD clinics where they could get a shot, and a date."




They seem to have a real RW bent so I'm not sure I'd trust their judgement.

(edited to add material from their site on homosexuality and to change 'libertarian' to "RW")

[mzmolly]

11. They recently came out agains the Pat Act so???

Here is todays press release.

News of the Day ... in Perspective
11/10/2003
PATRIOT Act Used Against White-Collar Crime

As AAPS feared, the expanded powers of federal prosecutors under the USA PATRIOT Act are being used against garden-variety criminals, not just suspected terrorists.

According to the Las Vegas Review Journal of Nov. 5, the investigation of strip club owner Michael Galardi and numerous politicians appears to be the first time federal authorities have used the Act in a public corruption probe. Subpoenas were faxed to stockbrokers, seeking evidence of hidden proceeds that might provide evidence of bribery.

Mark Corallo, spokesman for the Justice Department, said that lawmakers were fully aware of the far-reaching implications of the Act when it was passed.

Gary Peck, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, said that “Those comments are disingenuous at best and do little to inspire confidence that the act won’t be systematically abused.”

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2003/Nov-05-Wed-2003/news/22521283.html

While Congressional Democrats have called for changes to some sections of the “antiterrorism” law, Al Gore is the first to call for outright repeal. His concerns are focused on immigrants and foreign citizens, including detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

www.nytimes.com/2003/11/10/national/10GORE.html?pagewanted=print&position=

Additional information:

Proposed Act for Protecting the Rights of Individuals
AAPS and coalition fight new federal surveillance bill
Knowledge Is Power, AAPS News, January 2003

Though I don't agree with them on many, many issues, I do agree with their stand on vaccines. It's no wonder they aren't taken seriously though huh? *sheesh* Pehaps they are 'libertarian' ;)

[WoodrowFan]

27. So they tailor their medical judgements to fit their politics.

Their advocating the bogus link between abortion and breast cancer was a HUGE red flag to me.


I changed 'libertarian' to 'rw' after seeing their abortion stance and their linking AIDs and homosexuality.

[mzmolly]

30. I can see your point, however how does coming out against

vaccine mandates fit into RW 'politics'? Also, they came out against the Pat act too?

They are not anti-medicine or anti-vaccine, they are Medical Professionals. NTW, they no business taking a stand on Abortion or propagandizing anti gay crap!) So thanks for pointing that out. I shant site their 'puffery' again. But, I do respect their stand on the issue of vaccination. I know of many other scientists/doctors who would agree that vaccination should be a choice. You'd think this organization would respect 'choice' with regard to abortion as well huh?

[maha]

35. They appear to be a libertarian group

I seriously doubt their membership is very large, and question if what members they have are actually physicians. Very few actual physicians (there are always a few crackpots in every group) would be opposed to mandatory vaccines.

[mzmolly]

40. What a shame to call Docs who aren't sheep crackpots?

I disagree. However, the AAPS has some 'crackpot' positions for sure.

This doesnt detract from the original question however.

So far, it would appear that the 'crack pots' are in the lead... :)

[WoodrowFan]

59. a crackpot is still a crackpot.

see "creationists"

[mzmolly]

65. HUH?

Whatever. I find the science surrounding vaccination a bit 'crackpotesque' meself.

[LibLabUK]

131. Hmm

"I find the science surrounding vaccination a bit 'crackpotesque' meself."

Out of interest, where and what field did you study at college?

[mzmolly]

145. Out of interest,

Why?

[LibLabUK]

149. Why?

It's pertinent, because you're making claims against the veracity of accepted peer-reviewed research. I'd like for you to inform us of your expertise and experience.

[mzmolly]

153. You'll have to check the references of the many links I posted if you'd

like more information. I have referenced the JAMA, CDC, THE LANCET, to name a few. So, these are not MY claims as you say, I am simply the messenger. The claims in question are made by your peers.

I for the record, am an accountant by trade so I simply 'weighed' the numbers, as that's what I do. The most convincing evidence for me personally actually came from the CDC.

I do suggest if your actually interested in examining the issue with an open mind, review both sides of the issue as I did before drawing a conclusion.

:hi:

My child is awake now so I am out for now.

[nonconformist]

14. Absolutely NOT.

*

[mzmolly]

19. Agreed and Welcome!

:toast:

[latebloomer]

20. I also remember them in relation to Homeland Security

I believe that thay have taken some strong positions on the mandates pushed thru with the Homeland Security Act that people could be vaccinated for smallpox against their will-- rounded up in stadiums, parents separated from children, etc.

I vastly distrust the whole vaccine industry, the long-term health consequences, the use of genetically engineered matter and other toxins, and ithe industry's connections with the elements that are taking away our civil liberties.

[mzmolly]

25. My level of 'trust' equals yours.

In addition, when I look at 'data' and death rates before vaccines and after, I don't see the 'tremendous' impact that they claim *at least not in the US* I think there are many factors in disease control, and vaccination is only one piece of a larger puzzle in the reduction of death.

I also find it curious that the gov isn't tracking vaccine related injury and death with the same vigor they trace disease statistics. :shrug:

They have a 'passive' reporting system in which they estimate only 1-10% of vaccine related injuries/deaths are actually reported.

[qb]

29. No. There was a time when I would have said "Yes"

(while allowing people with valid reasons to opt out). That was back when I trusted the government to protect the health of its people rather than the wealth of the pharmaceutical empire.

[maha]

31. This is NOT a legitimate physicians' organization.

Spend some time on their main site:

http://www.aapsonline.org/

This is a political advocacy group dressed up to look like a physicians' organization. It's a fraud.

The fact is that mandatory vaccines help keep all of us healthy. A lot of really nasty diseases that used to kill people, like diptheria, are nearly unknown in the U.S. because of mandatory vaccines.

[mzmolly]

32. The AAPS is a medical organization, though they appear to have

some questionable positions, their stand on vaccines is not one of them IMHO.

[maha]

33. What makes you think it's for real?

Who are their members? How many members do they have?

[mzmolly]

38. Well....They've been around since 1943.

HOWEVER, I did NOT know they had political propaganda on their friggin website, and I wont post their crap links again... ;)

Here is more info on them.

http://www.aapsonline.org/accredit.htm

1601 N. Tucson Blvd. Suite 9
Tucson, AZ 85716-3450
Phone: [phone]
Hotline: [phone]

Also they have some controversial stands against the Bushies too as I demonstrated with previous information so?? Perhaps they are just malcontents ;)

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34884

http://www.aapsonline.org/painman/painrn.htm

Here is information about the President of the AAPS.

http://www.janeorient.com/

http://i2i.org/Other/iv/Orient/Index.html

http://www.aapsonline.org/testimony/jmotf.htm

Also, as I've said...they've been around a while:

"I am Jane Orient, Executive Director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons and one of 50 Past Presidents. I am in the solo practice of private medicine in Tucson, AZ. I speak as a physician who is bound by the Oath of Hippocrates."

[latebloomer]

37. Re vaccines keeping us healthy

There is a lot of controversy about vaccines and much evidence that they can cause all kinds of health problems and have deleterious longterm effects on the autoimmune system. The National Vaccine Information Center has lots of good links and articles on their website--

www.nvic.org

[mzmolly]

42. Thanks! I agree. I am a member of the NVIC... Out for now folks....

~Peace

Interestingly enough the CDC doesn't keep sound records/stats on vaccine injuries-go figure. :shrug:

[LibLabUK]

90. Hmm

Quackwatch lists NVIC as a questionable organisation.

http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/nonrecorg.html

[mzmolly]

92. Im sure they do. They have anything that goes against mainstream

medicine listed as 'questionable'? ;)

[LibLabUK]

93. Well...

Hehe.. there's a reason the stuff you're spouting isn't mainstream.

[mzmolly]

94. Yes, money talks...

And, the pharmaceutical companies have much of it. ;)

~ Peace LibLabUK...

I'll check back in later. :hi:

[LibLabUK]

98. Bullshit.

"Yes, money talks...And, the pharmaceutical companies have much of it.


The pharmaceutical companies have no input into the conclusions and results of research at my institution, and I'd like to see some proof that they do at others.

You make the claim, you prove it.

[mzmolly]

105. Well you live in the UK, I live in the US where vaccine profiteers sit on

the very committees that determine vaccine policy.


http://my.webmd.com/content/article/26/1728_58513?src=Inktomi&condition=Home_&_Top_Stories

"On Capitol Hill, the FDA and CDC were under attack at a hearing of the House Committee on Government Reform. The concern, expressed by Chairman Dan Burton (R-Ind.), is that there are possible conflicts of interest issues that unduly influenced the approval of the rotavirus vaccine.

The vaccine, RotaShield, was approved by the FDA in 1998 to prevent infant diarrhea and recommended for universal use by the CDC in March of 1999. However, it was pulled off the market last October after some children developed serious bowel complications.

Burton says that three out of the FDA advisory committee members who voted for the vaccine had financial ties to drug companies that were developing different versions of the product. He also notes that four of the eight CDC part-time experts who gave their OK for using RotaShield also had interests in firms working on similar vaccines. Both the FDA and CDC rely heavily on a system of freelance experts to help them reach decisions about putting pharmaceuticals on the market.

"How confident can we be in a system when the agency seems to feel that the number of experts is so few that everyone has a conflict and thus waivers must be granted? It almost appears that there is a 'old boys network,'" Burton said. The congressman is an outspoken critic of FDA vaccination policies. He says his grandson was stricken with autism just after receiving a series of vaccinations, although there is no scientific link between vaccines and the mental disorder."

Out for a time... :hi:

[LibLabUK]

106. Hmm

Seems to me this Republican has an axe to grind with vaccine developers.

Doesn't make him a particularly good source.

[mzmolly]

114. Yes the axe resulted from his grandchildren suffering from vaccine

injury. It is too bad he's a Republican though ;)

[trotsky]

115. Please make sure you look at post #112.

n/t

[mzmolly]

117. I did Trotzky thanks..

However the poster was referring to another so I did not reply. The post he referred to did not infer that MMR had mercury so?

And, the Autism concern as it relates to the MMR jab is not mercury / Thimerasol related, here is more information from the CDC.

"The MMR-autism theory is based on the idea that intestinal problems, like Crohn’s disease, are the result of viral infection and can contribute to the development of autism. The theory has its origins in research by Wakefield and colleagues (1989; 1990) which suggested that inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is linked to persistent viral infection."

Some information from the 'quacks'...

http://www.whale.to/a/thrower.html

Guess what? Scientists disagree on this issue again, SURPRISE!

Because of that, I tend to believe mothers who say they knew their child before and noticed an immediate change after vaccination.

Also, what I personally considered with my own child was the fact that there were 0 deaths from measles in the year she was born, so I didn't feel a need to risk anything KWIM? Especially with an Autistic nephew and a diabetic husband... :shrug:

http://www.rense.com/general32/mmr.htm *Not sure what happened here?*

[trotsky]

121. Of course scientists disagree.

They're allowed to. That's science. You build a consensus, based on the evidence. Thankfully, science allows for debate, and even allows itself to be completely overturned. That's what separates science from non-science.

Did you ever stop to think that maybe the REASON why there were no deaths from measles the year your daughter was born was because of the vaccine? Naw, I'm sure it's just because of modern treatment, right?

[mzmolly]

127. Of course I considered that.

And I also considered a number of other factors which I have noted on several occasions.

The main thing I "considered" though, was what the CDC said at that time on their web site.

"Vaccines are so effective they kill more children in the US each year, then the diseases they currently protect against." :freak:

Course Im paraphrasing, and they have since removed the questionable language from their website. I imagine it was quite 'alarming'.

