Should doctors fire families who refuse to vaccinate?
We are currently in the midst of an epidemic. No, not the H1N1 epidemic, though that’s the most immediate threat. What threatens the long-term health of our nation, particularly our nation’s children, is an accelerating epidemic of ignorance. Vaccine rejectionism, the flat-earth theory of the 21st Century, previously the domain of the crazies, has gone mainstream.
Doctors are frustrated. As Dr. Nancy Snyderman angrily declared on her NBC show, we are just a “stone’s throw” from witnessing a return of polio to the US. Measles and pertussis (whooping cough) are already making a comeback. Although the absolute number of cases is still in the hundreds, the effects of vaccine rejection on medical practice extend beyond the number of children who are sick.
Pediatricians and family practice physicians are wasting extraordinary amounts of time counseling parents contemplating vaccine rejection. Counseling is, of course, part of any doctor’s job, and we routinely counsel against ignorance in other areas of medicine (HIV, sexually transmitted diseases, etc.). But in those cases we counsel against prejudice and lack of knowledge. What makes vaccine rejectionism extraordinary is that we are forced to counsel against the ignorance deliberately disseminated by professional vaccine rejectionists.
Within the medical community, doctors are beginning to debate the possibility of “firing” families who refuse to vaccinate their children for deadly illnesses like polio and pertussis. Dr. Gary Marshall speaking at a recent American Academy of Pediatrics conference explained that it is both legal and ethical to refuse care:
In the middle of treatment, you can't just say, I'm done, …
But if it becomes obvious that you and the family will never see eye to eye on a specific issue, there's no reason not to "fire" them, providing you follow the steps necessary to avoid charges of abandonment. Those include providing written notice that you will no longer treat their children and giving them a set time frame -- at least 30 days -- to find another physician.
Doctors are and have always been legally entitled to refuse to care for specific patients as long as they did not abandon them in the midst of an acute event. This drastic step is usually reserved for patients who are difficult, disruptive or openly disrespectful. It is an acknowledgement that every doctor is not right for every patient.
It is rarely used merely because patients disagree or are non-compliant. Patients have every right to disagree with recommendations or to ignore them. Non-compliance is a serious problem, but it is often a case of “the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.” Smokers know they need to quit and generally make good faith efforts to do so. Alcoholics are often more distressed about their conditions than their doctors, but they are addicted and have great difficulty doing what they know is right.
There is something fundamentally different about vaccine rejectionism because it is a rejection of the principles of science and medicine. It is illogical and “evidence resistant.” When the patient does not agree with the doctor on the absolute requirement that medicine should be based on science, there is no common ground. And since vaccine rejectionism depends on absurd conspiracy theories regarding the financial motives of doctors and vaccine manufacturers, it destroys the trust necessary in the doctor patient relationship.
While individual doctors are certainly free to legally “fire” families who reject vaccination, it is a poor way to address the problem. It places children at risk for being unable to obtain good medical care in a crisis. Those most likely to suffer, the children, are not the ones who made the foolish and uneducated decision. Moreover, at this point, the problem has grown too large to be solved by physicians acting individually.
This is a public health problem of the most basic kind, and should be solved with government based public health measures. The government should more strictly enforce vaccination policies. Technically children cannot go to school if they are not vaccinated, but it has become all too easy to obtain vaccination waivers on the grounds of religious or personal beliefs. The government should end the policy of allowing philosophical exemptions.
All children should be fully vaccinated against fatal childhood infectious diseases as a requirement for being allowed to attend school. It makes particular sense to apply a vaccination requirement to attending school because schools are where non-vaccinated children posed the greatest threat to other children.
In an effort to placate parents with religious and philosophical objections, the government has fueled the epidemic of ignorance. It is time to address that ignorance head on. If you want your child to go to school, your child must be vaccinated. Period.
The time for endless discussions about irrational, non-scientific claims is over. The rest of the population deserves to be protected from the effects of this ignorance. Individual doctors cannot, and should not be expected to, handle this serious problem alone. The government must step in and put an end to this nonsense.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
MissingK8
aliquot
Roger Fallihee
madcelt
Norwonk
John Moore
Salon.com
Comments
Could you expand on that a little? If my child is vaccinated, what difference does it make if a few other children aren't?
"If my child is vaccinated, what difference does it make if a few other children aren't?"
This is an extremely important question and I'm glad you raised it.
Many lay people assume that vaccines work because they are always 100% effective. For example, they think that pertussis virtually disappeared from the US because the pertussis vaccine must have been 100% effective, but that's not the case.
In fact, in the individual child, the pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine is 80-85% effective. That means is that 80-85% of children vaccinated for pertussis will be able to produce enough antibody to fend off the disease.
So how did the disease disappear (before its recent comeback). It disappeared because in order to get pertussis, you need to be exposed to it? Even if only 80% of the population has immunity, the chance of being exposed to it drops substantially.
Let's do a thought experiment to demonstrate how this works. Let's suppose for the moment that pertussis is 100% communicable (it's not) and that if you are exposed to it, you will get it if you are not immune.
Let's say that a child with pertussis comes into a community with 1000 children, all of whom are unvaccinated. Everyone who has direct exposure to the child promptly gets pertussis, too; maybe 20 children get sick. But now these 20 children go out and expose 20 children apiece and suddenly 400 children have pertussis. Those 400 children expose other children and in a very short time every child in the community is sick.
But suppose the 1000 children in the community were fully vaccinated. In that case, there are only 800-850 children in the community who can't get pertussis at all. But there are still 150-200 children who can get it even though they've been vaccinated. Will they get it?
Even though those 150-200 children are vulnerable, they are protected by the fact that the majority of children are not. The child with pertussis exposes 20 children, just like in the previous example, but now only 3 or 4 get sick. The fact that so few will get sick with each new exposure means that the chances of an non-immune child being exposed to pertussis is dramatically lower.
In the first example, 1 child was sick the first week, 20 children the second week, 400 children the 3rd week and all the children within 4 weeks.
In the second example, where 80-85% of the children are immune (after 100% of them have been vaccinated), 1 child was sick the first week, 3-4 children were sick the second week, 9-16 children were sick the 3rd week and27-66 children the 4th week. In fact, many of the non-immune children will never get sick because they will never meet a child with pertussis.
What's the take home message? Unvaccinated children risk not only their own lives, but the lives of every child in the community. There will always be children who are non-immune, some of them vaccinated, and some too young or too sick with cancer or other diseases to get vaccinated.
In fact, in recent outbreaks that's exactly what did happen. Deliberately unvaccinated children who got sick went to the doctor's office and exposed every child in the waiting room. Some were infants who were too young to be fully vaccinated, and some of those infants ended up in the ICU for extended periods.
I cannot stress enough the need to know HOW vaccines work. It's not something that is intuitive. It's not common knowledge. Without specific education on exactly how vaccines work, no parent can make an informed decision about vaccination.
My daughter just started college at NYU and is being forced by YOU to get a series of vaccines. Doesn't seem to matter that she eats right, takes care of her body, avoids drugs, alcohol and various chemical toxins.
Here's the deal: your way is not the only way. There are other ways to stay healthy. You people are turning medicine into another religion: anyone who doesn't follow the dogma is evil.
Well, not me. You're fired.
Frankly, the anti-vaccination folks are the ones who strike me as cultists. They're ignoring the evidence of greatly reduced childhood death and illness since vaccination became common, in favor of magical thinking and conspiracy theories.
Perhaps something like some little trips to Haiti for bunches of Americans and Canadians would be advisable--people can gawk at the children dragging themselves around on their arms because of polio, and then return home and talk to their own elders about the fear that struck that generation's hearts every summer as their children wandered out into swimming pools and playgrounds. Yeah, that might do it. Might.
But, I was born in 1980, a good decade and a half before the vaccine rejection movement gained ground. The students entering as college freshmen now were born in 1991 at the latest. I'm wondering if such a policy will work to prevent disease on college campuses once a bigger cohort of unvaccinated kids starts entering in the next couple of years.
How to do this? Keep the independent studies coming (showing that vaccinations are safe), continue to demonstrate the non-link to autism (yes, it is difficult to show a "non" link, but this can be achieved with studies that disprove the link studies), explain the decision to drop Thermisol from most vaccinations (but not all, it confuses most lay-people) and demonstrate why people should trust Big Pharma (now THAT is tough, but hey, it's worth it to save lives, right?)
I also get why you're so frustrated, Dr. Amy. But somehow it's this us-against-them, ratcheted-up rhetoric that makes everyone confused. What's right? What's wrong? Gee, it's loud in here.
The evidence is on the sensible doctors' side, of course. But I doubt a stick is the right approach. Or if you must wave a stick, wave it at the media for hyping fears and providing too much air time to the "no vaccine" argument in the name of "balance."
And yes, keep providing us with information. Don't say you'll fire patients, say you'll educate us, as you're doing here. Keep reminding us that in developing countries these are serious illnesses that kill children and seriously affect whole communities. Provide some space for writing by and quotes from doctors in places like Vietnam, Haiti, Laos, Nigeria.
The parents of a child that can't be vaccinated for medical reasons (or who is too young to be vaccinated) should at least be able to go to the doctor's office without having to worry about unvaccinated children infecting their child!
What an irony: your bizarre rant is full of magical thinking, yet you accuse doctors of turning medicine into religion. Medicine is evidence-based science.
Whether you're prepared to admit it or not, your immune system functions in the same way as everyone else's. You have the same biochemistry and are made of the same stuff as me and everyone you know. You claim that you are always healthy. If it's true, congratulations! Some of us with equally healthy lifestyles are not as lucky.
I hope you have the courage of your convictions, though. If you get injured, by all means, don't seek treatment! Just take care of yourself. I'm sure if you got an infection due to a wound, for example, your healthy lifestyle will protect you from gangrene.
"forty years without antibiotics, vaccines or any other of your so-called chemical miracles for me or my family. All in excellent health, never go to the doctor."
