It’s not easy being a parent. On the one hand, a buxom, C-list television personality, backed both by anecdotal experience and fraudulent/discredited research, is telling you that vaccines absoposilutely cause autism. Scary. But on the other hand, Washington state’s embarrassingly low vaccination rate is actually killing babies:
Very young infants in our state are getting pertussis (whooping cough) at much higher rates than people of other ages. The rate of whooping cough in babies is nearly 10 times greater than the combined rate of all people of all ages in Washington. Already this year, 58 infants younger than one year old have been diagnosed with whooping cough. Twenty-two of them were hospitalized, including two that died. Of the 22 babies who were hospitalized, 18 were three months old or younger.
“Whooping cough is a serious illness, especially for babies who are too young to be vaccinated,” said State Health Officer and pediatrician Dr. Maxine Hayes. “Older kids and adults can help protect babies by getting the pertussis vaccine.”
Who to trust? Jenny McCarthy? Or reality?
See, here’s the deal. Infants younger than two months of age can’t be vaccinated for highly contagious pertussis. Yet up to 90 percent of them who are exposed to an infected person will catch the disease. And some of them will die.
That’s why our public health strategy is to vaccinate everybody who can be vaccinated, so that our most vulnerable are protected by herd immunity.
Refusing to vaccinate your children doesn’t just put your own babies at risk, it endangers all of them. So don’t be stupid. And don’t be a baby killer. Vaccinate your kids.
@50 the only reason that you think that this is an obscure disease is because 90%+ of people have been vaccinated against it. If everybody decided to protect their children against vaccines you would soon find out that Polio, whooping cough and friends became a lot less obscure.
From wiki:
in 2005 in Northern Nigeria—a country which at that time was considered provisionally polio free—an Islamic Fatwah was issued declaring that the polio vaccine was a conspiracy by the United States and the United Nations against the Muslim faith, saying that the drops were designed to sterilize the true believers. Subsequently, polio reappeared in Nigeria and spread from there to several other countries
That son-of-a-you-know-what who faked his research, convinced people not to vaccinate their kids, and diverted time, energy, attention and research funding away from whatever the real cause of autism is? Yeah, would be nice to hear some evangelicals tell HIM where he’ll be burning instead of ranting about gays and Mormons. There are so many people in the autism community who STILL haven’t accepted that vaccines aren’t the cause.
I sometimes wonder what he was thinking. Maybe he thought it wouldn’t be a big deal, that his research wouldn’t inspire so many followers. Bottom line, even what seems like a little lie here and there can have big consequences.
@50 and @51,
I’m going to present a position that fulfills both of your requirements (and will probably leave me attacked from both sides).
In the best of all worlds, before vaccinations are given, something akin to an allergy test should be done with the adjuvants/preservatives. If there were no reaction, then the vaccinations would be safer. The TB test turned into an impromptu version of this concept for Kodawe. If the reaction was to a specific component, then versions of the vaccine might be produced without the offending component (I ask for vaccinations made for people with latex sensitivity). If there is no way around the sensitivity, then no vaccination can be given. It is to protect those who can’t get vaccinated/immune compromised that everyone else MUST be vaccinated. Pretesting would cost money, however, and therein lies your problem. In a country with across the board coverage, then you might see this scenario. There is no way that vaccines should be administered to individuals if severe reactions and even death will occur.
Vaccines are optimized to treat the largest population at the lowest cost. In the case of something like a flu vaccine, there are additional optimizations based upon best guesses of which strains of virus (and their respective antigens) will be most significant in the future outbreaks of the disease. Optimization isn’t perfection. On the other hand, the protection they do provide has meant very significant changes in quality (and quanity) of life world wide where the vaccines are employed. Opposition without truly studying what havoc was caused worldwide before the availability of vaccines is simply foolish. The risks to the human population as a whole from the diseases cause the risks of side effects, in comparison, to be minimal. OTOH, if it is known the vaccine is potentially fatal to an individual, the point of saving that individual from other risks is moot.
Peace.
@47: “One of which we have had since he was 10 days old. I watched what vaccines did to this child with my own eye.”
No, you didn’t.
Take a basic statistics class, you horrible fuckoff of a parent.
I would be willing to bet not one person on this page advocating vaccinations has actually spent any time at all researching vaccinations. As far as Dr Wakefield goes, if you researched this court case you might know the fact there as well. Doesn’t anyone question anything anymore? The biggest red flag of all is the fact that the pharmaceutical companies are indemnified. Why? Well if you did your research you would learn that when Glaxo, Smith Beachum released the MMR in Canada there were many having reactions. Canada pulled this vaccination from the market overnight. At the same time, The British government wanted Glaxo to release this vaccination in the UK. Glaxo Dias they would not do it because of the issues they were seeing in Canada. The British government said they did not care, they wanted the vaccination no matter what. Glaxo would not comply so the British government indemnified Glaxo so they could not be sued for any adverse reactions. Big Red Flag! The US followed suite and indemnified these pharma companies as well. You cannot sue these guys if you have a reaction. Where is the safety in this? They have absolutely no liability, and they are making billions. By the way, they just renamed the vaccination, same vax as in Canada, just a different name. And Glaxo,Smith, Bechum became Glaxo, Smith, Kline shortly after this as well. I’m guessing Bechum had some moral issues will all of this. Be careful people, ask questions and do your research. These guys really do not care about your children. They care about the almighty dollar.
