The Student News Site of Colorado State University

The Rocky Mountain Collegian

The Student News Site of Colorado State University

The Rocky Mountain Collegian

The Student News Site of Colorado State University

The Rocky Mountain Collegian

Print Edition
Letter to the editor submissions
Have a strong opinion about something happening on campus or in Fort Collins? Want to respond to an article written on The Collegian? Write a Letter to the Editor by following the guidelines here.
Follow Us on Twitter
Unlocking the Digital Treasure: A Dive into Cryptocurrency Exchanges
Unlocking the Digital Treasure: A Dive into Cryptocurrency Exchanges
March 7, 2024

Ever wondered, amid all this digital currency buzz, what is the value of Ethereum today? It's a question that sparks the curiosity of many,...

Anti-vaccine movement is detrimental to children

Throughout the course of history, innumerable amounts of people have suffered miserable deaths from the various epidemics of their time and region. From serious outbreaks like smallpox and yellow fever to today’s common influenza cases, the high mortality rates and other complications of these contagions have demanded scientific solutions: vaccines.

Although scientific practices are oftentimes controversial, and modern medicine has its occasional imperfections, vaccinations are necessary for the advancement of human health in an infectious world.

Ad

So why are some people — particularly parents — suddenly up in arms about vaccinations? The answer is manifold and the trend remains ambiguous. However, Laura Parker of National Geographic condenses it well. Recently, she claimed humans have developed a particular susceptibility to false information on the Internet and are captivated by celebrity activism while simultaneously becoming less trusting of government, science and the pharmaceutical industry. This distrust, fed and encouraged by the media, has resulted in an unfortunate bandwagon of ignorance in today’s society — now called the Anti-Vaccine Movement.

A common piece of misinformation the Anti-Vaccinators like to fall back on when defending their stance on modern medicine is the now discredited link between the MMR (mumps-measles-rubella) vaccine and autism. The claim was first made in 1998 by gastroenterologist Andrew Wakefield, which for the record, was discredited by the same prestigious journal it was published in, naturally causing Wakefield to lose his medical license. However ridiculous a claim it is — seeing as it has no scientific support — my point in mentioning this is less to prove the Anti-Vaccinators wrong than to highlight human susceptibility to falsehoods and fads at the expense of their wellbeing.

Clueless Anti-Vax actors, like Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey, for instance, spew extremely fallacious arguments regarding the vaccine debate. Given their fame, they draw ignorant peoples’ attention and concern. McCarthy is especially well-known for using her autistic son as “evidence” of MMR vaccines being linked with the disorder, although her explanations are irrelevant and often refute themselves. Sorry, McCarthy, but autism cannot be cured with a gluten-free diet — which has just as much to do with autism as vaccines.

Apparently, the amount of false information distributed in the media and endorsed by the famous is a force powerful enough to create a movement that values risky behavior and opposes precautions for maintaining human health. The fact that these people would rather be defenseless against the countless deadly diseases present in the world than take the scientifically-tested and approved vaccines that were developed for their safety, is a lifestyle I simply cannot respect. That is, if these people have access to and can afford vaccinations, but choose not to on the basis of scientific doubt by self-righteous thinking.

What strikes me as particularly infuriating about the Anti-Vaccine Movement is the advocates’ “freedom of choice” approach, while simultaneously depriving their children of the ability to make the choice for themselves. To have the funds and access to vaccinations, and instead deny a voiceless child’s right to these fundamental health care services is to send him out to war unarmed. A six-year-old beginning elementary school unvaccinated will not only suffer extreme vulnerability to the germ-covered environment and consequentially fall ill time and time again, but he also has no choice but to rely on the responsibility of the other children’s’ parents for the sake of his own health. Responsibility is the bottom line.

So parents, if you choose the Anti-Vaccine lifestyle, don’t be surprised when deadly, ancient, vaccine-preventable diseases enter your home. Vaccines have long been tested and approved to provide defense for your immune system against these diseases, which you will learn from and take advantage of if you are wise. And if you are not wise, do not make your children the victims.

Collegian Columnist Laurel Thompson can be reached at letters@collegian.com or on Twitter @laurelanne1996.

736
View Comments (736)
More to Discover

Comments (736)

When commenting on The Collegian’s website, please be respectful of others and their viewpoints. The Collegian reviews all comments and reserves the right to reject comments from the website. Comments including any of the following will not be accepted. 1. No language attacking a protected group, including slurs or other profane language directed at a person’s race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, social class, age, physical or mental disability, ethnicity or nationality. 2. No factually inaccurate information, including misleading statements or incorrect data. 3. No abusive language or harassment of Collegian writers, editors or other commenters. 4. No threatening language that includes but is not limited to language inciting violence against an individual or group of people. 5. No links.
All The Rocky Mountain Collegian Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • S

    sabelmouseJun 11, 2017 at 9:36 am

    more like detrimental to profits.

    Reply
  • F

    FallsAngelJun 11, 2017 at 6:48 am

    I see school is out in California and the middle schoolers are playing!

    Reply
  • J

    Jerod KillickJun 8, 2017 at 12:05 pm

    Anti-vaccers are like a religious cult. There is no logic. You cannot reason with them. It is best to nod and smile – let them gamble – they will lose. The only question I think that should be on the table is whether or not refusing your child’s vaccinations constitutes child abuse. That is an important question.

    Reply
    • A

      AutismDaddJun 11, 2017 at 9:29 am

      You couldn’t be more inaccurate…or could you?

      Reply
    • S

      sabelmouseJun 11, 2017 at 9:35 am

      that’s funny coming from a believer in scientism.

      Reply
  • A

    Andre LeeJun 7, 2017 at 5:22 pm

    Estimados espectadores Señor / Señora, soy el Sr. doc okosun un buen hombre de negocios de reputación que han tenido éxito aquí en barcelona España tengo una familia grat pero mi ex esposa ha sido un giro en mi carne seguro deuda incontable y sentí su todo Hasta que me encuentro
    PAY DAY LOAN INVESTMENT, en una página de Facebook de amigos, aunque yo estaba desanimado debido a findongs recientes a través de Internet, pero lo di una oportunidad y ahora con sólo un 5% de interés y buena condición de préstamo estoy de nuevo a mis pies de nuevo y ahora quiero compartir Este testimonio, legítimo y un prestamista de dinero acreditado. Pago de préstamos de día de préstamo Préstamo de dinero a las personas y organizaciones que cooperan en la necesidad de asistencia financiera. ¿Tiene mal crédito o necesita dinero para pagar sus cuentas? ¿Necesita un préstamo o financiación por cualquier razón que desee utilizar este medio para informarle que proporcionan asistencia fiable, ya que estaré encantado de ofrecerle préstamo a baja tasa de interés. Los servicios prestados incluyen: Refinanciación Préstamos Inventor Auto Préstamo Consolidación de Deuda Préstamos Comerciales Préstamos Personales Re-escribir amablemente si usted está interesado, sobre el cual la respuesta se le enviará formulario de solicitud de préstamo para llenar. (Sin seguridad social y sin verificación de crédito, 100% garantizado) Esperan poder servirle. Puede ponerse en contacto con ellos por e-mail: loan.payday@yandex.com ..

    Reply
  • A

    alJan 15, 2016 at 9:56 am

    According to studies posted on CDC’s webpage “Vaccines Do Not Cause Autism”, vaccines DO CAUSE AUTISM.

    At the bottom the page: “Related Scientific Articles”

    Study: Madsen KM, Hviid A, Vestergaard M, Schendel D, Wohlfahrt J, et al. A population-based study of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and autism. N Engl J Med. 2002;347 (19):1477–1482.

    Results: Table 1

    Vaccinated Children = 440,655
    Cases of Autism and Other Autism Spectrum Disorder = 269 + 352 = 621
    Rate = 621/440,655 = 0.00141 or 1/709

    Unvaccinated Children = 96,648
    Cases of Autism and Other Autism Spectrum Disorder = 47 + 70 = 117
    Rate = 117/96,648 = 0.001211 or 1/826

    Rate of Autism plus other ASD INCREASED with mmr vaccination by 16.9%

    Results: Table 2 Adjusted for Relative Risk

    Vaccinated Children = 1,647,504
    Cases of Autism and Other Autism Spectrum Disorder = 263 + 345 (sum No. of Cases column)
    Rate = 608/1,647,504 = 0.000369 or 1/2,710

    Unvaccinated Children = 482,360
    Cases of Autism and Other Autism Spectrum Disorder = 53 + 77
    Rate = 130/482,360 = 0.0002695 or 1/3,710

    Rate of Autism plus other ASD INCREASED with mmr vaccination by 37%

    Reply
  • E

    eggman2Nov 10, 2015 at 1:55 am

    Articles like these are detrimental to the future of our country. Creating disabled children with injections of pollution ( VACCINES ) , will finish it.

    Reply
  • E

    eggman2Nov 1, 2015 at 10:50 pm

    Lol, scientific solution to diseases is VACCINES ? There is nothing scientific about VACCINES. VACCINES are just a stupid invention, like the woman lying down position of childbirth, the cutting of the umbilical cord, circumcision, and so on.

    Reply
    • C

      cable1977Nov 2, 2015 at 7:09 am

      I’d be willing to bet that this journalism student knows more about science than you do.

      Reply
      • R

        Reality022Nov 2, 2015 at 5:09 pm

        I think Ms. Thompson and the readers now know how much crazy the anti-vaccinationists can wear and still operate a computer.

        Maybe this will spur the formation of a campus pro-vaccination and child health advocacy organization.

        Reply
        • A

          AutismDaddJun 11, 2017 at 9:46 am

          Nonsense from R022 as usual

          Reply
      • E

        eggman2Nov 2, 2015 at 9:36 pm

        Are you that stupid, too ? Did it flew over your head ?

        Reply
        • C

          cable1977Nov 3, 2015 at 7:05 am

          “Are you that stupid, too ? Did it flew over your head ?”

          I imagine you are far too ignorant to actually notice the irony in the juxtaposition of those two sentences. Think about it really hard though, perhaps it’ll come to you.

          Reply
        • F

          FsmPastapharianNov 7, 2015 at 4:53 pm

          Ironic much?

          Reply
      • E

        eggman2Nov 3, 2015 at 3:47 am

        There is no science in VACCINES. And you are a pro vaccine propaganda prostitute *. So what science do you hnow.

        * A prostitute is someone that sells his/her talents for an unworthy, evil or damaging cause. It can be a politician, a scientist , a writer, and so on.

        Reply
        • C

          cable1977Nov 3, 2015 at 7:08 am

          “There is no science in VACCINES”

          Well, repeating the same unsupported claim won’t make it any more true, but arguing with the ignorant who can’t actually make substantive criticisms is a waste of time. But, if you’d like to read all of the science on vaccines, I would suggest PubMed.

          “So what science do you hnow.”

          Let’s see…biology, biochemistry, molecular biology, genetics, immunology, and virology to name a few.

          Reply
          • B

            BrianNov 3, 2015 at 10:07 pm

            I’m always amused by anti-vaxxers who have “done their research” and then make statements like “There is no science in VACCINES”.

            It’s like saying “I’m an expert in African cultures… and Africans don’t exist!”

          • F

            FsmPastapharianNov 6, 2015 at 10:18 am

          • A

            AutismDadNov 6, 2015 at 11:11 am

            Tell us DR SCIENCE why do babies and toddlers become harmed by vaccines? We have 2 government agencies in VAERS and NVICP that wouldn’t exist if this wasn’t happening right? So give us a breakdown for why children become ill, disabled and killed when vaccinated.

          • A

            AutismDadNov 7, 2015 at 2:17 pm

            I’m waiting for a response to the post below.

          • F

            FsmPastapharianNov 7, 2015 at 4:16 pm

            What answer do you want, AD? We have been through this hundreds of times. Sometimes bad things happen. For one in every 1 million vaccines, there is an adverse event. It could be for a number of reasons, and each case would have to be considered individually. None of them has been linked to autism. Many studies have clearly shown this. But as long as you continue to treat Wakefield as a victim rather than a fraud, we really have nothing much to talk about on the subject.

          • A

            AutismDadNov 7, 2015 at 4:37 pm

            I wasn’t asking for a lecture. I asked why vaccines harm children, something that is so recognized and factual its compensated . But no surprise you won’t even try to explain, because you likely avoid any mention of it.

          • F

            FsmPastapharianNov 7, 2015 at 4:56 pm

            What part of “sometimes bad stuff happens” didn’t you understand? But that bad stuff is caused by vaccines only about one in a million vaccines. Compensation is just to stop the manufacturers from spending their lives in court trying to prove a negative. Ultimately, I’d imagine the majority of the cases being compensated had nothing to do with the vaccine, but I don’t know that for a fact. Seems like a very safe bet though.

          • A

            AutismDadNov 7, 2015 at 5:00 pm

            Yeah sometimes bad things happen to vaccine manufacturers unless government decides to take their side and provide protection.

          • E

            eggman2Nov 10, 2015 at 1:46 am

            VACCINES are a stupid invention–like the woman lying down position of parturition, the cutting of the umbilical cord, and so on. There are people that swear by their stupid inventions, but that doesn’t make them right. Some people make money with stupid inventions, but that doesn’t make them right.

            Do you know what a stupid invention is ? If you are not stupid, it will be easy for you to figure that out.

          • C

            cable1977Nov 10, 2015 at 1:45 pm

            Yes, very stupid. Too bad we’ve eliminated smallpox and can prevent people from dying of rabies. The abject horror.

        • C

          CharlieB1972Nov 6, 2015 at 4:50 pm

          Shill? Nah, man. We mock you for free!

          Reply
    • B

      BrianNov 2, 2015 at 8:33 am

      Lol, scientific solution to moving stuff is WHEELS? There is nothing scientific about WHEELS. WHEELS are just a stupid invention…

      Reply
      • E

        eggman2Nov 2, 2015 at 9:33 pm

        Very stupid comparison on your part. Do you and your stupid upvoters understand what I am writing about ?

        Reply
        • F

          FsmPastapharianNov 6, 2015 at 10:16 am

          Nobody understands anything that you write except that you are an obnoxious, clueless, tinfoil hat-wearing LOON! Something is seriously wrong with you. Go check your sprinklers for rainbows. You may be a victim of all those “metallic oxide salts” the gubermint is putting in our water. Part of their depopulation effort.

          Reply
          • E

            eggman2Nov 6, 2015 at 11:27 pm

            Pastaprostitutarian, the sad thing is that you are just a pro vaccine propaganda prostitute, and you are among your pro vaccine propaganda prostitutes ,that are your friends, here.

          • F

            FsmPastapharianNov 7, 2015 at 12:34 am

            Whatever makes you feel better about yourself. Fwiw, I’ve never met anybody on any of these discussions. They are just people who have the facts straight, understand the science, and don’t live in some rainbow sprinkler world of paranoid delusion and fear. You should try it sometime.

          • E

            eggman2Nov 7, 2015 at 8:56 pm

            No, they are propaganda prostitutes like yourself.

          • E

            eggman2Nov 8, 2015 at 9:59 pm

            Your propaganda is not science, but bullshit.

          • F

            FsmPastapharianNov 8, 2015 at 10:00 pm

            You wouldn’t know what science was if it gave you a reach around. Just go away.

  • I

    IvanOct 31, 2015 at 4:25 pm

    Detrimental to children. Yeah.

    Hey remember Josh Coleman? I think he was the unofficial videographer for the SB277 Referendum – the guy who paraded his kid all over California in a wheelchair. This was on TV yesterday

    Roseville Anti-Vaccination Campaigner Charged with Willful Cruelty to Children
    http://fox40.com/2015/10/30/roseville-anti-vaccination-campaigner-charged-with-willful-cruelty-to-children/

    It all started with a fight over a parking spot.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/772e6f2f82f566aad111e13220be47e7b515653865ff30e67dd969b8f3c8ac1e.jpg

    Reply
  • A

    AutismDadOct 29, 2015 at 2:34 pm

    Yep she’s a 2nd year student alright. Playing it safe and going with the flow. That flow is awash with straw, manure and propaganda. Glad I don’t live downstream.

    Reply
    • J

      JustthefactsNov 2, 2015 at 1:22 pm

      All you got is an “ad hominem” attack on a 2nd year student? That’s 6 years more than you got.

      Reply
      • A

        AutismDadNov 2, 2015 at 2:38 pm

        Hey bozo can you prove that? Unlikely when you never prove anything except you’d be great as a circus act.

        Reply
        • J

          JustthefactsNov 2, 2015 at 2:54 pm

          You act like a child so giving you credit for a junior high education still seems generous.

          Reply
          • A

            AutismDadNov 2, 2015 at 2:57 pm

            Wrong again.

  • B

    BrianOct 28, 2015 at 10:51 pm

    Again we see that those quickest to criticize vaccination are the quickest to prove their ignorance of it.

    Reply
    • E

      eggman2Nov 1, 2015 at 10:52 pm

      Not more ignorant that you could be. Or are you a propaganda prostitute ?

      Reply
      • B

        BrianNov 2, 2015 at 8:29 am

        Thanks for proving my point!

        Reply
        • E

          eggman2Nov 2, 2015 at 9:43 pm

          Thanks for you proving mine.

          Reply
        • A

          AutismDaddJun 11, 2017 at 9:28 am

          So you admit it…great

          Reply
    • A

      AutismDadNov 5, 2015 at 8:47 am

      An empty sentiment Why don’t you explain more just for laughs….plenty of laughs..

      Reply
  • A

    alOct 28, 2015 at 3:11 pm

    i figured i would post this at the top because i fear it may have gotten lost in the replies. I am hoping that someone can provide a rebuttal of the aluminum situation in vaccines:

    unfortunately, its not just thimerisal, we are dealing with. There is of course aluminum.

    Aluminum is put into vaccines as adjuvant to help them “work better” or to “enhance” them. The suggested aluminum per kg of weight to give to a person is up to 5mcg. (so a 5 pounds baby should get no more than 11mcg of aluminum.) Anything that has more than 25 mcg of aluminum is *supposed* to have a label.

    “WARNING: This product contains aluminum that may be toxic. Aluminum may reach toxic levels with prolonged parenteral administration if kidney function is impaired. Premature neonates are particularly at risk because their kidneys are immature, and they require large amounts of calcium and phosphate solutions, which contain aluminum.

    Research indicates that patients with impaired kidney function, including premature neonates, who receive parenteral levels of aluminum at greater than 4 to 5 [micro]g/kg/day accumulate aluminum at levels associated with central nervous system and bone toxicity. Tissue loading may occur at even lower rates of administration. [http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/…]”

    Vaccines, for some reason, are not required to have this label and also are not required to follow the maximum dosage of 25 mcg.

    The following are examples of weight with their corresponding maximum levels of aluminum, per the FDA:

    8 pound, healthy baby: 18.16 mcg of aluminum
    15 pound, healthy baby: 34.05 mcg of aluminum
    30 pound, healthy toddler: 68.1 mcg of aluminum
    50 pound, healthy child: 113 mcg of aluminum
    150 pound adult: 340.5 mcg of aluminum
    350 pound adult: 794.5 mcg of aluminum

    So how much aluminum is in the vaccines that are routinely given to children?
    Hib (PedVaxHib brand only) – 225 mcg per shot
    Hepatitis B – 250 mcg
    DTaP – depending on the manufacturer, ranges from 170 to 625 mcg
    Pneumococcus – 125 mcg
    Hepatitis A – 250 mcg
    HPV – 225 mcg
    Pentacel (DTaP, HIB and Polio combo vaccine) – 330 mcg
    Pediarix (DTaP, Hep B and Polio combo vaccine) – 850 mcg

    At birth, most children are given the hepatitis B vaccination. The amount of aluminum in the Hepatitis B vaccine alone is almost 14 TIMES THE AMOUNT OF ALUMINUM THAT IS FDA-APPROVED.

    At well-child check-ups, it’s common for 2 month, 4 month, 6 month etc., appointments to include up to 8 vaccinations that add up to more than 1,000 mcg of aluminum. Look at the chart above and notice that that amount isn’t even safe for a 350 pound adult. And many children get up to 8 vaccinations a visit several times a year!

    According to the FDA and the AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics), what happens if a child receives more than the maximum required dose of aluminum?

    Aluminum builds up in the bones and brain and can be toxic.

    Aluminum can cause neurological harm.

    Aluminum overdose can be fatal in patients with weak kidney’s or kidney disorders or in premature babies. (How many children are tested to see if their kidney’s are functioning properly before they are vaccinated? Could this also be why the Hepatitis B shot, given to infants at birth, has been linked to SIDS? Neonatal Deaths After Hep B vaccination.)

    [Aluminum Toxicity in Infants and Children, Committee on Nutrition,American Academy of Pediatrics, Pediatrics Volume 97, Number 3 March, 1996, pp. 413-416]

    Reply
    • B

      BrianOct 28, 2015 at 10:41 pm

      More lies from anti-vaxxers. Perhaps you should actually read your own source instead of just copy/pasting it from conspiracy websites.

      http://drug.pharmacy.psu.ac.th/wbfile/265254816053.pdf

      Reply
      • A

        alOct 29, 2015 at 6:08 am

        Who is the anti vaxers?

        Reply
        • B

          BrianOct 29, 2015 at 9:04 am

          My definition is a person who spreads false information to vilify vaccines… the exact same thing I told you before.

          Reply
          • A

            alOct 29, 2015 at 9:09 am

            Ok, so WHO are you calling an anti vaxer? You got no balls or what?

          • J

            JustthefactsOct 29, 2015 at 11:46 am

            You. Isn’t it obvious? Everyone else can tell. You got no balls to admit what your are.

          • A

            alOct 29, 2015 at 6:32 pm

            I was a fully vaccinated kid and I even got an mmr vaccine when I was 28. I have every intention of vaccinating my kids just not according to the CDCs 45 doses by age 6.

            I have no clue why t
            hat makes me an anti vaxer.

          • J

            JustthefactsOct 29, 2015 at 6:43 pm

            If you have such strong feelings about how aluminum is a position, then why do you give it to your kids? That makes you sound like a real monster, right?

          • A

            alOct 29, 2015 at 6:49 pm

            Of course you didn’t answer my question because you cannot except any middle ground. You NEED to call anti vaxxer. I think the idea gets you hard

          • J

            JustthefactsOct 29, 2015 at 7:32 pm

            There was not question in your long astroturf about aluminum making it out to be an unqualified poison. You are the one that needs to decide. Do you think aluminum adjuvants are safe or not? You brought it up!

          • K

            KatiaOct 30, 2015 at 7:47 am

            So your parents weren’t anit-vaxers; good for them. You have no kids, so what you intend to do hardly matters.

            Which vaccine-preventable diseases do you want your kids to get, since you don’t intend to follow the CDC experts’ schedule?

    • J

      JustthefactsOct 29, 2015 at 11:44 am

      The reason people are just making fun of your astroturfing is because it is a Gish Gallop of lies that you don’t even understand. You didn’t collect any of this information yourself, You copied these lies from Vaxtruth.

      Lets just end your ignorance with the FDA numbers. The FDA published number for the actual maximum amount of aluminum per does of any biological product is not more than 1.25 mg. That is the fact Nobody is exceeding FDA limits.

      http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/ScienceResearch/ucm284520.htm

      So your whole cut and paste rant is based on a lie. That’s it. Your argument is crap. Try looking things up and not just trust the first anti-vaxx site you read.

      When you start thinking for yourself and put together an argument that is barely legit, we’ll rip it up with 8% of the earth being aluminum and you get more aluminum in your blood from living 10 days than is in any shot. Perhaps you should look up the aluminum in mother’s milk? Did you know that you have between 20 and 400 mg of aluminum in your brain RIGHT NOW?

      Try to know your subject just a bit and you may get a discussion going. Also, enjoy the chart.

      Reply
      • A

        alOct 29, 2015 at 6:28 pm

        Aluminum in the central nervous system (CNS): toxicity in humans and animals, vaccine adjuvants, and autoimmunity

        http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12026-013-8403-1

        Linked to gulf war syndrome

        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/17114826/?i=2&from=/23609067/related

        Reply
        • J

          JustthefactsOct 29, 2015 at 6:41 pm

          Your first link is to a self-published paper by Shaw and Tomljenovic who are notorious paid anti-vaxx quacks. Nobody cares about their non- research and propaganda.

          Your second link has the the conclusion ” The findings suggest a possible role” which means they have nothing.

          Now that I ha dispensed with your attempt to deflect from the fact I presented, How does it fell to have between 20 and 400 mg of aluminum in your brain RIGHT NOW? How does it feel to put the same amount of aluminum in your bloodstream every two days as a single vaccination?

          I wonder what your next astroturfing deflection will be?

          Reply
          • A

            alOct 29, 2015 at 6:46 pm

            Of course every study I show is fake and everything you show is correct. Good for you.

          • J

            JustthefactsOct 29, 2015 at 7:26 pm

            I answer your claims directly. You ignore mine. What does that tell ya?

          • A

            alOct 30, 2015 at 8:22 am

            You say that one of my references are notorious paid anti-vaxx quacks and nobody cares about their non- research and propaganda.

            You sight the FDA and believe the CDCs protocol. They are two of the biggest pro vaccine entities in the world. So nobody cares what they have to say right? Same logic

          • J

            JustthefactsOct 30, 2015 at 11:07 am

            The CDC and the FDA are respected and are founded on Actual published peer reviewed data and the loons Shaw and Tomljenovic are NOT. There is a clear difference. Shaw and Tomljenovic self publish books and papers because their work is crap. There is no comparison.

            You Still did reply to My data and sources. Can you only deflect to quacks.

            How does it fell to have between 20 and 400 mg of aluminum in your
            brain RIGHT NOW? How does it feel to put the same amount of aluminum in
            your bloodstream every two days as a single vaccination?

          • A

            alOct 30, 2015 at 11:24 am

            The CDC and FDA are discraced organization with horrified humanitarian track records with the CDCs involvement with the Tuskegee Experiments and the laundry list of FDA approved drugs harming people

            to name a few:

            1. Accutane (Isotretinoin) on
            the market for 27 YEARS, 1982 to June 2009

            Cause for recall: Increased risk of birth defects,
            miscarriages, and premature births when used by pregnant women; inflammatory
            bowel disease; suicidal tendencies

            2. Baycol (Cerivastatin) on the market for 3 YEARS, 1998 to
            Aug. 2001

            Cause for recall: rhabdomyolysis (breakdown of muscle fibers
            that results in myoglobin being released into the bloodstream) which led to
            kidney failure; 52 deaths (31 in the US) worldwide; 385 nonfatal cases with
            most requiring hospitalization; 12 of the deaths were related to taking this
            drug in combination with gemfibrozil (Lopid)

            3. Bextra (Valdecoxib) on the market for 3.3 YEARS

            Cause for recall: serious cardiovascular adverse events
            (like death, MI, stroke); increased risk of serious skin reactions (like toxic
            epidermal necrolysis, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, erythema multiforme);
            gastrointestinal bleeding2Cylert (Pemoline) on the market for 30 YEARS

            Cause for recall: liver toxicity

            4. Darvon & Darvocet (Propoxyphene) on the market for 55
            YEARS

            Cause for recall: serious toxicity to the heart; between
            1981 and 1999 there were over 2,110 deaths reported

            5. DBI (Phenformin) on the market for 19 YEARS

            Cause for recall: lactic acidosis (low pH in body tissues
            and blood and a buildup of lactate) in patients with diabetes

            6. DES (Diethylstibestrol) on the market for 31 YEARS

            Cause for recall: clear cell adenocarcinoma (cancer of the
            cervix and vagina), birth defects, and other developmental abnormalities in
            children born to women who took the drug while pregnant; increased risk of
            breast cancer, higher risk of death from breast cancer; risk of cancer in
            children of mothers taking the drug including raised risk of breast cancer
            after age 40; increased risk of fertility and pregnancy complications, early
            menopause, testicular abnormalities; potential risks for third generation
            children (the grandchildren of women who took the drug) but they are unclear as
            studies are just beginning

            more listed here with citations:

            http://prescriptiondrugs.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=005528

          • J

            JustthefactsOct 30, 2015 at 4:46 pm

            item 1. The FDA recalled a bad drug. They did their job, NEXT
            item 2. The FDA recalled a bad drug. They did their job, NEXT
            item 3. The FDA recalled a bad drug. They did their job, NEXT
            item 4. The FDA recalled a bad drug. They did their job, NEXT
            item 5. The FDA recalled a bad drug. They did their job, NEXT
            item 6 The FDA recalled a bad drug. They did their job, NEXT

            Now that we are done, again, with your unrelated defection, time for the same question you have now avoided three times:

            How does it fell to have between 20 and 400 mg of aluminum in your
            brain RIGHT NOW? How does it feel to put the same amount of aluminum in
            your bloodstream every two days as a single vaccination?

        • C

          cable1977Oct 30, 2015 at 7:26 am

          I love when people post the Shaw paper as evidence of anything as it demonstrates they clearly haven’t read it or looked at the data. So, I assume that if you are trying to argue that aluminum is toxic, so you must also agree that the addition of squalene prevents any such toxicity since that is exactly what the data shows in figures 2 and 4. So, I assume then that you would be fine with using aluminum as an adjuvant as long as squalene was also dosed at the same time. If not, why not?

          But let’s be realistic, the last thing folks like yourself want to do is discuss the data because you neither understand the data, the methodologies involved, or the conclusions that can or cannot be drawn from said data. All you can do is regurgitate links over and over again.

          Reply
      • A

        alNov 2, 2015 at 8:30 am

        I will assume that your numbers are correct that between 20 –
        400 mg of Al is in my brain right now. I don’t have a way of verifying that
        number without a reference.

        What I have found is that you are correct that we are
        exposed to aluminum on a daily basis in our food, water, air, and soil. However,
        only 1-2% is actually absorbed into the body (see your chart above). In the case of dietary aluminum-food and water-only
        approximately 0.25% is absorbed. Through
        these routes aluminum enters the circulatory system relatively quickly, and
        most of this aluminum is typically rapidly removed by the kidneys within
        approximately 24 hours. The exceptions for such excretion are those who lack
        patent kidney function, infants until age one and the elderly.

        In contrast, injected aluminum hydroxide (the most common
        form of aluminum used in vaccines) bypasses the protective barriers of the body
        and may be absorbed by the body at nearly 100 % efficiency over time. This suggests that those groups who receive the
        most aluminum containing vaccines and have a reduced capacity to excrete it
        from the body are at risk for aluminum accumulation in the brain and this
        likely require a lower dose to produce a toxic outcome.

        In addition, although the half-life of aluminum consumed
        through the diet is short, the same cannot be assumed for aluminum in vaccines
        because the molecular size of most aluminum in vaccines (24–83 kDa (137)) is
        higher than what the human kidney or other bodily filtering systems can
        process, approx 18 kDa.

        Aluminum accumulation poses a risk because it is an
        experimentally demonstrated neurotoxin whose ability to impact the human
        nervous system has been known for decades. For example, exposure to as little as
        20 μg/kg bw of Al for period >10 days is sufficient to cause
        neurodevelopmental delays in preterm infants.

        Yokel RA, McNamara PJ. Aluminium toxicokinetics: an updated
        minireview. Pharmacol Toxicol. 2001;88(4):159–67

        Tomljenovic L. Aluminum and alzheimer’s disease: after a
        century of controversy, is there a plausible link? J Alzheimers Dis.
        2011;23(4):567–98

        Dorea JG, Marques RC. Infants’ exposure to aluminum from
        vaccines and breast milk during the first 6 months. J Exp Sci Environ
        Epidemiol. 2010;20(7):598–601.

        Tomljenovic L, Shaw CA. Aluminum vaccine adjuvants: are they
        safe? Curr Medl Chem. 2011;18(17):2630–7.

        Yokel RA, McNamara PJ. Aluminium toxicokinetics: an updated
        minireview. Pharmacol Toxicol. 2001;88(4):159–67

        Petrik MS, Wong MC, Tabata RC, Garry RF, Shaw CA. Aluminum
        adjuvant linked to Gulf War illness induces motor neuron death in mice. J
        Neuromolec Med. 2007;9(1):83–100

        L. Tomljenovic, Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease 23 (2011)
        567–598.

        J.R. Walton, Neurotoxicology 30
        (2009) 182–193

        N.J. Bishop, R. Morley, J.P. Day, A. Lucas, The New England
        Journal of Medicine 336 (1997) 1557–1561.

        C.A. Shaw, M.S. Petrik, Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry
        103 (2009) 1555–1562.

        Reply
        • J

          JustthefactsNov 2, 2015 at 11:02 am

          Just ask for the source. The table below takes into account absorption. It’s not hard math.
          If you accept that 20-400mg of aluminum is in the brain right now, and you understand that all the vaccines combined add up to a little over 4 mg of aluminum, then you should be able to see that 4mg is in the noise between 20-400mg. You will get more aluminum from an antiperspirant than all the vaccines combined. This is not a difficult thing to understand.

          The source is : cdn(DOT)intechopen.com/pdfs-wm/28917(DOT)pdf

          The rest of your post is invented, imaginary crap from notorious anti-vaxx shills shaw and Tomljenovi. The aluminum absorption rate is very low but the OVERWHELMING amount of it adds up. You are selectively reading the chart supplied., It’s really simple. Lets look at the amounts ABSORBED:

          Food – .04 to. 05 mcg/kg ABSORBED DAILY

          Vaccines – pediatric – .07 mcg/kg ABSORBED

          The four paragraphs you wrote concerning absorption rates are MOOT. The absorption rate are taken into account and these are final numbers. There is no reason to argue absorption rates. The “absorption rate” issues has always been a smoke screen to keep people from looking at the actual numbers. It’s not a mystery or a guess how much aluminum in any form is absorbed at a rate. These are know, established facts and qualities.

          Even your list of papers are an anti-vax site smoke screen.

          Yokel RA, McNamara PJ. Aluminium toxicokinetics: an updated
          minireview. Pharmacol Toxicol. 2001
          —This paper is about using mass spectrometry to study toxicokinetics. there is zero information on vaccines and aluminum.

          Dorea JG, Marques RC. Infants’ exposure to aluminum from
          vaccines and breast milk during the first 6 months. J Exp Sci Environ
          Epidemiol. 2010;20(7):598–601.
          —-This paper calculates the exposure of a child to be 1.75mg when the CDC has already calculated it to be over 4 mg. This is not exactly news and not accurate.

          This is all smoke screens to avoid the simple, known and established fact that Aluminum uptake from vaccines is overwhelmed by the environment. This is the fact that anti-vaxxers avoid since there is no real response.

          Re-read the table. Note “ABSORBED” and try to come back on subject and leave the smoke screen at home.

          Reply
          • A

            alNov 2, 2015 at 11:12 am

            the link to your reference is broken

          • J

            JustthefactsNov 2, 2015 at 11:19 am

            Most site don’t allow direct links. Replace the (DOT) with a period, then you have a link.

          • A

            alNov 2, 2015 at 11:22 am

            404 Not Found

          • J

            JustthefactsNov 2, 2015 at 1:04 pm

          • A

            alNov 2, 2015 at 1:17 pm

            “Normal adult Al content is (in mg/kg wet weight unless stated otherwise): lung: 20, bone: 1
            to 3 mg/kg dry weight, liver and spleen: 1, kidney: 0.5, heart: 0.45, muscle: 0.4, brain: 0.35,
            and blood: 0.002.”

            Is this what you are referring to? this is the only part of the paper that i found during my initial scan relating to what you are talking about.

          • J

            JustthefactsNov 2, 2015 at 2:52 pm

            If you are talking about the amount in the brain, no. The paper predicts a much lower number than others so, to be fair, i should probably use this number as the low end. This paper puts most of the burden in the bone, lung and muscle covering 95% of the load.

        • E

          eggman2Nov 2, 2015 at 9:52 pm

          Like the stuoid pro vaccine people like Justthebullshit say, ” the secret is in the dosage. ” ,so if you have too much of it , it seems very stupid to ad more.

          Reply
  • D

    David QuartellOct 28, 2015 at 1:14 pm

    Even through the vitriol flung at the “Clueless Anti-Vax
    actors” and the irresponsible parents of “vulnerable” children, it is clear
    that Laurel has a passion to shed light on a very shady topic. Unfortunately she missed the target.

    1. Comparing the small
    pox vaccine to the influenza vaccine is like comparing a bulletproof vest to a
    life jacket. The both work to prevent a
    tragedy but most people can’t dodge a bullet, but could tread in water. In other words, where small pox was usually
    life altering with massive scarring and fatal approximately 30% of the time,
    influenza usually lasts for up to 14 days and is typically fatal in <0.1% of
    cases.

    2. The small pox
    vaccine worked very well.Flu vaccine…not so much. The CDC currently estimates the 2006-2014
    seasonal flu vaccine effective rate between 47 and 62 percent. And according to a 2014 DoD report by Michael
    Cooper, PhD, the influenza vaccine was not effective for military personnel, possibly
    because of they are younger and healthier than the non-military population.

    3. Even if the flu
    vaccine is effective for the individual receiving the shot, it may still not
    afford any protection. The dominant
    influenza A strain causing most of the illness in the 2014/2015 flu season was
    not even in the flu vaccine, because the H3N2 virus began to genetically drift
    after vaccine production was underway.
    So it was 60% effective against “some” viruses, just not the virus that
    was in the air last year.

    I wholeheartedly agree with Laurel’s summation that there
    are “deadly, ancient, vaccine-preventable diseases” and that vaccines may “provide
    defense for your immune system.”
    However, what if the diseases aren’t deadly (chicken pox), or if the
    vaccine fails (measles in vaccinated individuals), or they are made incorrectly
    (flu vaccine in 2014, 2003, etc), or inappropriate (HPV for non-sexually active
    pre-teen), etc. Is it really fair to generalize
    all vaccines together in one big bag because the small pox and polio vaccine
    programs were so effective? With this reasoning,
    can we assume that all guns are bad because they kill? Or are all guns good because they provide
    protection? Are all airplanes good
    because they deliver supplies to remote areas?
    Or are all airplanes bad because they drop bombs?

    Maybe there is another reason for the dogmatic approach to
    the vaccine debate. Maybe humans have
    developed a susceptibility to false information, as Ms. Parker postulates, and
    they are captivated by celebrities, not on the silver screen but in the halls
    of medicine and congress. Or is it maybe
    that the market for the flu vaccine is so very lucrative? But it’s never the ecomomic benefit that
    drives government or business to make decisions. Just ignore the giant pink elephant in the
    room.

    Reply
    • B

      BrianOct 28, 2015 at 10:26 pm

      Nirvana fallacy.

      Reply
      • D

        David QuartellOct 29, 2015 at 6:38 am

        Not sure how this really added anything of value to the discussion.

        Reply
        • B

          BrianOct 29, 2015 at 9:06 am

          Recognize and correct the nirvana fallacy and it will.

          Reply
        • J

          JustthefactsOct 29, 2015 at 12:02 pm

          You are not going to look it up so I’ll explain it to the reader:

          The nirvana fallacy is a name given to the informal fallacy of comparing actual things with unrealistic, idealized alternatives. It can also refer to the tendency to assume that there is a perfect solution to a particular problem. A closely related concept is the perfect solution fallacy.

          By creating a false dichotomy that presents one option which is obviously advantageous—while at the same time being completely implausible—a person using the nirvana fallacy can attack any opposing idea because it is imperfect. Under this fallacy, the choice is not between real world solutions; it is, rather, a choice between one realistic achievable possibility and another unrealistic solution that could in some way be “better”.

          In this case, it’s all about building a perfect world where everyone eats perfectly, nobody has a weak system, and everybody has perfect healthcare. David presents that the measles in not deadly because nobody dies from the measles in the U.S. but…..

          145,700 people died from the measles worldwide in 2013. That is with 8 out of 10 children being vaccinated worldwide. If non were vaccinated, it would kill millions.

          So much for David’s perfect world.

          Reply
          • D

            David QuartellOct 29, 2015 at 4:01 pm

            I’m pretty sure you didn’t even read my post before you replied. You missed the target even more than the article’s author.
            I understand nirvana fallacy quite well, but no where did I suggest any alternative or solution (the supposed “nirvana”). Nor did I present any facts about the mortality or morbidity of measles.
            I merely presented an argument that the “pro-vaxers” are also influenced by false information, whether intentional or not, as provided through omission of data:

            1. Are there “bad lots” of vaccines that should be avoided?
            2. What are the true effective rates of various vaccines?
            3. Should vaccines be dosed based on weight / size instead of a one size fits all approach?
            4. Are there some unnecessary vaccines because of current disease prevalence?
            5. What is the overall change in health years / days / hours for different vaccines?
            6. Who stands to profit from vaccine policy?
            Those 6 vaccine data questions, and others not mentioned, are very difficult to find, especially for a layperson. However, those questions are answered in detail for all to see in “Consumer Reports” for everything from appliances to zippers. Why is the American public kept in the dark regarding the complete story of vaccinations?
            I understand it is sometimes difficult to look in the mirror because the apparent reflection is not expected.

          • J

            JustthefactsOct 29, 2015 at 4:21 pm

            The answer Are simple if you understand the subject:

            1. Are there “bad lots” of vaccines that should be avoided?

            Are are none now that I know of. When they are noted, yes, but that will be addressed be the professionals since vaccines are not self administered.

            2. What are the true effective rates of various vaccines?

            They vary and the effectiveness of the vaccines on the schedule, are all high enough to justify the benefit. the specifics can be found on the CDC website and simple wen searches.

            3. Should vaccines be dosed based on weight / size instead of a one size fits all approach?

            No. Body weight is not relevant for a vaccine where the dose is tiny and body stimulates the immune system. The the stress on the body from the natural environment fat exceeds anything a vaccine can do.

            4. Are there some unnecessary vaccines because of current disease prevalence?

            The small pox. All other diseases are active in the environment.

            5. What is the overall change in health years / days / hours for different
            vaccines?

            Since they vary between decades and lifetime, it’s not really relevant unless you are interested in a late life booster. You should look into them. I have had a few. This info is on the CDC website and simple web searches

            6. Who stands to profit from vaccine policy?

            The vaccine policy is determined by the CDC so that question is not relevant. The CDC is not even a regulatory body. That is separate and done by the FDA. Business financials do not factor in unless nobody wants to manufacture the vaccine.

            You should read more of the subject. The CDC website is a good start.

          • D

            David QuartellOct 29, 2015 at 4:43 pm

            That is not even a real reply. All you did was say, “Nah Nah, you are wrong and I’m right.”
            I have done the research. I have done the reading. That is why I know there have been bad and ineffective lots of vaccines, some of which were used even after that knowledge was shared. I also know that the chicken pox vaccine, when used at a 95% administration rate, will confer an increased life expectancy of less than 1 day (for a US citizen).
            I guess I should apologize. I thought you had done some research too.

          • J

            JustthefactsOct 29, 2015 at 6:18 pm

            You asked 6 questions, I gave you 6 answers, what did you expect? Did you want me to answer secret questions?

            Your question on bad lots was present tense. I answered in the present tense. If you didn’t like the answer, learn to ask the right question.

            You asked about “effective rates”. That conventionally addresses sickness, hodpitalization, and morbidity, not just death. You you wanted to talk about death, then say so. Again, learn to ask the correct question.

            Before the vaccine in the U.S., 10,500 to 13,000 were hospitalized and 100 to 150 died each year. If you are just concerned about adding an average day to YOUR life, you are very self centered.

          • D

            David QuartellOct 30, 2015 at 10:10 pm

            I’m not self centered. I’m just questioning the need and use.
            I have addressed this in multiple posts on this site and it is evident that you dont really do much research, just add your thoughts and restate headlines you find.
            Yes, you are correct the death rate prior to vaccination was higher than after. the 11 years prior to the vaccine had a mortality rate of about 92 per year and about 42 per year for the 11 years after. When calculations are made for immunocompromised individuals, there is less than a .00001% absolute effective rate and a negligible improvement to life expectancy. Like I said before, I’ll take my chances.

            If you don’t have anything of substance to add, I probably won’t reply to you any more.

          • J

            JustthefactsOct 31, 2015 at 12:15 am

            You asked 6 simple questions. You got 6 simple answers. You don’t post anything of substance so no research is necessary.

            I noticed now you ignored the 10,500 to 13,000 that were hospitalize. It is easy for you to ignore the difficult facts.

          • D

            David QuartellOct 31, 2015 at 1:52 pm

            I didn’t ignore “hospitalizations.” I was only discussing the deaths. We could have discussed potential scarring or missed social studies class, but mortality was the subject of the discussion. We could discuss hospitalizations too, but I’d rather not discuss it with you.
            You don’t really provide any sources to back up your statements so it quickly degrades into a debate of opinions and not facts.
            No thanks.

          • C

            CharlieB1972Oct 29, 2015 at 6:26 pm

            Again, with the chickenpox vaccine, it’s not just preventing deaths. It’s also about preventing shingles, which is a far more common result of chickenpox and generally entails a lot of suffering.

          • D

            David QuartellOct 30, 2015 at 8:43 am

            Charlie,
            Please share the study that shows shingles prevention through the use of the varicella vaccine.

          • J

            JustthefactsOct 30, 2015 at 6:29 pm

            You asked an interesting question. This is good example of the difference between anti-vaxx and
            pro-vaxx. You, Mr. anti-vaxx, didn’t care what the answer was. you just wanting to attack the poster and maintain your belief system. It would never occur to you to actually look for an answer to your own question. I, Mr. Pro-vaxx, saw an interesting question and went to get an answer.

            Yes, there are many papers and studies that look into Shingles and the vaccine. Perhaps you should look at them yourself and answer your question.

            http://jcp.bmj.com/content/54/10/743.short

            http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1031879

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1553793/

            http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/161/10/929.short

          • D

            David QuartellOct 30, 2015 at 8:43 pm

            Are you seriously named “justthefacts?” Did you even read the studies or just paste links from a google search?

            You listed 4 sources. One was from 1973, 22 years before the varicella vaccine was even in use. Another one discussed immunoglobulin without any mention of a vaccine. A third one was not a study, but a letter to the editor questioning a connection between varicella vaccine and herpes zoster. Finally, a fourth article did address a connection between varicella and shingles incidence reduction. However, the only mention about herpes zoster was as a postulate that, based on current promising data, further study is required.

            I am not suggesting that the connection does not exist. But until it is published in a peer reviewed journal, it is just speculation.

            Once again, I ask you to find the published paper, if it exists.

          • J

            JustthefactsOct 31, 2015 at 12:00 am

            YOU ASKED THE QUESTION. The point was go do you own damn research you lazy anti-axxer. Is that clear enough for you? If you did some research, you might learn something and not be an anti-vaxxer.

            Just clueless.

          • D

            David QuartellOct 31, 2015 at 1:46 pm

            Yes. I asked the question. And I’ll ask it again.
            You made a statement that the chicken pox vaccine helps prevent shingles. I asked for a source that backs up your statement.
            You provided 4 sources that did not support your statement.
            If you feel name calling is necessary, maybe look in the mirror and ask yourself why you are angered enough to become hostile.
            So, please either support your statement with fact based evidence, or kindly admit your fault and rescind your statement.
            Remember, if it’s justthefacts, then it should be fact based.

          • J

            JustthefactsNov 2, 2015 at 9:16 am

            CharlieB1972 made the statement, not me, David.

            I’m not your mother and it’s not my job to do your work for you. Grow up and stop asking unrelated people to do research for you. If you want to harrass CharlieB1972 to figure out google for you, you can. We will all find it entertaining but it is not mine or any other random poster’s job to provide you with an education you are priming to reject.

            Not my problem. Do your own research.

          • D

            David QuartellNov 2, 2015 at 10:40 am

            Tisk, tisk. You seem awfully angry.

            But, again, you seem to have your facts all mixed up.

            CharlieB1972 did ask a question, and I answered him. Then you felt an unwavering urge to join the fray with your post that included 4 studies that were entirely unrelated to the original “Are shingles prevented by the varicella vaccine” question. And then I think you felt some negative emotions when I pointed out your failure to make an adequate argument.

            A portion of your post is pasted below if you dont remember when you picked up the torch and began to make your own stance. And, oh what an unstable stance it was.

            ————————–
            You asked an interesting question. …….. I, Mr. Pro-vaxx, saw an interesting question and went to get an answer.

            Yes, there are many papers and studies that look into Shingles and the vaccine. Perhaps you should look at them yourself and answer your question.

            http://jcp.bmj.com/content/54/
            —————————

            maybe you should change your name to “justthefactsicaretoremember”

            This has actually become tiresome. When you eventually have a real fact, bring it up.
            Until then, how about giving it up.

          • J

            JustthefactsNov 2, 2015 at 11:14 am

            No, David, You are living in your anti-vaxx dream world. CharlieB1972 did NOT ask a question. He said “it’s not just preventing deaths. It’s also about preventing shingles,” That sentence ended with a period, David. That makes that a statement. You then questioned that statement. David, you asked the question. Maybe your 6th grade English teacher can explain to you how this all works. I just told you to go do your own research and tossed you a few starting points.

            Go do your own research David. What is confusing you about this?

            In your attempt to you intelligent, you Posted a dead link. The reason the link is dead is because you didn’t research it yourself. In a pathetic attempt to look like you know something, you copied and pasted this link from another post. If you do that, David, the characters a cut-off and the link is dead.

            So you posted a link you copied from another person that you didn’t look at yourself, otherwise, the link would not be dead. Color me impressed by your researching skills, Noob.

            Kid, take your 64 comments and your toys home. The adults need to talk here.

          • D

            David QuartellNov 3, 2015 at 4:21 am

            I feel like I am debating a one trick pony. And the only trick is truth twisting. So I am going to stop unless you bring something, anything to the table that looks like a real scientific data finding.
            This thread was about shingles and the varicella vaccine. Unless you have anything to discuss about that topic, I will no longer engage with you.

          • J

            JustthefactsNov 3, 2015 at 10:51 am

            David, you are one moving to goal posts. All I did was bring them back. CharlieB1972 did NOT ask a question. He said “it’s not just preventing deaths. It’s also about preventing shingles,” You then asked the question. Those are just the facts documented forever on the net. You are trying to twist history to meet your needs. That’s not going to happen. You need to answer your own questions.

            You then posted an obvious cut-and -paste link that is dead because it came from another disqus post and that truncates the link in an exact and obvious way. that means you didn’t bring up the link at all yourself. I know how it works. Face it, you are busted. You have been caught astroturfing a dead link from another source you didn’t check yourself. That also means that you posted NOTHING, scientific or otherwise, with a dead link.

            You fail. It’s just that simple. Give up and go home. You can’t run with the big dogs. You can’t even post a stolen link.

          • D

            DavidQNov 3, 2015 at 12:58 pm

            Once again, off topic and irrelevant.
            If you have a question or relevant comment, please post it. Otherwise please stop your theatrics. It is quite dull.
            Or, you know what would be entertaining?
            How about explaining again how your analysis

          • J

            JustthefactsNov 3, 2015 at 1:43 pm

            CharlieB1972 said “it’s not just preventing deaths. It’s also about preventing shingles,”

            DavidQ said “Charlie, Please share the study that shows shingles prevention through the use of the varicella vaccine.”

            That is the subject. CharlieB1972 mad a statement. You asked a question. You have both reading and memory problems.

            I already made a fool out of you on that unrelated subject. Go back to that string and see where I set you up to provide bad data. It was a set up from the beginning. You didn’t know that all pre-2004 data was bad. You screwed up and it was hilarious.

            Again you try to change the subject from your bad stolen links and terrible research ability.

            Please, let me punk you again. Keep it up.

          • D

            DavidQNov 3, 2015 at 3:51 pm

            Punked? More like u puked on yourself.
            Check the response.
            As for Charlie, he lost. No more response.
            Your problem is you don’t realize when you’ve lost.

          • J

            JustthefactsNov 3, 2015 at 4:48 pm

            Lost? The only thing you have posted is a dead link and recognized bad CDC data. You have not even declared any point at all. You have lost your mind.

            Go back and pull out the amazing point from your prior poses that you just “won”. You have said nothing at all, loser.

          • A

            AutismDadNov 5, 2015 at 8:43 am

            twistthefacts likes to anoint himself the victor….hilarious

          • M

            Mike StevensOct 30, 2015 at 7:56 pm

            “Please share the study that shows shingles prevention through the use of the varicella vaccine.”

            I doubt you’d accept the evidence Charlie or anyone else presented. So perhaps you could “research**” the question yourself, David, and tell us your results?

            ** David: “My type of research typically involves reading peer reviewed journals where the author(s) did your listed 17 steps and then published in a Peer Reviewed Journal. That would have been step 18 in your list – Publish Findings. And then, upon reading the results of the published studies and examining the information, findings, conclusions, and opinions as published you would qualify as someone doing “research into the subject.” This is how scientific information is systematically shared among intellectuals. This minimizes the wasted time of reproducing every study ad nauseum.
            Definition of research: verb – investigate systematically”

          • D

            David QuartellOct 30, 2015 at 9:57 pm

            I did look. There are no studies confirming shingles prevention through the use of varicella vaccine.
            How about you, Mike. What did you find?
            By the way there is another post directly below claiming the presence of 4 studies that show a connection, but they are false and discussed by me after the post.

          • M

            Mike StevensOct 31, 2015 at 7:21 pm

            As Viking has pointed out, the impact of varicella vaccine to reduce shingles will only become fully apparent in time, since the mean age of onset of shingles is when people are in their 70s.
            So what makes you think 20 year’s use of the vaccine is sufficient to fully demonstrate the effects?

            I assume you know shingles stems from reactivation of latent VZV in the host. That being the case, if people don’t get VZV because of vaccination, they will not get natural VZV and so will be less likely to develop shingles later in life.

            Despite the rather short time frame there has been for varicella vaccination to impact on the burden of shingles, there are good signs of its effectiveness already in a number of other studies:
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19536039/
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19773676/
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23545380/
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23922376
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20232192/

          • D

            David QuartellOct 31, 2015 at 7:44 pm

            You are right. These studies are suggestive of a link.
            However, this thread was started after a claim that “the chicken pox vaccine stops shingles in adults” and the posed question was “show me the study.”
            Thanks for sharing these. But we still wait for a published study demonstrating a conclusive link.

          • M

            Mike StevensOct 31, 2015 at 8:02 pm

            The following provides a good summary overview of varicella vaccination benefits and disadvantages, if people are interested:
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3991154/#bibr6-2051013613515621

          • L

            lynnebNov 1, 2015 at 9:36 am

            So one inconclusive study on a possible correlation between varicella-induced IgG and glioma prevention is enough for you to claim that having chicken pox helps prevent gliomas.

            But multiple studies showing that varicella vaccination prevents long-term colonization with HZ, and knowing that between 30-40% of all people who have had varicella and have long-term dormant HZ infections go on to develop shingles…that’s not enough for you to even *potentially* believe that preventing the infection will cut down on shingles.

            I’d be amazed at the illogical double-standard, if I hadn’t encountered it so often.

          • D

            David QuartellNov 1, 2015 at 12:43 pm

            Good for you. You were able to discredit a peer reviewed study that showed a clinical correlation and, in the same paragraph, you were able to lend credence to an opinion, that although one day may eventually prove true, still remains speculative. That is some special card shuffling.
            Please share ANY PEER REVIEWED PUBLISHED PAPER that shows a definitive link. I am not denying it is a potential, but until proven, it is just an opinion. Similar to how the “antivaxers” have those “unproven opinions.”

          • V

            VikingAPRNCNPOct 30, 2015 at 10:55 pm

            I think it’d fairly obvious that if you never contract zoster that you will not develop shingles later in life.

            That said positive impacts have already been seen.

            See up to date
            The rate of complications from varicella infection have declined dramatically after introduction of vaccine; most complications were skin and soft tissue infections and pneumonitis.

            Decline in mortality due to varicella after implementation of varicella vaccination in the United States.
            AU
            Nguyen HQ, Jumaan AO, Seward JF
            SO
            N Engl J Med. 2005;352(5):450.

            We can’t prove the impact of the vaccine against shingles as the vaccine has only been in use for a few years. The varicella mortality rate has already shown a substantial drop from .66 per million to less than .15 per million. Prevaccine there were 100 deaths annually. Post vaccine fewer than 10.

            The reduction in mortality and hospitalization alone

          • D

            David QuartellOct 31, 2015 at 1:37 pm

            I know there are no studies about shingles and varicella vaccine. My post was asking for any study that showed a link like “justthefacts” claimed was available. The reason the study doesn’t exist is because there is not enough collected data to support that claim.
            The vaccine has been in use for more than a few years – at present it is over 20 years.
            Chicken pox deaths have declined but (using your figures) I would hardly call a rate of 3 per 2 million decreasing to 3 per 10 million a substantial drop. The incidence of death from chicken pox was so rare to begin with that it is a minuscule movement.
            Pediatric population in U.S. Is approx 70 million. Pre vaccine death rate was .00014%, or chance of surviving another year was 99.99986%. Post vaccine the death rate was .000014%, or the current chance of surviving the year is 99.999986%.
            In terms of absolute value, I see this as less than substantial.

          • V

            VikingAPRNCNPOct 31, 2015 at 5:05 pm

            Shingles has a 30% lifetime incidence rate with some fairly serious potential aftereffects.
            NIH conference. Varicella-zoster virus infections. Biology, natural history, treatment, and prevention.
            AU
            Straus SE, Ostrove JM, InchauspéG, Felser JM, Freifeld A, Croen KD, Sawyer MH
            SO
            Ann Intern Med. 1988;108(2):221.

            Add in a high rate of complications including pain and ocular complications it is to say the least prudent to try and prevent infection in the first place.

            “Approximately one in three persons will develop zoster during their lifetime, resulting in an estimated 1 million episodes in the United States annually. A common complication of zoster is postherpetic neuralgia (PHN), a chronic, often debilitating pain condition that can last months or even years. The risk for PHN in patients with zoster is 10%-18%. Another complication of zoster is eye involvement, which occurs in 10%-25% of zoster episodes and can result in prolonged or permanent pain, facial scarring, and loss of vision. Approximately 3% of patients with zoster are hospitalized; many of these episodes involved persons with one or more immunocompromising conditions. ”

            Prevention of herpes zoster: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).
            AU
            Harpaz R, Ortega-Sanchez IR, Seward JF, Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
            SO
            MMWR Recomm Rep. 2008;57(RR-5):1.
            Your thesis that prevention of chicken pox isn’t worth is not supported by the lifetime implications of the disease.

          • D

            David QuartellOct 31, 2015 at 6:44 pm

            Sure. Good article. Very informative. And interesting. But has nothing to do with a connection between the varicella vaccine and shingles incidence.
            Good try though.

          • R

            RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfGOct 30, 2015 at 2:47 am

            I’m afraid I’ve got bad news: Doing a few searches on the ol’ Googlebox is not doing research. In fact, the only way to truly “do your own research” is to

            1) Study for the MCAT.
            2) Pass the MCAT
            3) Take four years of college, primarily immunology, virology, biology and anatomy.
            4) Take 3-4 years of undergraduate work.
            5) 4 years of medical school.
            6) 2-3 years as a medical intern
            7) set up a multi-million dollar lab (seriously, the equipment is fucking expensive)
            8) Formulate a hypothesis
            9) Design a series of experiments to disprove your hypothesis (seriously, you’re trying to make it wrong, not right)
            10) Examine the data
            11) Replicate the data (yes, you’re repeating yourself)
            12) Examine the data again, and see if the hypothesis is incorrect.
            13) Replicate the data again
            14) Examine the data
            15) See if the hypothesis still holds up.
            16) submit all your work, data, records and your well-written thesis to a high-impact journal to see if it bears scrutiny.
            17) Formulate another hypothesis while awaiting the results of the peer-review.

            All the above, of course, is assuming that your hypothesis holds up for every step. If it fails at any step, you have to reexamine the data, and start the process all over again. This can take anywhere from 48-96 months, or more.

          • A

            AutismDadOct 30, 2015 at 7:48 am

            All that so you can maim and kill with vaccines? There must be an easier route.

          • R

            RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfGOct 31, 2015 at 7:47 am

            Hey, pretty girl. Didja miss me while I was gone?

          • A

            AutismDadOct 31, 2015 at 11:12 am

            Get lost Elton John.

          • R

            RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfGNov 1, 2015 at 4:01 pm

            Awww. You did how sweet, Look, I understand reading my words makes you moist, but it’s time for grownups to take, so go diddle yourself quietly in the corner, and daddy will come spank you later, okay?

          • A

            AutismDadNov 1, 2015 at 5:59 pm

            Wow what a sicko!! No wonder you have zero credibility. What prison are you in?

          • R

            RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfGNov 1, 2015 at 7:26 pm

            You’re just spilling your spaghetti all over, aincha? That’s what happens when you allow your ladybits to rule you.

          • A

            AutismDadNov 1, 2015 at 8:21 pm

            You’ll have to translate sick little man.

          • R

            RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfGNov 1, 2015 at 10:12 pm

            “Do your own research,” Baby cakes.

          • D

            David QuartellOct 30, 2015 at 8:36 am

            I agree with you Foster. Doing a “googlebox” search doesn’t classify as true scientific research. But maybe since that is how you do your research, I can understand your confusion.

            My type of research typically involves reading peer reviewed journals where the author(s) did your listed 17 steps and then published in a Peer Reviewed Journal. That would have been step 18 in your list – Publish Findings. And then, upon reading the results of the published studies and examining the information, findings, conclusions, and opinions as published you would qualify as someone doing “research into the subject.” This is how scientific information is systematically shared among intellectuals. This minimizes the wasted time of reproducing every study ad nauseum.

            Definition of research: verb – investigate systematically

            And this type of research even has its own name. This is the way “Meta-Analysis” is conducted. And meta-analysis is the gold standard for studying the effectiveness of the practical application of clinical and lab findings as published in peer reviewed articles.

            Meta-analysis definition: a statistical technique for combining the findings from independent studies. Meta-analysis is most often used to assess the clinical effectiveness of healthcare interventions; it does this by combining data from two or more randomised control trials.

            But of course you knew all of that….

            I do see your desire to debate off topic, but I no longer find it necessary. If you have actual data to discuss please continue to post. If not……………

          • K

            KatiaOct 30, 2015 at 11:03 pm

            You’re an MD? You’ve set up a lab? Do tell!

          • D

            David QuartellOct 31, 2015 at 1:38 pm

            Where did I say I set up a lab?
            Please site the reference for your claim.

          • K

            KatiaOct 31, 2015 at 1:54 pm

            OK, I misunderstood. I thought you said YOU did steps 1 through 17. Do forgive me David! I would hate for you to be mad at me!

          • D

            David QuartellOct 31, 2015 at 2:12 pm

            Not mad. I just try to stick to facts, only make statements that I can support, and stay out of emotion based findings. Science and outcome based data are good enough for me.

          • K

            KatiaOct 31, 2015 at 2:24 pm

            Which is why you’re currently being so hostile to me. Sure!

          • D

            David QuartellOct 31, 2015 at 3:03 pm

            Not hostile. Just wondering why u persist in the face of an erroneous stance behind unsupportable statements.

          • L

            lynnebNov 1, 2015 at 9:17 am

            Really? Is this a new things since your not-fact-based statements elsewhere?

          • D

            David QuartellNov 1, 2015 at 12:31 pm

            Not sure I completely understand your question or grammar, but if you think something I wrote wasn’t fact based then let me know why it was wrong and include your peer reviewed sources. Until then, yours is just an unfounded opinion.

          • R

            RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfGOct 31, 2015 at 7:42 am

            I agree with you Foster. Doing a “googlebox” search doesn’t classify as true scientific research. But maybe since that is how you do your research, I can understand your confusion.

            *facepalm* How do you reconcile that cognitive dissonance?

            My type of research typically involves reading peer reviewed journals where the author(s) did your listed 17 steps and then published in a Peer Reviewed Journal. That would have been step 18 in your list – Publish Findings.

            I’m guessing you didn’t read my list too carefully. That is number 16.

            I do see your desire to debate off topic,

            There was no debate. My comment was on topic, and was mocking your idea of ‘research.”

          • D

            David QuartellOct 31, 2015 at 1:41 pm

            Your number 16 of “submitting your work” is MUCH different from getting it published, my number 18.
            But you would know that if you actually studied research.

          • R

            RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfGNov 1, 2015 at 3:57 pm

            Stop, you’re embarrassing yourself. Go take remedial English and then come back and explain how “submit all your work, data, records and your well-written thesis to a high-impact journal to see if it bears scrutiny” which is how you get a paper published is “much different from getting it published?”

            But you would know that if you actually did research.

          • D

            David QuartellNov 1, 2015 at 4:52 pm

            Once again, straight out of Propoganda 101: ignore the message and attack the messenger. It riles the masses and ensures victory, as long as no one is really paying attention to details.

          • R

            RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfGNov 1, 2015 at 5:00 pm

            I see you’re fond of repeating yourself. Good job. Once more, with feeling this time.

          • D

            David QuartellNov 1, 2015 at 5:19 pm

            Just following your lead, doctor reverend Indian chief head honcho.
            I’ll tell you what. I’ve been around the block a few times and your approach certainly isn’t novel or productive. So, guess what. I declare you the winner. You are right, and I’ve been profoundly wrong. Sorry for taking your time.

          • R

            RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfGNov 1, 2015 at 7:30 pm

            Finally some honesty. See? The world didn’t end like you feared.

          • D

            David QuartellOct 31, 2015 at 1:59 pm

            And, by the way, making fun of meta analysis demonstrates a significant ignorance in the field of scientific research.
            Maybe if you desire to mock this type of research you would like to write a rebuttal to this NIH paper discussing the importance of meta analysis in medical study.
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3049418/

          • L

            lynnebNov 1, 2015 at 9:20 am

            David,

            It does not matter how much you read if you have not got the cognitive toolkit to make sense of what you’re reading. Your failure to get the basic background you need to understand and sensibly interpret what you read is where you’re falling down.

          • D

            David QuartellNov 1, 2015 at 12:37 pm

            This describes you completely. If I have written anything that is not fact based or can be disproven, please get in line with everyone else and document the error and please include your source, preferably from a peer reviewed source. Until then, you are entitled to have an opinion, and as incorrect as it may be, it can never be denied that it is yours.

          • R

            RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfGNov 1, 2015 at 3:50 pm

            And, by the way, making fun of meta analysis demonstrates a significant ignorance in the field of scientific research.

            Damn. A reading fail in addition to another science fail. tsk tsk tsk. You should stop while you’re ahead.

          • D

            David QuartellNov 1, 2015 at 4:50 pm

            Cool. A page right out of L Ron Hubbard. If you can’t win in a fair debate attack the messenger.
            Works well, but only with the ignorant.

          • R

            RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfGNov 1, 2015 at 4:59 pm

            (sigh) How do you even remember to breathe? Do you have a tap that says, “Breathe in, Breathe out,” on loop?

          • L

            lynnebNov 1, 2015 at 9:18 am

            Well, gosh, don’t you understand? He did his research because he READ THINGS. 😛

          • R

            RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfGNov 1, 2015 at 3:46 pm

            It’s that simple? Bloody hell. I’m off to write my dissertation and get my Nobel nomination then. 😀

          • N

            Nom Dumb DisqusNov 1, 2016 at 5:49 am

            *stealing*

          • M

            Mike StevensOct 30, 2015 at 8:06 pm

            “I also know that the chicken pox vaccine, when used at a 95%
            administration rate, will confer an increased life expectancy of less
            than 1 day (for a US citizen)”

            Tell us David, considering that the death rate from varicella vaccine is much less than the usual death rate from chickenpox, can you tell us how much the varicella vaccine is expected to reduce life expectancy for a US citizen?

            And then perhaps you’d like to move onto other vaccines, such as measles, pneumovax, diphtheria etc, making the comparison to when these diseases were not routinely vaccinated against?

          • D

            David QuartellOct 30, 2015 at 8:48 pm

            I’m not sure why you think I would tell you how varicella vaccine reduces life expectancy when my post, if read properly, states clearly that it increases life expectancy by 1 day. Did you maybe misread it?

            Can you please explain your concern further?

          • M

            Mike StevensOct 31, 2015 at 7:55 pm

            Perhaps I was unclear.
            You accept chicken pox vaccine confers a small absolute reduction in mortality from chickenpox.

            My argument is that even that small reduction is worthwhile vaccinating for, as long as the vaccine does not have its own inherent risks that counter the benefits.

            Antivaxers constantly harangue us on the adverse effects of vaccines. So I will rephrase:
            Can you tell us how much the side effects from varicella vaccine are expected to reduce life expectancy for a US citizen?

            And remember, the vaccine has other benefits, not just the reduction in deaths from chickenpox.

          • D

            David QuartellOct 31, 2015 at 8:18 pm

            I’m glad you have that argument. How about you do your own research for your question, present your findings and sources, and we can discuss.
            Then we can engage in this discussion too.
            And I don’t agree that the minute difference in mortality benefits are worth the overall cost.

          • K

            KatiaOct 30, 2015 at 9:26 pm

            Now, now, now! No snark allowed, pot. (Meet kettle)

          • K

            KatiaOct 30, 2015 at 7:59 am

            Allow me to add: Smallpox was removed from the routine US immunization schedule in 1972. It was still recommended for travel to a few countries until 1982.
            http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00042032.htm

          • A

            Andrew LazarusOct 31, 2015 at 11:00 am

            We don’t administer the TB vaccine in the USA, nor yellow fever (except for travel to certain destinations); the scarlet fever vaccine was not very effective and never caught on anywhere. This idea that we don’t consider cost vs benefit for a vaccine is fictitious. If you want to make an argument that the chicken pox vaccine, or the flu vaccine, are not worth it, go ahead, but after the last case of flu I had a few years ago (lost 9 days of work; weak for a month), I may not listen. And I hadn’t had flu in 30 years, so I wouldn’t say I was sickly.

          • J

            JustthefactsOct 31, 2015 at 1:09 pm

            Of course, you are right. I prefer to deal with the nut jobs like David on a simple level. It is so easy to go right over their heads. Since they are wrong on every level, i don’t see the need to confuse them more than they actually are.

            David’s stupid questions deserved stupid answers. We all knew he was pretending. Anti-vaxxers live and breath a cloud of lies.

          • L

            lynnebNov 1, 2015 at 9:15 am

            There is no scarlet fever vaccine because scarlet fever is a result of untreated strep. Since strep responds well to antibiotics (in most cases), it’s now simply prevented by treating strep appropriately. Just to be accurate.

          • A

            Andrew LazarusNov 1, 2015 at 9:17 am

            The scarlet fever vaccine predates antibiotics, and didn’t work well then either.

          • L

            lynnebNov 1, 2015 at 9:31 am

            I presume you mean the Dick one?

            I believe that if scarlet fever had not responded so well to penicillin, an actual proper vaccine would probably have been developed. It wasn’t because it wasn’t needed.

            But fair enough. It does go with your point that cost/benefit IS considered for vaccines.

    • C

      CharlieB1972Oct 29, 2015 at 6:33 am

      Measles vaccine has a low failure rate. The incidence of measles is down by 99.9% in the US since the introduction of the vaccine.

      Chickenpox used to kill between 100 and 150 Americans per year. Now it kills about 10 per year. In addition, the incidence of chickenpox is down by more than 90% since the introduction of the vaccine, which will lead to a much lower incidence of shingles in the future. Shingles is rarely fatal, but very often horrible.

      True, pre-teens are not sexually active. But the sex act being what it is, and teens being what they are, they are not likely to remember to ask Mom and Day for the HPV shot just before they have sex for the first time.

      Reply
      • D

        David QuartellOct 29, 2015 at 8:07 am

        There are a great number of vaccine success stories in the field of immunology. And we could include how the measles vaccine helped to quell the incidence of a terrible disease. However, not every vaccine in every application is a success story. Laurel’s statement about “susceptibility to falsehoods and fads” is at the heart of the vaccine debate. The vaccination issue is a very polarizing topic that strikes an emotional nerve. When we can begin to examine the facts of the issue, and not blindly follow a path because it conforms with our prior belief systems, then there will be room for a discussion that does not decay into a fight over dogma.
        I think the issue here is not “can a vaccine work?” The better questions are “does every vaccine work equally well for everyone”, “does every vaccine work for me,” and “am I allowed to make my own choices when it comes to my own health?”

        Reply
        • J

          JustthefactsOct 29, 2015 at 7:46 pm

          Stop being abstract. If you want to talk about a particular vaccine you don’t like, then do it. Then we can get to tearing your argument apart.

          Reply
          • D

            David QuartellOct 30, 2015 at 8:46 am

            Sure. Influenza vaccine 2003/04 season.
            Effectiveness and why it went to production and ultimate to market after efficacy issues were published.
            Answer this one first and there are a few more to follow.

          • J

            JustthefactsOct 30, 2015 at 11:18 am

            The effectiveness varied with age between 25% and 61% present depending on when and where. So if you got the vaccine, you had about a 50% better chance of not getting the flu if you where an adult. Could be better but pretty good.

          • D

            David QuartellOct 30, 2015 at 9:54 pm

            Not true. Do you even research anything? Prior to mass manufacture the 2003/04 vaccine was known to be ineffective. Then why was production started and even more concerning, why was it administered?
            Can you answer this???

          • J

            JustthefactsOct 31, 2015 at 12:03 am

            This isn’t a game of 20 questions. If you don’t like my numbers, THEN POST YOURS.

            Otherwise mine stand, done.

          • D

            David QuartellOct 31, 2015 at 1:48 pm

            I don’t “dislike your numbers” but they do differ from what I understand about the 03/04 flu season vaccine.
            Could you please site your source for your numbers that claim a 50% better chance of avoiding the flu in 03/04 using the vaccine that year.
            You stated it. Now please back it up.

          • J

            JustthefactsNov 2, 2015 at 9:18 am

            The source was the CDC. I posted numbers. If you got different numbers, you post them, otherwise mine stand. That’s how it works, David.

          • D

            David QuartellNov 2, 2015 at 10:50 am

            Saying “the source was the CDC” is like saying “I read it in JAMA.”
            If you truly had any background in science, you would be able understand the importance of sourcing.

            Let’s see an available source for the statement you made ( “you had about a 50% better chance of not getting the flu if you where an adult”) in reference to the effectiveness of the influenza vaccine in the 2003/04 season.

            You asked me to “stop being abstract. If you want to talk about a particular vaccine you don’t like, then do it. Then we can get to tearing your argument apart.”
            Then I asked you about it. You answered with some numbers that you “got from the CDC.”
            They mean nothing without sourcing.

            So, again, for the fourth time, put it up or shut it up.

          • J

            JustthefactsNov 2, 2015 at 11:17 am

            Blah Blah Blah David says he has got nothing. The effectiveness varied with age between 25% and 61%. You got nothing. they stand until you got something else.

            Kid, I’m not here to you you thinking for you. If you have not better information, there is nothing a need to defend against other than your childish behavior.

          • D

            David QuartellNov 3, 2015 at 4:14 am

            I kind of just wanted you to make your claim several times before I posted my numbers. This should help prevent the backtracking and double speak you have used as a deflection tactic in the past. So here it goes. Get ready for it.
            The source; notice it is the same as your supposed source, the CDC:
            http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/wk/mm5301.pdf
            The findings; notice the difference in the findings from your post:
            vaccine effectiveness was between 14% and 3%
            The statement as to why the ineffectiveness; it’s a little long and uses big words so take your time reading.
            The predominant influenza viruses (A/Fujian/411/2002 [H3N2]-like viruses) circulating this season differ antigenically from the 2003–04 influenza A (H3N2) vaccine strain (2). A retrospective cohort study was conducted among workers at a Colorado hospital to provide preliminary data on the effectiveness of trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV) against influenza-like ill- ness (ILI). This report summarizes the results of that study, which indicated that TIV had no or low effectiveness against ILI.

            Let me just summarize. The CDC said that the influenza virus that year was different from the one in the vaccine and that the vaccine had no or low effectiveness.

            Now please, as you suggested you could, share your sources.

          • J

            JustthefactsNov 3, 2015 at 10:40 am

            Funny, That’s not what I find in the data. If you click through to:

            Preliminary Assessment of the Effectiveness of the 2003–04 Inactivated Influenza Vaccine — Colorado, December 2003

            On page 8 and then continue to table 2 on page 10, it show that of 1000 vaccinated people, 149 got sick in the categorical analysis and of 1457 vaccinated people, 179 got sick in the person-time analysis. That is an effectiveness of 84% and 87% respectively

            Where did you get your numbers in this report? You didn’t mention that? Page number and line number please?

            S

          • D

            DavidQNov 3, 2015 at 12:39 pm

            Justthefacts proves that (s)he is justthefiction.
            So, here it goes.
            I can understand why you didn’t see where I “got the numbers.”
            Because you don’t know how to read or analyze reports or data.
            The quote I took, with the numbers, is contained on page 8, left hand column, first paragraph of the study. The numbers are also contained in table 2, on page 10. The same one you reference.
            If you knew anything about data analysis you would have known what the numbers mean. I don’t care to school you in statistics, but suffice to say that the same table you reference shows the same 14% and 3% numbers I quoted. They are listed in the row labeled “adjusted VE”, which means:
            The data was analyzed and adjusted for Vaccine Effective rate.
            I think I agree with the scientists evaluation of the data, over your crude attempt.
            In case you didn’t want to look up the source again, I can include 2 screen shots.
            So, again, I ask you to support your statements of 50% better chance of avoiding the flu.

          • J

            JustthefactsNov 3, 2015 at 1:36 pm

            Oh, I thought you had a source for good data somewhere in this report. You probably were not aware that the data from that and prior years is very bad and after the 2003-2004 season, the CDC set up the This is the U.S. Flu Vaccine Effectiveness (VE) Network. I was aware of that the moment you asked for 2003-04 data. It looked like a good moment to let somebody make a fool out of themselves. It may appear I was setting you up with weak questions. That is exactly what I did.

            Lets look at some of the qualifications out of your report:
            “these findings do not provide a basis for assessing the effectiveness of TIV against more severe illness out-comes or against influenza B or influenza A (H1N1), nor do they assess the effectiveness of live attenuated influenza vac-cine (LAIV).”

            “Estimates of vaccine effectiveness generally are lower against ILI than against laboratory-confirmed influenza”

            “The findings in this report are subject to at least five limitations. First, study participants were not selected at random to receive influenza vaccination, and persons with greater
            patient exposure and possibly greater exposure to influenza viruses were more likely to be vaccinated. Second, a greater percentage of persons aged >50 years and persons with one or more conditions associated with increased risk for influenza-related complications were vaccinated. Third, other biases, including participation in the study and reporting illness based on vaccination, might have occurred. Such biases and other differences between the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups are very likely to have occurred, given the disparities noted. Fourth, influenza vaccination and illnesses were self-reported. Finally, the sample size might not have been large enough to detect vaccine effectiveness against ILI, particularly because a large proportion of the respondents were vaccinated.”

            You really should read this concerning the accuracy of your data:
            http://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/vaccination/effectiveness-studies.htm

            As for my data, it came from here:
            http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5331a1.htm

            This page and the reports in those footnotes had numbers all over the place. I wasn’t going to defend this numbers because of the pre-2004 issues. All 2003-04 estimates are crap. I preferred to watch you be a jerk as you promoted your bad data, which you did. It was very entertaining.

            Below is a listing of the average adjusted effectiveness of all years since, after they set up the U.S. Flu Vaccine Effectiveness Network. Let’s see if you can make an even bigger fool out of yourself with GOOD data.

          • D

            DavidQNov 3, 2015 at 3:48 pm

            You didn’t seem to have a problem with the source when you used it to try (unsuccessfully) to defend your position.
            And then when you were shown the error in your ways, all of a sudden the source was unreliable. Really? That’s a little sophomoric. And could even be part of your own little “nirvana fallacy” life in which you live.
            My source was and is rock solid.
            Your sources…not so much.
            The first one doesn’t even mention 2003/04 – it starts in 2004/05 where the flu vaccine is listed at 10% effective.
            The second source starts with the following:
            “The 2003–04 influenza season was characterized by the early onset of influenza activity, reports of severe illness, particularly in children, and predominant circulation of an influenza A (H3N2) virus strain that was antigenically different from the influenza A (H3N2) vaccine strain (1).”
            In other words, we got the wrong virus in the vaccine.
            So, they do try and spin the data so it looks like the vaccine worked. But in reality it didn’t really.
            Again, good try. better luck next time.

          • J

            JustthefactsNov 3, 2015 at 4:45 pm

            When did i ever defend any position? I threw out a few numbers from a bad study and told you to find out for yourself. You then did a bad job of research and went right after that 2003-04 data and promoted it as good and true. You still don’t get it. I didn’t present the CDC data to you becuase IT WAS BAD DATA. I’m not going to stand behind data that the CDC says is bad but that has never stopped an amateur anti-vaxxer like you.

            You think your “source was and is rock solid” but the problem is that the authors and the CDC both say very clearly it is not. You reading and comprehension problems continues in spades.

            You presented the known bad 2003-04 data and you are proud of it. Good for you. It’s a tradition of anti-vaxxers to embrace bad data. What makes this really funny is I sent you good data showing low effectiveness on 2004-05 and 2014-15 but YOU have to keep married to your 2003 data because you can never be wrong. Don’t worry, little camper, you will grow up one day and learn how to handle mistakes.

            Now, Please continue about how that 2003-04 data is “rock solid” and both the authors and the CDC are wrong…….Please ……Continue. Whatever you do, don’t look at the good data that just may support your point (whatever that is).

          • A

            AutismDaddJun 11, 2017 at 9:49 am

            Prove it….YOU CAN’T.

        • K

          KatiaOct 30, 2015 at 7:54 am

          Of course not every vaccine works equally well for everyone. We are after all, all different, even immunologically. What an idiot statement!

          Reply
          • A

            alOct 30, 2015 at 8:17 am

            Can you respond to any comment without calling someone a name?

          • K

            KatiaOct 30, 2015 at 8:30 am

            The statement was idiotic. I did not call you a name!

          • A

            AutismDaddJun 11, 2017 at 9:42 am

            In other words DUH from FalseAngel

          • A

            AndreaOct 30, 2015 at 10:43 am

            That would be a “no”.

          • D

            David QuartellOct 30, 2015 at 10:05 am

            How about addressing the statement instead of debasing yourself by hurling insults.

            If, as you say, everyone is different, then why not tailor vaccine administration to individuals based on age / weight / BMI and specific needs like compounding pharmacists do with regularity for hormone replacement?

          • K

            KatiaOct 30, 2015 at 10:31 am

            Oh, you pro-vaxers are just so mean, waa, waa, waa. How about you guys quit calling provaxers baby killers, shills, accusing us of being paid by pharmaceutical companies, yada, yada?
            http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2015/01/27/quoth-katie-tietje-pro-vaxers-are-so-mean/

            First of all, many vaccines are “tailored” to age. You can’t give MMR or chickenpox before 1 year of age b/c a baby may still have maternal antibodies. (You can give it at 6 months in an epidemic situation, but that dose doesn’t count as a dose in the series.) Hepatitis A is not licensed for kids under a year. (I’m not sure why. Cue the anti-vaxers, “Ha, ha, something you don’t know about vaccines. You’re a shill, a baby killer, a paid Big Pharma plant, etc.) You don’t give DTaP to people over 7, b/c at that age, they have more severe reactions. (AV: Oh, so you give it to innocent babies instead you babykiller, shill, etc.) Likewise, back in the day when we gave OPV, it was not to be given to adults, as there is more risk of VAPP in adults. (Not that that’s changed, we just don’t use OPV in this country any more.) Lots of vaccines have age recommendations. Influenza vaccine injection has a smaller dose for kids under 3. Hepatitis B vaccine has a smaller dose for people 18 and under. Weight and BMI have nothing to do with vaccine doses. Certain people do respond better/worse to different vaccines, depending on my idiosyncratic factors. Just yesterday, a news release said that people over 65 on statin drugs get less immunity with flu vaccine.

          • D

            David QuartellOct 30, 2015 at 5:07 pm

            I never called anyone a name and find it offensive that you would presume that I would debase myself with that type of behavior. You started with the insolence, and continue to perpetuate it. I guess if that makes you feel like you’re “winning” against someone who doesn’t think this is a competition, then I should likely expect continued contempt from you.

            What you incorrectly describe as “recommendations” and “vaccine tailoring to age” is, in reality, dosing requirements based on data collected in Phase 1, and to some degree, phase 2 of clinical drug trials. These “age related tailoring” limitations were put in place due to non-response and negative outcomes seen in clinical trials. As you are probably aware the first 2 phases of clinical trials help determine safety and effective dosage ranges for drugs/ treatments that are given to increasing larger groups of people. These dosage recommendations are not used to tailor drug use or even any vaccine administration. The tailoring is done post clinical trials through clinical experience and meta analysis of the treatment outcome data. Examples of effective tailored programs can be seen in the fields of oncology (chemo, radiation, etc), endocrinology (diabetes, HRT, etc), immunology (MRSA, etc), cardiology (anticoagulants, statins, etc), and many other disciplines. Why not in vaccination administration? And before you call this a far fetched idea, you could examine how drug tailoring for personalized medicine is being researched at Perdue’s School of Chemical Engineering, among others.

            And why would vaccines be so special that weight / BSA would have nothing to do with dosage. Even tylenol dosage for pediatrics is based on weight.
            Correction – I meant BSA instead of BMI in my last post regarding dosage.

          • K

            KatiaOct 30, 2015 at 7:44 pm

            Never called me a name? You’re calling me “insolent” right above! Frankly, I am a big girl and I don’t care; I’ve been called far worse from your crew. Tell them to clean up their own house, first, K? This board can get a bit snarky. Deal.

            If you think there are mistakes in vaccine administration now, and there are, can you imagine what it would be like if you had to calculate every dose, every time? Then there could be no single use vials, either. They would all have to be drawn up from multi-dose vials with some kind of preservative in it, or the vaccine would get contaminated. I don’t see what your issue is, really. These vaccines are carefully studied.

          • D

            David QuartellOct 30, 2015 at 9:47 pm

            I didnt call you a name. I wrote that you started with the insolence, defined as “disrespectful behavior.” I merely pointed out a fact.
            And I dont have “a crew.” I am nobody’s keeper and I am not responsible for anyone else’s posts.
            My issue was just stated by you. There are mistakes in vaccine administration, and manufacture, and VAERS, and especially the financial side of the equation.
            What I would like is the prudent use of vaccines – starting with mass compulsory vaccination of every member of our populace with influenza and chicken pox without regard to overall health or need.
            Have you ever wondered why dogs need vaccines yearly? Ask a vet and they may tell you it is because they cannot “rely on pet owners to remember so lets do it yearly” or the other reason of “if they didnt have to come yearly, I might not see them again.”
            The thought process is different for humans, but not much. The initial argument for the chicken pox vaccine was never to reduce death (which was very limited to begin with) but to reduce lost gross domestic production. Each time a child gets sick, an adult / parent has to leave the workforce for 10-14 days to care for the sick child. At 4 million cases per year, that is nearly 50 million lost work days per year. With GDP at $67 per hour in the US in 2013, that loss leads to $3.3 billion dollar expense for the country. If, instead of the loss, it could be turned into a profit. A 2 dose series ($145) for every new child at a 95% compliance rate times 4 million newborns per year = creation of a $580 million market. Plus the new “non loss” of GDP, it turns into a nearly $4 billion dollar bump to GDP. It was never about saving lives. Measles. Yes. Mumps, Polio, Small Pox. Yes. yes. yes. They all save lives and prevent suffering. Just because 1 vaccine is good, it doesnt mean they all are good.
            There are good and bad teachers, cops, parents, doctors, etc. Same with vaccines.

          • K

            KatiaOct 30, 2015 at 10:04 pm

            None of the vaccines on the market today are “bad”. I love how you anti-vaxers think something like 100 deaths a year due to disease is nothing, as in the case of chickenpox, but think the extremely, vanishingly rare chance of a serious reaction to a vaccine is way too much to risk!

            Maybe, since you’re such an avid researcher, you could provide a cite for this screed against the chickenpox vaccine.

          • R

            Reality022Oct 30, 2015 at 10:22 pm

            I wonder if D. Quartell is related to Alain Couvier.
            I also wonder how poor little Kyesha is getting on now that SB277 is law.

          • K

            KatiaOct 30, 2015 at 10:57 pm

            She’s probably in school and doing fine. I’m sure she got in provisionally, as that hasn’t changed under SB277 (which hasn’t gone into effect yet anyway), and her records have been found. I’m also sure she can get her vaccines for free under Vaccines for Children.

          • K

            KatiaOct 31, 2015 at 8:58 am

          • R

            Reality022Oct 31, 2015 at 3:52 pm

            Ah!
            That would explain why he’s thick as a plank.

          • M

            Mike StevensNov 1, 2015 at 5:03 pm

            I particularly like the “subluxation” sign behind him.
            Pity for him that they don’t exist.

            “Growing up I never seriously considered any career other than as a medical doctor.”
            Phew! That was a close one for the medical profession.

          • J

            JustthefactsNov 2, 2015 at 1:28 pm

            Why is this not a surprise!!

          • D

            David QuartellOct 30, 2015 at 10:40 pm

            It is becoming a bit tiresome to continue to present the research, but here it goes again…
            Some of my conflict is associated from the fact that I think the varicella vaccine is not needed because the “absolute benefit” is minimal. But there is another reason I think it should be avoided: negative effects as reported through VAERS. if you are unfamiliar with VAERS, you should read their publications. One of the drawbacks to the US Dept of HHS VAERS reporting system is that it relies on self reporting, or in other words, passive collection of date. This typically results in under reporting.

            From 1995-2005 the incidence of negative effects associated with the varicella vaccine were as follows:
            11 per 100,000 shots resulted in fever
            1.8 per 100,000 shots resulted in seizures
            2.1 per 100,000 shots resulted in shingles
            39 meningitis (.1 per 100,000)
            60 deaths (.1 per 100,000)

            Additionally, there are findings that getting chicken pox helps prevent brain tumors (glioma).

            Like I said before, for me, the risk certainly out weighs the benefit.

          • K

            KatiaOct 30, 2015 at 10:55 pm

            “If you are unfamiliar with VAERS”. Yes, David, I’m familiar with it. I worked in immunizations for about 35 years of my 45 year nursing career which ended in August, including the last 26 years solid. I’m familiar with VAERS. I was “present at the creation” so to speak. Are you familiar with their statement that no causation is implied by their reports? Didn’t think so. And apparently your “research” didn’t result in your learning that health care providers are REQUIRED to report adverse events when they are aware of them. It’s not just self-reoporting. And as usual, you present no links for this “research” such as this glioma stuff.

          • D

            David QuartellOct 31, 2015 at 1:17 pm

            VAERS discussion in a peer reviewed journal discussing negative outcomes of the varicella vaccine.
            http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/197/Supplement_2/S170.full.pdf
            And I am fully aware of the attempted denial of any causation associated with vaccine injury through the the VAERS. That’s the whole point. The vaccine industry readily promotes good news and hides negative data from vaccine use to propagate the continued use of vaccines – just like any other business or organization. However this one is associated with outcomes that are life or death. And the peer reviewed journals do absolutely confirm negative outcomes. No where does it state that there is no causation implied in the study.
            And, because you had been in the field for 35 years I am sure you remember that although reporting is required, there are an abundant number of reports regarding how under reporting in the VAERS system is well documented. https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/index
            Lastly, unless your dwelling is under a rock, all of these studies are easily accessible and well known. Including the glioma findings. http://m.aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/161/10/929.short
            I don’t mind an educated debate but how about some quid pro quo.
            Where are your findings that shows the VAERS statement of “no implied causation in their reports?”
            And the source of your statement that the VAERS “isn’t just self reporting.”
            I will await your sources.

          • K

            KatiaOct 31, 2015 at 1:34 pm

            Lying liars lie lots.

            “And I am fully aware of the attempted denial of any causation associated with vaccine injury through the the VAERS.”

            “Are all adverse events reported to VAERS caused by vaccines?

            *******No.****** VAERS receives reports of many adverse
            events that occur after vaccination. Some occur coincidentally following vaccination, while others may be caused by vaccination. Studies help determine if a vaccine really caused an adverse event. *****Just because an adverse event happened after a person received a vaccine does not mean the vaccine caused the adverse event.***** Other factors, such as the person’s medical history and other medicines the person took near the
            time of the vaccination, may have caused the adverse event. It is
            important to remember that many adverse events reported to VAERS may notbe caused by vaccines. *****Although VAERS can rarely provide definitive evidence of causal associations between vaccines and particular risks*****, its unique role as a national spontaneous reporting system enables the early detection of signals that can then be more rigorously investigated.” https://vaers.hhs.gov/about/faqs
            *****Emphasis mine*****
            From the VAERS webpage, you’ll note.

          • D

            David QuartellOct 31, 2015 at 2:10 pm

            So, then in answer to my question regarding your statement that “NO CAUSATION IS IMPLIED” (emphasis mine) would you say that is a bit misleading? Especially after reading your reposting of the content of the VAERS information.
            Also, were you able to find any sources that supported your statement that the VAERS wasn’t a purely voluntary “SELF REPORTING” ( again emphasis mine) system?
            And lastly did you read the research about “THIS GLIOMA STUFF?” (Lastly emphasis mine)

            I await your humble pie reply.

          • K

            KatiaOct 31, 2015 at 2:22 pm

            You’ll never get it for that stuff.
            1. No, it is not a bit misleading to say that VAERS says no causation is implied, because that’s what they say, on their website.

            2. Here it is: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/hcproviders/reportingadverseevents.html

            “Healthcare providers are *******required******* by law to report:

            Any adverse event listed by the vaccine manufacturer as a contraindication to further doses of the vaccine

            Any adverse event listed in the VAERS Table of Reportable Events Following Vaccination that occurs within the specified time period after vaccination

            Healthcare providers are encouraged to report:

            Any adverse event that occurs after the administration of a vaccine
            licensed in the United States, whether or not it is clear that a vaccine
            caused the adverse event

            Vaccine administration errors”

            3. Yes. I replied above. It would seem that having had the vaccine would provide the protective anitbodies needed, if indeed they are protective. Has any more research been done on this in the past 10 years? Or is this one of these research projects that has never been duplicated?

          • D

            David QuartellOct 31, 2015 at 2:58 pm

            Again, please provide the documentation that supports your statements.
            I looked at your reference and the first statement was:
            “Because it is a passive surveillance system, VAERS relies on receiving reports from healthcare providers in the event that there are any health problems occur after vaccination.”
            And just because it’s a law doesn’t mean it’s always followed. Just ask the 1.5 million people in the criminal system.
            Also, I didn’t see anywhere the statement “no causation is implied.”
            Maybe you could be more specific as to where you sourced this statement.
            And lastly, yes there are other studies regarding the glioma varicella connection.

            Please, either source your statements or cease the insistence of sticking to your guns.

          • K

            KatiaOct 31, 2015 at 2:58 pm

            H*ll, you didn’t even read the part I quoted.

          • D

            David QuartellOct 31, 2015 at 3:05 pm

            I did. And it doesn’t support your position. Retread it closely and compare it to your claim.

          • K

            KatiaOct 31, 2015 at 3:11 pm

            Quit badgering me about this. You’re wrong and you can’t stand it.

          • D

            David QuartellOct 31, 2015 at 6:40 pm

            If you continue to post emotionally based statements as fact and then call me names because I call you out on your fallacies, where am I wrong.
            No I get it. I’m wrong because only a fool argues with a fool.
            Thank you for reminding me.

          • D

            David QuartellOct 31, 2015 at 3:04 pm

            I did and it doesn’t support your opinion.

          • K

            KatiaOct 31, 2015 at 3:06 pm

            1. Isn’t the VAERS website good enough for you, jagoff? (Since you continue to insult me, I figure turnabout is fair play.)
            2. So first you asked me to prove it was required for HCPs to report to VAERS. Now, you’re claiming they’re breaking the law by not. Good stuff.
            3. I freaking sourced it from the VAERS website as I have said several times.
            4. Well, post these studies then.

          • D

            David QuartellOct 31, 2015 at 6:37 pm

            Ok. I now understand. You are confusing the mere reporting of an event with the investigatory findings of the event.
            And I am not suggesting that doctors are willingly breaking the law….however I know several medical doctors who are currently serving time in federal country clubs for breaking the law. And if you were a nurse I am sure you may have seen a doctor one time chart improperly. It happens. And there is the little bit of documentation on your beloved VAERS website where they explain how often events are underreported. But even though that is on your beloved VAERS site, you ignore it because it doesn’t conform with your held fast views.
            I find it extremely tedious spending time trying to discuss with someone who is both insulting when they are proved wrong and dogmatically rooted when presented with unchallengeable facts.
            Again the sources you referenced have no ability to support your position.
            And furthermore if you were as well versed as you imply, you could direct your own research into finding those require sources.
            You could also find the glioma studies.

          • K

            KatiaOct 31, 2015 at 6:42 pm

            I haven’t been proven wrong, you have. You’re the one making these ludicrous claims that a report to VAERS is proof positive that a vaccine injury occurred.

            You brought up the glioma issue, it is up to YOU to support it, not up to me to do the research for you.

            How the H would VAERS know how many events are under-reported? They also say that serious events are more likely to be reported than non-serious events.

          • D

            David QuartellOct 31, 2015 at 6:46 pm

            Thank you. I finally understand. You only stop when you feel like you win.
            So…..
            Good luck with that approach.
            I crown you the winner.

          • L

            lynnebNov 1, 2015 at 9:07 am

            You brought the claim about gliomas. YOU support it. That’s how that works.

            Bringing improbable claims and then demanding that other people do all the work to prove it, that’s not how that works.

            I don’t blame Katia for being fed up with you.

          • D

            David QuartellNov 1, 2015 at 9:59 am

            I did support it. With Speer reviewed published study.
            If you were keeping up with the discussion you would have seen that Katie was asking for additional studies and the current status of the glioma studies. I suggested she could look up the answer to her own questions.
            But the connection is clear. Look at previous posts.

          • K

            KatiaNov 1, 2015 at 11:23 am

            Thank you, and I agree with your post.

          • J

            joeNov 2, 2015 at 9:46 pm

            As i said in an earlier post, NOBODY knows what causes brain tumors, i had chicken pox and i also have a brain tumor, i also have a flu shot every year, perhaps the flu shot gave me my brain tumor, must have been the aluminium in my measles shot when i was a child,WRONG.

          • D

            David QuartellNov 3, 2015 at 4:31 am

            That is sad u have a brain tumor.

          • J

            joeNov 3, 2015 at 1:26 pm

            Yes it is sad, but what is sadder is people on forums pretending to know something about medicine when in fact they dont, for example, linking chicken pox with brain tumors, really? I can assure you and everybody on this forum that NOBODY yes NOBODY knows what causes brain tumors.If anyone here thinks they know what causes brain tumors, my brain surgeon would like to hear from you.

          • D

            DavidQNov 3, 2015 at 1:40 pm

            Even sadder is someone who can’t read. There is more than enough scientific data that shows a potential link between chickenpox infection and a decrease in glioma occurrence. If you choose not to believe it that’s up to you.

          • J

            joeNov 3, 2015 at 9:14 pm

            Supply a link to back you up please

          • L

            lynnebNov 1, 2015 at 9:04 am

            David, from the VAERS Data page (https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/index) :

            “Guide to Interpreting VAERS Case Report Information

            When evaluating data from VAERS, it is important to note that for any
            reported event, no cause-and-effect relationship has been established.
            Reports of all possible associations between vaccines and adverse events
            (possible side effects) are filed in VAERS. Therefore, VAERS collects
            data on any adverse event following vaccination, be it coincidental or
            truly caused by a vaccine. The report of an adverse event to VAERS is
            not documentation that a vaccine caused the event.”

            This is unambiguous.

          • D

            David QuartellNov 1, 2015 at 9:56 am

            This would be an appropriate response if I was interpreting raw VAERS data. But the documentation in discussion Was Not relating to VAERS case reports or raw data. It was based on findings in a peer reviewed journal. Please review the posts to catch up on the discussion.

          • K

            KatiaNov 1, 2015 at 11:33 am

            I think he’s on drugs or something; can’t see what’s actually in print.

          • A

            AutismDaddJun 11, 2017 at 9:45 am

            The same tactic is used by the NVICP. Even cases of award ARE NOT caused by vaccines according to these vaccine experts who couldn’t find a connection if it was shoved in their face.

          • K

            KatiaOct 31, 2015 at 2:05 pm

            The abstract of that ten year old article about glioma doesn’t say what the results were. They said “(w)hether viruses or immunologic factors might cause or prevent human brain cancer is of interest.” They reported on one study that showed that people with glioma had less history of chickenpox disease and antibodies to it. When a person is vaccinated, they develop antibodies, so this article is useless in proving your point.

          • D

            David QuartellOct 31, 2015 at 2:20 pm

            Did you actually read the research or just skim the abstract?
            Because you probably missed the statement:
            “To conclude, [glioma] cases were less likely than controls to report a history of chickenpox, and they also have lower levels of immunoglobulin G to varicella-zoster virus.” In other words, patients with a chicken pox history and higher concentrations of varicella IgG were less likely to get the tumor.
            Even though the article is sooooo old (2004. Really??), it stands up to solid scrutiny.
            Again….Facts 1. Fiction 0.

          • K

            KatiaOct 31, 2015 at 2:23 pm

            You get antibodies from the vaccine. Of course, these patients were adults, so likely never had the vaccine. It had only been out 9 years at the time. Has it been duplicated? Is this accepted theory today?

          • D

            David QuartellOct 31, 2015 at 3:02 pm

            As you are likely aware the immunoglobulin response to vaccine versus natural exposure is quite different.
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/6286790/
            As for your follow up, I am sure you can do the research and spare me the tediousness of doing it for you.

          • J

            joeNov 2, 2015 at 9:36 pm

            Actually according to my brain surgeon ( dr Jerry Day ) NOBODY knows what causes brain tumors.

          • A

            AutismDaddJun 11, 2017 at 9:41 am

            How naive to think reporting is done. Besides VAERS has a disclaimer that is in place to turn evidence into non-evidence.

          • J

            joeNov 2, 2015 at 9:32 pm

            “There are findings that getting chicken pox helps prevent brain tumors”Are you for real?please supply link to this statement, because i had chicken pox and now i am suffering from a brain tumor.

          • D

            David QuartellNov 3, 2015 at 4:28 am

            The original source is contained in a prior post.
            Here is another.
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/22493342/
            You are probably aware that not all brain rumors are gliomas. And not all preventative actions work….kind of like vaccines.

          • J

            joeNov 3, 2015 at 1:45 pm

            I know all about brain tumors, having chicken pox does NOT lessen the chance of having a brain tumor, your link describes using modified chicken pox to fight the tumor, not preventing getting a tumor. Dukes university hospital is using a modified polio virus to fight gliomas with great success but having polio will not stop you from getting a brain tumor.

          • D

            DavidQNov 3, 2015 at 3:59 pm

            Sorry. Here’s a more current link. This isn’t my study or my findings but the link seems to be there.
            http://www.oapublishinglondon.com/article/1371

          • J

            joeNov 3, 2015 at 9:27 pm

            I read your link,did you? this is the conclusion of that paper–“However, several gaps in knowledge, outlined
            above, still need to be filled before definitive conclusions can be drawn about this potentially complex relationship”— in other words nothing has been proven.

          • M

            Mike StevensOct 30, 2015 at 7:27 pm

            See Katia’s comprehensive response to this trope below.
            Also, I’d emphasise that the “weight” issue is rather moot most of the time.
            As you know, vaccines usually consist of small doses of antigen which then stimulate a vigorous host response. The issue of when is the best time to rechallenge with a booster is far more relevant.

          • D

            David QuartellOct 30, 2015 at 9:22 pm

            I certainly dont think weight is a moot issue. see post below that specifically addresses this “moot” issue.

          • M

            Mike StevensOct 31, 2015 at 7:33 pm

            But David, you didn’t specifically address the “weight” issue. You just gave your opinion that you couldn’t see why weight would not be an issue.

            You seem to think that vaccines are like other medicines that have a pharmacological dose-response relationship. No, I take that back, you DO think that vaccines are like other medicines. Why else would you compare their use to therapies like tylenol with its fixed dose response?

            To recap, vaccines are designed to provide the host immune system with an immunogenic challenge. That will result in a host response which is most of the time sufficient to provide future protection against challenge with the natural, wild type infection. The nature of the immune response is not follow some form of a dose response curve.
            That is why the same (usually small and safe-tested) quantity of immunogen can often be used to stimulate an adequate host response whether that host weighs 20Kg or 60Kg.

            I am not saying all vaccines are like that, but most are, and the “weight” issue for them is certainly a moot one, and I find it is frequently used by antivaxers by way of distraction from the facts and in facile strawman argument.

          • D

            David QuartellOct 31, 2015 at 7:56 pm

            Why the weight? Simply the fact the vaccines contain an adjuvant that needs to be cleared by the body. The adjuvant is an immune stimulant and has the potential to stimulate an unwanted immune response to other antigens that may be present at the same time, whether they are exogenous, endogenous, or even self, creating and autoimmune response.
            Because a “standard” amount of adjuvant is used for many vaccine dosages, there is a greater potential for overload to individuals who weigh in the lower 5% of growth charts.
            This is one of the reasons for a strong weight argument.
            And why the need for name calling?

          • A

            AutismDaddJun 11, 2017 at 9:35 am

            What? Can you supply the science?

    • K

      KatiaOct 30, 2015 at 7:49 am

      You upvoted your own post? That’s not exactly Kosher, y’know? You cut and pasted this, you should give credit.

      Reply
      • G

        gracedsOct 31, 2015 at 12:14 pm

        Cut and paste -phobia.

        Reply
        • P

          ProponentOct 31, 2015 at 12:19 pm

          Obsessive-Compulsive Repetitive Post Disorder (OCRPD).

          Reply
        • K

          KatiaOct 31, 2015 at 2:05 pm

          ???

          Reply
    • K

      KatiaOct 30, 2015 at 7:53 am

      RE: flu. Most pediatric deaths, in fact about 90% of them, are to UNimmunized kids. (Pediatric deaths are the only ones that are reportable.)

      Re: HPV. The vaccine gives better immunity in the pre-teen years than later on. What better time to vaccinate kids, too, before they become at risk. After is a little late.

      Reply
      • D

        David QuartellOct 30, 2015 at 12:07 pm

        Headlines grab emotions. Data tells the story. If you turly read the CDC report with the “90%” headline, and then did some digging around you would find the actual protective effect of the influenza vaccine for pediatric aged patients.

        Let’s start with some undisputed data, current as of March 23, 2013 when the CDC released the “90%” headline. (some numbers may be approximations but are within 1%)

        US pediatric population in 2012-2013 flu season: 72.4 million
        US pediatric population vaccinated in 2012 – 03: 40.5 million
        US pediatric population UNvaccinated in 2012 – 03: 32.0 million

        Total pediatric deaths to date: 105 (although 61 occurred in children who were at high risk of developing serious flu-related complications, this stat was ignored for this calculation)

        Deaths of vaccinated individuals: 10
        Deaths of Unvaccinated individuals: 95

        Relative protective value of the vaccine: 80% less likely to die when vaccinated (this just compares deaths)

        Absolute protective value:
        % of vaccinated people who died: .00002% mortality
        % of uncaccinated people who died: .00003% mortality

        By analyzing this data, we come to the scientific conclusion that the vaccine made an individual .00001% more likely to avoid death during the 12/13 season.

        According to the CDC the 2012/13 flu vaccine was found to be about 60 percent effective in preventing medically attended influenza illness.

        With odds like that, I’ll take my chances and avoid the shot.

        Reply
        • K

          KatiaOct 30, 2015 at 12:54 pm

          Move those goalposts! You should see if you could get on with the Rapids-they could use all the help they can get!

          As you see, the mortality for the unvaxed is 50% higher than for the vaxed. You loving parents who don’t want to vaccinate their kids!

          Reply
          • D

            David QuartellOct 30, 2015 at 5:35 pm

            Sorry about not including the number of flu cases. We were just discussing mortality. But you could probably look them up if you are interested, however not every case is reported as strictly as the deaths are reported.
            I am not sure what you mean by move the goal posts. The data tells the story. Yes the vaccine provided a relative protection that is measured quite well. But the relative protection is inconsequential to the absolute protection value.

            Let me explain it in terms of a chemotherapy treatment. Pretend someone with cancer has surgery and the tumor is successfully removed. Then the oncologist recommends a difficult course of chemotherapy treatment that reduces the chance of the cancer coming back by 50%. Even though there are side effects, a 50% protection sounds great. But this is a relative “50%” protection. So if the chance of the cancer coming back was 100% (1 out of 1), then the relative protection and the absolute protection would be the same. But what if the cancer only returns 2 out of 100? The relative rate of 50% means that only 1 in 100 would have the cancer come back instead of 2 in 100. What about if it were 2 in 10,000? Or like with the 2012/13 flu season where influenza was fatal for at a rate of 1 per 700,000?

            There is no reason to change any of the criteria as you suggest. Maybe change of viewpoint?

          • M

            Mike StevensOct 30, 2015 at 7:46 pm

            Your data “tell a story”, but only the one you want people to hear.

            Of course with very few pediatric deaths from influenza the absolute risks of dying are pretty tiny. But the point is that the relative risk of death if your child is unvaccinated and gets flu is dramatically elevated.

            If you want to talk about absolute risks, then why not extrapolate from the supposed risks from the vaccine?

            US pediatric population vaccinated in 2012 – 03: 40.5 million.
            So the absolute risk of death from vaccination against flu would appear to be around 0.00000025%, and that is using VAERS data.

            So getting vaccinated is the rational action to take, since it will reduce the absolute risk of death.

          • D

            David QuartellOct 30, 2015 at 9:16 pm

            Yes. You are correct. The vaccine reduces the absolute risk of death. A very very very little minuscule amount. But yes, a benefit is present. Other things present benefit too.
            Wearing a bulletproof vest in school. Helps if there is a school shooter. Why dont we recommend that?
            Or wearing a helmet all day long. Protects from most falls.
            Or wear a life vest every time you swim. Helps prevent drowning.
            Dont go to concerts to prevent trampling.
            Avoid driving too because of the chance of death.

            At a certain point, we all have to make a choice and decide how we want to live our life. Are you a bungie jumper, an agorophobic, or somewhere in between.

            We know that regular dental cleaning increases life span (up to 7 years). Why isnt that government mandated?
            We know that excessive sugar causes disease (diabetes reduces life span 5+ years). Why isnt an intake limit government mandated?

            Then why would a vaccine that has such an insignificant “absolute value benefit” by increasing life span 17 hours be government mandated?
            It just doesnt add up.

          • M

            Mike StevensOct 31, 2015 at 7:49 pm

            “Yes. You are correct. The vaccine reduces the absolute risk of death. A
            very very very little minuscule amount. But yes, a benefit is present.
            Other things present benefit too.
            Wearing a bulletproof vest in school. Helps if there is a school shooter. Why dont we recommend that?”

            I wondered how long it would be before you trotted out some fallacious argument.

            Firstly, if deaths are preventable, then we should as a society strive to do that, particularly if it is achievable simply and with virtually no risk.
            Secondly, your comparison to other rare causes of death is entirely specious. The point is that without vaccination, virtually every child will get chickenpox. That means for all of them an unpleasant period of both systemic and local symptoms, for a large proportion of them the risk of subsequent shingles, for a small proportion complications which are serious and rarely (yes, I agree rarely) fatal. And then there are the other accepted indirect costs such as the impact on missed education, the impact of parents missing work to care for their child etc.

            Your facile analogy to school shooters would be valid only if there was a certainty that nearly every child would be injured by a gunman, with all of them having to take a week off let the minor injury heal, but with a small proportion of them ending up in hospital with severe complications and a very small number dying. If that were the case, and parents had the option to prevent those consequences by giving their child a one-off equivalent of a bullet proof vest, then they’d be queuing up to get them.

          • D

            David QuartellOct 31, 2015 at 8:12 pm

            You proved your own argument false during your reply.
            First you said “virtually no risk” then followed with “complications that are serious.”
            That is a much better example of a fallacious argument than any that you suggested I made.
            There is risk. And it is more risk than I care to take.
            And your suggestion that shingles incidence will be reduced later in life, is just that, a suggestion. There are some studies that suggest a link but so far there has not been a published study proving the link.

          • M

            Mike StevensOct 31, 2015 at 8:17 pm

            “You proved your own argument false during your reply.
            First you said “virtually no risk” then followed with “complications that are serious.””

            You misunderstand.
            The vaccine poses “virtually no risk”.
            The disease (chickenpox) can have “complications that are serious”.

            Please keep up.

            “There is risk. And it is more risk than I care to take.”
            Please tell us what you think the “risk” is from varicella vaccine, and explain why this risk is worse than the risk from varicella.

          • D

            David QuartellOct 31, 2015 at 8:24 pm

            Really, no risk?
            Seizures, meningitis, death, fever?
            If that was your child would you consider that virtually no risk?
            Doubtful.

          • M

            Mike StevensOct 31, 2015 at 8:29 pm

            You’ll have to explain this to us David so we can all understand.

            Your position is that natural varicella poses such a tiny risk as to be entirely inconsequential, right?

            Yet you regard the risk from the vaccine, which are orders of magnitude lower than the risks from the disease, to be so great that it is “more risk than you care to take”.

            Please explain your thinking on this, as I am struggling with your logic here, and I am sure others are too.

          • D

            David QuartellNov 1, 2015 at 3:28 am

            Mike,
            I will try to be as simple as possible to try and end this discussion.
            Whe vaccine risk is discussed there are two main considerations that are not typically addressed:
            Relative vs absolute risk, and the health of the individual receiving the vaccine.
            I have already established the first point: that the absolute risk of an infection with chicken pox vs the protection from a pox shot affords minuscule absolute protection, in terms of preventing death and other severe sequella.
            The second point regards the health of the individual. Overall health plays the largest and most silent role in vaccine administration. Why can an NFL running back take 20 hits on a Sunday and an elderly man fractures a hip from a fall from a chair? Because of their overall health status and physical conditioning. Upon examining the morbidly and mortality findings of chicken pox prevaccine (you can easily find this data) you will see that as overall health status is lower, incidence of negative sequella becomes higher.
            In light of this, I do not subscribe to the “cookie cutter” idea that each individual has the same 99,99984% chance of surviving an attack of the pox. The data clearly shows that the weaker individual has a lower chance of survival, therefore skewing the data. This data also then suggests the inverse, that the stronger individual has a better survival chance.
            So then the decision comes down to the risk of unnaturally introducing a known an antigen (natural varicella exposure is mucosal and vaccine acquired is transdermal – this induses a very different immunoglobulin response). And then making that introduction with a cocktail of known toxic substances.
            After proper consideration, this is a greater risk than I care to take.

          • M

            Mike StevensNov 1, 2015 at 4:35 pm

            “I will try to be as simple as possible to try and end this discussion.”
            The discussion won’t end until you detail why you suppose the risks from the varicella vaccine outweigh the risks from natural varicella. We have discussed these risks above, and since the significant risks of vaccination are virtually nil, and the significant risks from varicella are not, I cannot accept you are thinking rationally.

            “…introduction with a cocktail of known toxic substances.”
            Ah, you are deploying the “toxin gambit”. Yet more fallacious logic.

          • D

            David QuartellNov 1, 2015 at 5:00 pm

            Let me take a different approach, because try as I might, it has become readily apparent that I have been unable to communicate effectively. Maybe it has been my approach and if that is the case, I ma sorry.
            So let’s start over.
            We’ll go from didactic to Socratic.
            Here are 2 questions for you. And you can ask me 2 in return and o will answer as many as you answer.

            Have there EVER been any serious negative effects from a varicella vaccine?

            Do the ingredients contained within the vaccine pose ANY potential toxicity risk to ANY potential human?

          • M

            Mike StevensNov 1, 2015 at 5:17 pm

            I’m happy to answer your questions without necessarily requiring reciprocal responses from you.

            1. Have there EVER been any serious negative effects from a varicella vaccine?…..Yes. Extremely rare, but sure, yeah.
            2. Do the ingredients contained within the vaccine pose ANY potential toxicity risk to ANY potential human?….”Any” risk to “any” human? ….Probably, yes.

            The contexts you are missing here are those of risk benefit, and of relative risk.
            The benefits of vaccination outweigh the harms, and the risk from the disease is much greater than the risk from the vaccine.

            That is all we need to know in order to make the rational decision that vaccination is a good choice as opposed to the alternative of being unvaccinated and getting disease (which all humans would do with chickenpox).

            PS: What is a “potential human”? Are you talking about gonadogenesis, or was that some form of typo?

          • D

            David QuartellNov 1, 2015 at 5:32 pm

            Typo. Should have been “any potential human subject.”

            I understand it is rational for you to chose the the vaccine but give me the opportunity to ask 2 additional questions.
            I appreciate the qualifying answers.

            Does the individual’s overall constitution / health help to determine the chance of contracting and recovering from an infection?

            As all humans are infinitely different, is it possible that there are some individuals that are more sensitive than others to the toxins in a vaccine?

          • D

            Derp TurtleJun 7, 2017 at 6:50 am

            Given that there are zero toxins in vaccines of any sort…irrelevant. Toxins are a specific thing.

          • D

            DavidQJun 7, 2017 at 9:45 am

            Thank’s for the input turtle.
            Your opinion may be correct if you choose to ignore facts, like those published in the journal Pediatrics.
            http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/112/6/1394.full

            An excerpt follows:

            Vaccines contain live viruses, killed viruses, purified viral proteins, inactivated bacterial toxins, or bacterial polysaccharides. In addition to these immunogens, vaccines often contain other substances. For example, vaccines may contain preservatives that prevent bacterial or fungal contamination (eg, thimerosal); adjuvants that enhance antigen-specific immune responses (eg, aluminum salts); or additives that stabilize live, attenuated viruses (eg, gelatin, human serum albumin). Furthermore, vaccines may contain residual quantities of substances used during the manufacturing process (eg, formaldehyde, antibiotics, egg proteins, yeast proteins).

          • D

            Derp TurtleJun 7, 2017 at 10:04 am

            Toxins still means a specific thing. Hint: Toxicants / Toxicant ingredients =/= Toxins.

            And you won’t scare me with reference to eggs, stuff our liver makes or anti-microbial.

            As for considered toxic./burns skins and eyes..a)At what dosage level and b)How does that compare to the dosage from he vaccine. Without both answers, you’re either a)clueless or b)deliberately trying to scare us and either way, it’s inadvisable to take medical advice from you.

          • D

            DavidQJun 7, 2017 at 2:04 pm

            You are correct. A toxin is a specific thing. And I’ll take the medically published opinion (as cited above) that there are specific things called toxins in vaccines.
            I will also accept the scientific opinion from ATDSR that the substances in vaccines specifically named in the journal Pediatrics are toxins – including formaldehyde and phenol, among others.
            Turtle, do you have any science that contradicts the statements about toxicity from the journal Pediatrics or ATDSR?

          • D

            Derp TurtleJun 7, 2017 at 3:46 pm

            You haven’t provided any evidence for this statement. A toxin is produced by an organism.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ee98c8926c4d28ee31879307de07ec2eb2c3c5f64dd6ce719d7d66ce34f02e4f.jpg

          • D

            duplicatJun 7, 2017 at 6:20 pm

            Derp, you put the orgasm is organism.

          • A

            AutismDaddJun 8, 2017 at 2:44 pm

            And the ho in horrible

          • D

            DavidQJun 8, 2017 at 8:45 am

            Sorry turtle. I believed that you could understand vernacular speech, but I guess I can break it down for you very specifically because you want to parse words and take the literal meaning of each printed letter.
            I was using the word (noun) “toxin” to represent the adjective toxic. To accurately use toxic I would have had to employ the longer phrase “a toxic substance or chemical that causes harm”.
            In case you were wondering the definition of toxic is poisonous; and the definition of poisonous is having the effects of poison. The definition of poison is a substance that through its chemical action can kill, injure or impair.
            And since you are such a word scholar….
            Also please examine your claim that toxic agent / toxicant = toxin. I am sure that you are aware that toxin and toxic are not the same thing. So why blast me when you made the error in your argument? That’s just silly.
            And to get back on topic, I shall ask my prior question that you conveniently cast aside.
            Turtle, do you have any science that contradicts the statements about toxicity from the journal Pediatrics or ATDSR?

          • D

            Derp TurtleJun 8, 2017 at 11:32 am

          • J

            JGCJun 8, 2017 at 11:46 am

            DavidQ, what substances found in vaccine formulations are toxic or otherwise harmful at exposure levels achievable by routine childhood vaccination?

          • D

            DavidQJun 8, 2017 at 12:18 pm

            Your question has 2 parts:
            Q1. What substances are toxic / harmful?
            A1. Please see the cited post above from the journal Pediatrics. It lists the toxic substances. By definition toxic substances are harmful.
            Q2. Exposure levels by routine childhood vaccines?
            A2. That is something you could probably research on your own. When you get the research citations, please share them.
            I can, however, suggest you start with international journal of environmental research and public health. 2015 Feb Exposure to Mercury and Aluminum

          • J

            JGCJun 8, 2017 at 12:29 pm

            By definition toxic substances are harmful at sufficiently high exposure levels: the fundamental principle of toxicology is “The dose makes the poison”.
            Water is toxic at a sufficiently high does (google “water intoxication”).
            re Exposure to mercury and Aluminum, good thing there isn’t any in vaccines: they’re may be thimerosal or aluminum salt adjuvants, but they’re elemental mercury and aluminum to the exact same extent table salt is metallic sodium and chlorine gas.
            Which is to say, not at all.

          • D

            DavidQJun 8, 2017 at 1:06 pm

            JGC, I suggest you check your science.
            Thimerosal is an organic mercury compound and is one of the most toxic forms of mercury. It is certainly not an inert ion like found in table salt. See PMC3096006
            And aluminum hydroxide is a common adjuvant in vaccines and is also a known neurotoxic substance. See PMC4344667
            As far as your reference to water being toxic….really? We could then saw the needle used for the vaccine is potentially toxic, or the plastic tube holding the needle is toxic.
            If you need to deviate so far off topic to make your point, doesn’t that make your response pointless?

          • J

            JGCJun 8, 2017 at 1:29 pm

            Thimerosal is an organomercuric compound. it is not, as you suggest, one of the most toxic forms of mercury but following vaccination rapidly metabolizes to release ethylmercury, not methylmercury or inorganic mercury, which is significantly less toxic than either of the latter.

            Ethylmercury also does not accumulate over time to a significant degree, as do methylmercury and inorganic mercury. In infants following vaccination ethyl mercury was seen to have a
            half-life of less than 4 days and blood mercury levels returned to pre-vaccination levels by 30 days after vaccination. (see Mercury Levels in
            Newborns and Infants After Receipt of Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines
            ,
            Pichichero et al, Pediatrics Vol. 121 No. 2 February 1, 2008 pp. e208 -e214).)

            At exposure levels achievable by routine childhood vaccination? Citations needed.

            Note that aluminum is one of the most ubiquitous elements on the planet and infants are exposed daily to much, much greater amounts of aluminum from dietary and environmental sources than they could possibly receive as the
            result of routine childhood immunization.
            To put it in perspective, over the first 6 months of
            life an infant could be exposed to a maximum of 2.5 mg of aluminum as the result of routine immunizations. During those same 6 months it would be exposed to 10 mgs of aluminum if it’s breast feeding; if receiving formula instead we’re talking about a 40 mgs of aluminum, and as much as 120 mgs if it’s receiving a soy-based formula.

          • D

            DavidQJun 8, 2017 at 2:27 pm

            JGC, yes I have abundant evidence. Just read on.
            It seems like you copy and paste very well but I guess reading is tougher for you. I understand. Reading published scientific journals can be difficult. So I’ll distill it down real simple for ya.
            As cited above by Bose-O’Reilly, et al “Organic mercury is the most dangerous form of mercury to human health.” If you have a scientific source that contradicts this statement, please share. You said it wasn’t. Please support your statement.
            Additionally, why discuss half-lives and dosage levels in ‘routine’ childhood vaccination. The original question was about toxic substances in vaccines. But, if you actually did read the scientific research as cited above you would have your answers.
            Oh, and the aluminum in the childhood diet / vaccine exposure. Again, it is clear that readin’ ain’t ur strong suit.
            The form of aluminum in a vaccine is very different from the form commonly found in the soil. Kinda like how you earlier explained NaCl (table salt in case u didn’t know) is relatively inert and the metal sodium (Na) is highly reactive. Different forms, different substances. How about this citation from from Shaw and Petrik “Aluminum hydroxide injections lead to motor deficits and motor neuron degeneration.” PMC2819810
            Or, you can share your own research if you want.
            Since you asked for references I shall share 2 again, but since you didn’t bother to read them before, I doubt you’ll do it this time.
            PMC4344667
            PMC3096006

          • J

            JGCJun 8, 2017 at 2:48 pm

            Full quote:

            “Organic mercury is the most dangerous form of mercury to human health. Methylmercury, the most predominant form of organic mercury, is the form that poses a risk through fish consumption. Methylmercury is better absorbed and shows a higher mobility in the human body than inorganic mercury. Another example of an organic mercury compound is ethyl mercury or thiomersal (referred to as thimerosal in the USA), which is used as a preservative in some vaccines.”

            Organic mercury in forms where it is better absorbed and shows a higher mobility than inorganic mercury is more dangerous than inorganic mercury. But what do Boise et al state regarding ethyl mercury?

            ‘Unlike methylmercury, ethyl mercury does not accumulate in the fatty tissues of the body and is actively excreted via the gut.”

            The characteristics that make ethyl mercury more dangerous than inorganic mercury are not exhibited by ethyl mercury.

            “The form of aluminum in a vaccine is very different from the form commonly found in the soil.”

            Aluminum is aluminum. Aluminum hydroxide is aluminum hydroxide regardless of source.

            Shaw and Petrik? Their study does not model aluminum exposure resulting from vaccination: they exposed mice to aluminum via sub-q rather than IM injection. Published in 2009, the results have never been replicated.
            And I did read your references: see the addendum to my first post and my subsequent second response.

          • D

            DavidQJun 8, 2017 at 3:14 pm

            2 posts ago you said, and I quote “Thimerosal is an organomercuric compound. it is not, as you suggest, one of the most toxic forms of mercury…”
            Then on your last post, as I quote thus again, “Organic mercury is the most dangerous form of mercury to human health.” So which is it? All of this self contradiction is so confusing.
            And all forms of aluminum do not have the same bioavailability. However, aluminum is a known neurotoxicant. And it is in vaccines. That was my statement before and it is my statement now. Are you able to prove otherwise?
            Several posts ago you stated, and another quote is coming up here, “aluminum, good thing there isn’t any in vaccines.” Can you back that up with any science?

          • J

            JGCJun 8, 2017 at 3:41 pm

            Thimerosal is an organomercury compound but is not itself one of the most toxic forms of mercury: it is less toxic than either methylmercury (and all compounds that metabolize to release methylmercury) and less toxic than inorganic mercury as well.

            Is that really so hard to parse?

            While aluminum adjuvants are oresent in vaccine formulations they are present in amounts which could result in an exposure level that has been seen to cause neurotoxicity.

            As for no aluminum in vaccines, there isn’t: there are instead aluminum salts. You do understand the difference between an element and a salt of that element?

          • D

            DavidQJun 8, 2017 at 5:02 pm

            And thimerosal isn’t as toxic as cyanide or ricin. That wasn’t the point. The fact is that thimerosal is toxic. And it’s in vaccines.
            And what is in aluminum salt? That’s right…IT’S ALUMINUM!!!
            Therefore aluminum is in a vaccine.
            You continue to dance around the issue, but my statement was that 1) vaccines contain toxic substances and 2) that thimerosal and aluminum (among others) are toxic.
            You can continue your mental gyrations and try and confuse the issue, but the fact remains that there are toxic substances in vaccines.

          • J

            JGCJun 9, 2017 at 9:24 am

            “The fact is that thimerosal is toxic. And it’s in vaccines.”

            And at exposure levels achievable by vaccination thimerosal is neither toxic nor otherwise harmful.

            “And what is in aluminum salt? That’s right…IT’S ALUMINUM!!!”

            It’s aluminum in the form of a salt, which exhibits chemical, biological and toxic effects entirely different than those of elemental aluminum.

            ‘You can continue your mental gyrations and try and confuse the issue, but the fact remains that there are toxic substances in vaccines.”
            Just as the fact remains that their mere presence is insufficient to render the vaccines themselves toxic.

          • D

            DavidQJun 9, 2017 at 9:56 am

            Sure, JGC. You can keep fooling yourself, but the fact remains that:
            1. You keep up voting your own posts.
            2. You have consistently contradicted yourself in post after post. Mercury is toxic / mercury isn’t toxic; aluminum is in vaccines / aluminum isn’t in vaccines, etc.
            3. Your discussion of chemistry demonstrates that you either never studied it or forgot everything you knew. Your claims are nonsense.
            4. The original post that you have been harassing me over was a claim that vaccines contain toxic substances. Although there are others, I have demonstrated 4 – phenol, 2-phenoxyethanol, Hg & Al.
            That was the claim. Do you dispute it?
            5. You’re a sore loser.

          • J

            JGCJun 9, 2017 at 10:02 am

            Where have I upvoted my own posts? I’m not aware I’m doing that. It’s possible I’m clicking without realizing it when I hover over the arrows to see who has upvoted my posts but most of the time I notice and down vote the posts afterward.
            I’m not contradicting myself re toxicity. Mercury is toxic. Thimerosal is not mercury. No ingredient found in vaccine formulations are is toxic or otherwise harmful at exposure levels achievable as the result of vaccination.
            I have studied chemistry. Also biology. Also immunology,, genetics, molecular biology, etc., and have been employed as a research biologist for almost four decades.
            Vaccines do contain trace amounts of ingredients such as phenols, none of which however is toxic at exposure levels achievable as a result of vaccination.
            If we ever reach a point where I’ve lost this argument we’ll see if I’m a sore loser or otherwise.

          • D

            DavidQJun 9, 2017 at 10:51 am

            I highly doubt you are in a medical or scientific field. Your consistent inaccuracies associated with your discussion of chemistry and contradictory statements do not demonstrate a scientific thought process.
            There are several facts that remain and you continually avoid addressing them. Why? I don’t know.
            But I shall reiterate them here:
            1. You have consistently contradicted yourself in post after post. Mercury is toxic / mercury isn’t toxic; aluminum is in vaccines / aluminum isn’t in vaccines, etc. So which is it? Once and for all – is mercury in vaccines or isn’t it? Is mercury toxic or isn’t it? Is aluminum in vaccines or isn’t it?
            These are simple yes and no answers and don’t need a qualifier.
            2. The original post that you have been harassing me over was a claim that vaccines contain toxic substances. Although there are others, I have demonstrated 4 – phenol, 2-phenoxyethanol, Hg & Al. Have I demonstrated that or not?
            I did not make claims about levels or injury. Just their presence.
            Since you started a conversation with me, how about having the decency to at least address my two questions that are from my original claim.

          • J

            JGCJun 9, 2017 at 1:13 pm

            “I highly doubt you are in a medical or scientific field”

            Just one more thing you’re wring about, david.

            The toxicity question cannot be answered as with a simple yes or no: the fundamental principle of toxicology is that the dose makes the poison. Elemental mercury and elemental aluminum are toxic at sufficiently high exposure levels but not toxic at sufficiently low exposure levels,.

            “Mercury is toxic / mercury isn’t toxic; aluminum is in vaccines / aluminum isn’t in vaccines, etc. So which is it”

            A simple yes or no answer is no, elemental mercury is not present in vaccines and no, elemental aluminum is not present in vaccines.

            A better answer unfortunately requires more detail than you appear comfortable wrapping your head around. .

            Thimerosal is in vaccine formulations, but thimersoal is not elemental mercury. Aluminum salts are incorporated as adjuvants in vaccine formulations, but aluminum adjuvants are not elemental aluminum.
            If you wish me to stipulate that vaccine contain substance than can be toxic at sufficiently high exposure levels but are not toxic at exposure levels achievable by vaccination I’ll gladly do so–will that ease your butt-hurt?

          • D

            DavidQJun 9, 2017 at 3:58 pm

            therefore…based on your logic that you can only measure if a substance is toxic or not is, as you say, by the dosage. So then according to you…ricin is not defined as toxic? And cyanide is not defined as toxic? And thalidomide is not defined as toxic? That just doesn’t seem to hold water.
            Regarding mercury and aluminum…where have a ever said or implied that elemental Al or Hg was an ingredient in vaccines. You keep referencing that claim. Why?
            Regarding your quasi admission that vaccines do contain substances that are regarded as toxic- as tough as that was for you- doesn’t it at least feel a little better to share the truth instead of hiding behind double speak?
            Also, why would you reference a physical part of my anatomy? Does that make you feel better about admitting the truth?

          • D

            Derp TurtleJun 9, 2017 at 1:30 pm

            Learn some basic chemistry. Compounds are not elements. Learn some basic toxicology: The answer to ‘Is x toxic’ is always defined by asking two questions:

            1)How much of x is toxic?
            2)How much of x is in the product?

          • D

            DavidQJun 9, 2017 at 5:11 pm

            I would relish an opportunity to discuss chemistry with you.
            Using your 1. & 2. logic, all products have the potential to be toxic.
            Excess water intake can induce hyponatremia and even too much oxygen can be toxic and cause, wait for it, a condition called oxygen toxicity syndrome.
            However within the fields of biological and medical sciences there are certain substances that are labeled as toxic without a qualifier like your 1. & 2. For example, ricin, or sarin, or cyanide. These substances generally have no positive value for healthy human function due to their potent nature to harm even in low concentrations.
            Thimerosal is toxic even though there may studies that suggest there is no observable effect at low levels. However there are many genetic and phenotypic variations within the human population and these deviations cause sensitivity to “non-toxic” substances such as food dyes and MSG.

          • D

            Derp TurtleJun 9, 2017 at 5:14 pm

            Of course all substances have the potential to be toxic! That’s one half of what “The dose makes the poison” which is toxicology 101 is!

            But you still haven’t explained how the compounds properties vs the element’s properties relate to toxicity

            Also, weird. You’d expect poison to have some sort of adverse health effects.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d8988160b0ef8678b1253af43add2ff6030d29d1fbd8f61601b844dffcb78290.png .

          • D

            DavidQJun 9, 2017 at 5:38 pm

            Irrelevant. I never suggested a discussion re: compound vs element.
            Also, not weird. You were suggesting a toxic substance should be classified otherwise.

          • D

            Derp TurtleJun 9, 2017 at 5:41 pm

            “Irrelevant. I never suggested a discussion re: compound vs element.”

            The minute you refer to mercury compounds as mercury or al compounds as aluminum, yep, you do. You might not mean to but it’s a nigh-inevitable result.


            Also, not weird. You were suggesting a toxic substance should be classified otherwise. ”

            Then you will have no trouble with a quote-and-link to where I suggested a toxic substance should be classified otherwise.

            And yes, it is weird that people exposed to toxic substances don’t … you know…have worse health than those not exposed.

            Read the Kiggs study.

          • D

            DavidQJun 9, 2017 at 5:54 pm

            It is not “nigh-inevitable” as you suggest. And a correlation was neither made nor implied, except in your thoughts. If you read the posts you may find that’s true.
            You are arguing a fallacy.
            Kiggs study? Immaterial. Kiggs looked at infection and allergy rates, not any other complaint or morbidly nor did they measure overall health. A child with lethargy or seizures would not have been included in the findings.
            Try again. You may eventually get it right.

          • D

            Derp TurtleJun 9, 2017 at 6:06 pm


            It is not “nigh-inevitable” as you suggest. And a correlation was neither made nor implied, except in your thoughts. If you read the posts you may find that’s true. ”

            I’ve read them David. That’s how I know what you wrote. The fact that you’re wrong and don’t like me pointing it out is not my fault. Mercury means elemental mercury – if you knew this, then you shouldn’t have been intentionally stating false things and if you didn’t know this then you are not qualified to argue with global scientific and medical consensus.

            And no, not made or implied on your part but a blatantly predictable response. Much like if you go around spouting that 90 + 1 = 100, someone is bound to tell you “No, it’s not!” That doesn’t mean you made or implied the statement that 99 +1 =/= 100.

            “You are arguing a fallacy. ”

            Yes, that was rather my point – that you couldn’t get there from where you started with. See composition vs division fallacies.

            “Kiggs study? Immaterial. Kiggs looked at infection and allergy rates not any other complaint or morbidly nor did they measure overall health. A child with lethargy or seizures would not have been included in the findings. ”

            “Try again. You may eventually get it right.”

            Let’s see….

            So far, you’ve said that:

            I was wrong for pointing out that toxicants are not toxins because you didn’t recognise the =/= symbol.

            JGC and I are wrong for pointing out the difference between elements and compounds.

            I am wrong because I pointed out that it was weird that the supposedly poisonous substances didn’t appear to have any adverse health effects which is what you’d expect from toxic substances.

            I don’t think I’m the one that needs to try again.

          • D

            DavidQJun 9, 2017 at 6:32 pm

            I’m not sure where your chemistry lab training occurred but when a chemist says the word mercury it does not automatically imply elemental mercury in all contexts at all times. When a physician gives a patient iron, it is not a block of metal but ferrous salts. Same with calcium, magnesium, etc. Parsing words may be a head spinner for an inferior intellect but continuing to haggle over errors of grammar and punctuation is the fodder for the dim witted.
            Claims that I called elements compounds and vice versa are nothing more than drivel.
            You were wrong to cite the Kiggs study. Although it is a well done study its contents had no bearing in the context of your position.

          • D

            Derp TurtleJun 9, 2017 at 6:39 pm

            Look, you made a really basic chemistry cock-up The iron is generally referred to as iron supplements.

            As for being a chemist if you are are….

            You do realise that makes your misinterpretation look worse, not better, right? It means that rather than making a simple error, you are deliberately stating false things i.e. lying which means that we have no real reason to pay attention to anything else you say.

            There’s a reason that iron is generally referred to as iron supplements and non-elemental magnesium, calcium etc have ‘salts’ or ‘supplements’ on the end.

            Allergies are part of health. To be clear, part.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d8988160b0ef8678b1253af43add2ff6030d29d1fbd8f61601b844dffcb78290.png

          • D

            duplicatJun 10, 2017 at 12:46 am

            You said:

            Mercury is toxic. Thimerosal is not mercury.

            Didn’t you know that Thimerosal is actually more toxic than metallic mercury (quicksilver)?

          • D

            Derp TurtleJun 10, 2017 at 10:26 am

            What’s your point? The fact that quicksilver is not mercury doesn’t argue anything about relative toxicity.

          • D

            duplicatJun 10, 2017 at 2:42 pm

            You’re a moron.

          • D

            Derp TurtleJun 11, 2017 at 2:42 am

            And yet I am smarter than you.

          • J

            JGCJun 10, 2017 at 4:27 pm

            I’m having trouble confirming this–could you offer sources? Comparing their MSDS sheets I find that mercury is characterized as

            Mercury Section 3: Hazards Identification:

            Potential Acute Health Effects:
            Very hazardous in case of skin contact (irritant), of eye contact (irritant), of ingestion, of inhalation. Hazardous in case of skin contact (corrosive, permeator). Liquid or spray mist may produce tissue damage particularly on mucous membranes of eyes, mouth and respiratory tract. Skin contact may produce burns. Inhalation of the spray mist may produce severe irritation of respiratory tract, characterized by coughing, choking, or shortness of breath. Severe over-exposure can result in death. Inflammation of the eye is characterized by redness, watering, and itching. Skin inflammation is characterized by itching, scaling, reddening, or, occasionally, blistering.

            Potential Chronic Health Effects:
            Hazardous in case of skin contact (permeator). CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS: Classified A5 (Not suspected for human.) by ACGIH. 3 (Not classifiable for human.) by IARC. MUTAGENIC EFFECTS: Not available. TERATOGENIC EFFECTS: Not available. DEVELOPMENTAL TOXICITY: Not available. The substance may be toxic to blood, kidneys, liver, brain, peripheral nervous system, central nervous system (CNS). Repeated or prolonged exposure to the substance can produce target
            organs damage. Repeated or prolonged contact with spray mist may produce chronic eye irritation and severe skin irritation.

            versus

            Thimerosal Section 3: Hazards Identification

            Potential Acute Health Effects:
            Hazardous in case of skin contact (irritant), of ingestion, of inhalation. Slightly hazardous in case of eye contact (irritant). Severe over-exposure can result in death.

            Potential Chronic Health Effects:
            CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS: Not available. MUTAGENIC EFFECTS: Mutagenic for mammalian somatic cells. TERATOGENIC EFFECTS: Not available. DEVELOPMENTAL TOXICITY: Not available. The substance may be toxic to kidneys, liver, spleen, bone marrow, central nervous system (CNS). Repeated or prolonged exposure to the substance can produce target organs damage. Repeated exposure to a highly toxic material may produce general deterioration of health by an accumulation in one or many human organs.

          • D

            duplicatJun 10, 2017 at 4:39 pm

            Sure:

            CASE REPORT:
            A 43-year-old man ingested approximately one tablespoon of elemental mercury after an argument with his wife. An initial abdominal radiograph showed mercury in the pylorus of the stomach and a follow-up x-ray at 72 hours showed mercury localized to the appendix. The patient was treated as an outpatient and examined several times over a 37-day period. He never developed signs of appendicitis. On a follow-up examination 7 months after the ingestion, he was radiographically free of mercury. Periodically throughout his clinical course, blood mercury levels were obtained. Only one, 6 days after ingestion, showed an elevated mercury level of 68 mcg/L (reference range <10 mcg/L). Despite this, the patient never developed signs or symptoms of mercury poisoning.

            Article:Conservative management of elemental mercury retained in the appendix.

            One tablespoon of metallic mercury is:
            m = ρV
            m = (13.56g/cm³)(14.7868mL)
            m = (13.56g/cm³)(14.7868mL)
            m=200.51g
            Let’s assume the man weight 70 kilos.
            d=[Hg]/weight
            d=200.51g/70kg
            d=2.86g/kg
            d=2,860mg/kg

            The man ingested a dose about 38 times higher than the LD₅₀ for Thimerosal (75 mg/kg) and lived.

            So, it’s less toxic.

          • J

            JGCJun 12, 2017 at 9:06 am

            You’ll need to produce an equivalent case report where someone ingests one tablespoon of thimerosal for comparison before you can reasonably claim mercury is less toxic, duplicat.

          • D

            duplicatJun 12, 2017 at 12:58 pm

            No I don’t. This is well-known.

          • J

            JGCJun 12, 2017 at 1:20 pm

            As well known as “Lizzie Borden took an axe, and gave her mother forty whacks”, perhaps?

          • J

            JGCJun 9, 2017 at 10:07 am

            Just went through my posts for the last 3 days, and haven’t found any that I’ve upvoted myself. Who are you confusing me with?

          • S

            shay simmonsJun 9, 2017 at 5:21 pm

            Still shirking questions #3 and #4, we see.

          • D

            DavidQJun 9, 2017 at 5:34 pm

            Not shirking any questions shay.
            What were your questions? And when did I suggest that I was interested in answering questions for you?

          • S

            shay simmonsJun 9, 2017 at 5:47 pm

            Short term memory loss?

          • D

            DavidQJun 9, 2017 at 5:58 pm

            No memory loss. I just don’t remember inviting you to ask me to do research for you. I was giving you an opportunity to show me the invitation in case I forgot. 🙂

          • S

            shay simmonsJun 9, 2017 at 6:17 pm

            Let’s add Disqus forums to the growing list of stuff you don’t understand.

          • D

            DavidQJun 10, 2017 at 9:34 am

            What exactly causes to make the claim I don’t understand disqus? Can you please elucidate?

          • D

            Derp TurtleJun 10, 2017 at 10:33 am

            Disqus is a public forum. Making comments on a public forum is a bit like shouting in a crowded public place – people are invited by default.

          • D

            Derp TurtleJun 10, 2017 at 10:35 am

            David, how does Shay asking you to back up your claims that you made yourself constitute doing research for Shay?

            Your claim, your burden of proof.

          • D

            Derp TurtleJun 10, 2017 at 10:31 am

            Addressing fundamental problems with your claims that you made yourself does not constitute answering questions for Shay.

            Providing whatever evidence you have for your claims that you made yourself does not constitute doing shay’s work either

          • M

            Mike StevensJun 8, 2017 at 4:59 pm

            ^^ Oh dear!
            Didn’t DavidQ say to you: “It seems like you copy and paste very well but I guess reading is tougher for you.”?

            How embarrassing for him.

          • J

            JGCJun 8, 2017 at 2:05 pm

            Just read PMC4344667: no evidence that exposure to aluminum hydroxide at levels achievable by routine childhood vaccination is toxic or otherwise harmful. The author cites a number of animal studies that don’t model vaccination (for example, animal studies where the subjects were dosed by IP rather than IM injections) and relies heavily on publications by Tomljenovic and Shaw (I hope you are aware of the problem with doing so).

          • D

            DavidQJun 8, 2017 at 2:57 pm

            I cited PMC4344667 as evidence of (1) Al is used as an adjuvant in vaccines and (2) it is a known toxic agent. If you wanted evidence of how aluminum is a neurotoxin in humans then you can read PMC2782734 and PMC2819810.
            and your statement that the study relies heavily on publications by Tomljenovic and Shaw is baseless and sophomoric. Shaw was cited 2 times in a publication that has over 100 citations. And it had nothing to do with the two points discussed above. Do you even read, or just kinda scan stuff?
            And why do you keep relating everything back to childhood vaccinations? Did I mention them? Are you a spokesperson?

          • J

            JGCJun 8, 2017 at 3:45 pm

            Again: citations re the neurotoxicity of aluminum in humans does not support a claim that exposure to aluminum adjuvants as a consequence of routine vaccination engenders risk. What’s needed is evidence that aluminum adjuvants are toxic or otherwise harmful at exposure levels achievable by routine childhood vaccination.

            I’m not a spokesperson for anyone but myself. What are you asking?

          • D

            DavidQJun 8, 2017 at 5:55 pm

            I’m not sure, as you said “what’s needed is evidence.”
            I have presented you with enough facts to demonstrate that 1) aluminum and mercury are in vaccines and 2) that they are toxic to humans.
            You continue to ask ma about children and exposure levels. Why? I never mentioned either.

          • J

            JGCJun 9, 2017 at 9:20 am

            “I have presented you with enough facts to demonstrate that 1) aluminum and mercury are in vaccines and 2) that they are toxic to humans.

            What you need to present is, however evidence that 1) aluminum and mercury are in vaccines and 2) that they are toxic to humans (either adults or children) at exposure levels achievable by vaccination.

            The dose makes the poison.

          • S

            shay simmonsJun 8, 2017 at 5:06 pm

            Can you answer the following?
            1. What is a toxin?
            2. What ingredients in vaccines are considered toxins?
            3. At what level are these ingredients determined to be toxic?
            4. At what level are these ingredients present in vaccines?

          • D

            DavidQJun 8, 2017 at 6:32 pm

            Sure shay, I can give you a response. I should have used the term toxic substance instead of toxin. Even though there are potentially toxins in a vaccine, there are a lot of toxic substances too.
            I like this article published in the journal Pediatrics.
            http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/112/6/1394.full

            An excerpt follows:

            Vaccines contain live viruses, killed viruses, purified viral proteins, inactivated bacterial toxins, or bacterial polysaccharides. In addition to these immunogens, vaccines often contain other substances. For example, vaccines may contain preservatives that prevent bacterial or fungal contamination (eg, thimerosal); adjuvants that enhance antigen-specific immune responses (eg, aluminum salts); or additives that stabilize live, attenuated viruses (eg, gelatin, human serum albumin). Furthermore, vaccines may contain residual quantities of substances used during the manufacturing process (eg, formaldehyde, antibiotics, egg proteins, yeast proteins).

            Three preservatives are used in vaccines licensed in the United States: phenol, 2-phenoxyethanol, and thimerosal.

            Phenol burns skin and eyes and is considered toxic by the ATDSR.

            2-phenoxyethanol is a known CNS depressant and NMDA inhibitor as published in Archives of Toxicology 1999 Feb.

            The levels in vaccines vary depending on the vaccine. I’m sure you could look that up yourself.

            I hope this helps.

          • S

            shay simmonsJun 8, 2017 at 7:16 pm

            I’m sure you could look that up yourself.

            Burden of proof is on the claimant.

            If I am reading your post correctly, you are not really answering question #2, as you seem to be defining everything in vaccines as toxic, and you can’t answer questions #3 and 4.

          • D

            DavidQJun 9, 2017 at 6:14 am

            Burden of proof is on the claimant? Really???

            Shay, you really missed the mark. Horribly.

            I claimed that vaccines contain toxic substances (TRUE). That’s all I claimed.
            Then you went down a rabbit hole, asking me to answer a host of questions. Either you already know the answers and you’re interested in pointless mental gyrations, or you don’t know the answers and want someone to do your research. Based on your previous postings, I suggest it’s the former. With a breeze of honesty, do you think you can elucidate for us your real objective in your former post? Why the questions? What did I actually claim?

          • S

            shay simmonsJun 9, 2017 at 10:36 am

            I posted for the lurkers. Thanks for proving my point!

          • D

            DavidQJun 9, 2017 at 11:10 am

            Doubt it.
            You just realized that you didn’t think it through before your rabbit hole fishing expedition. That’s ok though. You don’t have to answer.

          • F

            FallsAngelJun 9, 2017 at 12:21 pm

            Of course burden of proof is on the claimant! Do you expect the rest of us to support your claims? Not going to happen on this forum!

          • D

            DavidQJun 9, 2017 at 3:31 pm

            That’s the most correct thing that you yet have said.
            So…what exactly was my claim that I need to support / prove?
            I only ask because you initiated a conversation with me and have twice referenced me supporting my claim (which I believe I have).

          • F

            FallsAngelJun 9, 2017 at 4:33 pm

            I don’t know what conversations I’ve initiated with you. This is an open forum. Anyone can reply to anyone else. I was supporting shay’s statement that you need to support your claim.

          • D

            Derp TurtleJun 9, 2017 at 5:56 pm

            Burden of proof is on the claimant. Evidence you cannot or will not produce is functionally identical to no evidence at all.

            The point is that you have not demonstrated that your statement is true.

          • D

            DavidQJun 9, 2017 at 6:01 pm

            What statement, derp?

          • D

            Derp TurtleJun 9, 2017 at 6:09 pm

            Toxic substances…if you can’t keep up with your own claims, I can’t help you.

          • D

            DavidQJun 9, 2017 at 6:17 pm

            Said em earlier. Try and keep up.
            Thimerosal, aluminum salts, phenol, 2-phenoxyethanol.

          • D

            Derp TurtleJun 9, 2017 at 6:20 pm

            Asserting them is not the same thing as demonstrating that they are toxic at exposure levels achievable by routine childhood vaccines.

            Do you seriously not know the difference between claims and evidence?

          • D

            DavidQJun 9, 2017 at 6:45 pm

            I surely do. Like when I ask you to show me any evidence that I asserted toxic levels were attained during routine vaccination.
            All that I asserted was that vaccines contain toxic substances as defined by the scientific and medical community.
            Then this posting board tried real real real hard to hammer out any comment that said vaccines contain toxic substances.
            As a matter of fact no one here has yet to agree with mainstream science and medicine that these substances are toxic, but everyone falls in line and drinks the cool aide when the science supports their position and gets their pants in a bunch and fights tooth and nail when their dogma is challenged.
            Not what a scientific thinker should do. Tsk tsk.

          • D

            Derp TurtleJun 9, 2017 at 6:49 pm

            Toxicity is dependent on dose. Not a hard concept.

          • D

            DavidQJun 9, 2017 at 6:53 pm

            Sure. When you start publishing got the ATDSR I’ll take your opinion on toxicity. Until than I’ll trust a real scientific publication.

          • D

            Derp TurtleJun 9, 2017 at 6:59 pm

            First off, claims stand or fall on their own merits as a function of the evidence behind them.

            Secondly, it’s not my opinion on toxicity. It is literally the founding sentence on toxicology.

            Thirdly: .” This is the meaning behind the statement “the dose makes the
            poison.”

            Source: https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/training/toxmanual/pdf/module-1.pdf

            Page 16, according to page numbers.

          • D

            DavidQJun 9, 2017 at 7:12 pm

            I’m familiar with the publication. Actually I typically source it.

            1. So present your evidence and stand on your own merit.
            2. If you read the paper you sourced, page 14 clearly states that a toxicant is any chemical that can injur or kill. There is no mention of dosage required for the classification.
            3. And if you continued to read, on page 20 there is a whole section on heavy metals as toxic agents. Guess what’s a heavy metal. Yup. It’s mercury. Even in a compound like thimerosal you can find mercury. Again, no mention of dose for the classification.
            Oh, and here is the link in case you need it.
            https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/training/toxmanual/pdf/module-1.pdf

          • D

            Derp TurtleJun 9, 2017 at 7:23 pm

            1. I didn’t make a claim, you did.
            2. So is water a toxicant then? By your admission, it can injure or kill. See: Hyponatremia

            Let’s see:

            Page 15:

            “What is Toxicity? The word “toxicity” describes the degree to which a
            substance is poisonous or can cause injury. The toxicity depends on a
            variety of factors: dose, duration and route of exposure (see Module Two),
            shape and structure of the chemical itself, and individual human factors. ”

            Dose mention #1. Shape and structure of the chemical itself …one subset of that is whether it’s an element or a compound.

            Pages 15-16

            ” Dose-response is a relationship between
            exposure and health effect, that can be established by measuring the
            response relative to an increasing dose. This relationship is important in
            determining the toxicity of a particular substance (2). It relies on the
            concept that a dose, or a time of exposure (to a chemical, drug, or toxic
            substance), will cause an effect (response) on the exposed organism.
            Usually, the larger or more intense the dose, the greater the response, or
            the effect. This is the meaning behind the statement “the dose makes the
            poison.”

            Dose mention #2

            “What is the threshold dose? Given the idea of a dose-response, there
            should be a dose or exposure level below which the harmful or adverse
            effects of a substance are not seen in a population. That dose is referred to
            as the ‘threshold dose’. This dose is also referred to as the no observed
            adverse effect level (NOAEL), or the no effect level (NEL). These terms
            are often used by toxicologists when discussing the relationship between
            exposure and dose. However, for substances causing cancer

            (carcinogens), no safe level of exposure exists, since any exposure could
            result in cancer. ”

            Dose mention #3.

            “B. The Field of Toxicology
            Toxicology addresses a variety of questions. For example, in agriculture, toxicology
            determines the possible health effects from exposure to pesticides or herbicides, or the
            effect of animal feed additives, such as growth factors, on people. Toxicology is also used
            in laboratory experiments on animals to establish dose-response relationships. ”

            Dose mention #4


            All chemicals (or any chemical) may be poisonous at a given dose and through a
            particular route. For example, breathing too much pure oxygen, drinking excessive
            amounts of water, or eating too much salt can cause poisoning or death ”

            Dose mention #5, page 23.

          • D

            DavidQJun 9, 2017 at 7:46 pm

            That was a lot of writing to document very little.
            Your source = Toxicant defined as a chemical that can cause harm or kill.
            No mention of dose.
            No mention of lab experiments.
            No mention of exposure.
            Just what is and what isn’t a toxicant.
            The fact that the paper also mentions dose is irrelevant.

          • D

            Derp TurtleJun 9, 2017 at 7:49 pm

            Sorry, it does mention dose. I know you don’t like it and want to dismiss it as irrelevant but that doesn’t change the fact that my source (the entire paper) does mention dose.

          • D

            DavidQJun 9, 2017 at 7:54 pm

            It mentions dose but not as part of the definition of what is a toxicant.

          • D

            Derp TurtleJun 9, 2017 at 7:58 pm

            “A toxicant is any chemical that can injure or kill
            humans, animals, or plants; a poison”

            Now, what’s one of the defining characteristics of poison, according to the ASTDR article? I’ll give you one: The sctrure of a chemical is one.

            How do they talk about injury/harm?

            “The word “toxicity” describes the degree to which a
            substance is poisonous or can cause injury. The toxicity depends on a
            variety of factors: dose, duration and route of exposure (see Module Two),
            shape and structure of the chemical itself, and individual human factors. “

          • D

            DavidQJun 9, 2017 at 6:04 pm

            Deep, what have I claimed but not demonstrated?

          • D

            Derp TurtleJun 9, 2017 at 6:09 pm

            Toxic substances claim.

          • D

            DavidQJun 9, 2017 at 6:15 pm

            I claimed that there are toxic substances in vaccines. If you looked at the prior posts, as you have claimed, you would have seen several I have listed.
            Phenol was one. Aluminum salts was another. Thimerosal was a third. And 2-phenoxyethanol was a fourth. Try and keep up cuz this is going fast.

          • D

            Derp TurtleJun 9, 2017 at 6:21 pm

            “I claimed that there are toxic substances in vaccines. If you looked at the prior posts, as you have claimed, you would have seen several I have listed.
            Phenol was one. Aluminum salts was another. Thimerosal was a third. And 2-phenoxyethanol was a fourth. Try and keep up cuz this is going fast.”

            Precisely. You have claimed that. What you have not done is demonstrate that they are toxic at exposure levels achievable by routine childhood vaccination.

          • D

            DavidQJun 9, 2017 at 6:38 pm

            Thank you for finally catching up.
            Two questions.
            1. Do you agree with the rest of the scientific and medical community that these substances are considered toxic?
            2. Since you brought up the question, how about you answer: What is a save exposure level for each of the 4 substances?
            3. Where did I make the claim that they were toxic at exposure levels achievable by routine childhood vaccination? or any vaccine schedule, for that matter?

          • D

            Derp TurtleJun 9, 2017 at 6:44 pm

            Dude, you’re the one that wanted me to point out where you made your claims. You don’t get to make comments about catching up now.

            1.At certain exposure levels, sure. Again, that’s one-half of Toxicology 101.
            2. I’d need to look it up but you miss the point: You are the one claiming toxic substances in vaccines. It is, therefore, your responsibility to demonstrate this.
            3. You claimed there were toxic substances in vaccines, by your own admission. Since…per the global scientific and medical consensus, the toxicity of substances is dose-dependent then claiming that there are toxic substances in vaccines is claiming that they are toxic at exposure levels achievable by vaccination, at least.

          • D

            DavidQJun 9, 2017 at 6:59 pm

            1. I’m glad you admit there are toxic substances in vaccines.
            2. Then look it up and share. I never made a claim there was a safe exposure level. You made the claim. Now stand by your statement and show evidence to prove your assertion.
            3. You are grasping at straws. I claim that water consumption can cause hyponatremia but I just drank a glass and I’m ok. You asserted that I made a link with childhood vaccines. Please share your evidence to support your assertion.

          • D

            Derp TurtleJun 9, 2017 at 7:03 pm

            DavidQ, you made claims. Why do you think it’s my responsibility to support them? Why do you think that fundamental principles of toxicity are my opinion?

            Re: Thimerosal (sp) – knock yourself out:

            https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=thimerosal+safety+study&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwidh8mBirLUAhXmCsAKHfgjA1MQgQMIJDAA

            Re: Aluminium salts:

            https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=%22aluminum+salts%22+%22vaccine+safety%22&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_vis=1

            Knock yourself out. I trust you know how to weigh evidence?

          • D

            DavidQJun 9, 2017 at 7:19 pm

            Hysterical. ROTFL.
            The first paragraph of the first article found on the link for “aluminum salts” that you provided is pasted below.
            If this is your idea of proving safety of a vaccine, I’m sure glad your not on the R&D team.

            Despite almost 90 years of widespread use of aluminum adjuvants, medical science’s understanding about their mechanisms of action is still remarkably poor. There is also a concerning scarcity of data on toxicology and pharmacokinetics of these compounds. In spite of this, the notion that aluminum in vaccines is safe appears to be widely accepted.

          • D

            Derp TurtleJun 9, 2017 at 7:27 pm

            First paragraph of the first article…no, dear, you weren’t supposed to just cherry-pick one.

          • D

            DavidQJun 9, 2017 at 7:42 pm

            Cherry pick? First paragraph of first article of YOUR SOURCE. That’s not cherry picking, that’s just poor sourcing on your part.

            fin

          • D

            Derp TurtleJun 9, 2017 at 7:50 pm

            No, I gave you a bunch of sources. You’re only bothering with one. Interesting how you had to drop your mic in a childish tantrum though.

          • D

            DavidQJun 9, 2017 at 7:53 pm

            You didn’t really provide and sources. You just gave a google link for aluminum salts and for mercury. I don’t know what that is, but it’s not sourcing.

          • D

            Derp TurtleJun 9, 2017 at 7:55 pm

            So you didn’t read it. Google Scholar is not Google. A bunch of sources on safety of al salts and thimerosal is also sources.

          • D

            DavidQJun 9, 2017 at 7:56 pm

            Google scholar is just a search engine. Not a way to source.
            It’s like I’m teaching you science 101. I should send you a bill.

          • D

            Derp TurtleJun 9, 2017 at 8:04 pm

            “Google Scholar is just a search engine.”

            No, it’s not just a search engine. It’s an academic search engine. Google is just a search engine.

            ” Not a way to source” Depends on what you’re sourcing. As evidence that sources exist, it’s plenty good enough.

            “It’s like I’m teaching you science 101. I should send you a bill.”

            Problem there is that elements not being compounds is like…science 10 so you know, you’re not qualified.

          • D

            Derp TurtleJun 9, 2017 at 8:06 pm

          • D

            DavidQJun 10, 2017 at 6:10 am

            This just keeps geeking easier than shooting fish in a barrel. You link to a search engine provided sources for Al salts and toxicity. All of the studies on the first page that examined for Al toxicity demonstrated either concern or danger. ALL. I was ROTFL again. The other studies you sourced didn’t even address Al toxicity.
            Do you even read your sources?

            We’re are some excerpts from just 4 studies.

            In this report, we add to the medical literature 3 cases of cutaneous delayed-type hypersensitivity to the vaccine preservative aluminum.

            breastfed infants receiving a full recommended schedule of immunizations showed an exceedingly high exposure of Al (225 to 1750 μg per dose) when compared with estimated levels absorbed from breast milk (2.0 μg).

            Al retention was 78% for aluminum phosphate and 94% for aluminum hydroxide, both results being incompatible with quick elimination of vaccine-derived Al in urines.

            This study confirms the striking biopersistence of alum. It points out an unexpectedly delayed diffusion of the adjuvant in lymph nodes and spleen

            Easier than fish in a barrel.

          • D

            Derp TurtleJun 10, 2017 at 6:15 am

            Breast milk?

          • D

            DavidQJun 10, 2017 at 6:30 am

            Sure. Breast milk. It was from your source.
            Or do you not remember sourcing it?

          • D

            Derp TurtleJun 10, 2017 at 6:42 am

            It still proves that there is a safe exposure level. Unless you want to argue that breastfeeding is dangerous?

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8a5d46efbb816ee8da2bfa11f6ff57eac7284757460c409ed95f67c7b0027343.jpg

          • D

            DavidQJun 10, 2017 at 9:09 am

            I never claimed there was a safe or unsafe exposure level. That’s your rabbit hole you chose into which to descend. And I never discussed breast feeding as a form of dangerous. That is another rabbit hole you travel.

          • D

            Derp TurtleJun 10, 2017 at 9:27 am

            Toxicity is dose-dependent. You talked about toxic substances.

          • D

            DavidQJun 10, 2017 at 9:58 am

            Again with the deflect / distract / redirect. I spoke about both, and clearly elucidated the differences. I can’t help it if your understanding is limited.

          • D

            Derp TurtleJun 10, 2017 at 10:17 am

            Pity that you think toxicology 101 is a deflection/distraction/redirection of whether things are toxic.

          • D

            DavidQJun 10, 2017 at 9:57 am

            Not really. Remember how you posted ad nauseum about elemental and compound forms are different?
            Well, the dietary aluminum is different in both form and administration.
            All it proves is you lack of adequate scientific understanding of biochemistry.

          • D

            Derp TurtleJun 10, 2017 at 10:17 am

            David, ad nauseaum does not mean…until DavidQ personally is sick of it.

          • D

            DavidQJun 9, 2017 at 7:58 pm

            Not safety. The first paragraph of the first article was about the dangers of aluminum. Very poorly sourced.

          • D

            Derp TurtleJun 9, 2017 at 8:02 pm

            Google Scholar is not google. I also said “I trust you know how to weigh studies?” Do you actually understand the difference between studies and google scholar.

            And why are you so focused on the first paragraph of the first article…could it be because all the others prove you wrong?

          • D

            DavidQJun 9, 2017 at 7:55 pm

            No tantrum. Just getting tired of not getting any real substance from you after all of your wild claims.

          • D

            DavidQJun 9, 2017 at 7:51 pm

            Wrong on all three counts.
            1. Your source for toxicity colony clearly states that:
            A toxicant is any chemical that can harm or kill. No mention of exposure level. That’s not one half of toxicology but the whole thing. Strike 1.
            2. There are toxic substances in vaccines. Remember the whole section in your source headed “heavy metals as toxic agents?” Well there are heavy metals in vaccines. Strike 2.
            3. I never mentioned anything about vaccine exposure levels. Strike 3.

          • A

            Aaron OakleyJun 9, 2017 at 6:33 pm

            Most of the toxins that enter our bodies are the ones mother nature puts in our food.

            It’s the dose that counts. Our bodies metabolise the natural toxins in our food, and those in vaccines, just fine.

          • D

            Derp TurtleJun 9, 2017 at 6:45 pm

            [obligatory grumble about toxins not being the same as toxicants/toxic ingredients ]

          • D

            DavidQJun 9, 2017 at 7:00 pm

            Grammar shaming in cases of mistaken typos is the fodder of the dim witted.

          • D

            Derp TurtleJun 9, 2017 at 7:07 pm

            Notice how you can’t even insult me while rebutting my arguments. The fact that you have to resort to ad hominems tells me all I need to know.

          • D

            DavidQJun 9, 2017 at 7:13 pm

            I’m not so sure you know very much about chemistry or toxic agents. That’s pretty clear.

          • D

            Derp TurtleJun 9, 2017 at 7:28 pm

            Not that you’ve shown yourself qualified to judge on these matters….

          • D

            DavidQJun 9, 2017 at 7:20 pm

            Any other evidence? The aluminum salts post was stellar.

          • D

            Derp TurtleJun 9, 2017 at 7:27 pm

            Dude, your claim.

          • D

            DavidQJun 9, 2017 at 7:03 pm

            In all cases Aaron?
            Are there times that those toxin and toxic substances are not metabolized out?

          • D

            duplicatJun 10, 2017 at 12:50 am

            He’s right. I was just reading about ochratoxin A. This can cause kidney failure at ppb levels.

            And ochratoxin-DNA adducts (to guanidine) have been demonstrated by radio-TLC and HPLC-MS!!

            Stay away from the grains people!!!

          • C

            Charles LindturtleJun 17, 2017 at 9:24 pm

            Most of the toxins that enter our bodies are the ones mother nature puts in our food.

            Except for Mike Stevens. Most of the toxins in his body come from KY Jelly hydrocarbons, amyl nitrites, and AZT.

          • D

            Derp TurtleJun 9, 2017 at 5:55 pm

            You forgot:

            5: Can you prove anything in vaccines is a toxin? (Toxins are not quite the same thing as toxicants/toxic ingredients)

          • S

            shay simmonsJun 9, 2017 at 6:17 pm

            He’s way too far gone for that.

          • D

            DavidQJun 10, 2017 at 9:30 am

            Just stop flagging my posts for removal and you will find the answers.
            Very Bradbury-esque to censure.

          • S

            shay simmonsJun 10, 2017 at 10:32 am

            I’ve yet to flag a single one of your posts. Paranoid much?

          • D

            Derp TurtleJun 10, 2017 at 10:47 am

            No, we’ll find your responses. You have yet to answer 3 and 4 because for some bizarre reason, you seem to be under the impression that it is not your responsibility to provide whatever evidence you have for the claims that you made yourself.

          • Z

            ZogbyJun 10, 2017 at 4:06 pm

            I know right?

            A two year old article you dead-threaded to troll some bonehead and he seems to think he doesn’t have to reply.

            The nerve.

          • D

            Derp TurtleJun 11, 2017 at 2:41 am

            Asking for evidence for claims =/= trolling.

          • D

            DavidQJun 10, 2017 at 9:29 am

            I’ve answered this for you innumerable times turtle.

          • D

            Derp TurtleJun 10, 2017 at 10:18 am

            No, you have responded to it. Not quite the same thing.

          • S

            shay simmonsJun 10, 2017 at 10:42 am

            This guy claims he’s a chemist?

          • D

            Derp TurtleJun 10, 2017 at 10:45 am

            Be fair, Shay. Toxins is a bit more in the realm of biologists, as far as jargon goes. What’s hilarious is that his own ASTDR (I may not have got the letters in the right order) source mentions that toxicity is dose-dependent at least five times! It’s one thing when it’s what someone says and when you go look, it’s different but this is the original source taking a lot of effort to point out that toxicity is dose-dependent!

          • S

            shay simmonsJun 10, 2017 at 10:49 am

            Yes, but there’s still that whole “mercury in vaccines” thing. If he’s any kind of scientist, then I’m Marie of Roumania.*

            (*as Dorothy Parker would say).

          • D

            Derp TurtleJun 10, 2017 at 10:50 am

            Oh, that’s still dumb. Not that it would matter whether or not he was a chemist, people either know their stuff or they don’t.

          • S

            shay simmonsJun 10, 2017 at 10:57 am

            Or they lie.

          • D

            Derp TurtleJun 10, 2017 at 10:58 am

            Or that.

          • D

            duplicatJun 10, 2017 at 3:03 pm

            There is ethylmercury in vaccines.

            This is the third most toxic organomercurial behind methylmercury and dimethylmercury.

          • D

            Derp TurtleJun 11, 2017 at 2:41 am

            Have you got evidence for this claim?

          • D

            duplicatJun 11, 2017 at 3:14 am

          • D

            Derp TurtleJun 11, 2017 at 3:19 am

            Toxicity is dose-dependent so… ‘no’.

          • D

            duplicatJun 11, 2017 at 3:24 am

            So ‘no’ what?

            Ethymercury isn’t the third most toxic mercury species because it’s “dose dependent”?

            More pharma-funded tardspeak by DerpTurtle.

          • D

            Derp TurtleJun 11, 2017 at 3:26 am

            Nice strawmen.

          • D

            Derp TurtleJun 11, 2017 at 3:27 am

            Are you a nematode?

          • D

            Derp TurtleJun 11, 2017 at 4:42 am

            A compound is no more a mercury species than table salt is a species of explosive sodium.

          • D

            duplicatJun 11, 2017 at 1:16 pm

            Never go full-retard Derp.

          • D

            duplicatJun 10, 2017 at 3:02 pm

            Hey Shay, do you want to see the chemical formula for thimerosal?

            C₉H₉HgNaO₂S

            Now tell me: What does “Hg” signify? What do these two letters represent???

          • A

            AutismDaddJun 11, 2017 at 8:27 am

            To shaynus it means Wakefield was a fraud and McCarthy was a playboy bunny

          • D

            DavidQJun 10, 2017 at 9:29 am

            I can and have answered 1 & 2 several times.
            3 &4 are research questions and you can do the research yourself.

          • S

            shay simmonsJun 10, 2017 at 10:34 am

            And…you keep dodging #3 & #4, and will continue to do so because you think it’s easier to frighten people when you only tell part of the story.

          • D

            Derp TurtleJun 10, 2017 at 10:38 am

            3 and 4 are, of course, important.

            As for doing the research herself, why on earth do you think it’s shay’s responsibility to go hunting for whatever evidence you have to support your claims that you made yourself?

          • D

            Derp TurtleJun 10, 2017 at 10:21 am

            1)At What dosage level does it burn skin/eyes?

            2) How does that compare to the dosage in vaccines.

            Come now, these are really very simple questions.

          • J

            JGCJun 8, 2017 at 1:43 pm

            I’ve addressed thimerosal and aluminum adjuvant exposure as a consequence of routine vaccination in a response to another of your posts. Let me address formaldehyde exposure as the result of vaccination as well.

            The theoretical maximum exposure to formaldehyde from immunization would be at the scheduled 6 month visit, when the child could potentially receive up to 4 immunizations (HepB, DTaP, IPV and possibly influenza). This would expose them to around 310 ug of formaldehyde.

            That’s less formaldehyde than one is exposed to simply as part of a normal diet (10,000 to 20,000 ug/daily) and in fact less than you’ll receive when by eating a single apple, (between 430 and 1100 ug formaldehyde).

            Formaldehyde is also produced by your own body as a function of normal human metabolism, such that normal blood concentrations are generally about 2-3μg of formaldehyde per gram of blood (or about 2.12-3.18μg/mL, with the body dealing with 31 to 59 grams of formaldehyde per day without any adverse consequence. Dealing with an additional 310 ug is well within the body’s metabolic capacity.

            As always, it’s the dose that makes the poison.

          • M

            Mike StevensJun 8, 2017 at 4:48 pm

            Toxicants are not the same as toxins. That’s what she means.
            People often call toxicants “toxins”, incorrectly.

          • D

            DavidQJun 8, 2017 at 6:15 pm

            Maybe, but I doubt it. If that’s what she meant, she probably would’ve posted that. Mostly she wanted to give me a gotcha. I should have use the word toxic substance instead of toxin.

          • M

            Mike StevensJun 9, 2017 at 10:23 am

            “Maybe [DerpTurtle meant toxicants], but I doubt it.”
            Knowing her previous comment history, I can assure you she meant exactly that.
            She has corrected people on this matter in the past.

          • D

            Derp TurtleJun 9, 2017 at 4:27 pm

            Notice that it’s easy to see my previous comment history. *cough* Public *cough*.

          • D

            Derp TurtleJun 9, 2017 at 4:27 pm

            ” I should have use the word toxic substance instead of toxin”

            Yes. Which is what I have told you.

            This:

            =/=

            means:

            “Not the same.”

            As in 2+2 = 4 but 2+2 =/= 5.

            So yeh…you should have said either toxicants or toxic substances….that was my point. That’s why I made the point.

          • D

            duplicatJun 10, 2017 at 12:59 am

            This: =/= means:”Not the same.”

            No Derp, this means not the same: ≠

            What you think means “not the same” ( =/= ) is actually a little bit-of-stupid created from the warped imagination of an amateur typographer.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1acd087ef64766a766cc604cb85dfacbb9bc6bef4e61b04010e0867b546b54a3.png

          • D

            Derp TurtleJun 10, 2017 at 4:55 am

            https://www.allacronyms.com/%3D%2F%3D/Not_equal_to

            “=/=
            means
            Not equal to”

            https://www.allacronyms.com/%3D%2F%3D/Not_equal_to

            Anything else you’d like to be wrong about today?

          • D

            DavidQJun 10, 2017 at 6:13 am

            With the ever advancing use of texting, there are acronyms and shortcuts that some people have not yet learned. Making fun of people for grammar and punctuation makes stakes is the fodder of the dim witted.

          • D

            Derp TurtleJun 10, 2017 at 6:14 am

            Providing a definition =/= making fun.

            Providing information =/= making fun.

          • D

            DavidQJun 10, 2017 at 6:17 am

            You’re correct. It’s was the comment of “anything else you’d like to be wrong about” was the dim witted fodder. We’ve been through this before. I though you’d have learned by now.

          • D

            Derp TurtleJun 10, 2017 at 6:38 am

            Eh. I didn’t say I was polite about it.

            As for ‘making fun’…..you have no idea what being made fun of is. Hint: It’s a bit more powerful than making a mean comment here and there.

          • D

            DavidQJun 10, 2017 at 9:10 am

            Spoken like someone who is good at making fun of / and picking on people.

          • D

            Derp TurtleJun 10, 2017 at 9:27 am

            Yes, you still don’t know what picking on people is. It’s one-sided.

          • D

            duplicatJun 10, 2017 at 2:54 pm

            You keep saying that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.

          • D

            Derp TurtleJun 11, 2017 at 2:42 am

            The dictionary agrees with me and disagrees with you.

          • D

            Derp TurtleJun 9, 2017 at 1:33 am

            Also, notice that the “error of mine” that he is pointing out is

            This symbol:

            =/=

            being used for “not the same.”

          • D

            duplicatJun 10, 2017 at 2:25 am

            Mike Stevens comments on UFO forum!!!

          • D

            Derp TurtleJun 10, 2017 at 11:36 am

            Your point is?

          • D

            duplicatJun 10, 2017 at 2:57 pm

            My point is that he’ll believe anything.

            He also thinks that aluminum becomes magically safe once it is in vaccines.

          • D

            Derp TurtleJun 11, 2017 at 2:41 am

            Got any evidence for that?

          • D

            duplicatJun 11, 2017 at 12:05 am

          • D

            Derp TurtleJun 11, 2017 at 2:38 am

            Your point would be? How does my physical position affect the truth or falsity of a claim?

          • P

            ProponentOct 31, 2015 at 9:20 pm

            Right.. let’s have a look at the entire quoted section.

            You.. know.. for proper context and all that.

            Almost 48 million doses of varicella vaccine were distributed between 1995 and 2005. There were 25,306 adverse events reported (52.7/100,000 doses distributed); 5.0% were classified as serious (2.6/100,000 doses distributed). Adverse events associated with evidence of vaccine-strain VZV included meningitis in patients with concurrent herpes zoster. Patients with genetic predispositions may rarely have disease triggered by receipt of varicella vaccine. Overall, serious adverse events reported after varicella vaccination continue to be rare and must be considered relative to the substantial benefits of varicella vaccination. * Ongoing safety surveillance and further studies may shed light on some of the hypothesized associations.”

            (Source: “Safety of varicella vaccine after licensure in the United States: experience from reports to the vaccine adverse event reporting system, 1995-2005.”

            J Infect Dis 2008 Mar;197 Suppl 2:S170-7)

            * We could discuss the limitations of the study that the authors, themselves, make mention of.. but.. I see no reason to do so here.

            Since David does not seem interested in the rest of the cherry that he picked.

            Next?

          • D

            David QuartellNov 1, 2015 at 3:36 am

            Can you please explain the study limitations to which you alluded. Also discuss the 838 cases of meningitis and 60 cases of death as mentioned in the study. And the admitted under reporting of sequella to the VAERS system, and how that affects the results.
            And, even though you added text and emphasis, can you please discuss the 25,306 adverse reactions, of which over 1000 were considered serious by the authors of the study.
            It is easy to copy and paste. Now comes the part where you have to explain why the authors thought those were a big deal, but you don’t.

          • P

            ProponentNov 1, 2015 at 4:03 am

            David Quartell: “And, even though you added text and emphasis, can you please discuss the 25,306 adverse reactions, of which over 1000 were considered serious by the authors of the study. ”

            Sure..

            Didn’t ‘add’ text.. I simply posted the rest of the quoted section that you omitted. You wrote/quoted this part..

            David Quartell: “Overall, serious adverse events reported after varicella vaccination continue”

            … and truncated the rest of that sentence.

            That is.. misleading and/or disingenuous and/or deceitful.

            Guide to Interpreting VAERS Case Report Information

            “When evaluating data from VAERS, it is important to note that for any reported event, no cause-and-effect relationship has been established. Reports of all possible associations between vaccines and adverse events (possible side effects) are filed in VAERS. Therefore, VAERS collects data on any adverse event following vaccination, be it coincidental or truly caused by a vaccine. The report of an adverse event to VAERS is not documentation that a vaccine caused the event.”

            “A report to VAERS generally does not prove that the identified vaccine(s) caused the adverse event described. It only confirms that the reported event occurred sometime after vaccine was given. No proof that the event was caused by the vaccine is required in order for VAERS to accept the report. VAERS accepts all reports without judging whether the event was caused by the vaccine.”

            DISCLAIMER: Please note that VAERS staff follow-up on all serious and other selected adverse event reports to obtain additional medical, laboratory, and/or autopsy records to help understand the concern raised. However, in general coding terms in VAERS do not change based on the information received during the follow-up process. VAERS data should be used with caution as numbers and conditions do not reflect data collected during follow-up. Note that the inclusion of events in VAERS data does not
            imply causality.”

            “I have read and understand the preceding statement.” Click here to proceed to VAERS database

          • D

            David QuartellNov 1, 2015 at 5:20 am

            Your post would certainly have validity of the “text” to which you were referring was from a VAERS report. However, VEARS only collects the data and then other independent researchers review the data and report their findings.
            That’s the origin of the text.
            Do, as previously requested, could you discuss and explain, not the raw VAERS data, but the analyzed and reported findings?

          • P

            ProponentNov 1, 2015 at 9:52 am

            “Discussion

            Extensive postlicensure experience after distribution of nearly 48 million doses of varicella vaccine continues to show an excellent overall safety profile. Use of varicella vaccine has resulted in substantial reductions in varicella-associated mortality, morbidity, and health care costs [4–6]. Consistent with the results of earlier studies, the majority (95%) of adverse events reported were not serious [10, 11]: two-thirds of the reports described fever, rash, or injection-site reactions.”

            David Quartell: “Really, no risk?
            Seizures, meningitis, death, fever?”

            Meningitis?

            Ok, then..

            “Meningitis can be a rare manifestation of VZV reactivation and was thought to occur mainly in persons with impaired cellular immunity [23], although it also has been described to occur in healthy children and adults [24–28]. The significance of wild-type or vaccine-strain VZV in CSF after VZV reactivation, especially when cranial nerves are involved, is unclear. However, the 2 patients with confirmed vaccine-strain-associated meningitis had sufficient neurological symptoms and signs to warrant diagnostic evaluation of CSF. Chiappini and de Martino [28] have speculated that early acquisition of (wildtype) VZV may predispose to subsequent neurologic complications in association with VZV reactivation. Acquisition of VZV infection in the first year of life is a known risk factor for HZ in childhood [29]. Although available data suggest a lower risk of HZ for vaccinated children, compared with those with previous varicella [13, 30, 31], longer follow-up of vaccine recipients is needed, especially of children vaccinated at 12 months of age.”

            (Source: “Safety of varicella vaccine after licensure in the United States: experience from reports to the vaccine adverse event reporting system, 1995-2005.”

            J Infect Dis 2008 Mar;197 Suppl 2:S170-7)

            I don’t think you read the entire paper, David.

            And if you did.. I do not think it says what you think/like it to say.

            Or.. alternatively.. understood it.

            ‘Sides.. this paper is hiding in plain sight on the CDC website.. Vaccines VPD-VAC/Varicella/Vaccine Safety and Monitoring.

          • D

            David QuartellNov 1, 2015 at 12:48 pm

            Great. You did some research and presented some information.
            What you failed to do was present evidence that the varicella vaccine did not cause adverse reactions that caused death and meningitis. I showed you a peer reviewed publication that showed a link. You presented a pape that, well, I don’t really know the hat it was supposed to show. I guess it said in conclusion that further study was needed. I guess that’s what you need – further study.

          • M

            Mike StevensNov 1, 2015 at 4:55 pm

            David, the incidence of meningitis following varicella is not insignificant – VZV accounts for around 2% of all viral meningitis cases. The incidence of encephalitis (which is more damaging and may be lethal in 10-20%) is around one in 5000 cases. These are only some of the sequelae (note the spelling would you) of having natural chickenpox.

            Now you dig up some VAERS data suggesting 838 unverified cases of vaccine meningitis out of around 45 million vaccine doses, and we are meant to recoil at the sheer horror of the risks of vaccination?

          • D

            David QuartellNov 1, 2015 at 5:07 pm

            Don’t marginalized the data because you don’t like the findings.
            Let’s start with this……
            Can we agree that there have been some individuals that have been seriously harmed from the vaccine, no matter the number?

          • P

            ProponentNov 3, 2015 at 8:20 am

            David.. I am not sure if you are aware in each of my responses to your posts I have not deviated from the paper/research that you initially introduced to the discussion?

          • J

            JustthefactsNov 3, 2015 at 9:38 am

            Ciaparker2 has made a noob mistake. She posted the Hooker paper to support her argument forgetting that the paper was pulled. You gotta see it. We should shame her off line for a few weeks.

            http://truthinmedia.com/reality-check-cdc-scientist-admits-data-of-vaccines-and-autism-was-trashed/#comment-2339963697

          • P

            ProponentNov 3, 2015 at 12:17 pm

            Caught that.. and it’s right at the top of the Translational Neurodegeneration page for the paper.

            Let alone at the National Center for Biotechnology Information site page.

          • D

            DavidQNov 3, 2015 at 12:10 pm

            Yes. I am fully aware. So what is your point?

          • F

            FsmPastapharianNov 4, 2015 at 9:40 am

            Hahaha, that’s a great quote truncation. It’s one thing to do it within a paragraph, but to cut off mid-sentence really carries the foul stench of desperation, doesn’t it? Pathetic. All credibility lost on that one. All.

          • D

            Derp TurtleJun 10, 2017 at 10:49 am

            Why aren’t dentist visits mandated?

            Well, let me know when I can catch plaque from using a semi-enclosed space within 2 hours after someone with bad teeth has used it. Until then, there is a meaningful difference.

    • A

      AutismDaddJun 11, 2017 at 9:35 am

      Ms Parker is what she claims those who are concerned about safety are. She just gets a column to write he ideology in.

      Reply
  • B

    BrianOct 27, 2015 at 11:26 pm

    First the person named al claimed he was not “anti-vaccine”

    –Then he immediately brought up the “CDCwhistleblower” hoax, which was debunked months ago and only survives on anti-vaccine conspiracy blogs
    –Then he brought up the silly conspiracy movie “traceamounts”, produced and marketed by anti-vaccine activists.
    –Then he brought up the debunked “it’s the additives that are dangerous” referencing thimerosol which was removed over a decade ago. This false rumor, again, only is promoted by anti-vaccine sources.
    –He called the CDC-recommended schedule “insane” (despite being developed after literally thousands of safety/efficacy studies were performed) and instead promoted Sear’s completely untested alternate schedule that Sears admitted he simply made up.
    –Finally, he brought up another hoax- that the Amish don’t get vaccinated- a false rumor… again… only promoted by anti-vaccine activists.

    Dear al: If you don’t want people to think you’re anti-vaccine, stop saying things that prove you’re anti-vaccine. Nobody is forcing you.

    Reply
    • A

      AutismDadNov 5, 2015 at 8:48 am

      Nobody forces you to breath….

      Reply
    • A

      AutismDaddJun 11, 2017 at 9:29 am

      So blah blah blah…parroting the pro-vaccine gambit…

      Reply
  • A

    alOct 27, 2015 at 9:30 am

    It appears that the Amish do vaccinate but at a much lower rate than CDCs recommended 25 or so doses of 9 different vaccines within the first 36 months.

    A 2007 study in the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics on an Amish population in Holmes County, Ohio found that 85% had vaccinated at least some of their children, and 68% had given all their children at least 1 vaccination.

    From what I understand they are healthy population.

    Reply
    • R

      Reality022Oct 27, 2015 at 10:11 am

      al said, “From what I understand they are healthy population.”

      Yeah, if you ignore that in 2014 an unvaccinated member caused the largest measles outbreak in 20 years due to their low mmr uptake:
      www(dot)usatoday(dot)com/story/news/nation/2014/07/01/measles-amish-ohio/11933033/
      Which prompted the Amish Ignorati to face facts and line up for mmr vaccination.

      They also have a lot of congenital problems typical of insular communities. They aren’t as robust as the All-Nachrule neo-hippies like to imagine.

      Reply
      • A

        alOct 27, 2015 at 10:15 am

        Did anyone die?

        Reply
        • R

          Reality022Oct 27, 2015 at 10:21 am

          Is death your metric for disease and public health? That is quite demented and monstrous.
          How many were hospitalized? How many had their hearing affected? How many are now subject to future death via SSPE?

          If death is your metric, how many autistic kids die from autism?
          None?
          Then we shouldn’t be concerned with autism?

          Reply
          • A

            alOct 27, 2015 at 10:25 am

            In other words no one died. Cool!

          • R

            Reality022Oct 27, 2015 at 10:37 am

            If the mortality rate for measles is 1 per 1000 clinical cases, how many clinical cases would it take to have a 90% chance of a death?

            Can you answer this simple question since you seem to believe you are knowledgeable enough about the subject to go against the recommendations of 99.9% of the PhDs and experts in the field?

            … or did your science and maths education stop in 9th grade yet you still think you know more than scientists who spent a decade or more at university and decades in their careers learning about immunology and infectious diseases?

            Folks should not take medical advice from anonymous people on the internet. Who in their right mind would not vaccinate their baby because CrystalHippieChick92 said it was dangerous?
            Get your medical advice from recognised experts and your own physician.

          • J

            JustthefactsOct 28, 2015 at 1:22 pm

            145,700 people died in 2013 from the measles worldwide. Is that “cool” with you?

          • A

            alOct 28, 2015 at 1:29 pm

            In 1980 kids received 9 doses of 3 vaccines by age 6 and the autism rate was about 1 in 2000.

            Now kids get 45 doses of 14 vaccines by age 6 and the autism rate is about 1 in 150

            That’s not cool with me

          • J

            JustthefactsOct 28, 2015 at 1:49 pm

            You build your own strawman and answered your own question. How about answering mine?

            145,700 people died in 2013 from the measles worldwide. Is that “cool” with you?

          • A

            AutismDadOct 29, 2015 at 5:57 pm

            Try to follow along IF you can. Answer the original question.

          • J

            JustthefactsOct 29, 2015 at 6:34 pm

            Autismdad is trolling again.

          • A

            AutismDadOct 29, 2015 at 6:51 pm

            Again….answer the question.

          • J

            JustthefactsOct 29, 2015 at 7:02 pm

            All the questions have been answered, troll. Go back to your bridge or I will continue to smite you with memes.

          • A

            AutismDadOct 29, 2015 at 10:23 pm

            yea that’s all you have.

          • J

            JustthefactsOct 30, 2015 at 10:42 am

            That’s all I got for you, Troll.

          • J

            JustthefactsOct 29, 2015 at 7:36 pm

            All the questions have been answered including this one: Is autismdad a troll? The answer is YES!!

          • A

            AutismDadOct 30, 2015 at 7:53 am

            Justthefuct up

          • J

            JustthefactsOct 30, 2015 at 10:59 am

            If there are mods, get rid of this troll and I’ll help clean up the page.

          • A

            AutismDadOct 30, 2015 at 11:42 am

            The Mod is me. Didn’t know that did you?

          • J

            JustthefactsOct 30, 2015 at 4:48 pm

            Then delete my posts or I have just confirmed, again, that you are a liar.

            Are you a liar?

          • A

            AutismDadOct 29, 2015 at 5:55 pm

            And he calls itself Reality022. Give a dose of reality and you get attitude back like a snotty nosed child.

          • J

            JustthefactsOct 29, 2015 at 7:44 pm

            Stop talking about you son. It’s not appropriate.

          • A

            AutismDadOct 29, 2015 at 10:19 pm

            Seeing things or making it up?

          • A

            AutismDadOct 29, 2015 at 5:56 pm

            Nice job NOT answering. Your minions and peers will be impressed.

      • A

        AutismDadOct 29, 2015 at 5:54 pm

        How many people were affected? I guess you forgot to say? How many deaths?

        Reply
        • J

          JustthefactsOct 29, 2015 at 7:44 pm

          145,700 people died in 2013 from the measles worldwide.

          I just love posting that.

          Reply
          • A

            AutismDadOct 29, 2015 at 10:37 pm

            sadist

          • J

            JustthefactsOct 30, 2015 at 10:44 am

            Sadist say the measles are harmless. You don’t say anything. You are a Troll.

          • A

            AutismDadOct 30, 2015 at 11:54 am

            Wow your tank is running on fumes boy. Where’s that fighting spirit you inherited from your German ancestors?

          • J

            JustthefactsOct 30, 2015 at 4:49 pm

            There is no honor in beating the defected. You are too pathetic to engage, Troll

          • S

            sabelmouseOct 31, 2015 at 11:38 am

            we don’t really have any more fighting spirit than anyone else.

          • J

            joeNov 3, 2015 at 12:27 am

            WOW,how do you know he is German?

          • A

            AutismDadNov 3, 2015 at 4:57 pm

            He supports baby killing

          • J

            joeNov 3, 2015 at 9:54 pm

            So he is a German baby killer? please tell me how you know that. I must add that i dont know if he is a he or if it is a she, but you knowing that he or she is a German baby killer is truly remarkable.How do you do that?

    • A

      AndreaOct 30, 2015 at 10:56 am

      Amish article for you to read al. Hurry before the vax trolls yell spam!

      http://www.healthfreedoms.org/the-reason-why-the-amish-do-not-get-autism/

      Reply
      • J

        JustthefactsOct 30, 2015 at 6:37 pm

        The Amish have autism just like everyone else plus a special form due to their closed gene pool.
        The study in 2010 found 1 in 271

        https://imfar.confex.com/imfar/2010/webprogram/Paper7336.html

        Pick sources with current information.

        Reply
  • A

    alOct 27, 2015 at 7:32 am

    Thanx for the discussion guys. Gotta go to work

    Reply
  • A

    alOct 27, 2015 at 6:55 am

    A question. Do the Amish get vaccinated?

    Reply
    • P

      ProponentOct 27, 2015 at 7:12 am

      Yes.

      Next?

      Reply
    • R

      Reality022Oct 27, 2015 at 7:29 am

      Yes, and Dan Olmsted is either a liar or an ignoramus… or both.
      en(dot)wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/Amish_anomaly

      autism-news-beat(dot)com/archives/29

      goo(dot)gl/bsIyS

      pediatrics(dot)aappublications(dot)org/content/early/2011/06/23/peds.2009-2599.abstract

      al, this is your 3rd anti-vaccine post and you’re still batting 0.000.

      That’s what you get when you get all your vaccine info from the anti-vaccine cult.

      Reply
      • V

        VikingAPRNCNPOct 31, 2015 at 9:57 am

        I vote for willful liar.

        Reply
    • J

      JustthefactsOct 28, 2015 at 1:33 pm

      The degree of ignorance you bring to the conversation explains your position completely. You might as well just said “I don’t know anything about vaccines so I decided to follow rumors and marginal doctors instead of established science”.
      That would have been very clear.

      Reply
    • K

      KatiaOct 30, 2015 at 8:02 am

      Yes, it’s a personal choice for them according to their pastors.

      Reply
    • A

      Andrew LazarusOct 31, 2015 at 11:03 am

      Best article I have seen on the Amish measles cases.

      Reply
  • P

    ProponentOct 27, 2015 at 6:36 am

    An interesting article on those that get up in arms when called out as ‘anti-vaxxers’..

    Antivaccinationists and the Nation of Islam protest in front of the CDC, but don’t you dare call them “antivaccine”

    Preamble..

    “If there’s one thing that’s guaranteed to anger most antivaccine activists, it’s a skeptic calling them “antivaccine.” The reason, of course, is that (1) many of them actually believe they are “not antivaccine” but rather “pro-vaccine safety,” even though their words and actions proclaim otherwise and (2) they crave legitimacy.”

    Reply
    • E

      eggman2Nov 1, 2015 at 10:51 pm

      This article was produced by a prostituted to the junk medicine robber barons website.

      Reply
      • J

        JustthefactsNov 5, 2015 at 5:25 pm

        “by a prostituted to the junk” – yes, you are very informed………

        Reply
        • E

          eggman2Nov 6, 2015 at 4:56 am

          Of course, just the Bullshit, I got my lesson from the SHOOL OF LIFE.

          Reply
          • J

            JustthefactsNov 6, 2015 at 8:25 am

            That explains everything.

          • B

            Bjorn FowlerNov 6, 2015 at 1:18 pm

            Since he can’t even spell school, he needs to go back to it.

        • E

          eggman2Nov 6, 2015 at 11:31 pm

          That was music to my ears. Tell it to me again you official pro vaccine propaganda prostitute named Justthebullshit.

          Reply
    • E

      eggman2Nov 1, 2015 at 10:54 pm

      People that would claim that they are pro vaccine safety are not fully informed. One can not be half way to enlightenment and claim victory. VACCINES are crap.

      Reply
      • A

        AutismDadNov 5, 2015 at 8:46 am

        I’m down with the crap part. Could be why P-vacs are so defensive. Turds of a feather run together.

        Reply
        • J

          JustthefactsNov 5, 2015 at 5:27 pm

          Troll time.

          Reply
      • J

        JustthefactsNov 5, 2015 at 5:25 pm

        “Vaccines are crap” is your informed comment? That is self explanatory as to you “enlightenment”

        Reply
        • E

          eggman2Nov 6, 2015 at 4:57 am

          Thank you, Justthebullshit.

          Reply
        • A

          AutismDaddJun 11, 2017 at 9:32 am

          Hey twistthefacts what name are you posting under now?

          Reply
          • 6

            655321Jun 12, 2017 at 8:25 am

            How many of these profiles are used the same person? There is no doubt WLU=simba=Chris, and likely several others, it wouldn’t surprise me if most of the obvious pharmaceutical profiles here are actually only a very small number of people.

          • D

            duplicatJun 14, 2017 at 6:02 am

            I’ve come across a few accounts who were the same person. They used blocked accounts and were trying to intimidate me.

            A shape-shifting a-hole that probably comments regularly under different names. It wouldn’t surprise me if it was WLU.

          • 6

            655321Jun 14, 2017 at 12:50 pm

            There seem to be many shape shifting a-holes here. Cheaper for their employers to hire fewer of them managing multiple accounts than to hire that many people using only 1 account.

    • A

      AutismDadNov 5, 2015 at 8:45 am

      Try SAFE VACCINE ADVOCATES. or those who vaccinated and saw their child severely injured. It obvious you get your jollies out of imagining the carnage and are titillated you can deny it. Freud could have wrote a book on you.

      Reply
      • P

        ProponentNov 5, 2015 at 12:44 pm

        I get the distinct impression, Dud.. from your rather prolific and as noted before, less than sophomoric commenting history.. that you don’t spend much time with your special needs child.

        Why is that?

        Reply
        • A

          AutismDadNov 5, 2015 at 1:31 pm

          Quite easy to explain actually….its none of your business Plop Plop

          Reply
          • P

            ProponentNov 5, 2015 at 2:19 pm

            AutismDud: “Only an imbecile wouldn’t concede the immune system knows what to do.”

            Are you vaccinated against tetanus, Dud?

            Or.. do you believe your immune system “knows what to do”?

            Feel free to continue your embittered rants and/or evade and/or.. being the asshat you typically are in these discussions, Dud.

          • A

            AutismDadNov 5, 2015 at 2:40 pm

            Based on your flawed logic we should have died off as a species a thousand years ago. Give you head a shake.

          • P

            ProponentNov 5, 2015 at 2:44 pm

            As stated and expected from you, Dud..

            “Feel free to continue your embittered rants and/or evade and/or.. being the asshat you typically are in these discussions, Dud.”

            Chalk one more post and.. time.. that you chose to expend towards me, instead of your special needs child.

          • A

            AutismDadNov 5, 2015 at 3:03 pm

            You’re a one trick phony aren’t you?

          • P

            ProponentNov 5, 2015 at 3:11 pm

            And.. one more post and.. some more time.. that you chose to expend towards me instead of your special needs child, Dud.

          • A

            AutismDadNov 5, 2015 at 4:19 pm

            That would be YES a 1 trick phony

          • P

            ProponentNov 5, 2015 at 5:36 pm

            And still.. one more post and.. some more time.. that you chose to expend towards me instead of your special needs child, Dud.

          • A

            AutismDadNov 6, 2015 at 9:49 am

            Reminds you of your childhood, doesn’t it?

          • P

            ProponentNov 6, 2015 at 12:40 pm

            (*tick *tock.. *tick.. *tock..*)

            Time spent on me, rather than with your special needs child.. is adding up. Dud.

          • W

            WYNEMA GONZAGOWSKINov 8, 2015 at 7:11 pm

            OMG! Stop with the broken record and aspersions on his fatherhood!

          • P

            ProponentNov 8, 2015 at 7:51 pm

            The fact that you support.. this.. Wynema.. is much more unconscionable.

            Stalking female posters and all manner of disparaging remarks to various groups of people (women included).. let alone Dud’s incessant sophomoric and trolling posts/comments.

            … …

            And to be clear.. I am not interested in engaging you, and the above is strictly rhetorical, as well as, factual.

            And to the point.. he doesn’t have to respond.

            Enjoy your evening.

          • W

            WYNEMA GONZAGOWSKINov 8, 2015 at 8:17 pm

            Because your insulting his parenting and I find it offensive you make the asinine ASSumption that I support everything he has to say or everything he does which would be incorrect… Nice job of being ignorant of who I am and what I stand for though!

          • E

            eggman2Nov 7, 2015 at 9:02 pm

            How stupid you are ! Something that took millions of years to develop, is no good to you — the immune system. Yet something that was invented by some stupid scientists, that didn’t know much about the human body–because if they knew, like gods they would have been able to recreate themselves–is what you believe in–VACCINES.

    • E

      eggman2Nov 7, 2015 at 9:05 pm

      Vaccine safety is bullshit. There is no vaccine safety.

      Reply
      • W

        WYNEMA GONZAGOWSKINov 8, 2015 at 7:15 pm

        You know, I am with you up to a point… Parents should know what is going into their child’s body and be able to make their own decisions based on this among other things BUT you get all butt hurt and insulting when people disagree with your beliefs and then turn around and insult them 🙁 That is pot/kettle action…

        Reply
        • E

          eggman2Nov 8, 2015 at 8:12 pm

          There is no vaccine safety. I don’t believe in anything.

          If someone believes that injecting into the human body ” GMO-putrefactive-biohazardous material in a soup of carcinogens, mutagens, and teratogens ” (VACCINES) can be made safe, that person is extremely stupid.

          That is what scares me of a candidate named Carson.for the presidency. Not only is he an allopathic doctor, but he spoke about vaccine safety. To hell with vaccine safety and eliminate the whole thing.

          Reply
  • A

    AndreaOct 27, 2015 at 6:27 am

    This article is awful. Talk about clueless. Good thing she has two more years in journalism school. She needs them.

    Reply
    • P

      ProponentOct 27, 2015 at 6:31 am

      A pointless and vapid comment.

      You’ve not addressed anything, and have only served up a personal slight, Andrea.

      Please try again.

      Reply
    • A

      alOct 27, 2015 at 6:47 am

      My first thought was that it was a lazy article. Very lazy. She googled the topic and skimmed a few top search hits. I think she will fit in nicely with the main stream media

      Reply
      • A

        AndreaOct 27, 2015 at 6:50 am

        Absolutely

        Reply
        • J

          JustthefactsOct 28, 2015 at 1:36 pm

          You have demonstrated zero vaccine science knowledge. Who cares about your “opinion”

          Reply
          • A

            alOct 28, 2015 at 1:40 pm

            And what makes you an authority?

          • J

            JustthefactsOct 28, 2015 at 2:03 pm

            Well let’s just sum up all of Andrea comments right here:

            “Absolutely”
            “This article is awful. Talk about clueless. Good thing she has two more years in journalism school. She needs them.”
            “Oh al it looks like you’ve attracted some astroturfers. You simply can’t question anything about vaccines. They won’t have it.”

            If you would like to point out that unique bit of vaccine information in those posts that I might have missed in my haste, I will stand corrected.

            I think you have enough trouble defending yourself.

      • J

        JustthefactsOct 28, 2015 at 1:35 pm

        You have not exactly demonstrated a plethora of vaccine science knowledge yourself. Living in glass houses carry risks.

        Reply
    • F

      FsmPastapharianOct 28, 2015 at 8:45 am

      Care to expand on this pointless criticism? What are we supposed to get from this comment besides that you either didn’t like the author’s writing style, or that it didn’t agree with your preconceived notions?

      Reply
  • A

    alOct 27, 2015 at 6:12 am

    Despit all of the angry responses insisting that I am anti vaccine I am not. I was a fully vaccinated child and I intend on vaccinating our children. However we are doing it on our own schedule NOT the CDCs insane schedule.

    The problem with vaccines is the additives. Namely thimerisol. The bigger problem now with thimerisol is that vaccine makers longer have to list it as an ingredient as long as it’s added during the manufacturing process. In other words thimerisol free is NOT thimerisol free.

    That should give you guys some fuel for angry responses. I love it. Keep the conversation going.

    Reply
    • P

      ProponentOct 27, 2015 at 6:27 am

      al: “That should give you guys some fuel for angry responses. I love it. Keep the conversation going.’

      Right.. so, al?

      You’ve done your research, correct?

      Provide citations (and please.. not simply; ‘hey.. go watch this movie’).. creditable and credible sources.. that back up your assertions in your comment/post.

      Specifically:

      i) “The bigger problem now with thimerisol is that vaccine makers (no) longer have to list it as an ingredient as long as it’s added during the manufacturing process.”

      And..

      ii) What evidence/research do you have to support “doing it on our own schedule”.. as opposed to the recommended CDC schedule?

      (Additionally, you could clarify exactly what you mean by.. “doing it on our own schedule”.)

      Reply
      • A

        alOct 27, 2015 at 6:51 am

        I recommend the “Sears selective”vaccine schedule. It is a much more conservative approach and is tailored to people like me who disagree with the CDCs shotgun approach

        Reply
        • P

          ProponentOct 27, 2015 at 7:13 am

          Partial answer, in that you addressed the clarification of what you meant by.. “doing it on our own schedule”.

          What about.. i) and ii)?

          Reply
          • A

            AutismDadOct 29, 2015 at 5:53 pm

            If a parent has a comfort level and a level of concern why is that wrong? Because your Pharma God has no feelings? Its just black and white. The exact reason they don’t give a frack about adverse events. Sure they’d love to perfect vaccines and are still trying, but at the same time they are force creating a market and adding to the level of adverse outcomes. Hey if you are such a sub-human go work at a packing plant and watch animals suffer. Might give you the kind of thrills you seem to be fond of.

        • J

          joeNov 2, 2015 at 9:15 pm

          Why dont you answer his question properly? typical anti vaxxer answer.

          Reply
    • R

      Reality022Oct 27, 2015 at 7:15 am

      Readers will note that anti-vaccine al has posted no response to my post below and provided no evidence for his bizarre claims.
      Instead he has produced a 2nd fact-free antivaccine post. How quaint.

      al now jumps to the anti-vaccinationist “toxins gambit” claiming the “problem with vaccines is the additives” without providing any evidence.
      His focus is on “thimerisol”(sic), claiming Thimerosal is in Thimerosal-free vaccines.
      Easy enough to check:
      goo(dot)gl/3hrPJH
      Please see Table 1 and Table 3 for the mercury as Thimerosal content of vaccines.
      Note the statement, “The term “trace” has been taken in this context to mean 1 microgram of mercury per dose or less.”
      IOW – “trace” <= 1.0 ug of Hg. It could be 0.0 or it could be 1.0.
      The EPA limit for drinking water is 2ppb Hg (0.002 ug)
      I'm sure any Freshman Chemistry Major can explain to the interested that a vaccine labeled "trace", even with the maximum allowable amount, has less Hg than 17 fluid oz. of EPA acceptable drinking water.
      A rational person will also realize that the EPA limit is for a lifetime of consumption of quarts of mercury containing H2O per day with a very, very large safety factor.

      al then says, "I intend on vaccinating our children."
      Sure. Why would someone post scary vaccine stories and then say they're going to vaccinate?
      You think al may be clumsily trying to scare young mothers from vaccinating by telling porkies?

      al also says, "we are doing it on our own schedule NOT the CDCs insane schedule".
      Ahhh. So al knows more than all the PhD scientists at the CDC, ACIP, IOM, AAP, AAFP, etc.
      I wonder from which university al got the PhD in Immunology. I think it is Google-U and RubeTube College.

      As you can see, al can spew ignorant lies in rapid succession while rebuting them takes time.

      Time to ask once again,
      "Why do the anti-vaccine cultists constantly lie?"

      Reply
      • A

        alOct 27, 2015 at 9:13 am

        We are going to follow the Sears selective vaccine schedule. It’s a good fit for us.

        Reply
        • R

          Reality022Oct 27, 2015 at 10:02 am

          You mean the schedule Sears cynically pulled out of his colon to cater to his cash-only vaccine-averse boutique clientele and to sell his book? The schedule that leaves children vulnerable for no reason and rejects science in favour of dollars?

          This schedule?:
          Dr Bob’s Alternative Vaccine Schedule? He made it up
          pediatricinsider(dot)wordpress(dot)com/2013/01/22/dr-bobs-alternative-vaccine-schedule-he-made-it-up/

          Tell us again how the anti-vaccinationists are only concerned about the evidence for the safety of the vaccine schedule when there is absolutely zero evidence for the safety and efficacy of Sears’ fantasy.

          Reply
          • A

            alOct 27, 2015 at 10:11 am

            Tell you what I’ll send you an update on our kids In a few years and let you know how schedule went.

          • R

            Reality022Oct 27, 2015 at 10:15 am

            It will go fine because you are following Sears’ sleazy advice to “hide in the herd”. IOW – Sears admits his schedule can only work if the rest of the population is vaccinated so his “special clients” can take advantage of herd immunity and free-ride.

            You will be successful because your neighbours are conscientious citizens who care about public health and vaccinate as recommended.

          • J

            JustthefactsOct 28, 2015 at 1:29 pm

            Unless they travel abroad and have a diverse life ( and death.)

          • A

            AutismDadOct 29, 2015 at 5:33 pm

            Taking exlax on a regular basis are you?

          • A

            AndreaOct 30, 2015 at 10:47 am

            Lol

          • R

            Reality022Oct 27, 2015 at 10:29 am

            Another thing –
            Do you mean to tell me that even after having Bob Sears directly say he made it up you are going to follow it? The man admits it is based on nothing and has no testing to show it is safe or effective. Indeed, it may not be safe and it may not be effective. Bob Sears wouldn’t know and he admits it.
            … And yet you are going to use it?

            Brilliant.

          • M

            Mike StevensOct 27, 2015 at 2:06 pm

            It’s quite likely (depending on where you live) that your kids will be absolutely fine, and not catch any potentially life-threatening infections.
            The protection they will have got will be primarily from herd immunity. In other words, until they get their vaccines, they are free-loading off the other kids whose parents have stuck to the schedule.

          • A

            alOct 27, 2015 at 2:28 pm

            As a child I only received 9 doses of 3 different vaccines by age 6, now it is 45 doses of 14 different vaccines. There was never any outbreak in my schools. Now suddenly anyone who gets less than the 45 doses is mooching off of the herd. Doesn’t make sense.

          • K

            KatiaOct 27, 2015 at 2:55 pm

            Yes, we really should have halted medical progress when you turned 6.

          • A

            AutismDadOct 29, 2015 at 5:33 pm

            Is that what al said? NO another rude baseless Katia-ism.

          • R

            RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfGOct 30, 2015 at 2:59 am

            Where the hell do you get 45 doses of 14 vaccines?

            According to the CDC vaccine Schedule for 0-6-year-olds, there’s a grand total of 12 vaccines given over the course of 6 years: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/parents/downloads/parent-ver-sch-0-6yrs.pdf

            Throw in the HPV, to protect against 8 different cancers, for lucky number 13, and the kid is usually set.

          • A

            AutismDadOct 30, 2015 at 7:47 am

            Yet set for a life in a wheel chair or special needs classroom.

          • R

            RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfGOct 31, 2015 at 7:48 am

            If true, better alive than dead. But, you’d rather they be dead. How could I forget.

          • A

            AutismDadOct 31, 2015 at 11:12 am

            So you applaud the injuries incurred. What a cad.

          • R

            RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfGNov 1, 2015 at 4:02 pm

            If my kid were”injured” by vaccines, that would still be preferable to them being dead. Why do you see those as being “vaccine injured” as being lesser?

          • A

            AutismDadNov 1, 2015 at 5:55 pm

            Nice job exaggerating and inventing. I repeat you applaud vaccine injuries, what an animal.

          • R

            RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfGNov 1, 2015 at 7:27 pm

            Sad little troglodyte. Projectinh everywhere.

          • A

            AutismDadNov 1, 2015 at 8:20 pm

            Just plain stupid.

          • R

            RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfGNov 1, 2015 at 10:13 pm

            Aw. Don’t be so hard on yourself. We’ll mock you instead.

          • A

            AutismDadNov 1, 2015 at 10:21 pm

            Yawn.

          • R

            RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfGNov 2, 2015 at 2:25 am

            Still needing my attention, huh.

          • A

            AutismDadNov 5, 2015 at 8:51 am

            You are sleep inducing….yawn

          • R

            RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfGNov 5, 2015 at 9:20 am

            Another satisfied customer.

            Not to too my own horn, but all my power bottoms go to sleep with a smile.

          • D

            Derp TurtleJun 9, 2017 at 5:36 pm

            Check for consistent definitions. A common way that figure ‘works’ is to count the MMR as one vaccine for one generation and then to count the MMR as three vaccines for another generation. Another common ploy for that comparison is to count two doses separately….so you might have….

            The MMR counts as one vaccine for your generation
            But for another generation, it counts as 6 vaccines because it’s 2 x 3.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4d71d5005b7db616b80e7d7b820ccb26db86beb5a0db136f8953f775131d2772.png

          • A

            AutismDadOct 29, 2015 at 5:30 pm

            OH the fear!!! Better hide under the bed, DR Mike Stevens hath spoken!

          • J

            JustthefactsOct 28, 2015 at 1:27 pm

            Anecdotal evidence is good for you. Why are you even posting on a university blog? Science is not your “thing”

          • K

            KatiaOct 30, 2015 at 8:09 am

            Unless you’re really unlucky, they’ll do just fine. Your plan is called “hiding in the herd”. Sears advocates that. He says not to tell anyone. Too bad you told everyone on the WWW!

          • A

            alOct 30, 2015 at 8:15 am

            Herd immunity was achieved in the 1980s with 9 doses of 3 different vaccines. Today’s CDC protocol of 45 doses of 14 vaccines also herd immunity. Choosing the minimal effective dose is not hiding in the heard

          • K

            KatiaOct 30, 2015 at 9:29 am

            Of course, no citation. OK, I know what the immunization schedule of the 1980s looked like. For infants: DTwP (the old, bad whole cell stuff) and OPV (live, oral polio vaccine, the kind that in RARE cases can cause polio in the recipient and/or contacts). Period. At 15 months, MMR. 18 months, DTwP and OPV boosters. At age 5, ditto. Hib vaccine was added in 1985 for two year olds; new Hib vaccines came out in 1988 and 1989, still just for children over 1 year of age.

            No additional doses of DTP or polio have been added, probably since the 1950s. We seem to have herd immunity to diphtheria. Pertussis herd immunity is fair, cases have been rising since the 80s. There is no herd immunity to tetanus. We found out in the measles epidemic of 1989-91 that we didn’t have great herd immunity to measles, that’s when the second dose was recommended. (It always seems to take an epidemic to raise awareness!)

            In 1991, Hib vaccine for infants was added to the schedule and Hib disease dropped like a rock. Hepatitis B vaccine was also added to the infant schedule that year.

            http://www.immunize.org/timeline/

            So you want your kids to get HIb meningitis/epiglottitis, Hepatitis A and B, possibly measles, mumps and rubella, rotavirus, chickenpox (added 1995), influenza (universal immunization recommended in 2008), meningococcal meningitis groups A, C, Y and W-135 (Menactra, 1999) and Meningococcal meningitis group B (2015). You also want your kids to have the possible experience of severe reactions to DTwP, and you want them, and anyone who changes their diapers, to be at risk for VAPP from the OPV. Scuse me for saying this, as you anti-vaxers are so sensitive (while hurling epithets at the pro-vaxers) but that is stupid.

          • A

            alOct 30, 2015 at 9:35 am

            For the 15ty time

          • K

            KatiaOct 30, 2015 at 9:50 am

            Believe me, I’ve heard this “I’m not anti-vax but. . . ” stuff enough times that I don’t believe anyone who says that, especially on a board like this where people are trying to argue points.

            You are constantly moving the goal posts. Everyone and their brother in the vaccine field is aware of the potential for side effects.

            Unfortunately, the vaccine people don’t have a figure like the climate change people do that 97% of their scientists accept AGW. However, 92% of physicians and 90% of nurses last year received a flu vaccine themselves, despite all the hoopla on these boards about how many oppose immunization.
            http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6337a1.htm

            Do not cut off your nose (allow your kids to get these VPDs) to spite your face (the vaccine advocates).

          • A

            AutismDadOct 29, 2015 at 5:30 pm

            vaccinationists where did you pull that out of?

        • F

          FsmPastapharianOct 28, 2015 at 9:57 pm

          Sears derived that schedule through the rectal extraction algorithm. Yes, he simply pulled it out of his ass. It has no basis in data or anything other than his “feelings.” But that’s what you trust. Brilliant.

          Reply
          • A

            AutismDadOct 29, 2015 at 5:29 pm

            Funny how Pastrami NEVER mentions issues where science has been wrong even criminal. Its all nirvana. The fantasy life of a vaccine advocate.

          • F

            FsmPastapharianOct 29, 2015 at 5:50 pm

            Why would I? That’s not relevant to this discussion. No Nirvana here, just too busy combating the antivaxx bullshlt to have time to cover that. See how you idiots hurt your own cause?

          • A

            AutismDadOct 29, 2015 at 5:58 pm

            That ALMOST sounds valid.

          • J

            JustthefactsOct 29, 2015 at 7:48 pm

            Funny how autismdad just attacks people and ignores the subject. That’s called….Trolling.

          • A

            AutismDadOct 29, 2015 at 10:18 pm

            As You troll me.

          • J

            JustthefactsOct 30, 2015 at 10:40 am

            That’s funny.

          • A

            AutismDadOct 30, 2015 at 7:45 am

            Wrong, for the 1,000th time. I’m advocating for safe vaccines. What a criminal right?

          • J

            JustthefactsOct 30, 2015 at 10:56 am

            Really? Let us look at your last 4 posts on any board:

            “No but I know a buttcrack when I’m messaged by one.”
            “and you are a load of B.S. Zero but hot air.”
            “I’m truly sorry to hear that.”
            “You try too hard. You’re a joke and a fraud.”

            And the board says – “Autismdad is a troll!!!”

          • A

            AutismDadOct 30, 2015 at 11:42 am

            Even I’m impressed.

        • A

          AutismDadOct 29, 2015 at 5:27 pm

          Don’t let these ignoramuses bother you. Its obvious they are tainted by the lies they have been fed.

          Reply
      • A

        AutismDadOct 29, 2015 at 5:25 pm

        I guess you are not an independent thinker like al. Instead you are a drone, a blind faith advocate who sits by the TV or waiting to be informed by the daily newspaper what makes your sheets white or your breath fresh. And you wouldn’t want to hear vaccines are not pristine and science not omnipotent, might burst your balloon. Small minded and a fatalist who has no ability to expand mentally. Poor you.

        Reply
    • K

      KatiaOct 27, 2015 at 2:54 pm

      Because you know way more than anyone at the CDC, right?

      Reply
      • A

        alOct 27, 2015 at 2:58 pm

        It’s not a matter of knowledge. It’s about trust.

        Reply
        • K

          KatiaOct 27, 2015 at 3:04 pm

          Why do you mistrust the CDC but trust Dr. Sears? If anyone’s in it for the money, he is!

          Reply
          • A

            AndreaOct 30, 2015 at 10:48 am

            Really? I can’t believe you think this let alone said it.

          • K

            KatiaOct 30, 2015 at 11:09 am

            “You can food some of the people all of the time!” (Abraham Lincoln)

          • A

            AndreaOct 30, 2015 at 11:26 am

            I’m not even going to nitpick you said food not fool.

          • K

            KatiaOct 30, 2015 at 11:58 am

            I edited it. No, you’re not going to nitpick, only say it on the WWW.

          • G

            gracedsOct 30, 2015 at 5:16 pm

            Gesundheit.

          • M

            Mike StevensOct 30, 2015 at 7:24 pm

            Tell me, does Sears keep the profits from his book sales, or does he give them to an autism charity (the way a vaccine expert much vilified by you antivaxers does)?

          • K

            KatiaOct 30, 2015 at 8:31 pm

            My educated guess? The former. He’s a sleaze.

      • A

        AutismDadOct 29, 2015 at 5:18 pm

        Prove CDC is right then.

        Reply
        • J

          JustthefactsOct 29, 2015 at 7:47 pm

          You don’t’ like the CDC. That’s evidence enough.

          Reply
          • A

            AutismDadOct 29, 2015 at 10:18 pm

            wrong answer

          • J

            joeNov 2, 2015 at 9:12 pm

            I have been reading your posts and Als posts,both of you appear to me as hopeless trolls. When asked to answer a question you both resort to name calling, this is a clear indication of a troll.Why dont both of you take time and read your posts and really have a look at yourselves, i will say this, you both have provided me with great entertainment.

          • A

            AutismDadNov 3, 2015 at 5:04 pm

            Then let the show go on my friend. Why can’t I make fun of stupid people making ridiculous comments? I’ve already told others I’m not here to debate something that can’t be properly debated. Most pro-vacs I suspect are master-debaters if not worse. I believe what I believe and they are wrong.

        • R

          RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfGOct 30, 2015 at 2:50 am

          Since it was founded in 1946, that would be 69 years worth of evidence on their side.

          Reply
          • A

            AutismDadOct 30, 2015 at 7:43 am

            Hilarious. How long has the other MAFIA been around? Lots of evidence there too, but also the vow of silence. Funny its like we’re talking about the same organization.

          • R

            RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfGOct 31, 2015 at 7:49 am

            Mafia isn’t an acronym, so all the letters aren’t meant to be capitalized. Do I have to teach you English as well as Science?

          • A

            AutismDadOct 31, 2015 at 11:10 am

            No but you can take up cliff diving….water optional!

          • R

            RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfGNov 1, 2015 at 4:05 pm

            You forgot the comma. Looks like the actual answer is, “Yes, Daddy.” it’s okay. No need to be ashamed of your shortcomings. I won’t lock you, or your sockpuppets in the basement as you do to your pretend “vaccine damaged” son.

            I’ll be kind enough to bring you into the real world, monkey.

          • A

            AutismDadNov 1, 2015 at 5:52 pm

            You need to add some letters to your name. make it even more of a joke as you pretend to be something you’re not. Did you see i didn’t capitalize “make” just to bug you?

          • R

            RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfGNov 1, 2015 at 7:29 pm

            I’m the guy making fun of you as you finger yourself over my every word.

          • A

            AutismDadNov 1, 2015 at 8:18 pm

            No you are a sick puppy who shouldn’t be allowed on line. Back in your cage convict.

          • R

            RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfGNov 1, 2015 at 10:16 pm

            Seems like you started more than you were anticipating. It helps to read someone’s comments before you try to stalk them. They might be nice, like Mr. Stevens, or they might be assholes like me.

          • A

            AutismDadNov 1, 2015 at 10:20 pm

            Are you trying to scare me? At least you know what you are…saves me saying it.

          • R

            RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfGNov 2, 2015 at 2:25 am

            Nope. Just mocking you, retard.

    • J

      JustthefactsOct 28, 2015 at 1:25 pm

      Laws in 2004 and 2006 outlawed all but trace amounts of thimerosal in California
      vaccines. Let’s look at the results:

      1970s = children received 25 mcg of thimerosal= Low autism

      2015 = children received only traces of thimerosal = High autism.

      Tell me Al, How is it that 25X+ more thimerosal in in the 1970s means low autism but “trace amounts” in 2015 means high autism?

      We are all ready to hear this explanation.

      Reply
      • A

        alOct 28, 2015 at 1:39 pm

        The Facts: After “realizing” the amount of mercury in the childhood vaccination schedule recommended by the CDC exceeded all national and global maximum safety limits, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the United States Public Health Service called for the immediate removal of Thimerosal from all vaccines on July 7, 1999.

        By 2003, the vaccine manufacturers had begun to react to the 1999 call by lowering the mercury content in many of the Thimerosal-preserved early childhood vaccines. However, in April of 2002, the CDC began recommending that pregnant women and very young children get annual Thimerosal-preserved flu shots. The result was a ‘shell game’ which has caused widespread confusion in the public because of press reports declaring, “Since (select a year between 1999 and the present), mercury has been removed from all recommended vaccines for children except for some flu shots.”

        Astoundingly, the total level of mercury exposure, if a child receives all the possible CDC-recommended vaccinations that are still Thimerosal preserved, from 6 months to 18 years of age, has actually increased. Significantly, if you put the amount of mercury added to the immunization schedule as a result of the CDC-recommended seasonal and (in 2009) H1N1 flu shots** on one side of a scale, and the amount of mercury that was subtracted from that schedule by reformulating early childhood vaccines without Thimerosal on the other side, the total amount of mercury added far outweighs the amount of mercury subtracted. In addition, today most tetanus shots and the multi-dose Sanofi Menomune® vaccine that are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) still contain 25-micrograms-a-dose mercury.

        Currently, the actions taken by the vaccine manufacturers, the FDA and the CDC have increased the possible maximum childhood exposure to mercury from vaccines to twice the level that triggered the 1999 call to remove mercury from all vaccines as soon as possible! Also, new vaccine formulations with 25 micrograms of mercury per 0.5-mL dose are still being approved by the FDA for administration to pregnant women and children.

        Reply
        • J

          JustthefactsOct 28, 2015 at 1:58 pm

          Your post is a bit of astroturf from “Trace amounts” that we are all familiar with. It is discussion about the entire world, which is not applicable to California. In California, there is not a one childhood or flu vaccine that has more than true trace amounts. That means that just one vaccination from the 1970s is over 25X more than the entire 2006 through 2015 vaccine schedule.

          Your astroturfing is not true in California and does not apply to California.

          So AGAIN. Laws in 2004 and 2006 outlawed all but trace amounts of thimerosal in California
          vaccines. Let’s look at the results:

          1970s = children received 25 mcg of thimerosal= Low autism
          2015 = children received only traces of thimerosal = High autism.

          Tell me Al, How is it that 25X+ more thimerosal in in the 1970s means low autism but “trace amounts” in 2015 means high autism?

          By the way, you can forget about finding astroturf concerning California. None of your anti-vaxx sites have EVER been able to tackle this question. You will have to answer it yourself. or defect again as anti-vaxxers do.

          Reply
          • A

            alOct 28, 2015 at 2:17 pm

            unfortunately, its not just thimerisal, we are dealing with. There is of course aluminum.

            Aluminum is put into vaccines as adjuvant to help them “work better” or to “enhance” them. The suggested aluminum per kg of weight to give to a person is up to 5mcg. (so a 5 pounds baby should get no more than 11mcg of aluminum.) Anything that has more than 25 mcg of aluminum is *supposed* to have a label.

            “WARNING: This product contains aluminum that may be toxic. Aluminum may reach toxic levels with prolonged parenteral administration if kidney function is impaired. Premature neonates are particularly at risk because their kidneys are immature, and they require large amounts of calcium and phosphate solutions, which contain aluminum.

            Research indicates that patients with impaired kidney function, including premature neonates, who receive parenteral levels of aluminum at greater than 4 to 5 [micro]g/kg/day accumulate aluminum at levels associated with central nervous system and bone toxicity. Tissue loading may occur at even lower rates of administration. [http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=201.323]”

            Vaccines, for some reason, are not required to have this label and also are not required to follow the maximum dosage of 25 mcg.

            The following are examples of weight with their corresponding maximum levels of aluminum, per the FDA:

            8 pound, healthy baby: 18.16 mcg of aluminum
            15 pound, healthy baby: 34.05 mcg of aluminum
            30 pound, healthy toddler: 68.1 mcg of aluminum
            50 pound, healthy child: 113 mcg of aluminum
            150 pound adult: 340.5 mcg of aluminum
            350 pound adult: 794.5 mcg of aluminum
            So how much aluminum is in the vaccines that are routinely given to children?
            Hib (PedVaxHib brand only) – 225 mcg per shot
            Hepatitis B – 250 mcg
            DTaP – depending on the manufacturer, ranges from 170 to 625 mcg
            Pneumococcus – 125 mcg
            Hepatitis A – 250 mcg
            HPV – 225 mcg
            Pentacel (DTaP, HIB and Polio combo vaccine) – 330 mcg
            Pediarix (DTaP, Hep B and Polio combo vaccine) – 850 mcg

            At birth, most children are given the hepatitis B vaccination. The amount of aluminum in the Hepatitis B vaccine alone is almost 14 TIMES THE AMOUNT OF ALUMINUM THAT IS FDA-APPROVED.

            At well-child check-ups, it’s common for 2 month, 4 month, 6 month etc., appointments to include up to 8 vaccinations that add up to more than 1,000 mcg of aluminum. Look at the chart above and notice that that amount isn’t even safe for a 350 pound adult. And many children get up to 8 vaccinations a visit several times a year!

            According to the FDA and the AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics), what happens if a child receives more than the maximum required dose of aluminum?

            Aluminum builds up in the bones and brain and can be toxic.

            Aluminum can cause neurological harm.

            Aluminum overdose can be fatal in patients with weak kidney’s or kidney disorders or in premature babies. (How many children are tested to see if their kidney’s are functioning properly before they are vaccinated? Could this also be why the Hepatitis B shot, given to infants at birth, has been linked to SIDS? Neonatal Deaths After Hep B vaccination.)

            [Aluminum Toxicity in Infants and Children, Committee on Nutrition,American Academy of Pediatrics, Pediatrics Volume 97, Number 3 March, 1996, pp. 413-416]

          • J

            JustthefactsOct 28, 2015 at 2:32 pm

            Of course, you defect as predicted. Anti-vaxxers always astroturf unrelated nonsense when backed into a corner. Sure, you can pick as many other bad guys as you want, but the issue is thimerosal.

            One thing for sure, It’s NOT thimerosal causing autism in California, Right? It can’t be, Correct?

          • A

            alOct 28, 2015 at 2:43 pm

            It may not be thimerosal ALONE. I originally hesitated bringing up the aluminum issue because it is new to me. Many people believe it is the additives in vaccines which play a role in the increase in autism. The main additives of concern are the preservatives and the adjuvants. Specifically thimerosal and aluminum.

            If the thimerosal level per vaccine has decreased but the total number of vaccines has increased there is still a significant amount administered. Combine this with the high amounts of aluminum in the vaccines and we have ourselves a recipe for brain damage.

            Are you not concerned with the aluminum? I am.

            Whether it’s the thimerosal or the aluminum or BOTH it is still the vaccines

          • J

            JustthefactsOct 28, 2015 at 4:16 pm

            But removing the Thimerosal have no effect. The aluminum content has not changed in 15 to 20 years. If they were “working together”, then there has to be an accumulative effect, right?

            Let me make this easy for you. Removing thimerosal from vaccines in California had no effect on the autism rate, correct?

          • C

            CharlieB1972Oct 29, 2015 at 6:16 am

            “….it is still the vaccines.”

            I’m not anti-vaccine, but…

          • A

            AutismDadOct 29, 2015 at 5:46 pm

            Prove what you say then. How grandiose of you to blatantly surmise your claims are true and that anyone should believe them. We all know why you have brown eyes already.

          • J

            JustthefactsOct 29, 2015 at 6:29 pm

            I have stated well know facts. If somebody else wants details, I have them lined up. You are a troll. I ignore you.

          • A

            AutismDadOct 29, 2015 at 6:57 pm

            Hilarious. All of it.

          • J

            JustthefactsOct 29, 2015 at 7:00 pm

            Now it’s truth time. I set a trap for you and you fell right in it. The purpose of the question I posted was not to make a point about vaccines. It really doesn’t. I doesn’t invalidate any of your arguments. It is just a statement of the facts around the thimerosal situation in California and means nothing on its own. “Removing thimerosal from vaccines in California had no effect on the autism rate” is just the result and a document fact. it does not show alone that thimerosal is good or bad.

            My point from the beginning was not just that anti-vaxx is wrong, It was to show others and your directly that you are an irrational, emotional, person who cannot employ critical thinking. You cannot accept and unimportant, irrelevant fact simple because the sound of it upsets you. Just the idea of that there is one event that. maybe, casts disfavor on one little additive, is so disturbing to you that you can’t even discuss it. Is that rational behavior? Who cares if thimerosal didn’t contribute to autism under one specific circumstance? How can this possibly be important to you…..unless you are being emotional, irrational, and cannot deal with cognitive dissonance.

            You see, I wasn’t making a point about vaccine safety, I was making the point that you are not qualified as an irrational parent to make the call concerning vaccines and that is why laws like SB 277 are needed.

            Thanks for being an example.

          • J

            JustthefactsOct 29, 2015 at 11:10 am

            We are still waiting for that answer Al. You have been posting elsewhere for 20 hours.

            Let me make this easy for you. Removing thimerosal from vaccines in California had no effect on the autism rate, correct?

          • A

            AutismDadOct 29, 2015 at 5:47 pm

            Prove it.

          • J

            JustthefactsOct 29, 2015 at 6:32 pm

            I don’t have to. Al looked into it and begged off. I don’t care what you think.

            One of the laws is here, “troll that cannot google”:

            cdph(dot)ca(dot)gov/programs/immunize/Documents/MercuryLawFAQ.pdf

          • A

            AutismDadOct 29, 2015 at 6:51 pm

            Save it. Trash science is not worth my time.

          • J

            JustthefactsOct 29, 2015 at 7:37 pm

            The link is to California law, genius.

          • A

            AutismDadOct 29, 2015 at 10:19 pm

            ask me if i care

          • J

            JustthefactsOct 30, 2015 at 10:41 am

            We all know you don’t, You are a TROLL. You don’t care about anything.

          • A

            AutismDadOct 29, 2015 at 10:38 pm

            genius? Hey thanks…wish I could say the same…can’t

          • J

            JustthefactsOct 30, 2015 at 10:45 am

            It took you two posts to come up with that, Troll. Very witty.

          • A

            AutismDadOct 30, 2015 at 7:54 am

            Yea I wouldn’t have thought thinking was your strong suit.

          • J

            JustthefactsOct 30, 2015 at 10:57 am

            Reading is not your strong suit. I said I don’t care what YOU think (which is nothing).

          • A

            AutismDadOct 29, 2015 at 5:43 pm

            Here’s a suggestion. Consider the injection system. How do they perform executions in many states? Why? Consider that its not natural or part of human evolution to be injected willy-nilly. Any logical person (sorry P-vacs) could anticipate issues with the variety of ingredients used. What happens to IV drug abusers? If you say they are not harmed, move to the back of the line.

          • K

            KatiaOct 30, 2015 at 8:06 am

            It was Thimersal alone, until it wasn’t. LOL!

          • D

            Derp TurtleJun 9, 2017 at 5:38 pm

          • A

            AutismDadOct 29, 2015 at 5:39 pm

            Justthe vacs has discovered the astroturf slogan. Just couldn’t wait to use it to show the other science nerds he is one of them.

          • J

            JustthefactsOct 29, 2015 at 6:22 pm

            Autismdad is out trolling again

          • R

            Reality022Oct 28, 2015 at 9:40 pm

            What is that high pitched squealing?

            Oh. It is just al moving the goalposts from Thimerosal to the nebulous “all the other stuff in vaccines.”
            How sophomoric… and by that I mean high school sophomore.

            “Why do the anti-vaccine cultists constantly lie?”

          • C

            CharlieB1972Oct 29, 2015 at 6:13 am

            Next thing you know, it will be fetal DNA! BTW, no ability to distinguish an aluminum compound from metallic aluminum.

          • R

            Reality022Oct 29, 2015 at 4:36 pm

            Yes, the dangerous human DNA fragments in vaccines will magically splice into the recipient’s own DNA and then express in some horrible way… or some such fantasy.

            You know what I heard on the internets?
            I heard there has been a lot of Caucasian people who have gotten a blood transfusion only to wake up the next day and find themselves to now be African Americans – and vice versa.
            There’s also been a lot of Mosquito People appearing at the ERs every summer due to mosquito bites and injection of mosquito dna.

            I personally recommend that anyone with bleeding ulcers not eat any food made from once living organisms lest some foreign dna fragments make it into the blood stream and turn them into a cabbage. Water, dirt, minerals and rocks are the only thing on the menu.

          • F

            FsmPastapharianNov 6, 2015 at 10:13 am

            I met this witch, and she turned me into a newt! BURN HER!
            (It got better)

          • A

            AutismDadOct 29, 2015 at 5:37 pm

            Why do you “SCIENCE EXPERTS” deny heavy metal toxicity?

          • R

            RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfGOct 30, 2015 at 3:05 am

            Aluminum salts are not the same as elemental aluminum, which, being the third most abundant element on the planet you can’t really escape from. Also, since you’re not an aluminum miner, or recycler, you have nothing to fear from it.

          • A

            AutismDadOct 30, 2015 at 7:46 am

            Right out of the Vaccine Protectionist’s Handbook.

          • R

            RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfGOct 31, 2015 at 7:49 am

            Sorry, dolt: Wrong book. That’s out of Chemistry 101. From 5th grade.

          • A

            AutismDadOct 31, 2015 at 11:11 am

            I guess you recall 5th grade by repeating it till they moved you on.

          • R

            RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfGNov 1, 2015 at 4:03 pm

            Poor little nincompoop. Trying so hard to engage me in a battle of wits that he doesn’t even realize I don’t fight the unarmed. It’s not sporting.

          • A

            AutismDadNov 1, 2015 at 5:53 pm

            So original.

          • R

            RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfGNov 1, 2015 at 7:28 pm

            Scathing retort. How long did ot take to come up with it?

          • A

            AutismDadNov 1, 2015 at 8:20 pm

            Instantly because its the best retort. You need to pull even more out you *** in a wasted attempt to sound clever, but you will fail because you’ve already done your best. Try the bed wetting forum.

          • R

            RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfGNov 1, 2015 at 10:15 pm

            How adorable that you have a forum, Sweerpea. Did the grown-ups understand why you need it, or did they laugh at you again?

          • A

            AutismDadNov 1, 2015 at 10:20 pm

            What are you on?

          • R

            RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfGNov 2, 2015 at 2:25 am

            Your ass because it’s so soft.

          • A

            AutismDadNov 5, 2015 at 9:03 am

            Sick and perverted. I guess your credibility is zero. Weren’t you warned about using the F word on another forum? Have you thought about growing up?

          • R

            RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfGNov 5, 2015 at 9:15 am

            You’re still thinking about me and getting wet it seems.

            As for another page, that has nothing to do with this one, which doesn’t seem to want to censor speech. See, that’s the great thing about actual science websites: They don’t censor speech.

          • A

            AutismDadNov 5, 2015 at 9:20 am

            When it comes to perverts like you they need to ban right off so we decent folks don’t have to be assaulted by your sicks thoughts.

          • A

            AutismDadNov 5, 2015 at 9:01 am

            vaccinepapers.org/part-1-immune-activation-autism

          • R

            RevDr. Robert Foster, AbC, EfGNov 5, 2015 at 9:18 am

            Well, shit: You’re using a fake website to “prove” your case?

            Here’s something to make you feel at ease: http://thespudd.com/pfizer-announces-new-vaccine-to-protect-against-vaccine-injuries/

          • A

            AutismDadNov 5, 2015 at 8:59 am

            http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/89/5/10-081901/en/ ( 19 countries with vac comp programs)

          • F

            FsmPastapharianOct 28, 2015 at 9:53 pm

            I’m pretty sure that means that thimerosal helps protect against autism!

          • R

            Reality022Oct 28, 2015 at 10:13 pm

            My niece’s baby was only ‘furniture cruising’ and then got her 12 month vaccinations and, would you believe it, within a week she’s free-standing and toddling. Her vocabulary now seems to be exploding as well.

            Those vaccines are miraculous!!111!!!!!

          • A

            AutismDadOct 29, 2015 at 2:09 pm

            Junk Science, your drug.

        • D

          Derp TurtleJun 9, 2017 at 5:37 pm

          Reply
      • A

        AutismDadOct 29, 2015 at 5:35 pm

        I wouldn’t think you’d get your weak mind around that puzzle. You probably pee your pants struggling with a zipper.

        Reply
        • J

          JustthefactsOct 29, 2015 at 6:20 pm

          And the troll, autismdad doesn’t have an answer either, he can only troll.

          Reply
          • A

            Andrew LazarusOct 31, 2015 at 11:05 am

            It’s a typo for AutisticDad. I am amazed how much he contributes inadvertently to showing autism has a large hereditary component.

          • J

            JustthefactsOct 31, 2015 at 1:12 pm

            I just like how the trolls think they are helping their case. The first job of showing the anti-vaxxers are nut cases becomes real easy when AutismDad or Suz shows up.

          • A

            Andrew LazarusOct 31, 2015 at 1:15 pm

            There’s a thread on Natural News where an antivaxxer is also defending the Flat Earth.

          • J

            JustthefactsOct 31, 2015 at 1:27 pm

            Dude, I leave Natrualnews alone. Anyone on that site is a lost cause. They peddle every kind of woo there is. My favorite is homeopathy for Ebola. I really think any normal person will see the lunacy there in minutes. I try to keep where normal people surf and point out the loons trying to look normal — ” I’m not an anti-vaxxer but…..”. I really like ti when I get an anti-vaxxer to come out truther. That is a clear victory.

            I also don’t want to waste my time where critical thinkers get banned.

          • A

            AutismDadNov 5, 2015 at 8:54 am

            You a critical thinker? OMG my ribs, my jaw…I’m on the floor laughing!

          • J

            JustthefactsNov 5, 2015 at 8:59 am

            Big words you don’t understand would make you giggle.

          • A

            AutismDadNov 5, 2015 at 9:10 am

            No its twistthefacts-isms that make me guffaw

          • J

            joeNov 3, 2015 at 12:05 am

            How is it that i have no problem in believing that

          • A

            AutismDadNov 5, 2015 at 8:53 am

            Kettle Pot

        • J

          joeNov 3, 2015 at 12:03 am

          Spoken like a true anti vaxxer,Justthefacts asked you for a simple reply and all you can do is make smart comments.

          Reply
          • A

            AutismDadNov 3, 2015 at 4:58 pm

            twistthefacts doesn’t deserve to be treated civilly. Check out his comments. You’ll see he’s a sick puppy.

    • A

      AndreaOct 30, 2015 at 1:04 pm

      Sadly, many of our kids suffered irreparable harm which these twisted sadists will argue. They have to be paid to carry on as they do. Parents like myself are here to encourage parents to question, research, and think.
      Don’t gamble with your kid’s health and future. I wish I knew to research and not just go on blind faith. My son has paid for my ignorance and misplaced trust.
      Good luck.

      Reply
      • J

        JustthefactsOct 30, 2015 at 6:41 pm

        No your son has not. We already established that you child, was not vaccine injured.

        Reply
      • V

        VikingAPRNCNPOct 31, 2015 at 10:01 am

        The evidence just doesn’t support your delusion. Since I am not a stalker I am not going to chase down your claim. I will add the following.

        Also from the Familial Risk of autism study

        For example, although genetic factors account for 50% of individual differences in risk of ASD, a sibling of a proband with ASD who shares 50% of the genes has a 10-fold increase in risk. This can potentially be applied at an individual level for family counseling.

        Conflict of Interest Disclosures: All authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest and none were reported.

        Funding/Support: This study was supported, in part, by grants from the National Institutes of Health; grant HD073978 from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, and National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; grant MH097849 from the National Institute of Mental Health; and by the Beatrice and Samuel A. Seaver Foundation.

        Role of the Sponsor: The sponsors had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

        At http://jama.jamanetwork.com/Mo…

        Get that. Just having a sibling with autism dramatically increases the risk for developing autism.

        The other piece is that antigenic load of today’s vaccines are much less than those used in the 1980s.

        Vaccine refusal: issues for the primary care physician.
        AU
        Lyren A, Leonard E
        SO
        Clin Pediatr (Phila). 2006;45(5):399.

        AD
        Department of Pediatrics, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA.
        PMID
        16891271

        In a cohort of 1047 children who were exposed to an average of >10,000 antigens by age 24 months (predominantly through whole cell pertussis vaccine), there was no association between increasing antigen exposure and adverse neuropsychologic outcomes (eg, general intellectual function, speech and language, verbal memory, attention and executive function, tics, achievement, visual spatial ability, and behavior regulation)

        Number of antigens in early childhood vaccines and neuropsychological outcomes at age 7-10 years.
        AU
        Iqbal S, Barile JP, Thompson WW, DeStefano F
        SO
        Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2013;22(12):1263.

        It’s not vaccination. There is something in our environment that is triggering epigenetic changes in utero. These result in the behavioral changes observed in early childhood.

        Reply
        • A

          AutismDadOct 31, 2015 at 9:42 pm

          Same old.

          Reply
          • J

            joeNov 2, 2015 at 9:18 pm

            Why dont you supply evidence to the contrary

          • A

            AutismDadNov 3, 2015 at 5:00 pm

            You first.

          • J

            joeNov 3, 2015 at 9:08 pm

            VikingAPRNCP has given you plenty of evidence and all you can say is “Same old” why dont you supply evidence contrary to what he is saying? give him a facefull of evidence if you can.My experience with anti vaxxers has been the same on all forums, the evidence for vaccination is overwhelming, if it only affected anti vaxxers i would not care because over time they would die out from the preventable diseases but unfortunatly it can affect all society, the excuses anti vaxxers make like MERCURY ALUMINIUM ETC, really is unjustified, all i have to say is if you are not a qualified immunologist you really dont know what you are talking about. Another popular excuse is BIG PHARMA, Just stop and think for a moment. Dont you think there would be more money for BIG PHARMA in treating the disease than preventing it? I believe that a lot of anti vaxxers know they are wrong but not man enough to admit it.

          • A

            AutismDadNov 4, 2015 at 3:11 pm

            More dogma…same old

          • J

            joeNov 10, 2015 at 9:26 pm

            Yes its the same old truth, must be hard to swallow.

          • A

            AutismDadNov 11, 2015 at 9:16 am

            Most likely you know more about swallowing than me.

          • S

            sabelmouseNov 5, 2015 at 8:56 am

            evidence, lol!

          • J

            joeNov 6, 2015 at 7:27 pm

            You would not recognise evidence even if it was staring you in the face, i wish that anti vaccination would only affect the anti vaxxers, then in a few years all you anti vaccination crowd would disappear due to preventable diseases.

      • D

        Derp TurtleJun 9, 2017 at 5:50 pm

        I’d love to read your research! Which journal did you publish in?

        What irreparable harm has your son incurred and how it has been factually established that there was a causative link?

        Reply
    • D

      Derp TurtleJun 10, 2017 at 6:08 am

      I take it you have no issue with LAVs or single-dose vaccines then?

      Reply
      • D

        DavidQJun 10, 2017 at 6:15 am

        Don’t forget to mention to him the sources you found for me about aluminum toxicity too. You know, from google scholar where you found:

        In this report, we add to the medical literature 3 cases of cutaneous delayed-type hypersensitivity to the vaccine preservative aluminum.

        breastfed infants receiving a full recommended schedule of immunizations showed an exceedingly high exposure of Al (225 to 1750 μg per dose) when compared with estimated levels absorbed from breast milk (2.0 μg).

        Al retention was 78% for aluminum phosphate and 94% for aluminum hydroxide, both results being incompatible with quick elimination of vaccine-derived Al in urines.

        This study confirms the striking biopersistence of alum. It points out an unexpectedly delayed diffusion of the adjuvant in lymph nodes and spleen

        Reply
        • D

          Derp TurtleJun 10, 2017 at 6:17 am

          But that’s not evidence that they are toxic at levels achievable by routine childhood vaccination,,,which was the point..

          And he;s smart enough to check my public post history.

          Reply
          • D

            DavidQJun 10, 2017 at 6:28 am

            1. The studies show “unexpected” and “incompatible with quick elimination” regarding aluminum clearing. There is a significant scientific consensus that we don’t actually know about the safety of aluminum in vaccines. (see your prior sources)
            2. That wasn’t the point. The point was that there are toxins in vaccines. That’s it. The whole point. You continue to infer something more grandiose. For the fifth time, I shall ask you, ice where I made any claim to the contrary.
            3. Fish in a barrel.

          • D

            Derp TurtleJun 10, 2017 at 6:43 am

            1. Good job al as in the element is n’tin vaccines then.
            2. Which you can’t demonstrate.
            2a. Toxicants or toxic ingredients, which I suspect you meant, is dose-dependent.
            3. You’re spending more time on this than it would take to just demonstrate your claims if they’re truly ‘fish in a barrel’

          • D

            DavidQJun 10, 2017 at 9:07 am

            I can’t understand your direction in your last post. It doesn’t make sense.

    • F

      FallsAngelJun 10, 2017 at 6:32 am

      Virtually everyone who says “I’m not anti-vaccine but. . . “, is anti-vaccine. You have shown it by this thimerisol(sic). There has not been thimerosAl in vaccines since 2001, a mere 16 years now. And where did you get this information that “vaccine makers longer have to list it as an ingredient as long as it’s added during the manufacturing process”? Post a link.

      Reply
  • A

    alOct 26, 2015 at 7:57 pm

    The first problem with this article is that most of us are not anti vaccine. We are vaccine hesitant. Labeling us anti vaxers is a divide and conquer strategy intended to shove debate aside and focus on name calling. True anti vaxers are rare.

    Secondly, I was not even vaccine hesitant until last August when the CDC whistleblower story broke. With the omitted data from the CDC research on the mmr vaccine included in the research, the mmr vaccine does correlate with an increase in autism when given to African American boys under the age of 36 months. The study showed a 300% increase. There also an ongoing lawsuit against Merck accusing them of falsifying data regarding the efficacy of the mmr vaccine. The list goes on and on.

    I suggest you watch the documentary Trace Amounts. Traceamounts.com is a great resource for information.

    Another nice tidbit. The CDC now recormends that women do not breastfeed their babies during the first two weeks because it interferes with the vaccines.

    Reply
    • B

      BrianOct 27, 2015 at 12:39 am

      My definition of anti-vaxxer is anyone who spreads false information in order to vilify vaccines. Your comment certainly qualifies.

      After all, there’s no faster way to destroy your credibility than to tell people to go watch a silly conspiracy show like “traceamounts” (which does, in fact, contain trace amounts of accurate information).

      Reply
    • R

      Reality022Oct 27, 2015 at 5:44 am

      I’m always amused by the anti-vaccinators. They indignantly complain that they are not “anti-vaccine” and then follow that statement with a litany of anti-vaccine talking points.
      Ducks – If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck … it’s a duck.

      “CDC whistleblower” – This is an internet hoax. There is no “whistleblower”.
      There is a disturbed employee, Wm. Thompson, who made some un-evidenced accusations 14 months ago and claimed he and his coworkers “omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article …”.
      goo(dot)gl/9cDKRP
      The only problem is that in these subsequent 14 months Mr. Thompson has produced absolutely no evidence for this statement. His “belief” about the study merely show his ignorance of statistical analysis and his 4 co-authors and independent reviewers found the original study was properly performed.
      The claimed “300% increase” in the autism rate in AA boys is the product of a laughable “study” by anti-vaccinationist Brian Hooker, which was promptly retracted from the brand new Chinese journal he tricked into publishing it.

      There is a lawsuit against Merck concerning the efficacy of the mumps fraction of the mmr vaccine.
      goo(dot)gl/xwC43I
      The Cliff Notes version – The suit claims Merck defrauded the government by providing a mumps vaccine that was ~80% effective while claiming it was 95% effective. There has been no decision.
      Even if true, 80% efficacy is a whole lot better than the 0% efficacy of no vaccine, which the anti-vaccinationists desire.

      Trace Amounts is ridiculous anti-vaccine propaganda for the illiterate “I only understand videos because I can’t read the science” crowd. You may as well go to the crazy cat lady down the street for medical advice.

      The CDC most certainly does not “recommend that women do not breastfeed their babies during the first two weeks because it interferes with vaccines.”
      Do you have a citation for that, al?
      There was a study of women in India which concluded that antibocies in breastfeeding mother’s milk interfered with some oral vaccines, rotavirus vaccine in this case IIRC. This makes sense since the vaccine acts through the gut and if baby’s gut is full of mommy’s rotavirus antibody laden milk the antibodies reduce the effectiveness of the vaccine. The recommendation was for moms to not breastfeed their child for a few hours prior to vaccination so the child’s gut wasn’t full of mommy’s milk. Sounds rational, doesn’t it?
      The antivaccinationists have invented an entirely different fantasy about this that you can read above in al’s post.

      Readers are now allowed to ask,
      “Why do anti-vaccinationists constantly lie?”

      Reply
    • A

      AndreaOct 27, 2015 at 6:29 am

      Oh al it looks like you’ve attracted some astroturfers.

      You simply can’t question anything about vaccines. They won’t have it.

      Reply
      • P

        ProponentOct 27, 2015 at 6:35 am

        Andrea: “Oh so looks like you’ve attracted some astroturfer.”

        Baseless conjecture.. argument of the weak-minded.

        Please try again.

        Reply
        • F

          FsmPastapharianOct 28, 2015 at 10:00 pm

          She’s one of the weakest minds on here. Not a surprising reply.

          Reply
          • A

            AutismDadOct 29, 2015 at 2:08 pm

            You’re certainly able to PEER review her

          • A

            AndreaOct 30, 2015 at 12:59 pm

            That’s a compliment coming from a POS vax shill.

      • M

        Mike StevensOct 29, 2015 at 5:11 pm

        “You simply can’t question anything about vaccines.”

        Problem is he can’t answer anything about vaccines.

        Reply
        • C

          ciaparker2Oct 29, 2015 at 10:03 pm

          Take one more look at The Hill. Ivan has admitted that he’s the one who deleted all the comments.

          Ivan Boris Ogon • an hour ago

          I don’t recall the comment numbers. I deleted them instead of editing, within a minute or two of posting. It’s unlikely anyone had a chance to flag.

          As an aside, you use the console, Boris? I prefer hosting my own scripts. More functionality, I think.

          Reply
          • J

            JustthefactsOct 31, 2015 at 11:05 am

            Don’t blame the playa, blame the game. Suz and graceds are proud of starting it. I’m not surprised that everyone else is finishing it.
            .
            They are your trolls. Accept it.

          • I

            IvanOct 31, 2015 at 4:12 pm

            Cha cha cha Chia!!!

          • I

            IvanOct 31, 2015 at 4:11 pm

            Parker, do you understand what “isDeletedByAuthor:true” means?

            I deleted two of my own comments. MY OWN. It’s the same thing Brooke was discussing the other day. She deleted HER OWN comment.

            Get a clue.

          • A

            AutismDadNov 5, 2015 at 2:17 pm

            Then you have much to do deleting the rest.

          • P

            ProponentNov 5, 2015 at 2:35 pm

            So.. let’s see..

            Rather than spend time with your special needs child, Dud, you’d rather go back a week or two.. and troll older comments/posts.

            Do I have that right?.

            ‘Cause.. it would appear and rather apparently, that I do.

          • A

            AutismDadNov 5, 2015 at 2:38 pm

            Does that have special meaning for you? We can’t all get paying jobs trolling forums. Your a lucky one.

          • P

            ProponentNov 5, 2015 at 2:41 pm

            Stating the obvious in what is to follow, perhaps.. but..

            You do realize that by responding to my posts.. that time.. instead of spending with your special needs child.. is being devoted to.. me.

          • A

            AutismDadNov 5, 2015 at 3:04 pm

            Now I get it. I can help you both. You need more than my child.

          • P

            ProponentNov 5, 2015 at 3:13 pm

            Again.. and perhaps stating the obvious in what is to follow..

            It’s not flattering to me that you choose to spend time responding to my posts/comments than that of spending time with your special needs child, Dud.

          • A

            AutismDadNov 6, 2015 at 9:51 am

            Flatter you? Are you insane?

    • J

      JustthefactsOct 29, 2015 at 11:52 am

      How did you feel with the published data was pulled fro fraud? Didn’t that change you mind back just as fast? So lets walk though this: you read a magazine article about a “CDC whistleblower” and that made you “hesitant”, but when the scientific paper based on it was pulled form publication for confirmed fraud, that meant nothing to you? Maybe your reasoning is a bit influenced because you are actually a SOLID ANTI-VAXXER who already made up your mind.

      Being an anti-vaxxer is an opinion. Being a liar is a personality disorder.

      Reply