Vaccines: Good or Bad?

[HolisticKids]

The danger is someone with a curable illness goes with some phoney treatment while their illness gets to the point of being uncureable. It's ok to use alternative treatments as long as you don't kill yourself or your children for lack of real treatment.

I'm reminded of a couple who I did a job for. They had a child. Because of their counter culture views they believed vacines were bad. Their son was one of only a few to get polio and be parilized right her in California. For want a free sugar cube because of a counter culture notion he never walked.


Mike

Hmm, I think it's the other way around. I've seen way too many people, both children and adults - including myself, who have been damaged by what you are calling "real treatment". Thank goodness for the holistic medicine that can undue the suppressive damage from the "real treatment" and really get to the core of the issue. But hey, if you believe it works for you, then keep on using it.

As someone who has extensively researched childhood vaccines for 12 years, all I can say is get educated about vaccines before labeling as "counter culture" educated, informed parents who are wise and brave enough to find out the facts and make informed decisions to protect their kids.

Jane

[HolisticKids]

[Jane is responding to some comments she received privately. Given the nature of the content/conversation, I am assuming it is fine with Michael that she responds publicly. -Barry]

Are you saying you favor not imunizing the children of the world against polio? We are close to eleminating that scurg from the face of this earth. Would you have health organizations stop now?

I’m saying that I’m in favor of giving the children of the world healthy food and water and strengthening their health and overall immunity in natural ways that will not only protect them against polio, but other diseases as well. I am not in favor of injecting dangerous shots in their already depleted bodies, which may or may not protect them, while at the same time further depleting their immunity and creating other chronic problems. If there’s enough money to give the world’s children vaccines (and there is), there is enough money and caring to give them what they really need. The only problem with improving food, water and sanitation is that it doesn’t profit the pharmaceutical companies.

The only reason your children may do well without polio vacine is because just about every other humun on the earth has been vacinated against it.

This is a false statement. My child is doing exceptionally well and it has nothing to do with any vaccine that others are using. She is extremely healthy because right from the start of her life, I have given her all the components of building and strengthening her overall health and immunity. She has the only true immunity that there is – natural immunity. She stays healthy during breakouts of diseases while the vaccinated kids get sick. This has been our experience over and over again.

Polio viruses are widespread in underdeveloped countries where sanitation is poor. Almost 100% of children develop antibodies on their own due to minor infection in infancy. Immunization campaigns have been associated with dramatic increases in polio cases in developing countries. Outbreaks continue to occur in vaccinated populations. Did you know that the only cases of polio in the U.S. since 1979 have been caused by the oral polio vaccine or contracted during travel?

The polio vaccine has questionable effectiveness. Many doctors and scientists refute the overused statement that the polio vaccine has wiped out polio in the western hemisphere. It’s been shown that the change to proper sanitization, along with the natural decline of the disease is why wild polio doesn’t exist here anymore.

Jane Sheppard
Healthy Child
https://www.healthychild.com

Subscribe to our free Healthy Child newsletter to receive kids natural health articles and vital information to protect your child's health:

https://www.healthychild.com/kids-health-natural-holistic.htm

[HolisticKids]

Roland asked me to post this to the list since he only sent it to me:

I must say I agree with Jane completely. Most of us have spent much of our lives believing that the only real cure for what ails us can come from someone who went to medical school and can put an "M.D" after their name. Over the years, the A.M.A. has taken great pains to discredit alternative medical practicioners. Michael, there's absolutely no way to be sure that the child with polio would have been completely healthy and happy if only he'd had that sugar cube. Sometimes the sugar cube works and sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes the Ayurvedic physician effects a cure, and sometimes not. Sometimes you eat the bear, and sometimes...

Roland

Hmm, I think it's the other way around. I've seen way too many people, both children and adults - including myself, who have been damaged by what you are calling "real treatment". Thank goodness for the holistic medicine that can undue the suppressive damage from the "real treatment" and really get to the core of the issue. But hey, if you believe it works for you, then keep on using it.

As someone who has extensively researched childhood vaccines for 12 years, all I can say is get educated about vaccines before labeling as "counter culture" educated, informed parents who are wise and brave enough to find out the facts and make informed decisions to protect their kids.

Jane

[Sonomamark]

"Generally", Mark? Could you point me towards even one exception?

Sure--you named one, which was the example I used in the original post--an indigenous healer working in a native setting, where more science-based alternatives are either unknown or unavailable.

My point was that you made a sweepingly general statement, and there are exceptions. That's all.

MG

[Sonomamark]

I'll respond here, although there is similar tripe under the "hospital hell" thread.

This, not to put too fine a point on it, is utter crap. Vaccines have made a profound difference in the child survival rates and life expectancy of the modernized world, and while there are some cases where there are reactions and complications, on balance, it is far, FAR better to have them than not to have them. Conspiracy-theories and hippy pseudo-science notwithstanding, the fact is that the reason your child has survived without being exposed to polio--as s/he would have been sixty years ago--is that nearly everyone here is now immunized. But polio is on the rebound in the US, and one cause is that there are people out here who believe what you have written here.

Promulgating the ideology that vaccines are more harmful than the diseases they prevent-and they DO, by and large, prevent them-- flies in the face of available evidence, whether or not a handful of cranks with letters after their names have said so. I say you're an irresponsible parent if you don't immunize--irresponsible to your children, and irresponsible to your society.

None of this is to say that Western medicine doesn't make mistakes. It's done by humans, and mistakes are inevitable. There are plenty of them. But it is the height of folly to suggest that, say, the smallpox vaccine has not brought extraordinary benefit that warranted its use. Polio, rubella, etc. likewise. You know anybody who's blind or deaf because their mother got rubella? I do. If he'd been born ten years later, he would have been fine...unless his mother shared your irresponsible ideology. For shame.

As someone who has extensively researched childhood vaccines for 12 years, all I can say is get educated about vaccines before labeling as "counter culture" educated, informed parents who are wise and brave enough to find out the facts and make informed decisions to protect their kids.

Jane

[markwesley]

The factual-sounding quote of Sonomamark, not to put too fine a point on it, is utter crap. Read: Vaccinations - What You Don't Know Could Hurt Your Children for starters. Sonomamark's point about rubella should be clarified -- rubella is only dangerous if it goes unrecognized and untreated (the same goes for most childhood diseases). My daughter was 18 months old when she contracted rubella soon after a playmate was vaccinated for it, but we recognized it (no, it wasn't roseola), treated her at home, and she recovered normally.

I'll respond here, although there is similar tripe under the "hospital hell" thread.

This, not to put too fine a point on it, is utter crap. Vaccines have ............

.................... You know anybody who's blind or deaf because their mother got rubella? I do. If he'd been born ten years later, he would have been fine...unless his mother shared your irresponsible ideology. For shame.

[HolisticKids]

Promulgating the mentality that vaccines are the sacred cow and should not be questioned and shaming parents into not looking further into all the issues is extremely irresponsible.

Parents are responsible for their children's welfare and should thoroughly investigate any medical procedure that has known and documented risks of serious adverse effects and death, before allowing it to be injected into their babies developing bodies. That's informed consent, and even though the highly-revered ethic of informed consent has been completely thrown out as far as vaccines are concerned, parents still owe it to their children to get ALL the facts and then make intelligent decisions.

Most parents follow the advice of their doctors without question because of the fear and shame that keeps being perpetuated by doctors and people that make statements like this who obviously have not even done a thorough investigation themselves. Parents are afraid they'll be seen as a bad parent so they go completely against their gut instincts and don't question it. Over the last 10 years, I have heard from many parents around the U.S. who are devastated and cannot forgive themselves for not questioning the holy vaccine policy and allowing it to damage their children.

Children are damaged or killed by diseases that they could have been vaccinated against. Children are damaged or killed by vaccines. Parents need to weigh these issues themselves with reliable information about each vaccine such as disease occurence, disease effects and complications, vaccine efficacy, vaccine effects and complications, and not be bombarded with generalized statements such as "the chance of being harmed by a vaccine is one in a million" or "it is far, FAR better to have them than not to have them". I know there are misrepresented statistics, flawed studies, and questionable science on BOTH sides of the issue. Even with all the research I have done, I would never, ever advise a parent to not vaccinate their children. It's not my place to do so and it's not your place to shame or scare them into getting their kids vaccinated. Instead I encourage them to throughly investigate all aspects of vaccines and make their own informed decisions. That's the responsible thing to do.

Jane

This, not to put too fine a point on it, is utter crap.

[Sonomamark]

Mark, not to put too fine on THIS, any idiot can write a book, and the New Age/Alternative Healing sections of your local Copperfields do, indeed, contain many written by idiots. If you believe everything you read, I'm truly sorry for you.

I'm going to spell this out, though it should be obvious to any critical thinker. Here's what's wrong with your argument regarding rubella.

Okay, so rubella isn't harmful? Except that it is, devastatingly so, to the fetuses of pregnant women. It causes serious birth defects including deafness and blindness.

Now: where would pregnant women catch this disease? From unvaccinated people. Because otherwise it wouldn't be around.

Ah, you might say--but if it weren't for vaccinations, everyone would get it when they were young, so older women wouldn't have to worry.

Except that this is divorced from that quaint experience we on Planet Earth call "reality". I got chicken pox at 39. It, as well as mumps and measles, are actually life-threatening when contracted at an older age. Most of the "childhood diseases" aren't very bad for young children, but they ARE bad for adults. I never contracted any of them as a youth, so I expect I'm still susceptible to mumps and measles.

And none of this has anything to do with devastating diseases like polio. Do you honestly suggest that smallpox, which wiped out whole swathes of humanity throughout human history, was somehow less dangerous and harmful than its vaccine? The thought is preposterous.

When I listen to the arguments presented by you and "HolisticKids", what I hear is the ignorance of privilege. You haven't had to bury half of your kids. You haven't had to watch everyone in your family and all your friends bury half of THEIR kids. Like so many Americans, you can't even comprehend what life would be like without the benefits you take for granted.

I've been to places where people don't get the benefit of vaccination and other basic medical care. Kids die in droves. Adults die young. The smallest infection becomes life-threatening.

My message is this: you might think you're safe because you live in squeaky-clean America, but polio is coming back. Tuberculosis is coming back, for those who have conspiracy theories about antibiotics. Diphtheria is coming back. And with climate change, there's a whole range of tropical diseases that are coming, and settling in, like West Nile Virus and malaria. Advocating that people bypass basic, generally safe--yes, there will be some reactions in a small population, and frankly, them's the breaks--and unquestionably effective preventatives for diseases that can cause wholesale death and infirmity is simply morally unacceptable in my book.

Okay, now you can call me a flack for the AMA, congratulate yourself on your enlightenment, and continue to expose everyone around you to the threat of disease. Thanks a lot, from the whole human race.

The factual-sounding quote of Sonomamark, not to put too fine a point on it, is utter crap. Read: Vaccinations - What You Don't Know Could Hurt Your Children for starters. Sonomamark's point about rubella should be clarified -- rubella is only dangerous if it goes unrecognized and untreated (the same goes for most childhood diseases). My daughter was 18 months old when she contracted rubella soon after a playmate was vaccinated for it, but we recognized it (no, it wasn't roseola), treated her at home, and she recovered normally.

[phooph]

The third leading cause of death in the US is medical treatment. A lot of people's lives are also saved by medical treatment. There is no doubt that the smallpox vaccine was pivitol in erradicating this awful disease and that there are other vaccines that work to protect people. Conversley there are people who die from vaccines who might not have died from the disease.

This is not a black and white issue. There are no guarantees that one thing or the other will work all the time. We've already seen incidents in which the people who got the worst cases of flu were those who were vaccinated. And the incidents of people contracting polio after being vaccinated have been cited for years. A study commissioned by the World Health Organization tracked down the first cases of AIDS to areas of Africa which had formerly been sites of intensive vaccination campaigns sponsored by the World Health Organization.

Except for antibiotics and dentistry I have found the medical profession inadequate to deal with my health problems.

It's a crap shoot as far as I can see.

Ruth

Mark, not to put too fine on THIS, any idiot can write a book, and the New Age/Alternative Healing sections of your local Copperfields do, indeed, contain many written by idiots. If you believe everything you read, I'm truly sorry for you.

[pbrinton]

I have been following this thread with interest as I have long had strong feelings on the vaccination issue. I have many close friends who disagree with me on this, and I have taken to withholding my opinion as it is hard to persuade people against the force of their gut feelings, and stories of children dying from vaccinations. I think a few things are worth considering.

First: why do we get the impression that there are huge numbers of children being harmed, even killed by vaccinations? We live in an age of communications, and someone with something to say can get the word out very widely. Mothers who have lost their children as they see it because of a forced medical procedure often feel that they need to warn other mothers of the danger, and word spreads far and fast. Therefore we hear about many of these cases. What we do not hear about are the millions of children that live because diseases like smallpox and polio have been virtually eliminated. I grew up in England, and I remember talk of dead and paralysed children, and iron lungs, and this was before the days of widespread communication; we talked about local news. How many people do you know in your local area, say Sonoma County, who have suffered these losses? The effects of polio, to say nothing of the other diseases in this category, were a regular occurrence in every county before the vaccines. Perhaps the history of disease and its eradication is not well taught these days, but it is well worth studying. SonomaMark is quite correct when he says that we live in the luxury of not having to worry about diseases that once killed countless children. How easily we forget the bad times when things are good. And how easily we can lose what we take for granted.

Ruth says that it is all a crap shoot, and she is correct. But let us not forget that both craps and life are games of probabilities. Any given occurrence has a percentage probability of happening at any given place and time. For some occurrences this number may be very hard to determine, for others much easier, but every one has such a number. Even without knowing this, we generally guide our behavior according to this rule. We take stronger precautions against things which we thnk are likelier to happen. The way we estimate the likelihood of any given occurrence is by weighing the evidence we are exposed to.

So it is vitally important to learn how to weigh evidence; how to distinguish anecdotal evidence from hard evidence; how to assign credibility to different providers of evidence; how to set aside our emotional reactions and feelings of sympathy (I can hear the cries of outrage as I type) which (sorry people) cloud our judgment. Please remember that those closest to something are least able to judge proportionately. Certainly question everything you hear, even what you hear from doctors and people who have spent a lifetime studying a subject. But do noteasily discount the weight of that lifetime of study. Most things cannot be reduced to simple formulae, and there is seldom a black and white decision to make. Epecially in medical matters you are constantly weighing benefits against known and unkonwn hrm. But you cannot just throw up your hands and say "Every person's opinion is worth as much as any other person's", because it just ain't so. The more you have studied something, the more weight your opinion has.

I think something needs to be said about those who have suffered these losses. I think it is too dismissive to say "Those are the breaks", as SonomaMark did, the only place where I would part company with him. These are the people who have paid the price for the rest of us to be safe. They should be recognized as are the families of soldiers who die in wars. Whatever we feel about the wars, or about war itself we honor those who are its victims. We should do the same for those who are the victims of the struggle against disease. For make no bones about it, it has been a struggle. Read about the history of medicine, and about what life was like before we had its benefits. Want to go back to pre-anasthetic dentistry? Witches and medicine men and women and intuitive healers did not eradicate smallpox and polio and whooping cough as serious threats to life, western medicine did.

Yes, of course there are thieves and con-artists and greedy people in medicine, and the system has been corrupted by the power of the drug companies, and the insurance industry and all of the other things we know are wrong about the way we do health in this culture. And yes, there is much still to learn, and areas they still have things wrong. But to throw out all that accumulated hard-won knowledge in favor of superstition or to say that the two even should be considered side by side is to throw out the baby and keep the bathwater.

One more thing and I will stop. We need to talk about the people who do not immunize their children. There is a recognized phenomenon called herd immunity. If a certain percentage of the population is immunized, then the disease will not spread. The percentage is different for each disease, but it is usually in the nineties. So those who say "Look, I did not immunize my child and nothing bad happened" are correct as long as only a few follow their example. But as soon as the percentage drops below that required to preserve herd immunity, the strategy fails and the disease spreads. This is a demonstrated effect, not just a story or fable. We know that immunization carries a risk, and we also know (yes, we do know) that the number of bad effects of the immunization is a tiny percentage of the bad effects of the disease if allowed to run rampant (remember the iron lungs and paralysed kids in every county). So people who take advantage of the fact that every one else partakes of the risk to avoid partaking of it themselves are acting in a selfish and antisocial manner.

There. I am done. I am sincerely sorry if I have offended anyone's sensibilities, but these are important matters; life threatening matters. And if you have read this far, I congratulate you and thank you.

Patrick

The third leading cause of death in the US is medical treatment. A lot of people's lives are also saved by medical treatment. There is no doubt that the smallpox vaccine was pivitol in erradicating this awful disease and that there are other vaccines that work to protect people. Conversley there are people who die from vaccines who might not have died from the disease.

This is not a black and white issue. There are no guarantees that one thing or the other will work all the time. We've already seen incidents in which the people who got the worst cases of flu were those who were vaccinated. And the incidents of people contracting polio after being vaccinated have been cited for years. A study commissioned by the World Health Organization tracked down the first cases of AIDS to areas of Africa which had formerly been sites of intensive vaccination campaigns sponsored by the World Health Organization.

Except for antibiotics and dentistry I have found the medical profession inadequate to deal with my health problems.

It's a crap shoot as far as I can see.

Ruth

[Sonomamark]

The third leading cause of death in the US is medical treatment.

First of all, I don't know how you come up with a statistic like this. What kind of methodology could possibly be used? What: someone with terminal cancer sees a doctor, so "medical treatment" is to blame when they die? This claim appears absurd on its face.

I'm not arguing that Western medicine doesn't make mistakes. It does--a lot of them. It's arrogant, pretends to have answers it doesn't have, overprescribes drugs and procedures, misdiagnoses, and commits human errors, often because of the greed-based system we have in place.

But none of that has any traction against the issue of prevention of diseases of the virulence and lethality of polio, smallpox, typhoid, etc. Even if 5% of those who took the vaccine DIED (which is an astronomical figure--the reality of those who have serious reactions to vaccines is only a tiny fraction of that), it would STILL be the right thing to do to vaccinate. Would a parent want to roll dice like that? No. But the alternative is exposing the entire society to deadly communicable diseases which can otherwise be curbed. A lot fewer children and adults will be impacted through vaccinating than through not vaccinating.

Hard-hearted as it may sound, there's a term for that handful of people who have serious health impacts from vaccines: it's called natural selection. And, indeed--those are the breaks. There is no guarantee of 100% safety in this world. Every day, we play the odds in all kinds of ways. When you get in your car, or on your bicycle, or even walk down the street, you gamble your life. When it comes to epidemiological disease control, the strategy with the highest likelihood of success for the society a a whole is paramount, even if that means that a small fraction of individuals will have serious reactions. Because the alternative is that a far higher number will DIE. While this flies in the face of American narcissism and worship of the individual, I hope most will agree that this makes sense.

Generally, despite this arguably cold position, I agree with Patrick, particularly with regard to the many whose lives have been sacrificed in the past so that we can be unfamiliar with the reality of what it's like to have a plague come through every few years. The danger of "herd immunization" is that more and more parents will want "somebody else's kid" to be the one immunized, having heard horror stories blown up to giant proportions based on the experience of an infinitesimal fraction of the population. I don't believe they should have that option.

So: when it comes to measles and chicken pox, I say, immunize if you like. Not that big an impact either way. But with polio, rubella, smallpox (if it climbs back out of its jar), etc., I say vaccination of children should be simply mandatory.

I think I've pretty well laid out my feelings on this subject, and this is my last post to the thread.

[artwizard]

It is threads like this that destroy community. Barry previously asked that we all refrain from aggressive language. Please! Please! be mindful that all here, while being entitled to their own opinions are also responsible for cleaning up after themselves when attempting to obliterate other'r opinions with aggressive and demeaning language. Please lets all be respectful of one another.

Tony

This, not to put too fine a point on it, is utter crap

[psaltz]

I'm 64; born in 1942. One of my earliest memories is of a cousin my age, who died at age 3 of whooping cough. My grandmother had 13 pregnancies, 6 of which became my mother, aunts and uncle; the other 7 were 4 miscarriages/stillbirths, and three infants dead before the age of two, from illness.

When I was growing up in the '50's, in a small town in Oklahoma, polio was epidemic every summer; every class in my grade school had at least one child disabled in some way from polio. I remember a sad family, the sister Sharon a year younger than me, horribly hunchbacked from polio, with one leg several inches shorter than the other, thick coke-bottle glasses, dead before the 9th grade; the brother Ricky a year older than me with a weakened heart from polio, dead before the age of 20. The town swimming pool closed every afternoon in July and August. Kids had to spend summer afternoons quietly, alone, in our own houses, resting. Parents were nervous, scared, every summer.

In 1954 the family across the street went to San Antonio TX on vacation. They returned abruptly when their younger son contracted polio. They were lucky: he just had a fever and muscle aches - no breathing problems after a couple of weeks, no paralysis, no deformity. But I wasn't allowed to play with them the rest of the summer, and the boy spent months and months in a hospital bed in their living room.

Every summer there were at least 100 new cases of polio recorded JUST IN OUR LITTLE TOWN! Every summer!

All of this stopped suddenly and very dramatically in 1955, when all the kids in our town went to the high school on a Saturday for our free vaccination. It was a fun, festive occasion, in spite of the shots. The presence of the "big kids" gave the "little kids" courage, so there weren't many tears. Smiles everywhere. No one got sick from the vaccine.

The next summer, there were NO recorded cases of polio. None. NONE AT ALL! The swimming pool stayed open daily all summer long (whew, thank you so much, Dr. Salk; it gets to 100+ degrees every day in summer!).

To my knowledge there was never again another case of polio in that town.

I cannot express to you just how dramatic, how historic this event was. It had been so scary, every time you got a sniffle or an ache, a parent made you touch your chin to your chest (supposedly if you had polio this would hurt too much, like eating a pickle with mumps), take your temperature, worry, fret. Suddenly in 1955 it was over! Whoosh! Just like that!

Perhaps vaccines are dangerous sometimes. But the polio virus is no longer rampant in the world; children aren't deformed, with weakened hearts and compromised respiratory systems from it. Are you all too young to remember Iron Lungs?

And guess what else: No more smallpox. Remember the Native American population wiped out by infected blankets? No more diphtheria, no more pertussis, no more tetanus - well, hardly any.

My daughter was born in 1962. She got her smallpox, polio, DPT - all her vaccines. She survived into adulthood (still goin' strong!). Hey, I may be a hippy counterculture leftist phreak, but I know what works!

["Mad" Miles]

Surely everyone has heard or read about the resurgence of polio in northern Nigeria in the last decade because traditional Muslim leaders spread the story that polio vaccinations were a conspiracy by U.S./Christian enemies to sterilize the children? After numerous cases cropping up, they seem to have changed their minds.

https://www.hvk.org/articles/1003/174.html

https://www.boston.com/news/world/ar...io_in_nigeria/


May I recommend anyone not already well-versed in the matter look at the definition of "Psuedoscience" in Wikipedia?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psuedoscience


As for "shaming and blaming", there's a gray area between forceful, honest, direct expression and expression that is disrespectful, insulting and/or demeaning. Matters of life and death bring up strong feelings.

I tend to err on the side of disclosure over discretion and it's gotten me into lots of trouble. But it's also engendered many compliments for my honesty and directness.

So far I think the discussion here, while meandering and a bit disfunctional (such is the nature of email debate) has stayed within the bounds of respectfull discourse. Of course those expressing themselves strongly are the ones I mostly agree with and those complaining about abusive rhetoric I disagree with. Hence my bias?

"Mad" Miles

[Sonomamark]

First, let me cop to the tone issue. I've been quite sharp in my language here, and I'm sorry about that, but I also feel that it's appropriate that this idea about vaccination somehow being more dangerous than its alternative should be sharply rejected by all and sundry.

To use your language, it is epidemics that REALLY destroy communities. It puts them in the ground. Because we are privileged not to have experienced this (except in the case of the AIDS epidemic which, thank the gods, isn't that easily transmissible by comparison with, say, polio), such a statement sounds overdramatic. But it's not--it reflects the entirety of human history prior to the creation of Western medicine. All those traditional practices, great as they might be for many things, didn't put a dent in the ability of virulent transmissible diseases to kill people wholesale.

So I feel somewhat justified in the tone. If "communities not being destroyed" is the yardstick, I'd suggest that recommendations that children not be immunized comes up far short of that standard.

For any offput by my tone, I apologize. For any offended by my arguments, tant pis, I stand by them.

And now I will shut up.

It is threads like this that destroy community. Barry previously asked that we all refrain from aggressive language. Please! Please! be mindful that all here, while being entitled to their own opinions are also responsible for cleaning up after themselves when attempting to obliterate other'r opinions with aggressive and demeaning language. Please lets all be respectful of one another.

Tony

[HolisticKids]

I’d like to address the issue of parent selfishness when it comes to refusing to vaccinate. I will admit that I am one of those selfish parents.

When a parent brings a child into this world, they are entrusted with the well-being of this child. It is a parent’s job to do whatever they can to ensure their babies are safe and protected. It’s natural for a parent to be on the lookout for and question anything that may have the potential to bring harm to their baby. Many parents would throw themselves in front of a fast-moving truck in order to save their baby. And many parents will stand in the face of ridicule, threats, and being ostracized from the community if it means advocating for their child on an issue they truly feel is right. Our natural, biological instincts are to protect our babies, OVER ALL ELSE. The parent/child bond is that strong, and well it should be.

The current public health policy tells parents that some babies must be sacrificed in order to protect the greater good, and it’s really ok since after all, there is very little risk involved in vaccinating compared to the benefit that vaccination brings to society as a whole. The benefits outweigh the risks.

But there is a major flaw here. The truth is that we really don’t know what the risks are in vaccinating. We don’t yet know the extent of adverse reactions or the potential of vaccines to create long-term chronic damage in our populations.

The FDA has stated they estimate that around 10% of vaccine reactions are actually reported. Doctors or parents may not even recognize symptoms as being possible vaccine reactions. In those that are reported, there is no conclusive causality determined, except for a few cases, since there is simply not enough evidence to say for certain that it was caused by the vaccine. So it isn’t included in the stats that are used to determine the risks from vaccines. And you can rightfully argue that it shouldn’t be. But are the reported adverse effects actually a result of the vaccine? No one can say one way or the other because there is simply not enough evidence to go on.

A few years ago, the National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine (IOM) did a study review to assess the causal relationship between vaccines and adverse health consequences. According to the Academy, “These committees concluded that the evidence was inadequate to accept or reject a causal relation between a specific vaccine and an adverse effect approximately two-thirds of the time”.

This is all just in respect to reactions or deaths that may occur within 30 days of receiving the vaccine. What about long-term chronic effects? Have we traded acute diseases for chronic diseases in this society? There aren’t any long-term studies of chronic effects of vaccines. There is so much unknown here and so many unanswered questions.

Here is one of those unanswered questions being asked: Does a vaccine actually make a person "immune" from an acute disease or does the artificial immunity from an injected vaccine create a chronic infection without the full capacity of the complete immune system to heal or resolve it? If you look at how the immune system works, the actual symptoms of a disease are the result of the complex immune response that expels the virus from the body. The viruses injected in a vaccine aren’t expelled by the immune system. So vaccinated people aren’t getting the disease symptoms and are therefore said to be immune due to the antibodies that have developed. That's all well and good, but what price do we pay for the chronic infection and the inability of the immune system to resolve it?

Richard Moskowitz, M.D., in his article published in Journal of the AIH, posed this question and explained how vaccines work vs. how the immune system provides immunity to natural viruses: https://www.healthychild.com/case-ag...nizations3.htm

Many other doctors have echoed these same concerns. Before you accuse those doctors of pseudo-science, they are merely voicing these concerns, asking the questions, and seeking answers from legitimate scientific studies. No such studies have been done to date and the questions remain unanswered.

A report issued in 2002 by the IOM’s Immunization Safety Review Committee called for more scientific research into the development of the human immune system and identification of genetic and other biomarkers that could predispose some children to vaccine-based adverse events, including autoimmunity. Again, this report found that scientific evidence on whether chronic immune dysfunction can be caused by multiple vaccinations was conflicting and concluded that the evidence “was inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship.”

The Committee also concluded that they did find some biological mechanism evidence that vaccines could increase the risk of immune dysfunction in some children that could lead to increased infections and allergy, including asthma. The report stated, “The biological mechanisms evidence regarding increased risk for infections is strong.” Yet, press releases were issued from the National Academy of Sciences with the headlines “Infant Immunizations Not Shown to Be Harmful to Children’s Immune Systems” and “Vaccines Don’t Harm Infant Immune Systems”. This type of PR is misleading to parents who are seeking true answers.

The truth is that a lot more research still needs to be done. The IOM committee made their conclusions not from independent new research, but from a literature review of past studies funded by vaccine manufacturers or done by government groups with financial links to the vaccine manufacturers and a huge stake in the results. A major flaw in some of these studies was that they looked at children who have received a lot of vaccines and then compared them with children receiving one more vaccine than the “control” group. This tells us nothing. Another important flaw of the IOM report is that researchers who have identified links between autoimmune conditions and vaccines were not allowed to present their findings and research to the committee. This report was designed to quell the fears of parents, but in actuality it acknowledges the very real and unresolved basic science research needs of our nation’s mass vaccination system. Parents questioning the safety of vaccines want good independent scientific research into this question and are frustrated with the spin control that public health officials continue to put out to the public.

I know I’ll get jumped all over here for this one, but I’m not convinced that polio, smallpox and the other scourges of the past will come back in this day and age. It’s an assumption that has yet to be proven. People haven't been vaccinated for smallpox in decades. Where are all the smallpox epidemics?

The points I've mentioned are just a few of the many issues involved and questions that remain unanswered. Until these questions are sufficiently answered by legitimate science, the claim that the benefits of vaccines outweigh the risks is not scientifically supported, at least in my mind or the minds of other parents determining whether to sacrifice their babies to this questionable public health campaign.

The public health officials need to take note that we will never achieve 100%vaccination rates as long as these questions stay alive in the minds of parents whose prime motivation is to protect their children from harm. Without further and proper studies, I can bet the vaccine rates will continue to decline. I guess you could say we are selfish parents. There will always be selfish parents, no matter how much we are chastised or threatened. So if you want selfish parents to willingly line up our children for vaccines, then do the right studies and stop making us out to be the bad guys for doing our job as parents.

It was stated in a previous email that even if 5% of the people who took the vaccine died, it will still be the right thing to do. Sorry, I strongly disagree with this. No responsible parent should sacrifice their child in this way. I would question the sanity of a parent who does, and also the sanity of the health officials who would continue to administer this campaign.

Of course I want to participate in making this world a better, safer place for all children. I first need to be reassured by science that the vaccination campaign truly is helping rather than harming the majority of people. But, even then, I believe my biological and moral priority is first to my child’s welfare. If this is selfish, I’m willing to accept that label.

Jane

[HolisticKids]

I have to add one more thing to this important discussion and then I’ll leave it at that. I’ve probably said too much already.

I can imagine the backlash of anger that my prior post about parent selfishness will create. I do understand the fierceness and passion of those who are genuinely afraid of the erosion of herd immunity and fear that we’ll end up with lots of people dying from diseases. But what you all need to know is that this issue is not going to go away anytime soon. We can debate about all this until the cows come home and never get anywhere except to fuel more separation between people who believe in vaccinations and people who don’t.

I can tell you that there are substantially large groups and organizations throughout the U.S. of parents and doctors who are becoming larger in numbers, more connected with each other, and more organized. Don’t underestimate the power of grief-stricken, angry parents. Whether or not you believe their child was actually harmed or killed by a vaccine, they certainly know it and won’t stop until they know all children are protected from vaccines. They are petitioning congress for answers and action, and demanding the studies from government as well as funding independent research. And publicizing plenty of material against vaccines. There are email newsletters with hundreds of thousands of parents reading why they shouldn’t vaccinate their kids. A lot of energy and money is going into this anti-vaccine campaign. It will not stop until sufficient studies have been done. If the research is not done, they will keep going until they succeed in toppling the whole vaccine campaign.

This is not just some hippie-types who are spouting off against the system. This includes Congressman Dan Burton, former head of the Government Reformed Committee who had two of his grandchildren digress into autism right after they were vaccinated. He led congressional hearings into the vaccine policy and continues to call the CDC, FDA and IOM to task and fight against vaccine policies. And Rick Rollens, former secretary of the California State Senate who testified to the senate to stop vaccine mandates. He believes his son’s autism was caused by vaccines. He has already raised $70 million dollars to fund research efforts aimed at finding the causes and treatments for autistic spectrum disorders.

The posts that have been written here by pro-vaccine folks are understandable, and this is a very emotional topic. And maybe it will shame a few parents into getting their kids vaccinated. But I know that pointing fingers at parents will not make any difference at all to the thousands of parents who have made it a mission to protect children from vaccines. It’s all the same stuff heard over and over again and is falling on deaf ears. Whether or not you believe that sufficient research has already been done is irrelevant at this point since there are enough people who believe it has not.

If you are really afraid of losing the “herd immunity” and this great vaccine campaign, then I suggest that you stop adding more fuel to the fire and put all this emotional energy into the effort to get the proper research done. If you are that sure about vaccines, then why not?

Jane


p.s. I'm not suggesting that this discussion be stopped at all. Thanks for keeping it going, Barry. I think it's great to bring this all out in the open and all opinions should be heard.

[alanora]

Here is my experience. I brought my beautiful baby in for her vaccinations first of what seemed to be an eternal series over the next 14 years. That first evening after the shot was one of the worst in my life to this date. I could not console the infant. She was feverish and held her little leg rigid while it swelled to a rubric, tender, enormity. She and I cried for the next 14 hours...hers the most awful sounding high pitched scream, that I was sure indicated brain damage. And never agin would I submit my baby to that. We found a knowledgeable md who was also an accupunturist and trained in classical homeopathy. The homeopathic stuff worked with no side effects and a blood titre showed that it had worked and created antibodies. That dr's note got us through the school system without too much further discussion, and no problems that I can recall. She has since joined the army, of all things, and been vaccinated by now, by her own choice, to things I probably never even heard of or considered. At least I didn't do it to someone who at the time was helpless and dependant on me for her care. Including medical decisions. Sometimes you have to go on your gut even if it flies in the face of what others hold to be true for them. And now there is evidence in the dramatic rise in autism rates. mindy

[[email protected]]

The third leading cause of death in the US is medical treatment. A lot of people's lives are also saved by medical treatment. There is no doubt that the smallpox vaccine was pivitol in erradicating this awful disease and that there are other vaccines that work to protect people. Conversley there are people who die from vaccines who might not have died from the disease.

This is not a black and white issue. There are no guarantees that one thing or the other will work all the time. We've already seen incidents in which the people who got the worst cases of flu were those who were vaccinated. And the incidents of people contracting polio after being vaccinated have been cited for years. A study commissioned by the World Health Organization tracked down the first cases of AIDS to areas of Africa which had formerly been sites of intensive vaccination campaigns sponsored by the World Health Organization.

- Please site your sources for these statements. I would like to learn more about this issue. Thanks.

Also, are you implying that giving people vaccines in some way caused AIDS?

Except for antibiotics and dentistry I have found the medical profession inadequate to deal with my health problems.

It's a crap shoot as far as I can see.

Ruth

[HolisticKids]

This is a common vaccine reaction. Parents who have experienced this high-pitched scream in their babies for many hours directly after being given vaccines say their babies retreated into autism or other neurological problems shortly after. Some babies have died after this long bout of screaming (these deaths were acknowledged as vaccine reactions and even compensated by the vaccine program, but the deaths were labeled as SIDS). You were fortunate to find a doctor who knew what to do, especially that long ago. If anyone knows of a parent who has experienced high-pitched screaming for long hours after their baby is vaccinated, tell them to find a DAN doctor or a classical homeopath and get treatment immediately.

There is a growing subspecialty of medical doctors (called DAN doctors) who have come up with protocols to treat autism and vaccine reactions and have had good success. It can be reversed if treated early. Also classical homeopaths have great success in reversing the damage. The earlier the better.

And report it to your pediatrician, the VAERS database https://vaers.hhs.gov/ and the National Vaccine Information Center at www.nvic.org as soon as possible. The pediatrician may dismiss it and not report it, so it’s important to report it to the agencies yourself.

Here is my experience. I brought my beautiful baby in for her vaccinations first of what seemed to be an eternal series over the next 14 years. That first evening after the shot was one of the worst in my life to this date. I could not console the infant. She was feverish and held her little leg rigid while it swelled to a rubric, tender, enormity. She and I cried for the next 14 hours...hers the most awful sounding high pitched scream, that I was sure indicated brain damage. And never agin would I submit my baby to that. We found a knowledgeable md who was also an accupunturist and trained in classical homeopathy. The homeopathic stuff worked with no side effects and a blood titre showed that it had worked and created antibodies. That dr's note got us through the school system without too much further discussion, and no problems that I can recall. She has since joined the army, of all things, and been vaccinated by now, by her own choice, to things I probably never even heard of or considered. At least I didn't do it to someone who at the time was helpless and dependant on me for her care. Including medical decisions. Sometimes you have to go on your gut even if it flies in the face of what others hold to be true for them. And now there is evidence in the dramatic rise in autism rates. mindy

[phooph]

A couple of you asked me to cite sources on the statement that medical treatment is the third leading cause of death in the US. The Institute of Medicine of the National Academies of Science recently released such a report that was covered in the mainstream media. If you would like to learn more about iatrogenic (medically induced) illness do a google search and you will find pages of links from wholistic and mainstream medical sources.

There is much discussion in the medical profession about how to best improve the numbers. Some of it is due to mistakes, some due to drug reactions, and some to the trauma of invasive medical intervention. Unfortunately the pharmaceutical industry has a stranglehold on the profession, and money rules. When a handful of Japanese kids died after receiving US DPT vaccinations their government stopped the use and funded the development of a safe one - which was illegal in the US as it was foreign made.

My mother died of an iatrogenic disease. She was a member of a class of people who suffered from the ignorance by the science community of the deadliness of radioactive substances. Once it was the new panacea and was used to treat a broad range of health problems. Those treated eventually developed radiation induced diseases and most died an early death.

As for the true origin of AIDS, it still remains controversial:
https://www.avert.org/origins.htm
https://www.rense.com/ufo4/manmade2.htm

Ruth

[Sonomamark]

Well, at Barry's invitation, I'm back on this topic. We seem to have moved over into a conversation on "concerned parenthood" (which I still think gets trumped by general societal good, which is why mandatory vaccination is the best way to go, preventing parents' hardwired protection instinct from getting in the way of the best overall policy), and on vaccines and autism.

First, briefly, on the screaming and reactions. Yep, there are sometimes reactions to vaccines. They're usually just uncomfortable: thus, screaming, which is what babies do when they're uncomfortable. Then the discomfort goes away. None of what has been posted here on screaming, fevers, etc., is any kind of reasonable argument, in my opinion, for exposing the whole society to deadly disease. Which would you prefer, concerned Mom: 14 hours of screaming, or your kid in an iron lung for life because polio came around? Take your time.

On the much-bandied supposed link to autism, I think it bears mentioning that the most credible studies which have attempted to correlate autism with vaccination have shown no statistical link. There's a lot of anecdotal talk out there, but it's all through a hat. In fact, some of the latest work on autism seems to show a relationship between TELEVISION and autism, which makes sense, given that the most typical symptoms of autism seem, at root, to reveal an overwhelmed mind shutting out the bombardment of external stimuli and withdrawing to an inner world. There are also genetic markers, and we're starting to find them--it's harder to tell because unlike other forms of genetic misspellings, there are few physical indicators related to autism, although I understand that somewhat pointed ears appear to be one.

Here are reports on four very thorough studies on the topic:

More Evidence to Clear Measles Mumps Rubella Vaccine as Risk Factor for Autism

Measles, Mumps & Rubella Vaccine Cleared as Risk Factor for Autism

Mayo Clinic Study Suggests No Link Between Immunizations and Autism

Study Identifies Regions of Two Chromosomes to Susceptibility to Autism


Now, I imagine that people who subscribe to the vaccine conspiracy theories will throw this data in the trashbin as a product of the "medical industrial complex". Which leaves a reasonable person in a quandary: you say you won't believe what appears to be pretty unimpeachable evidence, but then you don't provide evidence of anything like this kind of weight for your position. In essence, you ask us to religiously subscribe to your position, based on faith alone. No reasonable person will do this.

Cherry-picking facts to support a predetermined position is, quite frankly, what the Bush Administration has been doing. It doesn't lead to truth. A search for truth has to be open to the idea that the currently held theory is wrong--as is the proposed link between vaccinations and autism.

The problem here is that anecdotal evidence alone doesn't mean anything. The Internet tends to promote this kind of magical thinking, actually, because it allows people who have had coincidental experiences to hook up and begin developing theories that their experience is somehow causally related ("What? You had a car wreck after having Wheaties for breakfast TOO? My god. What else aren't they telling us?")

In my opinion the biggest single failure of modern American society generally--and especially at the poles of wacky left and zealot right--is a complete lack of critical thinking, a willingness to subscribe to preposterous ideas as being true, and a genuine enthusiasm for unsubstantiated imaginings as being real. Invented relationships between vaccinations and autism are one of these. It's been studied--a lot. There's no indication that there is one.

[petermargolies]

Bill Clinton in a recent speech, talked about the difference between philosophy and ideology. He says (in so many words) that you can have a discussion with a person about philosophy but you're basically wasting your time talking with about someone about their ideology- you talk right past them. The difference is very obvious as I watch this discussion progress.
My parents and grandparents are all Christian Scientists. There's is an ideology that believes in mind over matter and the healing power of prayer over that of the medical profession. No amount of discussions about the lack of double blind studies, God guiding the hand of the surgeon or God's association with the development of science will alter their belief system.
So when people deny the value of traditional medicine and vaccines to individuals, to families and to society, I think what you're dealing with is their ideological beliefs and as far as any discussion is concerned their point of view is a complete non-starter. I'm not saying they're wrong - although I think they are - I'm just saying you're not gonna fiind much give and take if you attempt any sort of debate.

[HolisticKids]

The comment about the babies' screaming is insulting to the intelligence of mothers who can tell the difference between a baby's normal crying and screaming and a scream that is extremely abnormal and a full-blown alert that something is truly wrong.

I have been investigating vaccines for 12 years. I started out believing in vaccines and used to wonder why I would ever question them. One thing I've learned is that both sides of this issue cherry-pick their facts to support a predetermined position. Although it's true that there is a lot of anti-vaccine garbage that can't be substantiated, the fact remains that not enough valid, unbiased research has been done to put it to rest.

The people with the pro-vaccine at all costs ideology consider themselves critical thinkers, but take studies at face value and bash the people who pick apart the studies and use their critical thinking skills to really investigate all the issues involved.


Most people don’t have the time to read the actual studies and find out what data actually went into them. Or read what is said about the study flaws. Or find out what government officials are saying about the conflicts of interest on the CDC safety research committees.

Unfortunately, the people that have the least time (parents with new babies) will accept what their doctor's say. But doctors don't have time either. What most doctors know about vaccines is what they learned years ago in medical school or from pharmaceutical reps, or the misleading headlines of the study abstracts from medical journals that say that the vaccine links have been cleared. Then they assume it's a closed issue and no need for further research. Most don’t go any deeper than that. When they do, they are ridiculed and ostracized for not following the medical party line. It’s the critical thinking parents and a few doctors that are brave enough to dig deeper and sift through it all to make informed decisions.

If you knew anything at all about autism, you would know right away that this "study" about autism and TV watching is a classical example of pseudo-science. Here is a response to this study from an investigative journalist:https://www.sierratimes.com/06/10/21/75_7_243_88_28135.htm


Regarding the Fombonne study that was put out there as impeachable evidence:

https://www.safeminds.org/pressroom/pres_releases/Fombonne-6-30-06.pdf


There still remains no conclusive evidence that vaccines don't cause autism or other neurological disorders. There still remains no conclusive evidence that vaccines don't cause chronic immune dysfunction.

You say "Which leaves a reasonable person in a quandary: you say you won't believe what appears to be pretty unimpeachable evidence, but then you don't provide evidence of anything like this kind of weight for your position. In essence, you ask us to religiously subscribe to your position, based on faith alone. No reasonable person will do this."

I'm certainly not asking anyone to religiously or even vaguely subscribe to any position. I could care less what you believe. What I want is for the public health officials and doctors to leave our children alone until they can prove that injecting multiple doses of altered viruses, heavy metals, formaldehyde, and other toxins directly into the bloodstreams of babies' developing bodies is safe. What I've been saying all along is that we need to have unbiased and complex research done that addresses all the issues before you can expect parents to risk their children's health and religiously subscribe to YOUR ideology, which I'm sorry to say has not been proven with the research done so far. Yes, people questioning vaccines have brought up a lot of issues that are unsubstantiated and don't yet hold the weight that you believe this Fombonne study holds. This study does not address all these issues and that and the other research so far is not the be-all-end-all that it purports to be. We are asking for valid, unbiased, independent research into these issues.

It does look like there may be hope, though, for future vaccine safety research:
https://weldon.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=47773


https://www.sierratimes.com/06/08/24/75_7_241_1_47489.htm


In the wake of overhauling the FDA, lawmakers are also cracking down on conflicts of interest within the Centers for Disease Control. Last month, Representatives, Dr Dave Weldon (R-FL), and Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), held a press conference to announce the introduction of a bill that would give responsibility for vaccine safety to an independent agency within the Department of Health and Human Services, and remove most vaccine safety research from the CDC.

Specifically, they said on July 26, 2006, the "Vaccine Safety and Public Confidence Assurance Act of 2006," will create an independent office to address, investigate, and head off potential safety problems like the use of mercury in vaccines, in an objective and non-conflicted office whose sole purpose is vaccine safety and evaluation.

According to Dr Weldon in a prepared statement, Federal agencies charged with overseeing vaccine safety research have failed. They have failed to provide sufficient resources for vaccine safety research. They have failed to fund extramural research and they have failed to free themselves from conflicts of interest that serve to undermine public confidence in the safety of vaccines, he said.

"The American public deserves better," Dr Weldon stated, "and increasingly parents and the public at large are demanding better."

"There's an enormous inherent conflict of interest within the CDC," he said, "and if we fail to move vaccine safety to a separate independent office, safety issues will remain a low priority and public confidence in vaccines will continue to erode.”

He said that similar conflicts have been remedied in other federal agencies, but in the vaccine program the conflicts persist unchecked. “This bill will provide the independence necessary," Dr Weldon said, "to ensure that vaccine safety research is robust, unbiased, and broadly accepted by the public at large."

"Vaccines do wonders for public health, but when the government requires them, it must also ensure that they're safe,” Ms Maloney said in her statement. "We need adequate, unbiased research on vaccines, and this legislation would deliver that."

She applauded Dr Weldon for his tremendous commitment and leadership on the issue. “"He is truly dedicated," she said, "to protecting our children and the public at large."

While announcing the new bill, Dr Weldon and Ms Maloney were joined by several groups advocating vaccine safety reform, including the National Autism Association, A-Champs, and safeMINDS.

According to the National Autism Association: "This landmark legislation will provide critical government agency oversight and implementation of vaccine safety research, which has not kept pace with the rise in the number of vaccines routinely prescribed to consumers including pregnant women and young children."

Additionally, the Act calls for $80 million in funding to conduct vaccine analysis and safety research.

Currently the CDC oversees vaccine research, safety and promotion, a situation that has been drawing more and more public criticism in recent years. The CDC compiles the list of vaccines that doctors are to give all children in the US, based on the recommendations of an advisory panel, and in many states kids can not attend day care or public schools unless they have received the CDC-endorsed vaccines.

A recommendation by the CDC guarantees a huge market for a vaccine and enables the drug company to use the government as a marketing device for its product. The annual global market for vaccines is expected to be over $10 billion this year.

On July 21, 2003, United Press International published a report based on a four-month investigation that found a pattern of problems linked to vaccines recommended by the CDC, as well as a web of close ties between the agency’s advisory panel and the pharmaceutical industry.

By investigating members of an advisory panel of outside experts that make vaccine recommendations, UPI found that members of the panel received money from vaccine makers through relationships that included: sharing a vaccine patent; owning stock in a vaccine company; payments for research; money to monitor vaccine testing; and funding for academic departments.

In fact, according to UPI, the CDC itself is in the vaccine business. Under a 1980 law, UPI found the CDC had 28 licensing agreements with drug companies and one university for vaccines or vaccine-related products and eight ongoing projects to collaborate on new vaccines.

Well, at Barry's invitation, I'm back on this topic. We seem to have moved over into a conversation on "concerned parenthood" (which I still think gets trumped by general societal good, which is why mandatory vaccination is the best way to go, preventing parents' hardwired protection instinct from getting in the way of the best overall policy), and on vaccines and autism.

First, briefly, on the screaming and reactions. Yep, there are sometimes reactions to vaccines. They're usually just uncomfortable: thus, screaming, which is what babies do when they're uncomfortable. Then the discomfort goes away. None of what has been posted here on screaming, fevers, etc., is any kind of reasonable argument, in my opinion, for exposing the whole society to deadly disease. Which would you prefer, concerned Mom: 14 hours of screaming, or your kid in an iron lung for life because polio came around? Take your time.

On the much-bandied supposed link to autism, I think it bears mentioning that the most credible studies which have attempted to correlate autism with vaccination have shown no statistical link. There's a lot of anecdotal talk out there, but it's all through a hat. In fact, some of the latest work on autism seems to show a relationship between TELEVISION and autism, which makes sense, given that the most typical symptoms of autism seem, at root, to reveal an overwhelmed mind shutting out the bombardment of external stimuli and withdrawing to an inner world. There are also genetic markers, and we're starting to find them--it's harder to tell because unlike other forms of genetic misspellings, there are few physical indicators related to autism, although I understand that somewhat pointed ears appear to be one.

Here are reports on four very thorough studies on the topic:

More Evidence to Clear Measles Mumps Rubella Vaccine as Risk Factor for Autism

Measles, Mumps & Rubella Vaccine Cleared as Risk Factor for Autism

Mayo Clinic Study Suggests No Link Between Immunizations and Autism

Study Identifies Regions of Two Chromosomes to Susceptibility to Autism


Now, I imagine that people who subscribe to the vaccine conspiracy theories will throw this data in the trashbin as a product of the "medical industrial complex". Which leaves a reasonable person in a quandary: you say you won't believe what appears to be pretty unimpeachable evidence, but then you don't provide evidence of anything like this kind of weight for your position. In essence, you ask us to religiously subscribe to your position, based on faith alone. No reasonable person will do this.

Cherry-picking facts to support a predetermined position is, quite frankly, what the Bush Administration has been doing. It doesn't lead to truth. A search for truth has to be open to the idea that the currently held theory is wrong--as is the proposed link between vaccinations and autism.

The problem here is that anecdotal evidence alone doesn't mean anything. The Internet tends to promote this kind of magical thinking, actually, because it allows people who have had coincidental experiences to hook up and begin developing theories that their experience is somehow causally related ("What? You had a car wreck after having Wheaties for breakfast TOO? My god. What else aren't they telling us?")

In my opinion the biggest single failure of modern American society generally--and especially at the poles of wacky left and zealot right--is a complete lack of critical thinking, a willingness to subscribe to preposterous ideas as being true, and a genuine enthusiasm for unsubstantiated imaginings as being real. Invented relationships between vaccinations and autism are one of these. It's been studied--a lot. There's no indication that there is one.

[loi]

Hello,

I was wondering how to access some of those studies posted - when I went to the sites, there was only a short summary. When I tried to look further, one site is only accessible if you are a member of the med org. and I didn't get very far on the others. I am very interested in examining exactly what types of data used, the statistical significance and effect size of the studies. Many studies do not actually prove what they say and I would like to be more informed as a parent.


Thanks!

[HolisticKids]

PRESS RELEASE
For Immediate Release:
July 9, 2006

Contact:
Rita Shreffler, NAA (Nixa, MO) 417-818-9030
Wendy Fournier, NAA (Portsmouth, RI) 401-632-7523


FOMBONNE AUTISM STUDY RIDDLED WITH INACCURACIES, RADICAL CONCLUSIONS, SAYS
NATIONAL AUTISM ASSOCIATION

DRUG-COMPANY PROPONENT DR. ERIC FOMBONNE IGNORES SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, USES
FRIVOLOUS RESEARCH TO OBTAIN DESIRED FINDINGS

Nixa, MO – Dr. Eric Fombonne’s new Quebec study will soon be published in
the July 2006 issue of Pediatrics. Fombonne, a thimerosal litigation expert
witness on behalf of various pharmaceutical companies, will reportedly
state that it is "very clear" there is no relationship between
mercury-based thimerosal and the onset of autism.

According to the research group SafeMinds, Fombonne’s research is
dangerously inaccurate:

- The study looked at 27,749 students in grades kindergarten
through 12th grade in a Montreal school district and found 187 cases of
autism.

- The vast majority of these cases (more than 90%) were born in
years in which thimerosal vaccines were widely used for infants in Quebec,
as they were in the US.

- Only a tiny fraction of the autism students were born when
thimerosal-free DTP and Hib vaccines were given, and these students may
have been exposed to thimerosal from the Hepatitis B vaccine newly
recommended for infants of foreign-born parents, which made up over one
fourth of the greater Montreal population.

- Dr. Fombonne wrongfully claims that large-population studies
in the United States, England and Denmark also disprove a link between
mercury and autism.

- Although multiple respected researchers state otherwise, Dr.
Fombonne maintains the radical conclusion "there is no autism epidemic.”

- He conveniently ignores the vast body of scientific evidence,
which has shown that environmental factors such as mercury may have caused
the increased number of autism diagnoses in the US and other countries.

- Dr. Fombonne's actions have historically been in the best
interest of various pharmaceutical companies, not families with autism.
Fombonne has also declared himself an expert witness in thimerosal-related
litigation.

SafeMinds states, “Thimerosal is a serious poison that is harmful via
inhalation, ingestion or contact with skin. Furthermore,
thimerosal-containing vaccines elevate mercury levels in the body to a
level where adverse neurological outcomes are known to occur. It is
irresponsible for any pediatric doctor to justify injecting our children
with mercury.

“The prevalence of all autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) has risen to 1 in
166 children in the past 20 years. Several independent federal agencies and
respected scientists and researchers have received federal funds to
investigate the autism epidemic and the biological plausibility of a link
between mercury and ASDs. Multiple studies have indicated that there is a
connection between childhood vaccines containing thimerosal and the
incidence of autism. No conclusions have been made rejecting a link between
mercury and autism.”

The National Autism Association (NAA), along with multiple advocacy
groups and researchers, hope that Fombonne’s conflicts of interest will be
disclosed in Pediatrics. “These significantly weak conclusions certainly
work to Dr. Fombonne’s benefit. It is only appropriate that his partnership
with pharmaceutical companies be revealed,” says Claire Bothwell, Board
Chair of NAA.

For more information, visit www.nationalautism.org or www.safeminds.org.

Hello,

I was wondering how to access some of those studies posted - when I went to the sites, there was only a short summary. When I tried to look further, one site is only accessible if you are a member of the med org. and I didn't get very far on the others. I am very interested in examining exactly what types of data used, the statistical significance and effect size of the studies. Many studies do not actually prove what they say and I would like to be more informed as a parent.


Thanks!

[HolisticKids]

Fombonne et al's newest article (1) prompts questions: Is the article a
scientific document? The answer appears to be No, it is not. If not,
then what is the article's purpose?

In this email, a brief part of the article is illustrative. Consider a
quote from page e141:
"By and large, biological studies of ethylmercury exposure have
also failed to support the thimerosal hypothesis. (25,39,40) Despite the
accumulation of negative studies, concerns from the public have not been
entirely alleviated, and fears continue to be fueled by well-publicized
media accounts of a spectacular nature. (41,42)"

Fombonne et al's intentions are elucidated by the citations chosen and
omitted in support of the statement that "biological studies of
ethylmercury exposure have also failed to support the thimerosal
hypothesis". Fombonne et al deliberately fail to mention the increasing
number of studies that affirm biological plausibility (eg, 101-111), and
the article's peer-reviewers (if any) and editors of the journal
"Pediatrics" allowed Fombonne et al (1) to be published without correcting
Fombonne et al's omission of these important references (101-111).

Were Fombonne et al (1) a peer-reviewed scientific study, they would have
been required to mention studies contradicting the preferred position of
Fombonne et al. In numerous journal articles, researchers assert a
preferred position and add "But see...", and there list citations with
findings contrary to the researchers' preferred position. Furthermore,
Fombonne et al refer to Kirby's work as a "media account" and by those
words fail to convey the significance of the numerous peer-reviewed
citations included within "Evidence of Harm...".

The fact that Fombonne et al fail to mention and fail to present the
peer-reviewed cites affirming the thimerosal hypothesis' biological
plausibility (eg, 101-111) indicates that Fombonne et al (1) is not a
scientific article but instead merits consideration as a political
treatise reinforced by economic incentives, not the least of which is
Fombonne's reputation as a court witness hired by vaccine manufacturers.

Since Fombonne's statement as quoted above is substantially misleading and
conveys a conclusion contrary to fact, the Fombonne et al article (1) may
merit the judgement Purposefully Fraudulent. In fact, we ought consider
whether Fombonne and his coauthors (1) -- in complicity with the editors
of the journal "Pediatrics" and the directors of the corporation known as
the "American Academy of Pediatrics" -- have committed an act of
scientific fraud for the purpose of altering public perceptions regarding
vaccinations.

Furthermore, Fombonne et al misconstrue the IOM's 2004 hearing as a
biological study and fail to mention that the hearing's conclusions were
predetermined by the CDC, which funded the hearing (discussed in 112,
113-114). Thus the Fombonne et al article (1) appears to be part of a
larger collusion wherein some officials seek to enforce the idea that
injecting thimerosal does no harm, despite a growing body of evidence that
thimerosal injections are injurious.

Teresa Binstock
Researcher in Developmental & Behavioral Neuroanatomy

References: Cites 1,25,39-41 are numbered as in Fombonne et al, cites
101-114 are added in this email.

1: Fombonne E, Zakarian R, Bennett A, Meng L, McLean-Heywood D.
Pervasive developmental disorders in Montreal, Quebec, Canada: prevalence
and links with immunizations. Pediatrics. 2006 Jul;118(1):e139-50.

25. Institute of Medicine. Immunization Safety Review: Vaccines and
Autism. Washington, DC: National Academics Press; 2004.
Ip P, Wong V, Ho M, Lee J, Wong W.

39. Mercury exposure in children with autistic spectrum disorder:
case-control study. J Child Neurol. 2004 Jun;19(6):431-4.

40. Pichichero ME, Cernichiari E, Lopreiato J, Treanor J. Mercury
concentrations and metabolism in infants receiving vaccines containing
thiomersal: a descriptive study. Lancet. 2002 Nov 30;360(9347):1737-41.

41. Kennedy RF Jr. [Rolling Stone article]

42. Kirby D. [Evidence of Harm...]

101: Havarinasab S, Hultman P. Alteration of the spontaneous systemic
autoimmune disease in (NZB x NZW)F1 mice by treatment with thimerosal
(ethyl mercury). Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2006 Jul 1;214(1):43-54. Epub
2006 Jan 27.

102: Mutter J, Naumann J, Schneider R, Walach H, Haley B. Mercury and
autism: accelerating evidence? Neuro Endocrinol Lett. 2005
Oct;26(5):439-46.

103: Burbacher TM, Shen DD, Liberato N, Grant KS, Cernichiari E, Clarkson
T. Comparison of blood and brain mercury levels in infant monkeys exposed
to
methylmercury or vaccines containing thimerosal. Environ Health Perspect.
2005 Aug;113(8):1015-21.

104: Havarinasab S, Hultman P. Organic mercury compounds and
autoimmunity. Autoimmun Rev. 2005 Jun;4(5):270-5. Epub 2005 Jan 5. Review.

105: Havarinasab S, Haggqvist B, Bjorn E, Pollard KM, Hultman P.
Immunosuppressive and autoimmune effects of thimerosal in mice. Toxicol
Appl Pharmacol. 2005 Apr 15;204(2):109-21.

106: Singh VK, Rivas WH. Detection of antinuclear and antilaminin
antibodies in autistic children who received thimerosal-containing
vaccines. J Biomed Sci. 2004 Sep-Oct;11(5):607-10.

107: Hornig M, Chian D, Lipkin WI. Neurotoxic effects of postnatal
thimerosal are mouse strain dependent. Mol Psychiatry. 2004
Sep;9(9):833-45.

108: Waly M, Olteanu H, Banerjee R, Choi SW et al. Activation of
methionine synthase by insulin-like growth factor-1 and dopamine: a target
for neurodevelopmental toxins and thimerosal. Mol Psychiatry. 2004
Apr;9(4):358-70.

109: Havarinasab S, Lambertsson L, Qvarnstrom J, Hultman P.
Dose-response study of thimerosal-induced murine systemic autoimmunity.
Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2004 Jan 15;194(2):169-79.

110: Vojdani A, Pangborn JB, Vojdani E, Cooper EL. Infections, toxic
chemicals and dietary peptides binding to lymphocyte receptors and tissue
enzymes are major instigators of autoimmunity in autism. Int J
Immunopathol Pharmacol. 2003 Sep-Dec;16(3):189-99.

111: Baskin DS, Ngo H, Didenko VV. Thimerosal induces DNA breaks,
caspase-3 activation, membrane damage, and cell
death in cultured human neurons and fibroblasts. Toxicol Sci. 2003
Aug;74(2):361-8. Epub 2003 May 28.

112.
https://dir.salon.com/story/news/letters/2005/06/22/iom_thimerosal/index1.html

113. https://www.nomercury.org/iom.htm

114. https://www.nomercury.org/iom/iom.pdf

Hello,

I was wondering how to access some of those studies posted - when I went to the sites, there was only a short summary. When I tried to look further, one site is only accessible if you are a member of the med org. and I didn't get very far on the others. I am very interested in examining exactly what types of data used, the statistical significance and effect size of the studies. Many studies do not actually prove what they say and I would like to be more informed as a parent.


Thanks!

[HolisticKids]

Here is the full text of the article on the MMR and pervasive development disorders in Canada, authored by Dr. Fombonne et al, and claimed to be the final word that vaccines do not cause autism:

https://pediatrics.aappublications.o...int/118/1/e139

Hello,

I was wondering how to access some of those studies posted - when I went to the sites, there was only a short summary. When I tried to look further, one site is only accessible if you are a member of the med org. and I didn't get very far on the others. I am very interested in examining exactly what types of data used, the statistical significance and effect size of the studies. Many studies do not actually prove what they say and I would like to be more informed as a parent.


Thanks!

[Barry]

This is a great discussion on an important topic, but I think its time to move it to the WaccoTalk where it can continue as it may. There is link left behind in the General Community category.

[Sonomamark]

Unfortunately, you'll have to subscribe. Scientific research data has value--it's often not free. But the fact that it's published in a peer-reviewed journal means it has already been through a thorough filter for methodology. A peer-reviewed scientific journal will generally give you the most credible information you can find anywhere, since peer reviewer typically play "gotcha" with overstatements of findings or conclusions.

Hello,

I was wondering how to access some of those studies posted - when I went to the sites, there was only a short summary. When I tried to look further, one site is only accessible if you are a member of the med org. and I didn't get very far on the others. I am very interested in examining exactly what types of data used, the statistical significance and effect size of the studies. Many studies do not actually prove what they say and I would like to be more informed as a parent.


Thanks!