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

Monday, August 25, 2014

Vaccine fraud at the CDC?

Despite the vaccine makers thinking they had put the Wakefield controversy safely behind them, another researcher has uncovered an apparent link between the MMR vaccine and autism, and from the CDC's own data:
Background
A significant number of children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder suffer a loss of previously-acquired skills, suggesting neurodegeneration or a type of progressive encephalopathy with an etiological basis occurring after birth. The purpose of this study is to investigate the effectof the age at which children got their first Measles-Mumps-Rubella (MMR) vaccine on autism incidence. This is a reanalysis of the data set, obtained from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Protection (CDC), used for the Destefano et al. 2004 publication on the timing of the first MMR vaccine and autism diagnoses.

Methods
The author embarked on the present study to evaluate whether a relationship exists between child age when the first MMR vaccine was administered among cases diagnosed with autism and controls born between 1986 through 1993 among school children in metropolitan Atlanta. The Pearson’s chi-squared method was used to assess relative risks of receiving an autism diagnosis within the total cohort as well as among different race and gender categories.

Results
When comparing cases and controls receiving their first MMR vaccine before and after 36 months of age, there was a statistically significant increase in autism cases specifically among African American males who received the first MMR prior to 36 months of age. Relative risks for males in general and African American males were 1.69 (p=0.0138) and 3.36 (p=0.0019), respectively. Additionally, African American males showed an odds ratio of 1.73 (p=0.0200) for autism cases in children receiving their first MMR vaccine prior to 24 months of age versus 24 months of age and thereafter.
The troubling thing here is that the author of the paper, "Measles-mumps-rubella vaccination timing and autism among young african american boys: a reanalysis of CDC data" reached his conclusions by examining CDC data that reached the opposite conclusion and served as the basis for a CDC doctor's testimony before Congress. Bill Sardi writes on Lew Rockwell:
There is evidence of an intentional cover-up as it is alleged that data from children who did not have birth certificates (not a pertinent factor) was removed from the study to reduce the statistical power of the study and claim there was no significant association between autism and the MMR vaccine.... Dr. Hooker notes that the CDC used children under the age of 3 for a comparison (control) group, which is an intentional way of skewing results of its studies involving any alleged link between vaccines and autism.  Symptoms of autism generally don’t emanate among children till after age 3 and the control group was too young to have received a diagnosis of autism, he notes.
Not only does this "reanalysis of CDC data" reopen the possible MMR-autism link, but it calls into question the integrity of the entire field of vaccine research. If Hooker is correct and CDC doctors such as Dr. Colleen Boyle have engaged in vaccine fraud, it will entirely explode the basic assumption that vaccines are safe because it will render all of the CDC's data and assurances suspect.

Labels:

136 Comments:

Anonymous Roundtine August 25, 2014 5:21 AM  

The justification for this one is easy to guess: the number of children who become autistic is less than the number of children that would have been permanently damaged or killed by measles, mumps or rubella. They're going to delay using that excuse as long as they can.

because it will render all of the CDC's data and assurances suspect

Ebola!

Anonymous Rantor August 25, 2014 5:36 AM  

Still no autism among the native born Amish. Divine protection or lack of vaccination? What should a scientest think?

Anonymous VD August 25, 2014 5:41 AM  

The justification for this one is easy to guess: the number of children who become autistic is less than the number of children that would have been permanently damaged or killed by measles, mumps or rubella.

But they can't credibly make that argument when it is their own data that is fraudulent. This exposes the possibility that ALL the vaccine safety data is suspect. I think that is unlikely, but it is a genuine possibility that cannot be reasonably dismissed out of hand IF the Hooker analysis is correct.

Anonymous scoobius dubious August 25, 2014 5:42 AM  

"Divine protection or lack of vaccination? What should a scientest think?"

Can't he think both? viz. Divine protection -------> disinclination to vaccinate

Anonymous VD August 25, 2014 5:42 AM  

Still no autism among the native born Amish. Divine protection or lack of vaccination? What should a scientest think?

This does not appear to be true. "A study published in Pediatrics in 2011 concluded that the majority of Amish parents do, in fact, vaccinate their children."

Anonymous Rantor August 25, 2014 5:55 AM  

Yes, in reading further, one scientific paper indicated less vaccination than the general public, but no longer no vaccination. That same paper put the Amish autism rate around 1 in 290 versus 1 in 90 for the populace at large. The paper did not seem to go into detail on which Amish were vaccinated and which not.

I served in the military so I have had most every shot known to man, without significant problems. I still am concerned that the vaccination schedule for children is too aggressive and think parents should delay the schedule, unless they are missionaries to Africa or the South Pacific. Even then, not getting multiple vaccines on one trip is probably a smarter way to go.

Anonymous Difster August 25, 2014 7:32 AM  

Fraud at a government agency dedicated to ongoing fear mongering in order to justify their phony baloney jobs? Very difficult to believe. They're all full of truth, justice and the 'Murican way over there.

Blogger Cataline Sergius August 25, 2014 7:35 AM  

I'll dig through the data and I'll try to be open minded about it. However the Wakefield Study was such a debacle, I admit it will color my perspective.

Anonymous dudemanhey August 25, 2014 8:04 AM  

This post comes at a very relavent time for me personally: my 12 month old son is scheduled to receive multiple vaccines today at his 1-year check up. Both his mother and I are hesitant about it, but the docs and other family members etc think we're looney for even questioning the vaccination schedule.

VD, Ilk, will y'all offer me some words of advice? Are there any vaccines that we should definitely or definitely not avoid for little man ?

Blogger Nate August 25, 2014 8:07 AM  

"VD, Ilk, will y'all offer me some words of advice? Are there any vaccines that we should definitely or definitely not avoid for little man ?"

Can't tell you what to do. All I can tell you is that my twin two year olds have had precisely 0 vaccinations.

Anonymous Ryan ATL August 25, 2014 8:09 AM  

Speaking of CDC/Atlanta... Decatur book festival this weekend, look who's gonna be there! John Scalzi. Anything you want me to tell him in person?

https://www.decaturbookfestival.com/2014/authors/authors-by-genre.php?g=61&p=3

Anonymous stevep August 25, 2014 8:11 AM  

Dudemanhey, Just read what's in these so called vaccines, ask yourself if this is what you should be putting into a small child, forget what anyone else says. For the record same deal here, a 15 month and 5 yr old, not a drop of any vaccine whatsoever. Both kids very much developing quite fine.

Anonymous PhillipGeorge(c)2014 August 25, 2014 8:12 AM  

The old time tested idiom, lies, damn lies and statistics

suggest all this data adjustment is for the greater good; and scientists/ experts assure us that it is.

Thanks be to allah Obamacare will sort this all out.

[visited an international travelling road show exhibit of Italian/ Spanish Renaissance master piece art the other day. They were better people than "us". They built beautiful things, painted beautiful things, aspired to Holy things and thinking. You see Vox if a community believes Jesus walked on water they have no problem whatsoever with Him and angels and Saints sitting on clouds being able to look down on earth.

The connection to be made is that if God designed a body [He did] cheap tricks in/ from laboratories aren't going to be quantum leap improvements ti the way an immune system really works.

Thus the Amish don't get Autism.

Just pity the poor dumb damn m............. f............... who crippled their children with hypodermic needles]

Blogger Cranberry August 25, 2014 8:19 AM  

Rob Schneider, The Animal himself, has added his two cents.

dudemanhey, I cannot tell you what to do, but I stopped all vaccinations for my kids over a year ago, at my third child's 9 month check up. All I did was tell the doctor I was withholding vaccinations for the time being and would resume the schedule at a later date. They brought in a form for me to sign, noted it in his chart, and I went on my merry way.
.
Our eldest starts school next week and was vaccinated on the full schedule. I will get her TDAP in a few years, despite the Pertussis portion being of dubious effectiveness, as the Tetanus and Diptheria vaccines seem to work just fine.

I'm not wholly anti-vax, just want a less aggressive schedule so I'm setting it myself. When our son is over three, we will get him the MMR, probably as separate components even if I have to pay extra to get them separately.

Of course, perhaps by then we will know more about how trustworthy CDC data is - right now, their credibility is thin.

Blogger Nate August 25, 2014 8:26 AM  

The debate about effectiveness and even risks of vaccines became far less relevant to me when I discovered that many of the vaccines we used today were grown in fetal tissue.

And this isn't some crazy conspiracy. its right there in the physicians desk reference. The source cells for all the vaccines are listed.

So then it became a moral debate... not a safety / efficacy debate. The answer was clear.

Blogger Scott X August 25, 2014 8:28 AM  

Vox, when you're most noteworthy fellow traveler is Jenny McCarthy, it's time to re-evaluate your position, IMHO.

Anonymous TMQ Fanboy August 25, 2014 8:29 AM  

I'll read the manuscript when I reach a desktop, by my question is why MMR? Wakefield targeted MMR because he had a stake in an alternative intervention, but why do the rest of the skeptics insist on targeting MMR too, does it have a unique ingredient? I'll admit not being up on this debate, so maybe it's a simple answer.

Anonymous Earl August 25, 2014 8:37 AM  

Dudemanhey: Cancel. Abort. If they ask why, tell them the CDC just confirmed a problem with some vaccinations. You want to do more research. Give yourself a month to study it out. Thendecide for yourself.

Blogger Glen Filthie August 25, 2014 8:37 AM  

Oh for christsakes.

The science behind the anti-immunization trend is the same shit house science the liberals used to mainstream homosexuality and global warming. It usually appeals to the same kind of people too.

Shocked as hell to see you falling for it Vox. Where is that vaunted 150 IQ of yours?

Anonymous Michael August 25, 2014 8:39 AM  

Glen, um, no.

Anonymous Porky August 25, 2014 8:40 AM  

When Big Gov changed the bankruptcy laws in 2005, it meant there was an economic storm coming.

When they gave legal immunity to vaccine makers... well.. you figure it out.

Anonymous Earl August 25, 2014 8:40 AM  

Scott, Vox also is like Hitler. Cuz they both wrote books.

Anonymous Cash August 25, 2014 8:44 AM  

Scott x

You wouldn't want to travel with Jenny McCarthy?

Anonymous Fnord P August 25, 2014 8:49 AM  

The justification for this one is easy to guess: the number of children who become autistic is less than the number of children that would have been permanently damaged or killed by measles, mumps or rubella.

That is no justification - it violates the Hippocratic oath - First do no harm.

OpenID cailcorishev August 25, 2014 8:59 AM  

Scott X, do you base all your health care decisions on the opinions of minor Hollywood celebrities?

Blogger Nate August 25, 2014 9:11 AM  

"The science behind the anti-immunization trend is the same shit house science the liberals used to mainstream homosexuality and global warming."

/facepalm

OpenID cailcorishev August 25, 2014 9:15 AM  

Glen, you're gonna have to unpack that for us slow guys. What science was used to mainstream homosexuality; what science is being used by those who think too many immunizations are pushed too fast today; and how are they the same?

Anonymous VD August 25, 2014 9:16 AM  

VD, Ilk, will y'all offer me some words of advice? Are there any vaccines that we should definitely or definitely not avoid for little man ?

Don't get any vaccine that for diseases that aren't life-threatening. Spread them out over time. Don't get any in the first two years, and never get more than one at a time. Avoid multi-dose vaccines.

Vox, when you're most noteworthy fellow traveler is Jenny McCarthy, it's time to re-evaluate your position, IMHO.

I'm not exactly inclined to pay much heed to the advice of someone who doesn't know the difference between "your" and "you're". I have repeatedly trounced every vaccine advocate who has ever tried to take me on in a debate, so the fact that Jenny McCarthy may or may not agree with me is totally irrelevant. There are no shortage of retards on the pro-vaccine side, in fact, one of the explicit reasons for the aggressive US vaccine schedule is so that the retards will get their children vaccinated.

The science behind the anti-immunization trend is the same shit house science the liberals used to mainstream homosexuality and global warming. It usually appeals to the same kind of people too

Wrong on both counts. If you had a higher IQ, perhaps you would understand why. There is, in fact, absolutely no genuine science that provides evidence for the safety of the current US vaccine schedule. None. And any reputable vaccine expert will admit it. So appealing to "science" is not a winning strategy for the vaxxers.

If you're genuinely concerned about disease in the USA, then close the borders. That will demonstrably do far more to reduce disease incidence than forcing vaccines on everyone without harming anyone. If you're pro-immigration and pro-vaccine, you're an idiot.

Blogger Akulkis August 25, 2014 9:17 AM  

Ryan ATL
re: saying anythin to Scalzi

"...uh.. dude...did you really write that soldiers in the "ground forces" joke about trading blowjobs?" Which drama queen army in history is this modeled after?"

Anonymous Josh August 25, 2014 9:18 AM  

The science behind the anti-immunization trend is the same shit house science the liberals used to mainstream homosexuality and global warming.

Neocon gonna neocon.

The vaccine debate is a useful shibboleth for identifying people who really do "question everything" and people content to follow consensus.

Blogger Glen Filthie August 25, 2014 9:22 AM  

LOL.

Do that a little harder, Nate. Use your knuckles.

Every time liberals do a 'study' the idea is to confirm a preconceived notion - that is not science. The truth is what it is; and liberals and stupid people can put on airs of intellectualism and can face-palm themselves all they want - unless I know their methods, unless I see how they compiled their statistics...any study they do is just another progtard circle jerk. We have seen how these idiots operate time and time again. These are the same guys that told us Fat Al Gore was a saint and that the polar bears would all be drowned from melting ice caps by now.

Pull my other finger, girls. It has bells on it.

Anonymous RedJack August 25, 2014 9:24 AM  

Nate,
That is the same reason I mock the "Ice bucket" ALS stuff on the internet. I have offended a great many SJW's by saying "I will not fund medical experiments on murdered children". The typical response? "IF IT ONLY SAVES ONE CHILD ALL THE DEAD BABIES ARE WORTH IT!!!"

When you then bring up the source of organ transplants, and ask if that made it worth it, I often get unfriended on Face book. Which is a goal of mine since my bride signed me up for it.

OpenID simplytimothy August 25, 2014 9:26 AM  

Vox, when you're most noteworthy fellow traveler is Jenny McCarthy, it's time to re-evaluate your position, IMHO.

Looking at this as a logical fallacy, is it a variant of the genetic fallacy?

A straightforward genetic fallacy would be either--"Vox says it, therefor it cannot be true" or "Jenny McCarthy states it therefore it cannot be true".

This is "Vox states it and Jenny McCarthy states it therefore it cannot be true".

So, yes, it is the genetic fallacy, but doubled. 9 more to get to 11 then it really cannot be true.

Thank you for your patience, I am still on my first cup of coffee.



Anonymous Secdog August 25, 2014 9:28 AM  

"Not only does this "reanalysis of CDC data" reopen the possible MMR-autism link, but it calls into question the integrity of the entire field of vaccine research."

