Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Breaking News
31328 Followers
Marie Kettering
24 Followers
Jack Berry
17 Followers
Cosmic Surfer - WE ARE the 99%
3672 Followers
None Ya Biz
255 Followers
apokalyps2547Jan 6, 2011
Vaccines are extraordinarily safe, highly effective, and they save lives.
They even protect the people around you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity
ninhJan 6, 2011
Every epedemia that gets through reduces the number of anti-vaccination morons. Natural selection at it's best.
apokalyps2547Jan 6, 2011
But it's not always the morons, sometimes it's their kids (who had no choice in the matter), or sometimes other peoples' kids whom they may interact with.
ninhJan 6, 2011
Other people's kids aren't under their control. If they wish to have their own kids killed, be it on their head.
grungegbunnyJan 6, 2011
Herd immunity requires a significant % of the population get immunity. Getting the shot doesn't guarantee your safety from the disease, its you PLUS peers around you together that make it work. So other parents not allowing their children getting the shot DO put your immunized children at risk.
apokalyps2547Jan 6, 2011
"So other parents not allowing their children getting the shot DO put your immunized children at risk."
I'm not so sure on that.
Herd immunity is important for the protection of children, yes, but it's the infants who have not yet been vaccinated that are at risk from irresponsible anti-vax adults.
A kid who has received the measles vaccine is safe from measles. Period.
grungegbunnyJan 6, 2011
Apokalyps I'm not certain of that. Search Youtube for video "How Herd Immunity Works" by user shanedk.
He claims even the vaccinated can be susceptible to the disease if he/she is exposed frequently to those that are infected.
lowjeepJan 7, 2011
@Apokalyps
You are correct in stating that infants are the major recipient of herd immunity protection. But grungegbunny is correct in stating that a certain percentage of people will still be susceptible to a disease even if given the vaccination for it. For unknown reasons a small percentage of people do not receive immunity with all vaccines. Those people are also kept safe via herd immunity.
I myself am allergic to the pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine and have to be extremely careful here in WA state due to herd immunity levels dropping below caring capacity. Not for myself. Being in my mid 30's it probably wouldn't effect me too terribly bad but unfortunately my S-I-L is a nutcase anti-vaxxer and if I caught it I could easily pass it along to my 1 year old nephew. She's too stupid to realize it could kill him.
peoplerstoopidJan 7, 2011
Youtube is hardly a credible reference
jaydub99Jan 7, 2011
Vaccinations are not all 100% effective. They eliminate diseases by making infections highly unlikely. So yeah, we rely on everyone getting them.
pharmermikeJan 7, 2011
Apokalyps2547: Take the example of Pertussis. The guideline is to vaccinate those around infants that are too young to receive the vaccine to protect the at risk infant from getting pertussis. Please refer to: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/pertussis/default.htm for a little education on the subject.
apokalyps2547Jan 7, 2011
Looks like I've been educated. Thanks for the heads-up.
thexuuJan 7, 2011
Infected individuals give the virus chances to mutate into something the vaccine does not protect from.
crunchdiggJan 6, 2011
Herd Immunity. You know, as referenced in the thread you're adding to.
helloimtomJan 7, 2011
well unfortunately the people must at risk by other people not getting immunised are those that are immunocompromised, because their immune systems are too weak to handle the antigens in a vaccine. This group includes people undertaking chemotherapy or radiation therapy and AIDS etc
:(
Closed AccountJan 7, 2011
Same genes removed. Same benefits to society.
chilidogsJan 6, 2011
The problem with that is that children too young to get vaccinated are the ones most likely to die. The other problem is that Once a disease gets a foothold it can infect even those who have been vaccinated.
thexboxreviewJan 6, 2011
Vaccines are great, but they contain filler with high amounts of mercury. Is that healthy for a child that is still developing? That's the point anti-vaccine people are trying to make, I believeComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
woollymittensJan 6, 2011
No they don't. They haven't for decades. Give it up.
thexboxreviewJan 6, 2011
"Thimerosal is a compound that is 49.6% mercury by weight."
http://www.immunizationinfo.org/issues/thimerosal-mercury/mercury-vaccines
mmilitiaJan 6, 2011
It's not the same type of mercury as you think it is and it was removed several years ago from all US drugs just as a precaution despite no evidence to suggest it was harmful.
thexboxreviewJan 6, 2011
That's great news it was removed. I have to point out though, you believe there's a non-harmful form of Mercury? Would you drink a glass of it? :)Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
antialiasJan 6, 2011
thexboxreview,
Of course you wouldn't drink a glass of it. I wouldn't drink a glass of pure alcohol, salt or sugar for that matter. Pretty much anything is harmful or even fatal at high levels. That says nothing about it's effects at small levels or the positive benefits it may have.
thexboxreviewJan 6, 2011
True, but you've got to admit, infants are pretty fragile
norman619Jan 6, 2011
thex:
Not as fragile as you think. If they were we would have failed as a species long ago.
njdoo7Jan 6, 2011
No evidence to suggest.
This data sure as hell "suggests" it. Whether or not it is the reason for the spike and decrease in autism could be debated...but to say that there is not evidence suggesting it all tells me that you are looking to deceive people:
"“Published in the March 10 issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, the data show since mercury was removed from childhood vaccines, the reported rates of autism and other neurological disorders in children not only stopped increasing but actually dropped sharply – by as much as 35 percent. Using the government’s own databases, independent researchers analyzed reports of childhood neurological disorders, including autism, before and after removal of mercury-based preservatives.
According to a statement from the Association of American Physicians & Surgeons, or AAPS, the numbers from California show that reported autism rates hit a high of 800 in May 2003. If that trend had continued, the reports would have risen to more than 1,000 by the beginning of 2006. But the number actually went down to 620, a real decrease of 22 percent, and a decrease from the projection of 35 percent."
http://vigilantcitizen.com/?p=4116Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jaydub99Jan 7, 2011
You probably get more mercury from eating one deepwater fish than the amount of thimerosal in one vaccine shot.
jaydub99Jan 7, 2011
@njdoo7: hint, always read the criticisms of a published study as well.
http://www.jpands.org/vol11no2/correspondence.pdf
jaydub99Jan 7, 2011
Also @njdoo7: Wow, what a ridiculous organization to cite from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons
I like the study showing "that 'humanists' have conspired to replace the 'creation religion of Jehovah' with evolution"
woollymittensJan 7, 2011
Not as fragile as your arguments.
qwerky623Jan 7, 2011
The form of mercury in vaccines is safe? I just searched pubmed for the words:
Thimerosal induces apoptosis
And saw 4 papers on damage it does. One I knew would be there because it was written by my M.D. Ph.D. doctor.
ren1999Jan 9, 2011
Just a precaution? I doubt it.
meninostongueJan 6, 2011
1. It isn't used in childhood vaccines anymore, regardless of its composition.
2. While elemental mercury is toxic, the form once used in those vaccines is not. Sodium and chlorine are both toxic, but sodium chloride is an essential nutrient. It's kind of like that.
thexboxreviewJan 6, 2011
Other forms might be less toxic, but it's still a very toxic thing for a human to ingest... but if you have links disproving this, please post them!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
meninostongueJan 6, 2011
Again, regardless of toxicity, it isn't used so moot point.
However, here is an NIH study that concludes that it isn't metabolized in a significant way and is quickly excreted.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12480426
njdoo7Jan 6, 2011
Please don't pretend like thimerosal has been proven safe. If it wasn't a debated topic, the CDC and American Academy of Pediatrics wouldn't have called for it being removed from vaccines.
You supply data saying it is safe, that doesn't make it so. Just as the following data suggesting otherwise may not be accurate. This is still a debated topic, stop spreading disinformation misleading people that it has been proven safe.
""“Published in the March 10 issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, the data show since mercury was removed from childhood vaccines, the reported rates of autism and other neurological disorders in children not only stopped increasing but actually dropped sharply – by as much as 35 percent. Using the government’s own databases, independent researchers analyzed reports of childhood neurological disorders, including autism, before and after removal of mercury-based preservatives.
According to a statement from the Association of American Physicians & Surgeons, or AAPS, the numbers from California show that reported autism rates hit a high of 800 in May 2003. If that trend had continued, the reports would have risen to more than 1,000 by the beginning of 2006. But the number actually went down to 620, a real decrease of 22 percent, and a decrease from the projection of 35 percent."
http://vigilantcitizen.com/?p=4116
And your disinformation saying it "isn't used"...
This 2009 flu vaccine insert says otherwise:
http://vigilantcitizen.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/fluzone-e1278626536469.jpg
I hope you rot if someone reads your post and concludes that thimerosal is no longer a threat, only to go get this years flu vaccine and drop dead.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jaydub99Jan 7, 2011
Seriously njdoo7, you need to stop quoting from that "journal" that is not even recognized by MEDLINE. It's another GOP machine. Global warming denying, great stuff for a medical journal, no?
felopJan 7, 2011
@njdoo7
People are burying you because they can't face the fact that they themselves were pumped full of these chemicals. These mutant human beings are the same ones I see in the doctor's office everyday.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
toxicshokJan 7, 2011
And there's more mercury in a serving of tuna than in a shot of vaccine. Furthermore, the ethyl mercury metabolite of thimersol is excreted quickly.
meninostongueJan 7, 2011
Is the flu vaccine a standard childhood vaccine? Please don't read selectively.
As for my links showing it to be safe not being enough... well, I don't know what would convince you then. You are arguing against scientific data with your own un-researched point of view. I have no way to rebut that.
diggduggjoeJan 11, 2011
Thimerisol is like a nutrient? I will not demand that we call it the anti-Christ, but I doubt it is completely harmless like salt.
jimfeetJan 6, 2011
Dead link?
Do you have any other sources?
thexboxreviewJan 6, 2011
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal
Your work might be blocking websites though?
pharmermikeJan 7, 2011
To thexboxreview: Actually, I'm at home and your link is broke, so....I think it is the link. Please read the following link that is referenced in your thiomersal article and start spreading the word....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal_controversy
apokalyps2547Jan 6, 2011
Yeah and table salt is mostly Chlorine by weight. That doesn't make it poisonous.
bluto36Jan 6, 2011
chemistry is hard
sometimes people really should listen to the experts with advance degrees and supported Data instead of a MTV girl that farts on TV
just saying
doonceJan 7, 2011
Thiomersal is an ethyl mercury compound. The dangerous type of mercury in a compound is methyl mercury. Think of it like alcohol. Ethyl alcohol is broken down fine in the body, but in high enough concentrations it is toxic. Methyl alcohol is very toxic and in small quantities can cause permanent blindness and death. Same goes for mercury compounds. The only reason that it is "49.6% mercury by weight" is that mercury is such a larger element than anything else in the compound. There is still just one atom of mercury in one molecule of Thiomersal. These are not high enough concentrations to cause any damage, and the mercury is disposed of.
mmerch4Jan 7, 2011
you go girl!
doonceJan 7, 2011
Furthermore, Thiomersal has been out of infant and child vaccinations for decades, and there has been no change in autism frequency.
bobodewJan 7, 2011
Your arugment against vaccines because of ethylmercury, is somewhat similiar to saying everyone should avoid salt because infact sodium is explosive and can kill anyone that ingests it.
I think you should bad sodium from all diets if your pattern holds.
njdoo7Jan 6, 2011
You say they don't contain mercury eh?
Here is a picture of the h1n1 vaccine insert:
http://vigilantcitizen.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/fluzone-e1278626536469.jpg
Can you please resist from making things up?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
doonceJan 7, 2011
Multidose drugs DO still contain Thiomersal. If it didn't, it would be easy to spread disease through using the same vial. His point was that pediatric vaccines DO NOT contain Thiomersal ( http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/UCM096228 ). And there are flu vaccines available without Thiomersal for infants, children, paranoid.
pharmermikeJan 7, 2011
njdoo7, I have read your comments and you need to drop it! The controversy is over. The case is closed. The scientific community has figured out that the trends of autism cases and the content of vaccinations are not linked. The man who first put the thought out for all to grab hold of was the worst person in the world and should be strung up for the number of children that have died because of his malfeasance. You site the one article that helps you grind your ax rather than looking at the rest of the data... Just stop!
psypher1Jan 7, 2011
And in plain site! Hmmmmm
gizmodergyJan 7, 2011
As you can see on your own image of the document the first 3 formulations DO NOT HAVE THIOMERSAL. The multidose vials are not used for child vaccinations. Try again.
diggduggjoeJan 11, 2011
They still use it in flu vaccines.
I am not saying all vaccines are bad, but let's be factual.
atai1638Jan 6, 2011
Have you failed high school or what? Have you ever heard that whether a substance is toxic or not greatly depends on the dosage? Of course some substance has a much smaller LD50 threshold, elemental mercury is one of them, mercury compound is not.
Vaccines might have a slim chance to cause unwanted side-effects, but the benefit far outweigh its risk.
bosskeyJan 6, 2011
I think we should start checking these vaccines for the presence of dihydrogen monoxide, which has been known to kill people, especially in large dosages.
thexboxreviewJan 6, 2011
H20? Sounds scary...
neotechniJan 7, 2011
I heard a girl died from consuming to much of that crap in some hold your wee for a wii contest.
BAN IT!
teh_techieJan 7, 2011
H2O, not H20. O, as in the letter O, as in Oxygen.
dkonigsbachJan 7, 2011
dihydrogen monoxide - a colorless, oderless substance which can be fatal if inhaled in sufficient quantities.
Yes, it's definitely at least as dangerous as vaccines.
chilidogsJan 6, 2011
"contain filler with high amounts of mercury."
What you are saying is not true.
"Since 2001, with the exception of some influenza (flu) vaccines, thimerosal is not used as a preservative in routinely recommended childhood vaccines."
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/thimerosal/index.html
I don't understand how it is that people don't get angry when they find out that they have been lied to.
bobodewJan 7, 2011
People have rallied around a cause and invested in it. They don't like to think they they are wrong so the obvious choice is others are liars. I read the forums on nytimes.com from the announcement and it was overwhelming full of parents essentially claiming that the study was valid regardless of what others said.
pharmermikeJan 7, 2011
I am furious! I mean pitchforks and torches angry! I can't believe we can't get a decent unruly mob started to release our collective vengeance!
[maybe i need to switch to decaf]
canyoucountJan 6, 2011
@further down thread: ".. you believe there's a non-harmful form of Mercury? Would you drink a glass of it?"
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Paracelsus
"
All substances are poisons; there is none which is not a poison. The right dose differentiates a poison and a remedy.
"
The 16th Century called, and they wanted you to know that your argument hasn't improved since then.
Closed AccountJan 7, 2011
Actually the statement "All substances are poisons; there is none which is not a poison. The right dose differentiates a poison and a remedy." is an irrefutable fact.
Every substance or lack of substance on this planet will kill you at the right dosage.
canyoucountJan 7, 2011
Yes, that was my point.
The original commenter was making fun of the idea that there could be a "non-harmful form of Mercury". My comment was supposed to point out to him/her that Paracelsus covered this ground 500+ years ago.
fmelloJan 6, 2011
That mercury preservative was called Thimerosal & it hasn't been in vaccines for years. Also there is a lot more mercury in a tuna sandwich than in a vaccine dose.
calgaryjayJan 7, 2011
Does a tuna sandwich go in your blood stream? And quit lying Thimerosal is still being used you hack.
diggduggjoeJan 11, 2011
The adjuvants are more likely to be a problem than than mercury today. They use alum and such to make your immune system go into an artificial overdrive. Adjuvants allow for less biological components and can make vaccines cheaper, but they need to be watched.
I accept the basic technology of immunizations, but I think they underestimate the effects of the other chemicals within them.
I feel the schedule is too aggressive especially with the minor illnesses like chickenpox which will be far worse for you to get when you are older. You will have to take boosters forever. It makes good sense, though, to the bean counters at the pharmaceutical companies.
We must not underestimate the benefits of better nutrition, improved sanitation systems and good hygiene. I feel those are greatly underestimated for their effects on our improved health. You may love to applaud the guy in the white lab coat, but the guy offering up some plumber's crack while handling a pipe wrench needs some respect, too.
njdoo7Jan 6, 2011
I find it interesting that this article comes out just in time for flu season.
This study wasn't the only source linking autism to vaccines. The fact that this study was fabricated, doesn't mean the others are not valid. One invalid study on 12 patients is not a reason to abandon doubt in vaccinations. What about this data?
"“Published in the March 10 issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, the data show since mercury was removed from childhood vaccines, the reported rates of autism and other neurological disorders in children not only stopped increasing but actually dropped sharply – by as much as 35 percent. Using the government’s own databases, independent researchers analyzed reports of childhood neurological disorders, including autism, before and after removal of mercury-based preservatives.
According to a statement from the Association of American Physicians & Surgeons, or AAPS, the numbers from California show that reported autism rates hit a high of 800 in May 2003. If that trend had continued, the reports would have risen to more than 1,000 by the beginning of 2006. But the number actually went down to 620, a real decrease of 22 percent, and a decrease from the projection of 35 percent."
http://vigilantcitizen.com/?p=4116
Do you suggest that this data is fabricated as well? Or do you have another reason for this spike and following plunge in autism rates?
It is very interesting that adult vaccines still contain mercury, including the h1n1 shots and this year's flu shot.
Do you tell parents of children who died from last years flu vaccine that is 'extraordinarily safe' anyways? How about parents of children who experienced convulsions resulting from it? How about my friend who was sick for 9 days after being vaccinated, and had to go to the emergency room because he couldn't hold down food?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
apokalyps2547Jan 6, 2011
Can we get an actual link to a publishing medical group, rather than scuttlebutt from a scare-blog? And "just in time for flu season" my arse. This is January, not November.
njdoo7Jan 6, 2011
http://www.aapsonline.org/press/nr-03-02-2006.php
matt8mattJan 6, 2011
Do you have a link to the actual study, so that you can look at information regarding how the people in the study were selected, or where the data they used was obtained from? Because from what it shows, they could just throw numbers out and you can't refute them.
Which is why people like peer-reviewed scientific journals, not random articles.
apokalyps2547Jan 6, 2011
I, for one, appreciate the link.
A look at their website shows that, despite its lofty-sounding name, it's just a small private organization with a political agenda and not a major peer-reviewed organization like the AMA or CDC.
njdoo7Jan 6, 2011
You make a good point, but I don't know if that invalidates the data. I have to admit this is a subject I am not very well versed in.. I have done a good amount of research, but will have to do more. If you have links you would like to suggest for related information I would appreciate them.
Also, I would like to point out that the AMA and CDC are not free from political agendas. One is a government organization, which means it is inherently political.
jaydub99Jan 7, 2011
http://www.jpands.org/vol11no2/correspondence.pdf
pharmermikeJan 7, 2011
From the press release:
“Despite its removal from many childhood vaccines, thimerosal is still routinely added to some formulations of influenza vaccine administered to U.S. infants, as well as to several other vaccines (e.g. tetanus-diphtheria and monovalent tetanus) administered to older children and adults. "
This statement alone supports the concept that the decline in reported autism cases does not correspond to removal of the suspected ingredient.
elipabstJan 9, 2011
AAPS is not a legitimate scientific source. They also publish articles saying that HIV does not cause AIDS.
There have been several studies published in respected journals (such as Archives of General Psychiatry) that analyzed the California data directly, rather than doing keyword searches in the CDC VAERS database and they concluded that the autism rates are unchanged. The California dept of health even links to these articles directly on their own website:
http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/immunize/Pages/IncreasesinAutismRates.aspx
jcolt84Jan 7, 2011
Say what you want but my child will not be vaccinated. I agree totally with the idea of vaccines but i will not put antifreeze etc. in my child.
apokalyps2547Jan 7, 2011
Antifreeze? Where the hell are you getting this bogus information?!
Protecting your kid from preventable life-threatening diseases should be a given for any parent.
Rejecting vaccines and risking Whooping Cough or Measles because of some perceived risk in vaccination is like having your kid play in the snow without a coat because you're afraid the zipper will stick.
representdlvJan 7, 2011
Good thing they don't use antifreeze as any sort of vaccine
felopJan 7, 2011
"Vaccines are extraordinarily safe, highly effective, and they save lives.
They even protect the people around you..."
Until an infant has an increased allergy to the vaccine and dies as a result of it being administered. While I'm not against vaccines, I'm against the assh**es that cram their opinions on how to parent down others' throats.
When it gets down to it, we're all responsible for the decisions we make for our children. Rallying against and ridiculing a parent's right to decide what they feel is best for their children is purely f**ked up.
The reality is that true immunity that would typically be passed to children through breastfeeding is slowly being replaced with unhealthy flocks of formula-fed mutants that have severely sluggish immune systems. The alternative is to pump these children with more chemicals to compensate for mommy's inability to immunize her own children through breast milk (another ridiculed aspect of childbearing). Thus the need for vaccines.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
apokalyps2547Jan 7, 2011
But it's not just your children you're endangering.
Again because people don't get it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity
ayracon8907Jan 7, 2011
except they make the strain of disease stronger
apokalyps2547Jan 7, 2011
You're confusing vaccines with antibiotics.
klijJan 7, 2011
I don't know if you can call something extraordinarily safe, if you have a 10% chance of getting sick. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine#Safety
The fact is children do have a very real chance of adverse reactions to vaccines, although its better then catching the measles.
andrespereydaJan 7, 2011
in iceland, a wookyleaks (wikileaks) tv news story about the truth behind the local banking crisis got a RETRACTION right b4 they went on air. the tv station didn't know what to do so, they just ended up showing the wikileaks website for the entire time with no talking. everybody in iceland saw it, it became popular, the government passed laws to prevent future banking problems, and because iceland is a nordic country, a new Nobel prize for free speech, yet to be awarded to anyone, was created out of the whole event! -retraction
jfitz369Jan 7, 2011
Ok, so the autism link is sketchy or completely a fraud. That doesn't mean that vaccines are "extraordinarily safe" by default. They are as safe as the companies that produce/distribute them care for them to be. And there have been instances where negligent companies have released unfit vaccines to the public.
So say what you will and make generalizations about ppl being crazy or whatever but until we actually have a government that truly looks out for the people over the businesses you never know what we'll end up getting.
Here are a couple quick "bad vaccine" moments I found quickly. I'm sure there are more...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swine_influenza#1976_U.S._outbreak
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aTo3LbhcA75I
Nothing wrong w/ being a skeptic and it's a sad world we live in where those who don't just trust everything handed to them get ridiculed by lemmings. And don't lemmings move in "herds"? Good luck w/ that.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
apokalyps2547Jan 7, 2011
I'm not saying they're extraordinarily safe "by default", I say it because study upon study upon study CONFIRMS that modern vaccines are incredibly safe.
jfitz369Jan 7, 2011
Guess I'm just eternally a skeptic - about vaccines, about the studies, about government protective agencies doing there jobs, about everything. So I'm just going to sit out and let all of you get your vaccines and I wish you all good luck. I hope it works out for you.
cowboyrickyJan 7, 2011
@apokalyps2547
*2009 Swine flu 14,286 Deaths World Wide
*Seasonal flu 500,000 Deaths per year
CNN and WHO said Millions will Die from 2009 H1N1,
Please give your Children x2 H1n1 every year,
Like CNN Recommends
http://pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/25/kids-may-need-2-h1n1-doses-again-this-year/
I need to invest in drug company's =)
ren1999Jan 9, 2011
I support vaccines but not the addition of Thimerosal preservative.
The inventor of Thimerosal, Morris S. Kharasch, said that arsenic is safer.
Having said that, I don't believe vaccines cause Autism. I believe that parents over the age of 40 are at risk of having an Autistic child who are susceptible to metals and can't eliminate them from the body as well as healthy children. The vaccine just puts those children over the edge.
msagnosticaAug 12, 2011
If you want to know the truth about what is causing these record breaking cases of autism? I will tell you. It's anti-depressants. But you won't hear this because the big pharmaceutical companies own this country which is loaded up on anti-depressants, anti-psychotics, and other dangerous ineffective drugs. I think this is a diversion or scapegoat to hide the real cause of autism. Already there are large class action lawsuits against the pharmaceutical companies. I have experienced first hand how drugs are pushed on patients by doctors, dangerous medications which have been proven to have no more effect than the placebo effect.
I had my psychiatrist push pills on me after I told her that they have never worked for me, I've been on nearly a dozen anti-depressants. Yet she accused me of not wanting to get better just because I didn't want to take medications that had fatal side effects and didn't work.
Ever go into your doctors office and really look around? Notice the tissue boxes, calendars, pens, free samples, etc. all have drugs branded on them. It's a marketing ploy, it's a system of information suppression and manipulation of the statistics and numbers by the pharmaceutical companies.
If you have severe depression and you're pregnant but absolutely need meds to keep you from killing yourself, it is much much safer to smoke pot than to take these antidepressants. Not unless you want your child to come out with autism, spinabifama, cleft lip, cerebral palsy, etc. Anti-depressants are Teratologens. Not vaccines.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/07/04/antidepressant.pregnancy.autism.risk/index.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Autism/antidepressant-linked-autism-study/story?id=13989498
blindoggbooksJan 6, 2011
what a surprise...lawyers attempting to create conditions in order to establish grounds for a lawsuit.
matthrJan 6, 2011
Not surprising, but sad none the less. This fraud carries a high body count, mostly consisting of defenseless children killed by preventable diseases. If there is a hell, I'm sure Wakefield is going to have a special place in it.
dirtyfriesJan 6, 2011
Good, maybe now Jenny McCarthy will shut the f**k up and stop giving parents' false hope.
breadfredJan 6, 2011
No she won't. Too much emotional investment. Maybe it is time to put an obligatory warning sign on her - something like 'Me is Stupid' but she probably would wear that with pride..
loonacyJan 6, 2011
Jenny McCarthy's website has a rebuttal which basically says "We never claimed MMR vaccines cause autism."
http://www.generationrescue.org/
woollymittensJan 6, 2011
Like a lizard sacrificing its tail to get away from a predator. It's a waste of time to even bother with this woman's trolling.
breadfredJan 6, 2011
The problem is the people who believe her and do not vaccinate their kids.
