Are Vaccinations Now Dangerous?

[Happy Diver]

Originally Posted by Dagny D.E.W.

So I read the 1st part of this thread and I'm going to take a class where I have to have some vaccines. Imagine my thoughts as I'm in the office yesterday while they are loading up the needles.

I asked him what medium the vaccines were in.

He said,





Wait for it








They come in GLASS bottles.

Too funny. Vaccinations are much safer than the diseases they prevent.
Always make sure your kids get their shots. And if you're in at-risk job for diseases that can be prevented by vaccines, make sure you get them as well.

[AustinBusinessTraveler]

Originally Posted by Dagny D.E.W.

They come in GLASS bottles.

See, he answered your question. Top notch health care.

[screwey]

Originally Posted by kittyloveratx

A five fold increase in vaccinations is fairly related to the 5 fold increase in population which would equal a 5 fold increase in autism So tell me that vaccinations have anything to do with it, take them out of the equation and its fairly simple. Population increases by 5 times and autism will increase by 5 times.

Are you serious? This logic is seriously flawed.

[GneissGuy]

Don't forget. Even if vaccination is generally safer than non-vaccination doesn't mean the pharmaceutical industry isn't a bunch of money grubbing bastards who really don't care about who they kill as long as the money saved by taking shortcuts exceeds the cost of the lawsuits. Or vice versa.

[theaustinescorts]

This is a heated discussion for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is that there is an important delimma here effecting the health of everyone, including those we care about.

What doesn't help though is the incivility by ABT and others who refer to those who disagree with them as "loons" and so forth.

Another problem is failing to argue the merits of what's being advocated, and instead impuning the motives or character of those advocating.

The studies which have been cited which suggest no link between CNS damage and particular vaccines are peered reviewed and should be taken seriously, as are reputable studies suggesting the contrary. However to evaluate their respective merits requires some study, and neither side should be dismissed by slinging out ad hominem attacks.

The points which have convinced me that the potential risks of vaccines today outweigh their potential benefits are these:

1.There is no alternative theory to explain the dramatic increase in CNS damage other than some reaction to the increased amount of vaccines.

The trend lines of these two factors are clear, and there is no other change in the environment, etc. to explain this correlation.

Until another hypothesis is put forward this theory has strong explanitory power.

2.Studies which suggest that CNS damage is not linked to particular vaccines are narrow in focus, and do not address the hypothesis mentioned above.

3.Requirements for the increased amounts of vaccines are not based on risk/benefit calculations. Even without the CNS damage issue, new vaccines have recently been marketed for deseases which have no serious morbidity issues.

The reason why new vaccines are being pushed is not because of medical innovation, but because the heretofore caution concerning vaccination has been replaced by wholesale neglect of their potential risks.

The reason for this is the profit motives of the manufacturers, and their lobbying expertise within the medical and political spheres.

4.Given that this CNS damage hypothesis has strong explanitory power and no alternative hypothesis even exists, I have to consider that the deseases that vaccines are intended to prevent are now very rare. I have to weigh the liklihood of getting CNS damage [now roughly 1 in 100] versus getting polio, smallpox, and the like from not vaccinating. Without vaccination I think the liklihood of contracting any of these deseases is much less than 1 in 100. It's more like 1 in 10,000 or more, which is what the odds used to be for getting autism.

To me it is a risk/benefit calculation comparing two alternatives.

However, if I were to hedge my bets by getting some vaccinations I would seek to get them a little at a time, and over a period of years, rather than the huge bundles in the first few months of life which is so strongly correlated with the CNS damge problem.

Everyone in this debate [save the medical manufacturers] should be presumed to be sincere in their motives.

[GneissGuy]

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

Everyone in this debate [save the medical manufacturers] should be presumed to be sincere in their motives.

This is incredibly disingenuous.

The lawyers are playing lawsuit lottery and would run over their own grandmother and blame the car manufacturer if they thought they'd make money in the process. They're willing to pay big contingency fees to any expert who can help them win a big jury verdict or get a big settlement.

