ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Friday, June 01, 2012

Lethal lies and the vaccine schedule

It is not at all difficult to conclusively demonstrate the deceitful tendencies of the vaccine propagandists. For example, yesterday Instapundit linked to the Jenny McCarthy Bodycount, on which it is claimed that the former Playmate is responsible for 888 preventable deaths over the course of the last five years. Furthermore, it claims that there are 0 "autism diagnoses scientifically linked to vaccinations". That makes it look as if vaccines are much safer, infinitely safer, in fact, than not getting vaccinated.

However, the statement is only true because there has never been a genuine scientific study of vaccines and autism. Or of vaccine safety in general. There have only been statistical surveys, which are not, by any reasonable definition, actual use of the scientific method, nor can they even be considered very statistically reliable given the reporting methods. Regardless, statistical review is no more science than astrology or playmatology, even when it is done by credentialed scientists. But the real deceit is the way in which reference to actual VAERS-reported deaths were omitted. Despite being underreported by a factor estimated to be as much as 100x, there have been more than 5,310 deaths directly caused by vaccines registered in the system since 1992. Using the most conservative under-reporting estimate, 10x, because one can assume that a death is more likely to go unreported than a minor adverse reaction, that means vaccines are known to be directly killing about 2,665 people per year, compared to the 178 putatively committed per year by the homicidal blonde. And this doesn't take into account the much larger number of people who have been damaged by them in some way.


Even worse, the vast majority of these deaths are not only children, but children of a very specific age. A more detailed chart of all 5,310 deaths shows that more than a third of them, nearly 40 percent, occurred in between the ages of 2 and 4 months, which just happens to be when the US vaccine schedule calls for children to receive no less than 10 shots, including 2xRV, 2xDTaP, 2xHib, 2xPCV, and 2xIPV. They may also receive an eleventh shot, for Hepatitis B, as well.

Looking at the VAERS data and comparing it with the schedule quite clearly implies that children are being fatally overloaded with doses that their bodies cannot handle.  While it is theoretically possible that this massive spike in vaccine-caused deaths is only coincidental with the largest number of vaccine doses that a child will ever receive in its life at a time when it is very small, that seems unlikely.  Occam's Razor strongly suggests that one of the easiest ways to reduce the likelihood of vaccine death, and presumably non-fatal vaccine damage as well, is to simply push back the vaccine schedule by at least three months, or better yet, one year, when the child's body will be bigger and therefore more capable of dealing with the foreign substances being injected into it.  Of course, there is always the option of not vaccinating the child for the less dangerous diseases; the spike in 65+ deaths is almost certainly the result of adverse reactions to the various flu vaccines.

One needn't be a rabid opponent of vaccines to find this death spike at 3 months to be troubling and indicative of a need to rethink the current vaccine schedule.  And everyone, pro- and anti-vaccine, should be concerned about the shameless vaccine safety propaganda that is so easily shown to be false.  Laws are passed and governments engage in ad campaigns to help reduce the 200 children's bicycle deaths each year, so clearly it is worthwhile to look more closely and scientifically into the issue of vaccine safety when an estimated 1,060 children are dying between 2 and 4 months of age each year from the vaccines being injected into them.

Labels:

224 Comments:

1 – 200 of 224 Newer› Newest»
Anonymous Roundtine June 01, 2012 7:25 AM  

Why is the vaccine schedule front loaded when a child is so young?

Anonymous Salt June 01, 2012 7:47 AM  

Since evidently the greatest number of children get these vaccines at the age of greatest deaths, wonder what the death rate would shift to if pushed back X months.

Blogger Nate June 01, 2012 7:48 AM  

You have a still developing immune system... and you hyper-stimulate it through massive over exposure. Catastrophic results are not only possible... they are entirely predictable. It would be shocking if kids were not suffering from major developmental issues.

And that sets aside the strongest argument against vaccination... the fact that the source cells for the vaccines were taken from murdered children... murdered for that purpose.

Anonymous aero June 01, 2012 7:50 AM  

It one time Life insurance company's would not insure a child under the age of 2.
At that time the risk was to high. Now they issue one after seven day's
If the data is right the insurance company's will have to rewrite their policy's

Anonymous RedJack June 01, 2012 8:17 AM  

Roundtine
Two main reasons (from my peditrician).

1. A lot of people don't follow the reccomended schedule for doctors visit, and they want all the vaccines done in the first six months when most parent/s keep coming in.

2. Some insurance companies don't cover vaccinations after the first year.

The other reason is the US has the view that all vaccines are "good", and that not getting a vaccine means your child will make all the other kids sick. Funny thing is that means the vaccines are not working. Had this discussion many a time with a few doctors and parents. The former used to try to brow beat me, till I started talking about vaccines in the animal world and how we used to determine they were working or not.

Anonymous VD June 01, 2012 8:21 AM  

Just to explain what Nate was alluding to:

The Rubella vaccine, produced by Merck & Company was taken from an aborted baby during the 1964 rubella epidemic when some mothers were advised to have abortions, rather than risk their child being born with Congenital Rubella Syndrome. It was from the 27th baby aborted and immediately dissected that the active rubella virus was finally found. It was commonly referred to as RA27/3, where R=Rubella, A=Abortus, 27=27th fetus, 3=third tissue culture explant. The abortionist collaborated with the Wistar Institute to collect the aborted babies in order to isolate the virus. The vaccine virus was then cultivated in the lung tissue of another aborted female baby, approximately 3 months gestation. (WI-38) This abortion was done for the mother because "the parents felt they had too many children." (American Journal Diseases of Children, Vol. 118, 1969).The new vaccine was developed in Philadelphia, Pa. and tested on orphans. (American Journal Diseases of Children, Vol. 110, Oct. 1965) Considering that there was already two licensed rubella vaccines on the market and considering that they could have done exactly what the Japanese did in order to isolate the rubella virus (they swabbed the throat of an infected child), it is obvious this vaccine was created in order to justify fetal tissue research.

Anonymous Rusty Shackleford June 01, 2012 8:41 AM  

Interesting and good post.

Your graphs blow my mind. First for content, second for why on earth you placed the response on the x-axis. Looking at them is giving me a nosebleed.

Anonymous cherub's revenge June 01, 2012 8:42 AM  

1. A lot of people don't follow the reccomended schedule for doctors visit, and they want all the vaccines done in the first six months when most parent/s keep coming in.

I wonder if they have ever considered that people skip well-baby visits because they are tired of their children being jabbed and injected each appointment or being badgered into having their children jabbed and injected.

Blogger Nate June 01, 2012 8:44 AM  

In case VD's comment didn't make it clear enough... let me reiterate... Merck and Wistar were actually advising women to abort their babies... so they could use the bodies for research. And just to add that little extra creep factor... yes... the women were compensated.

and i know you liked that bit where they tested their new vaccine on orphans.

I till be interesting to see how science self-corrects this.

Anonymous VD June 01, 2012 8:46 AM  

Your graphs blow my mind. First for content, second for why on earth you placed the response on the x-axis. Looking at them is giving me a nosebleed.

I didn't make them, so I can't take the credit or the blame.

Anonymous Oh, Snap! June 01, 2012 8:47 AM  

Merck's Maurice Hilleman explains how they knowingly distributed a polio vaccine laden with live SV-40 cancer virus.

Anonymous stg58 June 01, 2012 8:51 AM  

We didn't vaccinate at all. Not even Hep B in the hospital. I saw the picture of the 3 day old with his stomach distended like a basketball and knew I wasn't going to gamble with my firstborn.

The thing about these vaccines is you don't know if it will cause a problem until it is too late.

The pediatrician said "well, we'll just see how he develops". Both boys are now nuclear powered freight trains. We took our oldest back for a checkup and the doctor pulled out the reflex hammer to test his reflexes. She moved in for the test, and all of a sudden the hammer was not in her hand. It was like Gene Wilder in Blazing Saddles. She looked at her hand, confused. Meanwhile, my oldest son, who had snatched it out of her hand with an arm like a coiled snake, calmly inspected the hammer, then handed it back to her.

It appeared to me that he was developing just fine. I am sure if we put him in the local intellectual death shower he would be drugged up immediately to control his natural energy and enthusiasm.

Blogger republicanmother June 01, 2012 8:53 AM  

I found this entry from the 1888 Encyclopedia Britannica, the ninth edition.

http://www.whale.to/a/creighton4.html

It's important to note that the Encyclopedia was bought by the Rockefeller family in 1900 and published under the newly formed University of Chicago. It was very much revised to take out any entries that were dubious to the newly formed medical establishment. He who controls the past, controls the future, etc.

Anonymous Anonymous June 01, 2012 8:59 AM  

We stopped vaccinating because my father, who has been practicing thoracic surgery since 1980, was absolutely shocked and appalled to learn what the proposed vaccine schedule was for our children. He said when I was little we got a few vaccines over time, but never the insane dose given at ages 2 to 4 months, and for stupid crap like chicken pox. Polio made sense, but chicken pox, and Hep B for children!?!?

Recently my wife pushed back in dealing with our brainwashed pediatrician, and the pediatrician tried to make my wife feel guilty about not doing the vaccines. My wife retorted that my father, who is a doctor was flabbergasted at what has become pediatric vaccines. When the pediatrician asked what kind of doctor my dad was, the pediatrician looked white upon learning he is a chest surgeon (i.e. pediatricians realize they are the lessers of the alphas who became heart-lung surgeons). The pediatrician then admitted that it did seem rather ridiculous to give an infant such an insane dose of crap, and stopped pursuing the vaccines.

Blogger Nate June 01, 2012 9:02 AM  

and... just so we're clear... this was not a one time incident. in the 70s we got MRC-5... which are the source cells for many of our modern vaccines. And more recently.. PER C6... which Merck used for its research into a new aids vaccine... well... that's what it claims. Its been years and the vaccine doesn't yet exist... so who knows.

For posterity though... this is what we know about each:

RA-27 was a little boy. We don't know how old he was when they murdered him. We do know his mother was compensated for the abortion.

WI-38 was a little girl. She was murdered after 3 months of gestation for "pyschological reasons" and her mother was also compensated. The cells taken from RA-27 were planted into lung tissue taken from her.

MRC-5 was a little boy murdered at 7 weeks gestation and his body is used to this day to create weakend virus strains for vaccines.

PER C6 was 18 weeks gestated when murdered. We don't know the sex... but this is what Merck's Dr. Van Der Eb actually said about it at FDA hearings. "the father was unknown and the woman wanted to get rid of the fetus". Dr. Van Der Eb went on to say, "PER C6 was made just for the pharmaceutical manufacturing of adenovirus vectors." He added, "I realize that this sounds a bit commercial, but PER C6 were made for that particular purpose."


And we have the audacity to complain about the nazis?

Anonymous DonReynolds June 01, 2012 9:06 AM  

When my oldest child was a couple of months old, we took her to the pediatrician for her first immunization. First, I was "required" to sign a waiver of all rights, should something not go well. Second, I was given a sheet telling me that the even was insured by some government agency for some nondescript amount. After the injection, we were given some "pain killer" for the infant, which seemed on first use to cause more pain than it relieved. (So I tasted it myself and it set my mouth on fire it had so much alcohol in it. No wonder she did not like a full spoonful!)

After that, my wife and I agreed that we would not immunize any of the kids until just in time to start school. The oldest got all her required shots just in time for school and the five kids that followed did not get any immunizations until time to start school. By waiting, some of the usual immunizations are no longer required. Of course, some of the immunizations are for diseases that have not been seen in this country in decades.

Anonymous RedJack June 01, 2012 9:07 AM  

Nate,

We are more like the Japs in that sense.

Another dark little secret is how the transplant racket works.

Anonymous dh June 01, 2012 9:10 AM  

The underreporting factor may be accurate for some things, but I am highly suspect that it is 10x for DEATH, especially when there is almost string free money available if you report it.

How can you possible justify that extrapolation of under reporting?

Anonymous DonReynolds June 01, 2012 9:13 AM  

I almost forgot....AFTER the immunization, the pediatrician told us that sometimes this first injection causes brain damage, but we can talk about it next time we come to visit, if it actually happens. It was like brain damage is a common event but no biggie.

Anonymous VD June 01, 2012 9:16 AM  

The underreporting factor may be accurate for some things, but I am highly suspect that it is 10x for DEATH, especially when there is almost string free money available if you report it.

Because it is well known that most doctors don't report vaccine deaths. They're all classified as SIDS or cot death or whatever. The child practically has to die in the doctor's office as soon as he is injected to qualify for VAERS. If gunshot victims were classified the same way, anyone who survived long enough to make it to the hospital would be classified as a mysterious bleeding death that was totally unrelated to the forcible insertion of a fast-moving brass-coated lead object into his body two hours previous.

Remember too that the doctors don't get the money.

Anonymous Daniel June 01, 2012 9:20 AM  

I don't shock easily, and I've been electrocuted before.

I am shocked by this. One, by the history (not that I thought it wasn't possible, but that I simply didn't know it had actually occurred) but two, more strongly, that I didn't know anything about the vaccine connection to abortion.

Nate, I'd appreciate if you (or anyone else) have anything more to say on the abortion as vaccine developer issue. My ignorance of this subject is obviously pretty bad.

And the response is on the x-axis for visual impact: the story is told instantly because the ages go down chronologically. This format may be harder to read for data study, but to tell the story that tiny babies are the prime mortality target, it's perfect.

At the Naval War College, that graph is what they would call a "Killer Slide." Analysts careers can be made on stuff like that. Flip the graph and the main story is that risk goes down with age until retirement.

Anonymous VD June 01, 2012 9:22 AM  

US Food and Drug Administration "Investigative Report on the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.“ NVIC.

Even though by law MDs must report vaccine injuries to the government’s vaccine adverse event reporting system (VAERS), only one in ten vaccine-injured children is ever reported according to the FDA. This government statistic may be conservative; the actual amount of underreporting may be far greater. Kessler D. JAMA, 1993; 269 (No.21): 2785. Only about 1% of serious events are reported to the FDA.

Here is an example of how vaccine injuries and deaths are underreported. This is from the book A Shot in the Dark. “Janet asked the coroner why he could not state point-blank that Richie's death was due to a DPT shot reaction, when it was obvious… He said he couldn't write down on the death certificate that Richie had died from a DPT reaction because 'the state's standing on immunizations would be in an uproar'.”

Anonymous Josh June 01, 2012 9:22 AM  

so the massive increase in sids might actually be vaccine related deaths?

Anonymous Curlytop June 01, 2012 9:24 AM  

Nate,
Let's take both yours and Vox's post EVEN further down the rabbit hole.

In college, I wrote a paper in an ethics class concerning Abortion/Euthanasia that took an interesting turn through my research and that was the fact that the Abortion "debate" of Roe V. WAde was predicated on the medical establishment wanting the funds and specimen(aborted babies) to perform their grotesque experiments on. In the late 60s the talking point was how we needed to legalize abortion in order to use the babies for medical research. In some of the research( a term I use loosely) performed in the early 70s, the babies were aborted alive, then their heads were severed and placed in saline-type jars. The goal was to see how it would "live" with only its head. The longest was just over 24hrs.

This is along the same research that Vox points to above. Evil just doesn't begin to cover the modern medical establishment.


Relating to vaccine schedules:
Our Family Physician is the local "go to" doc for home-educators. On the topic of vaccines, he simply says that he doesn't argue with our arguments against vaccines because "typically home-educators know what they're talking about with this issue." And he leaves it at that. ;-)

Anonymous Josh June 01, 2012 9:25 AM  

so after the banksters, lawyers, politicians, clowns, and dmv drones, we kill the doctors...

Blogger Vox June 01, 2012 9:26 AM  

so the massive increase in sids might actually be vaccine related deaths?

That is what Occam's Razor would suggest. What would be informative is to see if there is a similar spike in death rates at 3 months when all deaths are considered. But I doubt they're broken down in such a way, it's probably done on a yearly basis.

Anonymous The other skeptic June 01, 2012 9:27 AM  

They are probably more interested in allowing non citizens to vote in Florida

Next up, Zombies must vote!

Blogger Vox June 01, 2012 9:29 AM  

Hmmmm... the overall death rate for under 1 year is massively higher than for 1-4 years. 682.8 per 100,000 for sub-1 versus 30.0 per 100,000 for 1-4. It doesn't get that high again until 55-64 is reached. But it's possible that premature births could be driving that number up considerably. We need that monthly breakdown.

Blogger Nate June 01, 2012 9:32 AM  

"so after the banksters, lawyers, politicians, clowns, and dmv drones, we kill the doctors..."

How about we limit it to the doctors involved. Can't really blame ER docs, surgeons, and such for the actions of psychotic researchers.

Anonymous Josh June 01, 2012 9:32 AM  

from wikipedia:

Age of infant — SIDS incidence rises from zero at birth, is highest from two to four months of age, and declines toward zero after the infant's first year.

now, what did that darn chat above identify as the age with the greatest danger from vaccines?

Blogger Vox June 01, 2012 9:32 AM  

Bingo. It's the vaccine schedule. The pattern is there. Bolded for emphasis.

SIDS rates have dropped dramatically since 1992, when parents were first told to put babies to sleep on their backs or sides to reduce the likelihood of SIDS. Unfortunately, SIDS remains a significant cause of death in infants under one year old. Thousands of babies die of SIDS in the United States each year. SIDS is most likely to occur between 2 and 4 months of age. SIDS affects boys more often than girls. Most SIDS deaths occur in the winter.

Blogger Nate June 01, 2012 9:33 AM  

Its going to be hard to tease out real premature birth effects... since 37 weeks is considered term... but also 3 weeks premature.

Anonymous Josh June 01, 2012 9:33 AM  

How about we limit it to the doctors involved. Can't really blame ER docs, surgeons, and such for the actions of psychotic researchers.

DrWho will be safe from the medical jihad...

can we kill that dr oz guy?

Anonymous Josh June 01, 2012 9:37 AM  

According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:From 2 to 4 months old, babies begin their primary course of routine vaccinations. This is also the peak age for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). The timing of these two events has led some people to believe they might be related. However, studies have concluded that vaccines are not a risk factor for SIDS.[54]

"studies have shown" is the medical equivalent of "move along, nothing to see here"

Blogger Nate June 01, 2012 9:41 AM  

Vox...

If you don't write a column on this... I am gonna kick your butt up between your shoulder blades... assuming there a butt left to kick after Spacebunny is done.

Anonymous Curlytop June 01, 2012 9:43 AM  

The first question that needs to be asked is: "Whose funding the studies?"

To which the answer is almost always Big Pharma, but there's NO possible reason why Big Pharma would skew study results and flat-out lie about it?

Blogger Nate June 01, 2012 9:44 AM  

"studies have shown" is the medical equivalent of "move along, nothing to see here"


Of course its unrelated... because SIDS is just the cover story. All SIDS ever was, was, "we don't know why this happened" disease.

Anonymous The other skeptic June 01, 2012 9:45 AM  

Do we really need to told that the media is lying to us

Yes!

Anonymous Josh June 01, 2012 9:46 AM  

If you don't write a column on this... I am gonna kick your butt up between your shoulder blades... assuming there a butt left to kick after Spacebunny is done.

internet tough guy alert!

seriously, though, write the column

Anonymous Josh June 01, 2012 9:48 AM  

Of course its unrelated... because SIDS is just the cover story. All SIDS ever was, was, "we don't know why this happened" disease.

"we don't know why the baby died, but it couldn't possibly have been vaccine related, so...it must have been...the baby sleeping on its stomach..."

Anonymous The other skeptic June 01, 2012 9:56 AM  

Hypocrisy much?

Blogger Nate June 01, 2012 9:59 AM  

Well... SIDS is a ex-post-facto differential diagnosis... its really convenient for covering up... well.. anything.

Anonymous Mrs. Pilgrim June 01, 2012 10:00 AM  

How about we limit it to the doctors involved. Can't really blame ER docs, surgeons, and such for the actions of psychotic researchers.

Now now, Nate, if I'm not allowed to get bent outta shape because someone says "kill all the lawyers"...

Anyway, awesome post, Vox, and timely for me because Pilgrim Baby #4 is apt to relocate at any time. I'm going to show this stuff to Mr. P. and discuss; since we're moving to Nowhereville, Pointsnorth, in less than a year, the risk factors are much lower from diseases.

Anonymous stevev June 01, 2012 10:02 AM  

Curlytop: I don't want to be reactionary, but I'm strongly tempted to call bulls*** on a baby's head living in a saline-type jar(whatever that is)for 24 hours. Did I misread? I get your overall point about research barbarity and evil, but I'd need to see some documentation of this phenomenon. What were the criteria for assessing that the head was living? Seems metabolically impossible that tissue could "live" without blood supply for 24 hours.
Enlighten me, please.

Anonymous DaveD June 01, 2012 10:03 AM  

Curly top, the funny thing is the same people who are most vocal that you can't trust an anti global warming study paid for by Big Oil seem to completely trust the vaccine studies funded by Big Pharma.

Blogger Nate June 01, 2012 10:04 AM  

"Enlighten me, please."

Maybe hair was still growing? /facepalm

Blogger Nate June 01, 2012 10:06 AM  

"Now now, Nate, if I'm not allowed to get bent outta shape because someone says "kill all the lawyers"..."

Granted. But we can point to objective good that doctors do. IE... pull the bullet out, stop the bleeding, and stitch up the hole before death.

There is no objective good that Lawyers do. Lawyers are universally evil and produce nothing but chaos.

Blogger Spacebunny June 01, 2012 10:10 AM  

Can't really blame ER docs, surgeons, and such for the actions of psychotic researchers.

So just the scientists..... ;^)

Anonymous Josh June 01, 2012 10:12 AM  

homeschool legal defense lawyers and gun nut lawyers are good...

and lawyers that are suing the banksters...

Anonymous Curlytop June 01, 2012 10:13 AM  

Steve,
I thought the criteria for determining "living" questionable too since the articles never said what metric was used. You're right that wasn't the overall point, but that anyone would even attempt to pass that as legitimate reasoning to conduct research and no one blink is stunning. You don't have to be a Bio major to get that there's something screwy there, but it's not the only case of seeing "researchers" throw out stupid rationale for what they do.

And this was back in 97 when I did the paper. The point of my paper was more about the barbarity and rationale for doing such research. It is worth noting that the research was done in Belgium not the US. if I recall. And the US debate centered on more: "Why can't we do this?" whines bc of the US "archaic" laws banning certain practices. Hence, the need to legalize abortions, etc...

I found two different sources regarding this for verification at the time, but after more than a half a dozen moves, I wouldn't begin to know where to put my hands on the paper, research etc. This was long before I had access to internet, so all my research was library traditional sources.

Blogger Astrosmith June 01, 2012 10:14 AM  

Nate and Vox, where are the references for the data above? We have baby #5 on the way later this year, and this is making me not want to get any vaccines. With our other kids, I believed that the only problems were the thimerosal and the shot schedule, so we made sure that when they got shots, they were thimerosal-free and we spread them out more, per the European schedule.

Now, if all this stuff is true, and I don't doubt it is, I don't want to use ANY vaccines that were developed from aborted babies.

As for autism in our kids: we have two that have had autism-like problems, but not full-blown autism. For one of them, we've been told that it's good that we homeschool them, because they would not thrive if they were public schooled.

Blogger Nate June 01, 2012 10:14 AM  

"So just the scientists..... ;^)"

Academics. So we could just nuke the universities. Yeah that'd be a real shame.

Blogger Nate June 01, 2012 10:16 AM  

Astrosmith

The source for the information is the good ol' Physicians Desk Reference. You can look it up yourself. I first blogged on this years ago and I looked it up in the PDR myself before I wrote a sentence on it.

For the record... my kids are not vaccinated either.

Anonymous TMQ Fanboy June 01, 2012 10:16 AM  

There are plenty of conditions, genetic et al., that result in the huge spike of first year deaths simply because they are not compatible with independent life. Half of all child deaths occur within the first year, 2/3 of which are in the first month.

SIDS is by definition in the first year of life. It is the third leading cause of infant death, below genetic causes and prematurity not otherwise explained (e.g. premature, but also with a genetic disorder), accounting for about 8% of infant deaths.

The single factor that dominates all others in correlating with infant mortality is the education level of young females in the community.

The child practically has to die in the doctor's office as soon as he is injected to qualify for VAERS.

There are no qualifications for submitting to VAERS. Anyone can submit for any reason. It does not have to be the physician, many are entered by lawyers. But go there, do a page search for "death" and look at some of the other symptoms and you'll see that some are clearly not related to the vaccine, e.g. malignant neoplasm.

Anonymous Mrs. Pilgrim June 01, 2012 10:19 AM  

There is no objective good that Lawyers do. Lawyers are universally evil and produce nothing but chaos.

A wide variety of retorts came to mind--from a serious "How many people are maimed or killed annually at the hands of lawyers?" to a sarcastic "Yeah, who needs defense attorneys when charged with crimes?"--but I realize you're just mad because you personalized a general joke. That can happen sometimes.

I usually have a nice piece of chocolate cake when I get in one of these moods. Does wonders.

Blogger Spacebunny June 01, 2012 10:20 AM  

But go there, do a page search for "death" and look at some of the other symptoms and you'll see that some are clearly not related to the vaccine, e.g. malignant neoplasm.

And you know that it is not related to vaccines because why? And do be as precise as possible.

Blogger Vox June 01, 2012 10:24 AM  

"studies have shown" is the medical equivalent of "move along, nothing to see here"

Especially since they're not recognizing the similar pattern at work in the VAERS deaths.

There are plenty of conditions, genetic et al., that result in the huge spike of first year deaths simply because they are not compatible with independent life. Half of all child deaths occur within the first year, 2/3 of which are in the first month.

And yet the VAERS-reported deaths and the SIDS deaths are much higher from 2-4 months than in the first month. You're not paying attention to the clear monthly pattern.

Anonymous Mrs. Pilgrim June 01, 2012 10:25 AM  

Astrosmith, I found this on a preliminary search. It's clearly not complete--I have a more complete version printed out somewhere--but I'm working to locate it atm.

Blogger Nate June 01, 2012 10:26 AM  

Pilgrim... darlin'... don't read anger into comments. I'm not irritated or pissy. Its just banter.

***pat on the head***

Anonymous III June 01, 2012 10:28 AM  

If your kid is not vaccinated... we're all gonna die!

The mantra.

Anonymous Mrs. Pilgrim June 01, 2012 10:29 AM  

Sorry to multi-post, but...I found it. (Actually, a more current version, so I'll probably be printing it out for myself.)

Straight from the horse's mouth.

Blogger Spacebunny June 01, 2012 10:30 AM  

Not even Hep B in the hospital.

Not even... What the hell is that supposed to mean? Why on earth would even consider giving an infant a Hep B vaccine?! For your further edification on what damage a Hep B vaccine can do.

Anonymous Mrs. Pilgrim June 01, 2012 10:34 AM  

Its just banter.

That's what I was trying to tell you, Snooky. I'm so glad you're not turning into a girl on us--well, more than usual, anyway. ;-)

Blogger Nate June 01, 2012 10:36 AM  

Great link Mrs Pilgrim. note how often MRC-5 comes up.

Anonymous Mrs. Pilgrim June 01, 2012 10:38 AM  

Why on earth would even consider giving an infant a Hep B vaccine?!

Amen to that! Hep B is pretty much an STD; what do they think the babies will be doing at three days old? Or should we take this as an admission of negligence in advance?

Anonymous TLM June 01, 2012 10:38 AM  

Some of the antivaccinators are just plain retards who couldnt tell you the difference between microbiology and microwaves. They always get lumped in with more rational ones. In my lifetime, born 1968, we've never experienced any epidemic, other than fake ones like the ass pirates and the bath house diseases they've spawned, that help people appreciate the importance of vaccines. Polio, small pox, etc. On the other hand, in the unseen world there surely lurks a demon or unclean spirit named Gradasil.-

Blogger Astrosmith June 01, 2012 10:38 AM  

As for the argument for vaccination:

Is it that an unvaccinated kid will get other kids sick?

-or-

Is it that an unvaccinated kid will themselves get sick from other unvaccinated kids?

I remember watching an episode of ER many years ago in which a mother brought her unvaccinated kid into the ER because the kid had contracted rubella or something and ended up dying. The main characters all expressed how the mother was an absolute moron for not having her kid vaccinated, and yep, oh well, he died. So at least in the mid-90s, the argument was the latter of the two above.

Anonymous TMQ Fanboy June 01, 2012 10:39 AM  

And you know that it is not related to vaccines because why? And do be as precise as possible.

The burden of proof is to show causation, not refute it. But tumors are relatively slow growing, there's no pathological mechanism related to immune response to an antigen and tumorigenesis, and causes of childhood neoplasms are usually genetic or from prenatal exposure to something, so the causes of particular types not always a mystery.

And yet the VAERS-reported deaths and the SIDS deaths are much higher from 2-4 months than in the first month. You're not paying attention to the clear monthly pattern.

I was not responding to the chart, but to the relative comparison of first year deaths to later childhood deaths (683 v. 30). There is some evidence that SIDS is related to a depressed arousal reflex, so when the kid stops breathing, he stops breathing.

As I understand it, you have some funds at your disposal. Why don't you bankroll a study according to the scientific method to quantify the link between vaccines and autism/death/etc.?

Anonymous Josh June 01, 2012 10:43 AM  

why does tmq fanboy hate children?

Anonymous Mrs. Pilgrim June 01, 2012 10:44 AM  

As for the argument for vaccination:

Is it that an unvaccinated kid will get other kids sick?

-or-

Is it that an unvaccinated kid will themselves get sick from other unvaccinated kids?


In the recent pertussis epidemic, it seems that they're claiming the former as much as the latter now. Vaccines are not, apparently, forever--despite what they told us before.

Blogger Spacebunny June 01, 2012 10:45 AM  


The burden of proof is to show causation, not refute it.


You made the claim dear, now back it up or retract.

. But tumors are relatively slow growing, there's no pathological mechanism related to immune response to an antigen and tumorigenesis, and causes of childhood neoplasms are usually genetic or from prenatal exposure to something, so the causes of particular types not always a mystery.

This does not back up your claim of, and I quote "clearly not related". Care to try again or retract? The choice is yours.

Anonymous Curlytop June 01, 2012 10:45 AM  

Mrs. Pilgrim beat me to the CDC link :-) Also, go to any of the vaccine makers' website. They don't exactly conceal the info, just any studies that might be damning. ;-)

Though the whole issue of conducting studies regarding vaccines just shows the utter lack of common sense in people. Even if you can delude yourself into thinking that pumping massive amounts of chemicals: aluminum, mercury, and such into your body can't be damaging, you really think that the modern form of cannibalism on display through the use of murdered babies is going to be beneficial?

Blogger Nate June 01, 2012 10:47 AM  

Josh... you have to remember... most people vaccinated their kids... and the very last thing they want to think is that they may have done something really harmful to their kids. Thus they have an enormous emotional investment in the concept of vaccinations being universally good.

Its like talking to a baby boomer engineer about the Apollo Program. As a kid he was mystified by it... it inspired his whole life. So... he'll never thing rationally about it.

Blogger Vox June 01, 2012 10:49 AM  

I was not responding to the chart, but to the relative comparison of first year deaths to later childhood deaths (683 v. 30). There is some evidence that SIDS is related to a depressed arousal reflex, so when the kid stops breathing, he stops breathing.

Yes, note that I specifically pointed out that there were other reasons for the first year deaths. However, the simultaneous spike in SIDS deaths and VAERS deaths at 2-4 months is extremely suspicious, given that they just happen to coincide with 10 or 11 vaccine shots containing 20+ vaccines. That's a lot of crap to put in some very small bodies.

The easy way to conclusively test it would be to delay the vaccine schedule by three months and six months. Then we could see if the deaths a) drop at 2-4 months, and b) increase at 5-7 months and 8-10 months. If it's just the bodies being overloaded but the vaccines are otherwise safe, we should see a downward trend of deaths. If they're just not safe, then the death spike will move.

Anonymous RedJack June 01, 2012 10:49 AM  

Astro,

There has been a whooping cough outbreak here in eastern Iowa over the last few months.

The offical line was that all of the sick kids were made sick by a child who was not vaccinated, but did not show symptoms. Some of my daughter's friends got sick, and all were vaccinated. They had a doctor from Davenport on the news every night saying that kids who don't get the vaccine will be responsible for getting the vaccinated kids sick.

Offical numbers say that only one or at least two could have gotten whooping cough after the vaccine. There were two dozen cases of it in my little town of under 2,000 people. All were reported as vaccinated. The index case for the outbreak has not been determined.

Blogger Nate June 01, 2012 10:54 AM  

"The easy way to conclusively test it would be to delay the vaccine schedule by three months and six months. Then we could see if the deaths a) drop at 2-4 months, and b) increase at 5-7 months and 8-10 months. If it's just the bodies being overloaded but the vaccines are otherwise safe, we should see a downward trend of deaths. If they're just not safe, then the death spike will move."

Not entirely true. The brains and immune system are more developed at 5-7 months and that could alter the results.

Anonymous TMQ Fanboy June 01, 2012 10:56 AM  

The easy way to conclusively test it would be to delay the vaccine schedule by three months and six months. Then we could see if the deaths a) drop at 2-4 months, and b) increase at 5-7 months and 8-10 months. If it's just the bodies being overloaded but the vaccines are otherwise safe, we should see a downward trend of deaths. If they're just not safe, then the death spike will move.
Bankroll it and someone will do it. I think you recognize that the NIH will not pay for such a study.

You made the claim dear, now back it up or retract.
No...you claimed that the vaccine caused the death. I pointed out that there are other more likely causes. The burden is to show that it was caused by the vaccine.

This does not back up your claim of, and I quote "clearly not related". Care to try again or retract? The choice is yours.
Go get the path report on the tumor....

Blogger Vox June 01, 2012 10:58 AM  

Bankroll it and someone will do it. I think you recognize that the NIH will not pay for such a study.

What sort of naif do you take me for? I'm perfectly aware that any such study would be instantly discredited on the basis of its funding by "a known anti-vaccine extremist" even though I'm nothing of the sort. But perhaps it would make for an interesting Kickstarter project.

Blogger Spacebunny June 01, 2012 11:01 AM  

No...you claimed that the vaccine caused the death.

I did no such thing. You, however, claimed that it was, and I quote again, "clearly not related". A naked assertion to say the least. Last chance, back it up or retract it.

Anonymous RINO June 01, 2012 11:25 AM  

[b]Josh... you have to remember... most people vaccinated their kids... and the very last thing they want to think is that they may have done something really harmful to their kids. Thus they have an enormous emotional investment in the concept of vaccinations being universally good.[/b]

Is it easier to accept that someone passed on shitty genetics to their kid and/or engaged in bad parenting or just blame the government and big pharma?

Anonymous VD June 01, 2012 11:34 AM  

Is it easier to accept that someone passed on shitty genetics to their kid and/or engaged in bad parenting or just blame the government and big pharma?

It's a very strange sort of shitty genetics or bad parenting that so reliably reaches its maximum negative effect at 2-4 months.

Anonymous Peggy June 01, 2012 11:48 AM  

Can you link to the VAERS/NVICP data you used? Because the NVICP report I am now looking at says there were 1058 claims for vaccine-related deaths from 1988 to May 2012 (many of which were probably denied).

Blogger Nate June 01, 2012 11:52 AM  

"It's a very strange sort of shitty genetics or bad parenting that so reliably reaches its maximum negative effect at 2-4 months."

Well see... they forget how to parent after the first month...

Anonymous stg58 June 01, 2012 11:56 AM  

Spacebunny and Mrs. Pilgrim,

Yes, hep B in the hospital!! They push forms on you for Hep B, Vitamin K shots, and silver nitrate, plus the usual. I asked the nurses why hep B, because my wife (Donna Reed) and I don't sleep around or hold swinger parties. They said, "Just in Case". I told them no, and leaned forward a bit.

My wife made sure I never left her side, in case they tried something sneaky with her in labor and me not there to run interference and squash anything bad.

Anonymous Noah B. June 01, 2012 11:56 AM  

"Seems metabolically impossible that tissue could "live" without blood supply for 24 hours."

It all depends on what type of tissue you're talking about. Skin cells yes, neurons, not so much.

Anonymous Curlytop June 01, 2012 11:56 AM  

And then remember how to after the 4th?

Blogger Spacebunny June 01, 2012 11:59 AM  

Yes, hep B in the hospital!!

You misunderstood. I am perfectly aware that it is pushed on newborns in the US (it has been for more than a decade), but the way you wrote your original comment it could be read as if you considered it and thought better of it. That's all.

Anonymous stg58 June 01, 2012 12:05 PM  

Oh sorry. No, we never even considered it. I turned my wife on to the anti vaccine channels while she was pregnant. She took it and ran with it, and is now an anti vaccine crusader.

Blogger Nate June 01, 2012 12:06 PM  

I confess I am confused about why the opinion of a thoracic surgeon would matter to a pediatrician.

Its rather like a plumber worrying about what a carpenter thinks about an electrical problem.

Anonymous RINO June 01, 2012 12:07 PM  

It's a very strange sort of shitty genetics or bad parenting that so reliably reaches its maximum negative effect at 2-4 months.

The SIDS-as-a-cover-up theory isn't very convincing based on what has been stated here.

I'm open to the possibility that vaccination in 2-4 months can cause issues, but I'm getting hung up on some of the details. If anyone has answers for these it might be helpful:
-Why does "SIDS" happen more in males than females? The wiki states a 3.15:2 ratio. Could that not suggest a genetic component?
-The description of SIDS in a comment above states it is more prevalent in winter, why is that, and do children 2-4 months get vaccines more in winter?

Anonymous loveIRS June 01, 2012 12:10 PM  

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16945457
Sids seems more common in non-vaccinated babies.

One reason people have accused vaccines of being dangerous are age coincidences. You need some new data to confirm your "theory", reusing what motivated the theory in the first place doesn't help...

Blogger ajw308 June 01, 2012 12:11 PM  

Why is the vaccine schedule front loaded when a child is so young?
So the medical industry doesn't have to wait on it's income stream.

{sarcasm} Or maybe it is for the safety of the child, cause, you know, kids are exposed to so much in the first year. {/sarcasm}

Anonymous loveIRS June 01, 2012 12:13 PM  

"The description of SIDS in a comment above states it is more prevalent in winter, why is that, and do children 2-4 months get vaccines more in winter?"

One recommendation against Sids is to have the baby in a well ventilated room, this is more difficult in winter.

Anonymous Curlytop June 01, 2012 12:15 PM  

Rino: "The description of SIDS in a comment above states it is more prevalent in winter, why is that, and do children 2-4 months get vaccines more in winter?"

One possible reason could simply be bc highest birth rate tends to be end Sept-October especially when you see those January blizzards. ;-) So add 2-4 months to that and you get the time span.

Blogger Spacebunny June 01, 2012 12:16 PM  

Why is the vaccine schedule front loaded when a child is so young?

The medical profession and the CDC has always been very upfront about this, in my opinion. They have pretty much always stated that it's because people come in for well-baby checks in the first two years, but are less and less likely to come in for annual check-ups after that. Also, many of the diseases vaccinated against are most often fatal for the infant set and merely dangerous and uncomfortable for the over 2 set. Also, many day cares will not accept unvaccinated babies, perhaps all govt. funded ones for all I know. All of this front end push is unnecessary considering most schools require vaccinations, they could easily catch the unvaccinated kids before they enter school and the kids would be getting them later..... except the poor souls stuck in day care at starting at 6 weeks of course.

Blogger Spacebunny June 01, 2012 12:18 PM  


One recommendation against Sids is to have the baby in a well ventilated room, this is more difficult in winter.


And it used to be for them to sleep on their side, no wait, their back, no wait..... Yawn. Yeah, I trust their assessment of cause and effect.

Anonymous RINO June 01, 2012 12:23 PM  

Also is there some sort of consistent value that is being placed on "scientific studies" here? Opinions seem to fluctuate rapidly from demanding them to be provided to dismissing them at will.

What is wrong with the study below?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X06008978

Anonymous RINO June 01, 2012 12:24 PM  

One possible reason could simply be bc highest birth rate tends to be end Sept-October especially when you see those January blizzards. ;-) So add 2-4 months to that and you get the time span.

That was my first assumption as well but it seems like a stretch for now, so we can label that "a possibility".

Anonymous loveIRS June 01, 2012 12:33 PM  

@curlytop

The incidence (prevalence divided by nb of baby of the right age) is also higher in winter.

Anonymous VD June 01, 2012 12:35 PM  

Sids seems more common in non-vaccinated babies.

You're wrong. You can't read. "SIDS cases were immunised less frequently and later than controls. Furthermore there was no increased risk of SIDS in the 14 days following immunisation."

They were comparing vaccinated children to other vaccinated children. They didn't have a control group of unvaccinated children.

You need some new data to confirm your "theory", reusing what motivated the theory in the first place doesn't help.

No, you failed to understand that there are two theoretically unrelated death spikes occurring simultaneously, deaths from vaccines and deaths from SIDS. The theory is that the two coincidental spikes, the existence of which are not in dispute, are actually one and the same.

Blogger Spacebunny June 01, 2012 12:35 PM  

What is wrong with the study below?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X06008978


Impossible to say since I'm not about to drop $31.50 to view a study done 5 years ago.

Anonymous VD June 01, 2012 12:37 PM  

What is wrong with the study below?

It doesn't compare vaccinated children with unvaccinated children.

Anonymous VD June 01, 2012 12:40 PM  

The SIDS-as-a-cover-up theory isn't very convincing based on what has been stated here.

What is your explanation for two separate death spikes happening precisely at the same time as the largest amount of vaccines being administered?

Blogger Giraffe June 01, 2012 12:41 PM  

Can you elaborate a little further on where the 10x multiplier is coming from?

That was the most conservative estimate, but who was making the estimates, and what is their agenda?

Anonymous dh June 01, 2012 12:48 PM  

> What is your explanation for two separate death spikes happening precisely
> at the same time as the largest amount of vaccines being administered?

Is this how it works now? I have a theory and now you must counter speculate?

Anonymous Wendy June 01, 2012 12:49 PM  

Looking at the list of ingredients on the link posted, I can't help wonder why it is that parents are warned that yeast is a high risk allergen and warned not to feed it to your baby, yet it's injected into most newborns (see Hep B)? And there's soy and egg scattered in the list as well as misc animal cells.

Is there a good reason for the seeming double standard?

Anonymous Stilicho June 01, 2012 12:50 PM  

There is no objective good that Lawyers do. Lawyers are universally evil and produce nothing but chaos.

I never killed anyone who didn't have it coming.

Anonymous roystgnr June 01, 2012 12:50 PM  

"What is your explanation for two separate death spikes happening precisely at the same time as the largest amount of vaccines being administered?"

http://vaers.hhs.gov/data/index

"VAERS data contains coincidental events and those truly caused by vaccines.

More than 10 million vaccines per year are given to children less than 1 year old, usually between 2 and 6 months of age. At this age, infants are at greatest risk for certain medical adverse events, including high fevers, seizures, and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). Some infants will experience these medical events shortly after a vaccination by coincidence.

These coincidences make it difficult to know whether a particular adverse event resulted from a medical condition or from a vaccination. Therefore, vaccine providers are encouraged to report all adverse events following vaccination, whether or not they believe the vaccination was the cause.

...

A report to VAERS generally does not prove that the identified vaccine(s) caused the adverse event described. It only confirms that the reported event occurred sometime after vaccine was given. No proof that the event was caused by the vaccine is required in order for VAERS to accept the report. VAERS accepts all reports without judging whether the event was caused by the vaccine."

If you're surprised that the largest amount of deaths observed subsequent to vaccines corresponds to the largest number of vaccines administered, then you don't understand the data you're quoting. That is exactly the same pattern which would be observed even if vaccines *reduced* immediate health risks.

Anonymous VD June 01, 2012 12:51 PM  

Is this how it works now? I have a theory and now you must counter speculate?

No, your theory simply doesn't address the observable facts.

Blogger Nate June 01, 2012 12:59 PM  

"Is this how it works now? I have a theory and now you must counter speculate?"

Works for other aspect of biology. Why not now?

Anonymous cherub's revenge June 01, 2012 1:03 PM  

Why does "SIDS" happen more in males than females? The wiki states a 3.15:2 ratio. Could that not suggest a genetic component?

Well, the infanticide rate for males is higher than that for females. And a certain demographic has an SIDS rate 3 times higher than Whites along with a comparable higher rate of infanticide.

How much of "SIDS" is unprovable infanticide? How much of "SIDS" decline is due to improved forensics and more vigorous prosecution leading to cause of death homicide instead of SIDS?

Anonymous loveIRS June 01, 2012 1:05 PM  

@VD
You may well be right, but the sentence is ambiguous. Since I don't have access to the content...

"They were comparing vaccinated children to other vaccinated children. They didn't have a control group of unvaccinated children."

Taking the set of SIDS and counting if they have been vaccinated less frequently is not as good a design, but the alternative (a randomised trial) is impractical.

"No, you failed to understand that there are two theoretically unrelated death spikes occurring simultaneously, deaths from vaccines and deaths from SIDS."

I was a bit unclear. I had understood what point out, but I think that it is what motivated the idea that vaccine are dangerous in the first place, so it is not new data.

Anonymous loveIRS June 01, 2012 1:14 PM  

@VD
"SIDS cases were immunised less frequently ..."

It might well mean that more of them were not immunised. It would be easy to decide if someone had access to the content...

Even as you interpret it, it provides arguments against the danger of vaccines for SIDS.

Blogger Nate June 01, 2012 1:18 PM  

Actually what motivates the idea that vaccines are dangerous is a mountain of research about the impact of the various chemicals contained in those vaccines on the human body. The vaccines contain these chemicals... thus... it stands to reason that the injections may cause an issue... or even.. several issues. This sets asside the terrible idea of hyper-stimulating a still developing immune system.

tell me... would you considering mainlining formaldehyde?

Blogger Nate June 01, 2012 1:19 PM  

"Even as you interpret it, it provides arguments against the danger of vaccines for SIDS."

The point isn't that vaccines cause SIDS people... its that SIDS may be used to cover up vaccine deaths.

Anonymous dh June 01, 2012 1:20 PM  

> No, your theory simply doesn't address the observable facts.

What theory have stated on this topic?

The only dog I have in the question is how on earth a speculation of 10x - 100x under reporting vaccine related DEATHS can be justified.

Blogger Nate June 01, 2012 1:28 PM  

"The only dog I have in the question is how on earth a speculation of 10x - 100x under reporting vaccine related DEATHS can be justified."

That was already demonstrated. The JAMA study was in fact even sited.

Pay attention.

Anonymous Curlytop June 01, 2012 1:28 PM  

If the talking heads can say with a straight face that mercury and radiation(Fukishima) is actually good for you, then they'll come up with a reason why formaldehyde is suddenly beneficial too. And sadly, some people will shrug their shoulders and continue on their way.

Anonymous cherub's revenge June 01, 2012 1:29 PM  

The only dog I have in the question is how on earth a speculation of 10x - 100x under reporting vaccine related DEATHS can be justified.

Common sense, observed human nature. People with a pattern of lying don't lie less when the consequences for truthfulness are greater.

Anonymous RINO June 01, 2012 1:30 PM  

Formaldehyde exists naturally in the human body?

Anonymous MendoScot June 01, 2012 1:35 PM  

This government statistic may be conservative; the actual amount of underreporting may be far greater. Kessler D. JAMA, 1993; 269 (No.21): 2785. Only about 1% of serious events are reported to the FDA.

The correct reference is 269: 2765. The article refers to general under-reporting, and the 1% figure is referenced to another article that I can't access:

13. Scott HD, Rosenbaum SE, Waters WJ, et al.
Rhode Island physicians' recognition and reporting
of adverse drug reactions. R I Med J. 1987;70:311-316.

Can anyone get a link to this?

Anonymous Orion June 01, 2012 1:40 PM  

I have no clue as to why people are having a issue with this. Remove the words vaccine from this. Remove the association with humans even. Read the information provided.

1) At 3 months it is a common practice to introduce a large number of chemicals to transmit various viruses that have been reduced in virulence to an early stage biological entity.

2) Data shows that there is an enormous spike in the cessation of function for that entity at a time directly correlating with the introduction of these foreign substances.

3) There has been no thorough study conducted by the suppliers of said foreign compounds to determine if the impact can be detrimental.

- Caveat: though the failure rate of the biological entities is high enough to be noticeable, despite thousands of years of observation there is no indication that there is an inherently higher failure point at 3 months. Until the large scale use of these new compounds that is.

Anonymous MendoScot June 01, 2012 1:45 PM  

TMQ Fanboy June 01, 2012 10:39 AM

...there's no pathological mechanism related to immune response to an antigen and tumorigenesis...


Could you clarify what you mean by this? There are a number of autoimmune neurological disorders suspected to be etiologically linked to cancers (e.g. myasthenia gravis and splenic tumours, Lambert Eaton and small cell lung carcinoma).

Anonymous loveIRS June 01, 2012 1:50 PM  

@Orion
Maybe what makes your hypothesis less likely is that it implies that there is a conspiracy of medical doctors and other scientists to kill babies.

Anonymous redheaded step child June 01, 2012 1:53 PM  

"SIDS affects boys more often than girls. Most SIDS deaths occur in the winter."

Flu vaccinations are also pushed harder in winter, as well as being in locations where air flow is hot and poorly circulated. I am sure that both of these contribute heavily to spreading and incubating diseases, as most people refuse to quarantine themselves anymore because they erroneously believe the vaccines will protect them.

Anonymous RINO June 01, 2012 1:58 PM  

That doesn't seem relevant as the flu vaccine is only recommended for 6 months and older and is therefore outside of the 2-4 month range.

Blogger Nate June 01, 2012 1:59 PM  

"Maybe what makes your hypothesis less likely is that it implies that there is a conspiracy of medical doctors and other scientists to kill babies."

No. There is no conspiracy to kill babies. There is indoctrination that causes them to refuse to think critically about vaccination... and there are mountains of cash to be made.

Anonymous Noah B. June 01, 2012 2:09 PM  

@Nate

The JAMA study cited was done almost 20 years ago, and at the time that study was published, the VAERS system was still somewhat new, and it's likely that physicians were unfamiliar with it for the most part. It's not unreasonable to speculate that reporting rates may have improved since then, although the voluntary nature of the system means that such a possibility is far from certain.

However, even HHS openly admits that only a "small fraction" of adverse events are reported, although they do claim that serious reactions are more likely to be reported than minor ones.

Anonymous Curlytop June 01, 2012 2:10 PM  

You really can be obtuse at times, Rino. I am well aware that mercury and aluminum occur naturally in the body...and yes, so does iron and plenty of other metals!

However, to be clearer:

We have mainlined the use of Silico or SODIUM Flouride, which isn't naturally occurring in the body and is shown to be toxic in high doses, so I would not be surprised to see Formaldehyde marketed in similar fashion.

Blogger Nate June 01, 2012 2:16 PM  

Noah B.
Given that all adverse incidents are supposed to be reported, even coincidental ones, how exactly you expect that it could be anything BUT massively under-reported?

Anonymous RINO June 01, 2012 2:16 PM  

And Fukushima radiation being good for you was not a narrative being pushed on a large scale at the time or any time after. But that's off topic.

Blogger Nate June 01, 2012 2:26 PM  

ok... Given that all events are to be reported... and given that 29,000 kids under the age of 1 died in 2007 in the US... how many of those 29,000 were between the ages of 2 and 4 months?

Now.. compare that to the number of deaths reported to the database for 2007. Survey says... 130.

So according to the CDC... 29000 kinds under 1 died in 2007... and according to VAERS only 130 of them were reported.

Do we see the problem?

Anonymous loveIRS June 01, 2012 2:29 PM  

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2015026/

is another article showing the innocuity of vaccines.

@Nate
"No. There is no conspiracy to kill babies. There is indoctrination that causes them to refuse to think critically about vaccination... and there are mountains of cash to be made."

The mere existence of the studies I produce go against your claim...

Anonymous Anonymous June 01, 2012 2:30 PM  

1. Introduction

The association between sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) and immunisation is frequently discussed [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] and [7]. Because of the close temporal association between the first immunisations and the main peak of the SIDS incidence it has been speculated that immunisations cause SIDS. These claims are particularly emphasised on the Internet. Indeed one study reported that searching the web on “immunisation” and “vaccination” identified 43% antivaccination websites in the first 10 sites identified by 7 major Internet search engines [8]. However, several case control studies have suggested that the apparent association between SIDS and immunisations occurs no more frequently than chance or even that immunisations are protective against SIDS [1], [3] and [5]. Changes to the immunisation schedule or the introduction of new vaccines or different formulations of existing immunisations might be associated with adverse events, thus it is important to monitor such events to see if these events occur more frequently than chance.

In Germany a large epidemiological study of risk factors for SIDS has been conducted [9] and [10]. This provided an opportunity to examine the relationship between SIDS and immunisation in more detail. The immunisation schedule in the first year of life in Germany in the study period was poliomyelitis, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, Haemophilius influenzae type b to be vaccinated at 3, 4 and 5 months of age and either hepatitis b at the same time or in between. Furthermore, in Germany a new type of immunisation was introduced in late 2000; hexavalent vaccines containing 15 different antigens providing protection from six diseases: poliomyelitis, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, Haemophilius influenzae type b and hepatitis B. The aim of this study was to examine the risk for sudden infant death syndrome with immunisation and in particular with this new vaccine.

Anonymous Anonymous June 01, 2012 2:30 PM  

2. Material and methods

A case control study on SIDS (GeSID) was carried out in Germany between 1998 and 2001. Eighteen forensic pathology institutes were involved in the study and the area covered 50% of Germany. Emergency doctors, police officers and forensic pathologists reported each case of sudden and unexpected death to the study centre as soon as possible and if the parents had confirmed their consent into the study.

Death scene investigation was done either by police officers or by forensic pathologists. All cases were autopsied using a standardised autopsy protocol including X-ray investigation, extensive histology, microbiology, virology, neuropathology and toxicological screening. After collecting the information on the previous history, the cases were reviewed by a panel of experts, consisting of a forensic pathologist, a histologist, a paediatrician, a microbiologist and an epidemiologist. Cases were categorised according to the findings in the autopsy into four categories: I, no signs of disease; II, minor signs of disease; III, major signs of disease not sufficient to explain the death; IV, definite cause of death.

For each case three controls were recruited through the local birth registration offices, matched for gender, age, region and reference sleep. The controls had to be born 4–6 weeks later than the index case, so by the time the interview with the control family took place the control infants had the same age as the index case. A detailed description on case and control recruitment was reported earlier [9].

The families of cases and controls were interviewed. The interviews were performed in the parents’ homes using a standardised questionnaire, including detailed questions about the sleep environment. The information from the healthy baby check-up book was copied into the questionnaire including the information about the kind of immunisation and the dates from the immunisation card. Additionally, the paediatricians were asked to fill in a standardised questionnaire with questions about previous illnesses, medications and kind and date of immunisations.

Anonymous Anonymous June 01, 2012 2:30 PM  

All data were entered into a database and analysed in SAS 8.02 (Statistical Analysis Software). For analyses the most comprehensive information about immunisation was used from either the immunisation card or paediatrician's questionnaire. The initial analysis examined risk of SIDS with any type of immunisation. In addition the risk of SIDS in the 14 days after any immunisation was assessed. Univariate analysis and multivariate analysis were done using conditional logistic regression. The multivariate analysis adjusted for maternal factors (age, family status, smoking in pregnancy, parity and socio-economic status), infant factors (birth weight), and postnatal factors (breastfeeding for >2 weeks, sleep position, pillow in infants’ bed pacifier and infant sharing a bed with an adult). The definitions of these variables have been described previously. Adjustment for potential confounders was made using Proc PHREG (Cox regression) [11] and [12].

Although the immunisation schedule recommends specific ages for immunisations, the age at first immunisation varies.

A survival analysis was used to compare SIDS cases with controls, where age at first immunisation was taken as the outcome. Those that had not been immunised at the time of death or interview were censored. The survival analysis used Proc LIFETEST in SAS (Kaplan-Meier).

The infants who were immunised after the introduction of the hexavalent vaccines in October 2000 were analysed separately. Firstly, the risk of SIDS with hexavalent immunisation was assessed. Secondly, the standard mortality rate (SMR) for the “death within 2 days after hexavalent immunisation” was calculated as ratio of number of observed deaths versus number of expected deaths. The 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined using exact Poisson CIs.

The number of expected deaths (ED) in immunised children is based on the proportion of children given a hexavalent immunisation and the death rate for SUDI (Sudden unexpected death in infancy) in Germany for the year 2001. Calculations were based on data from the official German vital statistics, populations eligible for immunisation with a hexavalent vaccine, and the Institute of Medical Statistics sales figures to estimate the number of hexavalent immunisations sold during the first 12 months after introduction of the immunisation.

Anonymous Anonymous June 01, 2012 2:31 PM  

ED = 429/734,475 × 1,631,300 × 0.75 × 2/365 − 28

Observed SIDS cases in 2001 in Germany 429
Number of births in Germany (2001) 734,475
Number of sold doses of hexavalent vaccines in 2001 1,631,300
Deaths within 2 days after immunization 2/365 − 28

−28 excludes the children in the first month.

The number of observed deaths (OD) had to be corrected for underreporting, because only 60% of all SIDS cases were investigated in GeSID.

Anonymous Anonymous June 01, 2012 2:31 PM  

3. Results

In the 3-year study period there were 404 SIDS cases of which 333 (82.4%) SIDS families were interviewed (categories I–III). For the controls 58.7% agreed to participate. There were 998 matched controls. Of these infants, immunisation data were available for 307 (92.2%) cases and 971 (97.3%) controls.

Half of the SIDS victims had started their immunisation schedule prior to death (154/307) compared to 60% of the control infants (prior to interview: 585/971). Starting in the third month of life control infants were more often immunised than cases. Overall the univariate odds ratio (OR) for SIDS with being immunised was 0.41 (95% CI = 0.28–0.59). After controlling for potential confounders the OR remained at 0.51 (95% CI = 0.25–1.00) and was borderline significant (Table 1).

Table 1. Number of cases and controls by age (months) with any type of immunisation and the univariate and multivariate OR and confidence intervals
Month of age Cases Controls Univariate OR 95% CI Multivariate ORa 95% CI
Immunised, N (%) Not immunised, N (%) Immunised, N (%) Not immunised, N (%)
≤2b 6 (3.9) 92 (60.1) 41 (7.0) 261 (67.6) 0.38 0.16–0.95 0.31 0.08–1.13
3 18 (11.7) 35 (22.9) 95 (16.2) 68 (17.6) 0.42 0.23–0.77 0.59 0.19–1.77
4 28 (18.2) 12 (7.8) 93 (15.9) 28 (7.2) 0.83 0.47–1.46 0.80 0.24–2.70
5 22 (14.3) 7 (4.6) 84 (14.4) 11 (2.8) 0.57 0.28–1.15 0.87 0.23–3.31
>6 80 (51.9) 7 (4.6) 272 (46.5) 18 (4.7) 0.40 0.20–0.77 0.67 0.21–2.17

Total number 154 153 585 386 0.41 0.28–0.59 0.51 0.25–1.00

a

Adjusting for maternal age at delivery, family status, smoking of the mother in pregnancy, parity, socio-economic status, birth weight, breastfeeding, pillow in the bed, position placed to sleep, pacifier, and infant sharing a bed with an adult.
b

There were one case and three controls immunised before 2 months of age, data not shown.

Anonymous Anonymous June 01, 2012 2:31 PM  

Looking at the infants immunised shortly before death or interview (within 14 days, Table 2) we found that SIDS victims were less often immunised than control infants resulting in an OR of 0.63 in the univariate analysis (95% CI = 0.43–0.92). After controlling for potential confounders the OR was 0.72 (95% CI = 0.38–1.37) but this was not statistically significant.

Table 2. Number of cases and controls immunised 14 days prior to death/interview
Days immunised prior to death/interview Cases, n (%) Controls, n (%) Univariate OR 95% CI
1 day 1 (2.4) 5 (2.7) 0.56 0.07–4.79
2 days 6 14.6 31 (16.9) 0.63 0.26–1.53
3 days 9 (22.0) 45 (24.6) 0.63 0.30–1.32
4 days 11 (26.8) 61 (33.3) 0.55 0.29–1.08
5 days 18 (43.9) 74 (40.4) 0.74 0.43–1.26
6 days 21 (51.2) 83 (45.4) 0.76 0.46–1.26
7 days 24 (58.5) 96 (52.5) 0.74 0.46–1.19
8 days 28 (68.3) 114 (62.3) 0.72 0.46–1.12
9 days 28 (68.3) 127 (69.4) 0.63 0.40–0.97
10 days 31 (75.6) 143 (78.1) 0.60 0.40–0.92
11 days 34 (82.9) 151 (82.5) 0.63 0.42–0.95
12 days 36 (87.8) 159 (86.9) 0.63 0.42–0.94
13 days 39 (95.1) 171 (93.4) 0.64 0.43–0.93
14 days 41 183 0.63 0.43–0.92
Cases Controls Multivariate ORa 95% CI
Immunised 41 183 0.72 0.38–1.37
Not immunised 266 788 1.0 –

a

Adjusting for maternal age at delivery, family status, smoking of the mother in pregnancy, parity, socio-economic status, birth weight, breastfeeding, pillow in the bed, position placed to sleep, pacifier, and infant sharing a bed with an adult.

Controls were immunised more frequently and earlier than cases (Fig. 1, log rank test p < 0.001).

Anonymous Anonymous June 01, 2012 2:31 PM  

One hundred and twenty-nine infants died of SIDS during the period from October 2000 to October 2001 after the new hexavalent vaccines were introduced in the market. Of these 22 (17.1%) SIDS cases received a hexavalent vaccine compared to 100 out of 378 (26.5%) controls (OR = 0.48; 95% CI = 0.27–0.84). After adjustment for potential confounders the risk of SIDS associated with hexavalent immunisations was 0.77 (95% CI = 0.26–2.24), but this was not significant (Table 3).

Table 3. Comparison of cases and controls for hexavalent immunisation in the period October 2000–October 2001
Cases Controls Univariate OR 95% CI Multivariate ORa 95% CI
Hexavalent immunised 22 (17.1) 100 (26.5) 0.48 0.27–0.84 0.77 0.26–2.24
Not hexavalent immunised 107 (82.9) 278 (73.5) 1.0 – 1.0 –

a

Adjusted for maternal age at delivery, family status, smoking of the mother in pregnancy, parity, socio-economic status, birth weight, breastfeeding, pillow in the bed, position placed to sleep, pacifier, and infant sharing a bed with an adult.

Three infants died within 2 days after immunisation with a hexavalent vaccine (OD). This figure had to be corrected for underreporting (investigation rate in GeSID 60%) resulting in a number of five cases. The number of expected deaths was calculated for the study period and region to be 2.1 resulting in a SMR of 2.38 (95% CI = 0.77–5.55), but the observed adjusted number who died within 2 days was within the 95% CI of the SMR.

Anonymous Anonymous June 01, 2012 2:31 PM  

4. Discussion

The age distribution of SIDS cases in Germany shows a peak at the age of 3 months. This is the time when the first immunisations are given. If immunisation increased the risk of SIDS one would expect a higher immunisation rate among the SIDS cases compared to the control infants. In the GeSID the opposite was the case. More controls were immunised and the control infants started their immunisation schedule earlier. Even when the data were restricted to the 14 days prior to death/interview, there was no increase risk for SIDS from immunisation.

Limitations of this study must be recognised. Although the response rate of cases was satisfactory, that of controls was less than ideal. Participants were more likely to be socio-economically advantaged than the non-participants, and thus be more likely to immunise their child. Controlling for socio-economic status and other factors should adjust for this, but some residual confounding cannot be excluded. We can also not exclude a healthy vaccinee effect as described by Virtanen et al. [13], but we examined infection and health care utilisation in the 4 weeks prior to death or interview. In our study we found no difference between cases and controls [14]. So we are reasonable sure that the cases were not too sick to be vaccinated, but the reasons for not being vaccinated were others.

Our data suggest a possible protective effect of immunisations which was also found in United States, New Zealand and England [1], [3] and [5]. Several explanations have been proposed. Firstly, immunisation protects against unrecognised whooping cough, which is a potential cause of sudden and unexpected death in this age group [15] and [16]. Secondly, there is cross-immunisation with other bacteria or viruses, which protects infants at this vulnerable age [17].

Surveillance of adverse events following immunisations has been established in several countries. In the US the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a passive surveillance system, found decreasing numbers of deaths reported to VAERS since 1992–1993 that followed the decrease in SIDS for the US general population following implementation of the ‘Back to Sleep’ program. They concluded that the temporal association between vaccination and SIDS is coincidental and not causal [18].

In the past much attention has been focused on pertussis immunisation, because of concerns about encephalopathy with this vaccine [19]. Mitchell et al. showed that hepatitis b was not associated with SIDS [5], and Fleming et al. showed that the accelerated immunisation programme in England and Wales was similarly not associated with SIDS [1]. The study reported here was able to examine the introduction of hexavalent vaccines.

Von Kries et al. [6] calculated an increased standard mortality ratio in the first year of life for this new hexavalent vaccine, although this was not statistically significant. However, in the second year of life the SMR was significantly increased. They concluded that although causation could not be proven it was a signal for intense surveillance for unexpected death after vaccinations. In our dataset we found that in the univariate analysis this vaccine was protective against SIDS, but after adjustment this was no longer statistically significant. From 2000 until August 2005 there were two hexavalent vaccines used in Germany. On the 21 of September 2005 EMEA (European Medicines Agency) withdraw the marketing authorisation for Hexavac, because of the low immunigenicity of the hepatitis B component and the variability in the long-term protection against hepatitis B. In our study none of the two hexavalent vaccines had any distinct effect on SIDS. Although we cannot exclude a small increase in risk, these data are reassuring that this vaccine is not associated with a major increased risk of SIDS.

Anonymous loveIRS June 01, 2012 2:34 PM  

@anonymous

Anonymous comments get deleted, use a name. (No registration required.)

Blogger Nate June 01, 2012 2:36 PM  

"The mere existence of the studies I produce go against your claim..."

God you're a moron.

No... no it doesn't. You fail to grasp that the correlation between SIDS deaths and vaccination is so obvious that they must account for it.

So they produce studies to show that the vaccines are really safe... to keep the money flowing.

Blogger Nate June 01, 2012 2:42 PM  

I should make this more clear.

Imagine a group of researchers take a kid and inject him... then 2 days later he starts convulsing and dies.

They then say... "well... we don't know what killed him but it wasn't SIDS."

Then they put out a paper saying that vaccine deaths are not correlated with SIDS.

This is not because they are evil. Its because in many cases they just have a blind spot that was drilled into their heads in their medical education. Vaccines are safe. Period. That's a starting point for most researches and most doctors. Its a lens through which everything is seen... and anything that questions that simply gets filtered out.

Anonymous loveIRS June 01, 2012 2:42 PM  

@Nate

And now you go back to conspiracy theory... While your original argument was that you didn't need to postulate a conspiracy!

Blogger Nate June 01, 2012 2:44 PM  

its not a conspiracy. Its a widespread cognitive blindspot that is the result of standardized medical education.

Anonymous RINO June 01, 2012 2:46 PM  

You said "to keep the money flowing" which suggests something more than a cognitive blind spot.

Blogger Nate June 01, 2012 2:51 PM  

RINO... ever worked in academic research? I have. Keeping the money flowing is first and foremost on everyone's mind. That's not a conspiracy. That's just a way of life. Merck wasn't a study on vaccine safety... you want to get more study money from merck... you tell merck what merck wants to hear.

Now sure... businesses like MERCK... they are rutheless and will do anything to keep selling their product. That's a matter of historical record. So we can go conspiracy there all we want.

But with doctors? Nah. No reason to blame evil with ignorance or stupidity will suffice.

Anonymous loveIRS June 01, 2012 2:52 PM  

@Nate

Observe yourself, you are rationalising your position anyway you can. Many epidemiologists studied statistics and have little prejudice about medicine.

Blogger Nate June 01, 2012 2:53 PM  

jeez... I'm sorry... I am going to eventually start typing more carefully...

ok..

I'm not.

but I wish I would.

Blogger Nate June 01, 2012 2:54 PM  

" Many epidemiologists studied statistics and have little prejudice about medicine."

bahahahahahaaah

Yeah... ok... and many biologists have little prejudice about evolution.

Anonymous loveIRS June 01, 2012 2:55 PM  

Also, many studies are state sponsored.

Blogger Nate June 01, 2012 2:56 PM  

"Also, many studies are state sponsored."

/facepalm

Blogger Spacebunny June 01, 2012 2:57 PM  

Also, many studies are state sponsored.

The same state that made it illegal to sue the manufactures for adverse effects? That state?

Did you just get dumber?

Anonymous Stilicho June 01, 2012 2:59 PM  

Ignorance can be cured. Stupid is forever.

Blogger Nate June 01, 2012 3:00 PM  

loveIRS

Look mate... I worked in academic research as an assistant to medical researchers. I ran around digging up data. Ya know I once helped on a published study that was funded by Merck... that was compiled with data that provided BY merck. I mean Merck may as well have just had their PR department write it up themselves. Ok well in a way they did... because the WVU school of medicine really may well have been their marketing department. Or at least part of it.

I've seen it. I've been a part of it.

As for the blindspot... I've seen that too. My wife even dealt with it. It took years to get her to think critically about vaccines, because it was beaten into her head that only idiot psychos question vaccine safety.

Anonymous Stilicho June 01, 2012 3:15 PM  

Nate, speaking of being "a part of it" shouldn't you be liveblogging the Bilderberg conference?

Anonymous MendoScot June 01, 2012 3:16 PM  

Wendy June 01, 2012 12:49 PM

Looking at the list of ingredients on the link posted, I can't help wonder why it is that parents are warned that yeast is a high risk allergen and warned not to feed it to your baby, yet it's injected into most newborns (see Hep B)? And there's soy and egg scattered in the list as well as misc animal cells.

Is there a good reason for the seeming double standard?


There is certainly a reason, and it is directly related to the source of your confusion - you see, the added components, collectively known as the adjuvant or "helper", are meant to cause damage.

In attenuating or killing the pathogen to make a relatively safe vaccine, the manufacturers usually also suppress or kill its antigenicity as well - which is contributory to why so few diseases have safe and effective vaccines. The solution is to add something - or a combination of somethings - so that, when the immune system looks at this foreign object, instead of shrugging its shoulders and saying "meh!" it actually decides to do something about it.

So you have a problem, the adjuvant has to be sufficiently nasty to get the immune system into gear, but not so bad as to cause general damage to the body. Unfortunately, the general solution is one size fits all. While different vaccines have different adjuvant compositions, everyone who has the vaccine receives the same, but not everyone reacts in the same way.

In short, there is a reason, but it's not necessarily a good one.

Blogger Nate June 01, 2012 3:19 PM  

"Nate, speaking of being "a part of it" shouldn't you be liveblogging the Bilderberg conference?"

meh...

They're just deciding who's gonna be the next POTUS... not really a big deal.

Blogger Astrosmith June 01, 2012 3:27 PM  

"Nate, speaking of being "a part of it" shouldn't you be liveblogging the Bilderberg conference?"

meh...

They're just deciding who's gonna be the next POTUS... not really a big deal.


I've been enjoying watching Alex Jones' live streaming video of his protests. I hope he doesn't destroy his voice more than he already has.

Anonymous VD June 01, 2012 3:28 PM  

Observe yourself, you are rationalising your position anyway you can.

This from the guy who sees nothing unusual about legal immunity or two otherwise unrelated death spikes that just happen to take place at the precise time when the largest number of vaccines are injected. You're not necessarily wrong, as it is remotely possible that all these things are coincidences, but you've certainly failed Pattern Recognition 101.

Anonymous WinstonWebb June 01, 2012 3:39 PM  

If you don't have your child immunized for potentially fatal/maiming diseases, it is YOUR FAULT if the child is killed or maimed by same.

That said, I am of course vehemently opposed to govt mandate for vaccinations on liberty grounds alone.

Blogger Spacebunny June 01, 2012 3:45 PM  

If you don't have your child immunized for potentially fatal/maiming diseases, it is YOUR FAULT if the child is killed or maimed by same.

Whose fault it is when you vaccinate your child and they still get killed/maimed by the disease, dear? Good grief - it's no one's fault when you get a disease and vaccines are far from a 100% efficacy rate.

Anonymous loveIRS June 01, 2012 3:50 PM  

"This from the guy who sees nothing unusual about legal immunity"

No, I don't see anything strange about people not wanting to get sued. Especially with the possibility of trial by jury.

"but you've certainly failed Pattern Recognition 101."

I see the pattern and I ignore it, for convincing reasons, a bit like all those people who do not think that something bad will happen to them the 13th of the month...

For a demonstration of what happens when you search for pattern and do not confirm them with new data:

http://xkcd.com/882/

Anonymous Josh June 01, 2012 3:52 PM  

Good grief - it's no one's fault when you get a disease

no...if you're a butt pirate and contract aids because you like to have sex with other males, it absolutely is your fault...

Anonymous WinstonWebb June 01, 2012 3:57 PM  

Whose fault it is when you vaccinate your child and they still get killed/maimed by the disease, dear?

Let's take polio, for example. As late as the early 50's, thousands of people were paralyzed by polio. To my knowledge, there have been -0- cases in immunized Americans in the last 10 years.

Good grief - it's no one's fault when you get a disease and vaccines are far from a 100% efficacy rate.

If you have an avenue available to prevent a fatal disease and opt against it, then it absolutely is your fault.

Blogger Spacebunny June 01, 2012 4:02 PM  

Let's take polio, for example. As late as the early 50's, thousands of people were paralyzed by polio. To my knowledge, there have been -0- cases in immunized Americans in the last 10 years.

All of the cases of polio in the last several decades in the US were caused by....wait for it....the vaccine.

If you have an avenue available to prevent a fatal disease and opt against it, then it absolutely is your fault.

Which doesn't address what I sad at all or did you miss the part about them being significantly less than 100% efficacy rate, dear?

Blogger Nate June 01, 2012 4:11 PM  

"If you have an avenue available to prevent a fatal disease and opt against it, then it absolutely is your fault."

False dichotomy. You're ignoring the possibility of risks in your supposed perfect cure.

Nothing is risk free. Its like a serial killer coming along and offering to help you out during a home invasion. Is it your fault if you let him help you and then he kills you? Or is it your fault if you send him away and then the invaders kill you?

You simply can't boil it down to "there was a way out and you didn't take it" because the way offered may in fact be even more dangerous than the disease. Remember we're not talking about polio here. We're talking about the freakin' chicken pox!

Anonymous Mrs. Pilgrim June 01, 2012 4:16 PM  

If you have an avenue available to prevent a fatal disease and opt against it, then it absolutely is your fault.

Playing Russian roulette is crucial to avoiding being run over by a drunk driver on one's own front lawn. If you don't, and get run over on your front lawn, then it's absolutely your fault.

Anonymous WinstonWebb June 01, 2012 4:16 PM  

All of the cases of polio in the last several decades in the US were caused by....wait for it....the vaccine.

How many? 3-4 per year? 100? 1000?
What's the number?

Which doesn't address what I sad at all or did you miss the part about them being significantly less than 100% efficacy rate, dear?

I didn't address the second part because I don't dispute it. You are correct about efficacy rate being less than 100%.

Playing off of Josh's point above, it's possible for me to have prison sex without contracting AIDS, but if I do contract it from said behavior, then it's without doubt my own fault.

Blogger Spacebunny June 01, 2012 4:19 PM  

How many? 3-4 per year? 100? 1000?
What's the number?



Look out everyone - I see a goalpost move coming. The number is irrelevant, dear. That there was even one is sufficient to prove you have no idea what you are talking about.

I didn't address the second part because I don't dispute it. You are correct about efficacy rate being less than 100%.

Then answer the question, instead of avoiding it- whose fault is it when the vaccine fails?

Anonymous Mrs. Pilgrim June 01, 2012 4:21 PM  

We're talking about the freakin' chicken pox!

Ahh, chicken pox. Best week of my public-school career. I got to stay home, drink soda pop, play Nintendo games, sleep in, do my schoolwork at my own pace...and I didn't even have to deal with people sticking gum in my hair or trying to break into my locker to steal my completed homework.

The worst parts were not being able to bathe properly for the duration, and going back to school afterwards.

Why do we have a vaccine for this, again?

Blogger Nate June 01, 2012 4:23 PM  

"Playing Russian roulette is crucial to avoiding being run over by a drunk driver on one's own front lawn. If you don't, and get run over on your front lawn, then it's absolutely your fault."

coincidentally there is a massive correlation with death by head trauma and playing russian roulette... but we have studies that show that its just coincidence.

Anonymous WinstonWebb June 01, 2012 4:25 PM  

False dichotomy. You're ignoring the possibility of risks in your supposed perfect cure.

I never said perfect cure. "False dichotomy" is an unfair assessment here.

Nothing is risk free.

I agree.

Its like a serial killer coming along and offering to help you out during a home invasion. Is it your fault if you let him help you and then he kills you? Or is it your fault if you send him away and then the invaders kill you?

You're leaving out an important piece of knowledge here. Do you KNOW said assistant is a serial killer?
Because we KNOW that polio can kill/maim.

You simply can't boil it down to "there was a way out and you didn't take it" because the way offered may in fact be even more dangerous than the disease.

Is that not what we are debating?

Remember we're not talking about polio here. We're talking about the freakin' chicken pox!

Why do you think my initial post specifically mentioned "potentially fatal/maiming diseases"? I don't take the influenza, or chicken pox, or [insert minor inconvenient disease here] vaccine (nor do I allow my children to have it administered to them), for example.

Blogger Spacebunny June 01, 2012 4:28 PM  

Because we KNOW that polio can kill/maim.

Can, not does. You simply have zero idea what you are talking about. Only ~ 1% of polio infections cause paralysis and 90% of infections show no symptoms at all.

Blogger Nate June 01, 2012 4:29 PM  

"You're leaving out an important piece of knowledge here. Do you KNOW said assistant is a serial killer?
Because we KNOW that polio can kill/maim."

Thanks for demonstrating that you don't understand the analogy. I will splain.

See... The Serial Killer is the vaccine. The invaders are the disease. You know the serial killer is a serial killer... but you don't know for a fact that he's going to kill you. He might. he might not.

Dig?

Blogger Spacebunny June 01, 2012 4:30 PM  

Why do you think my initial post specifically mentioned "potentially fatal/maiming diseases"?

Define maiming. Because chicken pox fits the definition, also fits the definition of fatal as children do die from the chicken pox.

Blogger Nate June 01, 2012 4:31 PM  

But hey.. Thanks for again demonstrating my point about babyboomers being totally slaves to emotional investment. Clearly the polio vaccine made a big emotional impact on you... and shaped a lot of your opinions... and thus... you now are a retard when it comes to vaccination.

Just like the apollo program with engineers... I swear your whole generation is deadlocked in 1970. You just can't get past it.

Anonymous Mrs. Pilgrim June 01, 2012 4:31 PM  

Oh, just in case anyone was curious, in the period between 1980 and 1999, there were 162 reported cases of paralytic polio. Of these, 154 were actively caused by the vaccine. This is from the CDC.

Additionally, the CDC notes that the last stateside case of non-vaccine related polio was in 1993.

But vaccines, we must have them! Can't make an omelet without breaking eggs (unless you're Ron Popeil)!

Blogger Spacebunny June 01, 2012 4:33 PM  

And the last case of vaccine related polio in the US was in 2005....

Anonymous WinstonWebb June 01, 2012 4:36 PM  

Look out everyone - I see a goalpost move coming. The number is irrelevant, dear. That there was even one is sufficient to prove you have no idea what you are talking about.

How is the number irrelevant?
I said, quote: "To my knowledge, there have been -0- cases in immunized Americans in the last 10 years." If there has been a case of a polio-immunized American contracting the disease in the last 10 years, then show me evidence and I'll admit that I was wrong on the point.
No fuss, no muss.

Then answer the question, instead of avoiding it- whose fault is it when the vaccine fails?

Assuming it was created & administered properly, then no one is at fault.

Blogger Nate June 01, 2012 4:41 PM  

"Assuming it was created & administered properly, then no one is at fault."

That's a pretty epic assumption.

Blogger Spacebunny June 01, 2012 4:42 PM  

If there has been a case of a polio-immunized American contracting the disease in the last 10 years, then show me evidence and I'll admit that I was wrong on the point.
No fuss, no muss.


Read my last comment dear. In that outbreak unimmunized people caught it from an immunized person.

Anonymous WinstonWebb June 01, 2012 4:43 PM  

Can, not does.

I believe that's what I said: "can".

You simply have zero idea what you are talking about.

That's a rather blanket accusation. What specifically do I have "zero idea what [I am] talking about"?

Only ~ 1% of polio infections cause paralysis and 90% of infections show no symptoms at all.

OK.

Blogger Spacebunny June 01, 2012 4:43 PM  

Let me make this crystal clear for you WW, since you are remarkably slow. The vaccine caused the outbreak. In other words, if that person hadn't been immunized, none of those people would have gotten polio.

Anonymous WinstonWebb June 01, 2012 4:46 PM  

That's a pretty epic assumption.

I felt like there was an attempt to paint me as supporting gov't-imposed "no fault" escape routes for Big Pharma.

Which I don't.

Anonymous JMH June 01, 2012 4:48 PM  

The description of SIDS in a comment above states it is more prevalent in winter, why is that, and do children 2-4 months get vaccines more in winter?

Winter means less sunlight falling on skin (because of lower angle insolation, shorter days, more clothing, and less tendency to be outside in bad weather). Less sunlight on skin means less Vitamin D production. Low levels of Vitamin D impairs the immune system. So you should expect an increase in complications from intentionally stressing an immune system in winter.

Blogger Nate June 01, 2012 4:48 PM  

"I felt like there was an attempt to paint me as supporting gov't-imposed "no fault" escape routes for Big Pharma.

Which I don't."

And yet you're carrying water for the babykillers.

Anonymous Mona Lisa June 01, 2012 4:49 PM  

"But the real deceit is the way in which reference to actual VAERS-reported deaths were omitted...there have been more than 5,310 deaths directly caused by vaccines registered in the system since 1992"

VAERS entries mean that an adverse event followed vaccination; Not that vaccination caused the adverse event. Big difference. The adverse events reported in VAERS are not verified.

"because one can assume that a death is more likely to go unreported than a minor adverse reaction"

This makes no sense to me. One would think a parent would be far more likely to report a death suspected to be the result of a vaccine than a minor reaction. But maybe that's just me.

"A more detailed chart of all 5,310 deaths shows that more than a third of them, nearly 40 percent, occurred in between the ages of 2 and 4 months"

SIDS deaths are significantly higher during that age range, and this can not be said to be the fault of vaccines. Higher rates of SIDS deaths between the ages of 2-4 months have been reported at least as far back as the late 1800's, at which time the modern vaccine schedule was not in place. At that time they had smallpox, rabies, tetanus, and cholera vaccines, none of which were given to infants to my knowledge.
"Dr. Arnold Paltauf of Vienna presented tables, in an 1889 article on sudden unexplained infant deaths, showing that 59% of these children died between the ages of two and four months. A Surgeon of Police in Dundee, Scotland, reported in 1892 that of 258 instances of “overlaying” investigated between 1882 and 1891, 60% (154) were children two to four months old, and 62% (159) occurred between October and March, the cold months of the year." http://www.ecu.edu/cs-dhs/medhum/newsletter/v6n1cribdeath.cfm

"One needn't be a rabid opponent of vaccines to find this death spike at 3 months to be troubling and indicative of a need to rethink the current vaccine schedule. And everyone, pro- and anti-vaccine, should be concerned about the shameless vaccine safety propaganda that is so easily shown to be false."

Agreed. Even if you take out the percentage of SIDS deaths that would have occurred regardless, there would still be a spike in that age range. But I would caution that there is easily as much shameless and false propaganda on the anti-vaccine side of the argument as there is on the pro-vaccine side.

Anonymous Josh June 01, 2012 4:52 PM  

Just like the apollo program with engineers... I swear your whole generation is deadlocked in 1970. You just can't get past it.

dude...they invented woodstock...and rock music...and sex...and drugs...and they changed the freaking world, man!

Anonymous WinstonWebb June 01, 2012 4:54 PM  

Let me make this crystal clear for you WW, since you are remarkably slow.

You are equating the fact that I disagree with you to having a reduced intellectual acumen. If you can point out (specifically, please) where I have made some egregious error in logic or presentation of fact, then I'll own it. Otherwise, I'd appreciate a level of courtesy equivalent with the one I'm trying to show.

The vaccine caused the outbreak. In other words, if that person hadn't been immunized, none of those people would have gotten polio.

Back to my original point. Was this in the U.S. in the last 10 years? Again, if so, then I own the error and will retract accordingly.

Anonymous WinstonWebb June 01, 2012 4:58 PM  

And yet you're carrying water for the babykillers.

By supporting use of the polio vaccine?
If that's indeed the case, then I yield to SB's characterization of me.

(as an aside, Nate, I was born during the Ford administration...pretty sure that puts me right in the middle of Gen X)

Blogger Nate June 01, 2012 5:01 PM  

"(as an aside, Nate, I was born during the Ford administration...pretty sure that puts me right in the middle of Gen X)"

I retract my accusation of boomerism then.. and apologize.

your silliness must be blamed on something else.

Blogger Spacebunny June 01, 2012 5:02 PM  

You are equating the fact that I disagree with you to having a reduced intellectual acumen.

No dear, I am equating the fact that you have demonstrated a dearth in knowledge of the topic at hand as well as an inability or a disinclination to learn, for being slow. Your lack of knowledge is all over this thread in practically every single comment you have made. It's not about disagreeing dear, it's about you being repeatedly and demonstrably wrong in your assertions.

Back to my original point. Was this in the U.S. in the last 10 years? .


The very fact that you are asking this again after it has already been answered is sufficient to demonstrate your "reduced intellectual acumen".

Anonymous WinstonWebb June 01, 2012 5:08 PM  

The very fact that you are asking this again after it has already been answered is sufficient to demonstrate your "reduced intellectual acumen".

The reason I am asking again is because the U.S. stopped using the OPV (which definitely had iatrogenic cases) in 2000. You haven't provided any backup for your statement about a case in 2005.

Blogger Spacebunny June 01, 2012 5:10 PM  

Minnesota 2005.

Blogger Spacebunny June 01, 2012 5:12 PM  

I said, quote: "To my knowledge, there have been -0- cases in immunized Americans in the last 10 years." If there has been a case of a polio-immunized American contracting the disease in the last 10 years, then show me evidence and I'll admit that I was wrong on the point.

As I stated the people who contracted polio were unimmunized, but (and this is key so please pay attention this time) they caught it from a vaccinated person.

Blogger Spacebunny June 01, 2012 5:15 PM  

I eagerly await the rationalizations and goal post moving from WW.

Blogger Nate June 01, 2012 5:19 PM  

"By supporting use of the polio vaccine?
If that's indeed the case, then I yield to SB's characterization of me."

Certainly. Surely you realize that Polio gets trotted out by every babykiller looking to defend his intravenous murder. By doing so, you bring up all manner of implications. Here are a few:

1) Vaccines work. (because the polio vaccine worked)

2) Vaccines are safe. (because you've assigned blame to those who avoid them, you've ruled out the possibility that they could do so for legitimate health reasons. )

See the problem is, in your statement assigning blame you left no room for the weighing of risk factors.

Anonymous JMH June 01, 2012 5:20 PM  

"Playing Russian roulette is crucial to avoiding being run over by a drunk driver on one's own front lawn. If you don't, and get run over on your front lawn, then it's absolutely your fault."

coincidentally there is a massive correlation with death by head trauma and playing russian roulette... but we have studies that show that its just coincidence.


Sudden Intra-Cranial Trauma Syndrome. It's one of the most puzzling - and heartbreaking - medical mysteries of today. Educate yourself! Beware of SICTS and know how to prevent it. We suggest sleeping on your back. Maybe put a pillow under your knees. Or over your face, the research isn't clear.

1 – 200 of 224 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts