Subscribe
Previous Post
Mention vaccines in autism and you can feel the mercury rising and the conversation become an exchange of volleys between those who state their child became autistic because of a vaccine (such as the MMR) or because of something in vaccines (such as mercury via the mercury-based perservative thimerasol, which, with the exception of some flu vaccines, is no longer used in the vaccines used to protect preschool children against 12 infectious dieases). Harsh and sometimes ad hominem criticism and invective—-as well as some not unviolent tactics—- have been directed against those who state that there is no link between vaccines and autism.
Immunizations are a hot, hot topic in autism discussions because of the continued fear that those vaccines could “damage” or “harm” a child, in contradiction to the very meaning of the word “immunization,” which is from the Latin immune, which means “exempt, free from, devoid of”: Immunizations are supposed to make a person “free from” a disease like measles of Hepatitis B or whooping cough. Perhaps this is one reason why some parent autism advocates are all the more up in arms in claiming that there is a link between their child receiving a vaccine and the onset of symptoms of autism, as if the vaccine has made a child sicker, not healthier.
On Wednesday night I had the chance to converse about immunizations with a group of health care professionals and bloggers about health and parenting: I participated in a conversation about immunizations that was made possible by Revolution Health. Dr. Stacy Beller Stryer, a pediatrician in Maryland, responded to questions ranging from vaccine schedules for infants and older children; she noted that college students also need to get certain vaccines (Dr. Stryer has recently blogged about her 11-year-old daughter, who does not have autism, attending an autism camp as a “shadow”). Other participants included Catherine Morgan, who blogs on health and wellness at BlogHer and women4hope; Aliza Sherman Risdahl of Babyfruit: the miscarriage blog and motherhood diaries, who has a 13-month-old daughter; Tammie Booth of Susan Wenner Jackson of Working Moms Against Guilt; Denise Tanton who blogs on health and wellness at BlogHer; and myself of this blog. Cynthia Samuels of Cobblestone Associates, LLP, moderated.
Most of the participants are mothers, mothers-to-be, or thinking of being mothers and the vaccine-autism issue soon came up. I noted the lack of evidence for a link between autism and thimerasol; the recent vaccine court hearings in which lawyers for 12-year-old Michelle Cedillo argued that vaccines or something in them had caused her autism; chelation as a treatment for heavy metal poisoning and its dangers; and my son Charlie’s own history of vaccination (he is up to date). I referred to journalist Arthur Allen’s book, Vaccine: The Controversial Story of Medicine’s Greatest Lifesaver and pointed that vaccines have long been regarded with suspicion.
Gardasil, the HPV vaccine was mentioned, but the conversation circled a number of times back to a possible link between vaccines and “something.” One participant noted the alarming pronouncements of both those who blame vaccines for causing autism, and those health professionals and scientists who point out the risks of catching measles and other diseases. And that to me is all the more reason why conversations like the one I was fortuanate to be part of on Wednesday night need to keep happening—-why there needs to be dialogue about an issue that so many parents feel, rightfully or wrongfully according to science, something more than strongly about.
1609 days ago
[...] a consultant epidemiologist for the Health Protection Agency (HPA), advises parents to include vaccinations for their children along with other back-to-school preparations such as buying school uniforms: [...]
“Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynihan
You want your own “facts”, not the facts that correspond with reality, not the same facts that everyone else uses. That is the essence of denialism.
When you are able to use the same facts as everyone else, we can discuss what those facts mean, what conclusions can be drawn from them, and how those facts and conclusions should inform policy.
Until then, you are the one who is trolling.
Please stop trolling
It is denialist of you to claim that quackwatch says one thing, then when shown that quackwatch says the opposite, still claim that the fault lies with quackwatch. That no matter what quackwatch says you will disagree with it.
I have looked at the material on the NVIC site. I only disagree with those parts of it that are factually incorrect. You haven’t looked at the quackwatch site, so you have no idea what is on there to agree or disagree with.
Why is Quackwatch still in business?
As P. T. Barnum once said, “There is a fool born every minute”.
All we can do is agree to disagree at this point.
Chuck, What you are showing is that you haven’t read what is on quackwatch.
You say:
“When vaccines fail you get the illness they are supposed to prevent. It does happen and you know it. That is not reported on quackwatch and you know that also.”