The talkshow hosts make money and feed their egos on controversy. They'd poison their own mother and blame it on their favorite conspiracy theory target if it would improve their ratings.

Members of the legitimate media run on ratings, too. Even if they don't deliberately make up stuff or publish stuff they know to be false, stories about how "maybe XYZ is dangerous, here's what Dr. Quackenbush says, make up your own mind" get good ratings and stories about "XYZ is safe, Qackenbush is an idiot" don't get good ratings. Neither do stories about "Oops, turns out we were wrong in the earlier story."

The academicians have great pressure to publish or die. They also have egos and their careers may profit greatly from publishing some research that gets wide public notice. Plus the potential for big payments as expert witnesses.

Patients don't like it when their doctor tells them, "That's just the breaks. This happens to kids sometime. We don't know what causes it." A doctor who can offer "post vaccination detoxification therapy" can make a lot of money. Or one who says, "I see this in a lot of MMR vaccine babies" can get a lot of more patients and make money running tests and giving "the best treatment possible."

The parents don't want to believe that their kids problems are just random chance, bad genes, or perhaps something they did wrong themselves. It's comforting to be able to blame it on the evil drug company, the bad doctor, the government, or some vast conspiracy.

You're right that the pharmaceutical companies are not to be trusted either. However, they do have a big incentive to not create the problems in the first place because the truth does tend to eventually come out.

Vaccines save a lot of lives. Spouting nonsense about how dangerous vaccines are causes parents to not get their kids vaccinated and kills innocent kids.

Spouting this kind of nonsense also makes pharmaceutical companies reluctant to make new vaccines unless they know they can make a LOT of money on it. Why research some possible new vaccine if 12 people who aren't smart enough to get out jury duty can take pity on some grieving mother, ignore the evidence and put your company out of business for a product you know to be safe? More people die because the research wasn't done or the vaccine was too expensive.

[AustinBusinessTraveler]

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

This is a heated discussion for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is that there is an important delimma here effecting the health of everyone, including those we care about.

What doesn't help though is the incivility by ABT and others who refer to those who disagree with them as "loons" and so forth.

Another problem is failing to argue the merits of what's being advocated, and instead impuning the motives or character of those advocating.

WRONG. The motives and character of a former physician who let himself be bought off to create bogus results in a study is absolutely crucial to letting people know they've been duped.

The studies which have been cited which suggest no link between CNS damage and particular vaccines are peered reviewed and should be taken seriously, as are reputable studies suggesting the contrary. However to evaluate their respective merits requires some study, and neither side should be dismissed by slinging out ad hominem attacks.

Slow down sailor. There has only been one study to ever even hypothesize about a link between Autism and vaccinations. You know, the one where Mr. Wakefield was bought off. Other than that there are no studies. As for peer review - what does it mean when the Journal pulls the article, apologizes for its errors and hires an entirely new review council? The study isn't dismissed by ad hominem attacks, it's dismissed because it was a fraud (as proven in court) and in violation of some 30 standards of ethics under the NIH.

The points which have convinced me that the potential risks of vaccines today outweigh their potential benefits are these:

1.There is no alternative theory to explain the dramatic increase in CNS damage other than some reaction to the increased amount of vaccines.

The trend lines of these two factors are clear, and there is no other change in the environment, etc. to explain this correlation.

Until another hypothesis is put forward this theory has strong explanitory power.

What? There are dozens of theories. Lowering the standards (my personal favorite) from 4 of 5 criteria to 3 of 8 and expanding it from Autism to Austism Spectrum Disorders. This would be like saying the rate of Schizophrenia went through the roof when you started counting all mental health disorders as "Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorders". The thing about theories is that you have to prove them... without committing fraud.

2.Studies which suggest that CNS damage is not linked to particular vaccines are narrow in focus, and do not address the hypothesis mentioned above.

3.Requirements for the increased amounts of vaccines are not based on risk/benefit calculations. Even without the CNS damage issue, new vaccines have recently been marketed for deseases which have no serious morbidity issues.

The reason why new vaccines are being pushed is not because of medical innovation, but because the heretofore caution concerning vaccination has been replaced by wholesale neglect of their potential risks.

The reason for this is the profit motives of the manufacturers, and their lobbying expertise within the medical and political spheres.

Actually vaccines are used to save peoples lives. We've become so sheltered to the real risks of these diseases because of vaccines that we forget:
Measles: In roughly the last 150 years, measles has been estimated to have killed about 200 million people worldwide. During the 1850s, measles killed a fifth of Hawaii's people. In 1875, measles killed over 40,000 Fijians, approximately one-third of the population

Diptheria: n the 1920s there were an estimated 100,000 to 200,000 cases of diphtheria per year in the United States, causing 13,000 to 15,000 deaths per year.

Rubella: There was a pandemic of rubella between 1962 and 1965, starting in Europe and spreading to the United States. In the years 1964-65, the United States had an estimated 12.5 million rubella cases. This led to 11,000 miscarriages or therapeutic abortions and 20,000 cases of congenital rubella syndrome. Of these, 2,100 died as neonates, 12,000 were deaf, 3,580 were blind and 1,800 were mentally retarded. In New York alone, CRS affected 1% of all births

Whooping Cough: Before a vaccine was available, pertussis killed 5,000 to 10,000 people in the United States each year. Now, the pertussis vaccine has reduced the annual number of deaths to less than 30. In recent years, the number of cases has started to rise. By 2004, the number of whooping cough cases spiked past 25,000, the highest level it's been since the 1950s. It's mainly affected infants younger than 6 months old before they're adequately protected by immunizations.

HiB: Due to routine use of the Hib vaccine in the U.S. from 1980 to 1990, the incidence of invasive Hib disease has decreased from 40-100 per 100,000 children down to 1.3 per 100,000.

Polio: Eradicated for all intents and purposes until the nutjobs stopped vaccinating.

Do you really doubt the benefits of vaccination?


4.Given that this CNS damage hypothesis has strong explanitory power and no alternative hypothesis even exists, I have to consider that the deseases that vaccines are intended to prevent are now very rare. I have to weigh the liklihood of getting CNS damage [now roughly 1 in 100] versus getting polio, smallpox, and the like from not vaccinating. Without vaccination I think the liklihood of contracting any of these deseases is much less than 1 in 100. It's more like 1 in 10,000 or more, which is what the odds used to be for getting autism.

The only reasons the odds went down is because of vaccinations. When people stop vaccinating and kids are dying off by the thousands again, I guess that will make all the vaccine hype worth it for you and your ilk.

To me it is a risk/benefit calculation comparing two alternatives.

However, if I were to hedge my bets by getting some vaccinations I would seek to get them a little at a time, and over a period of years, rather than the huge bundles in the first few months of life which is so strongly correlated with the CNS damge problem.

Of course you would... because why would you listen to the science and why would you want to protect a child as early as possible and allow their immunities to grow?

Everyone in this debate [save the medical manufacturers] should be presumed to be sincere in their motives.

HOLY SHIT! The doctor that made the one study was stripped of his license, convicted of fraud, fired from all of his posts, and the attorneys he was paid by are in the process of having their license stripped. Should we really assume the motives were pure?

I am baffled by your avoidance of science and your adherence to drivel.

[Zoey]

I'm not going to outwardly lean one way or another.. because we all know that doesn't turn out too pretty for the opinionated individual..

However, let's go back to basics and realize that shit in = shit out.

Many (if not a vast majority of) American's nowadays are eating food solely out of a box with a long list of unrecognizable ingredients. How can we expect our bodies to perform properly when we bombard them with crap? & that's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the toxicity we are exposed to every day.. voluntarily AND involuntarily.

Vaccines or no vaccines.. I think it's unjust to point the finger at just one suspect. There are many. We're quickly becoming more and more destructive and the degeneration of our population is proving that point quite well..

[winemaker]

A bit out of context, but not really.

Vaccines are not always safe. There were massive issues with Polio vaccines which were contaminated.


There is no debate among scientists and physicians in government and industry that monkey viruses did, in fact, contaminate many lots of early killed and live polio vaccines used in experimental trials and in mass vaccination programs in the US between 1955 and 1963. There is continued debate about whether monkey viruses, some of which may be yet undetectable by current technology, have continued to contaminate live polio vaccines still grown on the kidney tissues of African green monkeys and administered to millions of children today." - Barbara Loe Fisher, Co-Founder and President, National Vaccine Information Center

Does SV-40 Cause Cancer?

The largest argument has not been whether SV-40 was or still is present in the polio vaccine, but whether or not it truly poses a threat to human health.

The Food and Drug Administration, Centers for Disease Control, and other United States organizations continue to insist that research is inconclusive. It was discovered that SV-40 was the contaminate, and a carcinogen as well.

"Infectious agents have been strongly associated with childhood brain tumors. An excess of central nervous system malignancies occurred in a cohort (a group) of offspring (children) whose mothers were inadvertently exposed to polio vaccine contaminated by Simian Virus 40 (SV40). Medulloblastomas bore the strongest relationship to the contaminated vaccine."
- Roush G, Holford TR, Schymura MJ, White C, Cancer Risk and Incidence Trends: The Connecticut Perspective, Brain, Cerebral Meninges, and Cranial Nerves, Ages 0-19,Department of Epidemiology and Public Health Yale University School of Medicine; The Hemisphere Publishing Company, 1987.

"...we found SV40 DNA sequences in five of six choroid plexus papillomas, eight of eleven ependymomas, three of seven astrocytomas...None of the 13 normal brain tissues were positive for SV40 DNA."
- Martini F, et. al., Human Brain Tumors and Simian Virus 40, Journal of the National Cancer Institute, September 6, Volume 87, 1995

"We decided to test human mesotheliomas and osteosarcomas for SV40 based on...the enormous increase in the incidence of mesotheliomas in the second half of this century which coincided with the inadvertent inoculation of millions of people with SV40 contaminated polio vaccines... SV40 or closely related DNA sequences are present in specific types of human tumors."
- Rozzo P, et. al, Evidence for and implications of SV40-like sequences in human mesotheliomas and osteosarcomas; Conference: SV40 a Possible Human Polyomavirus National Institute of Health, January 27 and 28, 1997

"We found SV40...sequences in all brain tumor types investigated. High frequencies were found in low-grade astrocytomas, anaplastic astrocytomas and secondary glioblastomas (59%)...Presence of viral DNA was also found in pediatric brain tumors..."
- Huang H, et al, Identification in human brain tumors of DNA sequences specific for SV40 large T antigen, Brain Pathology, January 9, 1999
"Natural infections in monkeys by SV40 are usually benign but may become pathogenic in immunocompromised animals, and multiple tissues can be infected. SV40 can replicate in certain types of simian and human cells... SV40 DNA has been identified in some normal human tissues, and there are accumulating reports of detection of SV40 DNA and/or T-ag in a variety of human tumors."
- Butel JS, Lednicky JA, Cell and molecular biology of simian virus 40: implications for human infections and disease, Journal of the National Cancer Institute, January 1999


SV-40 Still Found in the Oral Polio Vaccine

In 2001 Attorney Stanley Kops presented his gathered research and information proving that, despite government assurances, modern Polio vaccines still contain SV-40. He had been gathering evidence for a case unrelated to SV-40 and uncovered documentation of continued contamination in the process. Several of his sources included evidence of SV-40 found in cancerous tumors.

[Gump42]

Originally Posted by Zoey

I'm not going to outwardly lean one way or another.. because we all know that doesn't turn out too pretty for the opinionated individual.. ..

Lol - so you saw ABT hand me my ass huh?

Originally Posted by Zoey

Many (if not a vast majority of) American's nowadays are eating food solely out of a box with a long list of unrecognizable ingredients. How can we expect our bodies to perform properly when we bombard them with crap? & that's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the toxicity we are exposed to every day.. voluntarily AND involuntarily.

Beautiful and intelligent... I gotta meet you!

[Zoey]

ABT has a way of handing it to ya, huh?!

& if you're anything like Forest Gump.. well.. I must say.. I gotta meet YOU!

Life's like a box o' chock-co-lettes.. ya never know what yer gonna get..

Originally Posted by Eccie42

Lol - so you saw ABT hand me my ass huh?



Beautiful and intelligent... I gotta meet you!

[Carl]

Everybody's losing their shit over vaccines. What about tattoo ink? How many heavy metals, toxins, industrial chemicals and nasty compounds are in those? It seems like the increase in autism could also be correlated with the rise in tramps stamps and other body modifications. Lots of the people that would never think about putting something in their bodies that isn't natural (i.e., to them, medicines or vaccines) have no problem getting a tattoo. When did tattoos become natural? When did people or animals come out of their momma's womb with sleeve work or a tramp stamp? Did your local tattoo artist run double-blind placebo control studies to see if the junk he's jabbing under your skin causes auto-immune disorders, cancer or birth defects? I don't fucking think so. If they're only willing to put what's natural in their bodies, then by all means, drink a big tall glass of hemlock. That's guaranteed 100% natural. Would Socrates have drunk it if it wasn't?

[GneissGuy]

Don't forget that crude oil is all natural and organic. Why'd everyone get upset over the BP spill or the Exxon Valdez?

[theaustinescorts]

ABT:

You have agrued very effectively here in your last rebuttal. But like I said before, my concerns about vaccines go way beyond the controversy over Wakefield, or mercury.

My core problem with vaccines is their potential for risk coupled with a lack of any other hypothesis to explain the trend line for autism. I'm aware that some of the increase in autism is due to different definitions, but that only explains a fraction of the increase. If you refer to clinicians who deal with autism you can verify that the they recognize an explosion in the incidence of classic autism by any definition or standard.

Vaccines have made a positive contribution in the past in preventing horrible diseases such as polio, smallpox, etc. But using risk/benefit calculations for the four or five badly-needed vaccines and conflating them to the huge, multi-dose cocktails being sold today via the political arms of their manufacturers is unconvincing.

[AustinBusinessTraveler]

TAE,

Thank you and I understand your concern. What I am stunned by is the statement "lack of any other hypothesis to explain the trend line for autism".

Let's start for a moment at the beginning. Hypothesis doesn't mean some shit you think is an explanation. It means a scientifically relevant concept that can be tested. In the case of vaccines and Autism, the tests have all been done and there is no link to be found. None. What. So. Ever.

So, as a refresher, vaccines causing Autism is not a hypothesis its a proven falsehood.

As for other concepts as to what could be causing an increase in Autism. Well, you have the change in criteria as well as the addition of "Autism Spectrum Disorders" which is bullshit. You have greater access to doctors with advanced education and advanced training (i.e. it's not that there is more Autism, it's that there is simply more diagnosis because mommy and daddy can't accept that junior may just be slow). You have the current high fat / high processed food argument. Here are just a few others that people talk about but haven't researched (I even added a few of the conspiracy theory ones for your benefit):

Flourinated drinking water
Chemicals in cigarettes
Tattoo ink
Industrial cleaners
Pollutants in the air
Pollutants in the ground
Pollutants in the water
The explosion of the special needs / special education lobby and industry.


There are literally thousands of "possibles". What we do know - scientifically - is that vaccines aren't one.

Oh, and my personal favorite stories of the entire anti-vaccine "movement":

Jenny McCarthy's son actually had Landau-Kleffner syndrome, which is now commonly misdiagnosed for Autism (that whole thing about parents looking for it and pushing the idea on the doctor).

AND

Ah, screw it... here's a small portion of a great book on the subject.