E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Jerry Lampen / Reuters file
A young child is vaccinated against the H1N1 flu virus in 2009. A new report says the US childhood vaccine schedule is safe.
It sounds plausible. The average baby gets 24 jabs in 24 months -- needle after needle piercing tender little thighs. Some get as many as five shots in a single doctor’s visit. Surely all this immune stimulation is overloading their little bodies, right?
It’s a seductive idea and one that makes sense, but only to people who don’t study the human immune system. A new report released on Wednesday suggests parents can let go of such concerns.
Nonetheless, government officials need to take these and other worries into account when they design future studies into vaccine safety, the Institute of Medicine committee advised.
“Our committee found no evidence that the childhood immunization schedule is not safe,” Ada Sue Hinshaw, Ph.D, dean of the graduate school of nursing at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences and chair of the committee, told reporters in a conference call.
The Institute, one of the independent National Academies of Science, was asked to look at studies involving not the vaccines themselves, which have been shown numerous times to be safe, but at the schedule for their delivery.
Babies are vaccinated against diphtheria and tetanus, whooping cough and measles, chickenpox and bugs that cause meningitis, pneumonia and diarrhea. Some shots have to be given multiple times over a period of months to fully protect a child, and the schedule is based on when a child becomes vulnerable to infections, as well as when their immune system is developed enough to respond the vaccines.
“A number of concerned parents say the schedule is too ‘crowded’ and have requested flexibility, such as delaying one or more immunizations or having fewer shots per visit,” the committee says in its report.
“Some parents have rejected the vaccines outright, arguing that the potential harm of their child suffering a side effect from the vaccine outweighs the well-documented benefits of immunizations preventing serious disease. Other parents delay or decline immunizations due to worries that family history, the child’s premature birth, or an underlying medical condition may make them more vulnerable to complications. Some simply distrust the federal government’s decisions about the safety and benefits of childhood immunizations.”
And delaying or refusing vaccination can cause harm -- not only to the children who are not fully vaccinated, but to those around them, the committee noted. “States with policies that make it easy to exempt children from immunizations were associated with a 90 percent higher incidence of whooping cough in 2011,” the report says.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says the U.S. is having one of its worst outbreaks of whooping cough in 50 years and that 18 people, mostly very young babies, have died.
Furthermore, the vaccines have been fine-tuned. "Although the number of vaccinations recommended is greater than ever before, the vaccines used in the current immunization schedule actually have fewer antigens (inactivated or dead viruses and bacteria, altered bacterial toxins, or altered bacterial toxins that cause disease and infection) because of developments in vaccine technology. From 1980 to 2000, the immunization schedule’s total number of antigens decreased by approximately 96 percent," the report reads.
More than 90 percent of U.S. children are fully vaccinated by the time they start kindergarten, but some states, cities and towns have rates below that. Depending on the infection, having less than 80 percent to 90 percent of the population vaccinated can cause outbreaks that endanger infants too young to be vaccinated, the elderly, and people such as cancer patients with suppressed immune systems.
And the report notes that most new parents today are too young to remember disease outbreaks of the 20th century. More than 16,000 Americans children were paralyzed by polio in the 20th century. None was last year, thanks to vaccines, the report notes. Smallpox, which once killed a third of its victims, has been completely eradicated by vaccination.
But the National Vaccine Program Office, the Health and Human Services Department agency that commissioned the report, needs to listen more to worried parents, said Dr. Albert Berg of the University of Washington in Seattle, who served on the committee.
“We recognize that parents have some concerns. We should understand those concerns,” Berg said in a telephone interview.
“We should be all on the same side on this topic. We all want a safe and effective vaccine supply.”
Related stories:
- Whooping cough epidemic worst in 50 years
- How about a needle-free vaccine?
- Flu and fever linked with autism
Leave a Comment:
Where is the extensive research and reaction list the supports your argument?
I remember a hospital representative coming to my room after my son was born, requesting I sign forms that would allow them to vaccinate my 1-day-old baby with a LIVE vaccine. I looked at the woman's three heads, and declined. I had a daughter two years earlier, and there was no such vaccine. Furthermore, I did not allow them to start vaccinations at the age of 8 weeks.
Provide your babies with the single most important decision of their little lives.....NURSE them with your own milk, take a few months off of work, if not the duration of raising your child, and hold off on vaccinations until they are, at the very least, four months old!
Where'd you get your PHD ServingSarcasam?
Caggie, you can read about the study here: http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2013/The-Childhood-Immunization-Schedule-and-Safety.aspx
Still no Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated study. Until then it's propaganda.
agree wholeheartedly robert!!!!!
Do you mean Ph.D., Scuba? You know, just to be clear.
I follow the ranges as recommended by the CDC rather than the aggressive schedule that the pediatrician's office suggests. Luckily my pediatrician is very open-minded and understands my concerns around injecting up to 8 vaccines (that included the 5-in-1 shot, 2 single shots and 1 oral suspension) in one visit. My delayed schedule falls in the CDC range and gives me a much better peace of mind. My son is still fully vaccinated, but we never experienced the fever, fussiness, redness that are common reactions when multiple vaccines are given at once. We never do more than two individual vaccines at each visit, which means I take him several times over a 5-6 week period. I refuse the 5-in-1 for a myriad of reasons, but choose the individual components instead. The only reason so many shots are combined is for "compliance" reasons. They cite that most people, if expected to make regular/more often visits to their pediatrician for vaccinations would skip appointments or not comply with the CDCs overall recommendations. To each his own, but I'd prefer to be on the more conservative side of the vaccination schedule, while still complying with the range of vaccines.
@Scubasteve, do YOU have a Ph.D.? Do YOU have a medical degree? TAKE A PICTURE OF YOURS, AND COPY THE LINK, SMARTASS.
Stop bashing this mother who did what was best for her child.
ServingSarcasam,
Yes, I meant Ph. D.
Isis-2,
Not vaccinating your kids is not "doing whats best for your kids" it's the opposite.
She NEVER SAID that she did "not vaccinate", she said she waited until they were a few months old. And there is NOTHING wrong with that, no matter how much you want there to be.
Stop twisting what she said, she vaccinated her child, she DID do what was best for them. Shame on you, and LEARN TO READ THOROUGHLY.
Isis-2 - just to clear...
From the article which you might not have noticed....
"And delaying or refusing vaccination can cause harm -- not only to the children who are not fully vaccinated, but to those around them, the committee noted. "States with policies that make it easy to exempt children from immunizations were associated with a 90 percent higher incidence of whooping cough in 2011," the report says."
See...delay can be harmful.
Whatever, it's really nobody's place, and I don't blame her for not wanting to put an HOUR OLD newborn through shots right away.
Hell, I'm delayed in a couple of my vaccines, but nobody around me has Meningitis, so shut it, mind your own business, and STOP bashing a mother on here who's trying her best.
Ever hear the saying "You were a baby once, too."
There is no cause and effect in this statement. This is exactly the type of propaganda state I'm talking about. It is purposely misleading and alarming. whooping cough occured in states with extremely high vaccine rates.And there are only 2 states with the types of policies they are talking about(only medical exemption). 2011 whooping cough was mostly regional.
so you need to look at statements critically. Especially when deciphering the crap they put out. Define the terms they are saying. They know they are purposefully deceiving.
Which states were compared exactly? percent terms are usually relative statistics. Relative comparisions are typically used because the real(absolute/raw) numbers aren't alarming. What are real numbers?
The picture shows a child being vaccinated against the flu, but the article is discussing childhood disease vaccinations, no mention of the safety of the flu vaccine.
I would guess that they only have so many stock photos, and that this was the closest they could find on short notice to one showing childhood-disease vaccination.
Also, the health care worker in this photo, is giving this flu shot incorrectly. Flu shots should be given intramuscularly, she should be holding the syringe and needle at 90 degree angle. It appears to me she is administrating this subcutaneously, so the efficacy rate for this shot would not be as good.
What a ridiculous irresponsibly incomplete article. What study are we talking about? What data was looked at? Who was on this "committee", and how were they chosen?
This article reports on the findings of the actual study... the details can be found on the Institute of Medicine website. Check it out... I doubt you'll find it to be irresponsible or incomplete.
Totally ridiculous. I applaud the responsible parents who REFUSE to have these foreign toxins in their babies bodies. All the sheeple parents...shame on you. Look at autism when many of your parents attended school this did not exist but many today parents keep play the Russian roulette game with their babies lives and the quality of their life.
Then you give them aspartame, gmo foods, cell phones, heated plastic bottles, microwaves, smart meters, wireless devices all POISON to humans and all life forms on this planet. Look it up. You are contaminating the very little human you would die for...investigate this yourself. Shame on you.
God gave us all we need to survive the FIRST being breast milk. Many mothers just don't want to be inconvenience so they give them laboratory created artificial milk. If you cannot breast feed then DON'T HAVE CHILDREN. On the farm, if these animals do not receive the colostrum they die within 12 weeks...nothing. I repeat NOTHING can bring them back they just die a horrible death.
Think. Read. Question everything. Your baby is trusting you to make the right decisions. It is up to you not articles from someone who is paid to praise this crap. Actual studies lojack...joke. Not even funny.
Argh!!! Studies hurt my brain, I'm just going to keep spouting all the crazy conspiracy crap I saw on youtube, right Deborah? /Sarc.
Shill.
deborah-371 - while I applaud your strong recommendation to breastfed, I am appalled by your assertion that if you cannot breastfeed you shouldn't have children. I am blessed with a beautiful son. I however, was not blessed with a sufficient milk supply despite my best efforts (pumping hourly, taking supplements to enhance mmilk production, etc.). Sadly I had to supplement my son with what you call "laboratory created milk" beginning at week 1 due to my low milk supply. Without the supplement, my son could have starved. Shame on you for being so closed-minded and so self-righteous. By your assertion, I should not have anymore children because it is likely that I will have supply issues again. Think before you spew your self-righteous contempt.
@deborah, STFU. Some mothers cannot breastfeed their ADOPTED children. Some mothers are PHYSICALLY UNABLE to breastfeed. Some mothers might have had masectomies, or breast cancer.
The only person who shouldn't have children is YOU.
@Starlight, just ignore the ignorant @!$%#heads like deborah. They have nothing better to do than judge.
Makes sense to me, lupus, arthritis, fibromyalgia, asthma, allergies, etc.c.all these auto-immune diseases sky rocketing, or just diagnosing have nothing to do with over loaded immune systems right? Nothing gets in the way of money big pharma and money n.r.a.
You realize this study was completed by an independent, nonprofit that works outside the government, right? Just because things are being more accurately diagnosed doesn't mean they didn't exist years ago.
Correlation is not causation. There are other correlating factors. For instance, over the same time period children have been allowed to roam less and less frequently from home, have been kept in much more hygienic conditions, etc. Perhaps all of these problems are being caused by UNDER loaded immune systems that, having nothing else to fight, go after ones own body?
If you read the actual publication this is not a new study. It is just a review of already published studies... Without any actual new statistical analysis... And, to quote from the conclusions:
"The committee recognized that final decisions about research studies must await knowledge of further evidence including, biological plausibility and/or epidemiological evidence, feasibility, cost, and the exact circumstances of stakeholders' concerns, before planning and conduct of specific research projects. In turn, the committee believes that it would be inappropriate to make unqualified recommendations without this knowledge."
So they are just saying nothing in the reviewed studies shows a concern, but since the studies they reviewed were not actually studying the vaccination schedule itself, they cannot rule out the need of a new study that actually studies exactly what the article is about - the vaccination schedule.
In other words, there is absolutely no news here, just propaganda.
The vaccine court has awarded over 2 billion dollars in vaccine injury claims, which is funded by a few of .75 cents per vaccine fee. I would hardly say that vaccines are safe for all children.
#Claims
They aren't 100% safe, but then again, nothing is.
Every drug has side effects, every medical procedure has potential risks. We don't know ahead of time if any given person will be affected positively or negatively. Rational people look at the odds and weigh the risk. The odds of a poor outcome from a vaccine is much, much lower than the disease. That is why vaccinations are recommended.
A baby is much more likely to be killed or injured in a car accident than from a vaccine, even with a car seat and a car with the latest safety technology. Yet we happily transport our babies around in cars without a second thought. But when it comes to vaccines, all of a sudden a small minority of people become obsessed with it and go ballistic.
As someone who worked in emergency rooms this is very hazardous. You must get your children vaccinated. By not doing so you not only put your child at risk, but you put other children, who play or are near your child at risk.
I personally watched whooping cough spread through an emergency department one winter, from one child, whose mother refused to vaccinate him. Whooping cough can be deadly, especially to infant, and the elderly.
Pertussis (whooping cough) is a highly contagious bacterial disease that causes uncontrollable, violent coughing. The coughing can make it hard to breathe. A deep “whooping” sound is often heard when the patient tries to take a breath. It is an upper respiratory infection caused by the Bordetella pertussis or Bordetella parapertussis bacteria. It is a serious disease that can cause permanent disability in infants, and even death.
Putting someone else’s child at risk because of your own ignorance about vaccinations is just sad. And should weigh on every parents conscience. And hopefully, those who put others children at risk, and hurt them will have consequences.
Below is a video explaining what whooping cough is, what it sound like, and was posted last summer in 2012. When one state had 1000 cases of whooping cough.
Thank you so much Tiffany, you are so right about getting your kids vaccine. I'm a mother of 3 who are now 22, 18, and 11 and they are just doing find. Also to that other person yes I breast feed all my kids too. So any new Moms and Dads out there please get your baby vaccined, they will be ok do not worry.
What is the point of urging people to vaccinate their children if the vaccines don't protect their kids from the
disease. If they have all received their shots then they should be protected, right? If not, then what is the point getting the shots in the 1st place. Sadly, much of the medical field is brain washed by the pharm. companies and false teachings. How would you feel if you pushed a parent into vaccinating and that child died, became ill, or had neurological damage? That's OK, right. Would that weigh on your conscience?
lmc1980,
How would you feel if you didn't vaccinate your child and they died, became ill, or had neurological damage?
The odds say that getting vaccinated is the better choice.
So Tiffany, Why did whopping cough spread through the Emergency room from 1 person. Isn't anybody
immunized, or doesn't the vaccine work? You need to do further research and stop the scare tactics!
The vaccination was NOT very effective back in the 1990's, and it isn't very effective now for whooping cough. Myself at age 4, my sister at age 8, and just about every other kid in the neighbourhood got sick in 1994 from it. Guess what, we were all 'properly vaccinated' from it.
It's sad, because it's one of the diseases that I would be most frightened about having children NOT vaccinated from. I'm going to be perfectly honest and state that I do think a lot of the vaccinations that children are getting now are unnecessary, but I would support this one IF it really worked properly. Which it REALLY doesn't seem to do. Vaccinated and unvaccinated alike are falling sick and getting just as seriously ill.
whooping cough is spreadking among the vaccinated as well, not just from people who do not vaccinate.
Wow, way to misrepresent the concerns. Again. This isn't simply about antigens, it's about all the ;other stuff' in vaccines like; aluminum and formaldehyde (which is a carcinogen), foreign DNA and the chemicals used to help those vaccines give your immune system that "extra boost". The majority of our children are chronically sick as a recent study pointed out, they have a higher chance of mortality with the amount of vaccines given per visit as another recent study shows and then the IOM comes along and states that there is no vax vs unvax study, there doesn't need to be and that the schedule is safe. How can you declare the schedule to be safe without conducting a study to prove or disprove the point? Should we just take your word on it?
As a side note, it would be nice for the author to have linked the actual study so we could all known exactly which on is being referred to instead of some having difficulty finding it
Here's a link to the study. Took about 3 seconds to find on google.
http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2013/The-Childhood-Immunization-Schedule-and-Safety.aspx
I did refer to it in my comment so I do know which one it is, but thank you for posting it for others. My point still stands though, the author should have the links posted in case people are not able to find it. It`s all about the references :)
Foreign DNA? Of course vaccines have foreign DNA. That's the whole point of the vaccine in the first place, that it have foreign DNA.
Vaccines do not boost anything. There is no extra boost. The purpose of the vaccine is to train your immune system to recognize foreign DNA so that when you catch a disease, it will go immediately into effect dealing with it, rather than waiting till it starts to hurt you, and then belatedly going after the invasion.
foreign dna as in human, bovine etc. and yes it is required though that doesn't mean it is without consequences. And yes if you read cdc's report and visit the manufacturer's websites they have changed vaccines over the years so they can provide a better immune response. Boosting was their term used. As for your system recognizing foreign DNA for your immune system, I think you should take a course on vaccines and how they work. The virus is supposed to create the immune response not the dna. Your explanation of this is entirely inaccurate
That's what they want you to believe is these shots are safe. No they are not and they do still contain mercury. They just change the name. They also contain a cancer virus that is released in time. They are killing your kids for the fools who trust anything the Feds/CDC say. They are pushing these things to make more money. Government says you have to have them, in tern the big pharma makes big money. Dont fall for this bs. Even the Medical field is being told how wonderful they are. but good doctors know better. Trust a governmetn who wants to do this to your kids omg. Obama Administration Seeks Approval to Test Anthrax Vaccine on Children?
The government has a secret time delay virus that causes cancer? And they are injecting it into hundreds of millions of people? And nobody in our government, which can't keep anything else secret, has leaked anything? Unbelievable!
Like literally it's not believable. You sound insane.
ResistanceIsu --You are scary.
ill pass on the mercury and aluminum. i never get sick either.
I never get their bs flu s hots and I have yet to get the flu and we are around lots of people, and so is anybody who goes to the store.
the plural of anecdote is anecdotes...NOT DATA!!! And the thimerosal (mercury) has been out of the MMR vaccine for years. they do make a thimerosal free flu shot if you want to pay for it.
Think you should check your stats.
Vaccine companies urged to manipulate data sheets, skew safety studies to promote vaccines
If this is not bad enough, Dr. Tomljenovic also drudged up copious amounts of information on the JCVI's longtime habit of encouraging vaccine companies to deliberately alter their data sheets in order to make dangerous and ineffective vaccines appear safe and effective, in accordance with their recommendations. When the JCVI's guidance contraindications for MMR, for instance, did not match those of the vaccine's manufacturer, JCVI apparently instructed the manufacturer to alter its data sheets to avoid "legal problems."
Learn more: #ixzz2IBTRqmqX
I've gotten all my shots, I never get sick.
By your standards of proof, I have just incontrovertibly proved that vaccines are safe and effective.
I don't take ANY pharmaceuticals, I don't eat any GMO's, I don't use ANYTHING with chemicals in it, I've rid my house of EVERYTHING artificial and toxic... particle board, carpeting, vinyl, plastic, formaldehyde, VOCs , etc, only eat organic and only take natural medicine for the odd ache, pain, scratch etc and I have not been sick in at least a decade. ... not even the sniffles. Same for my pets... NO vaccines except the mandatory rabies ( which I counter w/an anti-vaccine nosode for 3 days before they get it ) and they're as healthy as can be. Remember... before they started poisoning the air, the water, our food, our clothing, household goods, personal care products, etc... bombarding us with HUNDREDS of toxic chemicals on a daily basis with absolutely NO CONCERN WHATSOEVER as to how all of those chemicals could react with one another... we didn't have all the cancer, lupus, fibro, chronic fatigue, IBS, MS, alzheimers, etc etc etc that we have now. It was literally UNHEARD of.
Oh.. and FYI... the US has the HIGHEST MORTALITY RATE of any industrialized country. WHY ? Because we are pushed the most drugs and take the most vaccines.
gemini,
Your computer is made out of plastic and other non-natural materials. Do us a favor and throw it out too,
False dichotomy. You're trying to force him into an all or none. So he either has to use ALL of technology or none of it?
He's healthy with NO drugs. What do you care? What's your purpose.
Quoting Gemini:
He's the one who said he doesn't use anything artificial.
Interesting point of view. Zen carried to the extreme.
chemical = substance with a distinct molecular composition that is produced by or used in a chemical process.
which includes water, sugars (yes, even the kind in ultra super special organic foods), the natural "medicines" you take, and you yourself you big bag of chemicals.
and flu shots are made from this oh I dont think so. Thee people LIE, and using that crap and blaming the parent who refused to get their kid vaccinated is BS, becuase if the vaccine freaks have their kids vaccinated than your damm kids should have nothing to worry about now shouldn't they. Other than getting cancer, or autisim, ending up disabled the statistics are out there, they even cause death. So stop blaming the parents who dont get their kid vaccinated use your common sense because once again kids who are vaccinated cant get it and aren't suppose to get it and if they do that just goes to prove the shots are USELESS! IT proves even more the shots are for money hungry pharmacies and the feds.
You won't believe how flu shots are produced. Even worse is how some new production methods are ready to come to a syringe near you. Dr. Sherry Tenpenny describes how the shots are made, and what's actually going into your body.
iHealthTube.com - Flu Shots Are Made From WHAT?
Vaccines aren't 100% effective on the individual level. They work by making diseases harder to transmit. If the transmission rate is cut enough, the people who are infected will clear the disease on their own faster than they can transmit it to other people.
People would rather be right than be happy - the facts show that, by and large, we know what we're doing, but people with an ax to grind will believe a fully disgraced study that supports their opinion rather than what the facts really show...you know why people blame the MMR vaccine? Because of the TIME it is given - most kids with autism present around age 2 and the MMR is the shot that is given closest to the time of presenting symptoms! And the alleged increase in autism cases is just an increase in what is LABELED autism - the truly autisitc kids that we've known about are not increasing - it's the PDD-NOS cases that we never called autistic before, and the Asperger's, a disease that wasn't even defined until 1991!
That is a LIE. My Grandson with Autism has MMR antibodies that are off the charts. Thermisol ( mercury)
is one of the most toxic chemicals know to man. It passes through the blood brain barrier. Vaccines DO cause Autism. Read the research article from Italy, July 2012. When you hear a testiment from Merck about the safety of Vaccines, I would question it. Money talks.
This article has no credibility what-so- ever. They are making our children sick. They are ruining lives, finances, and all because of a huge cover-up. Its criminal!
I've got good news for you Snowball! The MMR vaccine has NEVER CONTAINED Thiomersal. So, while I'm sorry that your grandson has Autism, I don't think Thiomersal was the cause.
Source: http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/UCM096228#t1 (check out Table 1.)
Sweet, now ever more kids will be autistic. Good job pharmaceuticals for selling your dangerous product. And good job to parents who buy this load of @!$%#.
Well, I have three kids. All of them received all of their shots. One of them is autistic and the other two are not. Explain that.
Use common sense, some people are more susceptible to it than others, All of us have had a vaccine some where in our lives do to no choice, a Dr. Mercola states how dangerous these are. These vaccines child hood vaccines have a slow release cancer virus in them. Check out this book called Dr. Marys' Monkey you can watch it your tube as well. I just talked to somebody yesterday who said their uncle got these shots and is now paralyzed. Your not, im not but some end up that way. The cancer rates are off the charts. Do you know hemp oil can be used on massive amounts of diseases out there, and yet the feds claim it as illegal, then how do you do explain the lying b----ds put a patent in on it in 2003 you can google that too. All the things that are from nature that can truly make us well. Are kept from us because the Big Pharmas cant make money off of it or us. The sicker they make us the more it keeps the hospitals and pharmacies well in dowd in " Money" big money . See them as a business and not your neighbor who feels bad or could never do that to anybody. Nobody in the Government feels bad for us. They only see dollar signs which they use us to buy their way out of this debt we will never get out of. Why do you think Germany wants their Gold back. Ft Knox we can bet is as empty as the glass of water you finish. Go here and read for yourself....go to nvic dot the org. And ask yourself to why in the hell would Obamanus want to test children with Anthrax google that one as well. If that link word I gave u doesn't work try this one try mercola dot the com. Lots of research information there. I wouldn't get another vaccine or flu shot if they paid me. Unfortunately they are suppose to be mandated even if they have to come door to door soon, either get one or get dragged off.
A couple of problems here, Flu shot and polio shot have nothing to do with each other--or other childhood diseases.
And most flu shots until recently and probably still does contain Mercury, thus the reason Dr Blaylock does not recommend flu shots for regular healthy people, but child shots are not allowed to containing mercury. It is funny how a hospital can be shut down by the nurses for finding lead in the water, or a broken old fashioned temp controller with the mercury on the floor, and then they inject mercury into all above 12 years of age--
Single doses of vaccines are generally Mercury free now. It's the big multi-dose vials that need a small amount (below the safe daily intake limit btw) to keep any contaminants from growing.
That's bull@!$%# because they don't need mercury , the most toxic chemical on the planet, to stop contaminants when that can be done with SILVER which is perfectly SAFE and NON-TOXIC.
"That's bull@!$%# because they don't need mercury , the most toxic chemical on the planet, to stop contaminants when that can be done with SILVER which is perfectly SAFE and NON-TOXIC."
read a microbiology text. mercury kills bugs and was even available as a topical from every corner drug store back in the day because it worked so well. the key is dosage (try a toxicology text after you get done with the micro), which has been calculated by people with white coats and degrees above a high school diploma, followed by adding well below that calculated value so that the amount is toxic to any freeloading bacteria and not humans.
as for mercury being the most toxic chemical on the planet, how about botulinum toxin? tetrodotoxin? strychnine? cyanide?
This article is going to bring out the anti-vaxers like a Jenny McCarthy walk-a-thon. I suggest a points game. When someone uses the anecdote from personal experience ("I've never gotten the shot and I've never been sick," which makes about as much sense as "I've never worn a seat belt and I've never been in a car accident") two points. A "government conspiracy/NWO" post is, due to commonality, just one point. Anything involving breast milk as a magic potion is three points. Space aliens = 5 points. Crystal healing or homeopathy = 2 points. unnatural chemicals = 1 point. If they mention chemicals and you can also confirm they are drinking a diet soda, 4 points. Being told to "open your eyes, man and question stuff" (showing a complete lack of the scientific method used to develop modern medicine) gets 1 point. If any of these comments come from an actual physician or reputable biologist, 20 points for rarity. People taking this too seriously = 5 points. Go.
Do not vaccinate your children. These young lives are our responsibility and for parents to just accept that it's ok to put only God knows what into their children's bodies without even finding out the actual ingredients, it is beyond irresponsiblity.
Do some research first. Understand what the ingredients are that make up these vaccines. If we did that, I am sure probably 95% if not 100% of people would declined and be totally against vaccinations.
I have four children - one is Autistic and is the only one of my children that got his vaccinations on the doctors schedule. I think parents should spread out the time periods their children get their shots and first make sure their child's gut lining/digestive system isn't comprimised, otherwise hold off on the vaccines until their digestive track is healthy again. It seems a lot of people develop these syndromes because of a leaky gut which doesn't fight off toxins then these toxins flow thru the blood stream and end up in the brain causing all these problems ( Autism, ADD, ADHD, Schizophrenia, depression...etc.) You can find lots of info. on this on line. BTW this article doesn't say much except that parents shouldn't be afraid to give their kids their shots...where is the proof...INCOMPLETE!
So your theory is, vaccines go into the blood stream, then somehow end up in the gut where they filtered of their toxins so that healthy people don't get sick. But in people who have problems with their gut lining (which absorbs nutrients and doesn't filter toxins btw) the toxins leak out and go into their brain and that causes all the bad things that happen to people?
FYI, none of that makes any sense at all.
scubasteve, enough with yer fancy science and critical thinking. I know someone who has a friend whose sister's second cousin's kid had a seizure right after he put his seat belt on in the car. I know other kids who don't wear seat belts all the time, and they don't have seizures. And they ALL have leaky guts. Don't seatbelt your child too much or too early. Don't listen to big Auto. Wait until their leaky guts and little seizure prone bodies are ready. And give them breast milk. In countries where kids get breast milk and don't have vaccines, like Uganda, they are much healthier and less vulnerable to flu, polio, and leaky gut (man is it hart to even write this).
FYI, none of that makes any sense at all.
Hannah Poling, Steve.
...What's unique about Hannah's case is that for the first time federal
authorities have conceded a connection between her autistic symptoms and the
vaccines she received, though the connection is by no means simple. A panel of
medical evaluators at the Department of Health and Human Services concluded that
Hannah had been injured by vaccines — and recommended that her family be
compensated for the injuries. The panel said that Hannah had an underlying
cellular disorder that was aggravated by the vaccines, causing brain damage with
features of autism spectrum disorder (ASD)....
Nonetheless, there's no denying that the court's decision to award damages to
the Poling family puts a chink — a question mark — in what had been an
unqualified defense of vaccine safety with regard to autism. If Hannah Poling
had an underlying condition that made her vulnerable to being harmed by
vaccines, it stands to reason that other children might also have such
vulnerabilities...
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1721109,00.html#ixzz2IBxQABtI
Anti-NMDA encephalitis, Steve.
Late Onset Autism and Anti-NMDA Receptor Encephalitis
The high incidence of prodromal viral-like symptoms suggests a possible infection triggering the autoimmune response [3]. We report about a 15-year-old female patient who was diagnosed with anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis after receiving a booster vaccination against tetanus/diphtheria/pertussis and polio (TdaP-IPV).
The onset of prodromal symptoms shortly after the immunization is intriguing and suggests the vaccination as a possible trigger of anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis. Neurological adverse events including autoimmune disorders have been discussed in literature for many years; a definite causal association between vaccination and disease was seldom established. For example, the 1976 swine influenza vaccine was associated with an increased frequency of Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) [4]. A recent study about the safety of TdaP vaccination in adolescents revealed no increased risk of neurological adverse events [5], even though rare cases of GBS have been reported. To our knowledge, this is the first possible case of vaccination associated anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis. Therefore, not only infectious agents and tumor antigens but also vaccines should be considered as a possible trigger of immune response in this recently described disorder...
http://www.autismoava.org/noticias-otros-idiomas/late-onset-autism-and-anti-nmda-receptor-encephalitis
I'd argue that the benefit from protection against a half dozen or so deadly childhood illnesses is worth the incredibly small risk of adverse reactions.
I'd argue that the benefit from protection against a half dozen or so deadly childhood illnesses is worth the incredibly small risk of adverse reactions.
Sure you would.
But it's time for the public to realize that the risk IS there.
(I.E. this funnyman especially):
scubasteve, enough with yer fancy science and critical thinking. I know someone who has a friend whose sister's second cousin's kid had a seizure right after he put his seat belt on in the car. I know other kids who don't wear seat belts all the time, and they don't have seizures. And they ALL have leaky guts. Don't seatbelt your child too much or too early. Don't listen to big Auto. Wait until their leaky guts and little seizure prone bodies are ready. And give them breast milk. In countries where kids get breast milk and don't have vaccines, like Uganda, they are much healthier and less vulnerable to flu, polio, and leaky gut (man is it hart to even write this).
Especially since those unfortunate to experience those serious and sometimes permanent adverse reactions can expect little to no (financial) assistance from the medical community without fighting long and hard for it.
What about the so called "Vaccine Court"? It has the same standards of evidence as regular Civil Court.
Where cases can take YEARS and cost time and money and emotional investment a family has pay, while attempting to financially manage the care of the sick child.
This is interesting. Written two days ago. Two separate cases.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/post2468343_b_2468343.html
The federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, better known as "vaccine court," has just awarded millions of dollars to two children with autism for "pain and suffering" and lifelong care of their injuries, which together could cost tens of millions of dollars.
The government did not admit that vaccines caused autism, at least in one of the children. Both cases were "unpublished," meaning information is limited, and access to medical records and other exhibits is blocked. Much of the information presented here comes from documents found at the vaccine court website.
Some observers will say the vaccine-induced encephalopathy (brain disease) documented in both children is unrelated to their autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Others will say there is plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise.
What's more, these cases fit the pattern of other petitions, (i.e., Poling and Banks) in which the court ruled (or the government conceded) that vaccines had caused encephalopathy, which in turn produced permanent injury, including symptoms of autism and ultimately an ASD diagnosis.
And most of these children now have taxpayer dollars earmarked for applied behavioral analysis (ABA), an effective therapy specifically designed to treat ASD.
Meanwhile, parents, grandparents, friends and neighbors of both children testified they were developmentally normal, if not advanced for their age when they developed seizures, spiking fevers and other adverse reactions to their vaccines. According to these eyewitnesses, the children never fully recovered, and instead began losing vocabulary, eye contact and interest in others around them, all classic symptoms of regressive autism.
In the first case, involving a 10-year-old boy from Northern California named Ryan Mojabi, the parents allege that "all the vaccinations" received from 2003-2005, and "more specifically, measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccinations," caused a "severe and debilitating injury to his brain, described as Autism Spectrum Disorder ('ASD')."
The parents, who did not want to be interviewed, specifically asserted that Ryan "suffered a Vaccine Table Injury, namely, an encephalopathy" as a result of his MMR vaccination on December 19, 2003." ("Table injuries" are known, compensable adverse reactions to immunizations.)
Alternatively, they claim that "as a cumulative result of his receipt of each and every vaccination between March 25, 2003 and February 22, 2005, Ryan has suffered . . . neuroimmunologically mediated dysfunctions in the form of asthma and ASD."
In vaccine court, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services acts as the defendant and Justice Department attorneys act as counsel.
In 2009, Ryan's case was transferred to vaccine court's Autism Omnibus Proceedings, according to the docket. A year-and-a-half later, the government conceded that MMR vaccine had indeed caused Ryan's encephalopathy.
HHS agreed that "Ryan suffered a Table injury under the Vaccine Act -- namely, an encephalitis within five to fifteen days following receipt," of MMR, records show. "This case is appropriate for compensation."
Whether HHS agreed with Ryan's parents that his vaccine-induced brain disease led to ASD is unknown. The concession document is under seal.
In December 2003, when Ryan was nearly two, he received his first MMR and hepatitis B vaccines before his family left for an extended trip overseas. That day, his mother testified, Ryan began shaking with uncontrollable tremors and "was really uncomfortable, he didn't feel well at all."
The nurse at Ryan's pediatrician said the symptoms were "pretty normal after the vaccination," and advised Tylenol. The next day, Ryan began crying, "but it's not a normal crying," his mother testified. "He didn't go to sleep, he was without energy."
The family considered postponing their holiday, but that wasn't feasible. The doctor's office said it was fine to travel. Prior to leaving, Ryan's mother said, the boy had difficulty breathing and "was without energy and sleepy." He could no longer hold his head up, something "he could do prior to the vaccinations." At the airport, Ryan began "screaming," she recalled. "He was just opening and closing his eyes so hard, he was pulling my hair."
After his shots, she added, Ryan "stopped saying those words that he had, even mommy and daddy, that he had repeated a hundred times before."
In early January, while still abroad, Ryan was rushed to the hospital with vomiting, high fever and red spots covering his body "from head to toe in a measles-like rash," the attending physician said. Ryan was diagnosed with "febrile convulsion, probably related to MMR."
The next day, another doctor diagnosed him with "high fever, skin rash, tremors, and lethargy," which were "most likely due to an adverse reaction to multiple vaccines he received earlier."
Two days later, Ryan returned to the hospital with a persistent fever of 104 or more.
Ryan's parents testified that, upon returning home, they expressed worry to their pediatrician about behavioral problems, non-responsiveness and language loss, which later produced an ASD diagnosis.
At trial, however, the government argued powerfully that written medical records, and the recollections of Ryan's doctor, were inconsistent with his parents' testimony. If Ryan had truly suffered an MMR encephalopathy, for example, his family would never have taken him overseas. And his parents' complaints of ASD symptoms were raised a full year after returning from abroad, they alleged. It looked like the family had a weak case.
But then something changed.
In October, 2010, Ryan's attorney filed four new exhibits (under seal) and proposed amending the court's "findings of fact." In January and May of 2011, several more exhibits were filed, along with a motion to further supplement the findings of fact.
A month later HHS conceded the case, which moved into the damages phase.
Award details were announced a few days ago: A lump sum of $969,474.91, to cover "lost future earnings ($648,132.74), pain and suffering ($202,040.17), and life care expenses for Year One ($119,302.00)," plus $20,000 for past expenses.
Another undisclosed sum, several millions more, will be invested in annuities to cover yearly costs for life, which could total $10 million or more, not accounting for inflation. Nearly $80,000 was earmarked for ABA in the first two years.
The second case involves a girl named Emily, whose mother, Jillian Moller, filed back in 2003 and has been fighting in vaccine court since. The docket, crammed with 188 items, documents Moller's extended but victorious struggle to win compensation for Emily, who has seizure disorder and PDD-NOS, a form of ASD.
Moller alleged that Emily was severely injured by a reaction to the DTaP vaccine at 15 months (when MMR, HiB and Prevnar were also given). "She had a vaccine reaction and she just spiraled out of control," Moller said in an interview.
Emily's fever spiked to 105.7 and she began screaming. She stared blankly and developed seizures. Before long she began "shaking episodes" at night and "repetitive behaviors, including arm flapping and spinning," court documents show. Like Ryan, she developed a measles-type rash.
Things went from bad to worse. Emily's medical record is filled with damage and suffering. One neurologist, for example, noted that Emily "had staring spells and an abnormal EEG." Another diagnosed "encephalopathy characterized by speech delay and probable global developmental delay that occurred in the setting of temporal association with immunizations as an acute encephalopathy."
Moller filed for an encephalopathy Table injury in 2003, unaware her daughter would be diagnosed with ASD.
Two hearings were held in 2005. "I was badgered and harassed for four hours on the stand," she said. "They said Emily couldn't have been that sick, or else I would've taken her to the ER. But I took her to my doctor and he said not to bring her to the hospital!"
Government lawyers insisted that Emily had suffered neither a vaccine injury nor encephalopathy. But every alternative cause they suggested "made no sense, because she showed no signs of those things before that vaccination," Moller said.
The case dragged on for years, with motions and counter-motions, status reports and expert medical reports. In 2007, Moller filed for summary judgment. That also took years, as more medical records were submitted to bolster Emily's case.
After the ASD diagnosis, the judge reportedly became convinced that Emily would prevail. "My attorney said she was angry, she felt forced into a corner with no choice but to find for us," Moller said. "She said, 'Emily has autism, and I don't want to give other families who filed autism claims any hope.'"
The government agreed to settle. Last spring the case went into mediation and, on December 3 HHS made its proffer, which was entered into the record on the 28th. Emily was awarded a lump sum of $1,030,314.22 "for lost future earnings ($739,989.57), pain and suffering ($170,499.77) and life care expenses for Year One ($119,874.88) plus $190,165.40 for past expenses." Some of that money will go to ABA therapy.
Based on the first year payout, another estimated $9 million will buy annuities for annual expenses through life, which after inflation has the potential to pay over $50 million dollars.
HHS did not admit that vaccination caused encephalopathy or autism, but merely decided not to dedicate more resources to defending the case.
"I don't understand why they fought so hard," Moller said. "We had the evidence: the EEG, the MRI, everything was consistent with encephalopathy, post-vaccination. How can government attorneys claim what our doctors said happened, didn't happen?"
Perhaps the feds were loath to concede yet another vaccine case involving autism. Four cases in the Autism Omnibus Proceedings were recently compensated. Three of those cases are marked with asterisks, indicating the government did not conclude that autism can be caused by vaccines. But the fourth autism case that was paid out in 2013 (Ryan's case? We don't know) has no such caveat.
As for Emily, she is "not too good," Moller said. "Her emotional state is fragile, at best. She has seizure problems and autoimmune issues... And it's a constant fight when you have a vaccine-injured child. It's not just the disability, it's the ignorance. The hatred from the medical community towards families like ours is intense."
Meanwhile, as HHS says it "has never concluded in any case that autism was caused by vaccination," it is still underwriting autism treatments such as ABA for children in its vaccine-injury program.
Actually it isn`t the same at all. They have predefined charts that they designed and if you fit into their timeframes then you may have a case. For children who do not react instantaneously or fit their defined approved reaction, then the child is essentially @!$%# outta luck, despite the mound of evidence they may have. As well, if the term autism is used they are automatically barred and cannot even present case. This is why most parents are using ``brain swelling`` as the result instead
Ok, but if you are denied a claim in the Vaccine Court, you can sue in regular Civil Court. The standard in both is that the damages were more likely to have been caused by the vaccine than not.
If someone can't prove that it's at least reasonable that the vaccine caused the damage, why should they be paid?
you cannot sue in regular civil court. There is a law that protects pharmaceutical companies from that. If you are denied a claim in vaccine court then that`s it. It`s not much but at least you can try for compensation, not all countries offer that option and numerous vaccine injuries are unreported. Again some cases have gotten compensation but they must generally not use the term autism and must fit previously defined time lengths and approval despite whatever evidence is presented.
Babs09,
You are incorrect. Claims that are denied by the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (Vaccine Court) can then be brought to regular Civil court. It is extremely rare for someone to do so, since the burden of proof is the same in both courts.
Source: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp078168 (8th Paragraph down)
It's also worth noting that if you are claiming an injury due to Thiomersal (a common claim on these boards, I've noticed), you can bypass Vaccine Court entirely.
In the case of Holder v. Abbott Laboratories Inc. ( 444 F.3d 383), the court ruled that since Thiomersal is a perservative and not a vaccine, injuries claimed to be caused by it are not covered under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.
And don't forget, seat belts are made out of all sorts of toxic materials! They are also extremely dangerous, a seat belt can easily be used to strangle someone, and yet the government MANDATES their use.
scubasteve, very interesting though the wording has to be noted that it says due to a defective vaccine. If the vaccines are made correctly and are still causing harm then by their technicality you cannot sue. And thimerosal is not the issue, though it is a concern
Byron Raum - seatbelts can hardly be used as a comparison. A seatbelt is worn against someone body and is only mandated when using a vehicle. Vaccines are injected and mandates would require everyone to be vaccinated no matter whether they need it or not. Perhaps they do contain chemicals, I'm not knowledgeable in that case but even if they do, it does not affect someone the way vaccines do.
No you cannot sue in civil court. that was changed last year. if you can convince the court there was a design flaw or something related to that, then yes you can sue, but you cannot sue becuase of a reaaction in civil court. that right was taken away from us.
Enough with the Autism excuse! Vaccinations do not cause Autism. Jenny McCarthy's expert doctor made it up! Look it up! She is now saying that her son is basically cured of his autism on a recent interview. You don't get "cured" from autism. My son has autism and he was vaccinated. He DOES NOT have autism because he was vaccinated. He will have autism for the rest of his life. We have been in communities that have had recent outbreaks of children (infant - 18yrs) with illnesses we have not had to deal with for several decades. When they have traced the exposure trail of patients, ALL the cases started with children that were NOT vaccinated! I have 3 kids and if you want to be in school around them, then get your kids vaccinated. You are putting my kids at risk and others at risk.
Many of you are saying that people need to get their facts straight and learn the truth. The truth is vaccinations save lives. Not everything on the internet is fact and celebrities are not experts! As for the nursing factor that many have mentioned. You are correct that nursing does give your baby some added health benefits. It however does not protect them against these illnesses and diseases. Not everyone is able to nurse because they did not have milk come in. That doesn't make them bad moms. Making them feel bad about it makes you a bad person (you don't know that your milk isn't going to come in until after you actually have your baby @Deborah - 371, that was a very uneducated comment on your behalf!!!). You can do homeopathic things, see experts, and it doesn't come in for everyone. That is just life. Again nursing doesn't prevent your baby from getting whooping cough, measles, etc! So yes, please educate yourself!
Don't believe everything you read on the internet.
-Abraham Lincoln
I want you to go to
RUSSELL BLAYLOCK MD . COM and read his peer reviewed study on vaccines and the neurological damage. Stop using Jenny McCarthy...there evidence after evidence..
I HAVE IT, READ IT and did not vax my kids at all...
enjoy sickness!
you cant face the fact that you CAUSED the autism in your son by getting him vaccinated..
it was not intentional by your part, but it was direct in the fact that you did not do your homework..
MMR is now in his brain and gut
@SHEP12 I did not cause my son to have autism...again get your facts correct! He was being analyzed and we had begun to see specialists for his suspected autism BEFORE he had received his MMR vaccination at 15 months.
Very sorry to hear about your son's autism. I have a nephew with autism, and being very close to my sister, know the difficulty it causes.
It must also be annoying to hear these jeremiads by self-styled expert; this one by SHEP12 was especially horrific. My sympathies.
I think children become Autistic because before they get vaccinated there is a problem there already making them a candidate for Autism and the toxins from the vaccinations brings the AUTISM forth. IMHO
I think children become Autistic once they are exposed to their second round of Christmas songs. Afterall, most kids are only able to be properly diagnosed at a certain age, and at that age, they have had two Christmases. The use of bells in certain tunes probably jingles a toxin-releasing chemical in the inner ear. In healthier children, those who have been breast fed, the inner ear releases midichlorians. The sith know this well. Suck on that, scientists.
You are absolutely right. In addition, there are far fewer cases of reported autism in 3rd world countries, where there are fewer Christians by proportion. It must be Christmas songs.
Well if you wanted to test your theory the way the the CDC and vaccine industry apologists do then you would have to design it like this:
The first group would be people who claim the're Christians and listen to Christmas songs. The second group would be be people who claim they're christians, go to church, and Celebrate Christmas. The third group would be non-christians who celebrate Christmas but only listen to Alvin and the Chipmunk Christmas songs.
This will scientifically nail it down the same way the CDC retrospectively studies children who get all of the vaccines vs. children who get all vaccines but haven't gotten the MMR yet. And then claim vaccines are safe. Comparing the safety of 24 vaccines vs the safety of 23 vaccines.
No vaccinated vs. unvaccinated controlled study.
I'm not anti-vaccination, I'm just saying make sure your children immune system isn't compromised before you vaccinate them. There are children out there that became Autistic without having been vaccinated. From all the research articles I've read conducted by Doctors, it seems a poor immune system is the start of the problem.
The recommendation for vaccines specifically states "not for people with compromised immune systems." You can bet that any doctor is not going to allow a child with a compromised immune system to be vaccinated.
This isn't true. Doctors vaccinate children with compromised immune systems all the time.
Unless there is a known problem, that the parents point out, doctors vaccinate every single child that walks into their office. it usually isn't until after the child is vaccinated and suffers a severe reaction that they are aware of a compromised immune system. even if the child has a severe reaction, they still recommend vaccinating again! its ridiculous.
And delaying or refusing vaccination can cause harm -- not only to the children who are not fully vaccinated, but to those around them, the committee noted. “States with policies that make it easy to exempt children from immunizations were associated with a 90 percent higher incidence of whooping cough in 2011,” the report says.
What about the "epidemic" whooping cough of 2012, in which the previously-vaccinated were hit harder than the unvaccinated? C'mon, MSNBC, you reported on that one.
...But cases of whooping cough began to climb, sometimes topping 25,000 a year during the past decade. Also disturbing: The proportion of cases involving children ages 7 to 10 — most of them vaccinated — rose from less than 10 percent before 2006 to nearly 40 percent this year, according to the CDC.
Now there's a growing consensus that something more needs to be done. Ideas include somehow pumping up the effectiveness of the vaccine or developing a new one. French scientists have been working on an experimental nasal spray vaccine....
http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/12/13834420-whooping-cough-vaccine-loses-punch-too-fast
So if an automotive watchdog showed that seat belts in certain cars were too weak and needed to be replaced, you'd recommend everyone stop wearing seat belts?
If seatbelts caused convulsive seizures then yes people should be warned and given the choice if they want to wear a seatbelt or not.
Golly, dude (#20.1). I thought it was pretty obvious what I was recommending.
Like, not falsely and inaccurately blaming the unvaccinated and creating distrust and hatred of them, for an increase in this particular disease in the population?
a) And delaying or refusing vaccination can cause harm -- not only to the children who are not fully vaccinated, but to those around them, the committee noted.
and
b)But cases of whooping cough began to climb, sometimes topping 25,000 a year during the past decade. Also disturbing: The proportion of cases involving children ages 7 to 10 — most of them vaccinated — rose from less than 10 percent before 2006 to nearly 40 percent this year, according to the CDC...
sorry you were unable to follow.
In all other cases, unvaccinated people are considerably more likely to be disease-ridden carriers. Kind of by definition. Even for this particular case, you can bet that an unvaccinated person is likelier to give you the disease.
.
While I don't believe vaccines have caused an increase in autism cases (I believe a little more time will reveal that to be related to advanced maternal and paternal age or the artificial methods used to allow older women to get pregnant) I do believe that it is wrong to give such young children so many shots. My son had a bad reaction and became ill with a very high fever for about a week after vaccinations around the time he was 6 months. We delayed further vaccines until he was much older - some of them even until after he was in school as they were the ones that likely caused his reaction. There is something very wrong with giving such young children so many shots when they should have limited to no exposure to these diseases.
http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/2008/12/15/vaccines-safe-parents-dangerous/
Lately I’ve been noticing an increasing number of journal articles, blog articles and opinion pieces on a terrible problem: Parents have questions about vaccines.
You would have to look far and wide to find anyone who thinks that these questions are valid and should be taken seriously. Common explanations are:
1) It is all about the parents who think they are really smart.
2) It is all about the parents who are very stupid and read stuff on the Internet.
3) It is all about the bad stuff on the Internet which is deceiving the parents who aren’t very smart and who think they are smarter than doctors. And infinite variations on this theme, which is really one argument…and the real argument is (drum roll)…vaccines are perfect and parents are the problem.
Being called stupid dupes hasn’t worked to shut up the parents with questions. Perhaps this is not a good strategy?
I’m sure you’ve noticed that many articles and blogs offer comment options to the public. If you are following the vaccine related discussions you’ll have noticed that there is a coterie of passionate vaccine defenders who pop up in every such public discussion. These vaccine defenders are fighting for the good of the vaccine program with everything they’ve got.
Oddly, however, the number of parents with questions seems to be increasing. Perhaps the vaccine defenders need to reconsider their approach.
Here are some suggestions, kindly meant, from an admirer of their efforts. These guys have put a lot of sweat equity into defending vaccines and they ought to be getting better results.
One argument which comes up over and over again is herd immunity. Any time a parent asks if they could perhaps delay or skip one vaccine or another, someone is sure to come out with this mantra: “If we stop vaccinating measles and polio will return and children will die!” But if a parent is wondering about the chickenpox vaccine, or the hepatitis B vaccine or Prevnar, or perhaps about the vaccine for hepatitis A, this isn’t actually a useful argument. They may start wondering, quite reasonably, why questions about an ever-expanding vaccine schedule are answered with rants about vaccines which were added to the schedule in the 1950s (polio) and the 1960s (measles). Does this mean that we don’t really need all of these new vaccines, they ask?
So, my first suggestion to the vaccine defenders is to customize their response to the concerns being raised. Parents have specific questions. The vaccine defense needs to have specific answers, because every vaccine is different. Efficacy varies, safety varies and the risk of disease varies. To complicate the question even further, every child is unique and therefore the risk/benefit ratio is different for every child and every vaccine.
In addition to the defenders acting as though all vaccines are identical in their efficacy, safety and relevance, they also tend to act as though all vaccine questioners are identical. Anyone who has a question, is, in the defenders view, anti-vaccine. And people who are anti-vaccine are bad people. As a result the defenders respond with sarcasm, rudeness and repetition.
My second suggestion to the vaccine defenders…is to customize their response to the concerns being raised. (I know, I already said that!) Some parents who raise concerns are just raising concerns. They haven’t gone over to the dark side. But with enough rudeness and sarcasm from the vaccine defenders they will definitely be moving in that direction.
Which leads me to the next problem. It is not, absolutely not, all about autism and vaccines. Parents who have questions about vaccines find all sorts of things to worry about in addition to or instead of autism.
I’m afraid my third suggestion is to customize their response to the concerns being raised. It really isn’t just autism. Parents are also worried about allergies, asthma, learning disabilities and generalized poor health. You need to have the research at your fingertips to answer all of these different concerns. If the research exists at all…if the research that exists supports the mantra “it isn’t the vaccines”…well good luck, anyway.
Honestly, at this point many people are concerned or on the fence about vaccines. The sarcasm and meanness pushes people away. It is not a convincing approach. Try being polite and sympathetic. I know this is tough and doesn’t come naturally, but it is absolutely essential if the vaccine defenders want to get anywhere in this battle. The articles on this blog provide good models for a sympathetic, thoughtful and scientifically oriented approach.
A few more points:
Vaccine defenders need to deal with the science. Saying that the science is all on the vaccine side, without actually presenting said science is a hollow argument. The defenders need to dig in, find the citations, seriously address the questions. And start tackling the increasing number of blogs and organizations which are tackling the science from the other side. Just calling them anti-vaccine and ignoring them isn’t working.
A sub-point on science: the scandals about faked science in medical journals are undermining people’s faith in doctors and science in general. If Merck did some bad stuff with Vioxx, is it unreasonable to have questions about their trustworthiness when it comes to Gardasil? The defenders need to be able to explain why vaccines are an exception to dirty dealing from the pharmaceutical companies. I’m wondering about this one myself and look forward to seeing what the vaccine defenders come up with.
Calling people anti-vaccine isn’t actually an argument. If someone says: “I didn’t vaccinate my child for chickenpox because I researched the illness and decided that the vaccine wasn’t worth it.” they aren’t necessarily anti-vaccine. They thought about a particular vaccine and decided against it. They probably thought about some other vaccines and decided those were okay. Looking at their position objectively, they are pro-vaccine but opposed to the CDC’s schedule recommendations. Defenders of vaccines have to figure out a way to respond to selective and delayed vaccinators which doesn’t include insulting them.
Selective and delayed vaccinators are potential allies who will fight for vaccines, but currently the vaccine defenders want nothing to do with them. Some of these parents are quite knowledgeable and have done extensive research into vaccines. They know more of the science than the defenders, frankly. But vaccine defenders turn away from these potential allies, because in a black and white world you are either with us or against us and there is no middle ground.
Now comes a truly tough one: The vaccine defenders should be strongly, passionately, in favor of a philosophical exemption to vaccines. Why? Because it would increase the vaccine rates and provide accurate statistics about who is getting which vaccines. It would also increase trust in vaccines. The current system, in states without a philosophical exemption, forces parents to do all the vaccines or none of the vaccines or else to lie about their choices. Obviously, for parents with a really serious concern about a particular vaccine, being forced to do all or nothing is not a good option. It makes them feel bullied, harassed and victimized. It makes them think that the current system is all about power and control and not about the well-being of children. It makes them think that the government wants to invade their parenting choices. If the real concern about vaccines is herd immunity against polio and measles, then a philosophical exemption would, without a doubt, increase the number of children visibly vaccinated for polio and measles.
Favoring choice about vaccines is probably too much for the pro-vax team to stomach. It would require admitting that parents aren’t stupid, for one thing. And that they have a right to make decisions about their own children’s health care needs. No, I guess we’ll have to keep guessing about vaccine rates…
You know that old saying about dissatisfied customers making a lot of noise and happy customers making very little noise? It is especially true when it comes to vaccine injuries. A baby who dies or is seriously injured or even just spends a couple of weeks being very sick after receiving a set of vaccines will be all too visible. Parents, family, friends, coworkers, acquaintances–every person around will hear about the problems. This phenomena is increasing as vaccine concerns rise. Parent’s are less and less willing to consider a problem which occurs following vaccination as just a coincidence.
Now, listen carefully, because this is the most important point of all. Defenders should stop denying vaccine damage. When a parent testifies that their child was damaged by a vaccine they should fall all over themselves to acknowledge what happened, to agree that vaccines can, indeed cause injuries, to encourage the parent to report what happened to VAERS, to sympathize if they say the doctor denied the incident and refused to report it. I’ve only seen two responses to vaccine damage reports in these online debates from the pro-vaccine side: sometimes it is just ignored as though the parent hadn’t said anything, the rest of the time it is denied in one way or another. “Anecdotal evidence” is a popular response, for example.
Comment pages are widely read, which is why this coterie posts on comment pages to defend vaccines. Many people read (lurk) without ever posting. Each time a vaccine defender denies the existence of vaccine damage there is a pretty good chance that someone with direct experience of such damage is lurking and reading the denial. And feeling angry and disgusted.
But things get worse. Parents are concerned about the possibility of vaccine damage. They read stories about children who were damaged (true or not). They hear that the doctors denied that vaccines caused the problems. They see vaccine defenders either attacking or ignoring the parents of sick children. They even see, as I recently did, a vaccine defender proclaiming gleefully that the VAERS system is useless and cannot be used as a source of information about the risks of vaccines. What sort of message are vaccine defenders sending out to the public? Clear enough, unfortunately. If a parent is trusting enough to have their child vaccinated and something goes wrong they will have no recourse. The doctor will deny it. The system which is supposed to monitor vaccine injuries is useless and happily announced as useless. People who admire and support vaccines are so dedicated to their faith that they will attack the parents of chronically ill children. Ouch!
The official pro-vaccine position is that vaccines are safe. If this is true, a good system for tracking vaccine damage would confirm that safety. If vaccine defenders really believe that vaccines are completely safe and effective they should be fighting passionately for a system that tries to collect every vaccine reaction, no matter how minor. The current system obviously allows many thousands of reactions to pass unrecorded, perhaps, as the anti-vaccine critics claim, many millions. The only way to sort this out is to replace an ineffective system with an effective one. To replace bad statistics with good statistics. If pro-vaccine folks really, honestly, wholeheartedly believe in the safety of vaccines they should be fighting, hard, for an effective system of monitoring vaccine damage. We all need to end the confusion.
On the same note, a good study comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated populations will obviously prove that vaccines are safe, right? So why don’t the vaccine defenders fight for such a study? Vaccines make children healthier and the evidence should be easy enough to find. Yes?
I think vaccine defenders need some help because they are not convincing people and I think they know they are not convincing people.
I’ve shared these thoughts in an attempt to save the vaccine defenders from wasting their time and energy. Think about it. Start persuading and stop ranting.
Are they really fighting to defend vaccines or are they just out there to tell everyone how smart they are? Some of us are wondering.
But things get worse. Parents are concerned about the possibility of vaccine damage. They read stories about children who were damaged (true or not). They hear that the doctors denied that vaccines caused the problems. They see vaccine defenders either attacking or ignoring the parents of sick children. They even see, as I recently did, a vaccine defender proclaiming gleefully that the VAERS system is useless and cannot be used as a source of information about the risks of vaccines. What sort of message are vaccine defenders sending out to the public? Clear enough, unfortunately. If a parent is trusting enough to have their child vaccinated and something goes wrong they will have no recourse. The doctor will deny it. The system which is supposed to monitor vaccine injuries is useless and happily announced as useless. People who admire and support vaccines are so dedicated to their faith that they will attack the parents of chronically ill children. Ouch!
Yes. Put much better than I ever could.
A sub-point on science: the scandals about faked science in medical journals are undermining people’s faith in doctors and science in general. If Merck did some bad stuff with Vioxx, is it unreasonable to have questions about their trustworthiness when it comes to Gardasil? The defenders need to be able to explain why vaccines are an exception to dirty dealing from the pharmaceutical companies. I’m wondering about this one myself and look forward to seeing what the vaccine defenders come up with.
Again, Yes.
Such a person is likelier to know what they are talking about. By and far, though, the reason why it's difficult to talk to most anti-vaccine folk is simply because they are so stupid, and beyond that, proud of their stupidity.
People who choose to not vaccinate are not stupid. to name call is pretty sad that you are so fear based that you resort to calling poeple stupid who do not agree with your choices. the main factor at play for most parents who do not vaccinate is they want the CHOICE to decide what goes into their children's bodies. if after their research, they conclude that they do not want to proceed with vaccinations, it is their choice to. but to call people stupid just ends any sort of discussion.
look at this scenario....Hep B shot BEFORE baby leaves hospital. Hep - B , blood borne. or from unprotected sex and sharing of dirty needles..
does not apply...so vax anyway...and inject with chemicals..
I have 3 kids 11,9,5...NEVER vaccinated, nor even had an antibiotic...
and polio...was on the decline..BEFORE vax was introduced..
better sanitation...is the reason..
and polio is around..it is in pakistan after a huge vax campaign....tens of thousands of kids now have polio like symptoms..
the vax is making people sick...
aluminum, mercury, formeldahyde, MSG...
DONT DO IT
there are no autistic kids with the Amish, who avoid most medical care and also vaccines.
And therefore avoid anyone who can make an accurate diagnosis of autism.
If vaccines are the sole cause of autism, why are there some autistic people who never got vaccinated?
Vaccines aren't the sole cause of autism. Cigarettes aren't even the sole cause of lung cancer.
So if vaccines aren't the sole cause of autism, why aren't there any autistic Amish? If there are other causes, there should be some autistic Amish right?
I don't know. Are there?
Read comment #25. You know, the one we're commenting on. The one claiming that their are no autistic Amish, and implying that it's because they don't get vaccinated.
I don't know if there are any autistic amish but this might help your scientific inquiries
http://www.ageofautism.com/2012/05/dan-olmsted-the-amish-all-over-again.html