In other words, 40 years of you freeloading off the rest of society by taking advantage of the fact that everyone else is vaccinated. Visit a 3rd world country for a few days. How long do you think your perfect health would last then? You'd promptly get sick, wouldn't you?
"I think as a society we've forgotten what things were like before vaccination. Parents who don't vaccinate their kids should be forced to tour the older parts of cemeteries. These sections are full of the graves of children, a great many of whom died of diseases that we now vaccinate against. They also need to talk to their own parents, who lived through frightening epidemics of polio and other diseases. "
You're right. I don't understand it, though. The hallmark of human advancement is our ability to learn from others without having to directly witness something. The vaccine rejectionists seem to be unable to do so. They don't believe in the existence of anything they do not personally witness.
I'm curious as to where you get the idea that those who choose not to vaccinate reject the idea that medicine should be based on science. The parents I know who have chosen not to vaccinate, or to only do some vaccinations, (myself included), have made this choice after much research. (I doubt that the same is true for most parents who do vaccinate according to their pediatricians' schedules, BTW.) There is plenty of solid scientific evidence showing the harm that can be caused by various vaccines, and there is also a great deal of circumstantial evidence for things such as a vaccine-autism connection. Interestingly though, the scientific establishment has stayed away from doing any large-scale studies that would confirm or eliminate this hypothesis.
You say in another article: "In practice, though, evidence based medicine can harm or even kill patients. That's because the evidence may be conflicting and various third parties like drug companies and insurers may have undue influence in determining what qualifies as the "evidence" in evidence based medicine." It is strange to me that you don't seem to see how this applies to the world of vaccination.
" of course, that will be a sad, costly lesson."
Very sad and very costly!
I can't imagine the guilt of having to bury your own child because you chose ignorance over science.
"Pertussis is common here, and outbreaks of mumps and measles are not rare. It's a reality not often seen by the suburban middle class."
And, unfortunately, if they don't see, they don't believe it.
"I'm wondering if such a policy will work to prevent disease on college campuses once a bigger cohort of unvaccinated kids starts entering in the next couple of years."
One of the interesting thing about vaccine rejectionism is that it is obsessed with small children. You don't see too many people refusing tetanus shots and there has been a gratifying willingess to vaccinate teens for bacterial meningitis.
I'm not sure about the vaccination requirements for all colleges though. I'll try to look into it.
Interesting points, but did you know there is more evidence linking cats to autism than there is linking vaccinations to autism?
"I understand the concerns of those who are nervous."
I understand that they are concerned but their concerns are not legitimate. They have been hookwinked by ignorant people disseminating lies.
In some ways, vaccine rejectionism is like racism. We don't fight racism by doing studies showing that minorities have the same IQ as white people or by trying to demonstrate that Blacks and Latinos are not inferior. We fight it by exposing it for the ugliness that it is.
"And yes, keep providing us with information"
Unfortunately, that approach has not been working. Children have already died and others will die.
At any rate, it might not just be ignorance and the flat-earth syndrome at work in the resistance of some to line their children up for shots.
"The doctor should simply say, "I can't risk my other patients by having an unvaccinated child in my waiting room. Some of my patients are babies and sick children who might be infected by your unvaccinated child".
That's a very good point.
"The parents I know who have chosen not to vaccinate, or to only do some vaccinations, (myself included), have made this choice after much research."
Let's be brutally honest here:
The parents who have chosen not to vaccinate are ignorant. Period.
They lack the basic understanding of immunology, virology and statistics to do any research at all.
One of the reasons it is so easy to hoodwink gullible parents is that the less they know, the more anxious they are to preen about being "educated." Those who know very little are the very people who think a few days at Google University makes them "educated."
You have put your children's very life at risk by your willingness to listen to buffoons. It's time to expose that type of nonsense for what it really is.
"However, and correct me if I am wrong, do not some of these folks are against the new vaccine becasue it has been rushed to the public without all the proper trials being done."
That's yet another lie propagated by vaccine rejectionists.
It is sad when lies gain such widespread currency that even those who are well meaning and don't believe in conspiracy theories are snared by those lies.
"The cognitive dissonance we live with in our culture blows my mind away at times."
It's unbelievable, isn't it?
"Maybe that's keeping people from hearing your message."
I'm curious. Did you understand the long explanation that I gave you?
Yeah. And I'm old enough to have lived through polio and all the other diseases that have been about wiped out. I'm pretty surprised the anti-vaccine flap has legs.
I appreciate this discussion.
I believe perhaps schools should require children to be vaccinated as a condition of attendance. People can choose to home school.
However, I do not believe doctors should "fire" patients for refucing to vaccinate their children. Doctor's are not supposed make public policy within their offices (doing so outside their practices, as citizens, is fine with me). Also, as one who has sympathy with vaccine resistors (not that I think they are right), I don't think such strong-arm tactics would work. I think a doctor educating and encouraging their patients to vaccinate would work much, much better.
"most of the major epidemics in the US started disappearing well before vaccinations were introduced"
Yet another lie that you believe.
It's incredibly easy to check though. There are many historical timelines that make it quite clear. Good sanitation and clean water were achieved anywhere from 50-100 years before vaccine preventable diseases began to disappear. In fact, each disease only began to disappear immediately after its corresponding vaccine was introduced.
And, of course, smallpox began to decline immediately after the introduction of its vaccine even though that was long before good sanitation and clean water.
I believe that the immune reaction the shots bring on somehow does set off autism and (in one woman ms) but they protect the majority. My friend said I was willing to sacrifice 1 person to save 30 and was horrified with me. Well, of course? How does that not make sense?
"I don't think such strong-arm tactics would work. I think a doctor educating and encouraging their patients to vaccinate would work much, much better."
I'm not in favor of doctors firing patients, but I believe that your suggestion has already been tried for over 20 years and it's proving to be a dismal failure. What should we do now?
Kinda like going camping for two weeks makes you appreciate how wonderful it is to have indoor plumbing... just go talk to anyone in their 60s or 70s, how they feel about vaccines.
I missed three weeks of high school to chicken pox (somehow I never got it as a child, then got it at 17. Miserable.)
How easily we forget. I vaccinate my kids.
"I believe that the immune reaction the shots bring on somehow does set off autism"
I'm glad you're getting vaccinated, but I'm curious. On what basis have you concluded (in spite of all the existing scientific evidence) that vaccines cause autism?
Wouldn't you agree that extraordinary claims like yours call for extraordinary proof? Where's that proof?
Good discussion though.
My daughther is turning 10. 3 weeks ago she had the flumist h1n1 vaccine. None of her friends did.
A week ago Monday, she came home with a 103 degree fever. Her pediatrician offered Tamiflu and we gave it. The only symptom she ever had was the quickly reducing fever that was gone by Thursday morning.
In the meantime, 30% of her school got flu-like symptoms and they closed the school. The 70% who weren't sick included many kids who had not been vaccinated.
This Monday they re-opened the school and some of the kids who weren't sick last week are out sick this week.
My guess is both sides of the argument could use my daughter's case as "proof" that they are right.
I agree that people who don't vaccinate their kids are behaving irresponsibly and unreasonably. At the same time, I don't think doctors are immune from their own brand of hysteria. It's hard for me to gage in Canada where doctors are on salary and don't seem to be making the same "inordinate amount of time" complaints. And vaccines are often done at community clinics, not in doctors offices. So I need some actual science behind the claims that vaccine rejectionism is SERIOUSLY on the rise.
How many cases of measles and polio were there before rejectionism became a problem? How many unvaccinated kids on average are attending school?
The attitude that the medical community takes towards this situation is extremely important. Doctor's firing patients, and schools barring children may do just as much to fuel conspiracy theories. Not to mention bar children from the one chance they have of learning the critical thinking abilities that their parents obviously lack.
This is not an issue in which we can really have opinions unsubstantiated by fact.
But it is not helpful in persuading others to vaccinate for us to deny that some vaccines have proven to cause terrible side effects. For example, when my son was born they were using the "DPT" vaccine - except there was some concern in the medical community about the effects of the "P" (Pertussis) portion of the vaccine. They actually offered a "DT" version (and later other versions) and eventually reformulated the Pertussis vaccine.
I was reading the other day about the vaccine for smallpox. We all got it as a matter of course until the 70's. Other countries administered it to everyone until the 80's. Smallpox is virtually eradicated - but the harmful side effects are so great that we now only vaccinate those who are directly exposed to someone who is sick (within the incubation period).
People who fear vaccines will not be convinced to vaccinate their kids if we laugh at their fears or pretend that vaccines are perfect and their manufacturers never make a mistake. In many cases, drugs have been taken off the market only after grievous, although unanticipated, harm.
Fear of things like vaccines is not completely unfounded. Sure some people just mistrust everything, or are ignorant, or think the government is trying to control our minds with stuff they put in our drinking water.
But what about patients who have doubts based, in part, in history: Thalidomide, or Phenfen, or that flawed Pertussis vaccine they replaced, or statins that we now know can cause severe muscle damage?
We can't expect to persuade people with statistics while brushing aside the truth that sometimes drugs we think will help end up hurting some of us.
I don't know the answer to getting people to vaccinate. I have my own qualms about injecting stuff into my kids. But I do know that rejecting and ridiculing people is not helpful. We won't be able to educate and/or convince everyone, but surely alienating people will just make it more difficult.
The other issue that to me is a real complexity is that the number of vaccinations required or suggested seems to be increasing at a rapid rate. When I was young it was like DPT and Tetanus and maybe one other. Now it's 3-4 times that number and growing. Where does it stop? While I am vehemently pro-vaccination, am I pro fifty vaccinations to a child? A hundred? Those are theoretical numbers but the ramp seems to be going in that direction.
Then you start having to figure out WHICH vaccinations you should get.
It's awfully complicated and only getting more so.
While I would absolutely agree that a "no vaccinations" stance is simply ignorant and selfish, I think the vaccination problem has gotten so complicated that taking a hard-line stance is not really going to help right now.
What is the "baseline" set of vaccinations? Which ones should be mandatory? All of them? You can say that now, but in twenty years what if there's over 100 vaccinations you COULD get.
I think our scientific and political leaders need to pull together and come out with clear guidance and a system to help people make this decision, not just say "you're ignorant, we know better, do what we say". That just doesn't seem like a tenable approach.
and in case that was a serious question just badly phrased so that it looked like a blow off- listening to nurses who have been in the field (and stayed in the field) for years, sort of like chemo brain, which was also dismissed by doctors
That thalidomide was never marketed in the United States was largely due to the stubborn skepticism of FDA's Frances Kelsey, M.D., Ph.D., whose doubts about the drug kept it out of American pharmacies. Assigned to review the thalidomide application, she fought a dogged defensive battle, blocking and parrying every attempt by Richardson-Merrell to gain approval until the news from the European countries made approval unthinkable.
I lived in Europe in the 60's, and I saw the results of Thalidomide first hand.
Both sides can probably use this anecdote as well. :)
On the advice of several doctors I did not get vaccinations as an adult as this would have threatened my health. I will never be able to work in a position with small children- they are a health threat to me much more so than the other way around. I don’t’ know what will happen if and when I have children. I would like to make informed decisions about which vaccinations are necessary and will have to balance that – literally with the danger to my self and my children.
It is true that people like my parents are taking advantage of herd immunity. On the other hand it is difficult to have a rational conversation about treatment with a doctor. I was able to get advice after the fact because they had some compassion for my situation and the damage was done by the time I would have been legally able to consent. But most doctors react to any questions as questioning their judgment and behave as if a patient who has concerns about a medicine or procedure is defying them. That arrogance goes a long way to reinforce a patient’s skepticism which is sometimes warranted. I want to rely on science and skilled medical professionals. But I have also had some very poor treatment from doctors who told me to take one treatment or another that was absurd- to the point of dangerous – perhaps rising to malpractice- not just in my own judgment but from consultation from other medical professionals. One has to be pretty stubborn if you suspect you are getting bad advice- it is hard to change doctors under the current HMO system – to get additional test if needed – and sometime just to trust your intuition that something is wrong and request more opinions.
In the end the crisis of vaccination probably has some to do with professional arrogance and people becoming distrustful of arrogant doctors who tell them to just shut up and take whatever treatment- people being burned by ineffective or worse harmful treatments they submitted to on a doctors recommendation. And yes a lot probably has to do with our for profit system. It would be interesting to see the difference in confidence in science and medicine between countries with and without for profit healthcare. There is no denying the profit motive increases medical procedures and reduces preventative care. Medical professionals could make a big difference too by making time to discuss concerns with their patients, not taking offense if patients bring in information they have researched (docs are going to have to get over it – we are firmly in the age of the web and people have tons of info – some good, some bad at their disposal- professionals should help them sort that out not take it as disrespect.) Medical professionals should support a healthcare model that is patient centered – that would go a long way to regain their patients’ trust.
And finally, the government is not placating people with a religious exemption – it is recognizing their rights under the constitution. We are all are going to have to live with that fact and doctors need to find trust again with their patients on this issue not rely on a mandate that people will find a way to get around if they really believe vaccinations threaten their children.
(I understand the point one of you was making about graveyards and death rates for childhood illnesses prior to the mid-20th Century, but those death rates were not simply a function of low vaccination rates, but a lack of advanced medical treatments for those who became seriously ill, and other deficiencies.)
According to the CDC, on average, there are approximately 60 cases of measles reported in the U.S. each year, although this did spike to around 140 in 2008. Of those 140, there were 15 hospitalizations and no deaths. There has been in increase in mumps in recent years, including an outbreak in the Midwest a couple of years ago that sickened about 6500. No fatalities. Diphtheria, once a major killer, is incredibly rare in the U.S., with just 55 confirmed cases in the last quarter-century. In those 25 years, there have been five known fatalities, four in newborns too young to be immunized. Pertussis (whooping cough) is more common, with about 15,600 cases last year alone, but that's not surprising since the vaccination loses effectiveness in 5-10 years. Fatalities are incredibly rare.
Polio was declared "eradicated" in the Americas in 1994, I believe, and according to the CDC "the last cases of naturally occurring paralytic polio in the United States were in 1979, when an outbreak occurred among the Amish in several Midwestern states. From 1980 through 1999, there were 152 confirmed cases of paralytic polio cases reported. Of the 152 cases, eight cases were acquired outside the United States and imported. The last imported case caused by wild poliovirus into the United States was reported in 1993. The remaining 144 cases were vaccine-associated paralytic polio (VAPP) caused by live oral polio vaccine (OPV)." So in the last 30 years, no child in the US has contracted polio, and there hasn't been an imported case in close to 20 years.
Is there a possibility of an polio outbreak at some point in the future? Sure. There's also a chance of a smallpox outbreak. Mandatory smallpox vaccinations stopped in 1972, when the disease was proclaimed "eradicated" in the U.S., and we're all still here and still smallpox free.
"Herd immunity" is not perfect, and were I a parent, I would likely lean on the side of caution. Still, many of these diseases simply don't have a foothold in our population at this point, and since close to 99% of American children receive most (if not all) of their scheduled shots (according to UNICEF), the chances of a major outbreak of, say, measles, are pretty far-fetched. I know there are some who would turn this into some kind of holy crusade, and that's fine, but at the end of the day, it's a parents choice to make.
The same sort of thing holds true in the older sections of in-ground cemeteries in the rest of the country. Headstones for children who died en masse would often be homemade out of wood for economic reasons, and many have not survived.
Now, take the sobering reminder that is all of those children's graves in the 1700s-1920s sections of cemeteries, and multiply that number times four to ten. And remember that the population of most cities and towns was a good deal smaller then as well.
The entire human population lived the way you did for thousands of years - little alcohol, no drugs, plenty of exercise, low-fat diets.
And epidemics of plague still managed to wipe out huge swaths of the population every 10 years or so.
You aren't healthy because you've gone "all natural." You're healthy because you're protected by the human barrier around you of people who ARE vaccinated.
I'm against the overuse of antibiotics and other drugs, but it's still ridiculous for you to assume that a healthy lifestyle is all it takes to keep from getting sick. Healthy people are just ones that haven't been sick yet.
"I'd forgotten how obnoxious and rude you are."
What is obnoxious or rude about asking another healthcare provider to present proof for an extraordinary statement? Why do you hold yourself to a less standard than you would hold me?
"I need facts that vaccine "rejectionism" is really a serious threat"
In order to understand whether vaccine rejectionism is a serious threat, you need to understand what a serious threat would look like.
Immunologists estimate that herd immunity begins to break down below 80-93% immunization depending on the disease. For example, in the case of pertussis (whooping cough), herd immunity begins to break down if the immunization rate drops below 93%. The most recent figures (August 2009) show that only 85% of children under 3 are fully vaccinated for pertussis. If pertussis is introduced into the community, it will begin to spread, and that is exactly what has been happening.
In both the UK and Japan pertussis vaccination rates have dropped below 80% and both have experienced epidemics involving tens of thousands of cases and about 50 deaths.
So clearly vaccine rejectionism poses a serious threat to every child in this country, and to many adults as well.
"But it is not helpful in persuading others to vaccinate for us to deny that some vaccines have proven to cause terrible side effects."
Who is denying it? Parents are required to sign consent forms acknowledging that vaccination has a very small, but real risk of DEATH and brain damage. If the medical profession is warning people about death and brain damage, why would they be hiding autism?
"Where does it stop?"
Why should it stop?
There are two ways to acquire immunity to a disease. One is to get the disease with the illness and potential complications that entails; the other is to prevent the illness with vaccination. Since there is no limit to the amount of serious illnesses that a child may be exposed to and forced to fend off, why should there be a limit to the preventive care for those diseases?
The concept that there should be some sort of limit is based on a lack of knowledge about how the immune system functions. Every year it is challenged with hundreds or thousands of threats. An additional 50 over the course of childhood pales into insignificance when compared to the constant barrage the immune system faces every day.
Thank you for your thoughtful response, and for sharing an important perspective.
"In the end the crisis of vaccination probably has some to do with professional arrogance and people becoming distrustful of arrogant doctors who tell them to just shut up and take whatever treatment"
But isn't that cutting off one's nose to spite one's face? I wishpeople could come up with a way of dissing doctors that is less harmful to their children.
"since close to 99% of American children receive most (if not all) of their scheduled shots "
The number is 90% and for some diseases that means that herd immunity is already vulnerable to breakdown.
Think of it this way:
Unvaccinated children are like tinder. The amount of tinder is rising. All that is needed now is a spark. Claiming that there haven't been many cases yet is equivalent to insisting that it doesn't matter how much tinder is present when considering the risk of a fire.
By all means, send vaccine denialism elsewhere. Doctors may be jerks and know-it-alls sometimes, but I'm happy to see them refusing to stand for this kind of crap and removing those risks from their waiting rooms. I don't want my family exposed to that because some ninny who couldn't find their own pulse thinks they've unlocked a massive conspiracy that only freethinking suburban soccer-moms/dads with a Google searchbar could possibly fathom.
Dangerous ignorance should be attacked.
"But then this is a country where most people believe people and apes are genetically similar because God wanted it that way, and where a fair number believe they've been inside alien spacecraft."
It defies comprehension, doesn't it?
1) Only a small percentage of people refuse to get vaccines.
2) It takes a certain population density of people to allow a disease to become an epidemic. When the horrible black death hit Europe only about 1/3rd of the population died even though sanitation was, to put it mildly horrendous. As was nutrition(and we know how important nutrition is to helping prevent disease and surviving if you do fall ill).
3) Given the overall success rates of vaccines(I believe it was mentioned that it's around 80-85 percent) And the very low percentage of people who refuse vaccines, the percentage of unprotected people really isn't high enough to support a full blown epidemic or in most cases even a mild version of one.