Kodawe: “These guys really do not care about your children. They care about the almighty dollar.”
Says the moron that follows someone who had his medical license revoked for falsifying data to “prove” the autism vaccine link.
Yet, this guy is still peddling “chelation” treatments that have no actual benefit, and claiming to “cure” autism.
You’re a failure of a parent, who follows snake oil peddlers, and abusing your children.
You forget who’s profiting the most off of this fraud, Wakefield himself.
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/inde…
“Pity poor Andrew Wakefield. Well, not really. I tend to view what’s happening to him yet again as the chickens coming home to roost.
Let’s put it this way. 2010 was a terrible year for him, and 2011 is starting out almost as bad. In February 2010, the General Medical Council in the U.K. recommended that Wakefield be stripped of his license to practice medicine in the U.K. because of scientific misconduct related to his infamous 1998 case series published in The Lancet, even going so far as to refer to him as irresponsible and dishonest, and in May 2010 he was. This case series, thanks to Wakefield’s scientific incompetence and fraud, coupled with his flair for self-promotion and enabled by the sensationalistic credulity of the British press, ignited a scare about the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine in which, afraid that the MMR vaccine causes autism, parents in the U.K. eschewed vaccinating their children in droves. As a result, vaccination rates plummeted far below the level necessary for herd immunity, with the entirely predictable result of massive measles outbreaks in the U.K. Measles, which as of the mid-1990s had been declared under control by British and European health authorities, came roaring back to the point where in 2008 it was declared once again endemic in the British Isles. In a mere decade and a half, several decades of progress in controlling this scourge had been unravelled like a thread hanging off a cheap dress, all thanks to Andrew Wakefield and scandal mongers in the British press.
True, Wakefield had long since moved to Texas, the better to be the founding “scientific director” of a house of autism woo known as Thoughtful House. Thus, the removal of his license to practice had little practical import (or effect on his ability to earn a living), or so it seemed at the time, given that Wakefield did not treat patients and hauled in quite the hefty salary for his promotion of anti-vaccine pseudoscience. Fortunately, karma’s a bitch, and, as a result of the GMC’s action, in short order The Lancet retracted Wakefield’s 1998 paper; Wakefield was pushed out of Thoughtful House; and his latest attempt to “prove” that vaccines cause autism in an animal study was also retracted. Investigative reporter Brian Deer’s investigation finding that Andrew Wakefield had committed scientific fraud in carrying out his Lancet study joined prior findings that Wakefield had been in the pocket of trial lawyers (to the tune of £435 643, plus expenses) seeking to sue the vaccine industry at the time he carried out his “research” and the allegations by renowned PCR expert Stephen Bustin during the Autism Omnibus as to how shoddily Wakefield’s other research was carried out. Finally, the mainstream media started to back away from its previous embrace of Wakefield and his claims. As a result, for a while at least, Wakefield was reduced to lame appearances at sparsely attended anti-vaccine rallies last spring.
The rest of the story
As bad as the findings were that Wakefield had committed scientific fraud, it turns out that it was even worse than the original reports indicated. A few hours ago, the British Medical Journal (BMJ) published an analysis of the scientific fraud committed by Wakefield, fraud that journalist Brian Deer likens in an accompanying editorial to the Piltdown Man. The articles are:
How the case against the MMR vaccine was fixed by Brian Deer
Wakefield’s article linking MMR vaccine and autism was fraudulent (editorial by BMJ editors Fiona Godlee, editor in chief, Jane Smith, deputy editor, Harvey Marcovitch, associate editor).
Piltdown medicine: The missing link between MMR and autism by Brian Deer.
And here is CNN reporting on the story last night:
Even better, Deer’s article is part one of a planned two-part series, the next part of which will look at Wakefield’s business plans and how he came to be fired. Basically, these latest two articles will grind to dust any remaining “scientific resepctability” Wakefield might have enjoyed. Actually, it grinds it to even finer dust–nanoparticles that disappear into the air–given that Wakefield’s reputation had already been pulverized quite thoroughly last year by the GMC. Deer begins, as he began one of his news stories before, with the testimony of a parent of one of the 12 children that Wakefield included in his study:
Mr 11, an American engineer, looked again at the paper: a five page case series of 11 boys and one girl, aged between 3 and 9 years. Nine children, it said, had diagnoses of “regressive” autism, and all but one were reported with “non-specific colitis.” The “new syndrome” brought these together, linking brain and bowel diseases. His son was the penultimate case.
Running his finger across the paper’s tables, over coffee in London, Mr 11 seemed reassured by his anonymised son’s age and other details. But then he pointed at table 2–headed “neuropsychiatric diagnosis”–and for a second time objected.
“That’s not true.”
Child 11 was among the eight whose parents apparently blamed MMR. The interval between his vaccination and the first “behavioural symptom” was reported as 1 week. This symptom was said to have appeared at age 15 months. But his father, whom I had tracked down, said this was wrong.
“From the information you provided me on our son, who I was shocked to hear had been included in their published study,” he wrote to me, after we met again in California, “the data clearly appeared to be distorted.”
Then Deer describes exactly how Wakefield rigged his study under the pay of trial lawyers to appear to suggest a link between MMR vaccination and autism. For instance, before Wakefield ever undertook his infamous study, he and a solicitor named Richard Barr had claimed to have identified a new syndrome consisting of bowel inflammation and regressive autism and aimed to show a temporal association between MMR vaccination and the onset of first symptoms. Unfortunately, Child 11′s case was a disappointment, as his discharge summary from the Royal Free Hospital, which showed that the boy’s regression began two months earlier than claimed in Wakefield’s paper and a month before he had ever received his MMR vaccine. Deer also describes Child 2, whose parents were the first to have approached Wakefield, sent by the anti-vaccine group JABS. This boy appeared in numerous news reports and was one of the four “best cases” used by Barr in a lawsuit. The boy’s mother’s story was vague and she wasn’t clear on how long it was between the child’s vaccination and the onset of his symptoms.
But that’s not all. The more the paper was investigated, the more anomalies were found. For example, only one child clearly had regressive autism, and three of nine described as having regressive autism did not. In fact, none of these three even had a diagnosis of autism at all! There were other anomalies as well. Several of the children clearly had preexisting conditions. For example, all twelve children were described in the paper as “previously normal,” but at least two of them clearly had developmental delay and facial dysmorphisms noted before they were vaccinated with the MMR. All twelve children taken together did not support the existence of a syndrome of bowel problems and regressive autism, at least not the syndrome as described in Wakefield’s paper. Deer summarizes how Wakefield “fixed the link” between MMR and regressive autism with enterocolitis:
The Lancet paper was a case series of 12 child patients; it reported a proposed “new syndrome” of enterocolitis and regressive autism and associated this with MMR as an “apparent precipitating event.” But in fact:
Three of nine children reported with regressive autism did not have autism diagnosed at all. Only one child clearly had regressive autism
Despite the paper claiming that all 12 children were “previously normal,” five had documented pre-existing developmental concerns
Some children were reported to have experienced first behavioural symptoms within days of MMR, but the records documented these as starting some months after vaccination
In nine cases, unremarkable colonic histopathology results–noting no or minimal fluctuations in inflammatory cell populations–were changed after a medical school “research review” to “non-specific colitis”
The parents of eight children were reported as blaming MMR, but 11 families made this allegation at the hospital. The exclusion of three allegations–all giving times to onset of problems in months–helped to create the appearance of a 14 day temporal link
Patients were recruited through anti-MMR campaigners, and the study was commissioned and funded for planned litigation
As Brian Deer so aptly puts it, Wakefield “chiseled” the data, “falsifying medical histories of children and essentially concocting a picture, which was the picture he was contracted to find by lawyers hoping to sue vaccine manufacturers and to create a vaccine scare.” The discrepancies between the case reports as described in Wakefield’s Lancet paper and the actual medical records are anything but random; all are in the direction of suggesting a link between the MMR and Wakefield’s as yet unverified syndrome of regressive autism and enterocolitis. The cases that were selected appear not to have been random, sequential patients but were rather recruited specifically through anti-vaccine activists and trial lawyers. Moreover, as Deer puts it:
Moreover, through the omission from the paper of some parents’ beliefs that the vaccine was to blame, the time link for the lawsuit sharpened. With concerns logged from 11 of 12 families, the maximum time given to the onset of alleged symptoms was a (forensically unhelpful) four months. But, in a version of the paper circulated at the Royal Free six months before publication, reported concerns fell to nine of 12 families but with a still unhelpful maximum of 56 days. Finally, Wakefield settled on 8 of 12 families, with a maximum interval to alleged symptoms of 14 days.
Between the latter two versions, revisions also slashed the mean time to alleged symptoms–from 14 to 6.3 days. “In these children the mean interval from exposure to the MMR vaccine to the development of the first behavioural symptom was six days, indicating a strong temporal association,” he emphasised in a patent for, among other things, his own prophylactic measles vaccine, eight months before the Lancet paper.
