Why The Controversy? Vaccines Save Lives

[HuckleB]

http://www.npr.org/2010/11/17/131385344/why-the-controversy-vaccines-save-lives

"...

Perhaps we've become complacent. Thanks to improved public health measures — of which vaccines are a vital part — today's United States is a country largely without tuberculosis. Without diphtheria, rubella, typhoid fever. When 58,000 American children contracted polio in 1952, and a vaccine promised to curtail the misery, we were grateful. Now, having forgotten about pandemics, we're suspicious.

A large part of what protects the unvaccinated is something called herd immunity. Herd immunity means keeping the disease in check by surrounding susceptible people with vaccinated people. If a certain percentage of a population becomes immune to a contagious disease, the rest of the population enjoys immunity indirectly.

...

Granted, there are some good reasons to think cautiously about vaccinations. Side effects are rare but real. Out of every million people receiving the H1N1 vaccine, about four or five experienced serious adverse events. Meanwhile, though, more than 18,000 have died from H1N1 itself, so you have to wonder — are people just bad at math?

...

Vaccines have enabled us to finally live in a world free of diseases that have roamed the planet for millions of years. So why are we afraid to use them?

..."


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


I really don't want to repeat this message, but it appears that the anti-vaccine misinformation continues to be pushed and supported under the guise of "free expression" (apparently this means there is no need to justify what information is pushed, because, gosh darnit, the anti-vaccinationists can say what they want, no matter how baseless their misinformation is) and, well, I'm not willing to let it go unchecked.

Especially with this in mind:

Vaccination rates drop, putting more kids at risk
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40280560/ns/health-infectious_diseases/?gt1=43001

This is supposed to be the health forum, not the health scam forum.

:hi:

[HuckleB]

1. History of Anti-vaccination Movements

http://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/history-anti-vaccination-movements

In other words, fear mongering against vaccines is nothing new.

[Zoeisright]

2. One of the issues is that because these diseases have become more rare, we've

forgotten exactly how horrible they are. Vaccines save lives - you're right. And there will be massive outbreaks in the future if this trend continues, which will get people on the vaccination bandwagon again.

In other words, human beings are pretty stupid.

[sharp_stick]

4. Before I stopped practicing medicine

I remember seeing one poor little girl, probably 4 or 5, with Whooping Cough. For three days I'd walk past her room and hear her hacking her guts out, doing everything she could just to get enough air to hack again. No sleep, three days. Fortunately on the fourth day she was over the coughing and she slept for the next two.

Ever since then I made every med student in my class watch any video evidence I could find on the now rare and nearly dead infectious diseases so they would at least have an idea of how bad it could be.

I never hesitate to vaccinate my children and I never hesitate to encourage anyone who asks to do the same for theirs.

[Democracyinkind]

3. Because there's profit in denialism, whatever the topic.

People have always and will always be willing to pay anyone to tell them that it ain't so.

On the other hand, maybe our current reasoning about vaccines, at least concerning the amount and range to which we make use of them, isn't the best one on the market of ideas. But that's a far cry from the kind of moronic luddite shit that you find on vaccination-scam websites. They're the worst kind of quack dealers, online shop with "natural" stuff always right there too or some "donate and help to spread the word" scam. Gotta be careful on the nets.

[mhatrw]

6. And none in Big Pharma, of course.

[HuckleB]

7. Someone has let the cat out of the bag for good!

BIG PHARMA!!!! Roar.

:rofl:

[mhatrw]

10. Why are drug prices so much higher in the USA than anywhere else?...nt

[HuckleB]

16. And it's another red herring!!!!

Woo hoo!!!

:rofl:

[mhatrw]

28. Yes, Big Pharma's price gouging of US citizens is a red herring.

It's really funny stuff as well.

[HuckleB]

37. It is when you use your "BIG PHARMA" rant as such.

And your constant red herring usage is funny.

:rofl:

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

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

[HuckleB]

52. By whom?

Where? When?

[HuckleB]

55. By whom?

When? Where?

[Democracyinkind]

8. I'm no fan of big pharma but....

believing in stories of collusion of the whole pharmaceutical industry in order to promote some obscure agenda smells too much like NWO BS to me. I'm familiar with some of the people who ride the anti-vaccine gravy train and they're all undeniably RW kooks, people who will in the next breath tell you that it's all about an all-encompassing communist conspiracy....

I thought my post was balanced enough. Obviously not.

[mhatrw]

11. The point is that there are profit motives on both sides.

Every vaccine, like every drug and therapy, needs to be judged on its own merits using a (sometimes personal) medical risk and cost vs. medical benefit analysis.

[HuckleB]

18. It appears that docs don't make much money off vaccines...

Pediatrics. 2009 Dec;124 Suppl 5:S472-91. PMID 19948579.

Net financial gain or loss from vaccination in pediatric medical practice

OBJECTIVE: The goal was to determine the net return (gain or loss after costs were subtracted from revenues) to private pediatric medical practices from investing time and resources in vaccines and vaccination of their patients.

METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of a convenience sample of private medical practices requested data on all financial and capacity aspects of the practices, including operating expenses; labor composition and wages/salaries; private- and public-purchase vaccine orders and inventories; Medicaid and private insurance reimbursements; patient population; numbers of providers; and numbers, types, and lengths of visits. Costs were assigned to vaccination visits and subtracted from reimbursements from public- and private-pay sources to determine net financial gains/losses from vaccination.

RESULTS: Thirty-four practices responded to the survey. More than one half of the respondents broke even or suffered financial losses from vaccinating patients. With greater proportions of Medicaid-enrolled patients served, greater financial loss was noted. On average, private insurance vaccine administration reimbursements did not cover administration costs unless a child received > or = 3 doses of vaccine in 1 visit. Finally, wide ranges of per-dose prices paid and reimbursements received for vaccines indicated that some practices might be losing money in purchasing and delivering vaccines for private-pay patients if they pay high purchase prices but receive low reimbursements.

CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the vaccination portion of the business model for primary care pediatric practices that serve private-pay patients results in little or no profit from vaccine delivery. When losses from vaccinating publicly insured children are included, most practices lose money.


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


Further, vaccines don't appear to be BIG PHARMA's BIGGEST payday...

Why Are Pharmaceutical Companies Gradually Abandoning Vaccines?
http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/24/3/622.full

[mhatrw]

29. Wow! So the entire vaccine market is driven by ALTRUISM!

In contrast, anyone who questions the cost and risk vs. benefit ratios of crappy vaccines and dangerous vaccine ingredients must be driven by greed.

[HuckleB]

36. And yet another pointless red herring.

Thank you for confirming your anti-vaccine status.

That's very helpful when you pretend to be something else.

[damntexdem]

5. Too many nutcases around -- and no vaccine against nutcasery.

;-)

[mhatrw]

9. Every vaccine in history has been wonderful.

Every vaccine in history would have been a bargain at $500 a pop.

The more vaccines the better. It doesn't matter what they are protecting against. It doesn't matter what their ingredients are. It doesn't matter how efficacious they are, how long they last or what their risks are. Just get the shots. Any and all! They save lives!

If anyone says anything against any specific vaccine or questions any ingredient in any specific vaccine, he or she is a nutcase.

This is how science works. Whenever corporate scientists make anything corporations can sell to the public, this thing should not be questioned no matter what.

[kimmerspixelated]

14. Heh!

Gotta love it!

[HuckleB]

22. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=222&topic_id=75819&mesg_id=75819

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=222&topic_id=75842&mesg_id=75950

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=221402&mesg_id=221402

:rofl:

[littlewolf]

12. it is interesting ... for 20 years I took the flu shot

had to was in the military ... no choice ... and I ALWAYS got the flu ...
after I retired ... I stopped getting the flu shot ... and I have yet to get the flu ...
I know they use dead virus for the shot ... but that is basically the only change
I made .... no real lifestyle changes ...

[HuckleB]

17. Nice anecdote.

Anecdotes are worth, uh, well, almost nothing. Vaccines still save lives.

[littlewolf]

21. Yes they do ... and I am very glad for my typhoid vaccine

and Plague vaccine and Polio and dozens more that I have taken ....
it beats the alternative and if I was older or had a compromised immune system
or resp. problems I would be taking the flu shot ... I do take the pneumonia shot every year ...
so I am not saying vaccines should not be taken ...

[uppityperson]

77. Why do you "take the pneumonia shot every yr" when it's typically not recommended that often?

[mhatrw]

23. Don't EVER question ANY vaccine EVER!

It doesn't matter what your personal experience with them is!

Vaccines save lives! So get jabbed with all of them whether you need them or not.

Questioning any vaccine, vaccine manufacturer or vaccine ingredient is a mortal sin! You WILL burn in hell for all eternity if you dare to question thy Lord and Savior!

[HuckleB]

24. Nice try.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=221402&mesg_id=221402

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=222&topic_id=75842&mesg_id=76098

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=222&topic_id=75819&mesg_id=75819

Blindly ranting against vaccines at every turn offers no one any benefit, whatsoever. Your history on this topic shows the over-the-top spin you just offered to be, well, not exactly something to be taken seriously. Hilarious. But phony.

[mhatrw]

25. Name the vaccines that I have ranted against.

Seriously. I have pointed out that Gardasil's risks and costs greatly exceed its benefits for most of the US population. I have additionally warned people about the mercury in some H1N1 and flu vaccine formulations.

That's it. That's all. Gardasil is a scam and using mercury to preserve vaccines is a crime against pregnant women and little children.

Every vaccine needs to be evaluated independently, just like every medicine and therapy. Do you agree or disagree?

[HuckleB]

26. I posted links to part of your history of anti-vaccination grunt work.

I don't need to do any more. The game is over.

Just for fun, here is another: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=164655&mesg_id=164655

and another: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=222&topic_id=20712&mesg_id=20712

and another: http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=222&topic_id=76214&mesg_id=76214

[mhatrw]

27. Once again, list the vaccines I have taken issue with.

They are Gardasil and flu vaccine with thimerosal.

Is EVERY vaccine in history wonderful in your opinion? Has there ever been a SINGLE vaccine in the history of medicine that you would not recommend to everyone?

[HuckleB]

35. Do you think constantly changing the goal posts is going to change anything?

Wake up. The game is over, and there was never a point in the games you played, in the first place.

[mhatrw]

41. Is it EVER OK to question ANY vaccine for ANY reason?

Answer the question.

[HuckleB]

46. Yes.

Questioning is not the issue. Pushing lines of hooey and ignoring the reality of the abundance of evidence over and over again, over the years, is the issue.

Your history is the latter, not the former.

[mhatrw]

47. Which specific vaccine or vaccine ingredient in the entire history of vaccines

would you question personally?

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HuckleB]

73. And, as already indicated, you show that you merely wanted to play games.

It's clear that you are here to push your blind agenda. Discussion is not something you want, and honest discussion is something you work hard to avoid.

Again, game over.

[DemocratAholic]

13. people searching for the reason for autism and other diseases

I am aware that quite a few people with autistic children have attributed it to (ingredients in) vaccines. I don't know whether they are correct or not, they think they are. What they are saying is that rates of autism and similar diseases have increased over the years, and they have cited a correlation with vaccines. I think it is quite understandable that anyone affected by disease, especially those affecting children, will look for a reason. I wouldn't want to criticize those people. I do think we should constantly re-evaluate the safety of vaccines, and consider the idea that it may be possible that they may be dangerous to some people...even if they are beneficial to society as a whole. When your own child is negatively affected by something, which may be good for most other children, you are still going to look at it from your own perspective. You are still affected by the disease, even if most people are not.

[HuckleB]

20. Why Does the Vaccine/Autism Controversy Live On?

http://discovermagazine.com/2009/jun/06-why-does-vaccine-autism-controversy-live-on

[mhatrw]

30. Competing propaganda

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr-and-david-kirby/vaccine-court-autism-deba_b_169673.html

Who to believe?

Chris Mooney or RFK, Jr?

[HuckleB]

38. RFK Jr? Oh goodness.

Nice logical fallacy, btw. :rofl: Oh! He's more famous that Chris Mooney, and Chris Mooney's editors at Discover! :rofl:

The evidence is not on RFK Jr's side. Labeling everything as propaganda doesn't change that.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=198

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=414

http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2010/03/poul-thorsen-robert-f-kennedy-junior-autism-vaccines-again.html

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=58

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/06/robert_f_kennedy_jr_has_declared_a_crank_1.php

Only a few other anti-vaccine cranks top RFK Jr's lack of credentials. And yet that's what you offered.

Oh, yes, hey, down there! That's a shovel in your hand!

Translation: Posting RFK Jr's bs on vaccines does show your true anti-vaccine colors, yet again.

Thanks!

PS: Should we revisit HuffPo's anti-science credentials? :rofl:

[mhatrw]

40. Both articles are rank propaganda.

Why am I not surprised that you would paint RFK, Jr as a charlatan?

Why am I not surprised that there is an army of "skeptics" who have devoted themselves to painting RFK, Jr as a charlatan?

What are Chris Mooney's credentials?

[HuckleB]

45. RFK Jr proved he is a charlatan on these matters.

Your labels have no validity.

I doubt you've even read the Mooney piece, though I am sure you will claim to have done so.

[mhatrw]

49. I read both articles. Both were highly biased propaganda pieces.

I prefer hard science to the biased pop science "skeptic" nonsense you continually link and the "shocking" pop science muckraking of RFK, Jr.

[HuckleB]

50. Thank you for proving that you did not read the article.

(My goodness, but the obviousness of that is quite stunning.)

And also for showing that you know nothing about actual hard science or skepticism.

All you have are baseless labels and the usual anti-vax playbook. Been there. Done that.

Wake up.

[mhatrw]

53. Here's my summary of Mooney's rankly unscientific propaganda.

1) Court decisions are the last word on science.
2) Celebrities against vaccination are awful gadflies.
3) But it is OK to feel sorry for autism victims.
4) Background on the thimerosal controversy
5) A denunciation of RFK, Jr.'s "agenda"
6) The weakly supported and irrelevant (appeal to authority) claim that there is a "growing medical consensus" against RFK, Jr.
7) The invocation of the same crappy "no link found" studies that RFK, Jr, has repeatedly eviscerated as some sort of growing medical consensus.
8) a description of the celebrity vs. celebrity pro-vaccine/anti-vaccine death match
9) the 2 claims of the pro-mercury crowd: 1) autism is probably genetic (how scientific!) and 2) autism rates are not really rising (nor are global temperatures. right?)
10) speculation that since autism rates have not immediately gone down since thimerosal was removed from some but not all childhood vaccines that this disproves any possible link between autism and vaccines in general.
11) the villainization of celebrities for having the audacity of wanting to "green our vaccines".
12) the misadventures of an autism denier
13) an ode to the wonders of vaccination in general and the dangers of ever questioning vaccination of any kind
14) a diatribe against the evil of trial lawyers who try to obtain money for clients whose kids have been crippled by vaccines
15) a diatribe against the internet as a rabble rousing tool.
16) "The problem is trust." (indeed)

Now you do the same for JFK, Jr's propaganda and we'll be even.

Mooney's article was a load of unscientific trash presented to uphold medical orthodoxy while making an audience of 10th grade level readers feel a slightly more informed. Thanks for wasting everyone's time by linking it.

[HuckleB]

54. We all know that you are very good at putting words in the mouths of others.

Anyone who actually reads the Mooney piece is going to look at your rewrite and laugh, just like I am.

:rofl:

[mhatrw]

56. Whatever. At least I can read, evaluate and think for myself.

You should really try this sometime. I realize that this might be hazardous to your profession, but there are other lines of work for which such skills come in handy.

[HuckleB]

57. I've yet to see evidence of those claims from you.

All you've offered is a classic repeat of the usual anti-vax talking points.

[mhatrw]

63. Yeah. I must have copied this from somewhere else. But where?

1) Court decisions are the last word on science.
2) Celebrities against vaccination are awful gadflies.
3) But it is OK to feel sorry for autism victims.
4) Background on the thimerosal controversy
5) A denunciation of RFK, Jr.'s "agenda"
6) The weakly supported and irrelevant (appeal to authority) claim that there is a "growing medical consensus" against RFK, Jr.
7) The invocation of the same crappy "no link found" studies that RFK, Jr, has repeatedly eviscerated as some sort of growing medical consensus.
8) a description of the celebrity vs. celebrity pro-vaccine/anti-vaccine death match
9) the 2 claims of the pro-mercury crowd: 1) autism is probably genetic (how scientific!) and 2) autism rates are not really rising (nor are global temperatures. right?)
10) speculation that since autism rates have not immediately gone down since thimerosal was removed from some but not all childhood vaccines that this disproves any possible link between autism and vaccines in general.
11) the villainization of celebrities for having the audacity of wanting to "green our vaccines".
12) the misadventures of an autism denier
13) an ode to the wonders of vaccination in general and the dangers of ever questioning vaccination of any kind
14) a diatribe against the evil of trial lawyers who try to obtain money for clients whose kids have been crippled by vaccines
15) a diatribe against the internet as a rabble rousing tool.
16) "The problem is trust." (indeed)

[HuckleB]

66. And another very bizarre red herring is offered up.

:rofl:

[HERVEPA]

33. Correlation does not imply cause!!

On-line dating has increased as vaccinations increased.
A correlation!!

[DemocratAholic]

58. actually it does

That's usually where science begins investigating causes...with things that are correlations. What is true is that “correlation is not causation.” But that is what the tobacco companies used to say as well, so a lot people try and steer away from that quote. Anyway I was only repeating what I heard from these people with autistic children. I have no idea, and I don't have any opinion about this subject other than I can understand why the parents are searching for causes, and I can understand it must be difficult from their perspective because they don't know the reason why their children are autistic.

[HuckleB]

59. Lots of red herrings and pointless evasions in that response.

None of it has anything to do with the actual evidence base in regard to vaccines, however.

[mhatrw]

60. No, vaccines are sancrosanct.

No vaccine or vaccine ingredient can ever be questioned in any way!

[HuckleB]

65. And another red herring is offered up.

:rofl:

[riverwalker]

15. genealogy research stunning

I kept finding children disappearing in my genealogy research, and found it was the Diphtheria epidemics of the 1890's that had taken them. Dozens of children in my family lost, ages from babies up to age 12. You get to "know" them and their families doing research. Diphtheria is now part (the D)of the "DPT" shots our kids get now. We think nothing of it now, take it for granted. It was a dreaded, horrid merciless killer would wipe out ALL the children in a family in a matter of days.

[HuckleB]

19. Indeed. We are living in a time that has many positives.

:hi:

[semillama]

39. It was once a common expectation

that parents would have to bury at least one of their children. A friend of mine tells the tale of his grandmother telling him how lucky he was he wouldn't have to look forward to that anymore.

[mhatrw]

61. And we can attribute the US's 35rd ranked under 5 mortality rate entirely to vaccination?

Just wondering if that's the way you see it personally.

[HuckleB]

69. Get your red herring! Free! Free! Free red herring! Here!

:rofl:

[uppityperson]

78. I found something for you to use

[HuckleB]

83. Awesome!!!!!

[HuckleB]

84. Awesome!!!!!

[Dorian Gray]

31. My 8 week old is

due to get her 2 month vaccines next Thursday. As a new mommy, I know I'll probably be more freaked out than she is when she's getting them done, but I'm also thankful that they are available and my child won't have to suffer with poilio, whooping cough, Hepatitis B, or any of the other diseases that they protect against. I really and truly don't understand why people would prefer children not to be protected against these things.

[trotsky]

32. Why? I'll give you two of the reasons why I think that's so.

1) They have no reference point. They are generations removed from a time when these diseases killed and maimed indiscriminately, so they aren't able to process that part of the equation. This ties into...

2) A lack of ability to understand statistics and risk. Having no concept of what it was like before vaccines, and ONLY focusing on the tiny number of legitimate vaccine reactions (and usually throwing in all the reactions/phenomena that AREN'T vaccine-related, like autism), they aren't understanding just what the relative risk is.

We're all guilty of this - a good example of this is when it comes to plane vs. car travel. We all have heard that you're far, far more likely to get injured or killed in a car wreck on the way to the airport than you are in a plane crash. But the perceived risk is that airplane travel is more dangerous.

So the anti-vaxers are kind of like people who are deathly afraid of flying - unable to process the risk assessment. But then they also run around the Internet screaming and promoting their ignorance and trying to scare everyone else off of airplanes too.

[DirkGently]

34. People forget what we have safeguards for. The Bill of Rights. Financial regulation. Measles vaccine

We criticize rightwingers for acting as though we can ignore Constitutional protections against illegal search and seizure, or stifling free speech and a free press, because, somehow, we're "immune" to authoritarian repression in this country. We're not, and we're seeing the sad results of assuming otherwise as we speak. Likewise, banking and financial regulations and environmental protection don't somehow happen on their own. We put them in place because without them, disaster occurred, and is occurring again as they've been stripped away.

Nothing wrong with the public being skeptical of the pharmaceutical industry. There's good reason for that. I accidentally watched an entire Lunesta ad the other night, and cannot believe the drugs we allow on the market. A "sleep aid," that works by "unknown" processes, and may lead people to "eat, drive, or gamble while asleep" while engendering "suicidal thoughts?" I'd rather never sleep again, thanks.

But people have forgotten what America was like with children dying from measles and mumps; being crippled by polio. There is an element of mythology going on, where the underlying suggestion is that somehow those diseases are gone, or never existed, or don't pose a real threat, as though they are an imaginary bogeyman created to sell vaccine. That's just not the case. Vaccines save lives, and whatever's going on with autism, it isn't that.

Skepticism of the dominant paradigm is great, but it cuts both ways. Replacing one form of blind faith in the system with blind faith a compelling, but untrue storyline is no improvement.

[mhatrw]

43. Or maybe there is this one specific shitty vaccine that confers limited

protection for an unknown period of duration against a virus that can only be transmitted through skin to skin contact, typically clears the body on its own unnoticed and for which the medical practices already in place were already reducing the small rate of severe complications at a rate of 4% each and every year for the last 40 years.

Maybe this shitty vaccine was priced at an outrageous $500, dishonestly trumpeted as a miracle that prevents 70% of cancer, and unleashed on a gullible public with an all-out marketing blitz while scores of Merck lobbyists were feverishly bribing regulatory agencies and politicians to mandate the most expensive vaccination in history using taxpayer funds.

Maybe this shitty vaccine was allowed to use a highly reactive aluminum adjuvant as the "placebo" control in its safe trials. Maybe this shitty, expensive vaccine was tested on only a few hundred girls total between 9-12, even though this group was its target population for mandatory injections.

[trotsky]

44. Or maybe certain individuals have already decided they are against a vaccine...

and misquote and deceive and selectively ignore so they can rail against it.

[mhatrw]

62. Yeah, I suppose that could be it.

But what exactly explains http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=222x96825">this?

[trotsky]

64. A personal agenda and desire to employ ridiculous strawmen? n/t

[mhatrw]

67. Should each vaccine be evaluated on its own specific scientific merits or not?

What do you think?

[trotsky]

70. They should be and are. I have never, ever said otherwise.

Neither has anyone else in this forum. No one takes the silly stances you are arguing against, which is why I call them what they are: STRAWMEN.

Now the next thing you have to do is to look at *real* scientific merits and not the quack nonsense that you WANT to believe. I.e., you should look at the CDC report that YOU provided that shows 97.4% efficacy for Gardasil. Don't ignore that part. Read it and understand it.

[mhatrw]

71. LOL.

23 type 2/3 lesions vs. 27 type 2/3 lesions. And that's only counting the lesions associated with the two HPV strains Gardasil is supposed to be protecting against. So much for that supposed cervical cancer preventative.

[trotsky]

75. 97.4% efficacy

Funny how you keep ignoring that.

[HuckleB]

76. Oh goodness.

:rofl:

[mhatrw]

81. There were 23 women aged 24-45 who got serious (type 2/3) pre-cancerous HPV 16 or 18 displasias

with Gardasil's "protection" vs. 27 women aged 24-45 who got serious (type 2/3) pre-cancerous HPV 16 or 18 displasias without Gardasil's "protection".



That's your "cure for cerivical cancer." 14.8% "efficacy" against the experiment's primary endpoint. And that's NOT its efficacy against all type 2/3 HPV displasias, but only those associated with the 2 strains of HPV Gardasil is supposed to confer protection against. You can run, but you can't hide from the actual experimental results.

[uppityperson]

72. +1

[mhatrw]

42. I have a modest proposal for you.

Investigate each and every vaccine that your 8 month old receives carefully weighing its efficacy and potential benefits against its potential health risks.

Many vaccines offer protection that is worth their risk many times over. Some do not. Do not blindly trust a vaccination schedule mandated by government councils subject to lobbying efforts and biased toward protecting public health rather than the personal health of your precious child. Investigate each vaccine for yourself, at the very least by examining the manufacturer's own insert from cover to cover.

[Warpy]

79. Since when is protecting other people a bad thing?

Do you really want pregnant women exposed to rubella, which causes terrible birth defects? Do you want adult men exposed to mumps, something which causes an agonizing swelling of the testicles followed by sterility? This isn't about YOU or your precious spawn, it's about all of us.

You need to research some of the diseases you're so cavalierly tossing out as harmless nuisances. Many of them are deadly. All of them are potentially damaging.

[mhatrw]

80. What diseases was I "cavalierly tossing out as harmless nuisances"?

All I said was do your own research and don't blindly believe public health experts who have agendas other than the health your child.

You obviously understand these agendas well. Thanks for outlining them so clearly.

[Warpy]

82. This

"Many vaccines offer protection that is worth their risk many times over. '
Some do not. Do not blindly trust a vaccination schedule mandated by government councils subject to lobbying efforts and biased toward protecting public health rather than the personal health of your precious child."

ALL those vaccines protect against potentially lethal diseases except perhaps the chicken pox vaccine, one that prevents scarring in childhood and the extremely painful condition called shingles in late life.

Again, the world isn't always about you or your precious spawn. You are living in this world with a lot of other people and you don't get to endanger them because of your stupid prejudices.

Educate yourself. You're not living in a tidy little bubble.

[mhatrw]

85. So your advice is to not examine even the vaccine manufacturers' own inserts

and simply have your kid injected with whatever is recommended whenever recommended?

Because official public health recommendations have never steered anyone wrong and would never steer anyone wrong?

Don't worry about your kid's health because you are helping the world at large whenever you blindly and unquestioningly inject your son or daughter with whatever vaccine the CDC recommends whenever the CDC recommends it.

Here's an example of what I am talking about. The CDC currently recommends flu vaccinations for children from 6 months to 2 years old. However, the http://vran.org/about-vaccines/specific-vaccines/influenza-vaccine-flu-shot/safety-of-influenza-vaccines-in-children/">safety of this recommendation has not yet been determined nor has the http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=11&ved=0CBgQFjAAOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdownload.thelancet.com%2Fflatcontentassets%2FH1N1-flu%2Fvaccination%2Fvaccination-18.pdf&rct=j&q=influenza%20vaccine%20children%20efficacy&ei=VoMPTZ2SBIrEsAO64qy8Ag&usg=AFQjCNEsbx2UUkSiyuf7IT5VkjA5O5ABZw&cad=rja">efficacy of influenza vaccination for this age group been shown. For these reasons, the vast majority of European nations do not share the CDC's recommendation.

So if the efficacy has not been shown, how is influenza vaccination going to help others? And why take the safety risk?

[Warpy]

86. Any statement that begins with "so" is a strawman

including yours.

[HuckleB]

68. British Company Testing its Malaria Vaccine in Kenya

http://english.ntdtv.com/ntdtv_en/ns_me/2010-12-15/677286316829.html

[HuckleB]

74. Doctors Urge Cholera Vaccine For Haiti, Neighbors

http://news.opb.org/article/20412-doctors_urge_cholera_vaccine_for_haiti_neighbors/

"Leading public health officials and researchers are calling for a crash vaccination campaign against cholera in Haiti and neighboring countries.

A vaccine is needed, they say, to control what researchers say is a more lethal strain of cholera circulating widely in Haiti and starting to affect the Dominican Republic.

Until now, experts felt that there wasn't enough vaccine to be effective and that a vaccination campaign would distract from efforts to treat the thousands with the disease.

But a consensus is emerging around the idea that the vaccine is urgently needed.

..."

[HuckleB]

87. Vaccine studies: Examine the evidence

http://www.aap.org/immunization/families/faq/vaccinestudies.pdf

[HuckleB]

88. Why We Immunize

http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/010978.html