Says the ignorant sheeple!!

Try to think of a phrase that hasn't been said on here 500 times before...

many PHYSICIANS and scientists are aware of the dangers of over vaccination!

hmm.. I wouldn't say many. really <1% of all practicing docs Id wager.

And since you believe vaccines work then why would they be put at risk?

Vaccines aren't perfect. I think anyone would concede that

And FYI the whooping cough outbreak was amongst the VACCINATED! Do your homework!

I think you should do yours. the unvaccinated were 8 times more likely to get whooping cough than the vaccinated

Not only do your kids risk getting diseases like whooping cough you can pass it on to an infant who has not yet been vaccinated.

I know she'd rather have her children get deathly sick than admit she might be wrong.

Think of it as a natural thinning of her genetic. Sad for the kids I know, but all things considered, should she be breeding in the first place? :)

The whooping cough outbreaks were among people who had been immunized - years ago - and many older parents and grandparents need to get boosters. Those most at risk were infants not yet old enough to be given shots.

I really hope insurance providers start dropping people who refuse immunizations. I don't need my premiums going up from the complex treatment of preventable diseases.

How is it putting everyone at risk. If the vaccines work as they claim, the people who have been been vaccinated are not at risk. If they are at risk, than the vaccines do not work.

MG from IL--I hate to tell you this, but there is a bubble of adults who were born somewhere betwwwn 1979 and 1984 (which is BETWEEN my oldest and youngest, and includes SPECIFICALLY my middle child) who were NOT vaccinated for whooping cough. See, the Brits decided that Pertussis had been 'eliminated' so THEY quit giving it, and the US followed sheepinshly along, and decided to ONLY vaccinate for Diptheria and Tetanus, omitting the "P" part of the DPT. So my middle child neer got that vaccination, but by the time my YOUNGEST came along, an epidemic of (you guessed it--whooping cought in ENGLAND) made the medical community go BACK to the old way.

Flash foreward to last year, when my middle kid was 29, his best friend was PREGNANT, and on my advise, he went and got his vaccinations for PT. His friend's husband is dying, and NO WAY did he want to be responsible to adding ANY MORE stress or heartache to THAT little family by giving their baby whooping cough.

I work at a hospital. What these parents who are opting out of vaccines may not be aware of is that a child's airway can close off when they have whooping cough, and they are at risk for extreme respiratory distress and asphyxiation. These children have to have a tube jammed down their throat under anesthesia in the operating room, so that they can survive. This respiratory disress is not an uncommon complication of whooping cough. Do these parents want their children to die of a complication from an easily preventable disease, not to mention put their baby siblings at risk, who don't have an immune system built up yet? I don't think so. So parents, please get your children vaccinated. Let's not back track to the 1800's. Medical advancements aren't meant to cause panic. Talk to your doctors if you have questions, and try to build trust with your caregivers. They are there to help you and your loved ones.

The article says, "Chances are, they aren't seeing that kind of doctor." Isn't there only one kind of doctor? As in, licensed by a medical board? Whatever, I can spout weird, untraceable statistics too, that doesn't make them true.

Also, some of the most recent studies have shown that antidepressants during pregnancy raises autism risk. Why is none of these mothers foregoing antidepressants?

Here's a collection of mainstream news stories and studies which prove the vaccine is causing the bacteria to mutate - AND - that the overwhelming majority who contract WC are fully vaccinated:

http://www.facebook.com/WhoopingCoughVaccineIsMakingMattersWorse

Or

http://www.dailypaul.com/167931/a-collection-of-mainstream-news-reports-and-studies-exploding-the-whooping-cough-vaccine-myth

HAHAHAHA!.....Look at all the failure:

(San Diego Failure - BOTH FULLY UP-TO-DATE): "Two cases of whooping cough are being reported at two local schools. Health officials say an eight-year-old at Cook Elementary School and a 13-year-old at Carmel Valley Middle School were diagnosed. Both students were up-to-date on immunizations. County health officials urge all parents to get their children vaccinated."

http://www.cbs8.com/story/19479083/2-whooping-cough-cases-reported-at-san-diego-county-schools

But still get vaccinated? hahahahahahaha!!!!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Excerpt): "The odd thing about this case is the student had been vaccinated in 2006 and was current on his vaccination schedule.....that’s what’s frustrating with this,” she said. (end)

http://fremonttribune.com/news/local/580f8724-ee48-11e1-b11a-0019bb2963f4.html

(No, that's the NORM.........guess she hasn't gotten the memo yet)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(The contradictions from the "experts" keep rolling in):

(Excerpts): "The health care worker was fully vaccinated," Goldbaum said. .............."To me the issue is, we don't have everyone in the community vaccinated," Goldbaum said. "That's why we can expect cases where the most vulnerable in our community are being exposed."

http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20120704/NEWS01/707049856

(?????????????????????????????)

(University nurse is actually perplexed that all were vaccinated !!!!!):

(Excerpt): Weber said she was perplexed about how the students could have contracted the illness in the first place. All four students are fully immunized and should not be susceptible.

http://www.greeleytribune.com/article/20120504/NEWS/705049981

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Austrailian failure - but blame the unvaccinated):

(Excerpt): A LAWRENCE father is urging Clarence Valley residents to consider getting themselves and their children immunised against whooping cough after his three children - all vaccinated - recently contracted the virus.

http://www.dailyexaminer.com.au/story/2012/01/17/familys-cough-scare/

(MY NOTE): It's a bacteria - not a virus.

(FAILURE ALERT - WISCONSIN !!!)

"all four had already been immunized."

http://www.wxow.com/story/16390769/4-whooping-cough-cases-reported-in-northern-wi

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Florida Failure):

(Excerpt): The Warfield student diagnosed with whooping cough is home recovering, Rouse said. The child, whose identity, age and grade level is not being released, had been vaccinated against the infection.

http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/region_martin_county/martin-county-on-alert-after-second-confirmed-whooping-cough-case

----------------------------------------------------------------------

(HAHAHAHA !!! ....UNIQUE?...HARDLY)

(Excerpt): "What is unique about these cases is that the affected children have been vaccinated against the illness."

http://www.fox6now.com/news/witi-20111107-whooping-cough-nine,0,174863.story?track=rss

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Excerpt): North Middle School in Menomonee Falls is dealing with what it calls a "cluster" of Whooping cough cases. Three students are confirmed cases. But all of those affected so far have been vaccinated for the bacterial illness.

http://www.fox6now.com/news/witi-20111102-whooping-cough,0,2719176.story?track=rss

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Excerpt): Officials say the boy was previously vaccinated, and that chances of getting Whooping Cough with immunization is very unlikely."

http://www2.wnct.com/news/2011/oct/28/9/5-year-old-diagnosed-whooping-cough-pink-hill-elem-ar-1549384/

(HAHAHAHAHA !!! UNLIKELY?)

--------------------------------------------------------------------

(Excerpt): Two children from different schools, who were both vaccinated, have contracted whooping cough, according to county health officials.

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/health/New-Whooping-Cough-Cases-132650848.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Excerpt): Denmark mother Claire Thompson and her children had the illness despite being vaccinated. "It's just awful," she said. "Both my children have been vaccinated and we've done the right thing and it's disappointing that we've tried to do the right thing and still caught the disease," she said.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/10473397/whooping-cough-hits-south-coast/

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Excerpt): A Bunbury mother has put out a call for other parents to not ignore children coughing after her two vaccinated children were diagnosed with whooping cough. Stacey Baskerville’s son Finn, 6, and daughter Ruby, 8, were both vaccina

ted against the illness when they were 18 months old. But 10 days ago she got a call from a doctor telling her they had both contracted the contagious disease. ‘‘I was just in shock—I couldn’t believe them when they said it was whooping cough,’’ Ms Baskerville said. ‘‘To think that even if you do vaccinate against it you can still get it is scary.’’

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/regional/southwest/a/-/community/13354759/whooping-cough-outbreak-in-bunbury/

---------------------------------------------------------------------

(BUSTED !!!!! Vaccinated spreading whooping cough):

"Little Eli was admitted to the hospital and spent weeks in the Intensive Care Unit. He was too young to receive his first vaccine for whooping cough and managed to catch the disease from
his older sister. Even though Eli's sister was immunized, she still managed to bring whooping cough home."

*(Look at how many people the vaxed girl spread it to):

"She brought it home and as a result, she had it, my mother had it, my father had it, it spread fast," Heather said.

http://www.kboi2.com/news/local/Whooping-Cough-Idaho-150502785.html

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(More fully-vaxed kids falling victim to vaccine):

"All three cases were laboratory-confirmed. All three children were current on vaccines, Vap said. "They all have five doses (of pertussis vaccine), so we are not exactly sure why they contracted the disease," Vap said."

http://www.theindependent.com/articles/2011/03/12/news/local/13050801.txt

Joel - that may be the most inane thing I have read this year.

Parents have the right not to get their kids vaccinated, but I'm old enough to remember the sad stories of some who were not - because there weren't any, or vaccines were not yet widely available. Sad to risk a pandemic among the vulnerable.

Scary stuff. But, you cannot argue with the intentionally ignorant.

Yes, bad batches of vaccine can fail. Nice copy and paste. We had to take our kids back twice for Hep A vaccine, wanted them to have it before going overseas - bad batches.

Having the vaccines more spread out, for kids who have side affects (mine had Tylenol before the shot, and were fine) might be a good idea. Better have a good personal liability policy if you take your UNvaccinated kid out in public, and they infect/maim, say, someone's baby. You knew, or should have known, that you were causing a risk to public health. I'm not talking the sniffles (although, people should leave a sick kid home), and infant exposed to measles can die. If this exposure is as great as is indicated - perhaps parents should not take an infant to one of these schools, or at least run like hell if someone's kid tries to touch the baby.

Do your homework people. The vaccines do not prevent any disease, they just minimise the effects - hopefully. It is a guess because they do tend to mutate - from person to person. The companies that provide them can not foresee every persons reaction to them so they make them for the majority as best they can.

When you say that the people who had WC were those who were vaccinated guess again. All it takes is to be exposed to the virus. It then takes time to germinate in a person so even if they got vaccinated after the exposure it was too late. That is why most schools want the kids to have the shots BEFORE they go to school. That way just in case one child did get exposed to something the others have a better chance at fighting it off or getting a milder case thus avoiding a passable death.

For the people who say it is against their religion - God gave Man a brain - to use - to help himself as well as lower life forms - the animals. In doing so he expects us to use it. We got deceases we figured out how to stop them. God helps those who help themselves. That to me means that God did not create the cure through man, it means he is proud that we used our brains to find a solution and that solution helps others. He is proud that he helped create a creature (that person) who used his gift (a brain) to helped save others as well as themselves.

Joel 36

WHAT!?!

I hope you are not referring to something you read on the Internet. Cause everyone knows that everything on the Internet is true.

Go talk to a real doctor to get your information.

I find it extremely offensive that private schools consider following standard medical practices to restrain communicable disease as optional unless they agree to live in a bubble. They have no right to infect my children with disease because they disagree with the procedure.

There have been several eras throughout world history where true scientific advances conflicted with religious and/or government practices. Monarchies, dictatorships and even parliamentary governments joined with various large religious organizations to protect both church and state from this perceived threat.

Chemists were called witches. Surgeons were relegated to infectious barber chairs. Astronomy took a remote back seat to astrology. Inventors were toy-makers. Philosophers and great thinkers were among the mentally deranged. All were barely tolerated and subject to charges of heresy at any moment to be summarily imprisoned or executed.

Those time periods predictably resulted in serious retardation of scientific, social and technological advances among the population. They were often followed with unnecessary plagues, extreme poverty and civil unrest that ultimately led to civil(or religious)wars, mass rebellion and revolution.
The seas and the soil rapidly dissipate and absorb incredible amounts of spilled blood from true heroes. Graveyards spill over and many statues are built in honor of the fallen. Old nations are reformed and new nations are born in an era of enlightenment. The mighty dam previously built to retard modern human advancement bursts open to flood us with one wonder after another.

These "Dark Ages" and periods of "Enlightenment" have proven to be cyclable by history. The cycles affect differant parts of the world at different periods of time proven by a casual glance at today's world. Much of the Middle-East seems to be in the rebellious stage of eventually ending their long time in a dark age. China and India may be crawling out of the ashes of their dark age and possibly escaping the massive bloodletting of revolution that would eventually force them out.

Sadly, a good portion of the free world appears to be on the threshold of entering their next dark age. Science is once again scorned in favor of religious belief and political power gain. Their unholy alliance demands that our nation is a Christian nation to legislate Christian rules as the law of the land. They do this as they condemn and seek war against Muslim nations that allow religion to dictate their own government policy. They do this as they refute very strong scientific evidence of evolution that may conflict with what the Bible tells them. They do this as they scorn medical advances in contraception that allow families to choose the size of their own families. They do this as they seek and pass laws to restrict human rights to love and marry our chosen mates in a nation that prides itself as the land of the free.

These are but a few minuscule examples of many attempts by powerful people eagerly leading us into our next dark age of sorrow and suffering. These cycles of "Dark Ages" and "Periods of Enlightenment" are proven by history. However, they are not inevitable. A free people can control their own fate by standing against the charlatans and fools determined to control the fate of an entire nation.

People will choose to vaccinate or not and there is nothing any of us can do about it. The only concern I have had about people not vaccinating is that an illness be spread to an infant who hasn't been fully vaccinated yet. Obviously vaccinating works, I and none of my friends or siblings growing up had measles, mumps or polio for instance but I agree that there isn't enough testing done and doctors want to give four vaccines to a young child at one time and there are too many vaccinations given to children, for instance, no child is at risk for hepatitis.

Joel, ah, no. Some vaccines are grown on cell lines that were originally derived from the cells of a fetus. They are not "grown on aborted babies." It's called reading. You might want to give it a try sometime.

For those of you who think the vaccine isn't always effective, you're right - for the simple reason that by themselves, vaccines do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. They work with the immune system to generate immunity, and therefore the person MUST have a functional immune system in place. For kids who grew up in over-Lysoled households resulting in crippled immune systems, or babies with immature immune systems, or anyone with compromised immunity due to transplants, HIV, or medications (like Embrel), or the elderly, vaccines don't work as well, and those people will be at risk from these kids. People are going to die because of these decisions, and that's a shame.

This is yet another propaganda piece to cause emotion in non critical thinkers to imply causation where it does not exist.

The kids in these schools are NOT dying.

It has been shown that the whooping cough vaccine does not work as good as advertised and the ones who are getting whooping cough are the vaccinated. Vaccine failure is not a good selling point to tell others they need or should be forced to get vaccines.

robert,

Ive already showed you data that reveals that the unvaccinated are 8 times more likely to contract whooping cough

Your answer was that they are more likely to be diagnosed. This fact, as well as any numbers supporting it, is completely fabricated from your imagination

Show me that these kids are sick and dying because they didn't get their vaccines. Evidence not rhetorical theory and wishing.

Ive already showed you data that reveals that the unvaccinated are 8 times more likely to contract whooping cough

Your answer was that they are more likely to be diagnosed. This fact, as well as any numbers supporting it, is completely fabricated from your imagination

I've already shown you diagnostic bias and how that comes about Dr. eric.

How do you personally diagnose pertussis? Did you know that pertussis doesn't always have the "whoop". Of course you didn't you're a cardiologist.

How are milder cases diagnosed? How many milder cases are missed according to the CDC? How does a vaccinated person transmit whooping cough to a baby? Why doesn't the vaccine protect or how in this mechanism? Does the vaccine eliminate the bacteria which the person is carrying?

I've already shown you diagnostic bias and how that comes about Dr. eric.

You have not shown it. You have guessed at it. That may or may not be true. Unfortunately, a hypothesis alone is not enough. You need evidence. And your hypothesis has none

Of course you didn't you're a cardiologist.

And you do from looking at webmd? Ha...

none of the rest of your post is relevant without addressing the points you have still yet to answer

Patrick:

Before you chortle too much about vaccinations and whether or not they're a waste of time, you need to get a more solid understanding of things like generation time and the propensity for these nasties to adapt/evolve in ways that negate vaccinations.

I'll be interested to see how these pertsussis cases pan out.

Just goes to show you that we, as a race, must not become lax in developing our vaccinations to combat new strains of old enemies.

As an aside, this also demonstrates the necessity for people to have their vaccinations. Otherwise, you become living encubators for these things to develope into strains that are resistant to vaccines. The unvaccinated really are dangerous to the rest of our species, especially to our children and the infirm.

The unvaccinated really are dangerous to the rest of our species, especially to our children and the infirm.

More lack of evidence and more fear based emotions than anything. This is a common device of the pro force mass vaxxinationist. I'd like to see the science and facts instead.

More lack of evidence and more fear based emotions than anything. This is a common device of the pro force mass vaxxinationist. I'd like to see the science and facts instead.

You're the one making the outrageous claim, so the onus is on you to provide evidence to the contrary.

And are you really contending that vaccinations didn't very-nearly eliminate diseases like smallpox and polio? Where do you think those diseases went, on a vacation?

You're kind of a special person, huh, Robert?

You're the one making the outrageous claim, so the onus is on you to provide evidence to the contrary.

I didn't make an outrageous claim. But since you fallaciously made one up below I 'll address your particular one.

And are you really contending that vaccinations didn't very-nearly eliminate diseases like smallpox and polio? Where do you think those diseases went, on a vacation?

Regarding smallpox the data seems scarce. Yes it is gone but we don't know how many the vaccine killed and how many cases were actually caused by the vaccine.

Polio reduced by about half immediately because reseachers redefined polio. Where did those cases go? You tell me.

http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/sebin/m/b/meier.pdf

Marks: Let me ask you about the 1954 Salk PolioVaccine Želd trials. You’ve written, very enthusiastically, about this trial. Let me play devil’s advocate.Weren’t the 1954 Želd trials very sloppy trials, fromthe point of view of ‘good’ experimental design?Half or more of the children were studied withobservational controls in states that were unwillingto randomize. Then, you have multiple endpoints:polio deaths, cases reported, paralytic cases, nonparalytic cases, antibody titres . . . . And for some ofthese endpoints there are issues of ascertainmentbias. What would you say?

Meier: Well, Ž rst of all, the polio study was the mostelaborate trial that was ever done, and you had to doit that way because polio was very scarce. ...

Next, we said, the diagnosis of polio is tricky, butwe need to have the entire country’s physiciansparticipate, because we can’t look over every casewhere there’s some kind of paralysis. So physiciansreported the cases they thought were polio accordingto the protocol, and we accepted those cases. Now,about half those cases were probably not polio at all,...

Something similar is going on in India?

http://www.issuesinmedicalethics.org/202co114.html

It was hoped that following polio eradication, immunisation could be stopped. However the synthesis of polio virus in 2002, made eradication impossible. It is argued that getting poor countries to expend their scarce resources on an impossible dream over the last 10 years was unethical.

Furthermore, while India has been polio-free for a year, there has been a huge increase in non-polio acute flaccid paralysis (NPAFP). In 2011, there were an extra 47,500 new cases of NPAFP. Clinically indistinguishable from polio paralysis but twice as deadly, the incidence of NPAFP was directly proportional to doses of oral polio received. Though this data was collected within the polio surveillance system, it was not investigated. The principle of primum-non-nocere was violated.

But I digress. There is the real fact that mortality sharply decreases before and without the use of vaccines for all infectious diseases. Why? Because of better living conditions and ability to withstand serious disease consequences. This flies in the face of the fallacy that we'll all die or go back to the 1800's if some people stop vaccinating or question vaccines, medicine's golden calf.

http://www.healthsentinel.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2654:united-states-disease-death-rates&catid=55:united-states-deaths-from-diseases&Itemid=55#comments

http://www.healthsentinel.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2653:england-and-wales-death-rates&catid=54:england-and-wales-death-rates&Itemid=55#comments

http://ocw.jhsph.edu/courses/EpiInfectiousDisease/PDFs/EID_lec1_Nelson.pdf

Polio reduced by about half immediately because reseachers redefined polio.Polio reduced by about half immediately because reseachers redefined polio.

Maybe in that trial (maybe...) but not so in real life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poliomyelitis

There is the real fact that mortality sharply decreases before and without the use of vaccines for all infectious diseases.

The mortality may have dropped, but vaccines reduced the mortality as well as the incidence. And incidence is also important to look at because polio has many nonfatal complications (like paralysis)

And the mortality drop was NOT zero until after vaccination. So you may be ok condemning thousands of children to death or paralysis, but humanity as a whole disagrees with you

So you may be ok condemning thousands of children to death or paralysis, but humanity as a whole disagrees with you

enough with the rhetoric. I have two healthy children. Where are all of these thousands of children that I am "condemning to death or paralysis. That's nonsensical and ridiculous.

That's nonsensical and ridiculous.

You stated that polio numbers dropped after living conditions improved. However, they were NOT zero. After vaccination, the number became zero. So if the death rate was 1%, or even less, over 50 years or so, that equals thousands of kids

Its not rhetoric; its math. You can't argue with numbers.

You stated that polio numbers dropped after living conditions improved. However, they were NOT zero. After vaccination, the number became zero. So if the death rate was 1%, or even less, over 50 years or so, that equals thousands of kids

Its not rhetoric; its math. You can't argue with numbers.

Strawman argument. First of all I didnt' say polio specifically dropped because of living conditions. And didn't say incidence or mortality dropped to zero before vaccination.

So if the death rate was 1%, or even less, over 50 years or so, that equals thousands of kids

The problem is your emotionally charged use of language in saying that I am condemning thousands of children to death or paralysis. That's dishonest.

Its not rhetoric; its math. You can't argue with numbers.

It's not math. It's you arguing with a strawman.

Strawman argument

Its not. Its proof of thousands of lives saved. This is what you do when you are proved wrong. You claim "strawman" or "non sequitor"

Others have noticed that as well

That's dishonest.

you may oppose the tone, but the facts are true and indisputable

t's not math. It's you arguing with a strawman.

Instead of trying to characterize my argument, why don't you try reason and logic to defend your point

How does dropping the mortality rate from 1% to 0% not equal thousands of lives saved over the course of decades?

Simple question robert. No strawman, no personal attacks. Just answer it.

Robert:

First of all I didnt' say polio specifically dropped because of living conditions.

Then what did drop it? "Living conditions" being the only example you provided, I cannot fathom any other one you may posit. Did the tooth fairy do it, Robert?

saying that I am condemning thousands of children to death or paralysis. That's dishonest.

It's not dishonest when in fact that is what you're supporting. If there had been no vaccines, thousands of children would've died. That's fact. If you say otherwise, you have to prove your claim, because, Robert, that's how scientific debate works.

Saying that you are against vaccines then and now means that not only would you have condemned thousands of children to death, but you still would.

Be thankful for your children that community-immunity exists. Your kids will probably be just fine. But for their safety, I wouldn't advocate that everyone leaves the reservation unless you want to put little Tommy Sue at risk.

It's not math. It's you arguing with a strawman.

It's math. Answer Eric's question and stop tap-dancing.

Saying that you are against vaccines then and now means that not only would you have condemned thousands of children to death, but you still would.

YOu are sounding like an emotional nut case whose trying to stir up a religious lynch mob.

Please use some critical thinking skills and analyze the nonsense you just spouted. This is called a logical fallacy. In this case it's dishonest immature thinking

.http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html

1. Bill: "Jill and I both support having prayer in public schools."
   Jill: "Hey, I never said that!"
   Bill: "You're not an atheist are you Jill?"

2. "Look, you are going to have to make up your mind. Either you decide that you can afford this stereo, or you decide you are going to do without music for a while."

1. "Senator Jones says that we should not fund the attack submarine program. I disagree entirely. I can't understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that."

2. Bill and Jill are arguing about cleaning out their closets:
   Jill: "We should clean out the closets. They are getting a bit messy."
   Bill: "Why, we just went through those closets last year. Do we have to clean them out everyday?"
   Jill: "I never said anything about cleaning them out every day. You just want too keep all your junk forever, which is just ridiculous."

Saying that you are against vaccines then and now means that not only would you have condemned thousands of children to death, but you still would.

It's not a fallacy if you cannot prove that the vaccines were not an appropriate course of action to take.

So, you have to prove that they were not the right measure for the situation, otherwise I stand by my assertion that you share the mind of someone guilty of depraved indifference.

this is what robert does. When he is backed into a corner logically, he claims you are being unfair. He reminds me of the kid that would always call a foul when playing street basketball, especially when he's losing

Robert, its a simple question. Here is the data on polio from the CDC during the middle of the 20th century.

http://www.post-polio.org/ir-usa.html

The numbers are reasonably stable until 1955 then plummet over the next ten years. Why?

Theres no logically fallacy here, just a simple question...

why?

Yes it would serve them right, the last time people were denied medical care in a large population, the LA Doctor's strike, the death rate actually went down. Read the book by Dr. Mendelson (MD), the People's Doctor, we may want to re-think injecting mercury and other toxic presevatives into people.

Your more likely to be killed in the hospital than in a car accident....ironic....but true....i always question my physicians and have fired more than i have eva liked....it's hard to find an American Dr. that knows research and ill effects that can be associated with vaccines and certain prescription drugs...having lost my Mother to Avandia which the FDA said was safe....i question all athority/doctor's recomendation's and do my own exhaustive research...usually going to studies done in Europe, Isreal, or Germany....i find more information without the complications of Big Pharma in the mix as is in America. When i research it is usually hours on end and alot of analysis....having a background in analysis and a love for eastern medicines....taking the best of the ancient apothecary and mixing it with herbal medicinals....my immune system can fight off alot....i do not expose myself to snotty nosed kids and feel parents need to keep their sickly children in their homes when they are sick along with themselves....go cough on your relatives and quit going to work sick....you just end up making the whole office sick....common sense people! I have read to many cases of paralysis, retardation, and auto immune diseases from vaccinations...also the hospitals did not report alot of these cases unless alot of paper work was filled out by the relatives....exhausting....and repetative for a reason....so why question vaccinations? If you like playing Russian roulette well thats up to you and if your child gets autism dont come crying to me.

Classy!

Problem: most of the "educated" un-vaccinated are liberals. At least here in Washington, where we've had a record whooping cough outbreak, they seem to be.

If you are trying to insult Repubs, then saying "at least 25% of them" is ridiculous because you are saying the other 75% (therefore a clear majority, since math does not appear to be your thing) are Dems or other.

Would you like to try again?

Geo, so that makes at least 50% of them Democrats..So what's your point? I'm figuring that 25% would be independents.

Actually, they tend to be the liberal "crunchy mama" type

I'm noticing a trend on this board...those who are hateful and mean are also pro-immunization. I'm not sure what that means. But it is interesting.

Mr. Geowil, I think your argument platforms are crossed. Natural Selection reacts positively towards the unvaccinated. A vaccine is an artificial substance, thus unnatural, so what you are actually saying is
that Nature will heal the unvaccinated by default and you are correct. Eating correctly and keeping your systems clean and uncontaminated strengthens your immunity. Allopathic methodology and the
substitution of your Natural Attributes by artificial substances designed to create wealth instead of health is what weakens your body and renders vulnerability. The more medicines and vaccines you take, the sicker and weaker you get. The human body does not need artificial substances to heal. It needs correct nutrition. It will not be long now before science itself proves allopathy incorrect.

Threee,

what I said was that NS will resume its course meaning it will start killing a certain number of people who are not vaccinated. Vaccines alter the process of natural selection by removing deadly agents that once used to keep the population life expectancy down to around 40 and also killed off many kids as well.

Those that are not vaccinated will once again be susceptible or at least more susceptible to things that other children/people will not. For example the only reason Small Pox does not exist in America anymore is because vaccines stamped it out.

@the 25% comment

I was trying to be sensitive. I said at least 25% which means at the very least 25% of them were Republicans. That does not mean I think only 25% of them are R's but that 25% would be the lowest makeup of the group. Personally I think it is much higher around 56% to 75%.

I am sorry that flew over all of your heads, I did not expect it to be that difficult to understand.

What about the elephant-in-the-room with how our children now suffer epidemics of cancer, autism, diabetes, crohn's disease, arthritis, asthma, allergies, lupus, seizures, MS, eczema, and a MOUNTAIN of other chronic neurological and autoimmune issues? It's no accident this is happening, either.

While admittedly we have several dietary and environmental factors contributing to this rise in chronic conditions in children, perhaps the main offender is vaccination.

Take a look at how the vaccination schedule has almost QUADRUPLED since the 80s. The rise in chronic epidemics with children mirrors the rise in the vaccination schedule:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-arqv6t8VacY/T7QvOcTrpmI/AAAAAAAAD-U/EBqU4n3R0SE/s1600/VaxCDC.png

What a load of crap!!! The great reduction in deaths from preventable diseases since the advent of vaccines is CLEAR EVIDENCE of their efficacy. But you would risk your child's life over a facile supposition just to jump on a trendy "I'm the kool parent" bandwagon? Great parenting there ... NOT!

Oh no, someone doesn't know the difference between correlation and causation.

I agree with you Diesel. I think a great many of the anti-vaccine group are the same ones who don't think twice about all the chemicals they put into their kids bodies every day with processed and junk foods. They don't seem to consider that those chemicals can have a greater long term affect on their children than getting the vaccine could.

I've read the articles about the people who believe that vaccines cause autism and ADD and other problems, but do these people consider the drugs that they themselves may take and TOOK during pregnancy of producing those same affects? I've been reading reports of late about how taking certain meds during pregnancy such as Paxil and Prosac and others have caused autism. Do these people even consider that? When you figure the rise in cases of Autism and ADHD and the like it makes you think. That these rises have coincided with the popularity of these drugs.

In reading the posts here I find it troubling to see some wishing that their vaccinated child exposed to an illness and caused the death of an unvaccinated one. Shame on the lot of you, for wishing the death of a child. Whatever your reasoning, it's disgusting.

Janine--sadly, parents of kids who develop autism want to find SOMEONE to blame for their child regressing, so they have jumped at anything OTHER than something they themselves might have done, or even that the condition might be genetically disposed.

The hollywood starlet (used to be married to Jim Carey, but I forget her name) was the driving force behind 'vaccinatiions gave my son autism.'

She is grasping at straws. I feel sorry for her, AND for her son, but she is endangering millions of other kids on her pseudo-science.

I nearly fell off the chair laughing... 'mainstream news stories'?!?!?

Well, I guess if your normal reading is guns n' ammo while wearing your tinfoil hat and not drinking flouridated water that might be considered mainstream.

the vaccine is causing the bacteria to mutate

No, it's the fact that children are contracting whooping cough, and letting it mutate, that makes the current vaccines ineffective. This results in needing booster shots by those all ready vaccinated.

Please go read a biology text on the incidence of natural mutation in bacteria.

Then read about how elimination of one type of bacteria allows another bacteria to thrive in its absence.

The reason studies are lacking is because it would be unethical to do a full clinical trial that would prove it. You can't have one group randomized to get the vaccine and the other not, because then you are not providing the standard of care to one group, which is unethical. You could do an observational study where you follow some that are vaccinated and some that are not (by parental choice) but this is not the highest level of evidence and would be subject to all sorts of bias and confounding. Please read about how actual medical studies are done.

Yes, and so therefore, when "experts" claim that the vaccinated have a less severe form of whooping cough, they are lying through their teeth. They refuse to conduct a study of the vaccinated vs unvaccinated because it's "unethical" (read: skeered). If they conducted such a study, they'd find that the unvaccinated are infinitely more healthy.

Just my story and opinion. Take it for what it is worth.

Im very sorry for your situation. However, there is nothing here to suggest a cause and effect relationship. The timing is close, but the timing of vaccines and the time when children first start showing signs of autism happen to be close together.

Furthermore, this is why we do studies. One or two children does not constitute evidence, especially when compared to the thousands and millions that have been involved in clinical trials which have so far failed to demonstrate a connection, despite the mass amount of attention this particular theory has recieved, more from the media than from an actual scientific reason, sad to say

You have no idea what you are talking about. There are hundreds-of-thousands of parents who believed whole-heartedly in vaccination, but then witnessed their child develop neurological disorders of varying degrees immediately after a round of vaccination. Vaccines should be halted immediately until it's conclusively proved that there IS no connection. That has not happened and WON'T happen anytime soon. Recently, Shawn Siegel hosted a show where moms called in to recount the horrifying experiences they have experienced with vaccine injuries: Here's a link to that particular show: http://mp3.logosradionetwork.com/VAX/64k/VAX_2012-08-26_64k.mp3

MG-California,

I have
a similar story with my son. He was
happy, he was healthy and when he received his MMR shot right before our
overseas station something changed. The
pediatrician had cleared him for travel, and as soon as we got to our overseas
station (one week later) they realized something was wrong. Before my eyes my child regressed, he stopped
babbling/talking he became wobbly, he started acting like an autistic
child. We were in country less than 2
months before the doctor decided to send us back to the United States because
something was seriously wrong. He
actually stopped making noise completely until he was 3 and a half. Thankfully, he is a lot better now. Well, after him, we did have a daughter but I
waited to vaccinate her because I felt it was better if we waited until she was
a little older. She is now fully caught
up. I do not understand what the rush is
to fully vaccinate an infant before they are 24 months. I slowly started at 2 years with only one
vaccine at a time.

I fully believe in vaccinations, I
feel they save lives. I also feel it is
not necessary to give a child all those shots before they are two years
old. I feel these vaccinations begin too
early and we cannot deny that everything we put into our children’s bodies have
an effect, especially when they are so small. I am sure my kids doctor hated me because I
was so anal about the one shot thing, but whatever, he will live. Maybe what happened with our kids was a fluke,
maybe not but when if I had to make the decision again; I would have waited for
my son to be older before I started with all those shots, maybe it would have
made a difference.

@Michelle

Your story is terrible, and I'm sorry that this happened to you, but there's two things I feel the need to point out. You say waiting til after the age of 2 may be best for shots. The fact is children under the age of 2 are the most susceptible to all diseases, and that's why they are given so early. So, it's a choice between a potentially dead child and a potentially mentally handicapped one. The second point is that even in children with no vaccines, the effect is the same. An quick onset of things like autism(I can only assume that's what you mean by 'regressed.') It's onset comes at roughly the same time as the MMR vaccine in children. So it's not neccesarilly the cause. Again, I'm sorry to hear your story, but there are just too many factors, and there's just too many good things that vaccines have done for us to let the anti-vaccine movement to take hold.

and what i find puzzling is that you cannot turn your tv on without twenty adds for pharmaceuticals of all kinds and then listen many many many..side effects . some even proclaim to possibly cause death and yet we do not fear or question vaccine safety. of course some vaccines are necessary. why are we not concerned about the quadrupling of the amount that we now say are necessary. corporations do manufacture them. could it be possible that maybe profits could play a part?

You are an MD? So what is your proposed mechanism of action? As I understand it, all studies done to date on a link between autism and vaccination have been negative. Now we are left with individual stories that are fear provoking and are causing people to not vaccinate based on fear. Doesn't seem like an MD should be promoting it--as an MD. It is just an individual story of events without enough information to figure out what it means.

Dr.Eric

Im very sorry for your situation. However, there is nothing here to suggest a cause and effect relationship. The timing is close, but the timing of vaccines and the time when children first start showing signs of autism happen to be close together.

What evidence do you have to outright dismiss causality in this particular case. You don't have any.

As a medical doctor and steward of disease, you shouldn't be so biased as to handwave and dismiss iatrogenic disease just because of prior assumptions. It is not scientific to make such hasty conclusions.

What evidence do you have to outright dismiss causality in this particular case. You don't have any.

What evidence do you have to dismiss high tide's role in causality? How about Obama's? How about kangaroos?

Its not practical to rule out every possibility under the sun. Thats not science. You need to have a theory, and then prove that...not ask people to do things bass ackwards.

Otherwise, you could spout off any nonsense like I did in the examples above

is not scientific to make such hasty conclusions.

as I have shown you, the basics of even the scientific method escape you

Its not practical to rule out every possibility under the sun. Thats not science. You need to have a theory, and then prove that...not ask people to do things bass ackwards.

How did you automatically without a shred of evidence rule out the vaccine as causative? That is not scientific. It's callled prior assumptions. You 're a doctor but you're also a flawed human with your own belief systems.

How did you automatically without a shred of evidence rule out the vaccine as causative

How did you automatically without a shred of evidence rule out kangaroos are causative?

That is not scientific. It's callled prior assumptions. You 're NOT a doctor but you're DEFINITELY a flawed human with your own belief systems.

What is the difference?

How did you automatically without a shred of evidence rule out kangaroos are causative?

Because the child didn't get a kangaroo right before the damage. But the vaccine court is a kangaroo court.

She said the damage was quick and profound after the MMR shot. You arrogantly dismissed this mothers own observation when you had no observation nor knowledge of the case.

Because the child didn't get a kangaroo right before the damage.

I see. So a temporal relationship is all that is needed. What about a full moon? I knew a kid that was diagnosed with autism during a full moon.

Now I have exactly the same evidence as you. I can do this all day

You arrogantly dismissed this mothers own observation when you had no observation nor knowledge of the case.

Thats your opinion. Do you know the difference between opinion and fact? No? Not yet? Not yet robert?

You know as much as many of the two bit internet experts on here. You even say the stock phrase "correlation does not equal causation" without really knowing the meaning

Firstly, you blantantly substitute a correlation (timing of the vaccine) with causation (child later gets autism)

Secondly, you are blind to the inverse of that statement: The absence is correlation is proof of non-causation. In other words, if you fail to even show correlation, then there can be NO causation.

And to date, on large trials looking at just correlation, these have shown no evidence of even correlation. So by definition, there is no causation.

What about a full moon? I knew a kid that was diagnosed with autism during a full moon.

I don't believe in all honesty that you do. I think you're just being a calloused medical doctor who condescends people who have been hurt by your system of medicine.

Firstly, you blantantly substitute a correlation (timing of the vaccine) with causation (child later gets autism)

the mother said it was immediate and profound. Why should I not believe her? Does she not know her child better than you or a medical doctor who visited for 3 minutes? Who are you and what do you know to tell her she is a liar or not to trust her own observations? this is the same story over and over thousands of times. And all they get from arrogant doctors like you is denialism.

According to you there is no proof that has shown that vaccine has ever killed or permanently injured anyone. So you can see why parents are turning away from this calloused system of compulsory vaccination under the false duress of disease mongering.

I don't believe in all honesty that you do.

Youre clearly trying to dodge the point robert. I think both you and I realize that. The point is you could substitute vaccines with anything in close temporal proximity (full moon, starting school, toilet training) and have the same level of evidence as you

Im sure there was a kid somewhere that was diagnosed with autism around the time of a full moon. Now have you proven this moon didn't cause his autism? How? Where's your long term prospective randomized trial? huh robert?

I think you're just being a calloused medical doctor who condescends people who have been hurt by your system of medicine.

Resorting to childish insults is a sign you are losing an argument

the mother said it was immediate and profound

same with the full moon

It's not a childish insult. You are dismissing this mother's observations that her child was immediatly and profoundly damaged by vaccines.

And what about the thousands of others who say they same. Do you automatically dismiss them without even examining one single case? It's a bad detective to dismiss suspects without interviewing them. One should look at all avenues before automatically dismissing possible caused. You should at least acknowledge that the vaccine is at least a possibilty as the damage causer. But the fact that you can't do that shows you are a bad doctor and lack scientific skills.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsnL9yHApIA

Are all of these certainly coincidences. Is it a coincidence that they all raised their hands when the question was asked?

t's not a childish insult.

Calling someone names is childish robert. You have called me arrogant, callous, etc. Its no different than calling someone poopyhead on the playground.

You are dismissing this mother's observations that her child was immediatly and profoundly damaged by vaccines.

You are dismissing this mother's observations that her child was immediatly and profoundly damaged by a full moon

And what about the thousands of others who say they same

Now we are getting somewhere. Is it your position that the strength of evidence rises with increasing numbers? Please go on the record with your answer here.

. One should look at all avenues before automatically dismissing possible caused

Fair enough. Where is your evidence looking at full moons? What seperates them from vaccines?

You should at least acknowledge that the vaccine is at least a possibilty as the damage causer

You should at least acknowledge that the full moon is at least a possibilty as the damage causer

Have I made the point clear to you yet? You have no more evidence for your theory than I do for mine. You claim I have not ruled out vaccines, yet you have not ruled out full moons.

Again and again....What is the difference?

Calling someone names is childish robert. You have called me arrogant, callous, etc. Its no different than calling someone poopyhead on the playground.

That's a characterization, dr. Eric, not a name call.

You are dismissing this mother's observations that her child was immediatly and profoundly damaged by a full moon

Is that your argument? Are you sure you went to medical school. It's not intellectual. We know the temporal association. You make up the full moon association the way a tobacco PR firm would. Why would you make up doubt like that? Just to create doubt in an argument? Again I don't think you are a real doctor when you say BS like this!

Have I made the point clear to you yet? You have no more evidence for your theory than I do for mine. You claim I have not ruled out vaccines, yet you have not ruled out full moons.

No! I dont think you've made any point because you obviously made up the gambit about a full moon ibn order to create doubt. It's called tobacco science! Do you remember when medical doctors such as yourself used to advertise for tobacco companies?

That's a characterization, dr. Eric, not a name call.

so if I were to call someone a d!ck...that's a characterization? Its name calling robert.

Again I don't think you are a real doctor when you say BS like this!

Yet you cannot refute it, nor my contention that my hypothesis has as much evidence as yours, and you have failed to rule out full moon as a possibility

Do you remember when medical doctors such as yourself used to advertise for tobacco companies?

Dodging and changing the subject. A favorite robert tactic when he is losing.

Lets sum up:

1)Full moons and vaccines have the same exact evidence for causing autism

2)You have not ruled out full moons as a causitive factor, therefore, it is bad science to immediately disregard it

Yet you cannot refute it, nor my contention that my hypothesis has as much evidence as yours, and you have failed to rule out full moon as a possibility

You can not refute that I'm a rocket scientist.

1)Full moons and vaccines have the same exact evidence for causing autism

You don't know the autism vaccine literature. Since you are a claimed medical doctor you should be able to provide the data and statistics for full moons and comparative correlation to vaccines and autism. It's not medically professional of you.

If you're playing the "it's merely coincidental that vaccines happen to be given when the child develops autism" meme. Then you are admitting that there is a correlation. You have just chosen dismiss the causation with an explanation of temporal coincidence.

Now you have claimed that there is the same correlation with full moons and autism. You need to provide scientific evidence of this claim for a comparative analysis.

You can not refute that I'm a rocket scientist.

Again, typical robert diversionary tactics suggestive of him losing an argument. Im going to ignore your nonsequitor.

You don't know the autism vaccine literature. Since you are a claimed medical doctor you should be able to provide the data and statistics for full moons and comparative correlation to vaccines and autism. It's not medically professional of you.

You have provided none supporting a vaccine-autism link. Thats the point. t's not medically professional of you.

Then you are admitting that there is a correlation

Correct. Not causation. Glad we agree

You have just chosen dismiss the causation

The same way you dismiss causation with respect to full moons

Now you have claimed that there is the same correlation with full moons and autism. You need to provide scientific evidence of this claim for a comparative analysis.

As soon as you provide scientific evidence for the same regarding vaccines

The same way you dismiss causation with respect to full moons

There is no correlation. And I do not admit to there being a correlation nor have you shown any correlation. You're just saying words. There are thousands of people who have observed their children regress after childhood vaccinations.

A study comparing the health of the vaccinated vs. the unvaccinated should be done to settle the question of harm and the neccesity of all of these vaccines being added to the schedule. Until then the debate and observation of harm will continue. Unfortunately doctors like you will continue denying that vaccines can cause serious harm. I personally think you are an irresponsible and dangerous member of the medical profession to blatantly dismiss the harm that can come from medical procedures. A sane rational doctor would agree that the harm can and does happen but they are willing to take that chance with their patients. But no. you are a medical harm denialist.

http://www.amazon.com/Overdiagnosed-Making-People-Pursuit-Health/dp/0807022004

I'm reading this book right now. Perhaps you should read it to get a handle on reality and the situation modern medicine.

From a nationally recognized expert, an exposé of the worst excesses of our zeal for medical testing

After the criteria used to define osteoporosis were altered, seven million American women were turned into patients—literally overnight. The proliferation of fetal monitoring in the 1970s was associated with a 66 percent increase in the number of women told they needed emergency C-sections, but it did not affect how often babies needed intensive care—or the frequency of infant death. The introduction of prostate cancer screening resulted in over a million additional American men being told they have prostate cancer, and while studies disagree on the question of whether a few have been helped—there’s no disagreement that most have been treated for a disease that was never going to bother them. As a society consumed by technological advances and scientific breakthroughs, we have narrowed the definition of normal and increasingly are turning more and more people into patients. Diagnoses of a great many conditions, including high blood pressure, osteoporosis, diabetes, and even cancer, have skyrocketed over the last few decades, while the number of deaths from those diseases has been largely unaffected.

Drawing on twenty-five years of medical practice and research, Dr. H. Gilbert Welch and his colleagues, Dr. Lisa M. Schwartz and Dr. Steven Woloshin, have studied the effects of screenings and presumed preventative measures for disease and “pre-disease.” Welch argues that while many Americans believe that more diagnosis is always better, the medical, social, and economic ramifications of unnecessary diagnoses are in fact seriously detrimental. Unnecessary surgeries, medication side effects, debilitating anxiety, and the overwhelming price tag on health care are only a few of the potential harms of overdiagnosis.

Through the stories of his patients and colleagues, and drawing from popular media, Dr. Welch illustrates how overdiagnosis occurs and the pitfalls of routine tests in healthy individuals. We are introduced to patients such as Michael, who had a slight pain in his back. Despite soon feeling fine, a questionable abnormal chest X-ray led to a sophisticated scan that detected a tiny clot in his lung. Because it could not be explained, his doctors suggested that it could be a sign of cancer. Michael did not have cancer, but he now sees a psychiatrist to deal with his anxiety about cancer.

According to Dr. Welch, a complex web of factors has created the phenomenon of overdiagnosis: the popular media promotes fear of disease and perpetuates the myth that early, aggressive treatment is always best; in an attempt to avoid lawsuits, doctors have begun to leave no test undone, no abnormality—no matter how incidental—overlooked; and, inevitably, profits are being made from screenings, a wide array of medical procedures, and, of course, pharmaceuticals. Examining the social, medical, and economic ramifications of a health care system that unnecessarily diagnoses and treats patients, Welch makes a reasoned call for change that would save us from countless unneeded surgeries, debilitating anxiety, and exorbitant costs.

Perhaps you could see your own role in this and understand why you resist these types of questions. Perhaps it ignorance. Perhaps it ego related.

There are thousands of people who have observed their children regress after childhood vaccinations.

And Im one person that observed a child regress after a full moon. Whats the difference

I keep asking you the same question and get absolutely no response

What is the difference robert?

Whats the difference??

A study comparing the health of the vaccinated vs. the unvaccinated should be done to settle the question of harm and the neccesity of all of these vaccines being added to the schedule

I have shown you multiple studies comparing kids who recieved MMR and kids who did not. You either ignore or fail to acknowledge those studies

Where is YOUR study showing proof that vaccines cause autism? Until then, you have as much proof as my full moon theory

Perhaps...

Perhaps you should learn the difference between fact and opinion. Perhaps it is ignorance. Perhaps it is ego related

And Im one person that observed a child regress after a full moon. Whats the difference

Their observations are honest, sincere, and out of love. Your's is dishonest and made purely for argumentative tactics

Where is YOUR study showing proof that vaccines cause autism?

Please see above. The study proposed has NEVER been done.

Their observations are honest, sincere, and out of love. Your's is dishonest and made purely for argumentative tactics

Does not address the validity of the observation

lease see above. The study proposed has NEVER been done.

So why do I have to show studies to prove what doesn't cause autism while you do not have to show any studies to prove what does?

Double standard suggestive of non scientific thought

The study proposed has NEVER been done.

Oh, but it has. Multiple retrospective studies have shown no correlation between vaccination and autism. A retrospective study is all that is needed to show correlation (unlike causation which needs prospective analysis)

However, with a lack of correlation, no causation is possible. You cannot have causation without correlation. Thus, it is shown by the best available evidence that vaccines do not cause autism.

Does not address the validity of the observation

You are skeptical of patient stories and histories and tend to not trust their judgements of recollections because of prior bias. I believe them.

You come from the assumption that vaccines can not cause autism or brain damage. This can not be proven. Under your burdens of proof then someone in the 1920's who smoked did not actually get lung cancer and die because no such study could prove that actually happened to that single patient. Must be why doctors advertised cigarettes for there proven benefits of stress relief.

You are skeptical of patient stories and histories and tend to not trust their judgements of recollections because of prior bias. I believe them.

On the contrary.

a) i take patient histories daily. I listen to more people in real life than you do even online

b)Your bias is pointing you towards believing her story

c) irrelevant

This can not be proven.

It can to a scientific certainty

920's who smoked did not actually get lung cancer

nonsequitor and ignored

Lets sum up:

a) my full moon theory and your vaccine theory still share the same level of evidence (eyewitness testimony of correlation)

b) You have failed in disproving my theory amid claims by you that ALL theories need to be fully explored before dismissed

Again, what seperates my full moon theory from your vaccine theory aside from your emotions?

It can to a scientific certainty

science can not give certainty. The best it can do is give probability. And you forget that medicine is not science.

science can not give certainty

Clearly you are ignorant of the term "scientific certainty". Allow me to educate you:

http://lpr.oxfordjournals.org/content/2/1/25.short

It is essentially a legal term which bridges the gap for people like you (that is, a layperson) to understand. Of course nothing is absolutely written in stone in science. But there are many ideas, like evolution, that are so commonly accepted, and have such a large base of evidence, that they are certain to a scientific degree. Anyway, this is over your head and irrelevent

And you forget that medicine is not science

We're not necessarily talking about medicine here. We are talking about biology and physiology, both of which are sciences

Either way, irrelevant again. I'll repeat myself for the umpteenth time:

Lets sum up:

a) my full moon theory and your vaccine theory still share the same level of evidence (eyewitness testimony of correlation)

b) You have failed in disproving my theory amid claims by you that ALL theories need to be fully explored before dismissed

Again, what seperates my full moon theory from your vaccine theory aside from your emotions?

Clearly you are ignorant of the term "scientific certainty". Allow me to educate you:

Try again. Your link is about scientific UNcertainty not scientific certainty. Even Newton's laws aren't the truth. You need not be so arrogant.

YOU try again....you actually have to read past the title nimrod. Look at the first sentence...

This paper proposes a subjective scale of scientific uncertainty that allows a source of scientific information to express to a lay audience the subjective level of certainty or uncertainty that it associates with a particular assertion of scientific fact

Anyway, why are you scared to answer my main points:

a) my full moon theory and your vaccine theory still share the same level of evidence (eyewitness testimony of correlation)

b) You have failed in disproving my theory amid claims by you that ALL theories need to be fully explored before dismissed

Again, what seperates my full moon theory from your vaccine theory aside from your emotions and subjective assessment of my motives?

This paper proposes a subjective scale of scientific uncertainty that allows a source of scientific information to express to a lay audience the subjective level of certainty or uncertainty that it associates with a particular assertion of scientific fact

There is no such thing as scientific certainty! Nothing in this paper or your opinion has challenged that! Try again. Now you can certainly speak from the position of medical arrogance. But that does not change the fact of science is NEVER certain. Only probable. And again, medicine isn't even science.

Again, what seperates my full moon theory from your vaccine theory aside from your emotions and subjective assessment of my motives?

There isn't "thousands or Dr. eric's observing that a full moon was observed to cause autism. It's something you completely made up.

I dont think you give a @!$%# what causes autism you just want to defend vaccines at all cost and no matter the truth. But that's just my opinion. And you are free to believe in whatever belief system you are entitled to.

im going to drop the scientific certainty thing, because its not the point. but if you don't feel like it exists, just try googling it and seeing how many hits you get

Not bad for a term that doesn't exist...

nd again, medicine isn't even science.

And again, biology, physiology, and immunology are

There isn't "thousands or Dr. eric's observing that a full moon was observed to cause autism. It's something you completely made up.

So your claim is based on numbers then. So if I could find more people who thought a full moon caused autism, then it would become true?

So, according to you, we could save a lot of time, money, and effort and do away with clinical trials and instead...just vote?

Just do a show of hands I guess...sounds about right

I dont think you give a @!$%# what causes autism

why? because I disagree with you, and anyone who claims vaccines cause autism? So then, by your theory, most of the educated world "doesn't give a sh!t...

you just want to defend vaccines at all cost and no matter the truth.

I have pressed you time and again for evidence. You cant even tell me why autism is caused by vaccines over full moons except that more people vote for vaccines. Thats not truth

But that's just my opinion. And you are free to believe in whatever belief system you are entitled to.

don't get mad at me for trying to make you face what your opinion is built on--a house of cards. So far the only evidence you have provided over my full moon theory is that "thousands" of people believe vaccines cause autism. So 0.00001% of the population does compared to 99.99%+ that disagrees..

Not convincing robert

im going to drop the scientific certainty thing,

It's best that you do.

So if I could find more people who thought a full moon caused autism

Come up with several thousand and I'll take a look. But you just have your purposeful and dishonestly contrived hypothesis!

So then, by your theory, most of the educated world "doesn't give a sh!t...

Are you self proclaiming that all of your opinion represent the "educated world". And since when does consensensus equal the truth?

Are you sure you are a caring doctor? Are you sure you're not just the penguin? How do I know this. How do I know you not some pharmaceutical plant just spouting of calloused BS? Why can't you answer the question? Since you like to delve into epistemology you should just answer the question, Penquin.

You claim to be a cardiologist but you don't even understand what NNT means. How do I know that your not some pharmaceutical blogging plant? Just trying to create doubt just like the tobacco psuedo scientists did for decades? Why did doctor's advertise for tobacco firms? Why did the cancer society presidents quit their posts and then go to work for big tobacco?

It's best that you do.

Yeah, cause otherwise you'll perseverate on that and try and dodge the questions that are to the point

Did you try a google search?

Come up with several thousand and I'll take a look. But you just have your purposeful and dishonestly contrived hypothesis!

So answer my question--is truth derived from a vote? If so, if I found more who claimed the opposite, would I then be right?

Are you self proclaiming that all of your opinion represent the "educated world".

I share the opinion of most educated people

And since when does consensensus equal the truth?

Thats the funniest thing youve said, since thats your ONLY evidence for vaccination induced autism

Are you sure..

the answers to all those questions are irrelevant

ou don't even understand what NNT means

number needed to treat, or the inverse of the absolute risk reduction. Its really not that hard of a concept

What YOU don't understand is its limitations--namely that is time dependent, and that it can't differentiate between a reduction from 30% to 29% or from 1% to 0%--same NNT but widely different efficacies

Why did doctor's advertise for tobacco firms?

irrelevant

Why did the cancer society presidents quit their posts and then go to work for big tobacco?

irrelevant

No, you have SOME FRINGE sources that are readily debunked by ACTUAL, MAINSTREAM sources backed by a plethora of rigorously controlled and documented studies. Please don't expect those of us who genuinely weigh the evidence to jump on board your train of destruction because YOU CHOOSE to believe what you want to rather than what the majority of evidence supports. If you want to use ancecdotal evidence (which the vast majority of yours is), here's some for you: I have older family members who suffered through the polio epidemic of the early 20th century. Our family alone lost 3 members to the disease. Our community lost hundreds. This was a familiar experience in communities across the country. Fast forward a couple decades and the culprit was pertussis, with similar results amongst the very young and old. And again mid-century. About that same time German Measles became epidemic, and guess what? Pregnant women contracted it and had deaf children. I learned American Sign in kindergarten because my best friend was one of those children. Then came the vaccines, and ... gasp, gasp ... the diseases were radically slowed and their devastating effects became unusual rather than commonplace. YOU ARE A FOOL to deny the clear evidence that vaccines work! Every medicine has risks, but the benefits of vaccines far outweigh those risks, and people who refuse to vaccinate their kids ARE A THREAT TO SOCIETY AT LARGE PERIOD.

Maybe you should read some of them and get a little education instead of insulting and hating!

the problem is his links are not from reputable sources. I could find a link to a site claiming elvis is alive on mars...does not make it true or even worth reading.

You sound so smart!! I will definately follow your recommendation!!! NOT! I already did vaccinate my children, big mistake!

In order to find the truth you have to INVESTIGATE BOTH sides and information! But you are to scared to check out the other side because you are brainwashed and it is very hard to get trough brainwashed people just like religios fanatics that believe what they have been told as children and out of fear of hell and condamnation are too scared to ask meaningful questions!

You are soooo wrong! I WAS pro vaccine! My husband is a MD University professor! Both of us believe in science until we had to learn the HARD way! Let's hope YOU won't have to learn the hard way! READ THE SCIENCE!!!

It's because you, and other ignorant, superstitious people like you, are putting us and our children at risk while you argue about something you don't understand.

Baloney. Complete and utter BS. I'm fine, my wife is fine and our son is doing just fine, thank you. Quit your pontificating. WE READ medical journals, too.

Get the goddamn vaccinations!

Yeah. We'll get toxic chemicals with infectious microbes injected into our bodies when YOU get a brain. That sound fair?

What exactly was it that led you to term it the biggest mistake you ever made? Get specific.

Sherrypda, It is really hard for those of us who believe in vaccines - and the positive affects of herd immunity - to not be angry toward those who refuse to vaccinate. You are putting our children at risk (especially babies who are not yet vaccinated). The anti-vaccine crowd, on the other hand, has nothing to lose if the rest of us choose to ignore you.

Just imagine how you would feel if someone had the flu, yet came to visit your newborn baby and made your baby sick, maybe even leading to the baby's death. If you can imagine that, then you can imagine why those who choose to vaccinate might be angry with you.

Lovely,

Guess how hard it is for people like me who had the perfect beutiful baby, healthy! I believed in the medical establishment, took my HEALTHY beaby for a "well" visit! She was given 8 shots in one month and from then on I had to watch her decline into a immune related autism! You wouldn't understand that but WE have a vested interest in finding out what caused the change and we DID find out the cause, now imagine how angry YOU would be if you have to watch you child being disabled for the rest of your life because you did NOT read the fine print on the vaccine side effects and just listen what the mainstream media fed you!

I know what autism is, but what exactly is an "immune related" autism?

Thank you Joseph Stalin. Many do not share your statist political beliefs and do not want to be sacrificed for the "good of the state".

Ever read the side effects? Its worst than taking the drug,Even up to death!

the idea that my child could die of the same before he or she is old enough to get a vaccine because we don't have herd immunity anymore because some parents choose to ignore science in favor of hysterical fear mongering absolutely terrifies me.

I think it is you who has been irrationally disease mongered to. You should just take your own vaccines and be confident enough in them instead of parroting the herd immunity meme. Your lack of confidence in the vaccine is manifested as a fear of society.

I have no fear of society and I wrote a dissertation on fear mongering. The anti-vaccine movement is the actual fear mongering, not those suggesting vaccines. My personal anecdote does not trump science, but in this case it does confirm it. The anecdotes of the anti-vaccine crowd, however, contradict science. Vaccine confidence is tied to the herd. Unless we have at least a 90% vaccine rate, the fact that I'm vaccinated does little to protect children or elderly unable to be vaccinated.

I have no fear of society and I wrote a dissertation on fear mongering.

Well obviously there has to be fear of disease if you are going to disease monger.I'm not scared of measles nor concerned with the incidence.

The anti-vaccine movement is the actual fear mongering, not those suggesting vaccines.

That is your perspective. The necessity and safety of mass vaccination is not fearmongering. But you have to be afraid of viruses in order to become angry at your neighbor for not vaccinating.

My personal anecdote does not trump science, but in this case it does confirm it. The anecdotes of the anti-vaccine crowd, however, contradict science.

Having a vaccine injury does not contradict science. Living healthy without vaccines does not contradict science.

Vaccine confidence is tied to the herd. Unless we have at least a 90% vaccine rate, the fact that I'm vaccinated does little to protect children or elderly unable to be vaccinated.

I didn't know that a vaccines effectiveness was tied to your mental state. If a vaccine only works in 10% of the population does 100% uptake create herd immunity? Whooping cough vaccine doesn't work in a large percentage of people and even when it does it wanes in 3 years. Do you uncritically and emotionally blame the healthy unvaccinated for that?

Also whooping vaccine does not stop transmission to babies. Even if it worked 100%.

Nature designed it so that once our immune system created an antibody to fight a virus, our immune system would retain that information to fight the same virus if introduced again, so if you introduce dead or deadened measles into you system, your white blood cells figure out how to consume and eradicated those measles and retain that knowledge to protect you from measles in the first place without running the risk of actually getting measles in the process. You've taught your cells how to ride that bicycle with the help of training wheels and at no point did you have to fall of that bike and scrape up your knees.