AnonanimalJan 6, 2011
What a f**king liar. Here's what she told Oprah in 2007:
“Right before his MMR shot, I said to the doctor, ‘I have a very bad feeling about this shot. This is the autism shot, isn’t it?’ And he said, ‘No, that is ridiculous. It is a mother’s desperate attempt to blame something,’ and he swore at me, and then the nurse gave [Evan] the shot,” she says. “And I remember going, ‘Oh, God, I hope he’s right.’ And soon thereafter—boom—the soul’s gone from his eyes.”
http://www.oprah.com/oprahshow/Mothers-Battle-Autism/1
bluto36Jan 6, 2011
this is the problem, emotion will win every time. you want to help those parents then instead of a disclaimer maybe make every visitor go to a video of her crapping herself on MTV.
might help the emo parents see who they are dealing with.
doonceJan 7, 2011
I can't believe this. She has autism listed as side effects of vaccines: http://www.generationrescue.org/vaccines/side-effects
The source she gives: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipient-table-2.pdf
hmm.. not on there..
doonceJan 7, 2011
Actual side effects: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm
not there either.. maybe she is making things up..
ricksiteJan 6, 2011
Isn't this old news? I heard this a while back. Is this just the official version of the story entering into a medical journal?
internetguru7Jan 6, 2011
lol there are still major links to autism with 1) Combining drugs ie.mmr and 2) the combined garbage of s**t they call: "fillers" they put into vaccines and 3) Injecting all this s**t into a 14mth old infant without "any" proper studies on those combined drugs and the effects they have on ann infant.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
woollymittensJan 6, 2011
Just give it up. You're echoing the FUD. There have been hundreds of studies on the safety of vaccines. Every vaccine gets tested first, you know.
Would you really like kids to grow up with polio again?
meninostongueJan 6, 2011
Care to list the studies that provide said links?
jimfeetJan 6, 2011
1) There is NO link. Even this disgraced ex-physician admitted he hasn't been able to reproduce his original results.
2) Even if there was a link, the dangers imposed by rampant disease far outweigh the risks of such minimal danger. Would you rather your child be autistic or dead?
hpmnickJan 6, 2011
I think people are looking at this the wrong way. There is a definite correlation between the amount of vaccinations and autism rates. There IS probably some sort of environmental trigger for this, and it could very well be vaccine related. The larger doses and over-exposure to immune inducing agents could be behind a lot of effects. I don't have supporting documentation for this on hand, but I do know there is a documented link between certain vaccinations and the abundance of modern day allergies (notably to peanuts).
I'm 30. I had 5, count them, 5 vaccinations when I was a child. Children receive triple the amount nowadays. No one I knew died of any of these illnesses, and I don't recall anyone getting extremely sick from the vaccines we were not vaccinated for.
I don't have a child yet, but when it arrives I don't really plan on giving it more vaccines than I did. Its very easy to listen to all the scary diseases and infections the children could get... until you realize that 30 years ago, there were no mass deaths... In fact, even going back another generation, there really wasn't a wave of crippling diseases either.
So, really, what is the point? Personally, I think the SAFE thing to do would be to revert to the older system. If there is a possibility the new vaccine schedule is having adverse effects, and the old vaccine schedule worked fine... Why not back off and see if it changes anything?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
atai1638Jan 6, 2011
Yup no major crippling disease couple generations ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1918_flu_pandemic
It has nothing to do with vaccines but last I check stomach cancer was rampant in the early 1900s, not so much in 2011. Except maybe for obesity and heart related disease, the older generation are not by any means healthier than the current generation.
hpmnickJan 6, 2011
Well, if you'll note, I only went two generations back. I went to my generation, and then to my parents generation. Obviously, going further back changes things...
Also, I would tend to guess that if what you say is true, and there were massive amounts of stomach cancers.. and this suddenly stopped... its probably not genetic then.. That would leave some other environmental cause.
I don't think anyone disagrees that there is some additional factor (outside of genetics) causing the increased rate of autism and allergies. There are a lot of potential factors, but the only thing we can do is look at what is different that the children are being exposed to in the time period from the womb to 3 years old. Vaccines are one of them, and there isn't any real data showing (one way or the other) the overall health effects compared to previous generations.
Obviously we also need to look at environmental toxins, and other changes..
chilidogsJan 6, 2011
"There is a definite correlation between the amount of vaccinations and autism rates."
And there is a reason why statement "correlation does not equal causation." The rise in autism also has a strong correlation with the increase in diagnosis and a million other things.
Every morning I brush my teeth and take a dump. In your world tooth brushing causes poop.
hpmnickJan 6, 2011
I know the difference... I used correlation because there is no link between autism and pretty much anything (including vaccines). Yet, it obviously has some cause that is yet to be determined.
However, people are pretty quick to just dismiss vaccines entirely. That sort of amazes me. When the correlation is pretty strong, it deserves a very long hard look. Just because someone falsified a study, it doesn't falsify the premise.
As I was suggesting, there really needs to be some sort of control group that reverts to previous vaccination schedules in order to truly test the hypothesis.. I was simply pointing out that this isn't dangerous at all, most of us grew up without the number of vaccines given to children today.
I was also pointing out how it seems like an unnecessary risk, considering the vaccine schedule that people like myself were subjected to were more than sufficient. At some point, you have to reach diminishing returns, where the number of vaccinations actually increases the risks of ill health. This could very well be what is happening today, with little or no benefit to the children.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kaiserarnyJan 7, 2011
"However, people are pretty quick to just dismiss vaccines entirely"
There have been multiple studies trying to find a link, but none have been able to and are completely ignored by those who already made up their minds that vaccines cause autism. And that's the problem, we should have moved on to find a legitimate cause for autism but instead so much energy is being wasted investigating something that as been debunked multiple times.
chilidogsJan 7, 2011
Vaccines are not dismissed without cause. Several studies have been preformed and no link has been found. What I don't understand is why people cling so vehemently to the notion that there is a link. Why do you think that there is? Why such devotion to a notion that has no legitimate support?
hpmnickJan 7, 2011
So they've tested vaccinated vs non-vaccinated groups?
I don't think so... and anything less doesn't tell us anything from a scientific standpoint.
enantiodromiaJan 6, 2011
There is also a correlation between the rise of Autism and the popularity of reality shows on TV.
Clearly those are related.
hpmnickJan 6, 2011
I'm really very surprised at the responses. There seems to be a lack of logic and understanding of science here.
Not all things that correlate are causes... but the cause always correlates with the effect. Therefore, the actual cause will always start out as a correlation. So, if you are going to examine potential causes, the first thing you do to limit the set of choices is to eliminate things without observable correlation.
From the list of correlations, you then begin testing until you find a cause. You need two groups of people who are otherwise the same, and then change only one variable (in this case it would be vaccination schedules). Then you examine the results.
We have a few correlations that seem like they could have merit- vaccination schedule, age of mothers when they conceive, chemicals and hormones in livestock (which the mother eats), environmental toxins, etc.
Are you seriously suggesting that we shouldn't test the most obvious and potentially pertinent correlations? Is our children not learning when they is at school are something?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
chilidogsJan 7, 2011
And it's been f**king examined with zero support for the notion.
hpmnickJan 7, 2011
Show me what study shows non-vaccinated groups having the same rate of autism and allergies.
antialiasJan 6, 2011
Ironic that your username is internet guru when a simple search of medical studies will show many, many studies showing no link between autism and vaccines. Seriously, any real doctor or scientist view this movement in the same light as UFO conspiracies.
Closed AccountJan 6, 2011
Good, AGW is next.
monvalleyJan 6, 2011
Sounds like this doc can be a candidate for a global warming scientist to get back his credibility
woollymittensJan 6, 2011
Good... now someone make a start on the stupidity that is homeopathy and we're one step closer to curing gullibility.
meninostongueJan 6, 2011
Done!
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/05/17/british-medical-association-homeopathy-is-witchcraft/
inajeepJan 6, 2011
I've been searching for a homeopathic cure for gullibility.
matt8mattJan 6, 2011
Bad Science by Dr. Ben Goldacre.
Closed AccountJan 6, 2011
1. Can anyone please provide one double-blind, placebo-controlled study that can prove the safety and effectiveness of vaccines?
2. Can someone please provide scientific evidence on ANY study which can confirm the long-term safety and effectiveness of vaccines?
3. Can anyone please explain how the safety and mechanism of vaccines in the human body are scientifically proven if their pharmacokinetics (the study of bodily absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion of ingredients) are never examined or analyzed in any vaccine study?
4. Can anyone provide a risk/benefit profile on how the benefits of injecting a known neurotoxin exceeds its risks to human health for the intended goal of preventing disease?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
breadfredJan 6, 2011
The Google Scholar is your friend. Use it. Or read medical journals. Read any scientific paper on the subject.
If you are feeling somehow extremely brave, visit the skeptics guide - http://www.theskepticsguide.org/
meninostongueJan 6, 2011
By evidence of effectiveness, do you mean other than the eradication/near-eradication of small pox, polio, measles, mumps, chicken pox and whooping cough in vaccinated populations?
I'd hate to do all of your research for you, but this is a good start on the safety part, at least regarding autism:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK25348/
Regarding efficacy, which specific vaccines are you asking about. There isn't one study that will cover them all. Pubmed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed) has links to many studies for many vaccines.
Seriously, this stuff isn't exactly a guarded secret.
Closed AccountJan 6, 2011
Thanks...seems like a good read, although no mention in the rise of microglia after receiving so many immunizations as a small child nowadays would get.
I have done some research. What about some of these reports?
http://www.whale.to/v/orient.html
http://www.whale.to/v/donegan1.html
http://www.whale.to/a/howenstine.html
http://www.whale.to/vaccine/stoller.html
http://www.whale.to/v/cantwell.html
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/stewart.html
http://www.whale.to/a/blaylock34.html
http://www.whale.to/a/blaylock.html
http://www.whale.to/vaccine/yazbak9.htmlComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
anonymousmedicJan 6, 2011
And you have just invoked Scopie's law
apokalyps2547Jan 6, 2011
Your questions are all addressed, VERBATIM, here:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=5025
When anti-vax people copy-paste the same questions, it's easy for qualified medical experts to answer them. These questions were originally posed by the widely-discredited "naturopathic doctor" David Mihalovic. Start reading.
1: Yes. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez/20211953
”Efficacy of 23-valent pneumococcal vaccine in preventing pneumonia and improving survival in nursing home residents: double blind, randomised and placebo controlled trial”
2: Long term is vague. What is long term? Smallpox disappeared in 1977 thanks to the vaccine. I have not seem a case of smallpox in my medical career, which now on it’s 31st year. No reported long term toxicities of the smallpox vaccine and the eradication of smallpox appears to me to represent reasonable evidence for long term safety and effectiveness. But it would.
**(answer is pretty long, it continues at the site I linked)
3: There is, superficially, some truth in this statement. Most pharmacokinetics are done prior to the clinical efficacy trials. That is why there are phase 1 and phase 2 trials. The assumption being that if you exam influenza vaccine pharmacokinetic studies in one group it can be extrapolated to similar populations. I think that is reasonable. So no, there are no pharmacokinetic studies in the clinical efficacy trials, those were done prior to the efficacy trials. But it is not hard to find the phase 1 and 2 trials if you are so moved.
**(answer is pretty long, it continues at the site I linked)
4: Since there is no longer mercury in most vaccines, I will assume, for the sake of argument, he is referring to aluminum. Risk from aluminum in the H. influenza type b vaccine, where aluminium is used as a adjuvant: zero.
The benefit from the vaccine:
“From eight trials, the protective efficacy of the Hib conjugate vaccine was 84% (OR 0.16; 95%CI 0.08-0.30) against invasive Hib disease, 75% (OR 0.25; 95%CI 0.08-0.84) against meningitis, and 69% (OR 0.31; 95%CI 0.10-0.97) against pneumonia. Serious adverse events were rare.”
Seems a good trade off. No risk from aluminum, significant decrease in morbidity and mortality from disease.
Source link:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16491301
Science: it works, bitches.
vme27Jan 6, 2011
points for the xkcd reference. Oh and being right too.
Closed AccountJan 6, 2011
Though these answers might be valid for you, Apok...they don't work for me.
1. 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine is not one of 40+ inoculations given to my child before he hits age 5...so I don't know if that's relevant to the autism discussion. The test subjects were ederly in a nursing home. But I'll take that...
2. I would debate this one with you. Smallpox, like many diseases, were on the decline because of sanitation and quarantine...not vaccination. In fact, one of the worst smallpox epidemics of all time in England occured after vaccinations was introduced.
3. Not answered adequately...
4. I disagree with this one as well. Mercury was never completely removed. Factories either have mercury (dirty) or they don't (sterile). Vaccine makers use mercury through the process and then remove as much as possible...leaving trace amounts. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipient-table-2.pdfComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rblancarteJan 6, 2011
Can you quit moving the goalposts?
enantiodromiaJan 6, 2011
Do you also ask people to prove to you the sun will come up? Look it up for yourself, we are tired of wasting our time with the anti-vaxers.
neotechniJan 6, 2011
We've known this for a long time. See Penn and Teller's Bulls**t.
Those guys are heroes
jarasmenJan 6, 2011
Am I supposed to be surprised?
Odoi12chrisJan 6, 2011
Vaccine to me personally are safe and brings good life.
WWZJan 6, 2011
To me personally he who stand on toilet seat is high on pot.
Closed AccountJan 6, 2011
I think we have a contingency of big pharma digging this up.
Dr Wakefield's original study couldnt be faulted but the BMA critcised him because he used a too small number of test patients. Also the BMA has yet to fund a study to prove Wakefield's findings wrong or false. So in that sense Wakefield is not a fraud. If he is, then where is the original research debunking his test results?
Also why has the UK government not allowed parents to get their kids vaccinated with single doses, instead of the MMR? The British government has purposely withheld single dose vaccines for some other agenda.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
meninostongueJan 6, 2011
By "couldn't be faulted", do you mean aside from the fact that many of the participants said that the data he reported from them was completely false and was changed to support his conclusions?
Here is some research debunking his claims. It was cleverly hidden in an easily searchable, public database of medical research.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK25348/
apokalyps2547Jan 6, 2011
"Big Pharma" my arse. We're tired of kids getting PREVENTABLE illnesses because of baseless scares brought on by pseudo-scientific hokum.
Closed AccountJan 6, 2011
"It is pathetic and ludicrous to say we ever vanquished smallpox with
vaccines, when only 10% of the population was ever vaccinated."
- Dr Glen Dettman
"There is no evidence that any influenza vaccine thus far developed is
effective in preventing or mitigating any attack of influenza. The
producers of these vaccines know that they are worthless, but they go on selling them, anyway."
- Dr. J. Anthony Morris, formerly Chief Vaccine
Control Officer at the US Federal Drug Admin.
"There is a great deal of evidence to prove that immunisation of children
does more harm than good."
- Dr. J. Anthony Morris, formerly Chief Vaccine
Control Officer at the US Federal Drug Admin.
"There is insufficient evidence to support routine vaccination of healthy
persons of any age."
- Paul Frame, M.D., Journal of Family Practice
"For a paediatrician to attack what has become the 'bread and butter' of
paediatric practice is equivalent to a priest denying the infallibility of
the pope."
- Robert Mendelsohn, M.D.
"Official data shows that large scale vaccination has failed to obtain
any significant improvement of the diseases against which they were
supposed to provide protection"
-Dr Sabin, developer of the oral polio vaccine
"All vaccination has the effect of directing the three values of the
blood into or toward the zone characteristics of cancer and
leukaemia...Vaccines do predispose to cancer and leukaemia."
- Professor L. Vincent - founder of Bioelectronics
"Many here voice a silent view that the Salk and Sabin Polio Vaccines,
being made from monkey kidney tissue, has been directly responsible for the
major increase in leukaemia in this country."
- Dr F. Klenner, M.D.
"Provocation polio. That is the truth about those outbreaks of polio. And
I offer a well considered personal opinion that polio is a man made
disease."
- Viera Scheibner, Ph.D.
"Even to this day, the government, the FDA is refusing to use the
sophisticated biotechnology to evaluate the contaminants in the vaccines
such as the polio vaccines that they are administering. I think (people)
would be appalled that some of the vaccines that are being currently being
used are still laced with viruses,"
- Leonard Horowitz., D.M.D., M.A., M.P.H.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
enantiodromiaJan 6, 2011
Just because you are an M.D. doesn't mean you lack the ability to be an idiot.
thabratJan 6, 2011
SMH all I know is that over the years the number of cases of autism seems to have increased, Montel Williams did a show on the subject a while back...
LaughinJudeJan 6, 2011
Is that because autism is actually on the rise, or because cases of autism are being diagnosed more and more as our understanding of it increases? Or hell, it could even be impacted by doctors attributing to autism symptoms of other, possibly yet unknown, maladies due to autism being in the news so often.
Talk shows are not a good source of scientific knowledge.
enantiodromiaJan 6, 2011
I think it's both.
I think Autism is recognized more ofter as its spectrum widens, and, I think there are environmental factors which pull the Autism trigger.
thabratJan 7, 2011
I must agree that talk shows are not a good source of scientific knowledge, except when they have guest who are doctors, and researchers that study a subject. Montel Williams talk show was far from a Jerry Springer type talk show... I also agree it is on the rise, and I agree with the comment that environmental factors could play a part... but I'm no scientist or doctor
jstock23Jan 6, 2011
What the f**king f**k. The world is dumber than it seems... and it seems pretty f**king dumb.
lmptkJan 6, 2011
Dr.'s frequently bend facts to facilitate fundings. Meaning like everyone else they are greedy bastards. Is anyone aware of the fraudulent "Dr." from UCLA whose report is the basis for California's new environmental laws. Big Brother is looming.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rblancarteJan 6, 2011
No, they don't. They are medical scientists. Science does not allow for "bending facts". If they do this, then their research is bogus.
lmptkJan 6, 2011
Did you read the article? "Study linking autism to vaccines was an 'elaborate fraud' by doctor...." So what are you talking about? This happened in 1998 and is just now being discovered. Do you have any idea how far back this a--hole Dr. has set back the study and treatment of autism? Not to mention the vaccines that were not given to children who needed them because of fear of "contacting" autism. Obviously the research was bogus. Am I missing something?
kaiserarnyJan 6, 2011
It was discovered right from the beginning when multiple studies could not repeat the findings from this doctor, but some people, media and lawyers desperate to find a culprit for why autism rate increased chose to ignore those studies. This is just the conclusion from the investigation most rational people already knew the results.
danbarkerJan 6, 2011
This week in OLD NEWS!
duncan202Jan 6, 2011
We should be more concerned about mercury in fillings...
bluenoseboyJan 6, 2011
....so shut your idiot-mouth already, Jenny McCarthy!
rblancarteJan 6, 2011
Taking away Wakefield's license is great. Now if only we could repair the damage done by his fake research so easily.
NewsMeBackJan 6, 2011
To play with human health is not what true doctor should do.
skinnyjessicaJan 6, 2011
hahahahaa! Jenny McCarthy FAIL.
yibbutkeenJan 6, 2011
Never any mention that during this time the definition of autism was expanded in a way that would result in more people diagnosed as autistic.
g8kprJan 6, 2011
thought this was old news, Penn & Teller had a show on this.
taddareJan 6, 2011
This 'doctor' needs to be in jail for the deaths he has caused from this.
jjwebguyJan 6, 2011
Its too bad people had to lose out on important medical treatment because of this. That's too bad. A writer for the Jewish Journal has a son whom this story would directly effect. Its a sad situation.
macluke170Jan 6, 2011
I have 2 siblings with autism and I just hate it when people blame vaccines for autism. Especially since the proof for it is small and the proof against is much larger.
Here is the deal! One, mercury has been taken out of vaccines and yet autism diagnosis rates are still increasing in children. Two, I received shot(s) with mercury and I don't have autism. My younger brother and sister most likely received shots without mercury and have autism. Third, even if vaccines did cause autism, which they don't. Which would you rather your kid get autism or polio?
Now thanks to people like Jenny McCarthy people are not getting their kids vaccines and things like Whooping Cough are coming back.
itsohsoeazyJan 6, 2011
must be nice to just make things up...geezzus
itsohsoeazyJan 6, 2011
must be nice to just make things up...geezzus
crashdvisJan 6, 2011
Jenny McCarthy needs to shut the F up. She has been running around screaming about this study for years scaring people in to not vaccinating their children. She even went on that pied piper of rich white women's show, Oprah, to tout her lunacy.
She should be held responsible for the needless pain and suffering that her idiocy will no doubt cause. How many unvaccinated kids have gotten sick? She should really be ashamed of herself.
Closed AccountJan 6, 2011
Yep, she needs to go back to what she is good at, being naked.
bluto36Jan 6, 2011
and farting
tigeronthewallJan 6, 2011
THIS IS CNN
fauozJan 6, 2011
These same people are working on global warming now. Oops they changed to it "climate change" as now they think it will get colder. This way they are always right and their followers will obey and pay with C02 taxes.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
wearemanyJan 6, 2011
This makes me sad
Closed AccountJan 6, 2011
AMEN! i have argued w parents about vaccines NOT being the cause of their child's disability! i feel vindic8d! now parents can stop blaming modern medicine and lay blame on their indigent dna! i cared 4 many autistic children, and contrary 2 parents claims th@ their kids were "normal" and later failed 2 thrive, i noticed issues from birth, before any vaccines were administered. most autistic infants are difficult 2 soothe, n cry constantly.
kjeppsonJan 6, 2011
What goes around comes around...for him.
angrycat70Jan 7, 2011
I wonder how many other "studies" that government and business make decisions based on are fresh baked BULLs**t
odkinJan 7, 2011
Ummm... anthropogenic global warming??
litespeedJan 7, 2011
I saw an interesting documentary about crop circles the other day. One of the people in the doco was a psychologist who said that when someone gets it in their head that they know the "real" truth, the "one true path" etc etc, then they will never let that go even in the face of insurmountable evidence. To prove this, the showed some supposed footage of alien craft creating a crop circle on camera. Circle "researchers" (as they call themselves) ate it up and used it as proof that they're alien creations. Unfortunately, the creator of the video came out and said it was a fake and even produced a video of him and his mate MAKING the fake. And yet, the "researchers" to this day refuse to believe it was faked and make outrageous claims that it's all a government conspiracy.
The exact same scenario is happening with the anti-vax movement. Regardless of how much real, researched evidence is found to disprove the movement's claims, they will always believe because they have to.
I direct you to Penn & Teller's Bulls**t episode on vaccines:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xo97VouL0ls (pt1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_nYMEO82mo (pt2)
Closed AccountJan 7, 2011
Anyone who uses Penn and Teller is a citation is a compelte idiot. They FREELY admit their show is not a documentary. They they carefully edit it to prove one side or another.
For example..the show where they "proved" that people can't tell the difference between expensive bottled water and tap water out of a hose. They gave that taste test to DOZENS of people....almost all of which knew which was the hose water. But all they showed were the rare exceptions and made it look like no one knew the difference.
mercedesbenz230Jan 7, 2011
What I find concerning is that Wakefield's findings have been replicated in 5 other countries and countless children have confirmed entercolitis yet mainsteam medicine has done NOTHING to help these kids.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kaiserarnyJan 7, 2011
Do you have any links to the results of those findings?
future15tbdJan 7, 2011
Too bad this wasn't discovered until after thousands of people exposed their kids to the potential dangers of avoiding vaccines for no reason.
hawkmoon78Jan 7, 2011
People died as a result of being influenced by this mis-information.
Closed AccountJan 7, 2011
citation needed.
(fighting stupidity with stupidity is not the way to go.)
hawkmoon78Jan 7, 2011
This is not a scientific statement in a science journal, and citations are not always needed when one pays attention to current events.
Over the last several years, many reports have stated that infants, who were too young to have been vaccinated, succombed to unusual outbreaks in illnesses that children are typically vaccinated for. These outbreaks corresponded to the increased instance of parents choosing not to vaccinate.
I'm not looking to get published in a medical journal here, and don't plan on spending any more time developing my case. But calling my statement stupid (and implying that I am stupid) because I referenced current events without a citation is uncalled for.
odkinJan 7, 2011
Yet another reason why Jenny McCarthy can suck my dick.
karlspeltwithakJan 7, 2011
Why is the law firm not named and shamed? They are the big villian, Dr. Andrew Wakefield is guilty of greed to the order of half a million pounds and risking many lives and possibly caused the death of a number of innocent and easily saved people, but the law firm obvioulsy expected to or maybe did make many many times this much money else they would not have payed him! They instigated this fraud by offering the money. Why is nobody berrating them? Are these legal scum above the law!
They are the ones who really profitted from the spread of this mistruth, they are the real scaremongers! I bet their children ARE immunized!
junior727Jan 7, 2011
cool