But it doesn't call into question the science of vaccination nor the success of vaccinating.

Anonymous Gecko August 25, 2014 9:28 AM  

@dudemanhey

Ask them to put forth confirmation that any vaccine's benefits outweigh all the risks. This *should* be a simple question any parent should ask before going forward with any medical treatment for their child. "Do the benefits outweigh the risks?"

They can't confirm this for vaccines. They might try, at which point anyone with a modicum of logic rattling around up there should be able to demonstrate how not all the benefits or risks have been sufficiently analyzed. They might deflect, claiming that it's not possible or ethical, which is also easy to riposte. Just remember that the burden of proof should be on them, and keep asserting such. "If it's common knowledge, this should be easy!"

I even took it a step further. I asked a family member for a specific example of a vaccine that I should be concerned about. She said, "tetanus." I actually gathered all the scientific information that was relatively accessible to the public on the internet at the time and found that vaccinating for tetanus actually increased the probability of adverse event or death. There was no single study, of course, that provided enough information to make these determinations, and I used very forgiving (to the vaccines) assumptions where assumptions were necessary. Basically, another case of using the CDC's data against it.

I know my own analysis has its flaws, but I have asked family members and even pushy doctors to criticize it. For years now, none have. Therefore, it served its purpose of stopping the lemmings from attempting to take me with them.

Anonymous Harsh August 25, 2014 9:29 AM  

Vox, when you're most noteworthy fellow traveler is Jenny McCarthy, it's time to re-evaluate your position, IMHO.

Scott X, you share your last name with one of the most notorious racists in American history. You might want to re-evaluate that.

Anonymous Harsh August 25, 2014 9:30 AM  

But it doesn't call into question the science of vaccination nor the success of vaccinating.

That's pretty much exactly what it does.

Blogger Glen Filthie August 25, 2014 9:33 AM  

"If you're pro-immigration and pro-vaccine, you're an idiot."
--------------------------------------------------------------

Not pro-immigration, Vox - but definitely pro-vaccination and pro-science.
Anyone that denies the usefulness of vaccination in preventing pandemics is an idiot - or possibly some religious nut I suppose. If you want a scientific argument - then bring it! Don't bombard me with self proclaimed experts; nor will I be swayed by credentialed poseurs - we have seen that peer review has time and again been used to silence dissent. The scientific Nobel awards are the same lefty chit show as those Hugo awards.

I need to see methodology, raw data, independent confirmation - the works. If you are right I will doff my hat and apologize. But the days of lumpen gulls accepting everything the high and mighty self proclaimed "scientists" are over.

Blogger The Social Pathologist August 25, 2014 9:34 AM  

http://stm.sciencemag.org/content/4/128/128ra40.short

Facepalm.

Anonymous VD August 25, 2014 9:36 AM  

But it doesn't call into question the science of vaccination nor the success of vaccinating.

Actually, it does, because so much of "the science of vaccination" and "the success of vaccinating" is based on data provided by the CDC. If their numbers cannot be trusted, then a significant portion of the information utilized to support those two things is rendered useless.

Anonymous Harsh August 25, 2014 9:37 AM  

Anyone that denies the usefulness of vaccination in preventing pandemics is an idiot

Name one pandemic that vaccination prevented.

Anonymous Josh August 25, 2014 9:37 AM  

So, according to Glen, a study that questions the credibility of science, the government, and public health has to be liberal propaganda. Because, after all, we know how much liberals despise science, the government, and public health...

Anonymous Josh August 25, 2014 9:38 AM  

Name one pandemic that vaccination prevented.

The bird flu pandemic of 2013. You never heard about it because science prevented it.

Anonymous VD August 25, 2014 9:41 AM  

Anyone that denies the usefulness of vaccination in preventing pandemics is an idiot - or possibly some religious nut I suppose. If you want a scientific argument - then bring it!

Very well, Glen. Here is the scientific argument. You are defending the position that the current US vaccine schedule is safe, which means it does no harm to any of the children who receive it. That is the hypothesis. Now, please cite three scientific experiments that provide evidence to support this hypothesis.

If you cannot do that, then you must admit that you are not aware of any scientific evidence supporting the safety of the US vaccine schedule, and whatever your opinion is based upon, it is not science.

Blogger Glen Filthie August 25, 2014 9:43 AM  

"The bird flu pandemic of 2013. You never heard about it because science prevented it."

LOL. I thought it was because all the cool kids refused to be vaccinated against it - HAR HAR HAR!

Anonymous VD August 25, 2014 9:43 AM  

I need to see methodology, raw data, independent confirmation - the works.

Likewise. Since you are "definitely pro-vaccination and pro-science" and you "need to see methodology, raw data, independent confirmation - the works", I await with interest all that scientific information that previously convinced you to be pro-vaccination.

Anonymous Secdog August 25, 2014 9:44 AM  

"Actually, it does, because so much of "the science of vaccination" and "the success of vaccinating" is based on data provided by the CDC. If their numbers cannot be trusted, then a significant portion of the information utilized to support those two things is rendered useless."

Ah....You are one of those:

"http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/vaccines-work-period/

My guess is that you have a great number of other matters that concern you, besides how the measles vaccination and polio vaccination didn't work. I'd be interested in knowing your thoughts on these other topics. But where this topic is concerned, I've lost interest in the same way I've lost interest in those want to discuss how dinosaurs walked the earth alongside humans.

Anonymous Harsh August 25, 2014 9:47 AM  

I've lost interest in the same way I've lost interest in those want to discuss how dinosaurs walked the earth alongside humans.

Disqualification. Tits or GTFO.

Anonymous Josh August 25, 2014 9:47 AM  

But where this topic is concerned, I've lost interest in the same way I've lost interest in those want to discuss how dinosaurs walked the earth alongside humans.

Translation: SHUT UP YOU STUPID ANTI SCIENCE FUNDIE!

Blogger Glen Filthie August 25, 2014 9:51 AM  

"Very well, Glen. Here is the scientific argument. You are defending the position that the current US vaccine schedule is safe, which means it does no harm to any of the children who receive it."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, I am not, Vox. I am saying that if stupid people insist on bringing back diseases like polio - the body counts will be vastly larger with the dummies that refuse to immunize their kids.

Pay attention to what these 'studies' are telling you. It is entirely possible that immunized kids suffer higher rates of this or that. But as you say, that PROVES nothing. Could there be another common vector in the sample group? Until you can show me the mechanism that causes the problems with immunization - you have nothing.

Understand me correctly, please: I admit you may be right - but if you want to take your chances with polio or vaccines - the vaccines are a far better bet.

Blogger John McClain August 25, 2014 9:52 AM  

Doctor once told me that if you created an injection with only the preservatives and other chemicals of all the vaccinations you receive as a child and took it all at once, no doctor would do it. Emotional argument, but still makes a point.

Anonymous Secdog August 25, 2014 9:53 AM  

"Translation: SHUT UP YOU STUPID ANTI SCIENCE FUNDIE!"

I'm not asking anyone to shut up. This guy is clearly very intelligent and interesting. However, on this issue he's lost my interest.


"Disqualification. Tits or GTFO"

I don't know what you are talking about.

Anonymous Josh August 25, 2014 9:54 AM  

However, on this issue he's lost my interest.

Why?

Anonymous Josh August 25, 2014 9:55 AM  

Pay attention to what these 'studies' are telling you.

He used scare quotes. Our arguments are invalid.

Anonymous VD August 25, 2014 9:57 AM  

You are one of those

Yes, unlike you, I understand the difference between actual science and the computer modeling of statistics. Also unlike you, I can do the math and see when there is a seriously massive exaggeration. This was particularly amusing:

"Assuming that the difference between incidence rates before and after vaccine licensure for these diseases was attributable solely to vaccination programs, we estimated that a total of 103.1 million cases of these contagious diseases have been prevented since 1924 on the basis of median weekly prevaccine incidence rates.... One weakness of the study is that the authors could not examine death rates in nearly as much detail as they could study incidence. They could only estimate the effect of various vaccines on death rates. Hence, they did not report death rates in the NEJM article because, according to the NYT article, death certificate data became sufficiently reliable and consistent only in the 1960s. They could, however, make a reasonable estimate of three or four million deaths prevented based on the known mortality rates of the diseases studied in the database."

The mortality estimate is utterly laughable. There have been 593 measles cases in the USA this year. By their estimate, there have been between 17 and 23 deaths already this year. Or, as it happens, none.

Also, note that the number of cases nominally prevented are trivial in comparison with the population. They are not pointing out the utility of vaccines, they are actually pointing out their general irrelevance.

"Many of the cases in the U.S. in 2014 have been associated with cases brought in from the Philippines."

As I pointed out, vaccines are not the answer to controlling infectious disease. The problem is immigration and globalization.

Anonymous VD August 25, 2014 9:58 AM  

I'm not asking anyone to shut up. This guy is clearly very intelligent and interesting. However, on this issue he's lost my interest.

That's nice. As it happens, I have no interest in anything that you have to say either. You are certainly welcome to cling to your vaccine mythology if you like.

Anonymous Harsh August 25, 2014 9:58 AM  

Glen, you still haven't provided one example of a pandemic being prevented by vaccination. I figured you would have 3 or 4 off the top of your head.

Anonymous Harsh August 25, 2014 9:59 AM  

I don't know what you are talking about.

That much is obvious.

Blogger Glen Filthie August 25, 2014 9:59 AM  

"... await with interest all that scientific information that previously convinced you to be pro-vaccination..."
----------------------------------------------------

I am going by the empirical evidence, Vox. We know that vaccines work. One only need to see how many polio patients there are these days. Questioning the success of vaccination is like denying the link between smoking and cancer.
Statistically speaking there is the odd fella out there that smokes 2 or more packs a day, eats nothing but carbs and protein and is fit as a fiddle - and will live into his 90's. My own grandfather did. Is that enough evidence for you to stop working out, taking up a tobacco habit and throwing your nutrition and diet out the window?

It has been an interesting debate, boys - but let me know if you have something concrete.

Anonymous VD August 25, 2014 9:59 AM  

No, I am not, Vox. I am saying that if stupid people insist on bringing back diseases like polio - the body counts will be vastly larger with the dummies that refuse to immunize their kids.

Let's be clear. Do you admit that there is no scientific evidence for the safety of the US vaccine schedule?

Anonymous Secdog August 25, 2014 10:00 AM  

"As I pointed out, vaccines are not the answer to controlling infectious disease. The problem is immigration and globalization."

I'm not interested. Too many examples of vaccines saving so many lives.

Blogger Nate August 25, 2014 10:02 AM  

"I am going by the empirical evidence, Vox. We know that vaccines work. One only need to see how many polio patients there are these days"

We know MMR works... because Polio works!

We also know biologist's models can be trusted... because physics models get amazingly accurate results.

Anonymous A Kind of Alaska August 25, 2014 10:02 AM  

"If you're genuinely concerned about disease in the USA, then close the borders. .... If you're pro-immigration and pro-vaccine, you're an idiot."

This is a big part of the quandary. Unfortunately, that ship has sailed and we are all now up to our eyeballs in tiny vibrants, many fresh off the plane from Diseaseistan.

I don't know enough about this issue to have a strong opinion, but my common-sense instinct is similar to VD's: get the crucial vax for kids, but one at a time, spaced apart, and at a later age than is now urged. That would be ideal.

Here's where I think it gets tricky. That regimen would seem to be safest in an environment with a stay-at-home mom, and enough space in the home so that your children could play and develop by themselves with minimal exposure to strangers, especially strange children. (I think daycare for 2 and 3 year olds is an utter monstrosity, a form of child abuse.)

But what if (as is true for many people) circumstances don't permit it? What if you're raising kids in an apartment block, and have to share elevators? What if you're forced by the economy to put your unvaccinated toddlers in daycare, in a classroom half-full of vibrants? Even if you keep your kids at home, what if Dad has a job where he's exposed to nasty shit all day (like a bus driver, say)? Can a fully vaccinated adult unwittingly drag home pathogens transmissible to an infant?

Under these circumstances, (and sadly they are the reality now for many young parents, thanx GWB and BHO) would it make sense to vax a child at nine months?

Anyone with better information than me, speak up.

Anonymous VD August 25, 2014 10:04 AM  

I am going by the empirical evidence, Vox. We know that vaccines work. One only need to see how many polio patients there are these days. Questioning the success of vaccination is like denying the link between smoking and cancer.

No, you're not, Glen. You haven't provided a single piece of this "empirical evidence" that you claim convinced you. In fact, I'm beginning to suspect that you didn't tell the truth when you claimed that you needed to see "methodology, raw data, independent confirmation - the works".

It's becoming clear that you can't cite any of the evidence that you claim convinced you. If it convinced you, where is it? Why can't you cite it? Why are you begging the question?

Glen, you have been here long enough to know by now that you are in way over your head. I can make my case conclusively. You can't do anything but appeal to what you think you know. Admit that and I'll let it pass.

Or try to defend your previous statements by frantically looking up articles you've never read before in your life. You can try that too if you like.

Blogger Nate August 25, 2014 10:04 AM  

"I'm not interested. Too many examples of vaccines saving so many lives."

***chuckle***

three monkey pro-vaxxers

Anonymous Harsh August 25, 2014 10:06 AM  

I'm not interested. Too many examples of vaccines saving so many lives.

Your interest is completely irrelevant. Vox posed a legitimate alternative to vaccination and you disqualified it. Either continue the debate given the parameters set out in the FAQ or admit that you don't have the intellectual capacity to do and leave.

In other words, tits or GTFO. (Do you get it now?)

Anonymous Earl August 25, 2014 10:07 AM  

Glen, your verbosity to IQ ratio merits the ban hammer.

Anonymous Josh August 25, 2014 10:07 AM  

I'm not interested. Too many examples of vaccines saving so many lives.

Provide three vaccines and the number of lives saved by each.

Anonymous Alexander August 25, 2014 10:09 AM  

To hell with the data.

The CDC and fed.gov as well as all the self-proclaimed champions on the right side of history are continually pissed off about the allegation that the vaccination schedule has harmful effects - when normally they don't tend to give a damn about what the rabble are worried about.

Strike one.

The same assholes who bemoan some home schooled kid in rural Oklahoma being without the vaccine and thus being a national security threat, nonetheless go around shrieking about "my body, my choice", and even more tellingly fly ebola infected individuals into our cities for treatment, declare the southern border open for any thirdworlder and his favorite fifty pathogens, and generally prove themselves to not actually give one steaming fuck about the health of the nation.

Strike two.

The only piece of evidence I would like to look at now would be to see what the vaccination schedules look like for the elite's children.

The statistics can be fudged, and it's obvious that even if you get to 'look at the raw data', you have no way of knowing how truthful said data is. So ambiguous data, skewed analysis, and a clever devil whispering in your ear that everything is ok.

Well, I don't need data to know that regardless of what anyone with credentials says, if it smells like shit it ain't icecream.

Good diet, clean water, and a culture that doesn't suggest wiping your ass with your left hand or sharing a bedroom with twenty-five other people go a long way to keeping disease away. Time to go back to basics.

Anonymous VD August 25, 2014 10:10 AM  

I'm not interested. Too many examples of vaccines saving so many lives.

Secdog, it's fine that you're not interested, if that is in fact the case. But if that is in fact the case, then shut up already. You don't need to tell everyone the same thing three times in a row. Begging the question impresses no one here. We've seen hundreds of similar rhetorical posers in the past.

And the fact that you won't make the argument you claim to be so obvious tends to suggest to neutral parties that you cannot do so.

Blogger Glen Filthie August 25, 2014 10:14 AM  

"Let's be clear. Do you admit that there is no scientific evidence for the safety of the US vaccine schedule?"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is my position that immunizing children against preventable diseases will reduce the body counts due to such diseases by orders of magnitude vs those that do not immunize against them. The stats are a matter of public and historic record and are beyond dispute.

I will concede that a small number of patients might react badly to immunization - but that goes for any medication. There is always a small percentage of the population that will be allergic or have some other condition that will negate any benefits of the medicine - and it will actually cause harm.

It is my position that intelligent parents should immunize their kids until such time as more conclusive data is available.

Anonymous Statists are so dull August 25, 2014 10:15 AM  

@Harsh, it's SecDog, she's just going through her list of government approved points of view and checking them off. Don't distract her with thinking.

Blogger Nate August 25, 2014 10:16 AM  

"The stats are a matter of public and historic record and are beyond dispute."

And yet here they are being disputed.

Anonymous Josh August 25, 2014 10:19 AM  

The stats are a matter of public and historic record and are beyond dispute.

And yet you have been parsimonious with these stats. If the stats are on your side, wouldn't you be throwing them in our faces?

You are starting to sound like someone ranting that Eli manning is statistically a better quarterback than Peyton manning. Because stats.

Blogger Nate August 25, 2014 10:22 AM  

Fat dude in a giants jersey screaming that eli is better than peyton... and no one denies it... because the stats are so obvious.

in a new york accent.

Yep. That's about right.

Anonymous VD August 25, 2014 10:23 AM  

It is my position that immunizing children against preventable diseases will reduce the body counts due to such diseases by orders of magnitude vs those that do not immunize against them. The stats are a matter of public and historic record and are beyond dispute.

You are being evasive, Glen, and you and I both know why. I didn't ask for your position, I asked you a direct question. Now answer it. It is a yes/no question.

Do you admit that there is no scientific evidence for the safety of the US vaccine schedule?

Blogger Guitar Man August 25, 2014 10:27 AM  

Josh, Eli is naht as Gritty as Peyton.

Anonymous the bandit August 25, 2014 10:29 AM  

The stats are a matter of public and historic record and are beyond dispute.

What's amusing to me is that this is the same person who was saying skepticism of vaccination was similar to belief in global warming, yet here he is making the exact same argument as those liberals: The science is settled, so let's not discuss it!

Anonymous Josh August 25, 2014 10:30 AM  

Josh, Eli is naht as Gritty as Peyton.

Eli is a dahkie?

Anonymous Noah B. August 25, 2014 10:32 AM  

And how does one begin to measure the risk of "vaccines" being used for nefarious purposes -- to kill or sterilize people by the millions, or to perform genetic experiments on them? A "black swan event," as Taleb would say.

Anonymous Cash August 25, 2014 10:33 AM  

"I will concede that a small number of patients might react badly to immunization - but that goes for any medication."

So maybe you only want to take that medication if you are at risk of getting the disease the meds stop.

Anonymous RedJack August 25, 2014 10:39 AM  

Glen,

I have said this many times before, and will use this small example again.

I live in eastern Iowa. There was a Mesales outbreak here last year. Of the kids that got sick. all of them, 100% had the vaccine. The hypothetical patient zero was stated in the media to be an unidentified unvaccinated child that the kids came in contact with. The county health board said repeatedly that the only reason there was an outbreak was the child (which they never could find by the way) that was not vaccinated managed to infect a whole grade school class of kids that were.

So as a result, many of our neighbors no longer vaccinate their kids for measles. If the vaccine puts them more at risk for developing it, why do it?

Vaccines have their place. But the schedule in the US is pure profit taking. The Gradasil vaccine has killed more women than the HPV virus, yet it is one the mandatory list for Kindergartners!

Anonymous Student in Blue August 25, 2014 10:43 AM  

It's a shame that a lot of people don't understand that just because one vaccine worked well, with little to no side effects, does not mean that all vaccines work well, with little to no side effects.

Anonymous Noah B. August 25, 2014 10:43 AM  

"The Gradasil vaccine has killed more women than the HPV virus, yet it is one the mandatory list for Kindergartners!"

Doubtful, since there is a strong link between HPV and cervical cancer. But demanding that kindergartners get vaccinated for HPV is just sick.

Anonymous bw August 25, 2014 10:47 AM  

"I will concede that a small number of patients might react badly to immunization

Might react badly? Dishonest.
We are talking about your child getting "autism".
Make it personal.

"The stats are a matter of public and historic record and are beyond dispute."

Translation: The State is open, honest and transparent as a matter of historic record and is beyond questioning concerning its Fascist Authority

Incorrect.



Blogger Hanns Strudle extra gooey August 25, 2014 10:49 AM  

Do you blog? I love your comments..

Anonymous Fnord P August 25, 2014 10:49 AM  

Whatever good vaccines do is now overshadow by the pure greed of Pharma.

How can we judge the validity of MMR and other childhood vaccinations when the same governing bodies, producers and advocates are using the same tactics and justifications to get *boys* mandated to take Gardasil?

Anonymous Fnord P August 25, 2014 10:52 AM  

Imagine how much profit can be made from a drug which *everybody* is legally required to take.

Anonymous JCB August 25, 2014 10:58 AM  

dudemanhey - If you decide not to vax, just be aware the doctor will likely ask you to sign a refusal form. It's written by the American Academy of Pediatrics, and full of sinister language. If you sign it you are basically agreeing you are a bad parent who doesn't mind putting your child (and others) in danger. Read it, then kindly tell them to shove it up their ass. Just be aware it may be difficult to keep a mainline pediatrician if you go the non-vax route. The pressure will likely only continue to build. We use an N.D. now.

Anonymous bw August 25, 2014 11:03 AM  

One only need to see how many polio patients there are these days

Polio was declining before the vaccines were introduced.

Now tell us, how many CANCER patients there are these days?

the biological evidence is of moderate strength that SV40 exposure from the polio vaccine is related to SV40 infection in humans
- National Academy of Science Institute of Medicine , Oct 2002

Anonymous Noah B. August 25, 2014 11:03 AM  

@JCB, something much like that is going on with dentistry these days too. Most dentists try to get patients to get x-rays every six months, when the ADA recommends x-rays every two years for normal adults. Since dentists make as much money from giving an x-ray as they do from the routine checkup, the motive is obvious.

Blogger Nate August 25, 2014 11:03 AM  

almost all anti-vaxxers have had to fire at least one pediatrician. Its not a big deal.. there are plenty of them. If you have to.. just switch to a family medicine doctor. They aren't as psycho pro-vax as the Peds.

Anonymous RedJack August 25, 2014 11:05 AM  

Noah B. Read the literature on the vaccine.

It is only effective for some of the HPV strains, and not even the ones most associated with cervical cancer. A woman must still do pap smears after the vaccine on the regular schedule.

In fact, the pap smear itself is the most effect preventative for cervical cancer. For women who have regular exams, the death rate is rather low. Most of the deaths on the CDC website (http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/cervical/statistics/index.htm) are from women who did not get screened.

The reason they are pushing for kindergartners to get it, is that he patent runs out soon.

Anonymous newborn August 25, 2014 11:05 AM  

@JCB

What is an "N.D."? tia

Anonymous newborn August 25, 2014 11:07 AM  

Naturopath?

Anonymous Harsh August 25, 2014 11:11 AM  

The stats are a matter of public and historic record and are beyond dispute.

Glen, we are disputing it so it obviously is not beyond dispute. And you haven't provided one -- one -- example of vaccination preventing a pandemic despite my asking you twice. That should be an easy win for you but you keep avoiding the question.

Blogger CM August 25, 2014 11:21 AM  

On vaccinating 1 year old -

Especially if not in day care, limiting vaccinations to the most pertinent is a better option. Breastfeeding just increases the reasons not to do it.

Our pediatrician is willing to work with parents on alternative schedules. If yours isn't, run.

Just heads up - public & private schools require up to date immunizations upon entry to the school.

Anonymous Earl August 25, 2014 11:22 AM  

Hey, someone help me out: I am trying to come up with a clever name for the debate tactic where someone keeps saying "I'm not interested" and/or "that's just a boring idea." I've heard this many many times from liberals and atheists once you corner them.

Anonymous Porky August 25, 2014 11:25 AM  

Argument from indifference?

Anonymous VD August 25, 2014 11:25 AM  

Hey, someone help me out: I am trying to come up with a clever name for the debate tactic where someone keeps saying "I'm not interested" and/or "that's just a boring idea."

Tactical Disinterest. It's a form of Fighting Withdrawal.

Anonymous JCB August 25, 2014 11:26 AM  

Hi newborn,

N.D. = Naturopathic Doctor

Anonymous Hash August 25, 2014 11:31 AM  

Pretty amazing how similar these two charts look. And yet only one of these diseases was stopped by vaccination.

Stopped by vaccination

Not stopped by vaccination

Anonymous bw August 25, 2014 11:43 AM  

I'm not interested" and/or "that's just a boring idea.

No one who is Intellectually sound and Curious would ever say such.
They're hiding behind their ignorance on said subject with claims of unimportance.
If it's truly important, laugh, mock and get rhetorical: "You really care nothing for the children, do you..."

Blogger tweell August 25, 2014 11:52 AM  

I got the polio vaccine as a child, and was paralyzed from the waist down for months. Quality control was a bit off and one batch hadn't been weakened enough. My family was poor, and no lawyer my parents talked to was interested in going up against big Pharma, even given the cluster of children similarly affected.

In the military, I got to see the damage that the anthrax vaccine did to my shipmates. Some good friends were permanently disabled by it. It's pretty obvious when you're out at sea (no new diseases to get), and get sick after the vaccination, that the vaccine is what caused the illness, not a 'mystery disease'.

I delayed and spread out the vaccination schedule of my children as much as possible. A vaccine is like getting a (hopefully) mini-disease, so getting only the ones you need and spreading them out so the body has time to recover makes sense to me.

Anonymous Rolf August 25, 2014 11:54 AM  

Clearly vaccinations can have a major effect on the course of the disease, and they can be relatively safe. Just think smallpox (eradicated) and polio (almost eradicated). That said, it's ALSO obvious that not all vaccines are created equally, and because not everyone is the same, they will not all respond the same. There will always be some that have an adverse reaction (consider the allergy to penicillin).
We are in uncharted territory- many children have compromised immune systems because the live in cities and get only very low exposure to the normal bacteria that humans have naturally been soaked in from birth, yet also exposed to rapidly mutating strains from around the world, selected by antibiotic use pressure.
Not sure what the answer is, beyond "more study," "keep the kids in a more natural environment," and "don't vaccinate against things that are not often lethal or permanently debilitating."

Anonymous Harsh August 25, 2014 12:02 PM  

Clearly vaccinations can have a major effect on the course of the disease, and they can be relatively safe. Just think smallpox (eradicated) and polio (almost eradicated).

Vaccination did not clearly have an effect on the diseases you mentioned. As I showed up the thread a bit, the charts for incidence of polio and the 1918 flu look remarkably similar. Why is that? Shouldn't a disease cured by vaccination show a different type of curve?

Anonymous Noah B. August 25, 2014 12:21 PM  

"It is only effective for some of the HPV strains, and not even the ones most associated with cervical cancer. A woman must still do pap smears after the vaccine on the regular schedule."

Wikipedia claims just the opposite. They claim that Gardasil is nearly 100% effective against HPV types 16 and 18, which are believed to be responsible for about 70% of cervical cancer. Pap smears are still recommended, though.

Anonymous Noah B. August 25, 2014 12:23 PM  

Of course if the CDC is now just lying about studies, everything Wikipedia says about Gardasil may be a load of crap.

Anonymous the bandit August 25, 2014 12:30 PM  

@Noah B., Wikipedia is obviously racist, too. Those aren't the HPV strains that affect most black women.

Anonymous hausfrau August 25, 2014 12:37 PM  

The science behind the anti-immunization trend is the same shit house science the liberals used to mainstream homosexuality and global warming.

In what way do these groups share traits? Gays and global warming dupes want state intervention to force their agenda on the public. Most vaccine skeptics just want the state to butt out of forcing medical procedures on their children. YOu know, the difference between a statist position and a non-statist one.

Anonymous Fnord P August 25, 2014 12:53 PM  

RedJack The reason they are pushing for kindergartners to get it, is that he patent runs out soon.

Expiring patents are much less of a problem for vaccine manufacturers than for regular pharma. Normal drugs are usually just chemicals which can be easily reconstructed once the formula is made public. Vaccine manufacture involves living organisms and it is much more difficult to reproduce and to scale up to industrial levels.

It is usually not worth the effort for a competitor to try and copy - better to concentrate on a new vaccine and a new need.

The big money in vaccine life cycle is in increasing the recommendations to new populations - children/adults: men/ women etc. Take a look at flu recommendations and how they have increased each year from at-risk, to all elderly, to all children, to everyone - this year I think they are targeting pregnant women to increase the market - nice!

All of this is at the instigation of the manufactures using their connections at FDA/EMEA et al. No conspiracies here, I've sat in on the meetings where its discussed.

Anonymous Fnord P August 25, 2014 1:00 PM  

It is only effective for some of the HPV strains, and not even the ones most associated with cervical cancer.

It is currently targeting the two most associated serotypes for the moment. However, there are well over a hundred different serotypes which it doesn't protect against and there are no studies to show how vaccination might affect the distribution of other serotypes...

A condom (or abstinence) will prevent cervical cancer from all 100+ serotypes

Anonymous Dumb founded August 25, 2014 1:12 PM  

Clearly vaccinations can have a major effect on the course of the disease, and they can be relatively safe. Just think smallpox (eradicated)

Can you provide evidence that it was vaccination that did that, and not, say, a combination of improved health care and isolation of those who contracted the disease?

Blogger RobertT August 25, 2014 1:12 PM  

" measles, mumps or rubella "

I got the measles and rubella, which is just the measles and the German measles, never got the mumps but most of my classmates did. The big issue with the mumps was it could drop and sterilize a guy. I did know guys who lost a gonad. Nobody worried about dying from any of this stuff. There's a reason for the old saying ... there's lies, damn lies and statistics.

Anonymous Harsh August 25, 2014 1:17 PM  

Still waiting on the pro-vaccine crowd for some hard numbers on how many pandemics have been prevented, lives saved, etc.

And waiting...

Anonymous Joseph August 25, 2014 1:21 PM  

My oldest (now 10 years old) got his MMR between 24-26 months.

His vocabulary was, I dunno, 30-60 words? After the vaccine, he didn't speak for nearly two years. Had to enroll him in speech class for infants. From that point on, we try to get any needed vaccines "one at a time", to the noticeable annoyance of nurses.

OpenID artisanaltoadshall August 25, 2014 1:26 PM  

Vaccines are commonly given in combinations, yet no vaccine is safety tested for this. Likewise, vaccines are fixed dose drugs, so the difference between a ten pound neonate and a 40 pound pre-schooler should be obvious.

As to smallpox, there is a compelling argument that the primary vector of transmission is insect, specifically bedbugs. The WHO campaign to eradicate smallpox had a sanitation component and they sprayed the DDT everywhere.

Blogger Scott X August 25, 2014 1:55 PM  

"Vox, when you're most noteworthy fellow traveler is Jenny McCarthy, it's time to re-evaluate your position, IMHO.

I'm not exactly inclined to pay much heed to the advice of someone who doesn't know the difference between "your" and "you're". I have repeatedly trounced every vaccine advocate who has ever tried to take me on in a debate, so the fact that Jenny McCarthy may or may not agree with me is totally irrelevant. There are no shortage of retards on the pro-vaccine side, in fact, one of the explicit reasons for the aggressive US vaccine schedule is so that the retards will get their children vaccinated."

It was meant in jest. Should have added a :)

Blogger Karl August 25, 2014 2:57 PM  

Virginia's Dept. of Ed issued a memo to all schools saying that illegal immigrant children must be enrolled even if they don't have vaccinations. These are the "unaccompanied minors" released by DHS to persons in the U.S.

So, the children most likely to be carriers/at risk are exempt, children at lowest risk are the ones facing pressure/mandates to vaccinate. This is Sam Francis' recipe for anarcho-tyranny.

"a combination of anarchy (in which legitimate government functions—like spying on the bad guys or punishing real criminals—are not performed) and tyranny (in which government performs illegitimate functions—like spying on the good guys or criminalizing innocent conduct like gun ownership and political dissent)."


http://bristowbeat.com/education/vdoe-memo-said-schools-must-enroll-unaccompanied-immigrant-children-even-without-vaccinations/

OpenID luagha August 25, 2014 3:09 PM  


I would just like to say it's amazing to watch the blind pro-vax types repeatedly not listen when "safety of the US vaccine schedule" is specified over and over and over again. Not 'does the smallpox vaccine work' or 'does the polio vaccine work' but 'does the current US vaccine schedule work'.

And when such an obvious alternative - wait until your child can communicate distress and spread out the vaccinations - is given.

Anonymous roo_ster August 25, 2014 3:11 PM  

Got a few questions for the anti-vaxxers/vax-curious folk here'bouts.

Throat-Clearing:
My background is more on the technical hard sciences and I have only dipped into the biological sciences upon occasion. But, I did have family that worked in the pharmaceutical industry and we spoke quite a bit about the hoops a new drug had to jump through to get FDA approval. One of the steps was clinical trials showing that the new drug/treatment/compound was both efficacious vs the disease in question and was also safe. To tie it back to vaccines, here is where one would begin to show the safety of particular vaccines and then progress on to the various clusters of vaccines given over time.

Questions:
1. Is it the anti-vaxxer position that the usual FDA clinical trials required for new medicines & such have not occurred with the various particular vaccines?

2. If they have occurred, is it the anti-vaxxer position that the trials were somehow rigged or corrupted or standards lowered? By whom?

3. If they have not occurred, is this difference in requirements by the FDA for vaccines documented in law or regulation?

4. Is it the anti-vaxxer position that no/few/insufficient studies have been done on the efficacy and safety of the _combinations_ of the various vaccines administered over time?

=================

Added Bonus!
A short & simple treatise on herd immunity, what it is and what it isn't.
http://www.atomicnerds.com/?p=6569
Some very simple math and herd immunity concepts. Upshot is that for herd immunity to work, upwards of 90-95% of the population must be immunized against the pathogen. And that ~5% is already taken up by folk who, for whatever reason, can not be safely immunized.

Vax rates have dropped below 95% in many places, so it is not prudent to rely on herd immunity to protect your own kiddos.


Anonymous roo_ster August 25, 2014 3:16 PM  

Karl wrote:
This is Sam Francis' recipe for anarcho-tyranny.

"a combination of anarchy (in which legitimate government functions—like spying on the bad guys or punishing real criminals—are not performed) and tyranny (in which government performs illegitimate functions—like spying on the good guys or criminalizing innocent conduct like gun ownership and political dissent)."
==================

As time goes on, folk like Sam Francis get proved right more & more. For that, they will never be forgiven.

Blogger Joshua_D August 25, 2014 3:41 PM  

You know, this may not be relevant and it may be some type of fallacy, but it's very interesting to me how most new parents are told they shouldn't feed their children various foods until the child is at least one year old, such as honey and other allergenic foods such as wheat, milk, eggs, etc. And even when parents do start introducing those new foods, they are advised to should introduce them one at a time to see if the child reacts. That's very reasonable advice and a very reasonable approach.

But when it comes to vaccines, well hell, let's just inject newborns with all kinds of foreign agents! They'll be fine! I mean, honey is no-no. For God's sake don't let your kids eat honey or peanut butter! But, vaccines are OK. Bring ‘em back in three months and well inject more, and six, and one year, and so on. No worries! SMALL POX! POLIO! HERD IMMUNITY!

It’s very weird.

Anonymous Dumb founded August 25, 2014 3:46 PM  

From that article:

“Public school districts have an obligation to enroll students regardless of immigration status and without discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin. The Justice Department will do everything it can to make sure schools meet this obligation. We will vigilantly enforce the law to ensure the schoolhouse door remains open to all,” Holder said.

CA seems to be the most rabidly pro-vax state out there. Perhaps people can show Holder's statement to public schools now.

Anonymous Fnord P August 25, 2014 3:56 PM  

@roo_ster I'll have a go at #2

First of all, there is no such thing as "usual FDA clinical trials". The manufacture defines the trials, the endpoints and the statistical analysis. The FDA only see the results.

The company with a new vaccine does all the development internally (external ethics committees validate the various protocols) but the company is free to do what it wants on volunteers from showing safety of a product (phase 1) to finding a therapeutic dose (phase 2) to measuring clinical efficiency (phase 3).

The company then presents a dossier which it considers adequate (along with a large cheque) to the FDA. The FDA cashes the cheque and rubber-stamps the results and gives them the license (any potential problems would be ironed out [in paid consultation w. FDA] before submission as the cost for not getting the license is too high).

All expertise is in the hands of the manufactures or their paid for advocates and the FDA basically has to take their word for it. There is no way they could afford to do any trials themselves as the cost is prohibitive.

Its a typical governmental licensing scheme with the typical revolving door between members of the manufacturers/ government bodies/ oversight groups.

Licenses are very rarely revoked - usually the company chooses to withdraw the product voluntarily once a problem has been discovered (cf Rotashield).

OpenID luagha August 25, 2014 4:41 PM  

2. Were the current standards for vaccines lowered?

Yes, by Hillary Clinton.

Start with http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB106091266280731300 which explains what her Vaccines for Children program began. More in http://sweetness-light.com/archive/remember-hillary-clintons-vaccine-fiasco#.U_ucSaMSbik .

With the addition of price controls, many manufacturers left the market. Many critical vaccines on the US childhood schedule are now made only by a single manufacturer.

No competition and government pricing leads inevitably to what? Reduced quality control. Before Clinton's price controls, if doctors got wind of a bad manufacturer they would drop them. But no there's no place to go.

From http://www.who.int/immunization/programmes_systems/procurement/en/
---
Vaccines are in the most part government or donor funded, often with no official end user charge. Vaccines are mostly of a preventive nature and are administered to otherwise healthy individuals, most commonly children. The risks arising from poor quality vaccines are considerable. Adverse effects caused by using poor quality vaccines can destroy public confidence in immunization programmes and put lives at risk. Public acceptance of vaccination is highly dependent upon the quality of the vaccines used. Therefore, when procuring vaccines, contracts should never be awarded based on price only. Quality should always be of overriding importance.

In contrast to the pharmaceutical industry, the global vaccine market is limited to relatively few manufacturers and suppliers. Due to the biological nature of vaccines, there are no generic products as such, which is reflected in the high entry costs to manufacturers. At the present time, there are no more than 25 manufacturers that export significant quantities of vaccines prequalified by WHO. For the majority of vaccines there are only between one and five manufacturers for each specific product, with new vaccines often resulting in monopolies of supply.
---

If you recall the various vaccine shortages from several years ago, they're what happens when a vaccine's problems become sufficiently noticeable.

Anonymous Secdog August 25, 2014 5:07 PM  

"Your interest is completely irrelevant. Vox posed a legitimate alternative to vaccination and you disqualified it."

All I did was note that vaccinations work.

Evidence: Smallpox, Polio and measles. Smallpox has been eliminated. Polio and measles are practically eliminated.

Does anyone not think that it was vaccinations that accomplished this? If so, would you also like to try to calculate the number of humans that were killed as a result of being stepped on or eaten by a T-Rex?

Blogger subject by design August 25, 2014 5:33 PM  

Honey is not recommended for children under one year of age because it can contain botulism spores with which a young child may not be able to deal, it is not a potential allergen.

There are no scientific studies on the safety and efficacy of vaccines (by scientific studies I mean double-blind, placebo trials) because it is considered unethical to do them. Instead, it is considered ethical to make all children into test subjects. Check the CDC's website to see if you can find those scientific studies.

A quick search can lead anyone to the stories and journal publications about the pertussis outbreak in the Bay area of San Fransisco. In that outbreak, the rate of hospitalized pertussis patients who were vaccinated versus those not vaccinated matched the rate of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated people in the area. In other words, the vaccination did not lower the rate of infection. Also, the vaccination rate in the area was above that required for so-called herd immunity.

The reason the MMR (specifically measles vaccine) is suspected of being associated with autism is for two reasons. The first is that measles is associated with encephalitis. So, the vaccine could also cause that, and perhaps encephalitis causes brain damage resulting in autism. The second is that the specific strain of measles found in the vaccine has been found to be colonizing in the intestines of children with autism. Because of the gut/brain connection, somehow the measles living in the intestines is causing the brain malfunctions in autistic children. Those are the reasons that it is the measles portion of the vaccine that is suspect.

Anonymous dantealiegri August 25, 2014 5:53 PM  

Vox,

since no one has mentioned this that seems articulate and not anti-vax, I agree that there is no real science behind the current vaccination schedule in the US.

I think part of that stems from what subject by design mentions. People willingly agreeing to allow their children to be used in a study is already a selection, and thus the usefulness of any data derived from such a study would already be highly suspect.

As an aside, I think it is open knowledge that all vaccines have a different level of prevention. This is also why some need to be done in series, as a single dose doesn't provide a good enough response.

Anonymous Scintan August 25, 2014 7:05 PM  

Evidence: Smallpox, Polio and measles. Smallpox has been eliminated. Polio and measles are practically eliminated.

Please show us proof that it was vaccinations, and not something like, say, singing sea shanties halfway across the globe, that are the reason for the success against those diseases.

I realize that you don't actually have any such proof, or you would have already supplied it, but I'm curious to see how you, scientifically, deal with the two given options.

After sea shanties, perhaps we'll move on to color dyes, the pollutant makeup in the atmosphere, and the number of laws in the U.S. Code. We can keep going until you figure you that "Because gone" isn't adequate science in this case.

Anonymous Pellegri August 25, 2014 9:31 PM  

I lost faith in the government's ability to make good public health choices when I realized that they will always, 100%, refuse to prevent the spread of STDs by simply telling people to keep it in their pants.

If HIV is always a death sentence, people who are HIV+ should be quarantined or otherwise encouraged not to engage in activities that will risk the spread of the virus to others. (Granted I am one of those dirty skeptics of the current mythology of HIV, etc etc, but I'm running with the logic of "you know this disease has a 100% mortality rate; you need to act appropriately".) I know that the logistics and legalities of this would be horrific so I can't endorse putting people in HIV colonies or whatever to keep them out of the population; but I also can't get my head around a government that has declared a sexually transmitted disease Public Health Enemy #1 and then refuses to take any steps to get people to STOP THE SEX PRACTICES that result in its spread. Ditto needle exchanges.

That vaccines are being pushed as a substitute for more robust public health practices like "not importing a bunch of diseased immigrants" and "encouraging people infected with incurable diseases not to engage in activities that spread those diseases" is frankly idiotic regardless of vaccine efficacy. The fact that they're often ineffective and can cause considerable harm is just the cherry on top of the retard sundae.

Anonymous Harsh August 25, 2014 11:50 PM  

Evidence: Smallpox, Polio and measles. Smallpox has been eliminated. Polio and measles are practically eliminated.

Secdog, so has the flu of 1918 and the black plague. Are you really so stupid to think that disease don't eventually run their course and die out sans vaccination? Point to one shred of evidence that indicates that vaccination eliminated those diseases.

Anonymous Statists are so dull August 26, 2014 2:46 AM  

BTW, smallpox has not been eradicated. The CDC are keeping stocks despite WHO insistence they destroy them because...science.

The same CDC that has been loosing vials and fudging data.

Most of these diseases wouldn't be a problem if we weren't living on top of each other to maximise tax extraction by our rulers.

Blogger Scott X August 26, 2014 8:07 AM  

So as the father of a vaccination age child, what should I do? To vaccinate of not to vaccinate, both choices seem perilous. Seriously, is there was way to mitigate the risk?

Anonymous Fnord P August 26, 2014 12:03 PM  

@Scott X
You've got to educate yourself and make a choice based on what you learn and what you value. Unfortunately the advocates for both sides are too wrapped up in their respective narratives.

Those in positions of power are now clearly exploiting their positions to get rich on the backs of the unthinking, trusting masses so they can no longer fulfill their role as trusted experts.

Blogger JaimeInTexas August 27, 2014 10:52 AM  

ScottX;

Printout the schedule for vaccines. Then, break items in the list into the smallest possible units/shots. Then, if you want to vaccinate the children, vaccinate to the smallest units, spaced out according to your comfortable timetable.

Learn about preservatives in the vaccines, like thimerosal, and use that info in your decision making.

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts