ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Monday, May 04, 2015

The limits of vaccines

Tetyana Obukhanych, PhD, writes an open letter to the California legislature that is foolishly, and unconstitutionally, considering putting an end to all legal vaccine exemptions:
Dear Legislator:

My name is Tetyana Obukhanych. I hold a PhD in Immunology. I am writing this letter in the hope that it will correct several common misperceptions about vaccines in order to help you formulate a fair and balanced understanding that is supported by accepted vaccine theory and new scientific findings.

Do unvaccinated children pose a higher threat to the public than the vaccinated?

It is often stated that those who choose not to vaccinate their children for reasons of conscience endanger the rest of the public, and this is the rationale behind most of the legislation to end vaccine exemptions currently being considered by federal and state legislators country-wide. You should be aware that the nature of protection afforded by many modern vaccines – and that includes most of the vaccines recommended by the CDC for children – is not consistent with such a statement. I have outlined below the recommended vaccines that cannot prevent transmission of disease either because they are not designed to prevent the transmission of infection (rather, they are intended to prevent disease symptoms), or because they are for non-communicable diseases. People who have not received the vaccines mentioned below pose no higher threat to the general public than those who have, implying that discrimination against non-immunized children in a public school setting may not be warranted.

How often do serious vaccine adverse events happen?

It is often stated that vaccination rarely leads to serious adverse events. Unfortunately, this statement is not supported by science. A recent study done in Ontario, Canada, established that vaccination actually leads to an emergency room visit for 1 in 168 children following their 12-month vaccination appointment and for 1 in 730 children following their 18-month vaccination appointment (see appendix for a scientific study, Item #5).

When the risk of an adverse event requiring an ER visit after well-baby vaccinations is demonstrably so high, vaccination must remain a choice for parents, who may understandably be unwilling to assume this immediate risk in order to protect their children from diseases that are generally considered mild or that their children may never be exposed to.

In summary: 1) due to the properties of modern vaccines, non-vaccinated individuals pose no greater risk of transmission of polio, diphtheria, pertussis, and numerous non-type b H. influenzae strains than vaccinated individuals do, non-vaccinated individuals pose virtually no danger of transmission of hepatitis B in a school setting, and tetanus is not transmissible at all; 2) there is a significantly elevated risk of emergency room visits after childhood vaccination appointments attesting that vaccination is not risk-free; 3) outbreaks of measles cannot be entirely prevented even if we had nearly perfect vaccination compliance; and 4) an effective method of preventing measles and other viral diseases in vaccine-ineligible infants and the immunocompromised, immunoglobulin, is available for those who may be exposed to these diseases.

Taken together, these four facts make it clear that discrimination in a public school setting against children who are not vaccinated for reasons of conscience is completely unwarranted as the vaccine status of conscientious objectors poses no undue public health risk. 
Unlike most vaccine advocates, who invariably point to irrelevant historical statistics that a) preceded the introduction of vaccines and b) involve vaccines that are very different than the vaccines now administered today, most vaccine skeptics pay close attention to the actual vaccines and vaccine schedules that are presently relevant today. If you're not reasonably up to date on either when the various vaccines were first introduced or the historical and current death rates, I would advise that you get yourself up to speed before leaping in and saying something both stupid and easily disproved.

And it is important to be up to speed before trying to discuss the subject, because as Dr. Obukhanych observes, the vaccines that are being given today are not the same vaccines that helped wipe out the last vestiges of the various communicable diseases that had already declined dramatically as a result of improved sewage and health care systems.

Furthermore, there is very good reason to doubt the linear efficacy of vaccines that is commonly assumed due to the presence of the 5 percent of the population who are low-vaccine responders. If one factors in the additional percent of the population that is vaccine-sensitive, which is presently unknown but is unlikely to be any smaller than the low-vaccine responder population, somewhere between 5 and 15 percent of the population are simply never going to fit the "one size fits all approach", which means that any law that would impose such a draconian vaccine regime on the general population is unconscionable, guaranteed to cause more harm than it prevents, and certain to fail in its stated objectives.

But even if one sets aside the science and the history of vaccines, one doesn't need to be against vaccines or even to question the idea of their unmitigated beneficence in order to strongly oppose the idea of the government universally and forcibly dictating the injection of substances for which there is no legal liability by people for whom there is no legal accountability, without consent or even parental consent, into every single infant in the nation.

And the fact is that vaccines are not an unmitigated good. Like most things, they come with costs and benefits. It is foolish, even criminal, to attempt to set public policy without taking the downside aspects into account as well as the upside ones.

Furthermore, the scare tactics of vaccine advocates are based on absolute and utter absurdities that require complete ignorance of the historical facts to take seriously. Even in a completely unvaccinated scenario with 90 percent infection rates that assumes absolutely no improvement in health care in 55 years, we're talking about 450 deaths per year.  Realistically, we're probably talking around 200, given the advancements in medical technology. THAT is what all the pro-vaccine scaremongers are going on about. Americans would do far better to ban bicycles, as they would save three times more lives per year.

383,542: Automobile deaths in last 10 years
6,770: Bicycle deaths in last 10 years
0: Measles deaths in last 10 years

As it happens, since 2003, 108 more Americans have died from reactions to the measles vaccine than have died from measles. Vaccine apologists like to claim that anti-vaxxers "have blood on their hands" due to hypothetical deaths that could theoretically occur as a result of imagined transmissions of communicable diseases that haven't actually taken place, but the fact is that they have real blood from actual deaths on their own.

Labels:

76 Comments:

Anonymous PhillipGeorge©2015 May 04, 2015 5:02 AM  

Yes, and if Obama quotes a differing opinion scientist it will be racist to question it. If Hillary quotes a different opinion it will be sexist to question it. You have to remember that a survey says the science is settled.
Vox, evil genii all started out in their careers as simply genii. An independent survey of evil genii says that there is 95 percent consensus on the superiority of their decision making processes. See citation below. In any case climate change is going to alter the way vaccines work so now we really need them. Sorry I'm just to quote from tomorrow's newspapers again.

[alternatively Vox maybe its enough to say, Increases in autism rates are unexplained. Japan, with their delayed age programs, and the Amish suffer less cot death and autism. Caution is necessary until causality is determined]

Blogger JACIII May 04, 2015 5:10 AM  

The cognitive dissonance required to wish for mandatory medication while possessing the common knowledge of USGOV historical abuse of the populace re:medical experiments is stratospheric.

Mindless vax-at-all-costs proponents deserve to live is the dystopian hell they are building. The rest of us need to begin looking around for someplace the burgeoning monster will not covet before it dies.

Anonymous Rhys O'Reilly May 04, 2015 5:11 AM  

I bet this will be ignored. Immunologists are the most intelligent, and also the most open minded, of all medical experts in my experience.

Semi- OT, has anyone ever come across any indication that vaccines (possibly the MMR) can actually lead to a primary immunodeficiency or other immune system problems?

Anonymous Rufus May 04, 2015 5:12 AM  

thanks for posting this. NZ, like Australia, like the US, is becoming increasingly antagonistic towards people who don't want to inject DNA matter harvested from aborted fetuses into their own children. I believe within my own lifetime, people will be thrown into jail for child abuse for refusing to vaccinate their children. The problem is MPAI and do not know much about vaccines, they simply trust the government/medical industry/friendly nurse, and I believe they are so vicious in their opposition of those who decline vaccinations because deep down they fear that they have made the wrong choice - their anger is a way for them to confirm their choice, to reassure themselves. I have even had a pastor, a brother of a friend of mine, tell me that if you don't vaccinate your children, you are being "socially irresponsible". If he wasn't the brother of a good friend, I would have told him to get f#cked.

Blogger Vox May 04, 2015 5:20 AM  

If he wasn't the brother of a good friend, I would have told him to get f#cked.

You should anyhow. The reason these people feel the ability to say things like that is because no one ever does.

Anonymous Rufus May 04, 2015 5:36 AM  

I know - but on the other hand I value the friendship I have with his brother. And they are both brothers in Christ. He's just a pain in the arse.

The problem with articles like Tatyana's above is they are so difficult for the average pleb to judge. 2 minutes on google will find a range of articles also written by Phds etc who rip her arguments to shreds. Who to believe?

I don't buy the "herd immunity" argument. I don't want anything to do with vaccines grown on human tissue harvested from "selected fetuses" (which is why they didn't get the MMR or Varilrix etc). But on the other hand, I don't want my kids to get polio either. (which is why they did receive the DtaP vaccine). I do not fear mild diseases such as chicken pox.

I know vaccines are not "safe" in our commonly understood meaning of the word. They may offer benefits, but they all carry risks. I guess with imperfect information, doing a proper risk:benefit analysis is pretty much impossible. I also fear we've lost the knowledge and wisdom our grandparents had in treating these childhood illnesses.

It's a tough one. But I do know that the only one who can make the decision whether to vaccinate my children are their parents. No one else has the right.

Anonymous Maximo Macaroni May 04, 2015 5:40 AM  

The question for me is why do so many proponents of vaccines go so far in their advocacy? Memories of children in iron lungs are powerful in us old folks, but certainly declining as the baby boomers pass away. Is it comparable to global warming baloney in being inspired by the fear that if you let the "God-botherers" get away with denying what the government calls science, soon they will stop paying taxes and start having their children bring automatic weapons to school.?
A nephew of mine has a (recovered) autistic child. I fear he has gone off the deep end the other way, blaming vaccines with insufficient evidence. But I keep coming back to, so what if he is not entirely right? How much harm can one unvaccinated child do?

Blogger bethyada May 04, 2015 5:41 AM  

While vaccination should always be optional (as opposed to isolation which may sometimes be permissibly compulsory) I think your last paragraph is incorrect. If vaccination is successful then it will prevent deaths and eventually deaths from the vaccine will overtake the deaths from the disease. Deaths prevented are not really "hypothetical" on those terms. Compare the US with say 90% vaccine coverage to 0% vaccine coverage for a transmissible disease. The later will have a lower number of vaccine deaths but a higher number of disease deaths. The total number of deaths from vaccines and disease need to be compared, and this needs to consider what the death rate would be sans vaccine.

Anonymous Rufus May 04, 2015 5:44 AM  

I like your last 3 paragraphs - that the risk of 1. contracting the disease and 2. developing complications and 3. dying from those complications is very, very low. In fact you have a higher rate of dying from the measles vaccine induced complications that from vaccines.

I drink raw milk because I believe it is a superior product than pasteurized. I have worked in the industry long enough to have some idea what goes on on standard dairy farms..

I find it telling that a lot of the same arguments are used by pro-vaccination evangelists as they are by the anti-raw milk crowd. Fact: more people get sick and die after consuming pasteurized dairy (and green salad leaves, fresh vegetables, processed meats, seafood etc - you never hear the government suggesting you stop eating those though, do you?). Deaths attributable to consuming raw milk in the last 5 years? 10 years? None.

(I gotta set up an account - this new captcha is a nuisance)

Blogger Rantor May 04, 2015 6:21 AM  

And the odds of a reaction are significantly less at 18 months... So if the child is being properly cared for at home it appears to me that there is no need to vaccinate before 18 months, and I bet the numbers get even better at 24 months.

If you are cautious and delay vaccination start to the 24 month point, the child will still be fully vaccinated by the beginning of first grade. Of course home schooling means no educator checking shot records anyway.

Anonymous Rhys O'Reilly May 04, 2015 6:26 AM  

A nephew of mine has a (recovered) autistic child.

How did he recover?


(I gotta set up an account - this new captcha is a nuisance)

That maybe the intention of making it so annoying.

Blogger Vox May 04, 2015 6:34 AM  

If vaccination is successful then it will prevent deaths and eventually deaths from the vaccine will overtake the deaths from the disease. Deaths prevented are not really "hypothetical" on those terms. Compare the US with say 90% vaccine coverage to 0% vaccine coverage for a transmissible disease. The later will have a lower number of vaccine deaths but a higher number of disease deaths. The total number of deaths from vaccines and disease need to be compared, and this needs to consider what the death rate would be sans vaccine.

Let reason be silent when experience gainsays its conclusions. You didn't even read the links to my past work on the subject that I've posted.

I estimate that the MAXIMUM number of measles deaths in America, were there ZERO measles vaccinations, would likely be around 200 per year. Even partial and fully voluntary vaccinations given at school age would considerably cut that number down. There is absolutely no rational case for mandatory universal vaccinations.

You will note that no one has ever volunteered to debate me on this. The facts are that conclusive.

Blogger WhiteKnight May 04, 2015 6:36 AM  

"But even if one sets aside the science and the history of vaccines, one doesn't need to be against vaccines or even to question the idea of their unmitigated beneficence in order to strongly oppose the idea of the government universally and forcibly dictating the injection of substances for which there is no legal liability by people for whom there is no legal accountability, without consent or even parental consent, into every single infant in the nation."


This is the single most important point you made.

Anonymous Eric the Red May 04, 2015 6:46 AM  

Since the CA legislature has long been infested with and controlled by leftists, one can assume that they are the ones pushing this kind of law. Meanwhile, that Arrogant Pustule on the Ass of the Body Politic (aka Obama) and his CDC have maintained a policy of letting in every Ebola infested immigrant who wants to come over, as well as all US citizens that have come back from high-risk areas.

Once again, it is obvious that this is all about control by the leftist trash that controls most of the country, and certainly not about health.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler May 04, 2015 7:10 AM  

And this is the raison d' etre of the sentiment: strongly oppose the idea of the government universally and forcibly dictating.

Anti-Authoritarianism. We all must suppose that the "government" because it is soooooo evallllll that it just thought out of the blue: Hey, Let's F*ck with the people and make them take vaccines just for the hell of it!

Recent events of Ferguson and Baltimore and now this shooting at an art event exhibiting, what else, cartoons of Muhammad, showcase the vacuity of Liberalism; it's total failure.

As a Catholic of the Old Order, of Monarchy, it is funny to see democratic types cry and whine at events when Pre-Vatican II Catholic authoritarianism would not have let these things even exist to cause trouble. The anti-vaccination crusade is just another facet of anti-authoritarianism because the sheepel know better. America, the home of sheepels par excellence, is a great example of the expertise of sheepel.

Don't you dare tell me what to do! The cry of Eric Garner, Michael Brown, and Freddie Gray. Amazingly these people have their counterparts in the intelligentsia. Why do you think that Jesus, the ultimate purveyor of wisdom, calls people 'sheep' and that His Church, as shepherd, is designed to be authoritarian?

Anti-authoritarianism is a dangerous road to follow just as the anti-discrimination road is dangerous to follow, i.e. homosexuality is now normalized. The anti-vaccination crusade is about teaching anti-authoritarianism. Once the concept is planted, it grows to other places, like a plague.

Don't you dare tell me what to do!

Anonymous PhillipGeorge©2015 May 04, 2015 7:45 AM  

anti vaccination crusade; are you batshit crazy? No, don't answer that.

there used to be a dictum "first do no harm". It was never all that useful because knowledge is always perfectly incomplete. God, of course, doesn't suffer from that.

What is human, what are optimal conditions to thrive and reproduce hasn't ever been sufficiently dealt with. Half the earth are vitamin D deficient is fairly recent news.

someone needed to read that, or I trust I wouldn't have posted it. Shine on you crazy diamond if this were a pop song. Head for the hills, if you are more into literature. Trace minerals, vitamins, alkalize, oxygenate and chlll out, for everyone else. Placebo work so this post is healing you.







Blogger Salt May 04, 2015 7:55 AM  

The anti-vaccination crusade is just another facet of anti-authoritarianism because the sheepel know better.

Flip it. The pro-vaccination crusade is just another facet of the pro-homosexual, pro-surveillance, pro this or that. People in power know better, because?

As a Catholic of the Old Order

Divine revelation?

Anonymous Godscalc May 04, 2015 8:27 AM  

No, WLW, it's not anti-authoritarian, it's anti-totalitarian. What king or society of the ancien regime would have even conceived of, let alone enacted, a policy of forcibly injections on pain of imprisonment? They considered themselves bound by natural and divine law. Our totalitarian elites today see no law higher than themselves. And to top it off, if you live in a democracy, you will be told that it was your will that put the policy into effect, even it was a matter that was never put to the vote. I would think all of this would be quite disturbing for any "Catholic of the Old Order."

Blogger David May 04, 2015 8:43 AM  

VD, thanks for keeping this subject in the cue. The current mandatory-vaccine Narrative is a key component of modern collectivism, a poster child for One Policy for All, because All Sheep Are The Same.

Collectivism, whether right, left, religious or otherwise is an absurdity. There are questions that have universally correct answers (Thou Shall Not Kill) and achieve those answers by acclamation, thus requiring virtually zero coercion to promulgate.

Questions that fail to produce widespread agreement due to the usually faulty rationalizations used to justify them are the hallmark of totalitarian collectivism, because they require high levels of coercion to enforce and such violence against people simply going their own way axiomatically produces chaos, not order.

I don't consider "formal education" to be a qualify/disqualify conditional, but for the record I've a MS degree in biology and a BA in microbiology (with plenty of immunology thrown in), plus 17 years in the pharmaceutical industry. In my view, I'd trust NOTHING that comes out of Merck or any other manufacturer of vaccines.

Blogger David May 04, 2015 8:52 AM  

@ WLW "Anti-Authoritarianism. We all must suppose that the "government" because it is soooooo evallllll that it just thought out of the blue: Hey, Let's F*ck with the people and make them take vaccines just for the hell of it!"

Are you retarded? We're talking about tens of billions of dollars here. If that's "just for the hell of it" in your world, I'm a squirrel.

Imagine you're a high level executive, even one of the Medical Executives in a major pharma firm. You discover data questioning the safety or efficacy of your product (already approved, or in the pipeline) and your firm has LITERALLY a $billion invested. Your job, your prestige, the mortgage on your $1.8 million home is hanging in the balance.

Do you re-examine the data to pound it like clay until the risks you "thought" you saw quietly disappear, or do you pull the pin on a figurative hand grenade that will destroy your future?

The Modern Corporation has evolved to make "good decisions" almost impossible. Diffuse (or no) accountability, vast sums of money involved and a version of groupthink that shames most others are the hallmarks of "business" today, and it saturates pharmaceutical, medical device and medical industry firms top to bottom.

This is NOT a system from which truth will surface.

Anonymous Thales May 04, 2015 9:17 AM  

"Hey, let's create an adversarial relationship between a doctor and his patient! That's a great idea! Nothing could possibly go wrong with that..."

Blogger David May 04, 2015 9:22 AM  

"'Hey, let's create an adversarial relationship between a doctor and his patient! That's a great idea! Nothing could possibly go wrong with that...'"

Obamacare.

Blogger Cail Corishev May 04, 2015 9:25 AM  

We all must suppose that the "government" because it is soooooo evallllll that it just thought out of the blue: Hey, Let's F*ck with the people and make them take vaccines just for the hell of it!

A little hyperbole is cool. A lot makes you look desperate, like you think if you wave your arms crazily enough people won't notice you pulling the rabbit out of your ass.

As a traditional Catholic fan of monarchy myself, I have to say, you're one of the best I've seen at taking things which are often true and presenting them in a way that makes them sound ridiculous or insane.

Blogger YIH May 04, 2015 9:55 AM  

I used to think this was tinfoil.
Then I started hearing ''Your kid can't come to [school/daycare/ect] because they're not vaccinated!''. Supposedly because that unvaccinated person will infect others with [disease].
Doesn't that say something about the effectiveness of vaccines?
Assuming X is not vaccinated, is assuming X has [disease]. As well as assuming that X is infected and will transmit [disease] to Y who is vaccinated.
IOW, Y is admitting that the vaccine they got won't protect them from [disease] that X may not even have!
Think about the hype you hear about 'the flu shot' du jour, isn't that claimed to protect you from the flu?

Blogger Emmanuel Mateo-Morales May 04, 2015 9:58 AM  

@David

"(Thou Shall Not Kill)"

God fucking damn it. No asshole, it's not, nor has it ever been, Thou Shall Not Kill. It's Thou Shall Not Murder. There's a very crucial difference between Killing and Murder, okay, and considering there was a death penalty that could be used against a person for the Israelites and the Israelites had an army, and the Israelites NEEDED FOOD TO SURVIVE which would require the killing of many plants and animals, it'd be really ironic if it were Kill and not Murder.

Blogger David May 04, 2015 10:02 AM  

Emaanuel, thank you for throwing in an insult. It's always nice to have a handle on the level of intelligence enjoyed by a commenter.

Forgive me for using the traditional form of the Commandment. Reasonably intelligent people intuitively know God was not commanding vegetarianism, or that self-defense was prohibited (as failure to secure ones own life surely is to insult the great gift God had granted.)

Have a nice day.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler May 04, 2015 10:06 AM  

Aristotle backs up Christ's words when he says that "man is a SOCIAL animal". The Greek word is "politike" where we calque the word "politics" from but the meaning of the Greek is "social" not the English meaning of "politics". The word in Greek means society. The context of the phrase exists amongst references to herd animals.

I've worked on farms. Every farmer inoculates his herd. He doesn't ask each cow what he wants to have done with him. In Texas, I watched as the cows go thru the shoot, they are stabbed with anti-biotics and have their horns chopped off and (if they are male) then their balls chopped off. It is an assembly line. Every farmer treats his herd the same way whether horses, cows, pigs or chickens. You have a bunch of animals living in a tight environment, and you must treat every cow.

I wish more people would have an agrarian experience. Here in Michigan, when some inflamatory disease (forget the name of it) from deer passes into the herd of cows, the whole herd has to be put down. You save other herds in the state but culling the infected herd. It is the prudence of the statement "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out".

The same thing with Christmas Trees. There is a type of blight that can't be stopped. The only way is to chop down the grove and start over again.

With corn, there is a type of fungus blight. The Farmer sprays the WHOLE field. So in cases of farming, you spray the whole field; you innoculate the whole herd. This is agrarian/farming wisdom.

People are NO different from Nature!!! We are animals. We live IN Nature. Most Modern thought is divorced from the Natural World. Most of the comments here are dabbled in Modern Political Thought of Orwells 1984, and Hayeks works and others. We all shape this in the French Revolutionary memes of "totalitarianism" and "authoritarianism", etc.

Every farmer is an authoritarian. Every farmer is a totalitarian. He controls the barnyard. The good Monarch is the same way; his race is his farm where he is farming his kind. We are social animals that spread pathogens no different that what affects bovines, horses and chickens.

As a philosopher one must see the future. If the Second Coming is not around the corner, we must reconstitute Western Civilizaiton (because it is gone now). If you base the future on Libertarianism, like it is now, it will only fail again. The Bavarian Catholic Monarchy lasted 800 years. The Orthodox Russian Monarchy lasted a while too. Libertarianism can not prevent subversion. Only Authoritarianism can. If you attack authoritarianism, which is part of Patriarchy, you are setting yourselves up for disaster.

The basic premise of all politics must rest on Aristotle's observation that Man is a Social Animal. That is the Foundation of all right, true, Political thought. And what is a Social Animal? Family.

This is all totally against ione half of the deas of Individualism of the so-called (atheist) Enlightenment; the other half is evolution and Tikkun Olam of fixing this world.

Anonymous Dr. J May 04, 2015 10:14 AM  

Let them pass the requirement. Anything that steers parents away from the public school meat grinder is a net gain. Compulsory vaccination as a requirement for public school attendance is the usual type of legislative overreach that backfires spectacularly.

The letter above is a near-ideal response, but will be completely ignored in much the same way climate-change "deniers" are marginalized. Take home for those of the Ilk persuasion - get your kids as far from the public schools as possible.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 May 04, 2015 10:17 AM  

Funny how California wants to make something mandatory that no one, besides the US taxpayer, bears any legal liability for.

In other words, should a vaccine harm a child, the California state government, the doctors and nurses who administered the vaccine, and the companies who manufactured the vaccine have no legal liability in the United States. Only every other US taxpayer does as all vaccine cases are handled by a special court system managed by the Department of Health and Human Services.

Anonymous dw May 04, 2015 10:39 AM  

Wheeler, nobody gives a shit if cows or Christmas trees get autism from vaccines. People do, however, care if their kids suddenly come home with a mental disorder from one of Big Pharma's aborted fetal cell vaccines.

Blogger Tallawampus May 04, 2015 10:55 AM  

As a pediatrician who vaccinates kids I like to think of myself as one of the More Vile of the Vile Faceless Minions (#0198). I’m serenaded daily by the sweet sound of screaming babies being impaled on the needles of my nurses! Kate the Impaler? Hah! How many people has she ordered impaled today? Me? I’ve already ordered the impaling of 2 infants! Ah, the sweet, sweet screams.

Anyway. Vaccines are medications like any other. They are not safe anymore than Tylenol is safe. Or Benadryl. Both of those medications have serious side effects and are not safe the way most people think of safe. I obviously think vaccine’s benefits outweigh their risks.

That being said California is going the wrong way with mandating vaccines. Parents have the ultimate responsibility for their children’s welfare, not the state. I’m a bit of a pediatric aberration though since I also think it’s a parent’s right to smack their kids if they need smacking – and by gosh there are a lot of 13 year olds out there that need a good slap across the face.

Oh, and I don’t make my kids where those stupid bike helmets.

Vile Faceless Minion #0198

Blogger Dwight House May 04, 2015 11:32 AM  

Something I don't understand. Can someone explain to me how an unvaccinated child poses a health risk to the larger pro-vaccine culture? Assuming the pro-vaccine person's logic, if the child (or his parent) is unvaccinated, then they can get infected with the disease the vaccine would, in theory, prevent. However, if the majority of the pro-vaccine culture is already vaccinated, because they are pro-vaccine, they are therefore immune, right? So choosing to be unvaccinated could, at most, only harm the unvaccinated (in terms of disease transmission and acquisition), right?

Blogger Derrick Bonsell May 04, 2015 11:45 AM  

It's a moral hysteria, like the one surrounding smoking or obesity. It doesn't matter that it's hardly a major issue. It's not important that the risks are insanely overstated. What matters is that if you take the side that smoking is evil or obesity is cripplingly expensive, then you are morally superior to those who think the risks are overblown.

Blogger Derrick Bonsell May 04, 2015 11:47 AM  

If find the "herd immunity" arguments interesting. The idea is that some children cannot receive the vaccines due to various health problems and that healthy unvaccinated children can be carriers. Well that begs the question. If those children can't get vaccinated then they have no immunity on their own. However, the healthy child has to get it from someone else as well, whether vaccinated or not.

Anonymous BigGaySteve May 04, 2015 11:54 AM  

The risk vs. benefit debate can best be seen in Garnisil with different benefits for girls vs. boys. Patriot Nurse was almost fired for advocating risk vs. benefit.

somewhere between 5 and 15 percent of the population are simply never going to fit the "one size fits all approach",

Dare we say NON-ASIAN MINORITIES SUFFER MOST as they do in all other aspects of life. R vs. K

"I drink raw milk because I believe it is a superior product than pasteurized. I have "

CA is broke but does door to door raids for raw milk because they can not stand the thought that the queen of England drank raw milk every day of her life but a Nigerian Prince couldn't. The ability to drink milk as is genetic & lacking in the 3rd world. http://www.nature.com/news/archaeology-the-milk-revolution-1.13471

"Half the earth are vitamin D deficient is fairly recent news."

Even white people can be vit d deficient with how little many go outside. D3 is the type of vitamin you want paired with calcium if you don't get enough of that either. Bringing blacks out of the tropics makes them suffer worse.(seems to be a theme here)

If vaccination is successful then it will prevent deaths and eventually deaths from the vaccine will overtake the deaths from the disease.

If people die due to Dodo & T-Rex eradication programs wouldn't it be better to just control the borders.

"point to irrelevant historical statistics"

One point of the irrelevant historical info is that if some of the early reactions happened today they would never be associated back because they didn't happen immediately. If someone drops dead with a needle still in their arm its a sure bet its bad heroin but a reaction that happens a week or so later would only be noticeable when no other causes provided background noise.

"Can someone explain to me how an unvaccinated child poses a health risk to the larger pro-vaccine culture"

There will always be some people who for various reasons cant get vaccinated or have a low vaccine response like infants & elderly. Keep in mind that vaccine take time to build immunity so that vaccine you had to get to enter NICU wont actually be working for a month & but the illegal aliens visiting their kids can still spread it.

Anonymous BigGaySteve May 04, 2015 12:08 PM  

"Half the earth are vitamin D deficient is fairly recent news."

For any survivalists here you can grow your own D3. Here is a letter someone with the 1st initial S posted on survivalblog with the hardest to get in a SHTF situation D, C & plant based omega 3
http://survivalblog.com/letter-re-vitamins-in-a-grid-down-situation/

(I gotta set up an account - this new captcha is a nuisance)- - VOX regularly provides me with wedding cakes via captcha

Blogger Aeoli Pera May 04, 2015 12:10 PM  

"""
Seditious behavior is everywhere. I was watching one of Seth MacFarlane's cartoons the other night -- forget which one -- and a character was saying, "People need to know the diference in organic food and that vaccines are ..." The sentence was cut off by another character, deliberately. I thought it was ingenious -- all you need to say is "vaccines are ..." in the context of healthy choices, and people know where you are going, without having to get it past the censors or sponsors. In fact, it cleverly nodded to the fact that "unsafe" or "unnecessary" are words that must not be spoken.

This follows an episode of American Dad a few months ago that was much more explicit -- Dad says to his son Steve, who dreams only of being a backup dancer: “We really should have spaced out your vaccines.”
"""

http://www.ageofautism.com/2014/05/age-of-autism-midweek-mashup-angry-people.html

Anonymous clk May 04, 2015 12:14 PM  

"(I gotta set up an account - this new captcha is a nuisance)- - VOX regularly provides me with wedding cakes via captcha"

Exactly ...What the hell is this new captcha .. you got to pick the pictures that look like cake/soup but half the image is missing and cant be scrolled down and theres no enter button... what idiotic programmer came up with this...

Blogger guest May 04, 2015 12:19 PM  

Wow! Tetyana Obukhanych, PhD--Profile in Courage.

Blogger Cail Corishev May 04, 2015 12:32 PM  

I've worked on farms. Every farmer inoculates his herd.

False. I don't. I know other farmers who don't. Start over.

Blogger Russell May 04, 2015 12:44 PM  

"that any law that would impose such a draconian vaccine regime on the general population is unconscionable, guaranteed to cause more harm than it prevents, and certain to fail in its stated objectives."

This seems to be the standard of all government meddling.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler May 04, 2015 1:01 PM  

Are there problems in the vaccination department?

Yes.

Can things be tweaked?

Yes.

Is there corruption and abuse in the vaccination department?

Yes.

Just because there are problems doesn't mean, logically, that the whole institution, be overthrown. What I observe is that the cause of Libertarianism is being smuggled underneath the anti-vaccination campaign or better yet, the Anti-Vaccination campaign IS the cause of an anarchist movement called Libertarianism which in itself is Nihilist, subversive, and deficient.

The government can mandate things. The Government mandates us to buy car insurance. The Government of Switzerland and Greece mandates that all males enlist. The ancient Roman government mandated that certain classes of people, the pagani, stay on their lands and farm. They couldn't move off their lands and do something else. All government is tasked with accomplishing The Common Good.

I'm arguing that a medical/sociological/biological event not be hijacked by a political movement/ideology. What does political ideology have to do with sound medical biological sociological events? NOTHING. There is a political message underneath the anti-vaccination campaign. That is immoral and unethical. Furthermore, this political movement has no reliable historical event that proves its efficacy.

Talk on vaccinations, on vaccination theory and science alone and leave politics OUT OF IT.

The problem is the assertion that "government can't" and the implied teaching that we are to rebel. St. Paul said to be subject to the authority of one's government. Government is tasked with The Common Good. It is its duty to perform. If something needs to be corrected, Correct it. There is NO need to attach a political message to it. You are all inserting politics in something that shouldn't have politics in it. The Government has a right to ensure The Common Good. You have no moral authority to rebel against The Common Good.

Blogger Cail Corishev May 04, 2015 1:14 PM  

Can someone explain to me how an unvaccinated child poses a health risk to the larger pro-vaccine culture?

Here's the logic, such as it is. Being vaccinated isn't a 100% guarantee against infection. The more virulent the infection, the higher the chance that you'll get it despite the vaccine. The larger the unvaccinated population, the more the bug has a chance to grow and become more virulent, and the more chance there is that it will break into the vaccinated population.

However, that's pretty weak sauce. They're pushing vaccines for things like flu that don't necessarily even need a human carrier, let alone an unvaccinated one (a vaccinated person can be a carrier, after all). So whatever "herd immunity" there is to be gained, it doesn't make much difference whether you've vaccinated 95% of the herd or 98%. The bug is out there, and either the vaccinated members of the herd are safe or they're not.

If their logic were correct, the unvaccinated population, such as the Amish, should be swarming with all manner of diseases and dying off left and right. They aren't.

Blogger Cail Corishev May 04, 2015 1:24 PM  

Exactly ...What the hell is this new captcha

I think Vox has mentioned before that this site uses an older Blogger template which is no longer supported, and the new captcha doesn't fit into the space allowed. Using development tools in a browser, you can change the CSS on the div and give it more space, but it's a pain because it's pulled in through an iframe and....not a quick fix.

As others have said, you can create a throwaway gmail account and use that, and you'll never get the captcha. That's annoying if you're trying to use your real gmail account in other tabs at the same time, but it works.

Blogger Cail Corishev May 04, 2015 1:24 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous Curious but not an SJW May 04, 2015 1:49 PM  

There is some comment on here position:

Why does this immunologist reject vaccinations

These days when I see claims that vaccination eliminated smallpox alarm bells ring.

Anonymous Curious but not an SJW May 04, 2015 1:53 PM  

OK, here is the link:

Why does this immunologist reject vaccinations?

Blogger JaimeInTexas May 04, 2015 2:19 PM  

W.LindsayWheeler:

Do you think that there are such things as legitimate and illegitimate authorities.

Blogger luagha May 04, 2015 2:44 PM  


As I always bring up in vaccination discussions, Hillary Clinton is the one who destroyed America's immunization regime. In one of the few things she did as Senator, she sponsored the program that made the US Government the biggest purchaser of immunizations for children - ending up with the FedGov being about 55% of the market in vaccines.

Then the FedGov lowered the price they were willing to pay and the manufacturers could either take it or lump it.

At the time, there were about 25 different manufacturers of vaccines, some general, some specialized, and they competed against one another.

But at the new mandated prices, some couldn't compete. 20 left the market and the remaining 5 reformulated their vaccines to make production cheaper. Many moved their production lines to China (famed for their medical quality control). It was the only way to meet the price.

If you recall, that's when we had a big vaccine and flu shot shortage. And ever since then we've had further shortages because certain vaccines are made only by one manufacturer. If that one has a problem, we're out until they fix it.

Anonymous Will Best May 04, 2015 3:43 PM  

There is some comment on here position:

Why does this immunologist reject vaccinations


ahahaha he/she cited wikipedia as a rebuttal to an immunologist. ahahaha.

Anonymous BigGaySteve May 04, 2015 3:43 PM  

Scalzi may not be gay, but by all appearances he's missing a good chance...

He is too old and effeminate to be a catch.

"Exactly ...What the hell is this new captcha .. "

Maybe he thought the ilk are more tech savvy and the captcha would be harder on the SJWs to deal with. Its not like you can just scroll down.

Anonymous Curious but not an SJW May 04, 2015 3:53 PM  

ahahaha he/she cited wikipedia as a rebuttal to an immunologist. ahahaha.

Yes, I noticed that, but it was only a definitional issue.

Prolly should see what Immunologists say on that.

OpenID arhyalon May 04, 2015 4:26 PM  

Thank you.

Anonymous clk May 04, 2015 4:32 PM  

Big Steve says -- "Maybe he thought the ilk are more tech savvy and the captcha would be harder on the SJWs to deal with. Its not like you can just scroll down.ts not like you can just scroll down"

Theres a lot of range in term "tech savvy" ..

I will take the advice and set up a google acccount...

Anonymous DavidKathome May 04, 2015 5:51 PM  

They are not safe anymore than Tylenol is safe.

I never use Tylenol for that reason, pain is safer.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler May 04, 2015 6:05 PM  

In answer to jamie: I would say that a "illegitimate authority" is an oxymoron. There is no such thing as "illegitimate authority". You can have a "corrupted authority".

The word "authority" comes out of the Latin. It was part and parcel of Roman civilization. Authority was an integral part of it. There were four types of "auctoritas". So it is part of our Graeco-Roman heritage and thus an integral part of Western Civlization. One can see its operations in the Greek city-states as well, but they didn't use the word "authority".

The question is can an acholic father still be an authority? When he comes home and beats his son and whacks him up side the head because he is drunk, is he still the father of the family? Just because he abuses his son, doesn't change his authority or his position as father. He is a bad father. When he is drunk, he can not excercise authority. He may say stuff while drunk, but being inebriated cancels out all authority. Commonsense then jumps in and cancels out his authority. Only when he is sober and in his right mind, does he have authority. Does an acholic father have illegitimate authority? It is the wrong use of words and adjectives and of operation. Being drunk cancels OUT his authority does not make it "illegitimate". Once his drunk is over, his authority returns.

The same goes for a bishop who is a heretic. Once a bishop becomes a heretic-----it cancels out his authority. But once he returns to orthodoxy, his authority does return.

The same thing in the military. A soldier obeys all commands of his officer. Soldiers always give benefit of the doubt as well. But once an officer commits some egregious form, displays some outrageous command, his authority leaves him; it doesn't become "illegitimate".

If someone stole an election, and gains an office, he is illegitimate and never had authority in the first place. Illegitimate persons in office are illegitimate and never hold authority; never held it in the first place. So again, "Illegitimate authority" is an oxymoron.

What we have here in America is a corrupted state. It is a failed state. It is a Marxist state that does hold authority still. We, as Christians, may not like it but it is still an authority, much like the pagan Roman Empire was the authority. Christians were duly bound to obey the dictates of the pagan Roman emperors. The Church Fathers always pointed out that Christians made the best citizens. But once Roman emperors commanded something against their religion, Christians could not obey in just this one instance. It did not give them carte blanche to disregard all law of the Roman Empire.

We live in an essentially rebuilt Roman Empire which is not staffed by anything like a virtuous pagan. We live under a regime of barbarian reprobates. We live under people who hate us. But they are still an authority for they hold the reigns of government. Our forefathers, the WASPs who were enthralled with "Enlightenment" teachings set this up. Just because we don't like it, doesn't make us not obey the laws of the land. Only when they directly counterdict our religious teachings must we not comply. But that doesn't end their authority. They are NOT "illegitimate authorities". They are Marxist, reprobate barbarians but the people of the US elected them into office.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler May 04, 2015 6:07 PM  

(Because I ran out of space, this is Part II)

Authority is authority. There is different types of authority. Authority is never illegitimate. But it can be canceled out. Authority can be canceled. Authority can be canceled out by revolution or by counter-revolution. To solve your problem in America, there has to be a lot of killing like Generalissmo Franco had to do. That is how you Solve YOUR problem. The WASPs and atheists canceled out the authority of English parliment and of King George and instituted themselves. The Prots canceled out the authority of the Bishop of Rome and made the Bible the authority. But there is no such thing as "illegitimate authority". (I could be persuaded if someone makes a sound argument for it though. I have yet to comprehend such act but I am open to it.)

Blogger subject by design May 04, 2015 7:16 PM  

The DTaP vaccine does not contain the polio vaccine, at least not in the U.S. It stands for Diphtheria, Tetanus, and acellular Pertussis. No polio.

minion #0229

Blogger JaimeInTexas May 04, 2015 8:29 PM  

Very good Wheeler. Usurpation is a word that you may want to add to your toolbox.
Authority, though, becomes an usurper when it crosses into areas out of their jurisdiction. Usurpers ard to be opposed. Now, we also must be wise as to how and when to oppose usurpers, especially when they are violent snd prone to use all their means to bury any challenges.

Anonymous DT May 04, 2015 8:42 PM  

Let reason be silent when experience gainsays its conclusions. You didn't even read the links to my past work on the subject that I've posted.

Looking at bethyada's post and your reply...what am I missing?

Est. max measles deaths in 0% vaccination scenario: 200 per year

Est. measles vaccination deaths since 2003: 108, or 10.8 per year*

* Assuming "since 2003" means end of 2003, and 2015 isn't done yet, so 108/10.

That would appear to make bethyada's point.

Now his point..and he qualified this...does not undermine your general argument, much less justify forced vaccinations. As you said, partial vaccination scenarios would cut the number down, likely to 0 at a vaccination rate well below 100%.

But it still looks like his narrow criticism of that specific paragraph is valid. So honest question: what did I miss?

** From now on I'm going to refer to anyone who promotes forced vaccinations as a "violent vaxxer". Being willing to use force of law means you are willing to use violence via proxy, so that's an accurate label.

Anonymous The other robot (who regularly avoids the captcha) May 04, 2015 8:59 PM  

"I drink raw milk because I believe it is a superior product than pasteurized. I have "

CA is broke but does door to door raids for raw milk because they can not stand the thought that the queen of England drank raw milk every day of her life but a Nigerian Prince couldn't. The ability to drink milk as is genetic & lacking in the 3rd world. http://www.nature.com/news/archaeology-the-milk-revolution-1.13471


That's does not make sense. Pasteurized or not, a Nigerian Prince still would not be able to drink it.

Anonymous The other robot May 04, 2015 9:06 PM  

If vaccination is successful then it will prevent deaths and eventually deaths from the vaccine will overtake the deaths from the disease.

In the case of Polio, what is the claimed rate of an immune response from administration of the Polio vaccine vs the observed rate of immunity from naturally contracting Polio?

What is the actual rate of death or paralysis from Polio?

Much of the data is in Wikipedia and it does not suggest to me that vaccination is a better strategy and it certainly seems like the oral vaccination is much better (albeit yielding less profit for the pharma companies.)

Blogger subject by design May 04, 2015 9:20 PM  

The oral polio vaccine contains live virus which is shed in the stool of the vaccinated for about six months. In the U.S., the only cases of polio contracted here since the 70's were from the shedding of the virus from vaccinated kids. In 3rd world countries where they have open sewers or no sewers, this is even more dangerous. This is the reason the oral vaccine was discontinued in the U.S. not because it was less profitable.

Anonymous The other robot (who regularly avoids the captcha) May 04, 2015 9:38 PM  

In the U.S., the only cases of polio contracted here since the 70's were from the shedding of the virus from vaccinated kids.

You forgot to provide evidence for you claim. However, it sure seems like vaccination is not a good idea, then.

Anonymous BGS May 04, 2015 9:38 PM  

"The ability to drink milk as is genetic & lacking in the 3rd world. http://www.nature.com/news/archaeology-the-milk-revolution-1.13471
That's does not make sense. Pasteurized or not, a Nigerian Prince still would not be able to drink it."

Those having trouble drinking milk like the Nigerian prince would have even more problems with Raw milk. Milk is used in making lots of things like gay wedding cakes and things eaten more often. The left would hate to warn people not to share their raw milk flan or gay wedding cake with blacks.

Anonymous The other robot (who regularly avoids the captcha) May 04, 2015 9:42 PM  

Also, on the claim of live vaccines in the oral vaccine, you are telling is that the vaccinated kids who received these live vaccines did not get polio but some other kids did?

Surely you left something out of the story!

Anonymous rtp May 04, 2015 10:06 PM  

the entire so-called success of vaccines is nothing more than a self-fulfilling prophecy. There is no valid evidence that there has been a real fall in polio/measles/diphtheria/pertussis/rubella etc rather what has happened is that doctors just changed the labels of these diseases when they saw them in vaccinated patients.

This makes sense because once they introduce a vaccine doctors are prejudiced against diagnosing that condition based on their belief/hope that the vaccine will work (that is why the gold standard for testing is supposed to be a *double* blind placebo trial - the doctor is not supposed to know you received the treatment because it will bias their diagnoses but of course the data that is used to prove that vaccines work is not blinded).

And what is more, health bureaucracies will explicitly encourage this bias www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/surv-manual/chpt07-measles.html

with the quote: " To minimize the problem of false positive laboratory results, it is important to restrict case investigation and laboratory tests to patients most likely to have measles (i.e., those who meet the clinical case definition, especially if they have risk factors for measles, such as being unvaccinated,[...]"

And this is for diphtheria: "Because diphtheria has occurred only rarely in the United States in recent years, many clinicians may not include diphtheria in their differential diagnoses. Clinicians are reminded to consider the diagnosis of respiratory diphtheria in patients with membranous pharyngitis and who are not up-to-date with vaccination against diphtheria."http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/surv-manual/chpt01-dip.html

So let's just look at how each vaccine fares against something that a) is significant (and we were promised we would get from each vaccine); and b) can and has actually been measured in a non-self fulfilling prophecy manner.

The purpose of measles vaccine was to reduce the *total* number of people with encephalitis. There was no significant reduction.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2870605/

The purpose of rubella vaccine was to reduce the *total* number of kids with congenital defects. There was no significant reduction http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5701a2.htm.

The purpose of the polio vaccine was to reduce the *total* number of crippled children, etc. There was no significant reduction

extranet.who.int/polis/public/CaseCount.aspx (see data for India in 1996 and again in 2014) as well ashttp://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v18n6/v18n6p20.pdf andhttp://www.census.gov/people/disability/ publications/sipp2010.html (Table A-4) (for disability rates).

The purpose of the diphtheria/pertussis vaccine was to dramatically reduce the number of kids hospitalised with respiratory infections. But hospitalisations due to respiratory infections are now extremely common. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0804877.

The purpose of the Hep B vaccine was to reduce the *total* number of people with liver cancer. Rates in the US have tripled since the introduction of the vaccine. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19224838

The purpose of the Hib vaccine was to reduce the total number of cases of meningitis/pneumonia/sepsis. It did no such thing. http://www9.health.gov.au/cda/source/rpt_2.cfm... (look at meningococcal disease (invasive) and pneumococcal disease (invasive))

And so on and so forth. When you try and marry up the vaccine against the *real world problem* it was supposed to address (as opposed to the number of germs found in the patient's body) it is always an abject failure.

I will give this one non-government site as a link - www.childhealthsafety.com/graphs (all of the data comes from government mortality data) which shows that even if you ignore the pro-treatment bias of doctors and trust the government data, there is no way you can claim that vaccines have saved millions of lives.

Anonymous rtp May 04, 2015 10:08 PM  

To give an idea of what the diseases have been relabelled as anybody can type in measles/pertussis/etc and 'differential diagnosis' into google. But as a start, measles has been renamed roseola, fifth disease, etc; polio has been renamed Guillain Barre, transverse myelitis, coxsackie (we actually use more respirators today than we ever did iron lungs by the way it is just that iron lungs were too expensive and dangerous to keep using); diphtheria/pertussis were renamed respiratory syncytial virus, croup, strep, tonsillitis etc; hepatitis was renamed Hep C, Hep D etc; meningitis/pneumonia/sepsis blamed on Hib was renamed meningitis/pneumonia/sepsis blamed on some other bacteria; smallpox was renamed monkey pox/severe chicken pox. Indeed the CDC actually admit that people have tested positive for smallpox virus since they declared it eradicated (http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/39/10/1477.long) but they always declared that it must have been a false positive because - in a wonderful piece of circular reasoning - smallpox doesn't exist anymore.

Anonymous DavidKathome May 04, 2015 10:22 PM  

That's does not make sense. Pasteurized or not, a Nigerian Prince still would not be able to drink it.

I drink raw milk, but I never had a problem with lactose intolerance for any type of milk. As part of some advertising I see for raw milk, the ad claims that even lactose intolerant people can drink raw milk, because it contains the enzymes needed to break down the milk sugars. I haven't talked to anyone who is lactose intolerant who can confirm that, so I don't know if that is true. I do know that pasteurization does destroy those enzymes, so it is at least theoretically possible. Pasteurization came about in the 19th century, is there documented cases of lactose intolerance before that?

Anonymous FriarBob May 04, 2015 10:33 PM  

Should I post this? Maybe not. Oh well, I will anyway.

Can vaccines work and help some people? Sometimes, yes. Maybe even most of the time.

Do they harm many MANY others? Yes, absolutely. In addition to the "low-responders" and those who have severe reactions, MANY others have "minor" reactions. These reactions are survivable. They don't result in ER visits. They're nearly impossible to prove with "traditional" medicine (what a farce to call it "traditional" given just how short a time it's been around, but you probably already knew that). But they do still exist. I am personal walking proof they both occur and are survivable... but can result in YEARS and even DECADES of struggle to cope with and repair the damage of these "minor" side effects.

I have no "proof" of how many are in this "minor" side-effect category. Probably not a huge number. It's not very likely to exceed 10%, it may be even as low as 1% (I doubt it, but as I have no proof either way I must admit it's possible). But I'm quite certain it's not one-in-a-million ultra-rare either.

Blogger Cuca Culpa May 05, 2015 5:52 AM  

Man, I hated vax. But that was the only machine the university let non CS students use.

In all seriousness, I dug out my old vaccine records from childhood yesterday. Mom kept very good records. Compared to the modern schedule, I had about 1/3 of what they pump into babies these days.

Anonymous Rhys O'Reilly May 05, 2015 5:56 AM  

@ FriarBob: Can you elaborate on the damage done to you and explain how you repaired the damage?

Blogger Marissa May 05, 2015 11:15 AM  

Milk is used in making lots of things like gay wedding cakes and things eaten more often. The left would hate to warn people not to share their raw milk flan or gay wedding cake with blacks.

I think the cooking process for flan or cake would cause the milk not to be raw anymore. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Would vaccinations be such a big issue if people didn't herd their children into daycares and schools? Homeschooled kids are near a much smaller number of children and adults, especially in the first years of their lives, unless you attend a large church. Homeschooling alone probably helps reduce exposure to the pathogens floating around a daycare or elementary school.

Much like pasteurizing milk was a response to the industrialization of the dairy industry (feeding cows improper food, nasty urban conditions, etc.), so vaccination seems to be a response to the industrialization of the education industry, where children are fed sugary, empty calories for breakfast and lunch, and crammed 20-30 to a daycare room or schoolroom, in a building a of hundreds.

Blogger subject by design May 05, 2015 6:02 PM  

Just a clarification on how people contract polio from the live polio (oral) vaccine: Baby takes the vaccine. Baby poops out the live virus. Grandma is wiping baby's but and gets fecal matter contamination on her hands. Grandma ingests virus. Gets polio. In third world countries without modern sewers, lots of people come into contact with the virus because it is being excreted by the babies who get the oral polio vaccine.

Anonymous FriarBob May 05, 2015 7:41 PM  

@Rhys O'Reilly

Some, at least. I don't think Vox would appreciate me writing the whole story as it's, well... VERY long.

But in short, my symptoms started with increased sensitivity to EMFs and relatively minor food sensitivities but proceeded to increased sensitivity to chemicals and eventually problem piled upon problem actually got to where I bought job-sponsored long-term disability insurance expecting a high likelihood of needing it. To be fair, that last part was NOT directly caused by the vaccines. I'd have to call it indirectly caused by them, and greatly exacerbated by work conditions I didn't realize (at the time) neither how bad they were nor how sensitive I was to them.

Fixing it has been a combination of multiple detox efforts, a homeopathy-based "reset" that attempted (mostly successfully) to "reset" my sensitivity levels, and years of nutritional supplements through AK-based systems to rebuild all the organ damage. Most of that is now finally done, I'm now working on what is (hopefully) one last homeopathy-based "final reset".

Part of the reason for the routes I took was of course personal bias against "traditional" medicine and especially drugs. But part of it was the employer who brought me to my worst state tried to fire me over the health problems and even ADA wasn't enough to save me from their efforts to protect themselves from the disaster they'd been at least 30% responsible for (probably more, but even in my dislike for them I will at least TRY to be fair). And this gave me a VERY good personal look at just how clueless the "traditional" medical establishment could be.

Not that it can't EVER do good and help people. I've also had some satisfactory experiences with the "traditional" medical establishment too. Nor for that matter is it even necessarily incapable of admitting mistakes and attempting to make good on them. It's not going to want to, but if you prove it carefully enough they'll do it.

Just don't hold your breath waiting for it if the vaccine golden calf is threatened.

Blogger Marissa May 06, 2015 1:43 PM  

. But part of it was the employer who brought me to my worst state tried to fire me over the health problems

Dang, Holy Mother Church needs to be more merciful with you friars.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts