New study: many vaccines at once OK for kids

[HuckleB]

http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2010/05/new-study-many-vaccines-at-once-ok-for-kids/

"A new study from Pediatrics has come to the conclusion that:

'Timely vaccination during infancy has no adverse effect on neuropsychological outcomes 7 to 10 years later. These data may reassure parents who are concerned that children receive too many vaccines too soon.'

Lead researcher Michael J. Smith said:

'Our study shows that there is only a downside to delaying vaccines, and that is an increased susceptibility to potentially deadly infectious diseases,

...

We hope these findings will encourage more parents to vaccinate according to the American Academy of Pediatrics schedule, and reassure them that they’re making a safe choice when they do so.'

..."


Read more: http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2010/05/new-study-many-vaccines-at-once-ok-for-kids/#ixzz0otZTrv8p


---------------


Link to the abstract (where you can also get a pdf file of the full paper):

On-time Vaccine Receipt in the First Year Does Not Adversely Affect Neuropsychological Outcomes
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/peds.2009-2489v1



---------------


Yes, it should be replicated. It must be, but this is good news and fair evidence, IMO.

:hi:

[trotsky]

1. The reasoning of the fearmongers never made sense anyway.

"Too many too soon"? I guess those same folks don't realize a baby is exposed to literally thousands of different pathogens daily, AND that the ones in a vaccine are either A) dead, B) severely weakened, or C) just the toxins and not the germs that produce them with deadly effects (tetanus, etc.).

Great news.

[truedelphi]

3. Tell that to the parents whose children are killed from these vaccines.

Hep vaccine administered within 36 hours of a babies birth, and for the only reason that doing it this way, should the baby become a victim of paralysis, or chronic headaches, or dies, the vaccine manufacturer can tall the grieving parents, "Prove that your baby was born healthy." (Since a babydoes not have unsafe sex or share needles with other babies, there is no good reson for having middle class kids having this vaccine.)

Initially the vaccine was going to be given only to twelve year olds and on up.

My good email buddy Eileen Dannemann quit crusading against vaccines. As yet again, another close relative had their child immunuized, and the kid was dead two days later at the age of five months.

Parents still insisted the kid died of "SIDS."

The problem is not only with the power of the vaccine manufacturers, but with a populace of people who are so dumbed down these days that they cannot think straight.

[Confusious]

4. Your proof the baby died from a vaccine IS?????

There are a lot more things that can kill a child that can't be caught. Blaming it on vaccines is like blaming it on the sun coming up.

a populace of people who are so dumbed down these days that they cannot think straight

Yea I can agree with that. Describes anti-vaccers to a tee. No science, so the first thing they think of is the problem.

[truedelphi]

5. Here is some information from the Vaccine Information center

And again - proof is hard to come by. How can any individual PROVE that anything is something? If you had a relative who died from lung cancer thirty years ago, maybe you thought that the two packs a day they smoked might be a factor, but can you/could you PROVE it?

Hep B Vaccine Infant Deaths Reported In VAERS -

Even though fewer than 10 percent of all doctors report health problems following vaccination, there are more than 16,000 reports of hospitalizations, injuries and deaths following hepatitis B vaccination that have been reported to the U.S. government Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) since July 1990. There are reports of deaths in infants under one month of age following hepatitis B vaccination in VAERS, with most of the deaths being classified as sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), even though SIDS is not historically recognized in the medical literature as occurring in babies under two months of age.

One of those death reports was made for a 15-day old baby boy who died within 48 hours of his first dose of hepatitis B vaccine. His father testified at a 1995 Institute of Medicine Vaccine Safety Forum workshop. He described what happened:

"For the first 13 days of his life, Nicholas was no different than any other baby. He ate well. When he slept, he slept well. He acted just like my first son acted when he came home from the hospital." Nicholas was given a hepatitis B shot at his regular check up at the pediatrician's office on the 13th day of his life. His father said:

"That night when I got home from work, I noticed that Nicholas was crying a lot more than usual. In fact, he was screaming some of the time. He was acting differently, but because we had just taken him to the doctor for a checkup and they told us he was a big healthy boy, we thought everything was OK. When he was just acting fussy, like babies sometimes do, we didn't know anything about vaccines or that they can cause problems for some babies."

"Nicholas cried on and off for most of the night. When I got up and went to work the next day, he was still crying on and off. He continued during most of the day and into the evening. The next morning, his mother found him dead in his crib. From the way he looked, he had been dead for several hours."

An autopsy was done the next day. A couple of weeks later, our pediatrician told us over the phone that the autopsy showed Nicholas had died of sudden infant death syndrome. He told us Nicholas was one of the healthiest babies he had ever seen…. What I didn't know then but I know now is that the pediatrician had made a report within 17 days of Nicholas' death to the government's Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, VAERS. In VAERS, Nicholas' death is listed as SIDS. Even though I didn't know anything about vaccines or SIDS, something told me that there was a reason why Nicholas died, and I had to find out why."

After seeing an article in the Washington Post about the Institute of Medicine report on adverse events associated with childhood vaccines, Nicholas's father called the National Vaccine Information Center and began talking to experts and researching infant death and vaccines. Eventually a clinical professor of pathology, who had reviewed Nicholas' medical records, autopsy and slides, stated in writing that Nicholas did not die of SIDS but died a cardiac death, caused by passive congestive changes with pulmonary edema and hemorrhage caused by the active immunization with hepatitis B vaccine. The pathologist stated "I do not believe this was a sudden infant death syndrome death. Sudden infant death syndrome is the most abused diagnosis in pediatric pathology. In this particular case, the infant was two weeks old. Sudden infant death at two weeks old is so rare as to be virtually unheard of."

The pathologist went on to say that Nicholas was at high risk for congestive heart failure because his mother had gestational diabetes, but that he would definitely have survived were it not for the stress induced by the hepatitis B vaccination.

Nicholas's father, in his testimony before the Institute of Medicine, asked "How many other newborn babies are dying from the effects of hepatitis B vaccine, but are being wrongly diagnosed as SIDS and no one ever knows the difference? I looked at the computer printouts of VAERS reports at the National Vaccine Information Center, and I saw there were other reports of babies just a few days or weeks old, who have died shortly after hepatitis B vaccination. Many are listed as SIDS deaths, but are they?"

[Confusious]

6. I won't accept "information" from that site

The New York Times wrote that most people connected with the center have "longstanding objections to vaccines or have a connection to the issue because of an autistic child."<1>

besides that, the entire article looks like anecdotal evidence. Worthless.

And again - proof is hard to come by. How can any individual PROVE that anything is something? If you had a relative who died from lung cancer thirty years ago, maybe you thought that the two packs a day they smoked might be a factor, but can you/could you PROVE it?

You have no idea about how science works do you? It works on proof. Muddy the waters "proof is hard to come by. How can any individual PROVE that anything is something?" is just bullshit so you can insert your wacko ideas. And then people die. A lot more then what you seem to have a problem with, and little evidence to prove.

[HuckleB]

7. An actual study on the issue found no evidence of such concerns.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11734710

And a review of the studies done: http://www.nfid.org/library/hepb_safety.shtml

[SidDithers]

10. VAERS...

The chief problem with the VAERS data is that reports can be entered by anyone and are not routinely verified. To demonstrate this, a few years ago I entered a report that an influenza vaccine had turned me into The Hulk. The report was accepted and entered into the database.

Because the reported adverse event was so… unusual, a representative of VAERS contacted me. After a discussion of the VAERS database and its limitations, they asked for my permission to delete the record, which I granted. If I had not agreed, the record would be there still, showing that any claim can become part of the database, no matter how outrageous or improbable.

http://neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/14/


Sid

[Odin2005]

13. LOL!!!

[Confusious]

16. HULK ANGRY! HULK HAD BAD REACTION!

[HuckleB]

18. +1 ...

I'm busting a gut, and I'm far too sober.

[Robb]

46. Wow. nt

[Dorian Gray]

52. They so should not have given permission

to remove The Hulk reaction to the vaccine from the database. That's sort of... awesome!

[Soylent Brice]

90. !!!

:rofl:

[PVnRT]

120. VACCINE SMASHED!

[trotsky]

21. "a populace of people who are so dumbed down these days that they cannot think straight"

Yup.

[HuckleB]

23. So let's help people be less dumbed down!

This is a fine summarization to start:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OMLSs8t1ng

[kestrel91316]

30. I think that child was obviously killed by breathing air. Or drinking milk or formula.

Because it did ALL those things a day before dying.

[truedelphi]

37. That air will get you every single time!

Damn it!

[moriah]

111. Eh....

I disagree with your assessment that "middle-class" kids shouldn't be vaccinated just because you think they will never catch the disease. The "it could never happen to me" attitude like that is one that drives me up the wall. Middle-class kids can still get blood transfusions or be victims of sexual abuse -- and experimenting with drugs is not limited to poverty-stricken kids or rich playboys. Neither is having sex early. (And I'm pretty familiar with the ways blood-borne illnesses can be transmitted, since my dad died of HIV last summer.)

There are some kids who cannot be vaccinated for whatever reason. I have a friend who had an encephalitic reaction to her first shots, and because of her severe reaction to them she cannot get any other shots, not even a flu shot. The only thing keeping her safe from measles, diphtheria, etc, is that most other people are vaccinated. God help her if she ever steps on a rusty nail or gets bit by a rabid dog/raccoon/squirrel/bat (yeah, I realize that humans aren't routinely immunized against rabies, but she can't even take the post-exposure shots). If your kid is the only kid who isn't vaccinated, your kid is probably safe, because of "herd immunity" (just not from rusty nails, and there are a lot of those). But herd immunity only works when a high percentage of the population is vaccinated. If your child is healthy enough to get their shots and you choose not to allow it, you're putting my friend at risk. She's got a five year old daughter who would really hate to lose her mom because someone didn't even try to get their kid vaccinated out of misplaced fear -- her parents at least tried!

Given the subject of this article is vaccine scheduling more than vaccines period, my opinion on the subject is a bit odd. If the only way a person is going to overcome their fear and get their kids vaccinated is to use an alternative vaccine schedule similar to the one advocated by Dr. Sears, then I'm all for them doing it that way. It's a hell of a lot better than not getting your kids vaccinated at all. If you're scared of mercury in vaccines, they have ones that don't use it as a preservative, so use them instead. But since most kids are vaccinated, you can link just about anything to vaccine use. A headline showing "Vaccine Use Correlated With Cooing" would be just as accurate as "Vaccine Use Correlated with Colic".

The bottom line is that more people die of vaccine-preventable diseases than die from vaccines. Your kid is better off immunized than not in the long run, and so is my friend and those like her who cannot be vaccinated if you get your kids their shots.

[mzmolly]

124. Yes indeed.

Delaying vaccination = less risk for vaccine makers.

[HuckleB]

140. SIDS Not Linked to Number and Variety of Childhood Vaccines

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=10649

[uppityperson]

157. Advising someone do that is shameful. Same as for one who died from allergic reaction to an

antibiotic or even a "natural" remedy. Shame on you for advising anyone be snide towards family of someone who died from any sort of cause. I do agree that the problem is "with a populace of people who are so dumbed down these days that they cannot think straight."

Shame on you.

[HuckleB]

162. Naïve theories of causal force and compression of elapsed time judgments.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20438218

[Tumbulu]

169. Your statement is misleading

There is a profound difference between exposure (dermal, oral, nasal) to pathogens and antigens which get past the protective membranes and enter the bloodstream. The entire reason that vaccines illicit a lasting immune response has to do with this unique exposure. Getting past these normal barriers to antigens is why the body designs and manufactured the antibodies.

Most people that I know think that if you want a long lasting immune response, then there must be sufficient time for the body to produce the desired titre of antibodies. The timing of the second injection of the pathogen(s) is critical for success.

[HuckleB]

2. Greetings to the anti-science crowd. Thanks for the unrecs!

:eyes:

[cornermouse]

8. Thanks for pointing that out.

I hadn't unrec'd but since you seem to need it to validate your position, so be it.

I was one of those parents who always made sure their child's immunizations were given according to schedule. I regret that now. If I had known then what I know now I would have still taken them in for their immunizations but I would have made sure they didn't contain mercury and were not bundled together. Do you understand the difference?

[HuckleB]

9. I understand vaccines quite well.

Since you seem to be basing your regret on something other than evidence based in the scientific method, I'm not so sure you can say the same.

[cornermouse]

14. The children who had the injection developed large welts

every time at the injection site. Looking back, there were other physical differences as well which I'm sure you would prefer to ignore or ridicule. So be it. I'll continue to believe my "lying eyes" and you can believe, from afar, a doctor/group who may very well have connections to the pharmacy industry.

[HuckleB]

15. LOL!

I love the "pharma shill" routine! Thanks for bringing it to the thread!

As for your anecdotes, yeah, I'm not big on anecdotes.

[truedelphi]

36. before Corporate America started its drive to convince us that only

Their scientists in their laboratories can tell us what is and is not true, anecdotes used to be part of inductive reasoning.

But that became an inconvenience to Big Industry. And most Dumbed down Americans enthusiastically embrace and understand that they should not observe, record and document but echo the pervasive memes of the era -- "Bwando is good for plants. The electrolytes!"

[Orrex]

43. Baseless fearmongering

A disturbingly large number of Americans embrace snake oil and hucksterism simply because Deepak Chopra and Andrew Weil and Jenny McCarthy give it the thumbs up. Do you condemn these charlatans as strongly?

[Odin2005]

50. That is BS. Anecdotes have NO place in science. and never have.

Speaking of being DUMBED DOWN, read up on LOGIC and FALLACIOUS REASONING.

[Confusious]

60. anecdotes used to be part of inductive reasoning

Maybe, but you use WEAK induction.

I always hang pictures on nails.
Therefore:
All pictures hang from nails.

Not only is it possible for the conclusion to be true given the premise, it is even very likely that the conclusion is false.

Study after study has shown no connections of vaccines to autism using statistical methods on populations, the biggest and best being on the dutch. No difference in autism rates between vaccinated/ unvaccinated.

And most Dumbed down Americans enthusiastically embrace and understand that they should not observe, record and document but echo the pervasive memes of the era -- "Bwando is good for plants. The electrolytes!"

That wouldn't be science, that would be woo. The same woo you endorse. Science operates on facts. A meme is not a fact.

[truedelphi]

78. Syllogistic logic differs from inductive reasoning...

Maybe you were absent the day that lesson was taught.

Syllogistic logic is deductive reasoning.

Inductive reasoning is the second form of logic.

The two are not comparable.

So attempting to use a syllogism to discuss inductive reasoning is like mentioning goal posts to a baseball ref.

Different ball game.

[Confusious]

96. However you want to put it

Anti-vaxxers are wrong.

If you want inductive, they are wrong. If you want deductive, they are wrong. Wrong is wrong, and playing philosophy games won't change that.

Nice try at moving the field. It was a little to big for you, I think.

[HuckleB]

165. Newsflash: The researchers on this study were UNPAID!

http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2010/06/addressing-the-too-many-too-soon-hypothesis/

[Tumbulu]

179. I am always puzzled when I read all these attacks on this forum

on any observed reaction as "but it's anecdotal!" as if anything that anyone observes must somehow be discounted. It is bizarre as observation , recording and then analyzing data is a part of the scientific method.

I get it now. Thanks. I appreciate your posts so much.

[truedelphi]

35. But can you prove that those welts were not the result of...

On a more serious note - Glad to see a fellow anti vaccine mind on this discussion.

I had to live with Guillaume Barre for eighteen months after the Swine flu shot of the 1970's. It is rather ridiculous to try and talk to people who just know that vaccines are great and any skepticism about the issue means that the person is WHACK.

[Orrex]

42. The rate of occurrence of Gullian Barre is statistically insignificant

According to Wiki, the rate is about one case per million vaccinations. I grant that Wiki is far from a definitive source, so if you can offer a more authoritative source with a different conclusion, I will be happy to review it. However, to dismiss a vaccine on the basis of a one in a million illness is irresponsible and reactionary.

I'm very confident that someone will now assert that there were many more "undiagnosed" or "unreported" cases, or that doctors suppressed reports of the illness. I welcome evidence in support of these claims.


It is rather ridiculous to try to talk to people who've concluded that vaccines are BAD BAD BAD and that any support of vaccines means that the person is closed-minded, or a science dogmatist, or a big pharma shill.

[HuckleB]

57. What's amazing to me is the rather large percentage of DUers who developed GB in the '70s.

:shrug:

[Orrex]

70. Indeed.

In my life, I've known a great many people who've claimed to suffer some vanishingly rare and casually unverifiable malady or another, often in combination.



It seems I have a remarkable ability for ferreting out these astronomically rare outliers.

[truedelphi]

79. Yes of course, to statistic gatherers in the vaccine labs it is insignificant.

Most of us who suffered from this GS didn't have doctors who even knew what they were seeing.

In my case, I was told that I was a malingerer who wanted to have the food stamps that I had the six months before the ailment took over.

So I suspect that many of us were not reported. Only one in a million had a doctor who understood what was happening.

In my case, I was lucky that I was afflicted at a time when I was extremely active, still in my twenties, had good health overall, and that eventually I regained full use of my left arm.

Most doctors don't report adverse reactions to a vaccine. They simply tell the patient it is all in their head, or not important.

[Orrex]

97. You're making a lot of unsupported claims there.

You're basically saying that because few cases of GB were reported, there must have been many more cases, and doctors must have declined to report those cases. You realize that that position is impossible to verify, right?

Incidentally, I'm very sure that you yourself consider a one-in-a-million rate of occurrence to be insignificant, too. I mean, your chances of getting hit by a car when you cross the street are substantially higher, yet I presume that you do cross a street occasionally? How can you justify such risk-taking?


I'm sorry that you were treated poorly while the condition was affecting you. However, your experience is an inadequate foundation on which to base a vaccination policy. You yourself are free not to get vaccinated, of course, but your experience shouldn't serve as anything other than an unfortunate but statistically reasonable anecdote.

[Orrex]

101. Incidentally...

I'd like to point out that I predicted (correctly) in reply #42 that someone would claim that there were "many" undiagnosed cases of GB and that doctors suppressed reporting of those cases.

What do I win?

[Confusious]

65. Really?

is rather ridiculous to try and talk to people who just know that vaccines are great and any skepticism about the issue means that the person is WHACK.

I kind of got the feeling that they were great. I don't know why :sarcasm:

I know! Maybe it was the history I've studied for 20 years and the diseases that kept coming up and killing billions of people, including some of my relatives. Then it came to a stop with the introduction of vaccines.

That might have been it.:sarcasm:

Some criticism is fine. Saying vaccines are killing people and worthless is WHACK.

[Th1onein]

106. My mom got a flu shot and got GB, too.

She died from it. It feels real good to quote statistics as long as your family members aren't one of them.

[Orrex]

109. I'm sorry about your mother, and I don't question your grief

Equally, I know that citations of statistical probability offer no comfort in the face of such a loss.

On the societal scale, the chance of vaccines having fatal complications is not zero. Nevertheless, that doesn't diminish the overall value of vaccines in the population.



My cousin died in a car accident, by the way. Are we to conclude from this that cars should be outlawed?

[Th1onein]

138. No, we shouldn't outlaw cars, but we shouldn't shield vaccine makers from lawsuits, either.

When they make mistakes, like in 1976, they need to be held accountable.

[Orrex]

139. But at what level of accountability?

If a vanishingly small minority has an adverse reaction to a vaccine, what damages are owed that minority? My child developed swelling and a slight fever after one of his vaccinations; is he entitled to monetary compensation from the manufacturer? How much? Where do you draw the line?

If the manufacturers produce a tainted vaccine or commit some preventable error that results in injury, then I can see holding them accountable. But if a tiny subset of the vaccinated group suffers an unforeseeable adverse reaction, then that's simply the nature of the statistical beast.


That may seem cold, but I repeat that we undertake similar statistical risks many times per day.

[Th1onein]

144. What level of accountability?

You said: "If the manufacturers produce a tainted vaccine or commit some preventable error that results in injury, then I can see holding them accountable. But if a tiny subset of the vaccinated group suffers an unforeseeable adverse reaction, then that's simply the nature of the statistical beast."

A REASONABLE MAN'S LEVEL OF ACCOUNTABILITY. This has been a precept of common law for a long, long time: Would a REASONABLE man know, or should a reasonable man have known, that this would cause harm? It's really basic. Instead, we threw all of that out of the window, and just give them immunity from lawsuits. That's bullshit, pure and simple. There is no good argument for that kind of immunity. It's certainly not a policy that is geared towards the common good. We're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[Orrex]

148. So you would agree that a handful of adverse reactions, out of millions of vaccines, is no big deal?

Now we're getting somewhere.

The primary issue at hand (in this subthread) is whether or not the 1976 flu vaccinations are significantly correlated to reported incidence of GB. The answer, by any REASONABLE MAN'S LEVEL OF ACCOUNTABILITY, is a resounding NO. 500 cases out of several million vaccines are unfortunate but insufficient to condemn the entire program, especially since no credible connection between the vaccine and GB has been put forth.

Yes, the vaccinations were stopped, but that doesn't really prove anything except that vaccinations can be stopped in response to (or in expectation of) largescale public backlash.

The other issue at hand (from the OP) is whether or not multiple simultaneous vaccines are safe for children, and according to the cited study the answer is yes.


The point your addressing--the need to hold manufacturers accountable--is reasonable but tangential. You're welcome to have that discussion, but I won't pursue it any further in this thread except to say this: some protection must be granted to the manufacturer, or whole populations will remain unvaccinated due to fears about a hyper-litigious subset of 10 or 20 or 100 mildly affected individuals. That's not to say that serious complications resulting from manufacturer error or impropriety should be brushed aside, but known potential side effects--clearly disclosed in advance--shouldn't subject the manufacturer to huge liability.

[PVnRT]

121. For someone who's such a logic expert

you'd think you'd know that you can't prove a negative.

As for Guillain-Barre (which is presumably what you're talking about), there is little other than circumstantial evidence that flu or flu vaccine even causes it. This abstract only states that 15 out of 71 patients tested positive for influenza-A or B after being diagnosed with the disease. There were any number of other potential causes of GBS.

[Confusious]

17. No, since the vaccines don't have mercury

in the form you think it is.

Do you eat sodium? have you blown up yet?

[cornermouse]

19. My kids started getting their vaccinations 31 and 29 years ago.

They had it then.

[Confusious]

20. No they didn't

Thimerosal is a mercury containing compound, but saying thimerosal is the same as mercury is like saying sodium is the same thing as table salt.

Sodium would blow up in your fingers. It doesn't like water. But sodium chloride is table salt. You need it to live.

Are they the same thing? Do they even have the same effects?

[HuckleB]

22. Which Thimerosal-containing vaccines did they get?

[msanthrope]

24. Oh christ....don't ask for facts when there's obviously anecdote...n/t

[HuckleB]

27. I couldn't help myself.

[cornermouse]

38. Then you should really enjoy the outright lie otherwise known as

obvious propaganda that giving kids their shots on schedule raises their IQ. Oh wait. They're saying something you like so we should believe it without questioning. :sarcasm:

As far as replying to the other comment? I don't think so. I'm secure in what I saw and what I know. I feel no need to answer to you.

[Orrex]

47. Citation?

Who here has endorsed a claim that "giving kids their shots on schedule raises their IQ?"


Also, since you are making an assertion in conflict with documented reality, it is not sufficient be "secure in what (you) saw and what (you) know." I have no doubt that you believe these things very strongly.


And I have little doubt that you are incorrect in your belief.

[HuckleB]

55. That's an interesting claim.

Who is making that claim?

So you are secure in what you saw, but you don't know what vaccines your kids received?

Interesting.

[LeftishBrit]

191. Nobody to my knowledge says that giving children their shots on schedule raises their IQ

That would be just as unfounded as saying that it's the cause of autism.

What people do say is that it prevents certain potentially serious diseases. Nothing to do with raising IQ.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[trotsky]

48. I got my pediatric vaccines 37-38 years ago.

They simply drained all my blood and replaced it with liquid mercury.

[HuckleB]

54. Ouch!

I stand corrected.

[Orrex]

149. And I stand deleted.

Apparently my funny funny joke was not seen as a joke.


I guess you do know shit about anything after all!

[HuckleB]

151. Double ouch!

Oh well.

:beer:

[truedelphi]

129. Vaccines now often have formaldehyde. n/t

[HuckleB]

130. Toxic myths about vaccines

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=9

"...

Because mercury hasn’t been in most childhood vaccines for six years, one of the two most favored ingredients that antivaccinationists now like to cite is formaldehyde. Yes, that is indeed the same chemical that’s used to fix tissue for pathology (usually as a 10% solution known as formalin that contains 10 g/100 ml of formaldehyde and is buffered to a neutral pH) and the same chemical used in the embalming fluid for the cadavers we dissected as medical students. (Indeed, I still remember that smell, which was impossible to get rid of entirely during the months I took gross anatomy.) During the vaccine manufacturing process, it’s used to inactivate live virus, and traces do remain after manufacturing. Why on earth would those traces be allowed to remain? Remember again: The dose makes the poison. In trace amounts, formaldehyde is not dangerous. Also, it doesn’t last long in aqueous solution, such as vaccines. It breaks down to formic acid and carbon monoxide. Moreover, exposure to far more formaldehyde than any vaccine contains is ubiquitous in modern life. It’s in auto exhaust, and various substances found in virtually every household emit it:

"Latex paint, fingernail hardener, and fingernail polish release a large amount of formaldehyde to the air. Plywood and particle board, as well as furniture and cabinets made from them, fiberglass products, new carpets, decorative laminates, and some permanent press fabrics give off a moderate amount of formaldehyde. Some paper products, such as grocery bags and paper towels, give off small amounts of formaldehyde. Because these products contain formaldehyde, you may also be exposed on the skin by touching or coming in direct contact with them. You may also be exposed to small amounts of formaldehyde in the food you eat. You are not likely to be exposed to formaldehyde in the water you drink because it does not last a long time in water."

Of course, given my background, it’s hard not to mention that every generation of medical students since time immemorial has been exposed to large amounts of formaldehyde. I’m not saying this is a good thing; personally I wish I could have avoided it, and it would be a good thing if we could decrease the average exposure to it while going about our activities of life. However, it’s a matter of perspective. Antivaccinationists rant about formaldehyde in vaccines and ignore a source that is orders of magnitude greater over the lifetimes of each and every one of us from childhood to old age: the environment.

..."

[LeftishBrit]

192. Moreover...

one point that is rarely raised in this connection, is that kids got far more mercury in the 19th and early 20th centuries than they do now.

Medicines often contained mercury, including laxatives and de-worming medicines given to children. Mercury was often present in *teething powders* used routinely for infants - in some countries until the 1950s. The quantities were much higher than those ever used in vaccines, and were certainly dangerous. Some children became sick with mercury poisoning. Some even died. None of this is in question.

The issue that arises is: how can you reconcile the *far greater* exposure of children to mercury in the past with the view that autism is a modern 'man-made epidemic' due to mercury in vaccines. If mercury in vaccines causes autism, then presumably the far greater amount of mercury in teething powders and childhood medicines in the past should have caused much more autism. So either autism is not a modern epidemic, or it isn't caused by mercury (which is not to say that mercury exposure is a good thing), or both.

[SidDithers]

11. K&R...

another good science-based medicine post.

Sid

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[msanthrope]

25. Yep. n/t

[The Straight Story]

26. The standard reply is "Did they have a vested interest in the outcome of the study"

Because I hear that a lot. Used as a way to discredit something generally. Without reading the study.

[tammywammy]

28. k&r n/t

[neverforget]

29. k & r for science!

[HuckleB]

31. Thank you.

[eridani]

32. What about small sub-populations of vulnerable people?

This can be swamped in data demonstrating no harm to the majority.

[SoCalDem]

33. This all makes me glad my kids were babies "back in the day"

Our pediatrician gave them one at a time, to make sure they had minimal reaction to the shots, and since office visits were not that pricey, it was infinitely do-able. It must be hell to be a parent of a baby these days, Every day an article pops up to warn you about something that until then was supposedly safe, and then a few months later the :fix" is determined to be even worse:(

[HuckleB]

34. Actually, it's a great time to be a parent of young ones.

One does need to look through the BS of the scam artists and fear-mongerers, but children are safer and healthier than ever.

A review of this study (and more) can be found here: http://scienceblogs.com/whitecoatunderground/2010/05/too_many_too_soon.php

It ends...

"...

The second question likely to be raised is whether this study captured the correct populations. The data make clear that when the recommended vaccination schedule is followed in the first year of life, there are no significant neurological sequelae in later childhood. But the study did not specifically look at "alternative vaccine schedules" such as those proposed by alternative doctors. It also did not specifically look at vaccination outside the first year of life. It did however divide the children into "most timely" and "least timely" groups too look for effects that might be missed in aggregate.

This is a strong study. It seems likely that if vaccines given according to the recommended schedule during infancy were to lead to autism or other severe neurologic disorders, this study would have found an effect. Since autism usually manifests by age 2, it is unlikely that an exposure in the second or third year of life would contribute significantly to the development of autism. There is no such thing as "too many too soon"; it is simply another evidence-free attack on one of our safest and most effective public health measures."

[eridani]

39. Overall that is true. This still does not answer the question of whether

--there are small, vulnerable sub-populations.

[trotsky]

41. We know there are some "small, vulnerable sub-populations."

There's no mystery here. It consists of those with compromised immune systems. Or severe allergies. Or mitochondrial disorders. That is generally why we, as liberals, who care about society, take the minuscule risk of vaccination upon us in order to protect those individuals. Because that same "small, vulnerable sub-population" is even MORE threatened by diseases than they are by vaccines.

It has been voiced in this very forum that we shouldn't have to vaccinate to protect other people. That they should just "take precautions" to protect themselves.

I don't think that is a very progressive, compassionate, or HUMANE viewpoint. Maybe you're OK with it though?

[Orrex]

45. +1

Well said. :thumbsup:

[HuckleB]

53. Thank you for this fine explanation.

[eridani]

102. I think that people who are not vulnerable can afford a few free riders

There may be genetic issues for some people, and we need to identify them. If we could be really accurate about identifying those at risk, it would increase confidence in vaccines among the majority non-vulnerable populations.

[trotsky]

104. You're missing the point. Well, a couple of points.

1) We do identify genetic and other issues that would put people at risk from vaccination. (Those same conditions generally ALSO put them SEVERELY at risk should they ever contract the real disease.) And we don't vaccinate those individuals.

2) The only lack of confidence in vaccines is caused by the misinformed fearmongers like the recent quack, Andrew Wakefield, who was thoroughly discredited and professionally humiliated for falsifying his data AND performing unethical experiments.

3) Thus the "free riders" are those who truly cannot get a vaccine. I know the latest trend among the anti-vaxers (because all their other magic bullets have been exhausted) is now to claim there is some mysterious "subset" of the population for whom vaccines cause autism. Though they postulate absolutely no mechanism by which this might happen, and though they can't even provide any statistics to validate the claim, it's not stopping them from their latest desperate move to scare people and sell books (and dangerous "treatments" for autism). THEY are the ones who are decreasing confidence in vaccines, with their misinformation and outright lies. (Like when they claimed there is anti-freeze in vaccines, etc.)

[eridani]

110. It took quite awhile to resolve the weak (though significant) correlation of salt intake

--with high blood pressure. When it became possible to identify salt-sensitive people, the correlaion between their salt intake and high blood pressure became much stronger, and the correlation disappeared for the non-salt-sensitive came close to disappearing.

It isn't at all irrational to suppose that there might be small groups of people still unidentified who would be in danger from vaccines. That ought to be a green light for everyone else to get them, of course.

[trotsky]

113. Two wholly different and incomparable physiological processes.

Sodium intake and high blood pressure at least had a statistical correlation to lead the way.

Autism/vaccines does not. Children who have never been vaccinated can still be autistic.

But I understand the desperation of the anti-vax movement to try and cling to SOMETHING in the face of being proven wrong over and over and over and over.

[Dappleganger]

103. Both of our pediatricians did the same.

Never any problems, but we appreciate this common-sense approach. We were always warned to keep an eye out for certain symptoms just in case of a reaction, too. All four have had all of their shots and boosters, except not the HPV shot for the girls.

[HuckleB]

168. Your pediatrician did so by ignoring the evidence against there being any need for such practice.

That's not a good sign.

[Tumbulu]

170. so what is the purpose of your statement?

This pediatrician probably studied immunology and knew that giving the body time to form a good response is critical for long lasting protection.

[HuckleB]

171. Uh huh.

If so, he didn't study it very well.

[Tumbulu]

172. Can you tell me all the immunology courses you have taken

at what level and at what University? And what grades you received?

[HuckleB]

173. Got red herring?

:rofl:

[Tumbulu]

174. I do not understand your reply

You seem to be passing judgement - I'd like to know how many courses in immunology you have taken.

[Name removed]

175. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tumbulu]

176. insults- hmmm still no answer form you

only insults.....

[HuckleB]

178. There were no insults.

This is beyond the pale. If you can't discuss the actual matter, why do you bother at all?

[mzmolly]

125. Agreed. And, where are the studies that try to identify such people?

:hi:

[HuckleB]

131. Sounds like you've read far too much David Kirby fiction.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/02/stupid_cubed_david_kirby_rfk_jr_and_gene.php

[xchrom]

40. Recommend! Nt

[hayu_lol]

49. Prior to the advent of immunizations against the 'dread' diseases...

slightly less than 50% of all children lived to be 16.

For you anti-vacs out there...those diseases are still around, still threaten all children, and are swift and nasty when they find a child not immunized.

How many years has it been since you saw a friends house decorated with a quarantine sign on the doors? The empty playgrounds and pools when polio was making it's rounds? Gone to the funerals of friends who died of tetnus, scarlet fever, and the other dread diseases?

Nothing in life is perfect. But, immunizations took most of the killers out of circulation and continue to hold them at bay.

It has only been about 80 years since most of the protections have been in place for the most dreaded children's diseases. How quickly the newer generations forget...or never paid the price in the first place.

[Odin2005]

51. My grandmother walked with a limp all her life because of Polio.

5 of her siblings died of childhood diseases before they were school-age.

[hayu_lol]

56. And then there is the 'story' about a 15 day old named...

Nicholas who died. Hmmmm. What sort of abusive and ignorant parents would observe their 15 day old child screaming off and on for two days and nights without taking the child to the doctor or the ER. Clearly stated in the story was the fact that for an entire 13 days, the infant was 'normal.'

Most infants that age are quite happy and content when kept fed and changed. If they are screaming and have other behavioral changes...thing to do is go to the experts. Cause, these parents were willfully negligent.

I guess they never saw a copy of Dr Spock's Baby and Child Care. Sort of a guide for new parents. Still as effective as ever.

Methinks the story about Nicholas is a fable. If not, what were the autopsy findings?

[hayu_lol]

89. I am assuming that this is the post that SeaBeyond has referenced...

no laughter was included in my post(...and then there is the story...). No child or infant will scream off and on for 48 hours(colic could induce such a problem). Clearly stated in the anecdote was the fact that the behavior of the child had drastically changed, the screaming did not stop for roughly 48 hours. That is a warning to any parent that something has gone wrong. Doesn't matter that a doctor just gave the infant a clean bill of health.

Autopsy results(also posted above) show cardiac arrest...due perhaps to the 48 hours of screaming? Infants under a few months can have their electrolytes go out of balance in seconds/minutes...the balance of these is critical.

Had the parents taken the child to the doctor/ER when the screaming first started, perhaps the child would be alive today--we can't and don't know that. For a normally healthy child to suddenly start screaming over a 48 hour period means that something is wrong. Yes, in this case, the parents were(IMO)negligent by not getting help. Tough call but professional help was needed.

I've had 5 children so have some experience with infants.

[HuckleB]

100. Yes, I believe it is.

I saw no laughter in your post.

[mzmolly]

126. Do you have a link to the 50 dead by 16 statistic you note?

Thanks in advance. :hi:

[HuckleB]

58. NEUROLOGICA: Vaccines – Too Few, Too Late

http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=1976

Another view on the study, and on the issue in general.

[seabeyond]

59. what you do accomplish on these threads... is shut people up. not change minds

not discuss issue.... but shut people up

i see a post saying how the "whacko" have hit the thread fast.

from what i am seeing, it is the complete opposite and anyone that may even have a question is going to keep mouth shut and not be a part of your thread. so it will be the handful of yawl attacking in the most ugly ways,.... anyone that dare come into your thread, with concerns.

maybe that is why some people dont particularly trust the medical field. shut the fuck up, do what we tell you, eyes down, tail between legs

i know that always makes me respect and trust a person

[HuckleB]

61. Thanks for your "opinion."

It's your choice to ignore evidence. As for the comment you rant against, it's a result of an ugly vehemence offered up by posters who have made it clear that they will not take an honest look at the evidence, no matter how it is presented.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[seabeyond]

64. hypocrisy? please point it out, instead of baseless accusation. wall? wtf are

you talking about. that is really pulling an insult out of the air.

again, another post that is about denigrating, not communicating

people would trust and respect you, why?

[HuckleB]

67. Hardly.

When a poster comes to this thread making claims, sans evidence, that vaccines kill, and basically says that anyone who is supports vaccines is dumbed down, and another pulls out the pharma shill gambit in regard to me, but you attack only those who respond to such tripe, that's hypocrisy. It's basic. It's simple.

[seabeyond]

68. and i think to laugh at a 15 day old baby's death, or accuse parents of negligent

is sick'


It's basic. It's simple.

[HuckleB]

69. That excuses the hypocrisy you've offered up?

Perhaps you should address those whose behavior has offended you. It's interesting that you have not mentioned one thing I've offered as being problematic for you.

[seabeyond]

71. no, there is not a hypocrisy on my part. you might look up hypocrisy. seems to be a challenge for

you.

"It's interesting that you have not mentioned one thing I've offered as being problematic for you"

again, why would i? i have questions, concerns, thought, research..... but why would i say a damn thing. why would i give any thought in a post that was not absolutely in line with yours, and the others thinking?

where, .... is the incentive in that?

and dont even think you know my position.... you are clueless. i have given nothing for you to challenge me as a "whacko". you have no "data".

[HuckleB]

72. Oh brother.

Sounds like you just joined the thread to make excuses for one thing and then another.

Very odd.

:eyes:

(PS... I've no need to continue to respond to this line of nothing.)

[seabeyond]

75. no. generally i ignore these threads. it is laughing about the death of a 15 day old that prompted

me to respond. firstly

secondly, i think that you have information that would be useful and would be an opportunity to discuss. but again, with the responses i see it doesnt lead to interaction. ergo, i decided to actually make a point that more listen with sugar than vinegar.

but then again, you want people, insist people listen to you openmindedly, yet you refuse to do the same.

i think it is unfortunate. i think we are better than that.

[HuckleB]

80. Well, you've made no point whatsoever.

And now you are judging my "open mindedness" without any justification.

PS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

[seabeyond]

84. so

you give me a cute little video on open minded. putting me in the anti vaccine, anti science group? please show where i have shown any position of being anti science, anti vaccine.

here is just one justification of you lack.... as you can see in every post you have directed at me.

[HuckleB]

87. And yet again you put words in my mouth.

You chose to claim I was not open minded, which is why I offered that video.

:eyes:

[Name removed]

137. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HuckleB]

74. Oh, and could you point out where the "laughter" is in the post about the 15-day-old baby dying?

I couldn't find any.

[Name removed]

118. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MicaelS]

73. Are vaccines perfect? No, but what is the alternative?

Letting tens of millions of children worldwide become gravely ill, or die every year of childhood diseases, because vaccines hurt a small population of children?

That's essentially what you're arguing isn't it?

If you want to know why vaccine skeptics aren't trusted in the Progressive political environment, it's because we are SUPPOSED to be the "reality based community". And much of anti-vaccine rhetoric sounds like something right out of the worst excesses of Right wing conspiracy rhetoric.

[seabeyond]

76. see, i saw your post asking questions and got a bet excited.

really. started out so promising, i actually got excited. then i read further in your post and it goes in the same direction.

"That's essentially what you're arguing isn't it? "

no. i havent argued anything, but thanks for stopping all desire for communication and interaction with, what appears already, a closed mind.

as you proceed with the same old tired "much of anti-vaccine rhetoric sounds like something right out of the worst excesses of Right wing conspiracy rhetoric."

anyway, i generally stay out of these threads because of the ugliness and unwillingness for each other to listen. i should have this time, too.

which brings me to my initial post that the people you want to reach will ignore these threads.

btw.... you are one of the very few that has ever said out loud

Are vaccines perfect? No, but what is the alternative?
vaccines hurt a small population of children?

[MicaelS]

83. So what is your alternative to vaccination? n/t

[seabeyond]

85. *sigh*. have i suggested anywhere there should not be vaccinations? nt

[MicaelS]

107. Then WHAT precisely is your point? n/t

[HuckleB]

108. I don't think there was one.

:shrug:

[Dorian Gray]

112. I think her point is the

contentiousness of these threads, more than anything else.

I also believe that vaccinations are truly important and all kids who are capable of receiving them should, but sometimes when I read these threads, I get aggravated at the rudeness that's thrown around. On both sides.

[HuckleB]

127. Then why did she bring so much contentiousness to this thread?

And why did she attack only one side for its supposedly "bad behavior?"

[Dorian Gray]

143. I don't know,

but I certainly understand the aggravation.

[HuckleB]

146. She offered an extremely one-sided "aggravation."

That's why I don't buy her routine. She seems to think that it's ok for her to label others with ugliness, but if anyone shows frustration, well, that's just not ok by her.

I don't buy what she's selling.

[w8liftinglady]

66. I remember us all standing in line in 1st grade=smallpox in one arm,dpt in the other

it sucked,but we got a prize at the end.
My dad got a slew of vaccines before his deployment to the Orient-he was sick for several days-but it beat the alternative...

smallpox


polio


tetanus


rubella


mumps


measles


hepatitis


influenza



And lest ye think I am an alarmist,I have cared for all but smallpox (we care for many immigants here-not all with the access to immunizations_

[Jennicut]

77. Add chickenpox on, too. My daughters got vaccines for it. I was shocked because

when I was a kid in the 80's we still got chickenpox. No vaccine. I just remember itching for days...me and my brother.

[fleabert]

81. and, unless my information is old (possible) they still could get it as adults...

whereas getting chxpox as a kid almost always gives lifelong immunity for the illness, which is much more dangerous to adults, the vaccine does not. i'm a fan of vaccines- but not the flu or chicken pox. I'll take my kid to a pox party instead, and wash the heck out of their hands and toys in the flu seasons.

now, if there's new evidence from a long term study, more than 35 years, that shows a higher rate of immunity from the chx pox vax, i'll reconsider my opinion.

just imho...

[seabeyond]

86. OMG OMG OMG you are anti science. how dare you question or have concerns

or think out loud.

[fleabert]

91. i will just sit her quietly in the shame corner...

reading studies. :-)

i try and keep an open mind- new studies come out all the time- who backs them makes a big difference imho.

I am a HUGE fan of vaccines, i just tend to support a more cautious approach. i like delayed vax, but not for all kids- those in daycare? No way. My kids? barring any medical issues unknown at this point, delayed schedule worked out with my pediatrician, and they will be breastfed 100% for min of 6 months, and bf + food until 2. Lots of natural antibodies in that lovely breastmilk :-)

[Jennicut]

88. You can get the vaccine as an adult, I believe.

Protection in only 5 years so one would have to weigh the benefits vs the risks. Some kids get life threatening complications from chicken pox, though it is rare. My kids could not get into school without it, actually.

[fleabert]

93. most states have forms that can be filled out for those that choose not to vax...

i don't know about your particular situation- no judgment.

Last time i did research (6-8 yrs ago when we first started trying) the risk for adults was much higher- both from getting it naturally and from the vax as an adult- than the risk to the under 8 crowd getting it naturally.

every decision comes with risk, and until that information is flipped, i'll opt out of the chx pox vax. I'll sign anything the state asks for - usually it's a religious objection that works. I wish a conscientious objection worked, but alas, not usually.

i do try to see both sides of this issue- but do not agree with the autism/vax argument. I am a fan of delayed scheduling (done by age of 2 or 3, or when weaned, whichever comes first) for different reasons than those mentioned in the OP.

[Jennicut]

95. I am not anti vax at all, being a diabetic I rely on the flu vaccine every year.

My kids never had issues with any vaccines and the chicken pox was does not bother me.
I didn't know about the opting out though.

[fleabert]

115. we are on the same page it seems-

nice when that happens. :-) there are plenty of good reasons for the full schedule of vax, I like that we have the right to choose what is best for our little ones, as well as for ourselves, it's unfortunate that this gives room for the rabid anti-vax'ers that make people like me tend to over explain their position ;-)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

94. It's not only available for adults, but highly encouraged.

[w8liftinglady]

98. actually,an adult that hasn't had cp is in a lot worse shape

I had a pregnant patient who caught chicken pox from her young daughter-developed varicella pneumonia and died.I can't tell you how many people I've lost to infectious diseases-many of which were young and pregnant-which is why I'm such a proponent of vaccinations during childhood,when the immune system is developing at it's peak.Yes,there are risks-but the benefits outweigh them.

[fleabert]

114. um, that was my point.

the childhood vax for chx pox doesn't offer lifelong immunity, the actual chxpox virus does if caught in childhood. hence: pox parties. the risk to adults that are not naturally immune is huge.

so sorry your patient lost her battle. so sad.

[trotsky]

99. No, having chicken pox doesn't necessarily give lifelong immunity.

See shingles for details.

Interestingly, getting the vaccine usually means the varicella virus can't hide out in the nervous system for the rest of your life - meaning, boosters required or not, getting vaccinated for chicken pox will keep you from getting shingles later in life. I know a lot of people who would have loved that option.

[fleabert]

116. my grandfather had shingles, not fun.

need to ask him if he had chx pox as a kid...his dr. said the shingles were caused by stress. meh.

still not enough evidence for me to vax my infant. I wait patiently for proof that the vax will provide more immunity later in life than the virus- not there yet unless you have a link. shingles suck, but are not life threatening the way chx pox is for an adult, which the vax does not provide.

I am open minded, but the benefits don't outweigh the risks imho. too young of a vax. I need long term studies to sway me.

The best antibodies for very young babies come from breastmilk anyway- which is why i support a delayed vax sched for 100% breastfed babies. give them time to build their immune system before loading them with vax.

[trotsky]

117. Technically he's right - shingles can be brought about by stress.

That varicella virus hides out in your nervous system waiting for an opportunity. Stress can provide that opportunity.

but are not life threatening the way chx pox is for an adult, which the vax does not provide

That's not exactly true. Worst case, you need a booster. No different than getting your DTAP booster, all of which can be nasty or even fatal for adults too. Would you rather fight those toxins "naturally"?

The best antibodies for very young babies come from breastmilk anyway- which is why i support a delayed vax sched for 100% breastfed babies. give them time to build their immune system before loading them with vax.

You are a bit confused, not only as to how that process works with antibodies, but just how much an infant immune system is "loaded" by simply being alive on the Earth, breathing air.

[HuckleB]

82. Immunizations - General Overview -- Varicella-Zoster Virus (Chickenpox)

http://health.nytimes.com/health/guides/specialtopic/immunizations-general-overview/varicella-zoster-virus-%28chickenpox%29.html

This is a fair overview of the vaccine, including the reasons for its development.

[Maru Kitteh]

92. This is very good news and very good information. Thanks!

[HuckleB]

105. Indeed. You're welcome.

[Javaman]

119. This is ground breaking?

Hell, one of my earliest memories was going to the doc with my mom to get all my boosters. I was 3 or 4 and remember it well. I was pissed. I got 4 shots and the horrid tasting polio crap. I didn't even get a lollipop for all that pain and misery.

At least my mom took me for ice cream afterward. Instead of licking it, I tried putting it on my painful and quickly swelling arm. LOL

[Tiberius]

122. Before our daughter was born...

... we had a long discussion about this. Here's where we ended up:

1) No Hep B at birth - we delayed it until later. Injecting our baby so close to birth just didn't feel right.
2) All vaccines were to be spread out as much as possible. We asked our pediatrician why so many shots are given at once - his response was that "parents found it more convenient". We said, screw convenience, we'll spread it out as much as the pediatrician will allow.
3) No flu shots.

That's how we ended up filtering all the information and arriving at a good compromise. Just like our choice to use glass bottles instead of plastic for formula.

People value "convenience" too much when it comes to these choices. Are plastic bottles with BPA harmful? Maybe, maybe not. But avoiding them wasn't a big deal.

Are vaccines harmful? Maybe. But these diseases are no joke either.

[mzmolly]

123. Too late to rec, but I'm glad to see such studies

being conducted. And I agree, we need more comparative studies. However, to say that a child may not have an immediate neurological impact because a parent delayed a particular procedure for a year or so, doesn't really say much. I think it's misleading to claim "On-time Vaccine Receipt in the First Year Does Not Adversely Affect Neuropsychological Outcomes" given we're primarily comparing vaccinated children to other vaccinated children. I'd really like to see studies that examine overall health outcomes (in developed countries) comparing vaccinated to non-vaccinated children.

Hope that makes sense?

[truedelphi]

128. Makes sense to me. n/t

[mzmolly]

132. Thanks T.

:hi:

[HuckleB]

156. What makes sense to you?

[HuckleB]

133. No, it doesn't make sense to me.

http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2009/06/a-vaccinated-vs-unvaccinated-study/

[mzmolly]

134. Your response

seems hostile I'm sorry to say. I'm not solely interested in outcomes related to autism, however if I were, I'd have a difficult time dismissing Amish studies referenced in the following article. http://outrunning-autism.blogspot.com/2010/03/vaccinated-versus-unvaccinated.html

David Kirby laid out the case for proper comparisons nicely: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/tired-of-autism-yet_b_52542.html

"When doing autism surveillance studies, The CDC usually looks at eight-year-olds, to ensure that all late-diagnosed kids are counted. It seems reasonable, then, to randomly select 1,000 (or 5,000, or whatever number is needed for statistical significance) unvaccinated eight-year-olds, and compare them to vaccinated children of the same age (born in 1999, by the way, at the height of mercury exposures from vaccines).

Will autism rates be exactly the same between the two groups, as the CDC and others would predict (especially among boys, who are four times more likely than girls to have the disorder)?

It's perfectly reasonable to assume that they will (thus disproving Olmsted's intriguing, but admittedly layperson's, report out of Chicago).

And just think what a joyous moment that would be. I, for one, would be shouting from the rooftops. I take no joy in pointing to vaccines as a possible contributor to autism, and I would be only too happy to declare the hypothesis dead in the water, and move on with my (admittedly autism-free) life with friends and family."

I think, if I had faith in vaccination not harming people, I'd want to see the studies that are being called for just to shut people up. It would certainly shut me up - depending upon the results. ;)

Again, comparing a vaccinated child to another vaccinated child doesn't support the headline in the OP.

[HuckleB]

135. Thanks for imagining hostility.

That said, David Kirby isn't qualified to outline a thing, other than his usual anti-vaccine PR. He certainly is not qualified to respond to the IACC working group in the post I offered.

Since that's all your offering, I'll offer something very thorough from someone you despise, though, if you care about actual science, I'm not sure why. Unlike Mr. Kirby, the PR artist, he's actually a scientist.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=939

[mzmolly]

142. The source you note is an unnamed entertainer by his own

admission. Is he actually a "scientist?" Who knows. In addition, he often references himself while claiming there are "multiple studies" that back him up. Not to mention he peddles false/contrary claims such as mercury has been removed from vaccines (not true). He also suggests the number of un-vacccinated children is too small to study, while claiming that there is a growing movement of people who refuse to vaccinate, because of Jenny McCarthy. Which is it?

I notice that he steers clear of studies conducted by the Infant Primate Research Laboratory at the University of Washington/Seattle in his circular rants.

Differing effects of ethylmercury in thimerosal containing vaccines

In 2005, a study Burbacher conducted confirmed that thimerosal is distributed to the brain much more readily than methylmercury, and he is now working on a follow-up project will examine the effects of the vaccine preservative on primate development. Burbacher's primate studies, funded by the National Institute of Health (NIH), have included comparisons of the effects of injected ethylmercury, the primary active ingredient in thimerosal, to those of orally administered methylmercury on macaques. His research sought to determine whether federal safety limits for methylmercury exposure are a suitable reference for assessing the effects of ethylmercury found in thimerosal containing vaccines (TCVs). His research revealed significant differences between methyl- and ethylmercury metabolism.<1>, <2>,

Burbacher determined that injected ethylmercury cleared from the bloodstream much more rapidly than ingested methylmercury. However, his study also found that a larger fraction of the ethylmercury remained in the brains of the macaques, where it was converted to potentially more harmful inorganic compounds. Burbacher did not draw conclusions regarding the relative toxicity of ethylmercury versus methylmercury, but did warn that methylmercury is unlikely to be a suitable reference for evaluating ethylmercury toxicity. The problem, according to Burbacher, is that regulators trying to assess the potential harm of TCVs used methylmercury, a widely studied compound, as a benchmark for mercury exposure, rather than the little-known compound called ethylmercury used in TCVs.

Burbacher has said "The bottom line is that trying to assess the effects of a compound with very little or no data is not a good thing to do. ... Unfortunately, we started doing studies on this compound way too late. Basic information like this should've been available decades ago."<3>

Dr. Burbacher associate professor of environmental and occupational health sciences and the director of the Infant Primate Research Laboratory at the University of Washington in Seattle, is an actual scientist who doesn't appear to have an agenda aside from finding answers.

I will say again that I don't think vaccines "cause" autism per se, but I do believe they trigger autism or "autism like illness" in vulnerable individuals like Hannah Polling (whose case was also misrepresented by the entertainer above.)

As I've said, I think the study you note above is encouraging in some ways. I simply disagree with how the results of the study are being characterized.

The last word is yours kind sir.

[HuckleB]

145. You can disagree. That's your right.

I see no basis for your disagreement. I also find your characterizations or the scientist who wrote one of the pieces I offered to be completely without basis. Calling something circular, does not mean that it is.

You have one study that brings up many questions. It's one study. Have you noticed that you tend to bring one study, that is never very confirmational in order to oppose the information found in many studies? Well, I have.

Bye.

[mzmolly]

147. The last word is yours, but I must correct something you said. I have posted information from

several studies. It's incorrect to say otherwise.

[HuckleB]

150. Not per topic, generally.

And the studies you cite are often peripherally associated at best, as is in evidence here.

:hi:

[mzmolly]

152. Ok Bub.

Not gonna nitpick your assertion as I promised you the last word, so to speak. ;)

Have a fabulous holiday. :hi:

[HuckleB]

153. Enjoy Yourself!

:toast:

[mzmolly]

154. Will do.

:D

[Odin2005]

158. David Kirby is a fraud and a liar.

[mzmolly]

159. Why of course he is.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

[Odin2005]

161. We in the Neurodiversity community have been kicking that idiot around for years.

Because he's full of shit, right along with Andrew Wakefield, Jenny McCarthy, and Autism Speaks.

[LeftishBrit]

182. First of all, I believe that many Amish people do vaccinate, though fewer than in the general

population.

Secondly, there are *many* differences between Amish and non-Amish people. The Amish live in isolated, somewhat inbred groups, which may lead to some genetic differences (there are certainly some genetic disorders to which they are more liable, so why not some to which they are less liable?) Also, they are less exposed than most people to a wide variety of potential pollutants, and they grow their own food and thus eat more 'organically' - so even if there is an environmental trigger that the Amish are avoiding, why assume that it's vaccines? There are many other environmental differences! Also, the Amish - especially those who would be likely to avoid vaccination - make relatively little use of modern medicine/doctors in general, and also do not typically use the state school system - both of which might make autism less likely to be *diagnosed* even if it occurs,

[HuckleB]

183. Yes, they do vaccinate.

From: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=2116

6. (Mercola claims) Modern medicine has no explanation for autism, despite its continued rise in prevalence. Yet autism is not reported among Amish children who go unvaccinated.

(Albietz responds) Ignorance of medicine, autism, vaccines, and the Amish, topped off by a non sequitur. Wow.

Though the causes of autism are incompletely understood, modern medicine is making continual progress. Studies of twins with autism, along with an increasing number of implicated genes show that autism has a very strong though complicated genetic basis. Given autism’s heterogeneity, it is unlikely that a single cause will be found that explains all cases of autism, and it is possible that other factors beyond genetics may play some role. Regardless of what etiologies are eventually found, some potential causes have been ruled out, including vaccines.

The apparent rise in autism prevalence is largely explained by a broadening in diagnostic criteria and increased recognition and diagnosis. This explanation is further supported by studies like the one just published in the UK demonstrating equal numbers of autistic people in all age groups.

As far as the Amish are concerned, they do vaccinate, and they do have children with autism.

[laconicsax]

184. Well of course they have children with autism!

Haven't you heard? Vaccination causes autism in 100% of cherry-picked, truth-distorted cases.

[Tumbulu]

136. makes sense to me as well. (nt)

[mzmolly]

141. Thank

you. :hi:

[HuckleB]

155. Explain what makes sense to you, why and how.

Thanks.

[Crunchy Frog]

160. This study does not look at all of the parameters of concern to me.

There is also some question as to whether the study criteria actually weeded out some children with neuropsychological issues.

In any event, I am continuing to delay some of the vaccines, and I am also splitting them to avoid so many at once, and I am completely happy with my decision.:hi:

[HuckleB]

166. Of course, it doesn't.

:eyes:

Newsflash on your repeat of the AoA baloney.

http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2010/06/addressing-the-too-many-too-soon-hypothesis/

[trotsky]

167. Hey, a parent educated at Google U is FAR more of an expert...

than those pointy-headed scientists who look at crazy stuff like "facts" and "data."

[Teaser]

177. thanks for taking a free ride on my kids' immunity

.

[xchrom]

163. kick

[HuckleB]

164. A PSA Poster That Says It All.

"Put plainly, I trust these two a whole lot more than I trust Jenny McCarthy."
http://twyst.tumblr.com/post/653605603/phoning-it-in-put-plainly-i-trust-these-two-a

[Tumbulu]

180. Why were multiple studies like this not done BEFORE

making the recommendations to give multiple vaccines to babies and toddlers?


It is my opinion that the lion's share of people who have become suspicious/scared of/worried about vaccines have become so because so many are recommended to be given at the same time to very young babies and toddlers. And ridiculing parents for feeling worried only makes them run farther away.

And that public health decisions such as "let's get rid of Hep B" are made by a group of educated well meaning people without public input as to the methods.

So, let's see more studies like this before making any recommendations. Not after the fact. Innocent until proven guilty is for people, not products or procedures.

[HuckleB]

181. Frequently Asked Questions About Multiple Vaccinations and the Immune System

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Vaccines/multiplevaccines.html

The Immunologic Basis for Neonatal Immunizations
http://neoreviews.aappublications.org/cgi/content/extract/6/10/e463

A Committee Recommendations and Conclusions from Previous Reports
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK25339/

Jenny McCarthy, Jim Carrey, and “Green Our Vaccines”: Anti-vaccine, not “pro-safe vaccine”
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=139

[HuckleB]

193. .

:kick:

[mhatrw]

185. Read the fine print

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/eletters/peds.2009-2489v1#50294

[HuckleB]

186. Ah, a letter of response.

:rofl:

And you left out the author's response to that letter: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/eletters/peds.2009-2489v1#50438

Now back to the real world.

[mhatrw]

187. I didn't leave out anything. I linked all responses.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/eletters/peds.2009-2489v1

People should read them all, including the response to the response.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: Drs Smith and Woods are or have been
unfunded subinvestigators for cross-coverage purposes on
vaccine clinical trials for which their colleagues receive funding
from Wyeth, Sanofi Pasteur, GSK, MedImmune, and Novartis; and
Dr Woods has received honoraria for speaking engagements
from Merck, Sanofi Pasteur, Pfizer, and MedImmune and has
received research funding from Wyeth and Sanofi Pasteur.

In these analyses, we first
stratified children by age in quintiles
at completion of the 2:3:3:2 series. Chil-
dren in the first 2 quintiles were con-
sidered to be the “most timely vacci-
nated” having received a minimum of
10 vaccines in the first 7 months of life.
A “least vaccinated” group was defined
as those in the cohort who received
Յ6 vaccine doses of any type during
the first 7 months of life (defined as
Յ209 days). Although a small number
of these children may have gone on to
complete the 2:3:3:2 series before their
first birthday, we included them in the
least vaccinated group because they
had the lowest density of vaccine re-
ceipt in the first 7 months of life.

So they compared kids who got 10+ shots in their first seven months to kids who got up to 6 in the first 7 months of life in the period from from 1993-1997, with two groups in between.

...

All analyses
controlled for age, gender, birth
weight, poverty status, maternal IQ,
maternal education, study site, cumu-
lative ethyl mercury exposure during
the first 7 months of life, and Home Ob-
servation for Measurement of the Envi-
ronment score.

...

Children with
later vaccine receipt had lower family
household incomes in both analyses,
although all groups averaged well
above the poverty level. They also had
lower percentages of mothers with
college degrees. Finally, there were
greater proportions of male children
and single-parent households in the
less timely groups.


Why was the study controlled for poverty status, but not economic status? Why was it controlled for maternal IQ, but not maternal age? Why was it not controlled for number of parents? Why was it not controlled for health insurance status? Why was it not controlled for number of annual checkups? Why was it not controlled for pre-school attendance and quality of schools attended?

I mean, how exactly did timely vaccination make the timely vaccinated subjects score higher on the Boston Naming Test, grooved pegboard, metacognition, and teacher Connor’s ratings for hyperactivity and inattentiveness, verbal performance and full-scale IQs?

Is there some magic elixir in these vaccines that makes you smarter? Wouldn't the more likely explanation be that the kids who were more timely vaccinates came from families with who had more money, more parents, better health insurance, more educational support and basically better parenting?

[HuckleB]

188. Sure you did.

I have gone down your anti-vaccine questioning road too many times. Your questions are insincere and pointless. The evidence that vaccines save lives and are safe is overwhelming. If you can debunk this study, then publish your debunking. If all you can do is play the usual games, then you've got nothing.

"Why? Why? Why?..." (Mobile goalposts floating in air.)

:rofl:

[mhatrw]

189. I just published my debunking on the post you just replied to.

It's another idiotic study that proves nothing except that in the mid-1990s, the parents who got their children vaccinated on time were more well-of than those who did not.

Come to think of it, the study wasn't even controlled for race. Why not?

[HuckleB]

190. What are you pretending to debunk?

:rofl:

(BTW, it appears that you haven't responded to anything recently, other than to this thread. And I do appreciate the kicks!)

[HuckleB]

194. .

:kick: