Last Friday, the CDC reported the that a child in Minnesota died. The cause of death was meningitis from a bacteria known as Haemophilus influenzae type B. If you're not sure what meningitis is, it's an infection of the fluid and tissues that surround the brain and spinal cord. In the case of H. flu, the bacteria is transmitted via respiratory contact. So, although we don't know all the details, the child who died probably started with symptoms of a cold and a fever, only to proceed to a severe headache, vomiting, coma and death as the bacteria penetrated and destroyed his central nervous system.
Doctors make a diagnosis of meningitis by doing a spinal tap (lumbar puncture in doctorspeak)--we place a long needle in the child's back and when we see pus coming out, we know the child needs help.
If it didn't kill children, H. flu meningitis would often maim them permanently--leaving children deaf or developmentally disabled--children with promise suddenly scarred for life--parents and families shattered.
In the past, pediatricians from coast to coast would see cases of H. flu meningitis all too often. That was before my time as a doctor because in the mid 1990s, we introduced a vaccine against H. Flu. During my own training in pediatric medicine, I never saw a single case of it because of mass vaccination. In fact, the equipment we use to perform spinal taps isn't something we even stock in my own clinic anymore.
That's medical progress.
So what happened in Minnesota? The child who died contracted this terrible disease wasn't vaccinated--his parents had refused the H.flu vaccine.
There's more to this tragic story--in addition to this child, 4 other children were hospitalized with the exact same disease. 2 of those four were also children or parents who had refused vaccines. The 4th was a 5-month old baby who was just too young to have been completely immunized (the final 5th is a child who has an immune deficiency).
The H. flu outbreak is just the latest in a series of preventible infections. This past year, there were outbreaks of measles in several parts of the country and of whooping cough here in Northern California, all triggered by the infection of kids whose parents had refused to immunize them, and then who spread them to under-vaccinated kids or those too young for shots.
All of these cases caused senseless suffering. All or any of them, could infect children in any family in your town, my town, or anybody else's community in this country.
You may be hesitant or scared to vaccinate your child, because of what you've heard from people like Jenny McCarthy, David Kirby and others who earn their dime perpetuating the myth that vaccines cause autism. Those who would have you believe that there's a controversy that needs to be resolved.
Believe me when I tell you there's no controversy. Vaccines are safe and effective. They have side effects, which you should know about. But autism (or other neurological problems aren't one of them-unlike the lasting effects of H.flu meningitis).
Believe me when I tell you that none of those people or the fringe organzations they represent, like Generation Rescue and Age of Autism, will be discussing what happened in Minnesota. That's because they would have to in large hold themselves and their baseless message responsible for it. They hide behind that accountability by saying they're "not anti-vaccine," and that they just want to "green our vaccines."
Both are empty, meaningless phrases. As meaningless as the death and suffering that they've engendered.
No. They're all much better at blaming and accusing others, like the CDC and pediatricians, as being corrupt and out to make a buck on vaccines.
The same CDC that's reporting the outbreak and working its tail off to track it down and prevent it from spreading. The same pediatricians (and nurses) who worked their tails off over short days and long nights to save the lives of those other four kids, all of whom were probably in intensive care units.
So instead of choosing to be scared of anti-vaccine rhetoric, Choose Health instead.
Choose Health for you and your children.
Choose Health for your neighbors and your community.
Choose Health for all those reasons and more by making sure you and your children are vaccinated.
Choose Health and we'll all be better off as we can put scourages like measles, whooping cough, and H.flu meningitis back in the medical history books, where they deservedly belong.
Disclosure: Dr. Parikh does not, nor has he ever had, any relationship, financial or otherwise, with vaccine makers or drug manufacturers.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Davis Liu, MD
Judy Berman
Barbara O'Brien
thedrmommy
david edwards
Patrick D Hahn
Salon.com
Comments
Vaccine rejectionists often insist that there is a conspiracy afoot to hide the risks of vaccination. However, a conspiracy implies that those who produce and recommend vaccines push them on other people, but would not use them on themselves or their families. Vaccine rejectionists fail to explain how there could be a conspiracy when vaccine manufacturers, scientists and doctors insist that their children be fully vaccinated.
Very important piece.
(rated)
Thanks
One thing that I've heard a lot about vaccines that initially worried me as a new parent, had nothing to do with the autism myth. The idea is that the aggressive vaccine schedule "overloads" a young child's immune system, causing various theoretical complications (allergies, gluten sensitivity, learning disabilities, etc). Of course I did a little research and found these propagated fears to be without any rational basis. But the scare tacts do wonders on many parents.
One bit of information that helped me was learning that the "stress" put on the immune system by a single vaccination shot was hundreds or thousands of times smaller than when a child contracts the common cold. The dead and live viruses in vaccines are a drop in the bucket compared to what we're exposed to day in and day out.
the "aggressive schedule" is also a myth that's spread by vaccine rejectionists. I started hearing it after Jenny McCarthy started her rounds.
The reality is that the schedule is safe and the concept of "overloading" the immune system isn't valid. In fact the number of "antigens" (active components) in today's vaccines are far fewer than they were a decade or two ago, despite the fact that we have more vaccines now. It's because the science of vaccine development has improved.
You won't hear Jenny saying that.
thank you for sharing your story. Those are the kinds of stories the public needs to hear more so they understand the importance of vaccination.
I know that those in public health must often plan for the public good rather than the good of any one particular person. Luckily, my doctor has always supported my right to make decisions for my children.
My personal childhood favorite was polio: pink liquid on a yummy sugar cube.
So just read your post, glad to see your disclosure. Regarding autism and vaccines, there are other theories which point out the correlation between a rise in autism with the advent of cable television which to me is kind of plausible, but I still have cable. My children who are teenagers just had a meningitis vaccine a few months ago. That disease scares me much more than the vaccine, so great post and so well written.
Well, just watch the spelling because I'm compelled to call you out on such things, wish I weren't but I am.
HepB is an incurable virus that can be passed from mother to child during delivery and can cause liver cirrhosis and death during adulthood. Since the virus doesn't usually cross the placenta, transmission usually occurs DURING delivery. This presents a unique opportunity because immediately after the baby comes out pediatricians know that any potential exposure is really recent. Giving the Hep B vaccine immediately after exposure to Hepatitis B can actually PREVENT the virus from taking hold in the baby, and prevent the baby painful death from liver failure later in life.
While mothers are tested for HepB during routine prenatal care, many moms either don't receive prenatal care, or continue to have unsafe sex or use IV drugs during their pregnancy. While physicians of course want to believe the best about our patients, we've all seen enough cases of moms who don't admit all their risk-taking behaviors to their physician, and thus deny any chance that they might have contracted HepB after their prenatal tests were done when in fact they do have the virus. Since all children should be vaccinated against HepB eventually, and the benefit of delivery room vaccination is so great for those who were exposed, knowingly or unknowingly, to the virus, OB-GYNs and pediatricians have decided that the benefits of standardized vaccinations for all immediately after delivery outweigh any potential risks.
thanks for donating your transcriptionist/editorial skills--correction made
thanks for adding to the discussion and for your insights about how careful we need to be with pregnant mothers and their children
I had no idea that I was scarred for life, or that at one point I possessed promise. Later tonight, I'll let my family know that I shattered them. Will super glue help put the pieces back together?
Not much we can do about the deafness, though.
:-D
However (you knew that was coming, right?) I have a problem with the fact that this argument has devolved on both sides to "thimerosal/vaccine", with a "yes it does" / "no it doesn't" debate. As if it's all been decided as a yes or no question (and each side has a different answer.)
A couple of years ago, a study was published that claimed that thimerosal appeared to cause autism-like symptoms in ONLY ONE strain of mice - a strain that is susceptible to autoimmune disorders. Two other strains were unaffected. Autism is also correlated to families that are prone to autoimmune disorders. Hmm. You'd think this would be hailed as a promising lead for further investigation. You'd be wrong. All you hear is "yes it does" / "no it doesn't".
I saw another study in Pubmed that basically concluded that the risk could be to the measles virus itself - whether it's from a vaccine or through catching the actual virus "in the wild", so to speak. Instead of admitting that it's possible or even that it's inconclusive (while even still telling parents that if that's true then the measles itself could cause these problems, they should still get the vaccine to avoid any chance of getting the actual disease), it's just more "no it doesn't" / "yes it does".
Both sides are so bullheaded they refuse to consider that the other side MIGHT have a point, a point that bears further study. Both sides consider the question settled, in their favor. And almost no one is being a scientist and saying "it seems that both of these things might be true, so what's an explanation that would cover both points?"
and in the absence of specivic evidence, the sensible thing is to go with the greatest risk, which as you point out is usually the disease being vaccinated against.
there is, however, the concept of "herd immunity"; if you can immunize enough to the "herd" there won't be enough susceptible critters left for the infection to survive and be a risk to the unvaccinated ones. so an individual person could gain the benefit of a vaccination program but avoid the risk; but if too many people took that attitude, the whole thing would collapse.
It's a low risk disease, but frankly so is the risk of death by flu to healthy young adults. Still you hear the CDC push *all* Americans to get a flu shot. The government even has a fund to pay people who get a flu shot and have a reaction to it. There are people, especially those with autoimmune disorders, who should not get the shot, but none of these conditions are routinely mentioned in articles such as this. You're either a good boy and get your shot, or you're planning the end of the world as we know it. Research shows that the mortality rate among healthy young adults (not babies and not the elderly) do not change with or without flu shots.
The scary thing is that even though the government knows this, they still want to vaccinate *all* the military and there's a growing push to vaccinate *all* nurses. You don't hear about the autoimmune exception, because they don't allow it. The government is choosing to make you take the risk. Alaska doc, there are a host of data to support the nurses' objection to a vaccine with known proven risks. Are we truly supposed to risk death for your concept of "public health"?
A distinction has to be made. I received all of my shots and if I have children will likely choose for them to be vaccinated against measles, whooping cough, etc. But I do not get an annual flu shot, and don't believe they help anyone other than the drug companies that make them.
Studies have shown that the flu shot does not lower the amount of deaths from the flu, even among the elderly. It contributes to antibiotic resistance and encourages mutuation of the flu virus.
I appreciate Dr. Parikh's view and am pleased to see one that doesn't mind being unfashionably traditional. But the medical establishment in the US has spent so much money and time lying to the general public about what's necessary, better, or healthy that you can't blame people for being skeptical.
A leader of Autism Speaks just resigned because the group keeps calling for more vaccine safety research. It's a waste of money that could be spent looking for real autism causes or treatments, says Alison Singer. "In general, I disagree with a policy that says, 'Despite what this study shows, more studies should be done.' At some point, you have to say, 'This question has been asked and answered and it's time to move on.' We need to be able to say, 'Yes, we are now satisfied that the earth is round'."
(Newsweek: http://www.newsweek.com/id/179998)
this vaccine is different from the flu shot. the names are confusing, however
There are a lot of passions that arise from this discussion, but my wife and I feel frustrated that every single debate in the media seems determined to establish no more than two camps: infallible science, and tinfoil-hat-wearing conspiracy theorists. This is insulting, and more importantly, it does not convince those sitting on the fence and anxious parents who are looking for answers and not shrill hostility.
I myself am a victim of medical malpractice. I allowed that to happen to me because I did not question my doctor closely enough about a procedure and was permanently injured as a result. I was raised that doctors should not be questioned and I paid a price for it. So I have learned the hard way that you have to take responsibility for your own health care, and hold your physician accountable by thinking and asking questions just as you would with your politicians.
Dr. Parikh's article is heartfelt, clear-eyed and informative, and speaks to many of the concerns that parents in this contentious, fear-filled environment are consumed by. But I am dying for someone to address the middle ground that no one is discussing. I do not dispute the efficacy of vaccines. It is sound science. It works. No argument. But that does not mean that I am going to blindly let a doctor push a random cocktail into my son's arm because I should never dare question medical orthodoxy. For example, while multiple companies make vaccines for some childhood diseases, Merck is currently the only maker of the vaccine for Rotovirus. For this reason, despite our concern over this disease, this is the one vaccine that we did not administer to our child. We made the decision to risk it because we breastfeed our child, and he is not in daycare where he would face a far greater risk of exposure to the disease. We chose this course of action because of multiple, legitimate accusations against Merck by the FDA, and the company's repeated, consistent failure to correct serious problems in its practices. MSNBC reports that the FDA investigated Merck in April of 2008 and, "found 49 areas of concern, ranging from failure to follow good management practices to contamination of bulk lots of vaccine." There was also mention of possible "serious concerns" regarding sterility problems. Merck did not admit wrongdoing and was not contrite. But previously, in February of that year, Merck was in trouble when their ProQuad combo vaccine caused higher rates of fever-related convulsions in children. Twice as high, in fact. Merck's PR folks were again not troubled by this. Two months earlier than that, one million doses of meningitis vaccine were recalled by-- you guessed it-- Merck.
I say all this because people need to understand that if we had never researched this issue, if we had never questioned the health care of our child, we would never have known that we can choose vaccines made by other makers such as Pasteur that do not have the miserable track record of Merck. We have, in all cases but one, chosen to vaccinate our child, but we have picked and chosen from among as many as three different makers, and made informed decisions. This is our responsibility as parents. We are not flat-earthers, uneducated heathens or traitors to our communities who put others at risk out of fear and ignorance. But we damn sure ask questions where our child is concerned. I would be grateful if future discussions of vaccinations did not pretend that there are only two extreme positions-- blind faith or irrational suspicion-- to this important issue.
"It's a low risk disease, but frankly so is the risk of death by flu to healthy young adults. Still you hear the CDC push *all* Americans to get a flu shot. The government even has a fund to pay people who get a flu shot and have a reaction to it. There are people, especially those with autoimmune disorders, who should not get the shot, but none of these conditions are routinely mentioned in articles such as this. "
Unfortunately, public health policy must take into account those pesky folks who aren't "healthy young adults." In normal years (the 1918-1919 pandemic notwithstanding), flu doesn't kill normal, healthy adults. The conspiracy is to get those of us who fit that profile to get the vaccination to protect those most vulnerable to flu-related complications, and who cannot get the vaccine themselves--those auto-immune disordered folks you mentioned among them--as well as the elderly, in whom flu vaccine tends to be less protective.
I've already encountered a parent on OS (several on Salon itself) who claims that her child had a severe reaction to the vaccination and was then autistic afterward after being normal before. She claims that she knows it happens because she saw it happen. On a previous thread where she posted this, it pretty much stopped discussion dead, except for a trickle of agreement from parents who refused to vaccinate. It's not that anyone's opinion changed, just that no one can get up the nerve to maintain it to the face of a parent who is suffering.
Heck, I'm not sure I have that much nerve, and I have a lot of nerve. So I'm going to what I have to say now: just because your child is ill does not suddenly make you an expert on why your child got ill. You can be sincere, and truly in pain, and still be mistaken.
No one wants to be told "I'm sorry your child is autistic, but no matter what you think, vaccines are not the reason. You are doing untold harm to other children by spreading error." No one wants to fight these parents at all. But if no one speaks up, then these folks win the fight the moment they open their mouths. And it's a fight they can't be allowed to win, because the world before vaccination was a scary world. My grandfather was crippled by polio as a child. My mother almost died of rubella, about which I've heard, "Oh, I don't even know why people vaccinate against rubella, it's not that bad."
The saddest story of all was about a row of small headstones, each with a carved lamb. In the early summer of 1888, Diphtheria swept through this small farming community. Grandma had not yet been born but at least two of her older siblings and many children died. The community mourned their young. In the fall, this horrible disease came back through again. One young girl who had survived the first round, died in the second. Her last request was to be buried next to her best friend who had died in the summer. Even today, their lambs stand beside each other. They are a poignant reminder of how far science has taken us.
My children are fully immunized.
There is a middle ground for vaccinations, but you'll never hear it here or from the government.
Study after study has shown that in years where the flu vaccine manufacturers have guess wrong about what flu strains will be prevalent, the mortality rates do NOT change. Hence, the efficacy of the flu shot is in question by researchers -- but you will never hear that from any of the follow-and-swallow crowd who do exactly what the CDC says.
Take the flu shots in two possible types of years: a normal year and a rare year which occurs say every 1 in 100 years.
In a normal year:
Everyone gets a flu shot which doesn't really help anyone but causes an adverse reaction in a small percentage of people, or most people don't get a flu shot and go about their business.
In a rare year:
Everyone gets a flu shot which actually offered some protection from a super-flu bug strain that broke out in Asian and ravaged half the population of the Pacific Rim before arriving in the US and kept the death toll from being catastrophic
OR
Most people didn't get a flu shot, didn't have any protection against a super-flu strain, and we have a full blown flu-pandemic in the US, which causes the US Health Care system to collapse under the weight which in turns leads to even more deaths as medical care for non-flu injuries and diseases becomes unavailable.
For a vaccination program to be effective, its really more of an all or nothing thing. This goes for other things like measles as well. Most of the time, my children would be fine because they're vaccinated and a few non-vaccinated kids would become sick.
But if a pandemic of measles breaks out, even if myself and my family are all vaccinated and don't actually get sick, it doesn't mean we aren't affected by everyone who didn't get vaccinated and gets sick. ERs would be jam packed, large numbers of people absence from work, not only hurting the economy but perhaps leaving critical services understaffed, etc.
Some real horror show scenarios have been proposed by think tanks along the lines of some rural communities either cutting themselves off for fear of infection, or being cut off due to the fear of infection by truckers and other transport workers (or there simply not being enough truckers who were vaccinated left to deliver things like food and medicine in our produce-as-needed system).
I'm sure I sound like a nut job at this point. But I've noticed that usually comments by the pro and anti vaccine sides usually end up focusing on an individual's right to choose medical care for themselves and their children and the effect of a vaccine on an individual. Everyone seems to forget that when an individual gets sick, it isn't just the sick person who is affected.
Even if only .01% of the population has difficulties with the flu shot, over the 99 years of "normal" times, that becomes 1% or 1 in 100 people who are going to struggle with the flu shot.
While the government might not have problems with a few more dead people in the name of "public health", the families affected most certainly do. It smacks of the Tuskegee Experiment. If they want everyone to take the flu shot, then it needs to be safe for *everyone*. Killing a few to save the many is a philosophical question which has never been sufficiently answered and for the government to say "yes it is" is wrong.
Doc, the mortality rate for the under 50 crowd from flu is 1.2 per 100,000. Researchers in 2006 found that the risk of Guillain-Barré was 1.4 per 100,000 who get a flu shot. In this case, the risk of getting GBS is higher than the risk of death from flu.
Don't give us platitudes without backing up your statements with research. It only enhances the belief that you support vaccines no matter what the facts say.
The "I Choose" campaign, developed by the California Immunization Coalition, aims to promote immunizations through the pictures and stories of vaccine champions. If you want to take a stand for immunizatios, take a digital picture and upload your photo and story on the whyichoose website. The campaign website also features credible information for people inquiring about vaccine safety.
Feel free to visit: www.whyichoose.org
Mr. Marks
Thanks for your input. Your argument is confusing--I said that the risk of dying from a vaccine-preventible disease far outweigh the risk of receiving the vaccine. You came back with a statistic comparing a possible side effect of the flu vaccine to death from the flu. Usually, those with Guillain-Barré don't die as a result--see the paper:
http://www.neurology.org/cgi/content/abstract/70/18/1608
Regarding mortality in the under 50 crowd, you may be right--you haven't referenced your statistics. But watching one kid die needlessly from complications of influenza changes your perspective on such things.
Perhaps you could look up the mortality from influenza or complications of influenza for the elderly and get back to us with your thoughts on whether mass vaccination for influenza for grandparents and their grandkids is a good idea.
Tell this to the thousands of parents who have watched their child become ill immediately following a vaccine and then watched them regress.
I choose health for my daughter and any other children I may have.
However, if you reduce the deaths by GBS, you must also reduce the deaths by flu as most studies combine influenza and pneumonia deaths into a single category. That would mean that only a few in a million would die of flu in a given year in the under-50 crowd. One study (see below) put that as 1 in a million for the year 2001. Some studies even show that the flu shot has not statistically been shown to reduce mortality rates.
>>>"But watching one kid die needlessly from complications of influenza changes your perspective on such things. " This is anecdotal and knee-jerk, trying to play on fears and emotion. I'd love to see your statistics as well. Again, are you saying that the life of a baby is worth more than a mother who dies from GBS or an adult businessman who succumbs? Those are not decisions that you or the government should make. Again, we're back to knowingly wanting to risk the lives of the under-50 crowd to save another. That's not for you or the government to decide. I'm sure that people who have lost a loved one to GBS feel just as strongly that it has changed their perspective.
I've kept this discussion to those under-50, as I recognize that the risk of death more than triples after 50. If those over 50 want to make an informed decision to have a flu shot, then I'm fine with it. The benefits likely outweigh the risks. However, this type of information is not given to the public. We're informed that *everyone* should get the shot, and not given the information about GBS -- even though the CDC agrees with the research proving this. As an informed public, that information should be provided to the public in their yearly marketing campaign.
SOURCE: American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, September 2008.
Source: Final data for 2001, NCHS, CDC
http://www.mdch.state.mi.us/pha/osr/chi/CRI/CriticalInd/Crilhd.asp?TableType=Flu&CoName=Branch-Hillsdale-St.%20Joseph%20Health%20Department&CoCode=04
http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/AJPH.2007.119933v1
http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/cidrap/content/influenza/general/news/aug2908vaccine-jw.html
A study in the Feb. 14, 2005, Archives of Internal Medicine suggested that the decline in influenza-related mortality in the 1970s among those ages 65-74 came from immunity acquired during the 1968 pandemic. Also, vaccine coverage increased from between 15% to 20% in 1980 to 65% in 2001, but this increase could not be connected to declines in mortality. Another study in the Aug. 2, 2008, Lancet examined 1,173 elderly people with community-acquired pneumonia and 2,346 controls. The study found no link between flu vaccination and a reduced risk of this illness.
I know you believe what you believe but there is nothing to back it up. Your right to not vaccinate if you choose but what if your child dies from a completely preventable disease? Is that really worth it?
I just became the proud mother of some very cute little chicks, and in the process learned this fun fact: The vaccine for Marek's disease given to baby chicks does not contain Thimerisol OR Aluminum!!! Apparently the 'impossible' is possible when it comes to baby chicks! Please, why is this possible for baby chicks, but not our precious children.
Say what you will: vaccines that contain thimerisol, aluminum, formaldehyde or any other carciongen, need to be reformulated STAT! If they can do it for chickens they can do it for children.
And if you want my 'very dumb Jenny McCarthy' reason for refusing further doses of Hib for my child? My child had a severe reaction to DTaP that involved neurological swelling. I have looked into the formulation of HiB and each formula contains either a Diptheria or Tetanus toxoid. Since I cannot know which part of DTaP he reacted to, or whether he reacted to the Aluminum, I cannot know if it is safe to give him HiB that contains these toxoids. Also, although my son's DTaP reaction is very common, as reactions go, there is precious little information I have been able to find about the exact cause.
Pretending severe reactions to vaccines don't exist and do not have to be medically managed is irresponsible medicine! I would love to vaccinate my son with truly safe vaccines but they are not here yet, unfortunately! As a mother whose son has has a severe reaction, I cannot risk another severe reaction that may damage him permanently or send him to the hospital. Let us not pretend that children never have severe reactions to vaccines or severe illnesses immediately following vaccination. I think we all know they do!
When I take my child to the doctor to get a shot, in some way, I am risking his life. Because there is a chance, however small that he could die.
However, in our day to day lives, I can control, to an extent, how many 'disease vectors' he is exposed to. I can decide not to send him to public school for example (or any school. If you think that the need for vaccines and sticking 30 same age children in a room together all day are not related, well I invite you to study agriculture a bit!). I can decide to not take him to public swimming pools (public pools were definitely implicated in the Polio epidemic). Basically I can exercise some control over his risk level contracting these diseases.
In my opinion, since no vaccine is 100% effective, but parents persist as if they are, most parents take CRAZY risks with their children's health. I would rather keep my child home, and away from germ a thons like a public pool or a public indoor playground or an insitutional education environment, than risk his life at the doctor's office. Just an FYI, the most vaccinatey mom I know just had three children come down with Pertussis. They were all vaccinated. Pertussis vaccine, I am sure you know, is one of the least effective, and vaccinated children get it fairly often.
Again you are a doctor, you should have an analytic mind. People look up to that white coat. Doesn't the incredible rise in autism scare you? Aren't you curious as to how that could happen? Obviously there is a reason why the autism rate has skyrocketed. Go report back to us why that is. Hopefully you wont say "Believe me . . ." that kind of statement kills any credibility.
As a parent of 3 children, My circle of friends all used to think vaccines were there to help mankind. But after seeing perfectly healthy kids (about 12 kids in my circle of friends) go from normal children to WHAM now having autism. And in each case seeing huge changes in these precious children after they had their MMR shots. We all began looking into the situation. Now we are all finding talented well educated doctors that also have young kids and are seeing the vaccine industry for what it is. You don't need Jenny McCarthy to spread the word. You only need common sense and access to information to understand what's going on.
In closing I hope you can see the value in looking at your world in a critical fashion and seeing if it truly is the way you think it is. I know as a doctor, you want to think all is good and those vaccines are for the good of mankind. But, what if, they are not? You deserve to ask yourself that one question and question what you think you know as true. Be honest and be true to the truth.
Thanks for posting this comment. Someone needs to shed some light on the opposite side of your view.
After posting my comment I now see that you did not say "Believe me . . " I thought that bit of text was linked to you. But guess who did say that? Gee, another doctor, Amy Tuetur MD. My same comments from before apply. Come on doctors, learn the truth, or at least go and read and understand the other side of your reality. And please don't say "Believe me . . ." That's not something a doctor should be saying. I ran into an insurance salesman that said the same thing. I talked to a car salesman that said the same thing.
http://www.drcarley.com/
Again, just be open to your reality not being what you think it is.