Night~

[trotsky]

134. You're horribly misinterpreting that.

The point is not how many children might die due to vaccines (A) versus how many die from the disease the vaccine prevents (B), it's versus how many WOULD HAVE died if the vaccine had not been used at all (C).

As long as C > A, the vaccine is saving lives. You think that if A > B, the vaccine does more harm than good, and that's not only mistaken, it's completely wrong.

[LibLabUK]

137. Ofcourse.

""You're horribly misinterpreting that.""

That's an understatement.

I'm sure she's quite aware of how she's mis-stating the stats and evidence. I'm sure it's straight out of the NVIC handbook... they're bound to have one just like the Creationists do. A "How to appear authoritative in debates with evil scientists"-101 guide.

Maybe if we all held hands, sang a song to Gaia and danced round a maypole all the children of the world would be healed.

Off on a tangent somewhat. Wouldn't it bring in more money for the pharmaceutical companies to treat illnesses rather than preventing them through vaccination?

[mzmolly]

148. I resent the personal nature of your reply.

"I'm sure she's quite aware of how she's mis-stating the stats and evidence. I'm sure it's straight out of the NVIC handbook... they're bound to have one just like the Creationists do. A "How to appear authoritative in debates with evil scientists"-101 guide."

Sorry which stats did I mistate?

"Maybe if we all held hands, sang a song to Gaia and danced round a maypole all the children of the world would be healed."

Or maybe if we let these diseases run their course 'with out' the intervention of the Government, they'd have fettered out on their own. Or, perhaps we could quarantine ill people? Or....



"Off on a tangent somewhat. Wouldn't it bring in more money for the pharmaceutical companies to treat illnesses rather than preventing them through vaccination?"

No, consider the fact that every family is told to 'buy' the products in question. And, consider the fact that most people who contracted say measles in recent years did not require medical treatment.

[mzmolly]

146. Well, why don't you get the numbers for me.

Find out how many children are killed from vaccines each year in the US, and let me know.

Until you or the CDC can give me the answer to that question, we are unable to establish a darn thing.

As I've said before, the CDC isn't interested in tabulating that into neat little adobe charts *like they do with the disease stats*.

I called them again yesterday, to see if their answers had changed - They hadn't.

Q~ How many children die each year in the US from vaccines?

A~ Very few.

Q~ What's very few?

A~ About 1 in 10,000 children die or are seriously injured from vaccines, however the number is so minor we don't really track it.

Q~ How do you know it's minor if you don't track it?

A~ Well they are reported to VAERS, but 'we' don't calculate the information because it's too hard to tabulate.

Q~ Isn't it also hard to tabulate deaths from disease?

A~ Well, uhh yes but vaccination deaths are hard to prove, uhm err...

You get the picture. BOTTOM LINE: They are not interested in knowing how many children die from vaccinations every year. And, heck why should they be, the American public isn't terribly interested either.

The goal of the CDC is to 'promote' vaccines, and that they do.

[trotsky]

155. So, to summarize your argument:

"I don't have any real data, but I know vaccines are bad."

You seem to be simultaneously willing to accept what the CDC says (based on your phone calls) while reserving the right to deny what they say because they're biased.

http://www.cdc.gov/od/nvpo/vacsafe.htm

"Vaccines have been so successful in preventing disease in the U.S. that in recent years, the annual number of reports to VAERS have exceeded the total number of reports of routine childhood vaccine-preventable disease. This may lead some people to believe that the vaccines are dangerous. However, based on the very large numbers of data collected nationwide through the various data systems, the risk of a serious adverse reaction to an immunization is extremely small. The risk of the disease itself is substantially more serious than the risk of the immunization. The risks of specific vaccines are posted on the CDC National Immunization Program home page, which you can access by clicking here. (http://www.cdc.gov/nip/)"

That link in turn takes you to pages like this, which offer pointers on how to analyze the information you find on the Internet. (http://www.cdc.gov/od/nvpo/tips.htm)

Or this, which analyze in depth the possible relationships between illnesses and vaccines: http://www.partnersforimmunization.org/pdf/Vaccine_Safety.pdf

You claim the CDC is "not interested in knowing how many children die from vaccinations every year." That's an outrageous claim, one which you should retract.

[mzmolly]

164. So to summarize your argument...

I dont have any real data but I know vaccines are good.

You noted from the CDC ~ "Vaccines have been so successful in preventing disease in the U.S. that in recent years, the annual number of reports to VAERS have exceeded the total number of reports of routine childhood vaccine-preventable disease. This may lead some people to believe that the vaccines are dangerous. However, based on the very large numbers of data collected nationwide through the various data systems, the risk of a serious adverse reaction to an immunization is extremely small. The risk of the disease itself is substantially more serious than the risk of the immunization. The risks of specific vaccines are posted on the CDC National Immunization Program home page, which you can access by clicking here. (http://www.cdc.gov/nip/)"

*Fluff I tell you*

You have actually helped to illustrate my point that the CDC isn't interested in tracking vaccine injury/death with the same vigor they track diseases. Note, that VAERS is a voluntary program and reporting is estimated at only 1-10%.

Again, I ask how many children died from vaccines in 1999? I have estimates *based on VAERS data* that the number of children that die every year from vaccinations is anywhere from 1650 - 16,500 on average. I don't consider that a 'small' amount. As I said if you add up the # of deaths pre vax for all the diseases we vax against currently in the US you'll surpass 1650 but you won't get to 16,500.

[LibLabUK]

166. Hmm.. Trotsky, what do you think?

"Vaccines have been so successful in preventing disease in the U.S. that in recent years, the annual number of reports to VAERS have exceeded the total number of reports of routine childhood vaccine-preventable disease."

How many millions of doses are given each year?

I'd estimate that the number of doses of vaccine given outnumber the number of cases of infection by orders of magnitude.

What's the actual ratios of doses given to serious adverse reactions?

The other problem with her reasoning, is that she's been very vague as to what she calls a reaction (with the exception of death). Generally in clinical trials we don't count reactions to drugs if they occur 28 days post administration (unless the pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic profiles of the drug suggest otherwise). I'd be very suprised if any ingredient of a vaccine was still present after 28 days (afterall, the active ingredients should have been destroyed by immune reaction, and the inactive ingredients passed through). So given this, how long after administration is she going to count adverse reactions?

And then there's the question about mechanisms of action. I'd like to see some actual studies that show the mechanism by which these vaccines do harm. We hear them all harping on about mercury, thimerosol, and the boogy man but no one has actually suggested a mechanism by which these agents are supposed to do harm. Surely the anti-vaccine lobby is funding some research?

SO, other than lacking solid definitions of harm, ignoring pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies of drug distribution, metabolism and elimination, mis-stating statistics, and mis-representing risk I think she's got a solid argument.

[mzmolly]

170. I have an idea...

Why don't you call the Department of Health and Human services and ask them how they decide whether or not a death is related to a vaccine.

Since tax payers pay out a number of claims each year to compensate victims of vaccine injury/death they will likely have some information for you.

http://www.hrsa.gov/osp/vicp/

Perhaps their now listed on quackwatch too as it's interesting to note they worked with the *gasp* NVIC:

"The oldest and largest national organization advocating that vaccine safety reforms be instituted in the mass vaccination system and that Americans be free to make informed vaccination choices, NVIC's co-founders worked with federal legislators to help create and pass the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. This law set up a vaccine injury compensation program and included legal requirements for vaccine providers to: (1) provide benefit and risk information to parents before children are vaccinated; (2) keep written records of vaccine manufacturer names and lot numbers for each vaccination given; and (3) report adverse events following vaccination to the government. The law also preserved the right for vaccine injured persons to bring a lawsuit in the court system if federal compensation is denied or is not sufficient. By 1997, the U.S. Court of Claims had awarded nearly 1,000 vaccine victims nearly $1 billion dollars for their catastrophic vaccine injuries."

Imagine our legislators working with such an organization *piff* :eyes:
http://www.909shot.com/About.htm

[LibLabUK]

176. Ho Hum

But I asked you, why can't you tell me?... Afterall you've done extensive research on the subject.

So what are the leading causes of death in vaccine-related deaths?

How many deaths are due to anaphylaxis, how many due to infection, how many due to mercury poisoning?

Do you also refrain from medicating your children when they're sick?

You do know that far more people are killed or injured through reactions to and misadministration of drugs than vaccines, don't you?

[mzmolly]

182. Well...

You see, I can tell you how many people died from the diseases "once again" and or how many people are dying from vaccinations "once again" *at least according to rough estimates* but since I've done so about 50 times I'll ask that you re-read the thread.

And, yes I medicate my child when she is ill. Do you vaccinate your child with every vaccination available to man, or do you wait for the Feds to tell you you should?

"You do know that far more people are killed or injured through reactions to and misadministration of drugs than vaccines, don't you?"

Actually I'm still waiting to find out the 'actual' number of people killed by vaccination each year. As I said, all we have are rough estimates because the CDC says 'it's too hard to track'.

I have a couple questions for you however.

Why do you think it's necessary to inject children with the polio vaccine when it's been erradicted in the Western Hemisphere, and the vaccine is the only known cause of polio in the recent history of the US?

Also, why are scientists concerned with using mouse cells in stem cell research, but not concerned with cow/sheep/chicken cells being used in vaccines?

How are vaccines protecting us when:

1. Many adults have not been vaccinated?

2. Vaccines have a waining effect?

Also, how do you explain the reduction in the number of deaths from disease before vaccination?

Thanks

[LibLabUK]

200. Hmm..

"Why do you think it's necessary to inject children with the polio vaccine when it's been erradicted in the Western Hemisphere, and the vaccine is the only known cause of polio in the recent history of the US?"

Global travel, tourism and immigration. There are still a considerable number of places where polio is endemic.

"How are vaccines protecting us when: 1. Many adults have not been vaccinated?"

It's called communal immunity. If you have over a certain % of the population vaccinated, it confers a protection on the % that isn't.

"Vaccines have a waining effect"

I don't understand this argument. You're saying that because the immunity conferred by a vaccine may not be permanent, it's of no value?

So to get back to my point, you expose your child to the risk of a drug reaction or misadministration, but you don't for vaccination.

Hmm.. interesting.

[mzmolly]

202. Hey, you skipped right over my main question, imagine that?

"Also, how do you explain the reduction in the number of deaths from disease before vaccination?"

And another question, "exactly" what percentage of the population should be vaxed in order to confer protection?

Oh, and the reason I administer medicine when my child is ill *which is very rare I might add* is because she is actually in need of it what's so interesting about that.

[LibLabUK]

205. Well

""Hey, you skipped right over my main question, imagine that?""

I answered the stem cell question higher up the thread.

"And another question, "exactly" what percentage of the population should be vaxed in order to confer protection?"

I'm not sure it's possible to quantify it in that way. It works by reducing the available reservoirs of infection, thereby conferring immunity by reducing the risk of infection.

[mzmolly]

207. How do you explain the dramatic reduction in disease rates

prior to the introduction of vaccines?

Also, here is a website which may appeal to you? This person has better credentials then myself ;)

"John Barthelow Classen, M. D., M. B. A., is President and Chief Executive Officer of Classen Immunotherapies. Besides overseeing development of the company's products, he has acted as a biotechnology consultant advising several New York investment firms. He advised the biotechnology analyst and several investment bankers at Prudential Securities between 1991 and 1994 . Dr. Classen was employed at the National Institutes of Health in the Laboratory of Immunology, NIAID, between 1988 and 1991 before leaving to found Classen Immunotherapies in 1991. He received his M.D. from the University of Maryland in 1988 and his M.B.A. from Columbia University in 1992."

Poke around a bit, and be sure to check out the refs. This may be more your 'language'?

http://vaccines.net/newpage114.htm

[LibLabUK]

211. The reason I didn't answer that question is...

There's a link in already in this thread that answers your question.

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/vaxliars2.htm

Vaccines.net is another dubious source of information. :)

[mzmolly]

214. Gosh if only goverment statistics and medical journals didn't back

up the fact that disease declined prior to vaccination, they might be on to something...

I see the site you linked is fair and balanced?

"It is almost beyond the comprehension of sane people that there should be organised opposition to vaccines. A special place should be reserved in Hell for the people who want to kill or maim children by preventing them from receiving vaccinations. This is a special case of health fraud, because most of the other sorts at least pretend to cure something."

Apparently I'm headed for 'hell' :scared:

Oh here is some information on the site you linked and the 'owner'...

http://www.whale.to/a/bowditch.html

Oh and this is a good read as well.

http://www.whale.to/vaccine/propaganda3.html

[Name removed]

165. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mzmolly]

169. Sorry, when you get the actual number from the CDC, let me know

until then it would appear that I am correct.

Perhaps I shoud rephrase it to state. They are not interested in 'sharing' the data they have collected. Though the representave I spoke to told me they don't 'tabulate' the VAERS data as it was too difficult to do.

Oh well, as I said, it's not really necessary anyhow. :)

[trotsky]

184. mzmolly, let me introduce you to a concept called the Burden of Proof.

Countless medical studies have shown that vaccines are safe.

Links posted on here have demolished connections between vaccines and autism, cancer, SIDS, etc.

When faced with a mountain of evidence, the claim which is supported by science is that vaccines are much safer than the diseases they prevent.

It is YOU that bears the burden of proof, to prove otherwise.

You have presented no data that shows how the chemicals and materials present in vaccines causes harm, just assertions.

mzmolly, I am being completely serious in that if you, or anyone else, were to show that vaccines did more harm than good, you would win a Nobel Prize in medicine. If you have valid data, you can overturn scientific consensus.

But the only "data" you've been able to come up with is circumstantial, anecdotal, or conjecture. Those don't cut it, except when you're only look to reinforce what you already believe, or push a political agenda as the AASP does.

Fortunately for your child, your willful ignorance about the dangers of not vaccinating is unlikely to harm her, because vaccines have made all those diseases exceedingly rare in the western hemisphere.

And all those chemicals you listed? We are exposed to all of them, and more, in our daily lives. Your fear of them only when it comes to vaccines is irrational.

[mzmolly]

199. I am not convinced....

Speaking of the 'burden of proof'...

It is not proven that vaccines to more 'good' then 'harm'?

"Fortunately for your child, your willful ignorance about the dangers of not vaccinating is unlikely to harm her, because vaccines have made all those diseases exceedingly rare in the western hemisphere."

I see your back to calling me 'ignorant' and irrational again, that didn't take long.

I find it humorous that I am called irrational and your the one who is vaccinating against diseases that claim less then 15 lives per year in the US combined? Who's the irrational ignorant one here?

What a pity you can't see there may be another side to the vaccination story.

I have posted several links to so called 'peer reviewed' information which you chose to ignore. What a shame you can't open your mind a wee bit Trotzky. :hi:

You may want to take a gander here...

http://www.soilandhealth.org/02/0201hyglibcat/020132sinclair/vaccinaion.htm

*please note the references include respected medical journals*

And here~

http://www.rosehealth.com/vaccines.htm

Also: "Many scientific studies tell us that vaccines are safe and effective when this is not necessarily the case., Doctors and vaccine proponents often quote studies done solely on antibody production in the blood, not taking into account clinical experiences., In her research, Cynthia Cournoyer discusses some of the studies that started with the hypothesis that vaccines are safe and effective.
harmful and ineffective," Cournoyer says. "When vaccine failures and reactions occur, they are explained away. Researchers conclude that the doses were wrong, the control group was wrong, or that something else was wrong. Using common sense, I would conclude that perhaps something is wrong with the vaccines being studied."

Cournoyer uses this example to show just how biased vaccine studies can be: "A 1988 Lancet article reports a study in which a group of children were given the cellular pertussis vaccine. Those who had a reaction to the first dose were removed from the research population. Only nonreacting children were kept and given a second dose. Researchers were not interested in studying the children who reacted to the first dose. This allowed them to say that the new vaccine was safe and effective. In reality, however, children are receiving first doses all the time."

Dr. Dean Black believes that scientists know that there are risks and benefits to vaccination but assume that the good effects outweigh the bad. However, they do not have proof to back up their claims, a point brought out in Congressional hearings. Black states, "Congressman Waxman addressed this issue directly at the Congressional hearings on vaccine safety when he asked Dr. Martin H. Smith, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, ‘In your opinion, Dr. Smith, is there an accurate reporting of reactions to vaccines?’ Smith said, ‘Not at the present time.’ Dr. Edward N. Brandt, assistant secretary for health in the Department of Health and Human Services, ‘I have been hearing that physicians don’t even know a reaction when one occurs. They assume that it may be from some other cause. Is that a fair statement?’ Brandt replied, ‘Certainly there have been a number of people who have pointed that out.’ Congressman Waxman then asked Brandt, ‘How do you prove that a vaccine was, in fact, the cause of an illness or disability?’ To this, Brandt said, ‘It may very well be impossible to do that in individual cases.’ And of course," Black points out, "there are only individual cases. So, we have in the Congressional Record a clear statement that says we do not know the risk of harm."

Black continues by asking, "How about the benefit? The benefit means children would have become injured or would have died without the
"They never consider the opposite possibility, that vaccines are vaccine. The question is, how do we know who would have died without the vaccine? How do we know how many would have been harmed without it? The answer is, we don’t know. It’s purely hypothetical."

Black then brings up an issue that needs more attention—what if we stopped compulsory vaccination? "By looking at what happens in countries where vaccinations are no longer required," he says, "we can get an idea of what would truly happen if we were to cease demanding compulsory immunization in America. In 1975, Germany stopped requiring pertussis vaccinations, and the number of children vaccinated promptly began to drop. Today, it has dropped to well below 10 percent. What has happened in Germany from pertussis over that period of time? The mortality rate has continued to decrease. That would likewise be our experience here."

[trotsky]

212. *Sigh*

"I find it humorous that I am called irrational and your the one who is vaccinating against diseases that claim less then 15 lives per year in the US combined? Who's the irrational ignorant one here?"

You are, I'm afraid. You are claiming that vaccines have had no effect whatsoever on reducing the number of cases of disease, or the number of deaths from those diseases. And that is so patently false, it's unbelievable it even needs to be discussed. That is ignorance, plain and simple.

Let's try it one more time:

Do you believe ANY vaccines have worked (to at least some extent) to decrease infection and/or death rates from the disease they were created to fight?

If No, then stop. No amount of factual knowledge will ever penetrate your shield of ignorance.

If Yes, then you have been wrong this entire time. Once again, let me explain: the REASON why there are so few deaths from those diseases today is BECAUSE OF vaccines. Your "logic" consists of looking at those small numbers, concluding that because of them, the diseases are no threat, and therefore vaccination is unnecessary! Do you understand how irrational that is? (And to hold that thought IS irrational, it's not name-calling.)

(By the way, if you had really read the 6 Myths article on the CDC, you would have seen direct statistical debunking of the bogus numbers you have thrown out around here, especially regarding the supposedly high rate of infection in immunized populations. I call your bluff.)

Also in that article, some facts which contradict the passage you quoted:

"Finally, we can look at the experiences of several developed countries after they let their immunization levels drop. Three countries - Great Britain, Sweden, and Japan - cut back the use of pertussis vaccine because of fear about the vaccine. The effect was dramatic and immediate. In Great Britain, a drop in pertussis vaccination in 1974 was followed by an epidemic of more than 100,000 cases of pertussis and 36 deaths by 1978. In Japan, around the same time, a drop in vaccination rates from 70% to 20%-40% led to a jump in pertussis from 393 cases and no deaths in 1974 to 13,000 cases and 41 deaths in 1979. In Sweden, the annual incidence rate of pertussis per 100,000 children 0-6 years of age increased from 700 cases in 1981 to 3,200 in 1985. It seems clear from these experiences that not only would diseases not be disappearing without vaccines, but if we were to stop vaccinating, they would come back."

and

"Of more immediate interest is the major epidemic of diphtheria now occurring in the former Soviet Union, where low primary immunization rates for children and the lack of booster vaccinations for adults have resulted in an increase from 839 cases in 1989 to nearly 50,000 cases and 1,700 deaths in 1994. There have already been at least 20 imported cases in Europe and two cases in U.S. citizens working in the former Soviet Union."

And, to close, a good analogy about the value of vaccination to society - the "greater good" that we keep trying to convince you is important.

"The second reason to get vaccinated is to protect those around us. There is a small number of people who cannot be vaccinated (because of severe allergies to vaccine components, for example), and a small percentage of people don't respond to vaccines. These people are susceptible to disease, and their only hope of protection is that people around them are immune and cannot pass disease along to them. A successful vaccination program, like a successful society, depends on the cooperation of every individual to ensure the good of all. We would think it irresponsible of a driver to ignore all traffic regulations on the presumption that other drivers will watch out for him or her. In the same way we shouldn't rely on people around us to stop the spread of disease; we, too, must do what we can."

[mzmolly]

224. All I claim is this...

1. Vaccines are not the sole reason disease's come and go.

2. It can't be claimed that vaccines are responsible for a reduction in death until we know how many deaths are caused by vaccination.

3. We don't know the long term effects of vaccination on the human population.

4. I see no need to partake in the mass histeria of vaccination when the risk my my child dying from the illness's in question are far less deadly then the flippin flu.

The links/information I provide are food for thought. Choose to take the information into consideration or not.

I chose to err on the side of caution and NOT vaccinate my child. You decide what is best for YOUR child. Simple really. I don't by into the 'children are expendable' for the greater good theory.

You also mention allergies. How many 2 month olds have diagnosed allergies? How many shouldn't have been vaccinated because of that?
OOPS.

Read what some professors/scientist have had to say...

"There is another polio vaccine risk--"a ticking time bomb," according to Harvard Medical School professor Ronald Desrosier--that public health officials are reluctant to discuss frankly. What is it? The polio virus that is used in both Wyeth-Lederle's oral vaccine and Connaught's injected version is grown on monkeys' kidney tissue. "The danger in using monkey tissue to produce human vaccines," says Desrosier, "is that some viruses produced by monkeys may be transferred to humans in the vaccine, with very bad health consequences." Desrosier acknowledges that you can test monkeys before using their tissue and screen out those carrying harmful viruses. But he warns that you can test only for those viruses you know about--and that our knowledge is limited to perhaps "2% of existing monkey viruses."

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Flats/6997/money.html

As does Dr. John Martin:

""In speaking with an AMA lobbyist, I understood they "would not want the public to know that their doctors were not in the knowledge loop"......The world and, in particular, its children appear to be at risk for stealth adapted viruses. The contribution of vaccines to the formation and dissemination of these viruses should be an open topic for scientific discussion. This is not occurring with those presently in charge of overseeing the safety of the Nation's immunization program." --Dr John Martin http://www.ccid.org/safety.htm#

And...

"Even though SV-40 was being screened out, scientists such as John Martin, a professor of pathology at the University of Southern California, warned that other monkey viruses could be dangerous. But government officials rebuffed Martin's attempt to research those risks back in 1978 and again in 1995 when he was denied federal funding and vaccine samples he needed to investigate the effects of simian cytomegalovirus (SCMV), an organism that his studies indicate causes neurological disorders in the human brain."--Money Magazine

"As an illustration, the issue of possible simian cytomegalovirus (SCMV) contamination of live polio virus vaccines has been suppressed since 1972. On the eve of Nixon's war on cancer, a joint Lederle Corporation/FDA Bureau of Biologics study showed that eleven test monkeys, imported for polio vaccine production, tested positively for SCMV. The reluctance of the FDA to act on this matter was revealed in a corporate memo delivered the following year. Even in 1995, following a report to FDA officials concerning a patient infected with a SCMV-derived virus, no new in-house testing of polio vaccines for SCMV has occurred. Moreover, this author's specific requests for vaccine material to undertake specific testing, were denied on the basis of protecting "proprietary" interests."--Dr Martin

[trotsky]

234. I find it fascinating...

that as soon as one source of yours is discredited, or its conclusions disproved, you drop it (never to mention it again) and bring up the next one.

Please research a little more into what Dr. Ronald Desrosier does. He does not oppose vaccinations at all, but instead just believes that not as many "live" vaccines need to be "live," or rather they can just be from weakened or inactivated viruses. I don't think you should be quoting him when attempting to dismiss vaccines entirely.

While you're at it, check out Dr. John Martin as well. Don't just blindly accept what a 3rd party SAYS they said, go read several of their works, and the phrase "out of context" just might pop into your head.

Now, with regards to your new summation of your argument:

"1. Vaccines are not the sole reason disease's come and go."

No, and to my knowledge, no one on this thread ever claimed such a thing. What is apparently in dispute is how big a factor they are in preventing disease. Given that statistics from multiple studies in multiple countries show declines in diseases after the introduction of widespread vaccination (some of which in direct contradiction to your posted charts), I'd say your position is a lot less tenable than ours.

"2. It can't be claimed that vaccines are responsible for a reduction in death until we know how many deaths are caused by vaccination."

The problem with your position on this is that you are unable to accept ANY unknown death IF the individual received a vaccine AT ANY TIME before the death. Sometimes people just die, vaccinated or not. But your prejudice against vaccination forbids you from accepting that.

"3. We don't know the long term effects of vaccination on the human population."

Vaccination against smallpox has been going on for over 100 years. What do you consider long term? The result of that extended immunization program has been the total eradication of smallpox. People now no longer have to get that vaccination (I, for instance, did not). You should be rejoicing in the success!

"4. I see no need to partake in the mass histeria of vaccination when the risk my my child dying from the illness's in question are far less deadly then the flippin flu."

And that risk is far less than it would have been decades ago... thanks to vaccines. (And the flu doesn't tend to have high mortality rates until you reach advanced age, skewing the stats.)

So apart from all those flaws, your position is pretty solid!

[mzmolly]

237. *sigh*

I can see you don't understand my position and that's ok. Also, I have never felt my sources have been discredited any more then you feel the CDC has. I simply added to my list is all.

But...I am opting out of this maddness to get back to my life. I am biting my tongue off with a desire to rip off a long winded response, and in fact had typed about 5 paragraphs, but I realize were going in circles here. :crazy: It's totally unlike me to leave a discussion of this nature, so I'll consider this a small personal victory of sorts.

In the end, we will have to agree to disagree about vaccines. I feel my vindication will come in about 30 years. ;)

As long as it remains a personal choice for me, I have nothing to fight about really.

As I said to treepig, I hope one day to work with all of you toward a common goal *ousting Bush* :hi:

[mzmolly]

226. DUP

[LibLabUK]

89. Hmm..

"have deleterious longterm effects on the autoimmune system."

We don't have an "autoimmune" system.

We have an immune system.

Autoimmune response refers to the immune system attacking self (the tissues of your own body) as in diseases such as lupus.

Maybe you should refrain from judging the validity of sources until you learn enough about the subject.

[latebloomer]

122. Well, excuuuuse me!!

I misspoke. But my point remains that there is a good deal of evidence that vaccines have deleterious long-term effects on the IMMUNE system.

I HAVE done a good deal of research on this subject, and I don't appreciate being talked down to.

[trotsky]

125. Got any links?

I'd sure like to see this groundbreaking research that, if true, threatens to overturn what we know about vaccines.

[latebloomer]

133. You could start with the link I posted above

www.nvic.org

Sometimes it pays, in science as well as in politics, to look beyond what we are fed by the mainstream.

[trotsky]

158. As someone else said,

sometimes there is a perfectly valid reason why something is not considered mainstream. NVIC is a good example, being listed on QuackWatch.com's "List of Questionable Organizations."

[latebloomer]

221. Sorry

but I don't take "QuackWatch"'s word on anything-- they are totally biased against alternative medicine.

[mzmolly]

228. Get ready for the onslaught of "open minded" DU'ers to discredit

Harvard Medical Professors, PHD's, MD's, Medical Journals, Pathologists... Well you know the routine by now heh? Anyone who doesn't profit from the vaccine industry is just plain looney! :)

I'm out for now folks, check back tomorrow.

~Peace

[Character Assassin]

230. Perhaps you ought to reexamine that position

but I don't take "QuackWatch"'s word on anything-- they are totally biased against alternative medicine.

There information is based on science and the attendent protocols and methodologies of it.

What they criticize, and they are most open about this, is that many of the 'alternative' medicines are based, frankly, on hocus-pocus anecdotal bullshit, and there's simply no way of getting around this.

It's not that they have a bias against such medicines, it's that they have a affinity for demonstrable, reveiwed and repeatable results, and the claims of almost all 'alternative' medicines can't bear such scrutiny as to offer the same.

Allopathy has changed the world, and continues to do so. All else is more or less either dodging the issues or fleecing suckers.

[latebloomer]

236. "all else is either dodging the issues or fleecing suckers"?!?

So you are saying that only Western medicine has any validity? That all the other healing methods used by people for thousands of years is quackery?

Methinks you need to open your mind just a smidgen.

[LibLabUK]

136. Hmm

"But my point remains that there is a good deal of evidence that vaccines have deleterious long-term effects on the IMMUNE system."

And I completely disagree, please provide some of this evidence.

"I HAVE done a good deal of research on this subject, and I don't appreciate being talked down to."

I apologise, I didn't mean to sound condescending. I find it difficult to correct someone on a messageboard without sounding that way. mea culpa.

What field are you trained in? Medicine? Physiology? Biochemistry? Microbiology? Epidemiology? Statistics?

[latebloomer]

217. Now you are being condescending AGAIN!

I am not a scientist and am not trained in any of the fields you mention. I am, however, extremely interested in the subject of vaccines for personal reasons and have done a good deal of reading on the subject-- more than enough to convince me that being vaccinated is a health risk I do not care to take, for myself or the people I love.

[LibLabUK]

223. Oops

"I am, however, extremely interested in the subject of vaccines for personal reasons and have done a good deal of reading on the subject-- more than enough to convince me that being vaccinated is a health risk I do not care to take, for myself or the people I love."

What have you read?

[bicentennial_baby]

41. Yes

Yes yes yes

[Ilsa]

43. Absolutely no mandate.

Some people have medical conditions and genetic qualities that make vaxing dangerous to them and their children. I had many of my kids' vaxes delayed because they were protected by my breastmilk and didn't need all those inoculations so early. Hep B is a perfect example of a govt-corp conspiracy and intrusion.

You don't have to have 100% vaccination to provide good coverage. Those that are not vaxed assume some risk.

Most people vax because they feel it is the right thing to do for themselves. Others have religious objections.

Mandating vaxing seems like a good reason to leave the US, IMO, if people have so little personal control over their own bodies.

[IronLionZion]

44. that's pretty general

IT should be on a case by case basis. Some vaccines are necessary to keep a healthy population. But if you tried to vaccinate against everything under the sun, you would die from the vaccinations. ;-)

eh, such is life

[rucky]

46. Homeopathic Alternatives?

Haven't researched it much, but if an alternative is offered, I always look at it first.

[mzmolly]

48. There are homeopathic vaccines...

But, they are controversial among the homeopathic community. Go figure ;)

[maggrwaggr]

50. what, a free range, grass-fed virus?

give me a break. A vaccine is a dead virus injected into your body or onto your skin.

No such thing as a "homeopathic" version of this.

[mzmolly]

52. Well??

http://www.whale.to/m/homeo4.html

http://thinktwice.com/nosodes.htm

For pets too ;)

http://www.crittervaccines.com/hudson_place_vaccinations.htm

Also if you think about the origin of vaccination, it was a bit primitive and unadulterated. They used to crush the scabs of ill people and 'snort' them from what I recall. I would personally be much more comfortable with that procedure, then the current one LOL... *joke mmmk?*

[LibLabUK]

84. Hmm

"A vaccine is a dead virus injected into your body or onto your skin"

Not necessarily. It needn't be dead or complete virus. Attenuated vaccines are live virus that have had their virulence removed (e.g. Sabin Polio vaccine).

Homeopathy is quackery, plain and simple.

The idea that water has a memory, can be energised, and that diminishing concentrations can exert more potent responses is an utter nonsense.

Some homeopathic preparations contain less "active" ingredient than a single grain of salt in a volume of water the size of the Earth.

www.quackwatch.org

[ithacan]

49. chicken pox vaccine mandate: Robbing us to enrich drug companies

Some vaccines make sense to mandate, those for deadly diseases that actually occur (smallpox back when it was common).

But unfortunately the drug industry's influence has become very pernicious. The mandating of chicken pox vaccine is an example.

Chicken pox vaccine may not even last a lifetime, it may wear off. I know people who bring their kids over to someone's house if a kid there has chicken pox so they can catch it "naturally' while they're little.

This is another example of greedy republicans lining the pockets of their contributors at the expense of taxpayers.

[mzmolly]

51. Here here... There's a lot of that going around huh?

;)

[amazona]

75. chicken pox parties all well and good but consider this...

I have had a permanent scar on my face from the age of five because of chicken pox. Because of their irregular shape, chicken pox scars cannot be removed from the face with cosmetic surgery procedures we have today. Not by dermabrasion. Not by laser. Not by chemical peel. Not by Botox. Not by collagen.

I would not risk having my child's face scarred like mine because it would profit Big Pharma. It would be cutting off someone else's nose to spite my face -- just not fair. We can protest Big Pharma in other ways.

Also, in later life, many people who have had chicken pox will get shingles, an extremely painful affliction which is sometimes not treatable. They sometimes get shingles just when another health condition is stressing their system.

I will be honest with you and state frankly that I wish the chicken pox vaccine had been available for me. Not all kids get scarred -- my siblings didn't. But there is no way to know in advance who will get lucky and who won't, is there? And once your face is scarred, it's too late to do anything about it. A chicken pox scar is not like an acne scar!

[mzmolly]

78. I can understand that frustration. The vax has been available for about

30 years to my understanding, but they didn't see a reason to use it in the US until now?

All I want is choice KWIM? There are some scientists who fear the vaccine will transfer the disease into the adult community and that would be a bad scenario.

~Peace.

PS here is a link discussing the pros/cons.

http://www.parentsoup.com/experts/ped/qas/0%2C%2C417647_417012%2C00.html

[LibLabUK]

85. Hmm

On average in the US, one child per week dies from Chickenpox (varicella).

During a year in the US 10,000 people are hospitalised through varicella infection and 100 die.

Children serve as the main reservoir for infection of groups at higher risk of more severe disease such as adults and persons not eligible for immunisation.

Complications from varicella include soft tissue infections, necrotizing fasciitis, pneumonia, cerebellar ataxia, and encephalitis.

[mzmolly]

86. I have different statistics. One "person" dies each week,

and that person may be a child or a cancer patient with a compromised immune system? That person may even be fully vaccinated...the CDC doesn't differentiate.

The most recent data I have is from 1999 and 48 people died in that year in the entire US. :shrug:

[LibLabUK]

88. What's the source of your statistics?

"and that person may be a child or a cancer patient with a compromised immune system? In fact, the most recent data I have is from 1999 and 48 people died in that year in the entire US."

I have stats for 1995 (pre-vaccine licencing) from the American Academy of Paediatrics (http://www.aap.org/policy/re9941.html) that state 100 deaths and 10,000 hospitalisations.

50% of the deaths were in children.

[mzmolly]

91. The Centers for Disease Control

Though we are looking at two different years so??

http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/pink/Appendices/A/Cases&Deaths.pdf

I'll take a peak at your link also. When I called the CDC for breakdowns they didn't have any specfics as to age, vaccination status etc...

[LibLabUK]

95. Ahh..

I couldn't find those stats on the CDC website....

Quite a reduction in the number of deaths since the licencing of the vaccine in 1995 isn't it?

[mzmolly]

97. Yes, were back to where we were in 1986...

And, lord only knows how many died as a result of the chx pox jab because our government isn't very interested in tracking that information, imagine. :freak:

I take that back, you can check the passive reporting system here, and skim the 2597 records of adverse effects looking for the number of reported deaths. However, keep in mind that the CDC states only 1-10% of vax related injuries/deaths are reported.

http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/pink/Appendices/A/Cases&Deaths.pdf

Unfortunately the CDC will tell you that it's so minor and 'hard' to track that they dont really compile the information.

I asked them if tracking the number deaths from disease was also hard to track, apparently that isn't a concern.

Also, some docs *not listed on quackwatch* assume we may see an
increase in deaths in the years to come because of the possible transfer of the disease to the adult population? Who knows...

Bye for now, I have a daughter calling. :)

[LibLabUK]

101. Hmm

""Yes, were back to where we were in 1986...""


1986 183243 incidents 47 deaths
1987 213196 incidents 89 deaths
1988 192857 incidents 83 deaths
1989 185441 incidents 89 deaths
1990 173099 incidents 120 deaths
1991 147076 incidents 81 deaths
1992 158364 incidents 100 deaths
1993 134722 incidents 100 deaths
1994 151219 incidents 124 deaths
1995 120624 incidents 115 deaths
1996 82511 incidents 81 deaths
1997 98727 incidents 99 deaths
1998 82455 inicidents 81 deaths
1999 46016 incidents 48 deaths
2000 27382 incidents ? deaths

No where near the same incidence as in 1986... looks like the vaccine is working pretty well.

Declining incidence means reduced cost to society, which means net gain for everyone (freeing up hospital beds and doctor time, less time off work for parents, smaller reservoir for disease).

[mzmolly]

103. Hmmm.

I was referring to the number of deaths.

If we only knew how many incidents of vaccine reaction there were, we might be able to do a fair comparison of the concerns you noted.

Also we don't know the long term effects of this vaccine yet do we?

Oh well, lifes a crap shoot.

[Ilsa]

96. It isn't even that effective a vaccine.

alot of kids still get milder versions of varicella after the vax.

[ithacan]

99. a kid I know did get chicken pox after getting the vaccine

and it's not clear that the vaccine lasts a lifetime; so if you get the vaccine as a kid it is much more likely that you'll contract chicken pox as an adult when it is much more serious. Also, people who get the vaccine may also be more likely to get shingles.

I, like molly, just want choice. Don't be telling me I have to stick this stuff into my kid when it's not really necessary.

[LibLabUK]

102. Sources?

"so if you get the vaccine as a kid it is much more likely that you'll contract chicken pox as an adult when it is much more serious."

Can you provide your source please.

"Also, people who get the vaccine may also be more likely to get shingles."

Please provide your source.

[Ilsa]

260. Getting chicken pox

usually confers lifelong immunity. The vaccine (like most vaccines) does not confer lifelong immunity, so you have to be revaccinated, or if you get the disease, it is much harder on adults, and very dangerous for pregnant women:

http://dukemednews.duke.edu/news/article.php?id=2093
"The news is good for unvaccinated children in that they have a significantly reduced chance of getting the disease while in day care. But the news is not as good for these children as they reach their teens and 20s. If they should become infected when older, chicken pox can cause serious complications, in particular, pneumonia sometimes requiring hospitalization."

(snip) The vaccine has been shown to prevent almost 100 percent of severe cases of chicken pox and more than 80 percent of all chicken pox. (20% still get a mild version)

I haven't seen anything about the shingles related to the vax.

[LibLabUK]

261. Thanks..

The operative word seems to be if.

"If they should become infected when older, chicken pox can cause serious complications, in particular, pneumonia sometimes requiring hospitalization."


The CDC have this to say about it in their FAQ on varicella vaccine:

How long does the vaccine protect someone against chickenpox? Will a booster vaccination be needed?
The length of protection/immunity from any new vaccine is never known when it is first introduced. However, available information collected from persons vaccinated in Japan and the United States show that protection has lasted for as long as the vaccinated persons have been followed (25 years in Japan and more than 10 years in the U.S.). Follow up studies to determine how long protection will last and to evaluate the need and timing for booster vaccination, are ongoing. If it is determined in the future that a booster dose is necessary, your health care provider will inform you. Currently, no booster dose is recommended.


Edit: http://www.cdc.gov/nip/vaccine/varicella/faqs-gen-vaccine.htm#8-effective

[Ilsa]

262. No booster is recommended

because the vax has only been around a few years. We haven't had enough time to see how long the immunity will confer for a population. But tetanus, Hep B, Measles, etc have to be readministered in boosters.

Yep, "If" is operative for both sides of a debate here.

My only point is that there many unknowns, and if people have good reason with family health history to be concerned about any vax, then they need to consider the risks for either side. I know some of these poeple whose children changed overnight with their vaxes. We had a family here in town whose child is spending the rest of his life in a near-coma from a vax-injury; their lives have been ruined. They are not vaxing their other children, and their doctors concur.

[latebloomer]

220. Re chicken pox vaccine

I worked in a hospital some years back, when the vaccine ws being introduced. The sales rep admitted that the main point they were selling it on was that parents would not have to take time off work to be with their sick kids!!!

What he didn't mention was that the vaccine does not confer lifetime immunity and that it is much more dangerous to get chicken pox as an adult, rather than the way it used to be, when everyone naturally got it as kids.

[brainshrub]

61. I don't know enough about the issue.

[mzmolly]

66. That's a healthy additude. BYE FOR NOW FOLKS!!!!

:hi:

[Jonte_1979]

87. Yes and no

It depends on the severity of the disease.

[Corgigal]

100. My youngest son

is 11 years old and has Central Auditory Processing Disorder. It's not on the scale of Autism but all children with a diagnosis of Autism have CAPD. I know I will never understand why my son has this condition. I got his shots late,he was over 6 months of age because I believed (still do) that the human body should grow his immunity system for awhile before we zap it with a foreign substance (vaccines).

Just a few years ago I started to research vaccines. When I was a child I never heard of CAPD and even now its rare, 2 children in my sons elementary school, but where did this come from? I have asked my mother in law to find a lock of his baby hair because I want it tested for metals. If we can locate it I will be glad to share the results.

It breaks my heart to think that I may have contributed to this condition by taking him in for a well baby appt. Now, I may never know exactly what did this to my son, but for the babies not born yet, don't we all deserve the truth on this?

[LibLabUK]

104. Hmm... I don't know what you're going through... no one can really... but.

"Just a few years ago I started to research vaccines. When I was a child I never heard of CAPD and even now its rare, 2 children in my sons elementary school, but where did this come from? "

Random chance?

Just because something is rare doesn't mean it cannot occur naturally in multiple instances.

"I have asked my mother in law to find a lock of his baby hair because I want it tested for metals. If we can locate it I will be glad to share the results."

Why do you want to do this?

One hair analysis isn't going to prove or change anything, and it will just occupy time and money you could be spending with your children.

[Corgigal]

109. It wont occupy my time

I will only ship it out to a lab. My son deserves to know what happened. It's his life and I think when you are dealing with any type of medical condition you should respond with honesty. I must be doing something right because his education advocate told my husband and I that this is the only CAPD child he knows that doesn't have a behavorial disorder. In fact, his educational advocate does have a full spectrum autism son and believes vaccines are the cause. He's a PHD and works for the Dept Of Education. I on the other hand am not so sure.

I guess if you ever get a medical condition presented by a M.D. you'll be a smarter person then I and just accept it and go ahead with the treatment. Taking the time to look it up and what may or may not have been a factor won't be of interest to you. I just think it's human nature to want to understand cause and affect.

It might not matter to you but it might bring peace or understanding to some parents that right now are wondering why their little boy/girl is not responding in a normal manner when they are processing sound. Hair analysis is forensic evidence and it's the only thing I can think of that may show a link. Their is no treatment for Central Auditory Processing Disorder because it's a neuron/chemistry disorder found in the brain not the ear.

[Spider Jerusalem]

119. Because of his neurological wiring, that's why.

I have CAPD. Also Asperger's Syndrome, hyperlexia, photosensitivity, extreme sensitivity to touch, and many of the other things that generally go along with being on the autistic spectrum. However, I don't think vaccines had ANYTHING to do with this. All the credible research I've seen indicates that all of these things are the result of, most likely, geneticsw, as it's been show CONCLUSIVELY that the range of neurological difference involved in autism and related conditions must have been present from the time the brain tissue started to differentiate and only becomes obvious later in development.

[mzmolly]

128. Here is information that you may wish to consider?

"This note - which has been put together by the parent of a child who became autistic after immunisation - sets out the concerns of parents whose children have degenerated into an acquired-autistic state after MMR or measles vaccines.

It does not attempt to cover every single piece of the available scientific literature for or against an MMR/autism link, but it reviews about 70 of the most recent, most pivotal, or most frequently-quoted studies and papers.

Its key finding is that there has not been a single credible study that can robustly refute the claims of the parents that their children’s acquired autism has been caused by MMR or related vaccines. Each of the studies that seeks to "disprove" an MMR/autism link can be argued to be flawed in design or ambiguous in results. These flaws are discussed in detail in the text..."

http://www.whale.to/a/thrower.html

I am sure your mind is made up and I do respect your conclusion(s) either way.

:hi:

[Spider Jerusalem]

129. Again...

autism isn't "acquired", it's inherent, and I've read probably enough information on the subject to fill the equivalent of an encyclopedia or the OED. And, I restate, the most credible NEUROLOGICAL research shows that autistic brain differences are present when the tissue differentiates in utero...I will provide links for the information if you wish. That fact alone pretty soundly rules out the chance of autism being acquired" postnatally through the agent of vaccination.

[mzmolly]

154. I think there may be many factors that contribute...

And, as I say scientists/experts on this subject appear to disagree.

I do respect your right to draw a differnt conclusion then others have, and I hope you do the same. :)

[csw77]

238. I beg to differ....

My son has PDD-NOS, a mild form of Autism. There is no one in my family or my husbands family who has any form of Autism. My son's development was perfectly normal until he recieved the MMR vaccine. A few hours after receiving it he had a temp of 102 degrees and a rash all over his entire body. For three days straight he stayed on my couch and barely moved. The Dr. said it was Fifths Disease and had NOTHING to do with the shot. I totally disagree with that. He was fine before the shot. He has never been the same since the day of his MMR vaccine. I had no idea I was putting my son at any risk when I had him immunized. I completely trusted the Pediatrician that vaccines were safe.

I have an 8 month old and we have chosen to delay his shots and when he does have a vaccine we just do one at a time and then wait a few months. We haven't decided if and when he will recieve the MMR vaccine. He will NOT be getting it age 15 months like his older brother did!

[Spider Jerusalem]

240. I know what PDD-NOS is...

and I ask you: Do you understand the difference between correlation and causation? Also, how can you be certain no one in your husband's family (or yours, for that matter) had any form of autism? The milder forms, such as PDD-NOS and Asperger's appear as no more than eccentricity in most cases (and were only recently added as recognised diagnostic categories).

[csw77]

241. So are you saying..

It's just a pure coincidence my son had such a strong reaction after the shot and has never acted the same since?

And no one knows what exactly causes Autism. It could be from shots...it could be from anything. No one knows.

[mzmolly]

244. That's what they "say" csw77...

I'm opting out of any more conversation here, but I want you to know I believe you.

I have more information if you'd like, you may PM me.

:hug:

[Spider Jerusalem]

246. You really ought to read up...

on why anecdotal evidence proves nothing. Please. Show me credible research supporting what you're saying. (You can't, because there isn't any...but I invite you to try just the same.)

[Spider Jerusalem]

245. Yes, it's coincidence.

Are you aware of the age at which most autistic disorders first manifest themselves? It's usually between 12-24 months. Which is in the time frame of vaccination, as well. And most research indicates that the causes of autism are most likely genetic.

[amazona]

243. have to agree with spider here

There is no one in my family history other than myself to ever be diagnosed as autistic or Aspergers. Yet there are many older folk in my family history who are (or were) damnably strange. We forget that in days gone by, before we had TV to tell us how to act, people were awfully strange without much notice being taken. I don't believe that a family medical history based on "official" diagnosis means much when it comes to some forms of autism.

One of my favorite films is The Unforgiven because everyone is so delightfully nonverbal -- as people were as recently as the 1960s and 70s in the Appalachians, for instance. We forget that centuries -- or mere decades -- ago that it wasn't a disease to not look someone in the eye or to not be especially open and conversational. It was a perfectly normal human variation. People didn't actually "communicate" in some areas of the South until the 1980s. In those areas, Asperger's syndrome simply didn't exist prior to that time. You were just "quiet" (or as too many friends spelled it, to the irritation of my anal-compulsive mind "quite").


People are too quick to blame themselves when something goes wrong. It is easy for me to stand here and talk, but I wish there was a way to take some of these parents in my arms and tell them, "You did not damage your child. You kept your child from getting a potentially fatal disease. Stop blaming yourself."

[otohara]

116. As A Polio Survivor

I say, I don't know - leaning towards yes because I wouldn't want to see anyone get polio again and you just never know what might happen. DPT shots have been improved over the years - I got my kid shots and would do so again. I get flu shots every year, they work - stay healthy, live long - peace

[mzmolly]

118. Peace...

:smoke: Hey Otohara, we need a little peace sign smiley...

I'll find an example and edit. Argh, can't find one, oh well.

[TrogL]

120. Yes, but

1. The vaccines should be provided free of charge at a free clinic.
   
2. No mercury in the vaccine - it causes autism
   
3. It should be coordinated through the schools
   
4. migrant workers, landed immigrants and illegal aliens should be in cluded
   

[kath]

130. For the umpteenth time, mercury does NOT cause autism

Recent large study in Denmark, showed rise in frequency of autism, even long AFTER mercury had been removed from vaccines there.

But hey, the anti-vacciners would rather listen to quack organizations than any real scientific evidence, so I know I'm just wasting my keystrokes here...

[LibLabUK]

139. Hmm

"But hey, the anti-vacciners would rather listen to quack organizations than any real scientific evidence, so I know I'm just wasting my keystrokes here.."

As soon as the first big epidemic of a preventable disease hits, they'll all be crying at how everyone but them is to blame.

In the meantime they'll put others at great risk and harp on about conspiracies.

[mzmolly]

239. G-bye LiblabUK...

Mzmolly is checkin out of this discussion. But, I had to insert one last bit of vitriol...dont'cha know...

Quack organization = anyone that speaks out against mainstream medicine.

Quack Doctor = anyone that speaks out against mainstream medicine, no matter their credentials.

Irresponsible, insane, selfish citizen = anyone that doesn't buy into vaccination propaganda and fear mongerering.

Unpatriotic citizen = anyone that doesnt believe the Bush administration.

You get the picture ;)

Ok BYE BYE, it's been delightful! :hi:

[trotsky]

247. Sorry, need to qualify your "definitions"

Can't let you sneak out without challenging your departing pot shots.

Quack organization = anyone that speaks out against mainstream medicine without any credible evidence to support his/her assertions

Quack Doctor = anyone that speaks out against mainstream medicine, no matter their credentials, because they lack any credible evidence

Irresponsible, insane, selfish citizen = anyone that doesn't buy into vaccination propaganda and fear mongerering. As opposed to the rest of us, who don't buy into the anti-vaccination propaganda and fear-mongering.

Unpatriotic citizen = anyone that doesnt believe the Bush administration. This was just a vile jab comparing those of us on the side of rational, scientific inquiry to the right-wing bastards who support Bush. You should apologize.

[mzmolly]

248. "Me" apologize?

I'm far to selfish and insane to do that.

Oh yea, one more...

Credible Evidence = that which promotes the "pro-vaccine" agenda :freak:

WE have learned the JAMA, THE LANCET, NUMEROUS SCIENTISTS, M.D'S, PH D's, MBA's *who specialize in *Immunology* and were employed by the National Institutes of Health, are just plain not credible ... when they question the religion of vaccination. :shrug:

BTW, My Bush comment was in jest Trotzky, lighten up mmmmk *sheesh*

http://vaccines.net/newpage1.htm

http://vaccines.net/newpage114.htm

http://vaccines.net/referenc.htm

[trotsky]

249. Oh, OK.

When you insult, it's in jest. When people here say it's selfish to not vaccinate, and insane not to believe the figures (thus indirectly tying those words to you), we're personally attacking you. Glad you could clear that up. Double standards, anyone?

I would have thought that by now you would realize that just because someone calls him- or herself a scientist, or just because they have the letters after their name, doesn't make their pronouncements the final word on anything. As with virtually everything else within the knowledge of humankind, you need to examine the bulk of the evidence, not selectively cherry-pick the evidence you want. And when upwards of 90% of the research says vaccines are safe and effective, one can see why vaccination has the support it does.

I'm not saying that those 90% can't be wrong, just that it's incredibly unlikely, and that significant repeatable data (i.e., CREDIBLE data) needs to be presented to overturn it. That hasn't been done, not by you or any of the sources you have quoted. (BTW, JAMA and the Lancet will publish peer-reviewed research. What you keep ignoring, however, is that conflicting articles on virtually every topic will appear in journals - from cancer to heart disease to stubbed toes. Again, you have to study ALL the evidence, not just the 5% that supports your position - something which you are unwilling to do.)

And now you call vaccination a "religion." You reject 90%+ of the medical research, we reject 5% (if it even amounts to that). Tell me which one of us is ignoring more data in order to remain secure in our beliefs.

[mzmolly]

250. You would have to understand the process T...

Do you realize every time a vaccine is questioned how much $$ goes into quelling those concerns. Imagine the fallout if the polio vaccine did indeed cause cancer? Of course the mfgrs and the Government are going to fight that claim.

I noted that respected scientists are concerned about animal virus's and other vaccine issues and fear that we may be trading disease for chronic illness. You reply, 'well the general opinion is such' therefore these concerns are 'invalid'?

It all comes down to one thing Trotzky MONEY. Money talks. The pharmaceutical co's and the federal government have lots of $$ to prove/disprove what ever the H they want. They own any 'independent study' results they fund, and may do with them what they wish.

I take the vaccine industry propaganda with a grain of salt. They have a product to sell, and have as much credibility as the car salesmen down the road.

This is why, I tend to seek independent sources like the JAMA, LANCET, etc. *we both agree reports conflict* so as I say, why not let people choose for themselves?

It is my belief that vaccines are causing much more harm then we care to admit, both in the short term and the long term.

Note the DPT shot has been changed to a new 'safer' product, and we are already seeing less death. Though, of course the old vaccine was 'perfectly safe' and the 'looneys' questioning it were simply 'anti-vaccine fanatics'...

:hi:

As I said, if you want to vax your child go ahead, I don't plan to do so.

[trotsky]

251. Just remember:

"It is my belief that vaccines are causing much more harm then we care to admit, both in the short term and the long term."

There is more evidence against your position than for it. Plain and simple, that's the truth. Your defense against this is that the evidence against you is all biased, but you've never proven that. You've claimed it over and over, but haven't shown it.

That is all.

[mzmolly]

254. Just remember it takes money to fund 'research'...

See my next post. Do you really want to open a can of worms discussing bias in drug company research.

Here is some reading for your pleasure on the subject:

"Scientific Fraud and Conflict Of Interest In Vaccine Research, Licensing & Policymaking ~ By Michael Belkin

Presented at The 2nd International Public Conference on Vaccination 2000, Arlington Virginia

In Business School, (Organizational Behavior) we studied what can happen to organizations that suffer ethical management breakdowns (such as Johns Manville with asbestos, Owens Corning breast implants, etc.). Nothing illustrates the syndrome of management ethical failure more clearly than the current scandal faced by Firestone and Ford. Those companies denied and concealed deaths and injuries caused by tread separation and a high center of gravity in the Ford Explorer for years. Management knew, denied and concealed that their products were defective and were killing people -- the classic ethical breakdown.

In the vaccine industry, scientific fraud and conflicts of interest are causing a similar (but much larger) cycle of deaths and injuries that is being concealed and denied by regulators and vaccine manufacturers. However, (as with Firestone and Ford) a noose of their own making may be slowly tightening around the vaccine scandal perpetrator's necks.

Financial conflict of interest is a complex issue -- because few investors (except perhaps Tibetan Monks or Jesuit Priests) are likely to not have pharmaceutical shares in their diversified portfolios in this day and age. But financial conflicts of interest and scientific fraud (that lead to corrupt public policy) damage the public interest and could eventually bankrupt vaccine manufacturers that have perverted the regulatory process. Shareholders should investigate the issue carefully.

There's only about 100 US Deaths from Firestone tire blowouts. There are thousands of deaths and many thousands of cases of disability and neurological damage lurking in the FDA Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). This is a potential legal scandal of much larger scope than the Firestone/Ford episode.

US vaccines are licensed by the FDA and immunization recommendations are made by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which is a committee whose members are appointed by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). ACIP immunization recommendations are enacted into law by public health departments and/or legislatures at the state level, via the energetic efforts of vaccine manufacturer sales representatives. While the ACIP does nothing more than craft and finalize the exact wording detailing recommended doses and ages for administration of vaccines, ACIP recommendations are extraordinarily influential, because they get turned into mandates at the state level.

These vaccine mandates are despotic intrusions into personal liberty and democracy. School districts and social service departments demand that: You must inject these viruses and bacteria into your body (or your child's body) or you (or your child) may not attend school, you may be charged with child abuse and your children may be removed from your home, placed in foster care and forcibly vaccinated.

Such intimidation is taking place with greater intensity and frequency as more and more ACIP recommendations and subsequent state vaccine mandates are enacted. Furthermore, parents are being wrongfully accused and convicted of shaken baby syndrome in cases where their children die immediately after vaccination and have swollen brains in the autopsy report (brain inflammation is a classic vaccine adverse reaction).

The enforcement of ACIP vaccine recommendations at the state and local level by plodding and heavy-handed health and social service department employees is a threat to the neurological systems of those vaccinated. Vaccine adverse reactions are defined as the same thing as disease complications in the medical literature -- encephalitis. "Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (postinfectious encephalomyelitis -- see also Acute Viral Encephalitis and Aseptic Meningitis) is characterized by perivascular Central Nervous System demyelination, which can occur spontaneously but usually follows a viral infection or VIRAL VACCINATION (or, very rarely, BACTERIAL VACCINATION), suggesting an immunologic cause." (Merck Manual http://www.merck.com/pubs/mmanual/section14/chapter180/180a.htm)

Thousands of reports of adverse reactions such as convulsions, brain inflammation, inconsolable screaming syndrome, SIDS and neurological diseases such as Multiple Sclerosis, Transverse Myelitis and Guillain-Barre Syndrome continue to flood into the FDA Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), where they are largely ignored or tolerated as the cost of some mythical victory over disease. Children and adults are developing the same encephalitic and neurological complications after vaccination that science takes credit for eliminating through immunization -- but the CDC, ACIP and American Academy of Pediatrics all insist the vaccine adverse reactions don't exist or are coincidences.

Their double standard is: You are required to receive this vaccination so you and society don't develop encephalitic and neurological complications from disease, but if you die or develop encephalitic or neurological complications immediately after receiving the vaccine (which contains the same virus or bacteria that causes the neurological complications), then it's all in your imagination, it's a coincidence or we're still doing studies and we'll get back to you when they are done.

Shoot first and ask questions later.

Unelected, unregulated and unaccountable ACIP medical bureaucrats have blatant financial conflicts of interest and are committing scientific fraud by recommending administration of vaccines that have not been tested for safety in the age groups or populations targeted. Dr. John Modlin, current Chairman of the ACIP (Merck Immunization Advisory Board 1996-present, Merck shareholder) gave his definition of scientific validity in a March 1999 University of New Hampshire debate:

"Has the information withstood the test of peer review? Has the information been published in a respected medical or scientific journal? ... this is the standard that you should hold me to today ... has the information been published in a scientifically reputable journal?"

One month earlier at the February 1999 ACIP meeting Chairman Modlin lobbied for the ACIP to recommend the Rotavirus vaccine for premature infants, although no safety studies had been done, much less peer reviewed or published:


".. available data are insufficient to fully establish the safety and efficacy of rotavirus vaccine in premature infants ... there is a section under Adverse Events that details what little information there actually are with respect to premature infants ... To my knowledge we don't have data from a clinical trial specifically ... Some bit of information from Seattle, as I recall, that had suggested that was a slight increase in relative risk for hospitalization for premature infants ... Obviously a situation where we have to make a judgment in the absence of data, and with a vaccine that has not yet been tested in the group ..." (ACIP transcript, pages 102-112)
Modlin then held a vote and the recommendation for premature infants passed nine to one -- Modlin voted yes.

Shoot first and ask questions later.

As a member of The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) and Chairman of the Rotavirus working group, Modlin had data showing a risk of intussusception (life threatening bowel obstructions) in clinical trails of Rotavirus vaccine before that February 1999 ACIP meeting. The Rotavirus vaccine was withdrawn from the market in October 1999 after 113 cases of intussusception. One premature baby died after getting rotavirus vaccine in a vaccine cocktail and another five-month-old infant died after developing intussusception five days after receipt of the vaccine.

By ACIP Chairman Modlin's own definition, the ACIP's recommendation was scientifically invalid. I'll go one step further and say the ACIP Chairman committed blatant scientific fraud by issuing an ACIP recommendation that Rotavirus vaccine be given to premature newborns without scientific proof that it was safe to do so. And what was the penalty? Modlin was apparently reappointed to another term as ACIP Chairman by the CDC. Commit scientific fraud that causes death and grievous injury -- and get reappointed. That is the incentive system in the US vaccine regulatory system.

Another case suggesting scientific fraud is the still-existing 1991 ACIP recommendation that every newborn baby receive the hepatitis B vaccine in the hospital within hours of birth. Samuel L. Katz, MD, who instituted that policy when he was ACIP Chairman in 1991 has admitted they had no peer-reviewed, published studies showing that it was safe to give to newborns when the ACIP made that recommendation. (Katz is former Chairman Committee on Infectious Diseases of the American Academy of Pediatrics, former Chairman of the Public Policy Council of the Infectious Diseases Society of America).

When I asked Katz in the question/answer session after his April 12, 2000 NY/Cornell Medical School lecture on "Vaccines in the New Millennium" what peer-reviewed, published safety study he used when he was ACIP Chairman to recommend at-birth immunization of newborns in 1991 he answered: "you are quite right there was no published peer-reviewed study" (tape and transcript available). Newborns have negligible risk of contracting the hepatitis B virus, unless the mother is infected. That risk can easily be determined by a maternal blood test. No US vaccine had ever been mandated for newborn babies before. But Katz and the ACIP decided it was safe to vaccinate not-at-risk for hepatitis B newborns without any proper safety study.

Shoot first and ask questions later.

The results of that uncontrolled experiment are in: upwards of 36,000 adverse reactions and more than 440 deaths (VAERS). My daughter died after receiving the hepatitis B vaccine. Katz also admitted that vaccine adverse reactions are the same thing as neurological complications from disease when I pressed him if he disagreed with that definition from the Merck Manual saying "with measles vaccine it is possible that maybe one out of 150,000 children who get the vaccine may get something that mimics measles encephalitis."

Parents report their children were perfectly normal until receiving the MMR measles/mumps/rubella vaccine, at which point the children became autistic after a neurological adverse reaction to the MMR vaccine ("something that mimics measles encephalitis"). The incidence of measles disease may be down to about 100 cases annually in the US, but the rate of Autism has soared hundreds of percent -- a disease historically called "post-encephalitic syndrome."

For vaccine manufacturers -- the ACIP is a gold mine. ACIP recommendations are a license for vaccine manufacturers to use state governments, school systems and social service systems as a marketing department for their products. With an ACIP recommendation in hand, vaccine manufacturers use the government to say "you must buy my product and inject it into your body, even if it kills you or causes brain damage."

This is a huge Anti-Trust violation. The Orwellian spectacle of monopolistic and oligopolistic pharmaceutical manufacturers subverting government agencies to ram unsafe products down children's veins is a violation of the basic principals of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Our forefathers said "No Taxation Without Representation" to their British oppressors. I say "No Vaccination Without Representation" to the corporate tyrants at Merck, Smithkline and other vaccine manufacturers who have so utterly subverted the US vaccine regulatory process.

Dr. John Modlin must be removed as Chairman of the ACIP and the scientifically invalid newborn hepatitis B vaccine policy instituted without safety studies by Dr. Katz must be revoked. The investors and directors of vaccine manufacturers such as Merck and Smithkline must recognize that those companies are conducting the classic ethical blunder of selling products that are killing and injuring people -- and then concealing and denying the evidence.

A Canadian doctor who treats hepatitis B vaccine adverse event victims told me when he called Merck, they told him he was the first one who had ever called them with such a problem. There are upwards of 36,000 reports in VAERS and I would be delighted to provide them to anyone who cares to investigate the issue for themselves, sorted by deaths, convulsions, screaming syndrome, liver disorder and neurological damage -- median onset one day after vaccination.

This is the CDC's Mission Statement

"To promote the health and quality of life by preventing and controlling disease, injury and disability." "CDC pledges to to be a diligent steward of the funds entrusted to it." "CDC pledges to base all public health decisions on the highest quality scientific data, openly and objectively derived." CDC Core values: Accountability -- we ensure that our services are based on sound science and meet real public needs ..."

That's What They Say, Here's What They Do
The CDC misallocated funds that were targeted for chronic fatigue syndrome (a vaccine adverse event) to some other non-vaccine related pet project. The ACIP Chairman recommended the Rotavirus Vaccine for premature infants without any data whatsoever showing that it was safe. The ACIP recommended the hepatitis B vaccine for newborns without any public, peer-reviewed, published study showing it was safe. The head of epidemiology of the CDC presented a slide showing serious reactions to the hepatitis B vaccine were approximately 10 times higher than for other vaccines at the February 1999 ACIP meeting. The CDC has ignored FOIA requests for the scientific data used to justify the 1991 newborn hep B vaccine mandate.

The CDC has violated its own mission statement and current leadership needs to be replaced.

the reality is that these vaccine mandates are being rammed down the US public health system by the CDC and ACIP and are being imposed at the local level like the US is ruled by some Vaccine Gestapo. The agenda for recent CDC and vaccine industry conventions has had numerous panels on "How Can We Communicate Our Message to the Public More Effectively." Obviously the CDC, ACIP and National Immunization Program (NIP) are extremely concerned with brainwashing the public to keep vaccinating no matter how defective the vaccines are and how many kids die or become autistic.

Personally I think that's the wrong message and they ought to stop killing people and destroying lives. But if the CDC wants to communicate their message more effectively, as a management consultant I have a suggestion. They need a more charismatic front man. I suggest they get someone like Joseph Goebbels -- propaganda chief of the Third Reich to go out and carry the CDC-ACIP-NIP message to the airwaves.

Michael Belkin is President of Belkin Limited, a financial and economic forecasting firm in New York City.

This is dedicated to Lyla Rose Douglas Belkin, who died hours after receiving the hepatitis B vaccine. May other innocents be spared her tragedy."

http://goodlight.net/nyvic/health/hep-b/tstimony.htm

I am certain you won't take this into consideration. But, you asked?

[trotsky]

255. You've said your piece.

If bias on committees and research panels exists, then the non-tainted research will bear that out. So far, it hasn't. I'm sorry if that's hard for you to take - but it's the truth. (I know, I know, ALL the research & findings opposed to your position are biased, right?)

Will I take your bombardment into consideration? No, for many reasons, but primarily for these two:

1) Factual errors.
"School districts and social service departments demand that: You must inject these viruses and bacteria into your body (or your child's body) or you (or your child) may not attend school, you may be charged with child abuse and your children may be removed from your home, placed in foster care and forcibly vaccinated." - This is patently false, because religious and philosophical objections are granted exceptions in virtually every case. But your article relies on the scare tactics of "THE GUBMINT MAKES YOU DO THIS", and so they have to resort to lies.

2) Hyperbole.
"mandates being rammed down the US public health system"
"extremely concerned with brainwashing the public"
suggesting Goebbels be the CDC's front man - Bringing Nazis into an argument is a sure sign you're losing.

You've made your decision. I sincerely hope your daughter doesn't suffer needlessly from it. Now can you let this rest? You've said goodbye from this thread half a dozen times!

[mzmolly]

256. Non tainted research proves what I say....

Non tainted research is dismissed by the $$ machine. Additionally, the researchers are generally added to a shit list on some pro vaccine propaganda website so they can be 'dismissed' as well. I've showed you non tainted research from the JAMA, LANCET, Medical researchers, you 'dismiss it'... Imagine that.

You also are mistaken here: ~ 1) Factual errors.
"School districts and social service departments demand that: You must inject these viruses and bacteria into your body (or your child's body) or you (or your child) may not attend school, you may be charged with child abuse and your children may be removed from your home, placed in foster care and forcibly vaccinated." - This is patently false, because religious and philosophical objections are granted exceptions in virtually every case. But your article relies on the scare tactics of "THE GUBMINT MAKES YOU DO THIS", and so they have to resort to lies.

You say this is a error when it has happened in some States! This is not how it is everywhere, mind you, but it has happened. In fact, if you recall I had a person say in another thread they worked for a social svc agency and would personally seek to remove my child from me if they lived in MY state?! Sound familiar???

2) Hyperbole.
"mandates being rammed down the US public health system"
"extremely concerned with brainwashing the public"
suggesting Goebbels be the CDC's front man - Bringing Nazis into an argument is a sure sign you're losing.

Talk about hyperbole. Dismiss everything based on the fact that the author has a sense of humor about CDC officials dressing in military garb?

Regarding my decision you said~"I sincerely hope your daughter doesn't suffer needlessly from it."

And I hope your child never suffers needlessly from a vaccine related injury.

Now can you let this rest? You've said goodbye from this thread half a dozen times!

Yea, I can, I think you said goodbye first though, if I'm not mistaken. ;) Or, perhaps I've confused you with another.

In closing ~ Peace to you with your decision, I am at peace with mine.

[trotsky]

259. OK, my final word.

You, mzmolly, started this all off with your push-poll. The very least you can do is let your opposition have the last word (as much as it might pain you to do so), much like how the judicial system works.

Regarding the last article you copied (hope it didn't violate copyright): It matters not whether children were actually taken from their parents in some states because they wouldn't vaccinate. (Personally, I don't believe this unsupported claim.) What matters is that your article deliberately lied, because you immediately backtracked to defend it. They said, "School districts and social service departments DEMAND that: you MUST inject...or your child MAY NOT ATTEND SCHOOL..." You backpedaled and said "this is not how it is everywhere" but your source made no such qualification. It's a lie, and a fear-mongering one at that. That you are unable to admit it reveals your own bias.

To wrap up: no one has dismissed the bit of valid information you have presented. What we have noted is that in ALL science, there are conflicting research results. Science works by consensus, and that has been pointed out to you multiple times, but you keep ignoring it. To borrow someone's example, when 90 studies say one thing, 5 say another, and 5 are inconclusive, the consensus is that the 90 studies are closer to the truth than the other 10. We don't disparage the JAMA or the Lancet, we note that in comparison to the one or two articles supporting your position, there are hundreds if not thousands that support ours. Your only way out of this is to claim a pervasive bias that taints all research against your position - a vaccination conspiracy.

So, can you let my last word stand? Can we leave this to the jury now? (Your lack of a response will constitute a YES.)

[LibLabUK]

252. Okay...

"The pharmaceutical co's and the federal government have lots of $$ to prove/disprove what ever the H they want. They own any 'independent study' results they fund, and may do with them what they wish."

Are you seriously under the impression that all scientific/medical enquiry is funded either by the government (totally ignoring the fact that the US govt has no say in the funding of research overseas) or by pharmaceutical companies?

I'm a clinical researcher. I do drug company studies, they pay my institution to perform Phase I, II or III trials as part of the registration procedure for drugs. We use that money to fund our own research (which they most certainly do not own) into topics and fields that interest us. We've done government studies, usually policy related.. again we use that money to fund our research (they don't own that work either). Finally, we get charities and foundations to sponsor research and even then they don't own the research or have a say in what we publish.

That's how medical and scientific research is funded.

Either bring proof that studies are being covered up or buried, or please desist from defaming me and my colleagues with your libellous claims against our professional ethics.

[mzmolly]

253. No, what I'm saying is the medical enquiry not funded by the government

and posted on the CDC website is dismissed by the likes of you.

I have defamed no one. I am talking about the 'drug' approval process.

It is you that defames your colleagues when you dismiss so much of what they say.

Perhaps you'll be interested in the results of this independent study noted in the Lancet. It speaks to some of what I have a problem with. Then again, probably not...

"US government officials are failing to enforce conflict of interest regulations and are allowing experts with industry ties to sit on vaccine approval panels, charges a US Congressional committee report.

The report was prepared by the House Committee on Government Reforms, whose chairman, Dan Burton, has been an outspoken critic of US vaccination policies. Burton, a conservative Republican from Indiana, believes his grandson may have developed autism as the result of vaccinations.

The report focuses on two expert panels involved in the recent approval of a vaccine against rotavirus developed by Wyeth Lederle Vaccines and Pediatrics, called RotaShield (see Lancet 2000; 356: 318-22). This vaccine was approved in December, 1997, after favourable review by the panels, only to be withdrawn in less than a year after reports suggested that there might be a link between the vaccine and cases of bowel obstruction due to intussusception.

The committee investigators found that both panels -- the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, which makes recommendations on the approval of new vaccines to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the Advisory Committee on Immunisation Practices, which advises the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) -- included experts who appeared to have conflicts of interest.

Some committee members owned stock in companies producing similar vaccines; others had received honoraria and grants from companies and institutions that stood to gain should the vaccine be approved; and several worked from institutions that had financial ties to companies with interests in the decision.

"Conflict of interest rules employed by the FDA and the CDC have been weak, enforcement has been lax, and committee members with substantial ties to pharmaceutical companies have been given waivers to participate in committee proceedings", charges the report.

Linda Suydam, senior associate commissioner of the FDA who oversees the selection of the FDA's advisory panels says her agency requires all panellists to disclose conflicts of interest. And when these interests are substantial panellists are not allowed to participate in panel deliberations.

But she noted that many top scientists in a field have ties to pharmaceutical companies and in making its selections the FDA must "balance the expertise they can bring with their ties to industry".

Suydam also noted that many of the industry ties described in the committee report involved researchers whose universities had received grants or had contracts with pharmaceutical companies, often for projects unrelated to the researchers' work. Such "institutional ties", she argues, should not be grounds for excluding an expert from participation." Michael McCarthy ~ Lancet September 2, 2000; 356: 837 - 840.

Also, see my post above...

[LibLabUK]

257. Hehe...

Independant study?

The report was prepared by the House Committee on Government Reforms, whose chairman, Dan Burton, has been an outspoken critic of US vaccination policies. Burton, a conservative Republican from Indiana, believes his grandson may have developed autism as the result of vaccinations.

And that's a news piece from the Lancet, written by a staff writer not an academic.

The Lancet reports an awful lot of news, it's a weekly periodical afterall.

Hehe...

Ofcourse, the Lancet also says:

"Is the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine safe? Yes, acceptably so, is the only conclusion possible to reach in the face of the totality of the epidemiological evidence." - Lancet 359: 9307 (23 February 2002)

[mzmolly]

258. Funny how independent researchers dismiss independent research

all the time isn't it?

Your right, the Lancet says many many things, as do(es) the JAMA, Medical Professors, Immunology specialists, MD's and so on.

As I say "Happy Vaxing" :hi:

[mzmolly]

242. "Anti vacciners" *cute*

:hi:

Kinda reminds me of 'Pro-Abortionists." :evilgrin:

Hey I guess I would be both. I'm damned to hell for sure now.

[Ilsa]

138. Nevertheless,

autism or not, some people do not do well with vaccines do to other allergies, etc. They shouldn't have to sacrifice their health so the country can manintain a 100% vax rate as the poll implies. That's not right or reasonable.

[Ilsa]

171. If you want the protection from the vaccine, take it.

I've had my kids vaxxed, but on a slightly delayed schedule so they wouldn't have to take them all at once. I am vaxxed. But I have friends with allergies to some components of vaccines (poultry for example), and taking them makes them very ill.

Most people take vaccines to protect themselves and their children. But this shouldn't be mandated any more than mandating cesarean sections (afterall, you are less likely to have urinary incontinence problems later, etc.) heart transplants, abortions, or any other medical procedure.

[Xyxzy34]

198. I vote other

People should have a choice, but children shouldn't. Why should parents be able to put their own children at risk?

[blackwalnut]

216. Anyone remember the FRONTLINE progam on the polio vaccine?

Does anyone remember the FRONTLINE program, aired back in the nineteen eighties, that dealt with the danger of the sugar-cube method of polio vaccination?

If I remember correctly, it seems that the sugar cube method uses compromised polio virus as its method of stimulating the production of polio antibodies, and thus the stool of babies that have been vaccinated has sometimes caused polio in the parents or grandparents who have come into contact with it during diaper changing. The Salk method, which I believe uses dead polio to achieve its goals, does not have carry this danger. (Nonetheless, faulty manufacturing back in the fifties(?) when Salk first introduced his vaccine, caused many deaths in those receiving it -- which at first were erroneously attributed to Salk's vaccine itself, according to the program.)

and a FRONTLINE program. No matter. While some of what I saw is now hazy, the main points I think are correct. If not -- then someone who is more familiar with the history of the polio vaccines can correct me! This isn't meant as a peer-reviewed scientific article, of course!]

Anyway, hope this has some relevance to this discussion. I think both "sides" (such as politicat and mzmolly) each have great points. Vaccination certainly is a potentially powerful tool, and has worked for the good in some very significant cases -- but like anything big, the taint of big money and corrupt government really makes one wary as hell too, for good reason!

Hope this little contribution was interesting!:)

[blackwalnut]

218. First post got abbreivated: here it is again: sorry!

Does anyone remember the FRONTLINE program, aired back in the nineteen eighties, that dealt with the danger of the sugar-cube method of polio vaccination?

If I remember correctly, it seems that the sugar cube method uses compromised polio virus as its method of stimulating the production of polio antibodies, and thus the stool of babies that have been vaccinated has sometimes caused polio in the parents or grandparents who have come into contact with it during diaper changing. The Salk method, which I believe uses dead polio to achieve its goals, does not have carry this danger. (Nonetheless, faulty manufacturing back in the fifties(?) when Salk first introduced his vaccine, caused many deaths in those receiving it -- which at first were erroneously attributed to Salk's vaccine itself, according to the program.)

Note: it could be that I am unconsciously "blending" a NOVA program
and a FRONTLINE program. No matter. While some of what I saw is now hazy, the main points I think are correct. If not -- then someone who is more familiar with the history of the polio vaccines can correct me! This isn't meant as a peer-reviewed scientific article, of course!

Anyway, hope this has some relevance to this discussion. I think both "sides" (such as politicat and mzmolly) each have great points. Vaccination certainly is a potentially powerful tool, and has worked for the good in some very significant cases -- but like anything big, the taint of big money and corrupt government really makes one wary as hell too, for good reason!

Hope this little contribution was interesting!:)

[bleedingheart]

235. Technically we already do.

Public Schools will not accept kids without vaccines given the fact that small children are great at sharing microbes.

I am torn on this, technically it is for the greater good of society. Do we really want polio to rear its ugly head? But then forcing anyone to do something is an uneasy situation.

However I think that today we are unable to really comprehend this issue like our grandparents and parents did. My mother saw kids get polio, rubella, thyphoid, diptheria....and die from it or be permanently affected by the disease.... she was grateful that we were lucky enough to grow up without fear of going swimming and contracting polio.....

[treepig]

263. to stir up two birds with one stone (ugh!)

what about vaccines produced in genetically modified bananas?

Currently, there is much research being done in the banana fruit. Why, you ask? The banana is one of the many potential fruits or vegetables used in edible vaccines. To find out which plant would be the best for vaccines, much research must be done. For example, analyzation of the banana plant is being done in terms of gene expression during development and ripening (Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research web site). One must determine the proper genes which will be used in producing the antigen causing the immune response in the body when the vaccine is eaten. This research also includes the promoters of genes in the fruit. Researchers "have characterized the promoter elements of these genes," (Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research web site). All this information is used to "regulate the expression of genes encoding candidate oral vaccines," (Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research web site). Many genes have been identified in the banana fruit that are up-regulated in ripening fruit (Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research web site). That is, in the production of vaccines, we can look at the genes involved in fruit ripening. As the plant grows and ripens, the antigen introduced in the fruit, can be expressed. "'The key is to understand how a promoter will behave in the fruit,'" (Smaglik, P., The Scientist, 1998). Using the promoters of these specific genes, one can increase the production of the agents causing immune responses as the fruit matures. "We now have DNA constructs that link the promoters to genes for vaccine antigens," (Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research web site).

There are many reasons why bananas are being used as an oral vaccine. Because many diarrheal diseases are found in third world developing countries, the banana vaccine has been directed to such areas. Not only do children enjoy eating bananas, the fruit grows in many of the areas which require these anti-diarrhea vaccines. Bananas don't have to be cooked, they are eaten raw. This is good for the inserted proteins because if the plant were to be cooked, this protein would be denatured and become inactive.

more at http://dragon.zoo.utoronto.ca/~jlm-gmf/T0401B/

vaccines and gm food together? oh my, how are we going to stop this evil? a step in the right direction is to recognize that this work is being sponsored by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation - so turn off that damn PC right now!!