Hey, Stupid Fucking Anti-Vaccine Baby Killers: Stop Killing Our Babies!

Comments

1
I don't know, Goldy. Jenny McCarthy's boobs make a good point. I think she said it best when she said "Boogity boogity boogity boo! Your kids are gonna get autism!"
2
She does have a great set there. God knows, I've fucked crazier women for less.
3
Good timing; my 4 month old got 5 immunizations today. She hated it, but by tomorrow she'll be fine.

If, on the other hand, she were to ever get sick or worse because some asshole parent didn't vaccinate their older child, I would flat out murder that parent without qualm or guilt. Your right to endanger your child ends at my child's immune system.
4
I worked with a hippie back in the early 90s who for whatever non-Ms.-McCarthy reason decided to not vaccinate her kid against pertussis. In about 4th grade for the kid, whooping cough tore through his private school. All the non-vaccinated kids got it, as did about 30% of the vaccinated kids. This was presented to me as proof that vaccines were pointless.
At the time, it at least felt like idiocy that would be contained within the small percentage of the population that is both a hippie and rich enough to pay for fancy private school. Now though, the idiocy is everywhere. I'm re-upping my own vaccinations for a few things this year.
5
Where's Sgt Doom and Spindles? Shouldn't they be jerking each other off in this thread? And where's KittenKoder? I bet she could lend them some moral support.
6
@3: God yes.
7
alight@4: AUGH! That is so crazy-making! Us pro-vacciners need to practice our arguments about herd immunity. If everyone had been vaccinated, the illness would never have gotten a foothold in the school, even if it's less than 100% effective for each individual.
8
Also, it's a fair bet the vaccinated kids had (on average) milder cases.
9
I'm just going to make this public now:
if some fuckstick who believes Jenny McCarthy and the tinfoil hat brigade's anti-vaccine bullshit doesn't vaccinate their kids, and one of those kids gets my kid sick, and if my child were to die from their belief in BULLSHIT?
I would attempt murder. I would fucking go after them with a cheese grater. Get your head out of your ass and think of someone besides yourself and how smart you think you are. How would you feel if your sick kid got my kid sick and my son died? Would you still sit up on your dreadlocked holier-than-thou horse?
10
BUT MOMMIES!

MOMMIE MOMMIE MOMMIES!

Thanks for hammering on this issue, Goldy. Dumbshits gotta be told, and, more importantly, normal people who might be on the fence gotta be told.
11
I don't even have kids, and this nonsense makes me crazy. Why do people believe bimbo celebrities with zero knowledge over truckloads of scientists with real Ph.D's and mountains of real evidence that vaccination works? I boggles my mind.
12
This shit makes me furious and sad. Death is not the only bad thing that can happen if a tiny baby gets whooping cough--brain damage is not uncommon. What sane parent wants to risk their kid's brain to this stupid anti vaccine bullshit?
13
the problem of other people. they just don't do what you want them to do sometimes.
14
People who don't vaccinate must have sick kid fetishes.
15
@10: You do realize that it's mommies who, the vast majority of the time, get their kids vaccinated, right?
16
Yall seen this one yet? Penn & Teller's Bullshit - Vaccinations:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhk7-5eBC…

sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo good.
17
Thanks for this. My son has Aspergers and the anti-vaccination theory is infuriating to me. First of all, it's not even true. Second of all, even if it was true, that means people who don't vaccinate would basically rather have their kid dead than autistic. Seriously, why are people SO afraid of autism? It's not life-threatening, it's not contagious. It's full of challenges, but these kids have tremendous strengths. I don't get it.

But if we *must* wring hands about the rise of autism and possible causes, this theory about assortive mating (i.e., geek love) makes a lot more sense to me:
http://tinyurl.com/1oi

18
Vaccination is not just for the kids either; adults should be revaccinated about every ten years too. Whooping cough is pretty minor for adults, agreed; but the whole herd thing won't work if we only vaccinate the kids.

And if you have a cough, particularly one that only strikes once or twice a day and you otherwise feel fine; but those episodes have you nearly vomiting. Keep away from the babies! You probably have whooping cough.
19
Heh heh, oh boy. Just to stay current, here's a story from today.
http://cryptogon.com/?p=25354
20
Yes @18 - adults need to stay current on their vaccinations as well! Adults can get a pertussis booster shot along with tetanus and diphtheria - TDaP. And I can tell you from unfortunate personal experience that adults can and do get severe cases of pertussis, although normally it does hit children harder than adults. And my god, you don't want anyone you know to come down with a bad case of whooping cough - it is a terrible, terrible illness. Can't imagine having to watch a baby suffer from it.
21
if my child were to die from their belief in BULLSHIT? I would attempt murder. I would fucking go after them with a cheese grater. Get your head out of your ass and think of someone besides yourself and how smart you think you are.

You own a car? You drive one around? Does that mean that, if you accidentally kill someone who has chosen not to drive a car because they think it's dangerous, that person's relatives should get to kill you with a cheese grater? Or let's talk about your hand-washing habits. Or all the Middle Easterners who are being turned into kibble with your tax dollars right now. You smoke pot? Do a little blow now and then? There are a few thousand dead Mexicans who'd like to talk to you about the larger implications of your personal choices. Hell, you're an American -- you wipe out a square mile of Amazon rain forest every time you buy a cheeseburger. But what REALLY gets up your ass?

These goddamn stupid hippies and their anti-vaccine kick. Because God knows the government and big drug companies have never pulled any henky shit on the public, or released a dangerous drug to the public and let people use it for years and years, or conspired to hide the negative health effects of any drug or, oh, I don't know, like, tobacco or something. And Jenny McCarthy is the ONLY person who has questions about vaccines, and the ONLY reason someone would hold off on vaccinating, or refuse a certain vaccine, is because of concerns about autism.

Herd immunity. Give me a break. Every day the average Seattleite past a hundred homeless people that are basically just walking petrie dishes for drug resistant tuberculosis and MRSA, and does a million other things that take us one step closer to a zombie apocalypse -- but you start talking childhood vaccines and suddenly every latte liberal with a BA in Art History starts spouting off about herd immunity. Christ. What a jape.
22
Lesse, a statistically improbable reaction to a vaccine or a highly contagious deadly disease.

I will never understand why people make any choice other than getting vaccinated.

23
Whooping cough is also life threatening and permanently disabling for adults or older children with immunodeficiency issues, including HIV positive and cancer treatments.
24
@15, Jenny McCarthy once offered her "mommy instinct" as explanation for how she knew vaccines had caused her son's autism, and "mommy" protectiveness is behind a lot of the paranoia of her followers. I'm tired of "Mommy" being offered as qualifications for dispensing medical advice, is all. No disrespect intended to mothers; it's not an easy job. It just doesn't make you a doctor.
25
Most kids hate shots. As someone who's given a lot of kids a lot of shots, I'll tell you that most moms hate shots too. I'll also tell you that it's a sad, sad mom who sees her baby cough himself to death because she passed on shots. I also know moms who SWEAR that their child was not the same after they got vaccinations. Sometimes we provide a little anticipatory guidance (your child might be doing ____ now, and may be trying to _____ in the next couple months), and only then do people realize that their child isn't meeting developmental milestones. The child gets a vaccination on the same visit, the process of getting the shot was a little traumatizing for both parent and child, the parent realizes that something isn't right developmentally, and the vaccine gets blamed. It's a temporal relationship, a fallacy.

Establishing herd immunity requires a sense of social responsibility. People have to accept a some risk in order to reduce the overall prevalence of a disease. It's how we eradicated smallpox. It's how we've almost eradicated polio (why almost? vaccine paranoia). Herd immunity can accommodate a certain number of non-vaccinated individuals (those who are severely immune compromised, have anaphylactic reactions to vaccine components, are too young, too old, too sick etc), especially if these individuals don't act as vectors. In environments like day cares, schools, clinics, hospitals, movie theaters, malls, etc, you'd better vaccinate because everyone's a vector. As someone who works in health care, I know I'm a vector. It's my responsibility to vaccinate myself. I'm young and I'm healthy so if I get sick, I won't get tragically sick. The flu is probably not going to kill me, but it might kill someone I give it to .

PS @alight- a 70% immunity rate isn't so bad. It's about the same as the flu vaccine, and with a critical mass of immunized individuals, it's all that's needed to prevent an epidemic.
26
Meh. Vaccines prevent nature from taking it's course and thinning the herd in order to slow the overpopulation that is happening. Illnesses are just God working in mysterious ways.
27
There are some shots I won't get. Like thimerisal-laden flu shots that don't have the effectiveness of other vaccines. It's clear that the evidence for the link between vaccines and autism is fake, bogus, made-up. I don't get the argument for murdering other people who choose not to vaccinate their children though. It's sort of hypocritical since you're saying: "You're so dumb that you have no faith in what I have faith in (yet am still afraid of the chance that my faith is misplaced)!" I mean, think of the children('s cognitive integrity)!
28
Interesting read, @17. Maybe being intelligent is an evolutionary dead-end. That means families like the Duggars will win at evolution.
29
@25 That's an interesting point about the handouts and the shots. Many parents swear that their kid wasn't the same after their vaccines, but when experts examine home movies taken before the vaccinations, there are clear signs that the kids were already not on the normal track.
30
Hey, Stupid Fucking Abortionists Baby Killers:
Stop Killing Our Babies!

oh...

sorry....

never mind.
31
You can't say it enough. Thanks Goldy.
32
The danger of excessive vaccination during brain development:
the case for a link to Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD)
Russell L. Blaylock, MD

http://www.nationalautismassociation.org…

A compelling amount of research has shown that repeated stimulation of the systemic immune system results in first priming of the microglia in the developing brain, followed by an intense microglial reaction with each successive series of vaccinations. Because of the critical dependence of the developing brain on a timed se-quence of cytokine and excitatory amino acid fluctuation, sequential vaccination can result in alterations in this critical process that will not only result in synaptic and dendritic loss, but abnormal pathway development. When activated, especially chronically, microglia, the resident immune cell of the brain, secretes a number of inflammatory cytokines, free radicals, lipid peroxidation products, and two excitotoxins—glutamate and quinolinic acid. This evidence suggests that this central mechanism results in the pathological as well as clinical features of autism.
33
@32

That is not a compelling argument. It is a single argument by a crack-pot libertarian who used to be a surgeon.

What other scientist supports this dude's theories?
34
What Judah said-mostly because my keyboard is too small to say it myself.

Also, if you don't get your flu shot, you're killing babies and grandmas in a far higher number than those that decide not to vaccinate.

I think we should move on to fluoridation of water. Let's really get some panties in a bunch
35
What we need is a charitable organization that will pay a poor mother thirty dollars cash to get her child vaccinated. I bet it would help. And thirty dollars cash for everyone in her family that is old enough to get whooping cough vacinations. Get it started Goldy. Really. Think how many shots just sixty thousand could pay for. That could saves hundreds of children.
36
Listen, Goldstein the anti-science dips**t, I've posted epidemiological study after epidemiological study here, plus various news updates, and simpleton Goldylox still can't do the frigging arithmetic:

the point being, it is THE NUMBER OF VACCINE SHOTS ADMIISTERED TO babies prior to their first birthday that is the strategic and crucial number here, doodette!!!

And also, where the frigging item is manufactured, i.e., ideally not a nonsterile bathtub in China or India -- with absolutely NO OVERSIGHT!

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/art…

Finland vows care for narcolepsy kids who had swine flu shot


http://www.straight.com/print/270843

Looking for answers, Shaw turned to the 24-page product-information leaflet on the vaccine released by drug giant GlaxoSmithKline. Health Canada used this document in approving the shot.

The leaflet leaves Shaw cold. “You couldn’t turn this in as a master’s thesis anywhere I know of and get a passing grade,” he said, calling the leaflet a “shocking document”.

Shaw said the material lacks basic information. For example, there is no safety data at all for several groups of people—pregnant women, people aged over 60, kids aged 10 to 17, and children under three. For kids three to nine years old, there is only “very limited” data.

.....

The H1N1 vaccine includes a component called an adjuvant—which is used to boost the drug’s effectiveness—that has raised a lot of questions.

GlaxoSmithKline says the adjuvant has been tested on 45,000 people worldwide and that clinical trials are now being done on children. In an e-mail, spokesperson Melanie Spoore said the company is planning 25 trials of its various H1N1 vaccines before November 2010.

She also said a different but closely related vaccine made by the company, for the H5N1 flu, includes the same adjuvant and “is generally well-tolerated and has an acceptable safety profile” in both kids and adults.

....

One of the best examples involves a controversial ingredient present in the H1N1 vaccine: thimerosal. Thimerosal is a form of mercury used in some vaccines as a preservative. Drug makers agreed to phase it out of most vaccines after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration found in 1999 that mercury levels in children who had gotten multiple shots often exceeded safety levels set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Nonetheless, thimerosal still remains in many flu vaccines.

Jesus, buddy, you are truly as ignorant as you are stoooopid.
37
@34 Ugh. Besides an epidemic or pandemic situation, how is this true? You're generalizing, which is what people like to do here, especially when lazy and being smugly pseudo scientific. Flu vaccines are ~70% effective, so it's hardly a fucking polio vaccine and a toss of the dice to get the yearly update--I've studied this in great detail. I am not saying during epidemics or pandemics to avoid shots--especially for school age children and their parents or others who come in close contact. Let's see, I don't have children, I avoid contact with people who do have children and I am not a first responder. So that must mean I am killing babies and grandmas. Good job on your logic there!
38
dirac, @27,37, makes some outstanding points, as usual.

Now what anti-science (and arithmetic) Goldy needs to do, is to retract is head from his butthole and read the following slowly (gee, I know reading is tough for you Goldy, but it is fundamental, dood).

http://het.sagepub.com/content/early/201…

This stuff from Goldy is from the same rag (The Stranger) which warns people against using drugs 'cause they don't know the frigging origin of the drugs and its additives, yet Goldy urges everyone to use vaccines which are too frequently of unknown manufactured origin!

(And yes, I do agree with properly tested, properly researched and properly manufactured vaccines ----- and I follow the scientific and business news enough to understand that the majority-Rockefeller owned Baxter International has "accidentally" loosed upon Europe on no less than three separate occasions "accidentally" concocted highly contagious contagion-laden vaccines with a pandemic-level potential. And Baxter International has the monopoly with the UN's World Health Organization for providing vaccines to said pandemics, while the Rockefeller Foundation is continuously publishing reports warning about the same said pandemics.)

Jesus, Goldy Goldstein, you really need to go back and either study, or re-read, the illustrious Stanley Milgram's work.
39
And what if the vaccine doesn't work so great, and that's actually the problem? http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/09/19/…
40
McCarthy hasn't been relevant since Singled Out. And they should be required to make people read (or maybe a video if they ain't the readin' type) about these things when they refuse vaccinations.
41
@39 Then you revise the vaccination schedule but more importantly, you still take the fucking vaccine because it's better than the alternative.
42
don't forget kids with leukemia or immune deficiencies that can't take life-saving vaccines and depend on the rest of us to man up and provide them with herd immunity.
43
@36: "the point being, it is THE NUMBER OF VACCINE SHOTS ADMIISTERED TO babies prior to their first birthday that is the strategic and crucial number here, doodette!!!"

Psudoscience, plain and simple. you have no clue what you're talking about and you're making shit up out of thin air. There's no evidence but a ton of goalpost shifting. You're dumb as dirt, sgt doom. The number of vaccines people receive, as with every other factor, has nothing to do with autism.

Increased, targeted diagnosis is why more people "have" ASD. You people need to go back to jerking yourselves off about fluoridation and the communist menace like you did in the fifties.
44
When abortion-rights opponents call you a "baby killer" for not sharing their views, do you find that a convincing argument?

I submit that this post's usage of the inflammatory "baby killer" tag will prove similarly ineffective at convincing vaccine opponents.
45
@43 " You people need to go back to jerking yourselves off about fluoridation" Not to rain on your parade of overreactive nonsense, but I don't like fluoridation either, since it has calcifying effects on other parts of the body. I don't think we need to put waste products from the aluminum industry in our water. That's all--I don't need to be a conspiracy theorist to, you know, not want to ingest poison.
46
Meh, epidemics come and go ... this to shall pass.
47
You stupid pinhead. You do not even have a dog in this fight. I have three adopted children under my care they are all brothers. One of which we have had since he was 10 days old. I watched what vaccines did to this child with my own eye. Just days ago his twin 2 1/2 year old brothers were hospitalized due to respiratory distress after a TB PDD test. The examination reports determined this was from an allergic reaction to Tween 80 (ie- Polysorbate 80) which by the way is documented in the Annuals of Allergy and Asthma, 2005 vol 95 as a chemical additive know to cause this very reaction in some people. Polysorbate 80 in found many if not all vaccinations. I know have three children that have been effected by these injections. For me to read a stupid article written like this from some nubnut idiot, make me furious. My children will live the rest of their lives with this while your kids who, thank God did nit have a reaction go on with life. I cannot imagine anyone writing an article like this unless they were financially tied to the subject. As far as my unvaxed children puttings yours in danger, do the freaking vaccines work or not? If they work shut your freaking mouth your kids are immune you dumbass. Meanwhile my kids are jacked up from this stupid price of medical propaganda making pharma's rich while my kids will struggle with a future. You make me sick. Stupid shit!
48
After reading the ranting and frothing, I'm sticking with my original statement; if you don't vaccinate your kids, and they infect my kid when she's too young for her shots, and something happens to her because of it, your body will never be found. I know thousands of empty acres where it could just... Disappear. Have a nice day.
49
@21 Judah,

Your analogy is backwards. The vaccinated and unvaccinated would be pedestrians, the infected would be thrown behind the wheel of a car that turns susceptable individuals into car riders as well upon impact. The vaccinated would block the cars and deflect them away from the unvaccinated (and other vaccinated as well). Not very real worldly, but more accurate.

Peace.
50
Nateman, So after reading the ranting and frothing and knowing my child reacts to these shot to the point one was hospitalized you telling me you don't care what happens to my child. No matter what I should jab my kids to protect yours. Well kiss my ass you twisted piece of crap. Maybe if your so worried about getting some obscure disease you should go live in that thousands of acres by yourself. It is obvious you did not read a thing I said. My children could die from this injection due to anaphylactic effects. You don't care who else dies as long as you and your kid are protected.
51
@50: Got it in 1, and I'm glad we're on the same page. Like I said before, you have every right to endanger your kid's life. You have none to endanger mine.
52
I have spent many years of my professional life formulating and controlling vaccines and have lectured on this subject to doctors and nurses for fifteen years. I do not advise people against vaccines, but I strongly advise everyone: "investigate before you vaccinate"!

Package inserts can be found in internet and they contain more information than one normally gets from doctors. The information there is from the manufacturers, authorised by health authorities. Search in Google for vaccine package inserts, then click on the vaccine name. http://vaccinesafety.edu/package_inserts…
53
@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
54
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.
55
@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.
56
@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.
57
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.
58
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.
59
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."
61
@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.
62
@57: "Oh shit, nobody's listening to my emotional mommy points. Better pull out the tinfoil hat! That'll learn them!"

63
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.
64
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.
65
@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.
66
@63: You fucking moron, that's a Libertarian quack group that doesn't believe in AIDS.
67
"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.
68
@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.
69
@65 Are you stalking me?
70
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!
71
@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.
72
I wonder what happened with the Swine Flu?
73
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.
74
@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.
75
@69: No, why? Do you think everyone's stalking you?
76
I'm impressed that it took all of 69 comments to Godwin this thread.
77
@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.
78
77@ ha ha, you always seem to post right after me. I'm not really serious. sheesh.
79
@75...Oh, I mean 75....
80
@78: Sure, but do you see the point I'm making?
81
@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.
82
@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??!
83
@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.
84
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.
85
@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.
86
@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.
87
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.
88
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.
89
@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.
90
@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.
91
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

92
@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.
93
@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.
94
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
95
@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.

96
@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?
97
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?
98
@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?
99
@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.
100
@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.
101
@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.