Yes, that’s exactly what Deer has found. When the time frame between vaccination and the onset of symptoms was too long to be useful for suggesting a link between MMR and regressive autism with enterocolitis, Wakefield systematically removed subjects whose parents blamed the MMR for their children’s autism until the time frame between vaccination and onset of symptoms in the remaining subjects was a much more impressive 14 days. There is no innocent explanation possible for the systematic and numerous discrepancies between the medical record and Wakefield’s paper, as the editors of the BMJ point out in their accompanying editorial:
The Office of Research Integrity in the United States defines fraud as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism. Deer unearthed clear evidence of falsification. He found that not one of the 12 cases reported in the 1998 Lancet paper was free of misrepresentation or undisclosed alteration, and that in no single case could the medical records be fully reconciled with the descriptions, diagnoses, or histories published in the journal.
Who perpetrated this fraud? There is no doubt that it was Wakefield. Is it possible that he was wrong, but not dishonest: that he was so incompetent that he was unable to fairly describe the project, or to report even one of the 12 children’s cases accurately? No. A great deal of thought and effort must have gone into drafting the paper to achieve the results he wanted: the discrepancies all led in one direction; misreporting was gross.
The antivaccine movement circles the wagons again
The degree of falsification and the number of discrepancies were breathtaking in their audacity and contempt for reviewers and Wakefield’s own collaborators, ten of whom retracted their names from the study back in 2004, when strong evidence of a serious conflict of interest on Wakefield’s part was first unearthed by Deer. The chutzpah Wakefield demonstrated in his fraud was truly breathtaking. So is the chutzpah he continues to exhibit today with his denials. Even after this report and all the stories reporting on it, Wakefield continues to deny that he has done anything at all wrong and blames the criticisms leveled against him on conspiracies. In reality, given the way the anti-vaccine movement has begun to circle the wagons to defend Wakefield yet again, it’s tempting to claim that this is a conspiracy. Personally, I consider it a conspiracy of utter cluelessness. For one example, check out this video of J.B. Handley:
Yes, Handley’s regurgitating antivaccine favorites like the “tobacco science” mischaracterization, touting Wakefield’s “monkey business” study (which he neglects to mention was withdrawn), and defending Wakefield. I will say one thing, though. Handley actually managed to keep himself from having one of his characteristic outbursts, although it was obvious that he was on the verge of one of his typical rants. Perhaps he’s had some media training since his last appearance on The Doctors or Larry King’s show.
For another example, check out this defense of Andrew Wakefield by the anti-vaccine National Autism Association, which makes the astonishingly ludicrous claim that the BMJ article is “yet another attempt to thwart vaccine safety research.” The anti-vaccine crank blog Age of Autism naturally reposted the NAA’s counterattack.
One of the NAA’s claims in its press release is that Wakefield’s study has been “repeatedly confirmed,” and the NAA cites five studies that allegedly confirm Wakefield’s fraudulent results. However, as Just the Vax and Sullivan show, these studies do not represent independent confirmation of anything. One of them was by a close associate of Wakefield; one is a case report of an adult autistic with enterocolitis; and none of the rest confirm Wakefield’s results either. Yet, every time a story pops up showing that Wakefield committed scientific fraud, Wakefield defenders in the anti-vaccine movement dutifully trot out the same five studies, as though any of them were independent confirmation of his work, while anti-vaccine activists launch ad hominem attacks against BMJ editor Fiona Godlee and regurgitate old attacks on Brian Deer. Particularly off-base is the NAA’s claim that somehow, by laying bare Wakefield’s clear cut and vile scientific fraud, the BMJ is interfering with “vaccine safety research.” No, it’s revealing a dangerous scientific fraud, nothing more.
“Piltdown medicine”
So egregious was Wakefield’s fraud that Deer likens it in an accompanying blog post to “Piltdown medicine,” making this direct comparison to the infamous “Piltdown Man” hoax:
The Piltdown contrivance involved the pre-arranged “discovery” of features brought together to be sensationally “found.” A piece of skullcap was human, a partial jaw was an orangutan’s, and a tooth was a chimpanzee’s, filed down. They were stained with chemicals and, to fabricate a temporal link, were buried with flint tools in datable gravel near the tiny village of Piltdown, East Sussex.
Some would suggest that their proximity was a matter of chance, but the odds of this would have taxed an astronomer. “That two different individuals were present,” one of the scientists who unmasked the fraud explained later, “a fossil man, represented by a cranium without a jaw, and a fossil ape, represented by a jaw without a cranium, within a few feet of each other and so similar in colour and preservation, would be a coincidence, amazing beyond belief.”
And so it was with Wakefield, eight decades after the Piltdown discoveries. Amazing beyond belief. For skullcap read “developmental disorders”, for the jaw “enterocolitis”, and for the tooth “parental complaints about MMR”. Bring them together at one hospital, with a 14-day temporal link, and another assemblage was “found”.
This is a very apt analogy. The more we find out about how Wakefield put together his case series for The Lancet, the more it becomes obvious that he calculatingly put together a fraud every bit as elaborate and planned as the Piltdown Man hoax. It might not have taken as long for Wakefield’s fraud to come to light. Although there were suspicions that not everything was as it appeared as early as within the first year after Wakefield’s case report, it was not until 2004 that serious allegations came to light of Wakefield’s conflict of interest. These allegations ultimately led to the GMC hearing that began in 2007 and the findings of scientific fraud announced nearly a year ago. Now, here it is, thirteen years later, and only now is the full story being told.
What I can’t figure out–I mean, really, really can’t figure out–is why the anti-vaccine movement continues to cling to Wakefield’s tattered “science” and lionize this fraud as a hero. Surely the more sober and intelligent members of the anti-vaccine mvoement (they do exist, believe it or not) must realize by now that Wakefield has become a huge liability. This was best demonstrated last year, when, after years of doing nothing about him, as soon as the GMC found Wakefield had committed scientific fraud, in short order The Lancet retracted his paper, Thoughtful House fired him, and his “monkey business” paper, which was to be his “comeback” as far as scientific respectability goes, was also retracted. Wakefield is now very much like the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, who, having had his arm hacked off by King Arthur declares it to be “just a flesh wound.” After hacking off all but the Black Knight’s left leg, the Black Knight keeps taunting Arthur, who retorts, “What are you going to do, bleed on me?” and finally, unable to take any more, cuts off the Black Knight’s last leg.
This article by Brian Deer is the last swing of the sword that hacks off Wakefield’s last limb.
Unfortunately, like the Black Knight, not realizing that, scientifically he’s been utterly discredited, Wakefield fights on. Worse, he is still feted by the anti-vaccine movement. Right now, he’s in Jamaica as part of a “vaccine safety” conference whose list of speakers is chock full of anti-vaccine activists.
For Wakefield, even 13 years later, fraud pays.”
@50: I would accept your child being hospitalized over a one-time-only anaphylactic over your my child contracting a horrendous, life-changing disease due to your inability to think outside your family.
@57: “Oh shit, nobody’s listening to my emotional mommy points. Better pull out the tinfoil hat! That’ll learn them!”
Yes Wakefield was so smeared that he was invited to speak the the to the American Accociation of Physicians and Surgeons on Oct 10, 2011. Hummm? I would say you will look like a giant ass when the truth breaks on this but I think you would rather enjoy that.
The vax-heads have to constantly maintain a united front that all vaccines are always good and all of the time. For them, any admission that there is potential for risk in any vaccine will begin to deconstruct the shell of denial and laziness that is the bedrock of their belief. Oh, and it is a belief.
So let me again state on this thread, for none of the vax-heads has made nary a peep about it on here (though Sgt. Doom also referenced it), the nation of Finland has now openly admitted that the swine flu vaccine “conclusively” causes narcolepsy:
http://cryptogon.com/?p=25354
Trolldy and the other vax-heads really show their true colors on threads like these. They are aggressively willing to stand by big government and the nakedly corrupt pharmaceutical industry with such a fervor and blind faith. Progressive indeed.
@64: You need to make your citations shipshape there, amigo. When you put the word “conclusively” in quotes (like I just did), you are claiming that that same word appears in the source. But it doesn’t; the word “conclusive” does. Now, it doesn’t even say what you say it says. You say that they’ve admitted that the “vaccine ‘conclusively’ causes narcolepsy”. They haven’t. They’ve admitted a conclusive LINK BETWEEN THE TWO. These are not the same thing; for example, there is an INCREDIBLY strong link between popsicle sales and rates of drowning. This conclusive link does not, in fact, mean that popsicles cause drowning.
We’re not in the pocket of the pharmaceutical industry, Spindles. We just know how to do statistics.
@63: You fucking moron, that’s a Libertarian quack group that doesn’t believe in AIDS.
“Rand Paul, MD, the Republican Senate candidate from Kentucky, is a member of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), prwatch.org reports. According to the article, AAPS denies that HIV causes AIDS. The AAPS statement of principles say that it’s “evil” and “immoral” to participate in Medicare and Social Security.”
Yup.
@64: “The vax-heads have to constantly maintain a united front that all vaccines are always good and all of the time.”
Even if there was a causative link (which is not guaranteed) it wouldn’t make any of your other statements based in reality.
@65 Are you stalking me?
Ah yes… The true colors emerge. Spoken like a true provax professional. No matter who questions vaccines, they are all quacks. Hundreds of thousands of medical professionals around the world question vaccines , yet to you they are all idiots. I figured by reading the title on this article I was talking with some backwood hillbilly that did not know any better. Yet, i have in all actuallity found the author and friends are intellectual giants. You cannot for one minute tell me you fo not have dome sort of financial interest in this, otherwise, why would you spend every waking hour fighting for vaccination. Hell, they are already mainstream, go get one, shut up and go about your life. Oh wait, maybe you do not have a life, so this is what you do for fun. I don’t even know why I give any amount of my day to hateful, egocentric, stupid, brainwashed, unquestioning followers of corporate greed. I’m done giving anymore of my day to you … Peace out! … Or should I say hail Hitler, alvetazen!
@70: “Hundreds of thousands of medical professionals around the world question vaccines”
Science is getting paid to question everything.
The answers they find are that vaccines are overwhelmingly safe and trustworthy. There’s no money in this consensus.
I wonder what happened with the Swine Flu?
Suggestions for both sides:
Read the article again and note the dates/ages specified.
Note also that midwives, peditricians and old wives all recommend spending your full FMLA time period at home with baby, breast feeding exclusively if possible. That’s 3 months. I’ve had 5 pediatricians and all of them have said ‘don’t take the baby out, if possible, for those first 3 months.
Do a small bit of math: 2 months of non vaccinable new baby age is 1 less than 3 months of doc recommended and law-provided stay at home time. 1 month buffer.
(Note immunities granted by breastfeeding, as a sidenote)
(question the journalist about how many kids have medical complications causing infection, injury or death in relation to getting vacs? Stats on both sides would be fair, if not expected of a ‘news’ story)
Now,
If I keep my baby away from stadiums full of people, trains, planes etc for those first 3 months as recommended, and THEN vaccinate, how the hell does it matter what other people are choosing to do with THEIR kids? No dead babies. Everyone wins
Who’s truly the stupider parent – the one choosing not to add the possibility of infection via needling their kid (or more likely, misdosing*) – or, the parent who ignores both conventional and medical wisdom and goes out looking for immunity system trouble during the first 8 weeks, before their baby’s even done shitting tar?
*- I think the autism ‘link’ is a total crock of shit no matter what celebrity endorses it , though the chemical-pollutants-in-vacs issues may have merit;
however, my oldest was dangerously doubledipped on vacs because the docs screwed up paperwork/couldn’t read their own handwriting…. and I’m not so arrogant as to think doctors aren’t human and make mistakes: no medical procedure, simple or not, is risk free: there’s a exponential increase in the need for/ likelihood of medical interventions with each injection.
@63 “American Accociation of Physicians and Surgeons,” wow that sounds official. Only people with real authority could use a name like that, right?
They are a political organization, not primarily a scientific/medical one. I have no problem with doctors and scientists throwing their weight into a political issue, but they should be honest about it, with a name like “Union of Concerned Scientists” or “Doctors Without Borders.” A name designed to sound completely neutral and like they’re speaking for all doctors is a sure tip-off that you’re dealing with charlatans.
@69: No, why? Do you think everyone’s stalking you?
I’m impressed that it took all of 69 comments to Godwin this thread.
@70: I had to look at your post a few times to realize that what you meant was “auf wiedersehen”. Please stop vomiting this idiocy onto our internets.
77@ ha ha, you always seem to post right after me. I’m not really serious. sheesh.
@75…Oh, I mean 75….
@78: Sure, but do you see the point I’m making?
@80 Well, ‘conclusive’ is how this Yahoo news article put it: http://news.yahoo.com/finland-vows-care-…
Is conclusive is too strong a word? Well, the Finnish government seems sure enough of the link to pay for “lifetime medical care” for 79 children who have been irreparably damaged by the swine flu vaccine.
@81 yeah, plus it wasn’t merely Finns, they put together an international team to verify results.
The worst/most damning quote from that yahoo link is:
“Of these [79] cases, an unusually high number, 76, also suffered from bouts of cataplexy, suffering hallucinations or paralysing physical collapses, according to Finnish research.”
Hallucinations and paralysing?
Holy fuck. I mean it’s just one of many vaccine cocktails out there, and there’s likely 99 good ones to this 1 gawdawful one, but ARE THERE NO LEGIT SAFEGUARDS?? 4 different awful symptom results and no pre-market lab work / gov testing revealed any hint that this would happen??!
@81: There is a conclusive LINK. There is no conclusive CAUSATION.
Now, that vaccine may have caused some problems, but the report doesn’t say that it did. You lose all credibility when you pull things out of your ass like this.
On the one hand you’re calling Jenny McCarthy C-list and irrelevant, on the other hand you’re saying she possesses the influence to force people to kill their own babies.
You also suggest that, aside from the questions she raises about vaccinces, her big boobs are another reason she should not be taken seriously.
Solid.
@72: Yet again, KittenKoder thinks MMR is the same thing as the Swine Flu, proving herself to be a blithering idiot in every subject she tackles.
I can’t wait for there to be a thread about coding so she can fail at that, too.
@81: “Well, the Finnish government seems sure enough of the link to pay for “lifetime medical care” for 79 children who have been irreparably damaged by the swine flu vaccine.”
They are paying for care for children who were diagnosed AND have received the vaccine. Not the same thing.
If you’re actually concerned about vaccine funds, we’d be glad to discuss the nature of them, but I doubt you’re interested in reading.
I still say that even if vaccines cause autism–which is not true, but whatever–even if they do, I’d rather my kid be autistic than have whooping cough, or any of the other fun diseases that ought to have been killed off by now.
http://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/topics…
“Narcolepsy is a condition that has a strong genetic linkage, being almost uniquely seen in persons who have the (HLA) DQB1*0602 genotype. Of the cases of narcolepsy tested so far in Finland (n=29), diagnosed during 2009-2010, all have that genotype. The National Institute for Health and Welfare of Finland considers it probable that the Pandemrix vaccine was a contributing factor to this observed increase, and has called for further investigation of other co-factors that may be associated with the increased risk. They consider it most likely that the vaccine increased the risk of narcolepsy in a joint effect in those genetically disposed with some other, still unknown, genetic and/or environmental factors. The final report from the Finnish National Narcolepsy Task Force is expected by 31 August 2011.
The Swedish Medical Products Agency recognizes that further work is needed with respect to the findings in their preliminary report – particularly with regards to the verification of the diagnoses of the cases ascertained from the county health care databases. Also, in the report there is no assessment as to whether publicity about the purported association influenced rates in vaccinated compared to unvaccinated persons. Further investigations include a review by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) on the benefit-risk balance of Pandemrix, which is expected by July 2011. At their meeting in April 2011, the EMA Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) agreed an interim recommendation for prescribers to take into account preliminary results from epidemiological studies on Pandemrix and narcolepsy, and to perform an individual benefit-risk assessment when considering the use of Pandemrix in children and adolescents3. Results from an epidemiological study of narcolepsy and pandemic vaccines in nine EU States by the VAESCO project are expected by June 20114.
WHO’s Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety (GACVS) reviewed the available data from Finland on 4 February 2011 and the new data from Sweden on 18 April 2011. GACVS agrees that further investigation is warranted concerning narcolepsy and vaccination against influenza (H1N1) 2009 with Pandemrix and other pandemic H1N1 vaccines. An increased risk of narcolepsy has not been observed in association with the use of any vaccines whether against influenza or other diseases in the past. Even at this stage, it does not appear that narcolepsy following vaccination against pandemic influenza is a general worldwide phenomenon, as no excess of narcolepsy has been reported from several other European states where Pandemrix was used, or from Canada where a pandemic vaccine similar to pandemrix was used. This complicates interpretation of the findings in Finland and Sweden. It seems likely that some as yet unidentified additional factor was operating in Sweden and Finland. The findings from the VAESCO project and further investigations in Finland and Sweden, may help clarify the determinants of any increased risk of narcolepsy, which currently appears to be restricted to the months following vaccination and by age group and country.”
Of interest is that those results only appeared in Sweden/Finland, not in any other nation. Thus, further studies will/should be done to determine why those numbers were so high.
The care will be paid preliminarily out of the fund, as is responsible. That does not mean that the numbers are necessarily a reflection of a causal link.
It’ll be interesting to see what happens, but this is not a quick process.
@88 Ms. Rand,
Thank you for bringing up the 800 pound gorilla that is waiting in the wings. The topic of genetic testing for predisposition should both thrill and terrorize us. On the plus side, potential treatments targeted to genetic disease and susceptibility*, on the minus, once the insurer knows, will the family get permanently dropped from coverage. Standing between the two are laws set in place by our government. Sadly, the actuarial estimates done on our whole population should render the problem moot: the costs and risks for the complete population are constantly under study. BUT, if the insurance companies could drop the high risk families years before the high cost treatments were necessary, would they in order to increase profit? Can we trust our government to make and enforce laws to protect all of us?
* Germaine to this thread would be avoiding negative side effects potentiated by genetic predisposition.
Peace.
@84 – don’t forget that she’s blonde and a womanfolk, too. I mean heck, her kind haven’t even had the vote for a hundred years yet…
Again though: yes, the touted link between autism and vacs is thin if not invisible, and yes, stupid parents suck.
I just contend that the truly stupidest parents aren’t the overprotective/not-willing-to-play-the-odds-at-all ones, but the IGNORANT/ARROGANT parents taking their newborns out in places and at young ages where they could , without any doubt, be raising their chances of getting sick. Anti-vaccine-ness isn’t killing babies, but stupid parents sure aren’t helping.
Nations requiring the most vaccines tend to have the worst infant mortality rates
http://het.sagepub.com/content/early/201…
Abstract
The infant mortality rate (IMR) is one of the most important indicators of the socio-economic well-being and public health conditions of a country. The US childhood immunization schedule specifies 26 vaccine doses for infants aged less than 1 year—the most in the world—yet 33 nations have lower IMRs. Using linear regression, the immunization schedules of these 34 nations were examined and a correlation coefficient of r = 0.70 (p < 0.0001) was found between IMRs and the number of vaccine doses routinely given to infants. Nations were also grouped into five different vaccine dose ranges: 12–14, 15–17, 18–20, 21–23, and 24–26. The mean IMRs of all nations within each group were then calculated. Linear regression analysis of unweighted mean IMRs showed a high statistically significant correlation between increasing number of vaccine doses and increasing infant mortality rates, with r = 0.992 (p = 0.0009). Using the Tukey-Kramer test, statistically significant differences in mean IMRs were found between nations giving 12–14 vaccine doses and those giving 21–23, and 24–26 doses. A closer inspection of correlations between vaccine doses, biochemical or synergistic toxicity, and IMRs is essential.
Linear regression analysis of unweighted mean IMRs showed a high statistically significant correlation between increasing number of vaccine doses and increasing infant mortality rates
Linear regression analysis of unweighted mean IMRs showed a high statistically significant correlation between increasing number of vaccine doses and increasing infant mortality rates
Linear regression analysis of unweighted mean IMRs showed a high statistically significant correlation between increasing number of vaccine doses and increasing infant mortality rates
Linear regression analysis of unweighted mean IMRs showed a high statistically significant correlation between increasing number of vaccine doses and increasing infant mortality rates
@91: Correlation does not imply causation, twinkletoes. Have you considered the possibility that maybe some countries require more vaccines because they have high IMR, and think that immunizing their children will solve the problem?
Please, leave statistical analysis to us big boys and girls who actually know a thing or two about statistics.
@91: “Nations requiring the most vaccines tend to have the worst infant mortality rates “
Did you graduate high school?
There is the most basic flaw in your argument.
If you believe in vaccines you shouldnt worry about unvaccinated kids. Supposedly yours are protectes so no problem. After reading most of the postings I would say vaccines definitely contribute to neurologic dysfunction. When there are more threats than facts, you dont look serious or competent
@94: “If you believe in vaccines you shouldnt worry about unvaccinated kids. Supposedly yours are protectes so no problem”
Herd immunity you fucking moron.
“When there are more threats than facts, you dont look serious or competent”
Non-physician, non-graduated from high school, heal thyself.
@94: I have no problem with you allowing your children to waste away from a disease that could have been entirely avoided by taking a teeny tiny shot as a baby. What I do have a problem with is your disease-vector then running around and infecting my nephew, who is still too young for his shots, or his grandparents, who have weakened immune systems in the first place.
Your dead kid = meh
My dead kid = your head on a pike
Got it?
I also hate how they act like autism is fucking cancer or something. I mean, obviously, you don’t get autism from vaccines, but the logic is annoying.Like its an equal risk–die of whooping cough…or get AUTISM!!! My bf is on the spectrum, I work with people on the spectrum. Most people I know on the spectrum are great! That’s barring people who are nonverbal, which is a huge parenting challenge (though the NV kids I’ve known have actually been really cool too). But still! Prejudice much?
@96 Lulz. Ah, my, my, my, the embodiment of selflessness. It’s funny that people on the “right side of science” are so terribly irrational and compassionate. Even to those who are admittedly very ignorant you’ll find a way to want to kill them and also not care about the passing of their family.
Remind me of why you’re so highly evolved?
@98: The point is that refusing to vaccinate your kid doesn’t just affect your kid, but every other kid he comes in contact with. The point is not about selfishness; the point is that it is EVERYONE’S business whether kids get vaccinated.
@99 Yes, I get it. I am not terribly dumb, just a little. I am sorry to be sooooo OT sir but I was making another point.
@98: ” It’s funny that people on the “right side of science” are so terribly irrational and compassionate. Even to those who are admittedly very ignorant you’ll find a way to want to kill them and also not care about the passing of their family. “
As we’re not going to vaccinate your children through force, we cannot legislate you being a bad parent. We do not sincerely want your children to DIE.
@101 I’d never NOT vaccinate my children if I had any. I am merely criticizing the *impulse* to kill as hypocritical.
@102: Thanks for the tone trolling dude.
Personally I won’t be calling for anyone’s death, but I do think that there should be at least civil, if not criminal action, taken against anti-vaxers if it were to be proven that through their selfish stupidity any child, including their own, should die or be made ill.
I will also admit to a burning desire to kick Jenny McCarthy in the ankle.