When in reality quackwatch does report that
“First, no vaccine is 100% effective. To make vaccines safer than the disease, the bacteria or virus is killed or weakened (attenuated). For reasons related to the individual, not all vaccinated persons develop immunity. Most routine childhood vaccines are effective for 85% to 95% of recipients. ”
http://www.quackwatch.com/03HealthPromotion/immu/immu02.html
All you are showing us by your repeated denials of what is plainly written on quackwatch is that you haven’t read it. Why haven’t you read it? I presume because you can’t handle the truth.
Why is NVIC still in business?
As P. T. Barnum once said, “There is a fool born every minute”.
If Quackwatch is so intellectually and scientifically superior, why haven’t they put NVIC
http://www.909shot.com/About.htm
out of business their first couple of years? They were up and running 15 years before Quackwatch. Quackwatch obviously isn’t as impressive or influential as you try to make it out to be.
You would be an excellent politician. You keep ducking the simplest question because you don’t understand and you keep pointing to your sources that cannot be verified elsewhere.
“Are you now claiming that vaccines cause these diseases?”
Flu mist was proven to cause the flu, but otherwise that is a lie and you know it.
When vaccines fail you get the illness they are supposed to prevent. It does happen and you know it. That is not reported on quackwatch and you know that also.
Tell me why the correct source for vaccine information should be anything other then the CDC? Tell me why the same peer reviewed data in quackwatch would be any different then data provided by the CDC.
It is a little ironic that you don’t trust the president, according to your blog, but you are willing to trust a government agency controlled by his administration with your health.
I don’t understand your question:
“I would also like your opinion on the quackwatch web site that you provided. Do you think that Measles, Mumps, or Rubella may be an adverse reaction to the MMR vaccine, because they are not listed on the web site.”
Are you now claiming that vaccines cause these diseases?
You are simply playing games. You don’t like the data on quackwatch, so you want me to find the same data on another site. The quackwatch data is from peer reviewed journals. They provide citations. They even link to quack sites. How many quack sites link to quackwatch?
If you think the data on quackwath is wrong, why don’t you find the right data and tell them. I am sure they would be happy to be corrected, and would put up the correct information.
That is the difference between denialism and science. A scientist wants the right answer no matter what it is, the denialist has their belief no matter what the data is.
This page
http://www.quackwatch.com/03HealthPromotion/immu/immu01.html
Has been up for nearly 10 years. If it is wrong, where are the anti-vax web pages showing how and where it is wrong and linking to the correct data?
There aren’t any, and you know there aren’t any because the data is correct.
I will concede that Quackwatch is correct when you can provide me with the exact same confirming data from the CDC web site, the government department responsible to the taxpayers of the USA that is the repository for vaccine related information. As long as you are there, try to figure out if last year’s influenza vaccine was better then placebo and how many people ACTUALLY, not about, ACTUALLY died from influenza. I would think that that would be a scientifically defined objective statistic, don’t you?
I would also like your opinion on the quackwatch web site that you provided. Do you think that Measles, Mumps, or Rubella may be an adverse reaction to the MMR vaccine, because they are not listed on the web site.
I see.
If there is something idiosyncratic about your family that vaccines that work for just about everyone else don’t work for you, I don’t know what to tell you.
You don’t like the data at quackwatch because
“They do not have access to all the information, nor are they responsible for the effectiveness of any government mandated vaccines. They are not legally responsible for the safety of vaccines and cannot force anyone to take them.”
All things that have absolutely nothing to do with the accuracy and the validity of the data.
You don’t want “data”, you just want to rant about how everything about vaccines are not 100.0000000000000000% “perfect”.
On which web page of Quackwatch can I read about the 6 medically documented vaccine failures that effected every member of my family and the subsequent complication for all of them?
I don’t need to go to Quackwatch. They do not have access to all the information, nor are they responsible for the effectiveness of any government mandated vaccines. They are not legally responsible for the safety of vaccines and cannot force anyone to take them.
Why don’t you go into your “denialist” mode again and tell me why the mandated department of the government responsible for vaccines cannot provide the number of cases diagnosed and the number of diagnosed that have been vaccinated?
Why don’t you go to Department of Interior for vaccine data? That is the same logical flaw you are using when you ask me to go to Quackwatch.
Chuck, that information is readily available if you want to look for it. Try looking at quackwatch, linked to earlier.
http://www.quackwatch.com/03HealthPromotion/immu/immu04.html
What is it about this graph that doesn’t provide you with sufficient information to evaluate the effectiveness of the measles vaccine?
http://www.quackwatch.com/03HealthPromotion/immu/immu01.html
I really don’t understand what the problem with understanding the data is other than you don’t want to believe it. That is the essence of denialism.
Why don’t you come back and tell me why the data on quackwatch is unacceptable.
You seem to be set in your ways in your smallpox/denialism argument. I fully concede. The smallpox vaccine was effective and necessary and saved lives.
Now that we have moved on from that one example that is currently no longer in question and given the fact that we live in a modern society where data collection is much better and cheaper and in my example I have never required 100% effectiveness for coverage by NVICP, give me a source that proves that the Chickenpox, influenza, and HPV are effective and save lives. Give me both the numerator and denominator for the effective rate and do not give me science-fiction “about” numbers, that is my recurring argument that you just don’t seem to understand.
Example of the problem you keep pushing in front of me:
For lunch I ate 49% of a pizza. Are you screaming in fear from that statement?
If the pizza had a 9 inch diameter you would probably yawn. If the pizza had a ten foot diameter you would probably ask what species I am.
Knowing the infection rate, known cases, geographic/demographic location of the outbreak, transmission of the infections, are just as important or MORE important then knowing the “DEATH RATE”. The CDC has never given either the numerator or denominator for effective rate for any vaccine. Why can’t they? Why shouldn’t they? I expect a fully transparent infrastructure if it “claims” to be in my best interest to follow their direction and forces me to use vaccines that I have observed on multiple occasions to be utterly worthless and detrimental to my family’s health and well-being.
If you read the WHO piece on smallpox, did you “skip” where it said
“As late as the 18th century, smallpox killed every 10th child born in Sweden and France. During the same century, every 7th child born in Russia died from smallpox.”
They don’t actually give the numerator and denominator of those ratios, but if 10% and 14% of all children born died of smallpox, that is a large number. Children died of other things too. 18th century Sweden and Russia were not known for their excellent epidemiological reporting, so the numbers might be off by some.
You are using classic denialist argument techniques, reject valid data because you consider it “incomplete” by some standard which you refuse to state. You make up a “hypothetical” example with numbers you simply pull out of the air, with no basis what so ever. You want me to stop calling you on your denialist techniques because you don’t have any non-denialist arguments.
Smallpox is extremely contageous. The notion that 10,000 susceptible people could be exposed and only 100 of them contract smallpox is delusional. If you can cite something credible that supports a 1% incidence following exposure I will withdraw the delusional comment. People who were vaccinated had a higher than 1% incidence.
“One study of smallpox following the importation of cases into Europe and Canada (1950–1971) showed that mortality was 52% in unvaccinated persons, 1.4% in those vaccinated up to 10 years before exposure, and only 11% in those vaccinated over 20 years before exposure. For the age group of 10–49 years, the mortality rate was 49% in the unvaccinated and 4.3% in those vaccinated 20 years earlier.”
Why don’t you read the WHO piece on smallpox again. You seem to have missed a number of different statements they make, or simply dispute them while providing no evidence that they are wrong. I consider the denial of well-supported and credible facts with no basis to be classic denialism.
“In the absence of immunity induced by vaccination, human beings appear to be universally susceptible to infection with the smallpox virus.” [What this means is that if you have not been vaccinated and are exposed to "enough" virus, you will contract smallpox.]
“During the eradication campaign, investigations of outbreaks caused by importations of cases into industrialized countries in temperate areas showed that, in a closed environment, airborne virus could sometimes spread within buildings via the ventilation system and infect persons in other rooms or on other floors in distant and apparently unconnected spaces. ” [What this means is that smallpox is extremely contageous and it takes only tiny quantities of virus to cause infection.]
“The disease, for which no effective treatment was ever developed, killed as many as 30% of those infected. Between 65–80% of survivors were marked with deep pitted scars (pockmarks), most prominent on the face.” [What this means, is if you get smallpox, you have a 30% chance of dying from it.]
“Unfortunately, historical data are available only from periods with substantial population immunity either from vaccination or from having survived natural infection. In the absence of natural disease and vaccination, the global population is significantly more susceptible. ”
“Vaccine administered up to 4 days after exposure to the virus, and before the rash appears, provides protective immunity and can prevent infection or ameliorate the severity of the disease.”
“No effective treatment, other than the management of symptoms, is currently available.”
“It is particularly important to understand that when vaccinated persons nonetheless contracted smallpox, the illness was usually considerably milder than that seen in unvaccinated persons. We know from experiences in early 19th century Europe, when natural smallpox was still widespread, that when the disease appeared in adults who had been vaccinated as children, the mortality rate was much lower and the symptoms were different and milder than in unvaccinated persons. ”
I know where my understanding of vaccination comes from. From reading and understanding the scientific literature. I have no idea where your “understanding” comes from, but it isn’t from reading and understanding the scientific literature.
Your “proposal” requiring 100% effectiveness is either hoplessly naive or deliberately malevolent. A manufacturor is supposed to guarentee in perpetuity that a vaccine will provide 100% immunity? Huh?
Suppose 1,000,000 people are vaccinated. What does it cost to “follow up” to ensure that the vaccination was effective? Review their medical records every year for 20 years? At 10 minutes per year, over 20 years that is 200 miinutes or a little over 3 hours. At $50/hour that is $150. Who pays for that? If you say it is the manufacturor, then they have to put that cost into the initial cost of the vaccine. If the costs for “vaccine failure” have to be included too, direct and indirect “vaccine failure”, the cost becomes prohibitive.
I read the WHO report MANY times. I have never said their data was incorrect. I have repeatedly pointed out to you that the WHO was factually INCOMPLETE.
(The number of deaths associated with Smallpox)/(The number of cases of smallpox) =49%
Give me the numbers for the numerator and denominator because it is not in the WHO report!
I do want to thank you for point out my typo for the 1%. I meant to type in 10000 exposed and be liberal with the death rate.
“You have absolutely no idea what it takes to make a vaccine, what it takes to test a vaccine, what it is possible to know about a vaccine before it is given.”
I have read about the policies, procedures, and political review associated with vaccine approval in the CDC and FDA. Unless you hold a patent for a vaccine, have sat on a review board for approval, or done testing in the CDC or FDA, I would be comfortable in saying our limited knowledge in the actual approval procedure is comparable.
Please stop using your denialism defense, it is rather old, rather weak, and not applicable to the conversation at hand. I really don’t like ad hominem attacks.
1625 days ago
[...] a lot about the supposed link between vaccines and autism. For a blog about that info, see AutismVox. I also worried about the possibility of problems with too many diseases being introduced into [...]
Smallpox has been eliminated in the general population. That is the ONLY reason that the smallpox vaccine is no longer given.
If smallpox were endemic, and there was no vaccine, the DEATH RATE, yes, DEATH RATE from smallpox would be on the order of 30 to 50%, as was OBSERVED when smallpox was endemic.
A citation from the World Health Organization on smallpox isn’t “adequate data”? Why don’t you read it?
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/smallpox/en/
It is denialism to reject (with absolutely no basis) the data that the WHO puts out on smallpox. You are practicing denialism. If you have no immunity, and smallpox is endemic, when ever in your life you contract it you will have a 30-50% chance of dying.
Even in your bogus example, 1000 people exposed, 100 contract it, 49 die, that is a 5% fatality rate, not 1%.
You have absolutely no idea what it takes to make a vaccine, what it takes to test a vaccine, what it is possible to know about a vaccine before it is given.
Smallpox is extremely contageous. If there was no vacine it would spread like wildfire though a susceptible population.
In the US, when 14 million people were vaccinated, 9 of them died from complications from the vaccine.
You keep putting your very biased beliefs forward and keep failing to read and/or understand my posts.
You keep arguing about everyone that has been born since the advent of this wonderful new vaccine is nothing more then a false dichotomy argument because you assume that every single one of them would have been exposed to the virus and die if the vaccine did not exist. Your argument that vaccine production would cease is a reduction ad absurdum argument because vaccine is manufactured and distributed outside the protection of NVICP today and the manufacturers have sufficient funds and profits to offset any liability issues.
I don’t care about the data you provided about smallpox. It is not a normally distributed vaccine in this country. Give me the same cataclysmic stats covering MMR, DTaP, Chickenpox, HPV, or influenza.
You also fail to provide adequate data to support your argument. 49% of those who contract smallpox die. One thousand people are exposed to it, 100 actually contract smallpox, and 49 die. That would be a 1% death rate and there is no way to determine that this is not true given the limited data provided. This is not denialism, it is nothing more then your obfuscation of the underlying facts you are presenting.
“A one in 100,000 adverse reaction means that 99.999% of individuals
have no adverse reactions. How can a 1 in 100,000 adverse reaction be
measured?”
In my model that would be a 1/1000 of 1% failure rate and well below the 5.00% threshold I established and would be covered by NVICP.
If a vaccine is not 100% effective then those that receive that vaccine should be given the most up to date effective rate as part of informed consent and should be able to deny the vaccine if the failure rate cannot be explained.