4) Given the much improved sanitation and nutrition(greatly helping to prevent infection even if exposed and quite likely making the effects of infection much milder, not to say that it stops all or even most infections but only an idiot would suggest that a person with low nutritional intake and living in a filthy environment is no more likely to contract or die from a disease than someone who has good nutrition and lives in a clean environment), not to mention our MUCH improved ability to keep a body alive while it heals, it just doesn't make sense to go to extreme lengths to try and get everyone vaccinated when even then 15-20 percent of the population wouldn't be protected.
5) Given the KNOWN hazards of mercury and the other poisons used in vaccines it IS tantamount to medical neglect and probably should be considered criminal that large well funded studies have not been performed on the long term effects of these poisons.
6) You have to be either very dense, uninformed or just refusing to believe basic facts if you believe that pumping numerous doses of highly toxic substances into a human that has a very rapidly developing body and brain will have no adverse long term affects from it.
7) There are quite a few small studies suggesting a link between these poisons and many illnesses. These are too small to be 100% conclusive but they are more than enough to warrant many millions of dollars being spent on finding out instead of the many millions that are being spent on trying to convince, without studies proving it, that they are safe.
8) Why does the government have a fund to pay families when their children die from vaccines if they are so safe?
9) facilitates reporting of suspected adverse events to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). During five months, a total of 33,420 vaccinations were administered during 14,466 encounters. There were 5,914 follow-up contacts by vaccinees within 14 days of the vaccination visits; 686 (11.6%) generated an alert. Clinicians submitted VAERS reports for 23 of these (0.69 per 1,000 vaccine doses), which is almost 6 times the dose-based reporting rate to VAERS. (1) Clinician surveys indicated that it took a minimal amount of time to respond to the alerts. Of those who felt that an alert corresponded to an actual vaccine adverse event, the majority used the reporting feature to file a VAERS report. We believe that elicited surveillance via real time prompts to clinicians holds substantial promise.(From this government website) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17712091?ordinalpos=8&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
How many Doctors didn't file a report simply because they believe vaccines are safe and so didn't associate the problems with the vaccine? Don't you think over 11% of children having to go to the doctor/emergency room within 2 weeks of vaccination is a bit high? Do you think 11% of all children seeking medical help every 2 weeks is normal? Of course not. Outside of regular care, physical injury and simple things like strep and ear infection etc. most kids go many months or even longer between visits. So what caused over 11% of these children to seek help? Who knows, but it SHOULD be looked into.
10) A long list of side affects that the government itself assumes was caused by vaccines if no other cause is found.
http://www.hrsa.gov/Vaccinecompensation/table.htm
11) If they are so safe why do we have drug companies being protected against law-suits for FDA approved vaccines?
http://www.nvic.org/vaccine-laws/homeland-security/homeland-security.aspx
This is not a government website, but it lists bill numbers and section numbers so you can easily verify what it says if you aren't lazy.
12) SOMETHING is causing these increases in autism. An increase that was not occurring before vaccines became available. An increase that has increased as more and more vaccines have been invented and the number a single child receives has increased. An increase that children who DON'T receive vaccines have largely avoided having to suffer.( note: i did not say that none of the children who don't get vaccines don't get these same problems or that they have not had some increase. There are also problems associated with pollution and other things we ingest causing problems. Such as WHY was there about a 10% increase in brain cancer within 2 years of Equal becoming widespread in foods? Especially diet soda. TWO YEARS!!!!) But children who receive no, or fewer vaccines do have fewer problems with the diseases that some associate with vaccines, and the government refuses to investigate? How many reasons can you think of as to why that is? I can think of one....They don't want to know.
Now if all of the people who say they are totally safe I ask you this. Would you have mercury( same amount of mercury found in all the vaccines combined given in the same quantities and spread out over the same time span as the vaccines themselves) injected directly into your child? No? I didn't think so. You know why? Because you KNOW mercury is highly poisonous and want to protect your child from that poison. So why do you say injecting them with mercury when it's mixed in a vaccine is safe?
The pro-vaccine people can say that their is no proof that vaccines are not safe. And to be honest their isn't. But their IS proof that some of the individual ingredients are very very harmful. Once those ingredients that we KNOW beyond a shadow of a medical and scientific doubt are added to the vaccine it is a fact that the whole mixture is unsafe. My problem is not that the ingredients that provide us with protection is dangerous(it may be in some or all but in my opinion those dangers would probably be too small to worry about, if they truly exist at all) But the ingredients they use to prepare and preserve those vaccines ARE PROVEN to be not harmful, but highly toxic and downright dangerous.
But if any pro-vaccination person can offer proof that mercury(or any other dangerous chemical added) is safe then offer it up. I am waiting.
Until then, leave those that choose to NOT have their young and developing children injected with these poisons alone.
That being said even with the KNOWN dangers of some of the ingredients i would say that getting a tetanus shot is worth the risks simply because getting scratched by metal esp. with rust(even rust that can't be seen) is so easily done. Also the bacteria that causes tetanus lives in the soil all over the world. Not to mention Lockjaw, when untreated, has an approximate 30% death rate for adults and 60% for infants. That's no joke. Not to mention that even treated it is a horrible disease to suffer through. The shots are small and after an initial 3 shot series you only need to get 1 every 10 years. But the main reason to get the vaccine against tetanus isn't the size of the shot or how long they last(to me it's still too much and too many) It' the ease at which this disease can be contracted. No other person is needed to give it to you, you don't have to be bitten. Just a scratch or dirt in a scratch is all that is needed.
"Mercury(Thimerosal is49% mercury by weight) being one of the most common and the worst."
Wrong again. The toxicity of a substance is not determined by individual atoms. Just because a compound contains a mercury atom does not make it poisonous.
There's tons of other ridiculous errors in your screed, but why don't we start there?
Imagine them walking out with a full blown major infection.
Imagine some cunning ambulance chaser taking the case and suing for millions.
Could it happen? Hell yes!
These people, like the 'young earthers' and the like should forfeit their ability to walk the streets and have the modern conveniences like electricity, telephones and cable teevee. If they want to be that stupid, that willingly stupid, they deserve to live in a hole. With a lid, to keep their diseases inside.
Ignorance is a disease. It's very easy to transmit among the populous. And can be just as cruel as cancer.
I am wondering where the line is drawn, though. When is a patient free to say, "I'm sorry; I'm done with this treatment." If a patient is getting, say, chemotherapy for Stage 4 cancer, and they decide to discontinue because they're 60 years old and tired of being sick and having their hair fall out? (e.g., consider Warren Zevon.) Not an easy call to make, I would imagine.
"Where does it stop?"
Why should it stop?"
Wouldn't there be a point of diminiishing returns? Where the likelihood of infection/hospitalization/death is so low that the costs for mass immunization aren't worth it? There are all sorts of vaccines available that people don't get unless they are traveling to specific places (I don't recall my DD getting a rabies vaccine, for example, or cholera). I think it's completely reasonable to adjust a vaccine schedule to reflect the risk (so we don't get the smallpox vaccine anymore, but yes to pertussis because it is still alive and infecting), or the age (we're holding off on Hep B until DD is older because if she were to be exposed via sex or intravenous drug use, we'd have much bigger things to worry about then Hep B as she's 2) of the person involved. The HPV vaccine isn't for prepubescent girls, for example.
I'm not a rejectionist in general (although I won't get a flu vaccine, H1N1 or otherwise, until I'm in a high risk group), but the vaccine issue needs to be revisited constantly precisely because it changes over time depending on treatments/presence of the disease/improvements in the vaccines/etc. To just blindly accept the status quo and not push for such reviews is foolish.
"I am wondering where the line is drawn, though. When is a patient free to say, "I'm sorry; I'm done with this treatment."
That's a very different issue. It is an ethical issue, not an empirical one. There is no correct answer to the question "when is enough?" but there is a correct answer to the question "are vaccines safe?"
"Wouldn't there be a point of diminishing returns? Where the likelihood of infection/hospitalization/death is so low that the costs for mass immunization aren't worth it?"
Sure, there is a point of diminishing returns from a risk-benefit point of view. I was addressing the question of whether there is harm from multiple vaccinations.
On the other hand I can see how it would be completely frustrating to deal with a lot of misinformation that patients bring in, on a case by case basis and I can see why after explaining germ theory and how vaccinations work for the umpteenth time how a doctor might get frustrated. And we seem to have a culture that spawns more magical thinking per capita and more wingnuttery than can even be explained by the concerns above.
While I can see that modern medicine has done far more good than harm, because of personal experience I've come to refuse to deal with any doctor who I feel is not taking my concerns seriously or even gets impatient with questions. Makes it hard to find a doctor but I have been so badly burned it is more important to find someone I can trust. I know my experience is completely anecdotal but I have had some serious problems with well regarded doctors who have spent years in their fields. I can not be the only one who has had this stuff happen to them. I still trust science over faith but I would
be extra wary of any doctor who dismissed any concerns I had about my (still theoretical) children.
“They lack the basic understanding of immunology, virology and statistics to do any research at all.
“One of the reasons it is so easy to hoodwink gullible parents is that the less they know, the more anxious they are to preen about being "educated." Those who know very little are the very people who think a few days at Google University makes them "educated."”
Wow Amy. I can’t argue with the sound reasoning and evidence you present here. I now see the error of my ways, and recognize my foolishness in ever thinking I was capable of making an informed decision on my own. I will immediately cease any attempts at learning the facts of this issue - or any other - and will instead follow without question the wisdom of my betters.
"I will immediately cease any attempts at learning the facts of this issue"
You haven't yet made any attempts to learn the facts; you've only made an attempt to learn the propaganda. Without a basic understanding of immunology, virology and statistics you can't understand the facts. It's like trying to "educate" yourself about calculus without ever learning basic math.
I realize it is much harder to learn even basic immunology, etc. than it is to pretend that you already know everything you need to know to understand the issues, but the harder way is the only way.
Your children's lives depend upon being able to tell the difference between lies and the truth and you haven't made any effort to learn how to tell the difference.
Try it. I guarantee you'll be extremely surprised.
And you never answered the very simple yes or no question. If we removed the mercury from the vaccines would you allow your children(if you have any, i do not know) Or any of your loved ones, especially the young ones to be injected with it? As i said, the same quantities spread out over the same time period.
And talk about how many errors you might say exist in my claims. The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT acknowledges that vaccines cause health problems. If they didn't they would not have set up a fund to pay families for their children that were harmed(i provided a link to a government website explaining it) nor would they have given vaccine manufacturers blanket immunity from lawsuits stemming from children being injured and/or killed by vaccines. In fact I gave more than one link to back up what I said. The rest of what I said is easily researched for anyone who wants to. Finding the number of known cases of each disease by year and when each vaccine was released isn't too hard to find. You can see as more and more vaccines came out and the number of vaccines a given child received VS. the number of health problems some associate with vaccines is startling.
Don't just claim what I say is bogus. Prove or disprove. If your a doctor then getting access to this type of info should be even easier for you than it was for me.
So would YOU separate the mercury from all the vaccines(that way you only use the EXACT "mercury atoms" that are in the vaccines and inject it into your young loved ones while looking them in the face?
"It contains mercury, plain and simple."
There's another big mistake on your part. Chemistry is not "plain and simple."
The atomic structure determines whether a substance is poisonous, not the identity of the individual atoms. For example, methyl mercury (found in fish) is poisonous. Ethylmercury (thimerosal) is not.
Methylmercury (toxic) and ethylmercury (non-toxic) sound very similar, but so do methyl alcohol (toxic) and ethyl alcohol (non-toxic). Drink methyl alcohol (wood alcohol) and you'll end up blind and/or dead; drink ethyl alcohol (found in wine, beer and hard liquor) and you'll get drunk.
Big difference, right? The same principle applies to mercury compounds.
Understanding science is not a matter of "common sense." It absolutely requires specialized knowledge of the relevant science.
"most of the major epidemics in the US started disappearing well before vaccinations were introduced"
Amy said:
"Yet another lie that you believe.
It's incredibly easy to check though. There are many historical timelines that make it quite clear. "
Amy, could you please post links to these charts, or hell, even just direct to the raw data, I have taken more graduate level statistics classes than you and so I can understand results and manipulate the data if need be. You always refer to data and studies that prove you are right, but you never point readers to these sources. I am part of the ivory tower too and have access to PubMed et al., so please, cite your sources. I find the absence of citations highly suspicious, or maybe you truly believe you are the only one capable of analysis. You are quite condescending to your reader.
I would very much like to look at this data you speak of. Since you cite it, you have found it, read it, and you know where it is. I am busy and I just don't have time to dig for this stuff, it won't take much of your time to throw some data this way please. Because I want to believe you. I want to vaccinate my kids. But I can't.
What do you think causes ASD like symptoms and what is responsible for the recent increase in ASD? I don't know if vaccines are the cause. There has never been a ASD vaccine study done, that I have read, that satisfied me.
I do know that when I read about this case, I paused.
http://www.mitoaction.org/blog/statement-autism-vaccines-mitochondrial-disease
I am not a doctor, and I do not know anything about mitochondrial disease. I also know that until I can have my as yet non existent kids tested for mitochondrial diseases, I won't have them vaccinated. Will insurance cover that ;)
How arrogant to think that a service provider can fire me! Ha. What a joke. How elitist.
The patient may just have to start "firing" some vaccine-pushers. We do not yet live in a country where we are forced to have a certain medical treatment. Though that is probably around the corner.
My brother-in-law, a DOCTOR, is anti-vaccine. That is not out of ignorance. He has been to medical school. A good one.
You wrongly assume that those against vaccines are "ignorant".
By the way, since they can and do make flu shots with AND without mercury, why not make them all without it? I cannot get an answer to that one. It is clearly possible to make it mercury free.
I'm glad I'm not your patient because if I were, it would not be for long. Tired of your nonsense.
Patients take heart. Not all doc's are vaccine pushers. Do some shopping.
"I am busy and I just don't have time to dig for this stuff"
Oh, really? You don't have time to find real data on vaccines? You only have time to find propaganda?
How do you expect to be taken seriously on the topic of vaccination if you "don't have time" to find out even the most basic facts?
Gardasil Researcher Drops A Bombshell
Harper: Controversal Drug Will Do Little To Reduce Cervical Cancer Rates
By Susan Brinkmann, For The Bulletin
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Dr. Diane Harper, lead researcher in the development of two human papilloma virus vaccines, Gardasil and Cervarix, said the controversial drugs will do little to reduce cervical cancer rates and, even though they’re being recommended for girls as young as nine, there have been no efficacy trials in children under the age of 15.
Dr. Harper, director of the Gynecologic Cancer Prevention Research Group at the University of Missouri, made these remarks during an address at the 4th International Public Conference on Vaccination which took place in Reston, Virginia on Oct. 2-4. Although her talk was intended to promote the vaccine, participants said they came away convinced the vaccine should not be received.
“I came away from the talk with the perception that the risk of adverse side effects is so much greater than the risk of cervical cancer, I couldn’t help but question why we need the vaccine at all,” said Joan Robinson, Assistant Editor at the Population Research Institute.
Dr. Harper began her remarks by explaining that 70 percent of all HPV infections resolve themselves without treatment within a year. Within two years, the number climbs to 90 percent. Of the remaining 10 percent of HPV infections, only half will develop into cervical cancer, which leaves little need for the vaccine.
She went on to surprise the audience by stating that the incidence of cervical cancer in the U.S. is already so low that “even if we get the vaccine and continue PAP screening, we will not lower the rate of cervical cancer in the US.”
There will be no decrease in cervical cancer until at least 70 percent of the population is vaccinated, and even then, the decrease will be minimal.
http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/10/25/top_stories/doc4ae4b76d07e16766677720.txt
http://www.jennymccarthybodycount.com/Jenny_McCarthy_Body_Count/Illness_Timelines.html
They're very impressive.
"@Bretigne
Interesting points, but did you know there is more evidence linking cats to autism than there is linking vaccinations to autism"?
Post your evidence Billy, since we all want to make sure were looking at "science based" information.
"Do you people not know how to read??"
Yes, and this may surprise you but The Philadelphia Bulletin is not a medical journal.
"Dr. Diane Harper, lead researcher in the development of two human papilloma virus vaccines, Gardasil and Cervarix, said the controversial drugs will do little to reduce cervical cancer rates"
No, that's NOT what Dr. Harper said.
Dr. Harper said:
"In developed countries where Pap screening systems have been effective for decades, the biggest value of the HPV vaccine will not be in preventing DEATHS from cervical cancer." (my emphasis)
That's because routine Pap smears identify precancerous cells that can be treated before they become cancerous, and identify early cancers that can be effectively treated with radical hysterectomy.
So while deaths will not decrease, we can look forward to a dramatic decrease in the number of cervical laser procedures for precancerous cells, and a dramatic decrease in the number of radical hysterectomies.
Sure, we could forget about preventing cervical cancer and just treat it when it develops (continuing to enrich the gyn oncologists) or we could prevent it with the vaccine. Prevention is better than even the most successful treatment.
Moreover, Dr. Harper reports that she has received money from both Merck and GlaxoSmithKline for consultation about and conducting clinical trials on the HPV vaccines. Her overall impression of the vaccine:
"This is a good vaccine and it is generally safe," she said.
So, please do me and all your fans a favor and explain the following vaccine failures. You ignored this post on a previous thread, and I can understand why, doesn't really go along with your vaccine religion now does it. Now, you said the FDA isnt your agency so, I choose this info that was put out by the CDC. Will you now disown them to???
The medical literature has a surprising number of studies documenting vaccine failure. Measles, mumps, small pox, pertussis, polio and Hib outbreaks have all occurred in vaccinated populations. , , , , In 1989 the CDC reported: "Among school-aged children, [measles] outbreaks have occurred in schools with vaccination levels of greater than 98 percent. [They] have occurred in all parts of the country, including areas that had not reported measles for years."
The CDC even reported a measles outbreak in a documented 100% vaccinated population. A study examining this phenomenon concluded, "The apparent paradox is that as measles immunization rates rise to high levels in a population, measles becomes a disease of immunized persons."
A more recent study found that measles vaccination "produces immune suppression which contributes to an increased susceptibility to other infections." These studies suggest that the goal of complete "immunization" may actually be counter-productive, a notion underscored by instances in which epidemics followed complete immunization of entire countries.
Japan experienced yearly increases in small pox following the introduction of compulsory vaccines in 1872. By 1892, there were 29,979 deaths, and all had been vaccinated.
In the early 1900's, the Philippines experienced their worst smallpox epidemic ever after 8 million people received 24.5 million vaccine doses (achieving a vaccination rate of 95%); the death rate quadrupled as a result.
Before England's first compulsory vaccination law in 1853, the largest two-year smallpox death rate was about 2,000; in 1870-71, England and Wales had over 23,000 smallpox deaths. In 1989, the country of Oman experienced a widespread polio outbreak six months after achieving complete vaccination.
In the US in 1986, 90% of 1300 pertussis cases in Kansas were "adequately vaccinated." 72% of pertussis cases in the 1993 Chicago outbreak were fully up to date with their vaccinations.
And your response is???????????
"This is a good vaccine and it is generally safe," she said.
Yep....she knows who's buttering her bread.
"And your response is???????????"
... already posted in detail as comment #2 above.
I've been in a lot of these conversations and the two sides are pretty fixed. It comes down to whether you trust doctors/authorities or not.
I've noticed that many anti-vaxers, like myself, had really bad experiences with American medicine at some point in their lives. Won't bore you with the details, you'd just dismiss it as an anecdote: but I know too well that doctors are not always right, some of their "miracles" go badly awry, a lot of the science is suspect, and frankly, a lot of them aren't very healthy.
My childhood doctor smoked!
I was sick throughout childhood and when I left home and no longer had health insurance I realized I better figure it out. I did. It works for me and my family and for lost of other folk who did likewise.
Do what you want. Just don't think you can force others to comply.
Oh...and here's some lovely fine print from your friendly H1N1 maker. Gotta love the fine print eh.
"There is very limited experience in children between 3 and 9 years of age and no experience in children less than 3 years of age or in children and adolescents between 10 and 17 years".
or
"There are currently no data available on the use of Pandemrix™ (H1N1) in pregnancy. Data from pregnant women vaccinated with different inactivated non-adjuvanted seasonal vaccines do not suggest malformations or foetal or neonatal toxicity.
Boy, I just love it when they do all that science stuff to make sure it's good for ya, don't you?
http://health.gsk.com/hcp/H1N1Vaccine/safety.htm
"Let's say that a child with pertussis comes into a community with 1000 children, all of whom are unvaccinated. Everyone who has direct exposure to the child promptly gets pertussis, too; maybe 20 children get sick. But now these 20 children go out and expose 20 children apiece and suddenly 400 children have pertussis. Those 400 children expose other children and in a very short time every child in the community is sick".
This is utter nonsense! You’re making the ASSUMPTION that everyone’s immune system is suppressed and just about everyone knows this is not how it works in the real world! People can be equally exposed to someone that is sick and some people will get sick and others won’t.
This argument DOES NOT address my post about all those that WERE vaccinated that still got sick anyway in LARGE numbers. It wasn't the little unvaccinated kid that did it to them!!
Amy, Karen W alluded to it, but I wanted to add that some children can't get the vaccine for medical reasons. (Cancer or whatever. You'd know which specific conditions preclude it better than I do.) This to the first question about why we should care about what everybody does if we take care of our own. The point is that some can't get the vaccine, and they rely on the immunity of everyone else to keep healthy themselves. We need to protect the vulnerable.
A slight change in direction: Have you heard anything at all about the Canadian study that found--using 2008/9 data--that people vaccinated for regular flu (fall 2008) were twice as likely to get swine the following spring? I insisted that my asthmatic son get vaccinated before he went off to college (6 weeks ago, before H1N1 vaccine was available), and he sent me a link to that study, saying, "Gee, thanks Mom." I found it interesting but am not particularly alarmed, as the CDC said their data didn't match that of the researchers. Still, the Canadian government was apparently confident enough in the methodology and results that they pulled the regular flu vaccine from the market. Did you hear of this? Do I have it right?
"Toxicity of Ethylmercury and Methylmercury
Adult male and female rats were administered 5 daily doses
of equimolar concentrations of ethyl or methylmercury by
gavage and tissue distribution, neurotoxicity and nephrotoxicity
assessed (Magos et al, 1985).
– Neurotoxicities of methyl and ethylmercury were
similar although higher levels of inorganic mercury
were seen in brains of ethylmercury treated rats.
– Renal damage was greater in ethylmercury treated rats.
– Neither time-course nor dose response attempted"
(not part of same study as above)
"Ethylmercury is probably slightly less toxic
than methylmercury.
• However, the database for ethylmercury is weak
which creates considerable uncertainty in risk
assessment comparisons.
• Ethylmercury should be considered equipotent to
methylmercury as a developmental neurotoxin.
This conclusion is clearly public health protective.
• Ethylmercury exposure from vaccines (added to
dietary exposures to methylmercury) probably
caused neurotoxic responses (likely subtle) in
some children"
I got this from the federal Government(link follows- this is an html version of a pdf document)http://74.125.113.132/unclesam?q=cache:nodgUQ0O4mcJ:www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/contentStreamer%3FobjectId%3D090000648083f8c7%26disposition%3Dattachment%26contentType%3Dpdf+ethylmercury+toxicity&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
And did I miss where you said you would gladly seperate the mercury and then inject your young loved ones or did you not answer?
As with ALL medical studies on the page I listed there are some that say no harm could be attributed to it and others that say it can. this is nothing new, but you spout the safety from only one side of the fence and then want to bash on others who do the same for the other side of the fence. They are not doctors so can be at least partially excused for their ignorance, but you as a medical professional should be ashamed for doing the same. There is more than enough evidence to, at the very least, make any doctor at least question why more, bigger, and longer studies have not been performed.
Now are you sure your a doctor? I give you evidence and links representing both sides of the argument and clearly showing that more research needs to be done before ANYONE, including doctors, can make a final decision. And MY evidence and links come from government sites to back up what I say. you give your readers a link to a website with an obvious objective AND brags that the person they are blaming for some causes "poses nude and picks her nose". You got to be kidding me!!!!!
Btw as a side note. I did a search for "occurrence of autism in children with and without vaccines". I got this link from the CDC (www.cdc.gov/nip/vacsafe/concerns/autism/autism-mmr.htm) But for some sttrange reason they said the page had been moved, and gave me the link to the new page. But when i clicked on that one I got the classic hiding info page of "Page Not Found". I'm not saying that it's an intentional act to hide info, but why would the Government decide to move and then delete a page of this type?
If you want to debate this issue you WILL have to do better than showing us proof from a site about naked nosepickers with an agenda.
And let me assure you, all your arguments about the alledged safety are pretty much worthless unless you're willing to admit that you would inject your own younf family members with the mercury from vaccines.(but let's not forget that there are a few other things used in processing of vaccines that aren't real healthy for us.
Here's a good rule of thumb for putting ANYTHING in your body. If it wasn't designed to be there from nature, it's best to leave it out most(but not all) of the time.
How do we know which things were "designed" to be put into our bodies? That's an argument used by lots of special interest groups, including vegetarians, proponents of high-protein diets, people against use of dairy products, etc. They can't all be right, especially since so many of those diets contradict each other. And let's not forget the pacemakers, insulin, dental fillings (the non-mercury kind), sutures, and vitamin pills. What about anti-biotics, contact lenses, Tylenol, and braces? Is Tamiflu all right? How about chemotherapy?
It's a silly argument because it doesn't have defined boundaries. If your answer is to emphasize the parenthetical in your statement, please don't bother. It still begs the question of which exceptions we are going to make.
"Have you heard anything at all about the Canadian study that found--using 2008/9 data--that people vaccinated for regular flu (fall 2008) were twice as likely to get swine the following spring?"
Some researchers have made that claim in order to publicize themselves and their research. They have not published their results anywhere, which immediately raises questions about the validity of the claim.
Moreover, other countries (including the US) have looked at their own data and found no such association. There's no reason to believe that there would be an association because there's no evidence that being immune to one disease impacts immunity to any other diseases.
"I give you evidence and links representing both sides of the argument"
You didn't give me any evidence. You only cut and pasted propaganda that impresses you.
Since you don't appear to know anything about immunology, virology, statistics or chemistry, it is apparently very easy to impress you with garbage.
For the following two reasons.
They have no real proof vaccines are doing harm.
They have no understanding of autism spectrum disorders are for most people, the causes of autism spectrum disorders, or what a child having an autism spectrum disorder means. They also don't realize the statistics went up for autism spectrum disorders largely because an bigger umbrella that included higher functioning forms. Alot of people don't know, the numbers for infintile autism, the autism which frequently includes a form of mental retardation, have remained largely stangnant at .5 in 1000, while the overall statistics for autism is 1 in 125 to 1 in 15o, most of the those individuals are higher functioning forms (ie those with average to high intelligence) which are better understood now than they were in past. Vaccines are not causing this issue, because Autism itself is probably genetic in nature. The reason why the statistics are going up is because there is a better understanding of what autism is. The other problem is people are not listening to the adults who have autism spectrum disorders, who have no voice in groups like Autism Speaks, which largely purveys misinformation of the nature of ASD, and only shows it in the most extreme forms.
While we are harder to raise as children, are not intellectually disabled, its autism is a communication disorder, not an intellectual one. The problem is the fact we have issues with communication, either speaking or understanding body language, but our intellect is average and more frequently above average. While we are disadvanataged, we are not stupid. So when we here the misinformation about ASDs, we have every reason to be upset.
Vaccines are not the issue here with regards to ASD, the issue is human stupidty on the part of some neurtypicals.
Back when polio became an epidemic, my mother contacted the illness and has had lifelong effects from it. I understand the need to get vaccinated. I understand the need to make sure that people are aware that the effect that they are having by not taking vaccinations have a large effect on others, not just their own.
Based on that, it would be understandable if I stood on your side of the fence and agreed. But I can't.
In 1976, President Gerald Ford mandated that all American citizens be vaccinated against the swine flu after a small outbreak at Fort Dix, NJ. In the years that followed, many people were diagnosed with Guillain-Barre syndrome. More people died from the side effects of the cure than did the amount of people that died from the actual disease.
Now here we are back to the same disease and back to the same discussions about forcing citizens to take the cure, even to the point of threatening jobs and in your case, threatening patients that don't agree with your point-of-view.
You say it's ignorance, I believe it's fear. I struggle every day with what's best in this situation. I don't want my children to get swine flu and I don't want to see this turn into the epidemic that polio was in my mother's day. It's insulting to me to think that there are those who would believe that I've "forgotten" what that was like. I do not want to give my children a cure that once the madness is over could result in them contacting a disease like Guillain-Barre syndrome.
I'm sorry Doc, but I'm not one that believes that just because you're a doctor you know it all. Luckily, my doctor does care about my concerns and he does take the time to sit down with me and discuss my fears regarding the safety of the medications before I make choices. And I don't believe he's ever even thought about "firing" me or my family.
But think about fifty years ago--a measles outbreak somewhere in Idaho or Michigan or wherever would not make the national news precisely because it was so incredibly common. Now it does because it is so very UNCOMMON. (There were 131 total cases in the entirity of the United States in 2008. In the 1950s, it would not be unheard of or more than locally newsworthy for there to be 131 cases in a bad outbreak in a single school. I believe my own mother or one of my aunts was out with the measles one fall at the same time as several dozen other children from her school.) And since the introduction of the measles vaccine, we've also made great strides in chemotherapy for cancer patients and we've had HIV and AIDS come up, meaning there are a lot more immunosuppressed people walking around than there used to be. Measles infection is fatal in about 30% of those populations.
Vaccination is, IMHO, not just a protection of your own or your children's health, but part of a civic duty to NOT become a carrier of potentially fatal diseases to others who can't be vaccinated.
You will soon find that amy is very light on scientific information and heavy on opinion. My guess is all that technical scientific language is just to hard for her to understand, even when you take the time to point it out to her. It doesn't matter what sources you use (FDA, CDC, JAMA) or mainstream news agencies that report that news, if it doesn't fit into her little bitty predetermined box, it doesn't count. She's kind of like talking to a little kid who yells "LALALALALALALALAL" while covering her ears and saying I can't hear you. So, you'll just have to get used to it and learn to speak slow and don't use big words.
As for me, I just like to come here for the comical entertainment she provides, her stupidity although sometimes sad, it does make me laugh..... :)
"You didn't give me any evidence. You only cut and pasted propaganda that impresses you. "
Now see. I have to go and flat out call you a lair now.
I cut and pasted the relevant parts since It would be much to much info to have pasted the entire page. SO the links I provided takes you directly to the government source from which I copy/pasted.
And you have the audacity to say I cut and pasted PROPAGANDA that impresses me???????
You are making yourself look very sad indeed.
And you still haven't told us you would inject your young loved ones with the mercury pulled from vaccines.
(anyone wanna see how many times I can make her ignore that?)
Cause I don't think she really wants to shoot her babies up with that poison, even though she tried saying it was safe.(and the federal government says it isn't)
@propaganda
"I for one call bunk on the vaccine rejectionists.
For the following two reasons.
They have no real proof vaccines are doing harm.
They have no understanding of autism spectrum disorders are for most people, the causes of autism spectrum disorders, or what a child having an autism spectrum disorder means."
You go right ahead and call bunk for the reasons you listed all you want. BUT, autism is listed as a disease for which the federal government pays families for DUE TO VACCINATION!!!!!
(not that all autism is caused by it but many are)
Your listening to the good DR. even though what she lists as proof are sites that (as i said before) brag about blaming naked, nose-picking celebrities.(no, I'm not kidding. She really did use a website that bragged that. Go read her posts to find it. the celebrity is Jenny McCarthy....I love her "Scientific proof")
Meanwhile Every site I listed as proofs are government sites except one. And that one site I used simply because it listed the exact Bill numbers so looking them up would be very simply if it was a lie.
@ Wes Rogers
Yes, I am beginning to see that. she totally refuses to answer questions(shooting mercury into her kids since she says it's so safe even though the feds say it isn't)
And then after I post links to federal sites backing up EXACTLY what I say she tries to blow it off as me posting propaganda that impresses me. It's a total joke that I would expect from a 10YO, not a supposed trained DR.
It's OK though. I'm mildly obsessive/compulsive (OCD)
I can keep sticking my government supplied info in her face and asking her the same questions till she admits she will or wont do it for months to come. I don't ever let someone get away with ignoring the question and pretending that my official information doesn't exist.
So, if your here for some mild comic relief then hang around cause I got my teeth sank in now and I don't let go till they admit the truth.
Diagnostic substitution is a huge factor. Children who would've been diagnosed as mentally retarded or learning disabled in the past are now being diagnosed as autistic. As autism diagnoses go up, diagnoses of other conditions go down. The increase in autism diagnoses doesn't mean more kids have the disease -- it simply means they are being classified differently. More here:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/117/4/1028
Only once you accept that intelligent and reasonable people have fear based not on ignorance or anecdote but on actual information (people have quoted the CDC, historical statistics, pointed to the fact that the government expects a certain number of people will be harmed, called out unnecessary ingredients that could cause harm, linked to a statement by someone involved in the development of a vaccine) - until you address all of this with respect instead of arrogance and derision, you will not convert anyone.
Seriously, you dismiss the researcher's statements on the HPV vaccine because they're reported in a news outlet instead of a medical journal?
Can you address the actual statements instead of ridiculing where they were reported? No.
I don't read your column much but today it's become clear that you are not interested in reaching anyone who may hesitate to vaccinate their kids, only in marginalizing them - fomenting even more mistrust.
In any argument, once you call me ignorant and ridiculous the conversation is over.
I find you rude and dismissive and thus unpersuasive in general.
And I vaccinated my son.
If your child is otherwise healthy, it is probably not a big deal. However, if you have a child who is immune challenged, it could be very dangerous to go to school with kids who haven't been immunized, and they shouldn't be in school with them.
"You say it's ignorance, I believe it's fear."
Fear causes people to question the safety of vaccines. Ignorance causes people to believe the propaganda and ignore the scientific evidence.
This is a life and death decision. You can't depend on Google University to become "educated." You have to get some basic knowledge of immunology, virology and statistics in order to make an informed decision.
"calling fears "ridiculous" will NOT win anyone over."
I disagree. It won't win over the crazies, but nothing will win them over.
The medical profession has tried patiently explaining the facts to people for the last decade and that appears to be have been a failure. It's time to speak the truth. The entire concept that vaccine rejectionists are making "educated" decisions must be exposed as the fraud that it is.
But, of course, nutrition and exercise have very little, if anything, to do with one's health... but meds, vaccines, and surgery are the answer to ALL health issues... oh, those AND genetics (Amy's belief system... not mine).
If you're such an expert on these matters, one has to wonder why you are boggling for free when as a "doctor" you could get paid for scholarly articles with proven credentials.
I can't think of a doctor in good standing that I know who would spend valuable time writing the kind of drivel that you write. I think you should be very ashamed of yourself. Either you're a doctor without a conscious nor scruples or you plain don't care that by presenting yourself as a doctor when you're not that you're actually hurting the profession that you claim to be "helping". You should be very careful with the "advice" you spout as an MD, one of the first things you should've learned is that you can be held accountable for this if others are hurt by your advice.
"I'll put my education up against yours any day!"
Great. What formal education do you have in immunology, virology, and statistics?
http://www.lamaze.org/OnlineCommunity/AskanExpert/tabid/363/aff/5/aft/1082/afv/topic/Default.aspx
In other words, you have no formal education in immunology, virology or statistcs.
As regards your link, you've merely confirmed that those who attend Google University don't get educated; they get hoodwinked.
The same knowledge that you now say is propaganda or totally ignore? The WHO, CDC, FDA, and other government agencies, not to mention private agencies and universities partly or in whole funded by the government or the first three agencies I listed.
Do you admit that you claim these sources are incorrect on their information regarding vaccines?
And you STILL haven't answered my simple question about injecting your children with the same mercury found in vaccines. Why is that I wonder????
"I teach and study history, and I think that we can potentially help by making sure people understand what life was like before modern medicine."
That is indeed a big part of the problem. In the US, when people say "That's history!" they mean "that's irrelevant." Nothing could be further from the truth and the lack of knowledge of even relatively recent history is shocking.
"making you ignore the abundant scientific evidence I have given you"
You haven't given me ANY evidence. I know you think the stuff you cut and pasted is "evidence" but that merely highlights how little you know about science and how easily you can be tricked.
"I'll put my education up against yours any day!"
Great.What formal education do you have in immunology, virology, and statistics?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have asked amy this same question and she has yet to answer it. I guess she feels it's okay, you know, since she is sooooo superior to all of us, to question our knowlegde/training but doesn't feel the need to answer that question herself. What are your credentials again???? ObGyn....that makes you an expert in infectious diseases and virology eh.
Peacox also made a good point:
"I can't think of a doctor in good standing that I know who would spend valuable time writing the kind of drivel that you write".
Good point Peacox! Neither can I! Amy, are you or are you not a licensed MD right now??? Word has it your licenses expired in 2003. So....... why would someone go through some much trouble and years of training and just let their license expire? Whats up with that? Please correct me if I'm wrong here. You certainly haven't the past couple times I asked about it.
Merck admits injecting cancer viruses (SV40 and others) in millions
Folks, you had better sit down, take a very deep breath. Merck drug company vaccines admits injecting cancer viruses into their vaccines and we have the proof on video for you to watch.
http://truthspace.wordpress.com/2007/12/05/merck-admits-injecting-cancer-viruses-sv40-and-others-in-millions/
Here is the video:
http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=8093
And you wonder why people have doubts about vaccines.......
You on the other hand haven't really provided any reputable links to back up what you have claimed. Well other than the "fabulous" boobs and boogers website.
And AGAIN, I ask you. If you consider the mercury in vaccines why won't you inject it into your children?
You see, unlike most people, EVERYTIME you try to reply to me AND try amateurish tactic such as ignoring part of my answer(such as you have tried doing in your last several replies) or claiming that what I copy/past is is not evidence.(I suppose technically you would be correct about that actually since I only pasted a bit of it AND included the link to the GOVERNMENT website backing up what I claim) I just naturally assumed that since you obviously have the ability to get online and post then you would be capable of copying the link I provided and go read the government website I provided. My apologies, I apparently over estimated your abilities. If you wish, I would be more than happy to take up about 30 pages of space on this blog and just copy/paste the ENTIRE article relevant to each of my claims including all supporting links on those government websites. But Don't you think it would be easier to just go look at those government websites and read them yourself. And yes, it's apparent you have not due to your arrogance and fear to have OFFICIAL information staring you in the face.
Here's a secret. When it comes to the government telling us vaccines are safe we immediately distrust them. BUT even though the government tells us to our face how safe these things are, their OWN WEBSITES show dangers.
You don't really expect any of us to believe that you know more the the federal government.....do you?
And just to repeat.....
And, I ask you. If you consider the mercury in vaccines why won't you inject it into your children?
At least you're impressed with yourself. I think you come across as hysterical, foolish and profoundly ignorant of the basics of immunology and virology. Oh, and of course, supremely gullible.
You say i am gullible because I get my information from the federal government, (I don't do Google). But that same government had a great hand in overseeing what you learned as well. So that puts you in the same boat as me.
I have listed several official links backing up what I say. You have provided zero official links, only the words from your mouth with noway for others to verify. And yes, it impresses me very much that I can back up what I say and you can NOT. I also counter what you say(even though you offer no official links to back it up) with links that again prove what I have said.
Not to mention that I ignore nothing that you say and counter all of it, whereas you ignore, or offer opinions with either no backing whatsoever or provide links that wouldn't be accepted as proof in a 5th grade book report.
And again, You claim ethyl mercury is non toxic but you refuse to admit that you would inject this substance into your own kids. Why do you totally ignore this third grade question when YOU are the one that brought up that ethyl was non-toxic(again providing ZERO proof from official sites).
All you have done is make claims, and nothing but claims. I have made no claims that i did not provide links to official sites backing my claims up. In ANY debate, this means you lose. So why don't you get back in the game and start offering real PROOF by way of links to OFFICIAL sites so what you say can be verified???????? I would guess that since I am giving federal websites that corroborate what I say that you can't really provide links to official sites backing you up since I have already given the most official websites there are(federal) and they plainly back ME up.
Now, if, as you say, I am gullible, then so be it. and hell, maybe you are correct. the problem is I am quoting directly from the federal websites. And since the federal government is the final overseer of your profession then if what i have learned is false and I am gullible for believing it then you are in the same boat as me because in the end the federal government controls the medical profession as well. And the federal government also performs or funds almost every bit of the medical research in this country. So we are BOTH gullible. The difference is that at least i can prove where I got my infor from. You blatantly refuse to provide ANY proof or even answer simple questions posed to you while trying to insult the others who see things differently than you.
I do very little in the way of insult and in fact some of the links I provide even show contradictory finding from more than one study. So i would say i try very hard to be as accurate as possible while you just spout insults and question the intelligence of others. Again, in ANY debate, you lose for this lack of evidence.
And please stop saying I don't provide any proof. I HAVE given plenty of proof. The fact that you either choose to ignore it or refuse to follow the link to the federal website and read it does NOT count as me not providing that proof. You on the other hand have given basically no links(with the notable exception of the naked, nose picking Jenny McCarthy link you gave)(I STILL can't believe someone who graduated high school would use THAT sort of website to try and prove ANYTHING.......LOL)
Now, what about you injecting your kids with straight mercury from vaccines?
(No, I will not let this question slide. You, with no proof given state it is totally safe while I, with government studies showing it's harmful affects stated it was harmful) IF you really believed it was so safe you should have enthusiastically agreed that you WOULD do it. But, on the contrary, you have avoided answering that question probably half a dozen times. Which by any reasonably intelligent person is an indication that you either aren't real sure of it's safety, or you downright LIED.
So which are you? Unsure or a liar?
"You haven't given me ANY evidence. I know you think the stuff you cut and pasted is "evidence" but that merely highlights how little you know about science and how easily you can be tricked."
"In other words, you have no formal education in immunology, virology or statistcs.
As regards your link, you've merely confirmed that those who attend Google University don't get educated; they get hoodwinked."
"There's tons of other ridiculous errors in your screed, but why don't we start there?"
"In other words, 40 years of you freeloading off the rest of society by taking advantage of the fact that everyone else is vaccinated. Visit a 3rd world country for a few days. How long do you think your perfect health would last then? You'd promptly get sick, wouldn't you?"
"I'm curious. Did you understand the long explanation that I gave you?"
And from another Open member:
"Damn, I'd forgotten how obnoxious and rude you are. Never-mind"
I concur with your diagnosis... Some things never do change...
"I concur with your diagnosis"
One of the things I find most amusing is that people are literally risking their children's lives by perpetuating utter ignorance and the reaction to learning they've been duped is .... their feelings are hurt.
The bottom line is that I am correct and the vaccine rejectionists are wrong. Over the past several days people have thrown numerous claims at me and I've patiently exposed them all as lies, every single one.
NOT ONE vaccine rejectionist has been right about anything. Yet their big concern is to make sure they feel good about themselves. Talk about having the wrong priorities.
Now your just outright lying. you haven't "exposed" anything as anything. You simply stated they were wrong. I assume in your world that's "proof". But not in the rel world. Not one of your posts lists any proof whatsoever.
I'm SURE many will accept your word as "proof" as soo as you provide documented credentials that you are better funded and trained than the government sources I listed.
You also state that not one vaccine rejectionist has been right about anything. However the rejectionists say that vaccines cause harm to children AND the federal government, after much study, now pays families for their children who have been harmed by vaccines. This is a fact. And is plainly listed in one of the federal government links I provided.
however I have searched every one of your posts in this thread AND I swear i can't find anything listed by YOU that disproves that simple official fact. Well other than your word I suppose.
Do you have any OFFICIAL links you can post that back up a single thing you have said by chance????
And myself and others are waiting on your reply about your injecting that mercury that you say is so safe in your kids. why can't you answer?????????
Is it because you think you are skilled at dancing around the truth but don't want to tell a complete lie?
"You also state that not one vaccine rejectionist has been right about anything. However the rejectionists say that vaccines cause harm to children AND the federal government, after much study, now pays families for their children who have been harmed by vaccines."
No, that's wrong, too.
Immunologists and doctors are quite honest about the fact that vaccines can and will kill a very small number of the children who receive them. Not only does the medical profession and the government acknowledge this, but they have arranged for no fault compensation. If a child is killed or rendered brain damaged by a vaccine, they merely have to provide documentation and they will be compensated. They don't need to file a lawsuit and endure years of pretrial maneuvering and possibly end up with nothing.
You love to put false words in people's mouths, don't you... just like how you love to label people and put them into your *neat* little categories if they do certain things.
You sound completely crazy to me.
I'm not sure what you're confused about. The families get paid by the government INSTEAD of having to go to court. Without no fault government compensation, those families would have to go to court to obtain any money (and then they'd have to share 1/3 of it with their lawyer).
I never said they had to go to court. and while I posted that they get paid by the government. I ALSO gave a link to the official GOVERNMENT website that listed what vaccines, problems and time periods they pay for. If you had bothered following that link you would not have made a fool of yourself posting about me putting words in peoples mouths. I clearly gave proof for what i said. And as I said in an earlier post I felt it unnecessary to post the very long, complete web-page. I simply provided enough information to get my point across and provided a link to the complete article. That is considered the standard way of posting information....learn it, and follow the links from now on. If you had, you would have been taken to a GOVERNMENT website explaining it all. Please do a bit of research before trying to call people names. You made yourself look downright silly and foolish.
@ Amy.
But you have been saying, loud and proud that vaccines are safe. How can they be safe if enough children are harmed/killed that the federal government has issued a no fault program. All drugs are poisonous to some degree(If you take enough they will harm/kill you). Take Tylenol for example. It is well documented that many people are harmed by this drug. In fact, percentage wise, probably more than are harmed by vaccines and yet the government doesn't provide a compensation plan, no fault or otherwise. The only reason the GOVERNMENT would set it up to pay money so easily and quietly is why?(We all know the feds hate paying money) All the while saying on T.V.,in newspapers and magazines that vaccines are safe, while at the same time publishing data that PROVES they are not.
As I also said previously, i think the vaccines themselves are perfectly safe(as safe as any medicine can be. as also mentioned every drug is poisonous to some degree. Hell even completely sterile water can kill you if you drink enough) My problem is, and has always been the chemicals they use to process and preserve the vaccines. If they could replace these with safer alternatives then I would be all for urging, maybe even mandating vaccines for all children. But not before. And the sad thing is, I really believe that with a bit of research it would be quite easy. If I'm not mistaken, even now, most or all vaccines currently available in the U.S. can be had without any mercury in them at all. But they are not used(least not exclusively) this is very sad and tragic. Especially considering the fact that YOU claim the type of mercury used in vaccine is non-toxic. But you refuse to admit or deny that you would give this type of mercury to your children. It is a simple question. why wont you answer?
And how do you claim vaccines are while at the same time admit that the government and other scientists admit that children will be harmed/killed by these vaccines.
Sounds to me like you're saying that someone said that those families have to go to court to get paid by the government. If that's not what you meant, then perhaps you should make it clearer.
Also, getting paid by the government for their fuck-ups with vaccines and meds is completely fucked up. I can hear it now... "There's a slight change your child may die from this vaccine or from this drug, but don't worry. If that happens, we'll give you money to make up for it"
How fucking pathetic.
I said you DIDN'T say that the families have to go to court. My comment about putting words in people's mouths was directed at Amy. I apologize for not making it clear.
"All drugs are poisonous to some degree"
That's because EVERYTHING is poisonous to some degree ... even water. Drink enough water and you'll die of hyponatremia. Does that mean that drinking water is unsafe?
Ah, I see now. After rereading it. It makes more sense. My apologies.
and did you notice how the "doctor" is unable(I would say unwilling but if your trying to win a debate and you could, then you would....right?) to post any official links to back her claims up? I find it humorous that even though she is unable to prove a word she says and I have given much proof of what I have posted she still insists she is the only right one. and sh e is still totally ignoring my question about giving her own children a shot of that mercury she claims is so safe. Do you think it could be because her conviction isn't as strong as she pretends it is?
@DR
# poison - any substance that causes injury or illness or death of a living organism (From wordnet, that's Princeton)
Now normally with water it would be a matter of quantity. It would be nonpoisonous up to a certain quantity and then switch over once a threshold was reached. But to be honest, considering that it's almost impossible to get water without at least some quantity of man-made pollutants i would be more inclined to just say yes it is.(but we have to drink something and water is still better than anything else, since anything else would be man-made and contain water and lots of other things our bodies aren't supposed to have).
And you still haven't answered that question.....
Nor given links to official sources backing up anything you have claimed about vaccines.....
"I can't imagine the guilt of having to bury your own child because you chose ignorance over science."