Steven Gaal Posted March 28, 2013 Author Share Posted March 28, 2013 (edited) Very dishonest editing of my quote, try again with the whole sentence. // Colby ++++++++++++++++++++++++ Im sure the illegal alien partents will be thinking of getting waivers...Oh yeah big on government documents ... .Gee California might have a few illegal alien parents, NO ?? +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++========= THE TREND IN VACCINES NOT ONE TOWARDS FREEDOM OF CHOICE ,Gaal State Cuts Philosophical Objections from Vaccine Exemptions October 23, 2012 +++++++++++ By Dr. Mercola The ethical principle of informed consent means that you have the human right to be fully informed about the benefits and risks of a medical intervention and be free to make a voluntary choice about whether or not to take the risk. The right to make an informed, voluntary vaccination choice for yourself (or your minor child) is an inalienable human right because vaccination, like any medical intervention, involves taking a risk that could cause harm or even death. There is no guarantee that receiving a vaccine (or any other drug) will not cause a complication and lead to serious injury – or that it will protect you from the disease it is supposed to prevent. But across the United States, people are fighting for their right to choose not to be injected with vaccines against their will because vaccine exemptions have come under constant attack. New Mexico is the Latest State to Cut the Philosophical Vaccine Exemption All 50 states have enacted vaccine laws that require proof children have received a certain number of vaccinations in order to attend daycare, middle school, high school and college. However, all 50 states allow a medical exemption to vaccination (medical exemptions must be approved by an M.D. or D.O.); 48 states allow a religious exemption to vaccination; and, until earlier this year, 18 states allowed a personal, philosophical or conscientious belief exemption to vaccination for children attending school. Now, there are only 17 states that allow a personal belief exemption because this year public health officials in New Mexico changed the vaccine exemption form so that philosophical objections were no longer an option. The New Mexico Department of Health simply said they changed the form because the prior one allowed for "misinterpretation of the law." From now on, parents will be required to state their religious beliefs in order to qualify for a non-medical vaccine exemption so their children can attend school. Many U.S. States Tightening Vaccine Exemption Requirements In the past two years, public health department officials and legislators in California, Washington and Vermont have made it harder for parents to obtain a non-medical vaccine exemption for their children. While the original goal of lobbyists working for drug companies, medical trade associations funded by drug companies and state public health officials was to completely eliminate personal belief exemptions from the public health laws of those three states, parents organized and communicated with their legislators through the NVIC Advocacy Portal and were able to save the non-medical exemptions even though they have been severely restricted. California and Washington states now require parents filing a philosophical belief exemption for their children to make an appointment with a state designated medical worker to obtain a signature verifying parents have reviewed "factual" information about the risks and benefits of vaccination. In Vermont, parents filing a philosophical exemption must sign a statement that they agree they are placing their child and society at risk for infectious diseases. According to an article published in Nature,1 the Washington Department of Health wanted to make it harder to get a philosophical exemption because parents were simply choosing it out of convenience. It's unclear where the evidence for this statement comes from, if it exists at all, but those, who choose to go against the grain and opt out of vaccination, do not face an easy road. Harassment, intimidation and refusal of medical care are all commonly reported among those who "dare" to make selective vaccine choices. Plus, research shows that those, who opt out of one or more of the 69 doses of 16 vaccines that the CDC recommends children get, do not typically do it simply for "convenience." Most of the parents making independent vaccine choices for their children are very well educated and have poured countless hours of careful and studied reflection into this decision. They have refused to blindly trust what someone else says and have done their own research because they feel it is necessary to protect the health of their children – not because they don't want to take the time to set up a doctor's visit. It would be far easier to simply roll up their child's sleeve and wait for the shot. Disease Outbreaks Falsely Blamed on Personal-Belief Exemptions The article then states that studies have linked personal-belief exemptions to increased incidence of disease like pertussis (whooping cough). But if you take the time to look into the truthfulness of that statement, you'll see it simply does not hold up. Many outbreaks of pertussis (whooping cough), measles, and mumps have occurred primarily in people who were vaccinated, and no one seems to be able to fully explain how that is the fault of those who are unvaccinated... If the basic tenets of vaccinology were correct, these people should have been protected because they were vaccinated. Published studies into the outbreaks have revealed that a lot of the blame should be placed on ineffective vaccines – not on the unvaccinated minority. Consider: However, research published in March of this year showed that 81 percent of 2010 California whooping cough cases in people under the age of 18 occurred in those who were fully up to date on the whooping cough vaccine.2 Eleven percent had received at least one shot, but not the entire recommended series, and only eight percent of those stricken were unvaccinated. In 2010, the largest outbreak of whooping cough in over 50 years occurred in California. Around that same time, a scare campaign was launched in California by Pharma-funded medical trade associations, state health officials and national media, targeting people opting out of receiving pertussis vaccine, falsely accusing them of causing the outbreak. The Washington State Secretary of Health also declared a pertussis epidemic on April 3, 2012, in response to a 1,300 percent increase in pertussis cases compared to 2011.3 Here, again, research has shown that the majority of people getting sick are up to date with their vaccinations,4 thus pointing toward vaccine failure as a cause. Paul Offit Admits People are "More Compelled by Fear Than Reason" The same article then goes on to say that growing disease rates are likely to trigger more people to get vaccinated, and quoted Paul Offit, chief of the division of infectious diseases at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia in Pennsylvania, as stating people are "far more compelled by fear than reason." Indeed, it appears many who oppose vaccine choice, as Offit openly does regarding personal belief exemptions, are banking on fear being a driving force to take away personal freedoms and the human right to informed consent to medical risk-taking.. Offit, who not only is very public about his belief that infants could theoretically safely handle 10,000 vaccines all at once, has a financial stake in the vaccine industry (he invented RotaTeq, a pentavalent rotavirus vaccine which is currently on the CDC's vaccine schedule) and has served on the scientific advisory board of pharmaceutical giant Merck. Offit's personal beliefs about forcing people to involuntarily use vaccines, which violates the informed consent ethic in medicine, along with the inaccurate statements he makes about vaccine safety, are echoed throughout pro-forced vaccination propaganda, including that released by the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP). The Vaccine Education Center at CHOP says it's funded by endowed chairs and "does not receive support from pharmaceutical companies," but it neglects to mention that the hospital indirectly benefits from drug company money that helps fund endowed chairs like Merck's Maurice R. Hilleman Professor of Vaccinology, which is currently held by Paul Offit. And wouldn't you know, their August newsletter peppers you with enough scare tactics – along with links to information on vaccine exemptions and states that allow personal belief exemptions – to leave readers convinced they need to do something to stop vaccine exemptions. This is the fear-based response Offit spoke of -- but it's far better to make your decisions based on reason... Natural Herd Immunity is Not Achieved Through Vaccination Many articles that berate vaccine exemption options and parents, who obtain personal belief exemptions for their children, use the argument that unvaccinated children are "weakening" herd immunity and, therefore, putting others at risk of disease. The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases describes vaccine-induced herd immunity, also labeled "community immunity" by public health doctors as follows: "When a critical portion of a community is immunized against a contagious disease, most members of the community are protected against that disease because there is little opportunity for an outbreak. Even those who are not eligible for certain vaccines – such as infants, pregnant women, or immunocompromised individuals – get some protection because the spread of contagious disease is contained. This is known as 'community immunity.'" The problem is that there is in fact such a thing as natural herd immunity. But what they've done is they've taken this natural phenomenon and assumed that vaccines will work the same way. However, vaccines do not confer the same kind of immunity as being challenged by and overcoming the natural disease, and the science clearly shows that there's a big difference between naturally acquired herd immunity and vaccine-induced herd immunity. To learn more, I urge you to listen to the following video, in which Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder and president of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), discusses the concept of herd immunity. Barbara explains: "The original concept of herd immunity is that when a population experiences the natural disease… natural immunity would be achieved – a robust, qualitatively superior natural herd immunity within the population, which would then protect other people from getting the disease in other age groups. It's the way infectious diseases work… The vaccinologists have adopted this idea of vaccine induced herd immunity. The problem with it is that all vaccines only confer temporary protection… Pertussis vaccine is one of the best examples… Pertussis vaccines have been used for about 50 to 60 years, and the organism has started to evolve to become vaccine resistant. I think this is not something that's really understood generally by the public: Vaccines do not confer the same type of immunity that natural exposure to the disease does." Download Interview Transcript Get Informed Before You Vaccinate All Americans need to know their options for legally opting-out of vaccinations, and you also need to know why it's so important to protect this legal option, whether you choose to use every federally recommended vaccine for yourself and your children or not. No matter what vaccination choices you make for yourself or your family, there is a basic human right to be fully informed about all risks and have the ability to refuse to allow substances you consider to be harmful, toxic or poisonous to be forced upon you. Unfortunately, the public-private business partnership between government health and defense agencies and pharmaceutical corporations manufacturing and marketing vaccines in the U.S. is getting closer and closer. There is some serious discrimination against Americans, who want to be free to exercise their human right to informed consent to medical risk-taking when it comes to making voluntary decisions about which vaccines they and their children use. We cannot allow that happen! It's vitally important to know your legal rights and understand your options when it comes to using vaccines and prescription drugs. For example, your doctor is legally obligated to provide you with the CDC Vaccine Information Statement (VIS) sheet and discuss the potential symptoms of side effects of the vaccination(s) you or your child receive BEFORE vaccination takes place. If someone giving a vaccine does not do this, it is a violation of federal law. Furthermore, the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 also requires doctors and other vaccine providers to: Keep a permanent record of all vaccines given and the manufacturer's name and lot number Record serious health problems, hospitalizations, injuries and deaths that occur after vaccination in the patient's permanent medical record File an official report of all serious health problems, hospitalizations, injuries and deaths following vaccination to the federal Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) If a vaccine provider fails to inform, record or report, it is a violation of federal law. It's important to get all the facts before making your decision about vaccination; and to understand that you have the legal right to opt out of using a vaccine that you do not want you or your child to receive. But as mentioned earlier, vaccine exemptions are under attack in a number of states, and it's in everyone's best interest to protect the right to make informed, voluntary vaccination decisions. What You Can Do to Make a Difference While it seems "old-fashioned," the only truly effective actions you can take to protect the right to informed consent to vaccination and expand your rights under the law to make voluntary vaccine choices, is to get personally involved with your state legislators and the leaders in your community. THINK GLOBALLY, ACT LOCALLY. Mass vaccination policies are made at the federal level but vaccine laws are made at the state level, and it is at the state level where your action to protect your vaccine choice rights will have the greatest impact. Signing up to be a user of NVIC's free online Advocacy Portal at www.NVICAdvocacy.org gives you access to practical, useful information to help you become an effective vaccine choice advocate in your own community. You will get real-time Action Alerts about what you can do if there are threats to vaccine exemptions in your state. With the click of a mouse or one touch on a Smartphone screen you will be put in touch with YOUR elected representatives so you can let them know how you feel and what you want them to do. Plus, when national vaccine issues come up, you will have all the information you need to make sure your voice is heard. So please, as your first step, sign up for the NVIC Advocacy Portal. Contact Your Elected Officials It is so important for you to reach out and make sure your concerns get on the radar screen of the leaders and opinion makers in your community, especially the politicians you elect who are directly involved in making vaccine laws in your state. These are your elected representatives, so you have a right and a responsibility to let them know what's really happening in your life and the lives of people you know when it comes to vaccine mandates. Be sure to share the "real life" experiences that you, or people you know, have experienced with vaccination. Internet Resources I also encourage you to visit the following web pages on the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) website at www.NVIC.org: NVIC Memorial for Vaccine Victims: View descriptions and photos of children and adults, who have suffered vaccine reactions, injuries and death. If you or your child experiences an adverse vaccine event, please consider posting and sharing your story here. If You Vaccinate, Ask 8 Questions: Learn how to recognize vaccine reaction symptoms and prevent vaccine injuries. Vaccine Freedom Wall: View or post descriptions of harassment by doctors or state officials for making independent vaccine choices. Find a Doctor Who will Listen to Your Concerns If your pediatrician or doctor refuses to provide medical care to you or your child unless you agree to get vaccines you don't want, I strongly encourage you to have the courage to find another doctor. Harassment, intimidation, and refusal of medical care is becoming the modus operandi of the medical establishment in an effort to punish patients and parents who become truly educated about health and vaccination and want to make vaccine choices instead of being forced to follow risky one-size-fits-all vaccine policies. If you are treated with disrespect or are harassed in any way by a doctor (or government official), do not engage in an unproductive argument. You may want to contact an attorney, your elected state representatives or local media if you or your child are threatened. However, there is hope. At least 15 percent of young doctors recently polled admit that they're starting to adopt a more individualized approach to vaccinations in direct response to the vaccine safety concerns of parents. It is good news that there is a growing number of smart young doctors, who prefer to work as partners with parents in making personalized vaccine decisions for children, including delaying vaccinations or giving children fewer vaccines on the same day or continuing to provide medical care for those families, who decline use of one or more vaccines. So take the time to locate and connect with a doctor, who treats you with compassion and respect and is willing to work with you to do what is right for your child. Edited March 28, 2013 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 Thank's for that, Steven. Interesting. No doubt someone far more qualified will point out the flaws in that article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted March 28, 2013 Author Share Posted March 28, 2013 (edited) Thank's for that, Steven. Interesting. No doubt someone far more qualified will point out the flaws in that article. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Hi John ,lets get international in our understanding of vaccination. Europe/Japan/China all are less agressive in vaccination programs compared to that exceptional country UUUSA !!!!! WHY ?? Strapped for cash ,NO. They know vaccines less a answer to good public health than the vaccine industry promotes. In Japan they are much less aggressive younger than 2 years of age,RE:vaccination. Why UUUSA !!!! most vaccinated country ?? $P$O$L$I$T$I$C$S$ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Try this analogy Fluoridation is pursued to achieve a reduction in cavities in children. It is most effective for children ages 5 -9. The question is whether it is a good practice to medicate the entire population regardless of contraindications or need. Fluoride possesses the potential to cause many adverse effects. These effects overlap many modern complaints such as fibromyalgia, low thyroid, diabetes, arthritis and dementia. Additionally, much public water is utilized for purposed other than consumption. This water is ultimately released into the environment laden with a toxin that was purposefully added. In consideration of the many demonstrated and potential dangers, this policy should not continue. (DOCUMENTED @ POST # 26 The Plan (Washington,D.C.)) So fluoride is only good for a small portion of the population and if you have read THE PLAN and THE DEPOPULATION THREADS ,then you know large downside to fluoride. The schools/state governments could provide fluoridated toothpaste to 5 to 9 year children. That would be enough to get maximum fluoride benefit with little downside. John why dont you investigate Europe/China/Japan fluoridation policies. EYES MAY BECOME OPEN. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ LETS ANALOGIZE NOW VACCINES WORK BY GETTING IMMUNE REACTION . Now if your immune system is to weak , then vaccine doesnt work. OR If immune system reaction is too strong you get auto-immune reaction like Guillain Barre syndrome. (John why not look up vaccines AND auto immune system). So there is a subset of people who benefit from vaccines ,but like above example of fluoride, the health cost/benefit ratio to vaccinate all may not be in the positive account of the ledger. ++++++++++++++++ OOPS !!!!! EVEN SKEPTICS CANT FIND PEER REVIEW STUDIES !!!!! I can not even find one Peer-Reviewed Double Blind Study of any vaccine. Can you point out some studies for me, if they are available locked by Jun 9 '12 at 0:26 This question exists because it has historical significance, but it is not considered a good, on-topic question for this site, so please do not use it as evidence that you can ask similar questions here. This question and its answers are frozen and cannot be changed. More info: FAQ. 3 Answers Immunogenicity and reactogenicity of a 13-valent-pneumococcal conjugate vaccine administered at 2, 4, and 12 months of age: a double-blind randomized active-controlled trial. Immunogenicity of bivalent types 1 and 3 oral poliovirus vaccine: a randomised, double-blind, controlled trial. Efficacy of pentavalent rotavirus vaccine against severe rotavirus gastroenteritis in infants in developing countries in Asia: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial That are just a few results from a quick search, there are studies done for every approved vaccine. I'm using the US system as an example, but it will be similar in other countries. In the US the FDA has to approve vaccines: Pre-marketing (pre-licensure) vaccine clinical trials are typically done in three phases, as is the case for any drug or biologic. Initial human studies, referred to as Phase 1, are safety and immunogenicity studies performed in a small number of closely monitored subjects. Phase 2 studies are dose-ranging studies and may enroll hundreds of subjects. Finally, Phase 3 trials typically enroll thousands of individuals and provide the critical documentation of effectiveness and important additional safety data required for licensing. At any stage of the clinical or animal studies, if data raise significant concerns about either safety or effectiveness, FDA may request additional information or studies, or may halt ongoing clinical studies. So any vaccine will have to be shown safe and effective in clinical trials to get approved. They also continue to investigate the safety of the vaccines: The FDA continues to oversee the production of vaccines after the vaccine and the manufacturing processes are approved, in order to ensure continuing safety. share edited Mar 24 '11 at 20:09 answered Mar 24 '11 at 19:02 14.7k566119 thanks.......... – user1043 Mar 24 '11 at 20:42 down vote The answer to your question is "yes". Via PubMed: Efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of a Vero-cell-culture-derived trivalent influenza vaccine: a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Amplified antigen-specific immune responses in HIV-1 infected individuals in a double blind DNA immunization and therapy interruption trial. Trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine in African adults infected with human immunodeficient virus: double blind, randomized clinical trial of efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety. Safety, immunogenicity and duration of protection of the RTS,S/AS02(D) malaria vaccine: one year follow-up of a randomized controlled phase I/IIb trial. share answered Mar 24 '11 at 23:36 555310 <a class="vote-up-off" jquery1710700664506994421="12" title="This answer is useful (click again to undo)">up vote 4 http://www.accessexc...EC/CC/polio.php share answered Mar 24 '11 at 18:24 Russell Steen 7,0652869 That's not a study. It doesn't even contain the keywords study or peer-review – user1043 Mar 24 '11 at 18:48 1 @Daniel, it's a summary of the polio vaccine and does discuss the studies used to validate it. – Russell Steen Mar 24 '11 at 19:50 It doesn't reference any of the claims it makes. It isn't peer-reviewed. It doesn't contain any data. Some points for being published by a museum, I guess, but the OP asks for actual gold-standard studies. – Oddthinking Jul 25 '11 at 18:01 I can not even find one Peer-Reviewed Double Blind Study of any vaccine. Can you point out some studies for me, if they are available? medical-science vaccines safety share edited Mar 24 '11 at 19:10 14.7k566119 asked Mar 24 '11 at 18:19 user1043 4 Search on Google for Polio. EVERY vaccine has peer-reviewed studies done before it is approved, then more come after. Vote to close (subjective and argumentative). – Ustice Mar 24 '11 at 18:22 1 @Daniel I suggest you run a quick search on PubMed before you make such a bold statement. – rjstelling Mar 24 '11 at 18:24 Please formulate this as a question, not as a statement. In this form the question is likely to be closed. You're just stating your conclusion (that vaccines don't work) already in your question, this is not a forum, you're supposed to ask questions, not just declare your opinion. – Fabian♦ Mar 24 '11 at 18:45 I said Peer-Reviewed Double Blind Study. There is a huge difference. – user1043 Mar 24 '11 at 18:51 11 Demanding that a double blind study be performed would be an unethical practice. You realize that it would intentionally expose subjects who were getting the non-effective vaccine to potentially deadly diseases. Of course, since when have ethical standards ever applied to anti-vaxers? – Larian LeQuella♦ Mar 25 '11 at 1:44 show 1 more comment ###################################### OOPS !!!! ####################################### Authorities often claim that "anti-vaccine" websites do not provide valid documentation. We provide hundreds of peer-reviewed studies from scientific and medical journals. Many of these studies link vaccines to the onset of new diseases. SEE under STUDIES AT http://thinktwice.com/ sSEEee uthAuthorities often claim that "anti-vaccine" websites do not provide valid documentation. We provide hundreds of peer-reviewed studies from scientific and medical journals. Many of these studies link vaccines to the onset of new diseases.orities often claim that "anti-vaccine" websites do not provide valid documentation. We provide hundreds of peer-reviewed studies from scientific and medical journals. Many of these studies link vaccines to the onset of new diseases. Edited March 28, 2013 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 TOXIC MYTHS ABOUT VACCINES Ever since there have been vaccines, there has been an antivaccination movement. It began shortly after Edward Jenner discovered how to use the weaker cowpox virus to induce long-lasting immunity to smallpox, there has been resistance to the concept of vaccination, a resistance that continues to this very day. Reasons for this resistance have ranged from religious, to fear of injecting foreign substances, to simple resistance to the government telling people what to do. Some fear even the infitessimally small risk that vaccines pose for the benefit of resistance to disease far more than they fear the diseases themselves, a result of the very success of modern vaccines. Of course, vaccines, like any other medical intervention, are not without risks, making it easy for them to jump on any hint of harm done by vaccines, whether real or imagined, even though vaccines are among the very safest of treatments.One of the biggest myths that antivaccinationists believe and like to use to stoke the fear of vaccines is the concept that they are full of “toxins.” The myth that mercury in the thimerosal preservative commonly used in vaccines in the U.S. until early 2002 was a major cause of autism is simply the most recent bogeyman used to try to argue that vaccines do more harm than good, as was the scare campaign engineered in response to Andrew Wakefield’s poor science claiming a link between the MMR vaccine and autism. Now that study after study have failed to find or corroborate a link between thimerosal in vaccines or vaccines in general and autism to the point where even the most zealous of zealots are having a hard time defending the claim that mercury in vaccines cause autism any more, predictably the campaign against vaccines has fallen back on the old “toxins” myth. If you peruse antivaccinationist websites, it won’t take long to find articles claiming that vaccines are full of the most terrifying and nasty toxins. Examples in the media abound as well. For example, Jenny McCarthy, comic actress and former Playboy Playmate who has been doing the talk show and publicity circuit lately to plug her book in which she claims that vaccines caused her son’s autism and that she was able to cure it with “biomedical” interventions and diet, recently gave an interview in which she said: What I really am is “anti-toxins” in the vaccines. I do believe that there is a correlation between vaccinations and autism. I don’t think it’s the sole cause, but I think they’re triggering–it’s triggering–autism in these kids. A really great example is…is, sometimes obesity can trigger diabetes. I do believe that vaccines can trigger autism…It’s so much more than just mercury. That is one ingredient in the recipe of autism…I’m talking about all of them. I’m calling for cleaning out the toxins. People don’t realize that there is aluminum, ether, antifreeze, still mercury, in the shots…People are afraid of secondhand smoke, but they’re OK with injecting the second worst neurotoxin on the planet in newborns. Another example of what I sometimes call the “toxin gambit” comes from Deirdre Imus, wife of shock jock Don Imus, with both husband and wife being well-known and reliable media boosters of the claim that vaccines somehow cause autism: So, where are the evidenced based (conflict free) studies that prove the safety of these “trace” amounts and proof that there are “no biological effects” of any amount of mercury being injected into our children and pregnant moms? Also, where are the evidence based studies proving the safety of vaccines given to pregnant moms and our children that contain other toxins such as aluminum and formaldehyde? The most recent example of this tactic comes from an organization called Generation Rescue, which just last week ran a full-page ad in USA Today, paid for in part by Jenny McCarthy and her present boyfriend Jim Carrey: Besides being one of the most egregious examples of a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy that I’ve ever seen from an antivaccination site, this Generation Rescue ad demonstrates clearly a new strategy (or, more properly, a resurrection of an old technique) now that science is coming down conclusively against mercury in vaccines as a cause of autism, a strategy of propagating fear by linking vaccines with “toxins.” So what’s the real story? Are there really deadly toxins in vaccines that parents should be worried about? To answer this question, I thought I’d use what to me is arguably the most amazingly over-the-top examples of this strategy of listing “toxins” in vaccines as a jumping off point. This example is embodied in a post by one Kent Heckenlively writing for the Age of Autism blog entitled FDA Says A-OK: Vaccine Ingredients from A to Z. This post examines a list taken straight from the CDC website of ingredients found in vaccines besides the bacterial or viral proteins designed to evoke the protective immune response and tries to scare parents about almost every one. Of course, nearly all of these comparisons fail to acknowledge that time-honored pharmacological principle that “the dose makes the poison” and extrapolate horrible consequences known to occur during prolonged exposure or exposure to large amounts to the tiny amounts in vaccines. That’s exactly what Mr. Heckenlively does to what is, I must say, a truly ridiculous level. However, as patently ridiculous as Mr. Heckenlively’s post is, I believe that it is not a straw man and still worth starting the discussion with because it serves almost as a reductio ad absurdum concentration of actual arguments that antivaccinationists make about “toxins” in vaccines. A few examples, starting with these, will readily show you what I mean: Neomycin is used as an anti-bacterial. It is also nephrotoxic and can cause kidney damage. And: Polymyxin B is used as an anti-bacterial. It binds to the cell membrane and alters its structure, making it more permeable. The resulting water uptake leads to cell death. Side effects include neurotoxicity and acute renal tubular necrosis. And: Streptomycin is used as an anti-bacterial. Streptomycin stops bacterial growth by damaging cell membranes and inhibiting protein synthesis. Specifically, it binds to the 16S rRNA of the bacterial ribosome, interfering with the binding of formyl-methionyl-tRNA to the 30S subunit. This prevents initiation of protein synthesis. Humans have structurally different ribosomes from bacteria, thereby allowing the selectivity of this antibiotic for bacteria. Streptomycin cannot be given orally, but must be administered by regular intramuscular injection. An adverse effect of this medicine is oto-toxicity. It can result in permanent hearing loss. All of this is true but highly deceptive. Why? The recommended dosage of streptomycin for the treatment of various infections is 20-40 mg/kg per day, for a maximum of 1 g per day! Why is this relevant? Because every vaccine given to a child during his entire life probably doesn’t even come anywhere near 1 mg, that’s why. Antibiotics like streptomycin and neomycin are used in cell culture medium at low concentrations to suppress the growth of bacteria. The reason that these antibiotics are listed is because they’re used in culturing the cells necessary to grow the viruses used in making vaccines. By the time the vaccine is made, these antibiotics are only present in trace amounts, nowhere near enough to cause renal toxicity or ototoxicity, which only occurs with use at or above the range of the doses listed above. I suspect that Mr. Heckenlively knows this too but only mentions it because he knows it will scare parents. Indeed, he takes this sort of distortion to a truly comical extreme with this example: Sucrose is used as a stabilizer. Over-consumption of sucrose has been linked with some adverse health effects. The most common is dental caries or tooth decay, in which oral bacteria convert sugars (including sucrose) from food into acids that attack tooth enamel. When a large amount of foods that contain a high percentage of sucrose is consumed, beneficial nutrients can be displaced from the diet, which can contribute to an increased risk for chronic disease. It has been suggested that sucrose-containing drinks may be linked to the development of obesity and insulin resistance. Does Heckenlively honestly think that the baby is eating the vaccine or that there’s kilogram upon kilogram of sucrose in vaccines? Using Mr. Heckenlively’s logic, I could say that because there’s the chelation agent EDTA used in some vaccines as a preservative babies could use it as a treatment for heavy metal poisoning. Sadly, Mr. Heckenlively is not alone in using such distortions to attack vaccines. For example, here are some even more deceptive statements on other such antivaccinationist lists as well about other vaccine ingredients: Sodium Hydroxide (also known as lye, caustic soda, soda lye.) Is corrosive and is an Eye, skin and respiratory irritant. Can burn eyes, skin and internal organs. Can cause lung and tissue damage, blindness and can be fatal if swallowed. Found in oven cleaners, tub and tile cleaners, toilet bowl cleaners and drain openers. And: Hydrochloric acid: CAN DISTROY TISSUE UPON DIRECT CONTACT! Found in aluminum cleaners and rust removers. Neglected is the simple chemical observation that these effects depend upon the pH of these acids and bases. The reason they’re used in vaccines is to adjust the pH of the vaccine to neutral. The person who wrote these things clearly doesn’t understand the basic concept of pH. Does she honestly think that the pH of vaccines is either 0 (very acid) or 14 (very basic)? Moreover, sodium hydroxide, when it neutralizes an aqueous acid solution will simply form the sodium salt of whatever the anion was in the acid. Hydrochloric acid will form the chloride salt with whatever cation was in the base. When sodium hydroxide or hydrochloric acid are used, one to neutralize the other, the result is an NaCl solution of neutral pH: common table salt. Of course, this list does contain a number of chemicals that do sound really scary. However, if you remember the pharmacological principle that “the dose makes the poison,” they are much less so. These chemicals are all present at extremely low concentrations in vaccines, certainly not at any dangerous levels. Moreover, some of the fearmongering about such seemingly scary toxins betrays a serious lack of understanding of basic chemistry. Read more at: http://www.scienceba...about-vaccines/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 VACCINATION PROGRAM SUCCESS One of the basic human “needs” is the desire for simplicity. We have limited cognitive resources, and when we feel overwhelmed by complexity one adaptive strategy is to simplify things in our mind. This can be useful as long as we know we are oversimplifying. Problems arise when we mistake our schematic version for reality. In this same vein we also like our narratives to be morally simple, so there is a tendency to replace the complex shades of gray with black and white. This is perhaps related to cognitive dissonance theory. We have a hard time reconciling how someone can be both good and bad, or how a good person can do bad things. So there is also a tendency to see people as all good or all bad. We can transcend these tendencies with maturity and wisdom, but that takes work. A good example of the desire for simple moral clarity is the anti-vaccine movement. Their world is comprised of white hats and black hats (guess which one they perceive themselves as wearing), as evidenced by the blog posts and comments over at Age of Autism. There is a certain demand for purity of thought and message that seems to be getting worse over time in a self-reinforcing subculture. Many now see their struggle in apocalyptic terms. The desire for simplicity even extends to factual claims. They oppose vaccination, and so they tend to make every argument against vaccines possible – even arguing, against all the evidence, that vaccines do not work. If vaccines were effective but carried significant risks, that would cause a genuine dilemma (cognitive dissonance). But if vaccines are both ineffective and risky, there is no dilemma, the cognitive dissonance is resolved, and the brain is given a nice dose of dopamine as a reward. This means that defenders of science-based medicine have to counter anti-vaccine propaganda stating that vaccines do not work. For example, the data on measles is overwhelmingly clear, but this has not stopped vaccine deniers from distorting the data to argue that measles just happened to decline all on its own. It’s a massive exercise in not seeing the forest for the trees. Deniers look for anomalies in the data (usually artifacts of data collection) and then use that to call the big picture into question. Or they confuse death rates with incidence rates (death rates can decline just by improvements in medical care – this does not mean that the spread of the disease was decreasing). Meanwhile the big picture is dramatically clear – vaccine introduction lines up nicely with plummeting disease incidence. So forgive us if we take the time to point out when further evidence comes to light that vaccines are effective public health measures. A recent study published in Pediatrics reviews the evidence for the effect of the varicella (chicken pox) vaccine on varicella-related deaths. They found: During the 12 years of the mostly 1-dose US varicella vaccination program, the annual average mortality rate for varicella listed as the underlying cause declined 88%, from 0.41 per million population in 1990–1994 to 0.05 per million population in 2005–2007. The decline occurred in all age groups, and there was an extremely high reduction among children and adolescents younger than 20 years (97%) and among subjects younger than 50 years overall (96%). In the last 6 years analyzed (2002–2007), a total of 3 deaths per age range were reported among children aged 1 to 4 and 5 to 9 years, compared with an annual average of 13 and 16 deaths, respectively, during the prevaccine years. That’s an impressive decline, if the absolute numbers are low. But when you are talking about childhood deaths, any reduction is welcome. Although it was not covered in this study, other studies also have looked at varicella incidence and hospitalizations, also finding a dramatic decrease. For example: The vaccination program reduced disease incidence by 57% to 90%, hospitalizations by 75% to 88%, deaths by >74%, and direct inpatient and outpatient medical expenditures by 74%. All of this data is also with the single doses vaccine, which was found not to produce adequate antibody levels in some children. The current recommendation is for a second follow up dose to boost immunity levels. It is probable that the two-dose vaccine will produce even more impressive results. And so as not to oversimplify the picture – the varicella vaccine did come with a possible unintended consequence. Previous generations were often exposed to chicken pox in children throughout their life, resulting in a natural immunity booster. With the near elimination of chicken pox due to the vaccine, older adults have waning immunity and this has possibly led to an increase in herpes zoster. Once infected with varicella the virus is never completely eliminated from the body. It goes dormant in the dorsal root ganglia (packets of sensory nerve cells just outside the spinal cord) and can be reactivated later in life. It’s possible that decreasing antibody levels in older adults who are no longer getting exposed to cases in children are allowing more cases of zoster to occur. The data on this is currently mixed. Models predict an increase, but actual surveillance has produced unclear results. The worst case scenario is that the older generation will experience an increase in herpes zoster, but this will be a temporary effect as the next generation will never have had chicken pox due to the vaccine. There is also available a varicella zoster vaccine to reduce the risk of zoster in the at risk generation. Conclusion There is a large and growing body of scientific data from which we can draw a few very reliable conclusions. Vaccines work. The general concept is sound, and specific vaccines have clearly been effective in significantly reducing (and in two cases eliminating) infectious disease. They are not risk free, but the incidence of adverse events is orders of magnitude lower than the benefits of the available vaccines. We need to continue active surveillance of vaccine safety and effectiveness, as well as tight regulation of vaccine manufacturing. Vaccines are an important public health intervention, and we need to watch the vaccine program closely. Despite this, vaccine opponents have continued to argue that vaccines are not safe or effective. Thankfully the data is so clear that the public is largely ignoring them. Read more at http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/varicella-vaccination-program-success/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted March 28, 2013 Author Share Posted March 28, 2013 (edited) http://articles.merc...ectiveness.aspx Merck Accused of Lying about Vaccine Effectiveness July 10, 2012 Even More Bad News: U.S. Varicella Vaccination Program a Total Flop In related news, a recent review of the varicella (chickenpox) vaccination program in the U.S. concluded that the vaccine has: Not proven to be cost-effective Increased the incidence of shingles Failed to provide long-term protection from the disease it targets―chicken pox―and Is less effective than the natural immunity that existed in the general population before the vaccine Here, vaccine efficacy was found to have declined well below 80 percent by of 2002. This damning news was published in May in the journal Vaccinex. The information was gathered from a review of chicken pox and shingles statistics in the years since the vaccine was introduced. The researchers point out that although statistics showed shingles rates increased after the vaccine, "CDC authorities still claimed" that no increase had occurred. The authors also state that the CDC not only ignored the natural boost in immunity to the community that occurred with wild chickenpox, as opposed to the vaccine, but also ignored the "rare serious events following varicella vaccination" as well as the increasing rates of shingles among adults: "In the prelicensure era, 95% of adults experienced natural chickenpox (usually as children)—these cases were usually benign and resulted in long-term immunity. Varicella vaccination is less effective than the natural immunity that existed in prevaccine communities. Universal varicella vaccination has not proven to be cost-effective as increased herpes zoster [shingles] morbidity has disproportionately offset cost savings associated with reductions in varicella disease. Universal varicella vaccination has failed to provide long-term protection from VZV disease." Edited March 28, 2013 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted March 29, 2013 Share Posted March 29, 2013 You expect people to believe an anti-vaccination website on vaccination issues? A website that pushes "natural" cures and methods? I'm sure you can show that vaccines don't work, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted March 29, 2013 Author Share Posted March 29, 2013 You expect people to believe an anti-vaccination website on vaccination issues? A website that pushes "natural" cures and methods? I'm sure you can show that vaccines don't work, right? // BURTON GEE, HOW ODD IS IT FOR A PERSON WHO THINKS ITS OK FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO READ ALL EMAILS (BURTON) AND DOSENT READ HIMSELF ????????????????????????????????????? FROM POST # 138 above NOW VACCINES WORK BY GETTING IMMUNE REACTION . Now if your immune system is to weak , then vaccine doesnt work. OR If immune system reaction is too strong you get auto-immune reaction like Guillain Barre syndrome. (John why not look up vaccines AND auto immune system). So there is a subset of people who benefit from vaccines ,but like above example of fluoride, the health cost/benefit ratio to vaccinate all may not be in the positive account of the ledger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted March 29, 2013 Share Posted March 29, 2013 http://articles.merc...ectiveness.aspx Merck Accused of Lying about Vaccine Effectiveness July 10, 2012 Even More Bad News: U.S. Varicella Vaccination Program a Total Flop In related news, a recent review of the varicella (chickenpox) vaccination program in the U.S. concluded that the vaccine has: Not proven to be cost-effective Increased the incidence of shingles Failed to provide long-term protection from the disease it targets―chicken pox―and Is less effective than the natural immunity that existed in the general population before the vaccine Here, vaccine efficacy was found to have declined well below 80 percent by of 2002. This damning news was published in May in the journal Vaccinex. The information was gathered from a review of chicken pox and shingles statistics in the years since the vaccine was introduced. The researchers point out that although statistics showed shingles rates increased after the vaccine, "CDC authorities still claimed" that no increase had occurred. The authors also state that the CDC not only ignored the natural boost in immunity to the community that occurred with wild chickenpox, as opposed to the vaccine, but also ignored the "rare serious events following varicella vaccination" as well as the increasing rates of shingles among adults: "In the prelicensure era, 95% of adults experienced natural chickenpox (usually as children)—these cases were usually benign and resulted in long-term immunity. Varicella vaccination is less effective than the natural immunity that existed in prevaccine communities. Universal varicella vaccination has not proven to be cost-effective as increased herpes zoster [shingles] morbidity has disproportionately offset cost savings associated with reductions in varicella disease. Universal varicella vaccination has failed to provide long-term protection from VZV disease." It should be noted that neither of the authors indicated a background in medicine, public health, biology or statistic etc. One is an "Independent Computer Scientist, P.O. Box 847, Pearblossom, CA" the other associated with "Facility Automation Management Engineering (FAME) Systems, 33 Hoffman Avenue, Lake Hiawatha, NJ" and that the paper is "open access" meaning the authors paid to have it published. Though the publisher claims this "will have no effect on the peer review process or acceptance of the submitted article" I have my doubts, at a minimum it indicates the authors have an agenda. Also the paper was "based primarily on the Antelope Valley Varicella Active Surveillance Project data" so one has to wonder if its findings even if accurate apply to the country as a whole. There basic thesis seems to be that it is better to let kids get smallpox as kids then to vaccinate them and risk their catching the disease as adults but if the vaccine protected them as children but not when they got older perhaps the best solution is a booster shot or re vaccination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted March 29, 2013 Share Posted March 29, 2013 GEE, HOW ODD IS IT FOR A PERSON WHO THINKS ITS OK FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO READ ALL EMAILS (BURTON) AND DOSENT READ HIMSELF ????????????????????????????????????? LOL the irony is stunning because Gaal frequently posts text, links, videos etc. he hasn't read or watched. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted March 29, 2013 Share Posted March 29, 2013 Sorry Steven; I forgot to put the [sarcasm] [/sarcasm] tags on it. You see, you’re an anti-vaxxer and you may not know it but there is a minority amongst you whose foolish delusions include the notion that vaccination actually doesn’t work…. thus my sarcasm. Anti-vaxxers are different from what I would call the fringe groups of society. You can have your 9-11 truthers, moon hoaxers, chemtrail believers, whatever; they can have their beliefs and reality will keep chugging along without a care…. but anti-vaxxers, well you actually pose a threat to public health. You really are dangerous. People listen to the lies put out by the AVN, Wakefield, etc and don’t get vaccinated. That affects herd immunity meaning that people that can’t be vaccinated for whatever reasons are now put at risk and diseases that were once considered to be eradicated are now resurfacing in the general population. I don’t give a damn about you but when your fantasies affect myself and others, expect me to start shoving facts and reality into your world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted March 29, 2013 Author Share Posted March 29, 2013 (edited) You really are dangerous // BURTON Golly its you who want to let the government look at all emails. I just want vaccine choice.GAAL , expect me to start shoving facts and reality into your world. // Burton GOLLY, IMHO BURTON WOULD MAKE A WONDERFUL COMMUNIST COMMISSAR ,Gaal OOPS !!!!! EVEN SKEPTICS CANT FIND PEER REVIEW STUDIES !!!!! AT SKEPTIC WEBSITE ONE BRAVE SOUL ASKS A QUESTION THAT SHOVES THE MIND INTO ACTION I can not even find one Peer-Reviewed Double Blind Study of any vaccine. Can you point out some studies for me, if they are available ======================== NONE FOUND Edited March 29, 2013 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 You really are dangerous // BURTON Golly its you who want to let the government look at all emails. I just want vaccine choice.GAAL , expect me to start shoving facts and reality into your world. // Burton GOLLY, IMHO BURTON WOULD MAKE A WONDERFUL COMMUNIST COMMISSAR ,Gaal This is a good example of why it is impossible to have a rational debate with you, Steven: just because I maintain that vaccination is a public safety issue, you leap wildly to the conclusion that I want governments to read all e-mails. Likewise, because I deal with facts and not fantasy, I become a dictator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted March 30, 2013 Author Share Posted March 30, 2013 (edited) you leap wildly to the conclusion that I want governments to read all e-mails. // BURTON +++++++++++++++++ NO, YOU SAID ITS OK IN ANOTHER THREAD !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ============= Likewise, because I deal with facts and not fantasy, I become a dictator. //Burton =================== No because you said you wanted "to start shoving facts and reality into your world.(Burton) " PLEASE Mr. Burton dont shove what you have towards me.(Gaal) AND I GAVE YOU FACTS FROM POST #138 above (below) OOPS !!!!! EVEN SKEPTICS CANT FIND PEER REVIEW STUDIES !!!!! AT SKEPTIC WEBSITE ONE BRAVE SOUL ASKS A QUESTION THAT SHOVES THE MIND INTO ACTION I can not even find one Peer-Reviewed Double Blind Study of any vaccine. Can you point out some studies for me, if they are available ======= RESULT ================= SKEPTICS FORUM WEB MEMBERS FOUND NONE NO PEER REVIEW SCIENCE ARTICLE OF VACCINES , because I deal with facts and not fantasy // Burton Gee I showed you no peer reviewed studies.....its Burton who lives in fantasy +++++++++++++++++++++++ NOW BACK TO THE AUTHORITARIAN VIEWPOINT OF MODERATOR BURTON WE ALL LOSE, I guess this is what you want. All Australian’s now under surveillance (Gaal) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ BURTON First off, I don't really have a problem with most forms of surveillance when it comes to security. I know many people disagree with me and that is their right. Secondly, your above statement is misleading, if not incorrect. I come from a family of five children, and two of them have no internet / e-mail access whatesoever. They pay bills in person and one doesn't even have a credit card! The other two do use the internet, one for songs and the other for Facebook (which I refuse to be a part of). That is my family. Of my three best friends, two have no internet access whatsoever (which I find almost like being Luddites!). So if we look at my immediate circle of eight people, four have no internet connection whatsoever. If we expand that throughout Australia, and factor in areas where internet access is just a government promise, I think it would be fair to say that at least 10-15% of Australians would not "fall prey" to the surveillance you claim is so pervasive. END BURTON ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ There is no caveat re monitoring for security purposes. ITS ALL EMAILS. MOMITOR EMAILS , ITS ALL GOOD PER BURTON !!!! Gaal How ironic that authoritarian viewpoints are the grease on the wheels that will allow Depopulation to occur. Breakfast at the Burtons Edited March 30, 2013 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 So, Steven: where exactly did I say: "I want governments to read all e-mails"? The worst I said was "First off, I don't really have a problem with most forms of surveillance when it comes to security." Once more you demonstrate that you are incapable of rational debate. People say one thing and you claim they said something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts