Linked below is a 29 minute report covering the Feb 2014 Senate Hearing on Vaccines and evidence that vaccines are dangerous.
Gov. Caught Lying About Vaccine Dangers
Gov. Caught Lying About Vaccine Dangers
Gov. Caught Lying About Vaccine Dangers
- Thread starter MTLynn
- Start date
I rarely if ever post on this board, but I felt the need to in this case. The perception from this video is that Wakefield's work was correct and he was somehow exonerated. This is completely inaccurate.
1. The 1998 Lancet paper in which Wakefield suggested vaccines correlated with autism is still retracted (i.e., no longer exists) and 10 of the 13 co-authors have removed their names from the paper citing the falicy of the methods. Let me write it again, 10 of the 13 authors on the paper have publicly stated the study was faulty.
2. There has yet to a single scientifically based study that has experimentally shown vaccines increase the rate of autism. There has yet to be single scientifically based study that shows correlation AND causation linking vaccines to autism.
In fact, Denmark has tracked all of its children for the past 30 years regarding vaccination and autism rates. They have found no difference in autism rates between childern that were vaccinated and those that were not vaccinated. They did identify a gentic link to autism. If your siblings had autism, you are 7 times more likely to have autism.
Also, a 2014 study compared 10 world-wide vaccine studies comparing over 1.5 million children and none of the studies found a link between vaccines and autism. It should be noted that none of these studies were funded by a pharamceutical company.
So the question becomes, why the seeming increase in autism numbers today compared to the 1980s? The answer is in the developement of the autism spectrum. Today, children can be diagnosed to have many different levels of autism. The autism spectrum used today may classify a child as "autistic" if they have a severe form or even if they are highly functioning. In the 1980's and before, autism was typically only classifed for the severe cases. People who today would be considered on the autistic spectrum, where previously not and just considered "socially awkward" or "different". If the same criteria used for diagnosis of autism today was used 30 years ago, then many believe their would not be a significant difference in cases diagnosed.
Lastly, I honestly don't get the rationale for not vaccinating your child. Yes, your child may be the 1 in the tens of thousands that has an adverse reaction to the vaccine. If my child was that one, then it would be terrible. However, without vaccines, my child would still have to worry about small pox (30% mortality rate), Polio (2-5% mortality rate for children; 15-30% of adults), measles, mumps, rubella, diphtheria, pertussis, and haemophilus. The people that are not vaccinating do so now because they have the luxury of to do so, because so many others have been responsible and vaccinated, thus dropping the risk of catching these agents due to herd immunity. Much like smallpox, if everyone would vaccinate, then we could erradicate these agents once and for all, then we would not need to vaccinate in future generations. However, by not vaccinating, you present reservoir for these agents to persist and you create a public health hazard for babies who cannot be vaccinated yet due to their immature immune system, the immunocompromised, and the elderly. Literally, by not vaccinating you are helping these agents persist instead of moving toward eradication.
Unless your child has a medical condition that precludes vaccination, vaccine your kids.
1. The 1998 Lancet paper in which Wakefield suggested vaccines correlated with autism is still retracted (i.e., no longer exists) and 10 of the 13 co-authors have removed their names from the paper citing the falicy of the methods. Let me write it again, 10 of the 13 authors on the paper have publicly stated the study was faulty.
2. There has yet to a single scientifically based study that has experimentally shown vaccines increase the rate of autism. There has yet to be single scientifically based study that shows correlation AND causation linking vaccines to autism.
In fact, Denmark has tracked all of its children for the past 30 years regarding vaccination and autism rates. They have found no difference in autism rates between childern that were vaccinated and those that were not vaccinated. They did identify a gentic link to autism. If your siblings had autism, you are 7 times more likely to have autism.
Also, a 2014 study compared 10 world-wide vaccine studies comparing over 1.5 million children and none of the studies found a link between vaccines and autism. It should be noted that none of these studies were funded by a pharamceutical company.
So the question becomes, why the seeming increase in autism numbers today compared to the 1980s? The answer is in the developement of the autism spectrum. Today, children can be diagnosed to have many different levels of autism. The autism spectrum used today may classify a child as "autistic" if they have a severe form or even if they are highly functioning. In the 1980's and before, autism was typically only classifed for the severe cases. People who today would be considered on the autistic spectrum, where previously not and just considered "socially awkward" or "different". If the same criteria used for diagnosis of autism today was used 30 years ago, then many believe their would not be a significant difference in cases diagnosed.
Lastly, I honestly don't get the rationale for not vaccinating your child. Yes, your child may be the 1 in the tens of thousands that has an adverse reaction to the vaccine. If my child was that one, then it would be terrible. However, without vaccines, my child would still have to worry about small pox (30% mortality rate), Polio (2-5% mortality rate for children; 15-30% of adults), measles, mumps, rubella, diphtheria, pertussis, and haemophilus. The people that are not vaccinating do so now because they have the luxury of to do so, because so many others have been responsible and vaccinated, thus dropping the risk of catching these agents due to herd immunity. Much like smallpox, if everyone would vaccinate, then we could erradicate these agents once and for all, then we would not need to vaccinate in future generations. However, by not vaccinating, you present reservoir for these agents to persist and you create a public health hazard for babies who cannot be vaccinated yet due to their immature immune system, the immunocompromised, and the elderly. Literally, by not vaccinating you are helping these agents persist instead of moving toward eradication.
Unless your child has a medical condition that precludes vaccination, vaccine your kids.
It's a shame this issue has become so politicized, but it has. I agree with you about vaccinations. They are generally safe and the benefits regarding their usage far outweighs any potential risks.
BTW, welcome to this folder, RaiderDawg78. That was a very good post you just made. Please stop by more often.
Again, I used to see a polio victim at least once a week when I was a boy in the 70's. You just don't see it any more. Vaccines work and those that say that are dangerous are doing harm to the children of this country and they should be ashamed.
When an industry makes billions from a product you can bet there will plenty of "science" and "news" promoting the use of their product. The 1976 swine flu fraud exposed on 60 Minutes linked below is likely the rule rather than the exception across many fields - be it medicine, food, war, environment, etc.
The swine flu fraud of 1976, on 60 Minutes
The swine flu fraud of 1976, on 60 Minutes
That's laughable, Lynn. We've been over this. You have ONE instance...ONE in which they exaggerated a bit to get people to take notice and get vaccinated. Measles, Polio, and several other diseases were all but non-existent until this anti vaccine movement came along. Now we are having measles out breaks! You are a ONE trick pony with that link. If they didn't work, or they were a scam, all of those diseases that used to be evident in our lives would still be here, but they aren't. It's clear that vaccines work, if people get them.
Studies have shown that there is no, or very little correlation between vaccines and autism. Even if there were, the autism rate for children getting vaccines is so low that it is insignificant compared to the lives it saves vs not having vaccines. They work. I've seen them work in my lifetime. Stop drawing conclusions based on fear.
Lynn,
I respect your opinion. I understand the thought that if people make money in a field, that it can be and may be corrupted. I am sure there are instances of corruption in the vaccine field. However, the overall data does not support your conclusions.
Last year in the USA, over 10 million vaccines were administered. A total of 33,000 adverse effects to vaccines were identified. Yearly, 10 - 15 % of the adverse effects would be considered severe. Now not all adverse events are reported, but to be fair not all adverse effects are actually caused by the vaccine. Assuming all reported cases were caused by vaccines, a 15% severe reaction rate, and by rounding up to attribute for under reported cases, then there is a 0.05% chance a person may have a severe reaction to vaccination.
As mentioned before, it would be terrible if you are 1 of the 0.05% of individuals that have a severe reaction. If you are 1 of those people, it doesn't matter what the odds were. However, if you look at the consequences of not vaccinating, particularly if a large number of individuals in the population do not vaccinate, then morbidity and mortality rates in the population are astronomically higher than 0.05%.
Look at the small pox vaccine. 82.5 million people were vaccinated with 4600 severe reactions (0.0056%). Smallpox had a 30% mortality rate. Think of today's travel around the world. So without vaccination, how many people would be exposed to Smallpox in the current shrinking world? I think its safe to assume, more than 4600 people would be dead worldwide from Smallpox if not for the vaccine. Smallpox has been eradicted from the human population because of vaccination.
Full disclosure. I am microbiologist with a background in infectious disease and immunology. I do this type of work of a living. I have never received a dime from a pharm company. I understand the risks that exist from vaccines. I have been involved in years of infectious disease research. I have worked as a regulator in the field. And I believe in vaccines.
I respect your opinion. I understand the thought that if people make money in a field, that it can be and may be corrupted. I am sure there are instances of corruption in the vaccine field. However, the overall data does not support your conclusions.
Last year in the USA, over 10 million vaccines were administered. A total of 33,000 adverse effects to vaccines were identified. Yearly, 10 - 15 % of the adverse effects would be considered severe. Now not all adverse events are reported, but to be fair not all adverse effects are actually caused by the vaccine. Assuming all reported cases were caused by vaccines, a 15% severe reaction rate, and by rounding up to attribute for under reported cases, then there is a 0.05% chance a person may have a severe reaction to vaccination.
As mentioned before, it would be terrible if you are 1 of the 0.05% of individuals that have a severe reaction. If you are 1 of those people, it doesn't matter what the odds were. However, if you look at the consequences of not vaccinating, particularly if a large number of individuals in the population do not vaccinate, then morbidity and mortality rates in the population are astronomically higher than 0.05%.
Look at the small pox vaccine. 82.5 million people were vaccinated with 4600 severe reactions (0.0056%). Smallpox had a 30% mortality rate. Think of today's travel around the world. So without vaccination, how many people would be exposed to Smallpox in the current shrinking world? I think its safe to assume, more than 4600 people would be dead worldwide from Smallpox if not for the vaccine. Smallpox has been eradicted from the human population because of vaccination.
Full disclosure. I am microbiologist with a background in infectious disease and immunology. I do this type of work of a living. I have never received a dime from a pharm company. I understand the risks that exist from vaccines. I have been involved in years of infectious disease research. I have worked as a regulator in the field. And I believe in vaccines.
Actually, yes.
So essentially, the seasonal flu vaccine is developed based on predictive modeling each year. Epidemiological studies are conducted in foreign countries (typicall in Asia) to survey for the specific types of flu that will are circulating. Based on what is observed, the NIAID and HHS (CDC) work to develop vaccine that will provide protection against the most likely strains of influenza that will spread to the US.
In most years, the vaccine will be highly protective against most strains of influenza that will spread in the United States. However, influenza viruses replicate poorly and often mutate. These mutations cause what is known as antigenic drift. If the virus accumulates enough mutations, it is possible to drift enough so that that antibody protection provided by the vaccine will not be 100% protective against the mutated strains. Also, influenza sometimes undergoes a phenomenon known as antigenic shift. Because of the genome makeup of flu, sometime RNA segments (influenza has an RNA based genome as opposed to DNA which adds to the mutation rate) completely change when multiple strains infect the same animal. This sharing and reshuffling of the genome results in a flu virus that appears almost completely new.
Because of these changes in the flu virus, a vaccine for one season may be protective, but a new vaccine will be required to provide protection the next year. Hence, getting a flu shot each year.
Because we know what levels of antibodies in the blood typically provide protection, we can project protection against particular strains. However, the ability to do a true "controlled" is impossible because flu genome instability and because individuals respond with different efficacies. I can get more into the specifics on this topic if you want from a scientific standpoint, but I doubt anything I say will change your mind. While the flu vaccine is not as effective at prevention as say the MMR or diphtheria vaccines, in studies comparing populations vaccinated versus not, the vaccinated populations have signficantly lower hospitalizations due to flu. Based on all the epidemiological studies I have seen, I think people should get the vaccine. Particularly if you are around elderly or young children.
For what its worth, influenza and multidrug resistant tuberculosis are the 2 most frightening microbes from an infectious disease standpoint for me moving forward. I would feel 100x better walking into a room where Ebola research was being conducted as opposed to either of the other 2.
So essentially, the seasonal flu vaccine is developed based on predictive modeling each year. Epidemiological studies are conducted in foreign countries (typicall in Asia) to survey for the specific types of flu that will are circulating. Based on what is observed, the NIAID and HHS (CDC) work to develop vaccine that will provide protection against the most likely strains of influenza that will spread to the US.
In most years, the vaccine will be highly protective against most strains of influenza that will spread in the United States. However, influenza viruses replicate poorly and often mutate. These mutations cause what is known as antigenic drift. If the virus accumulates enough mutations, it is possible to drift enough so that that antibody protection provided by the vaccine will not be 100% protective against the mutated strains. Also, influenza sometimes undergoes a phenomenon known as antigenic shift. Because of the genome makeup of flu, sometime RNA segments (influenza has an RNA based genome as opposed to DNA which adds to the mutation rate) completely change when multiple strains infect the same animal. This sharing and reshuffling of the genome results in a flu virus that appears almost completely new.
Because of these changes in the flu virus, a vaccine for one season may be protective, but a new vaccine will be required to provide protection the next year. Hence, getting a flu shot each year.
Because we know what levels of antibodies in the blood typically provide protection, we can project protection against particular strains. However, the ability to do a true "controlled" is impossible because flu genome instability and because individuals respond with different efficacies. I can get more into the specifics on this topic if you want from a scientific standpoint, but I doubt anything I say will change your mind. While the flu vaccine is not as effective at prevention as say the MMR or diphtheria vaccines, in studies comparing populations vaccinated versus not, the vaccinated populations have signficantly lower hospitalizations due to flu. Based on all the epidemiological studies I have seen, I think people should get the vaccine. Particularly if you are around elderly or young children.
For what its worth, influenza and multidrug resistant tuberculosis are the 2 most frightening microbes from an infectious disease standpoint for me moving forward. I would feel 100x better walking into a room where Ebola research was being conducted as opposed to either of the other 2.
Linked below is a 5-minute report with interviews from MD's from both sides of the debate.
I agree with Dr. Blaylock's statments at the end of the video.
Are Vaccinations Safe for Your Kids?
I agree with Dr. Blaylock's statments at the end of the video.
Are Vaccinations Safe for Your Kids?
I do not disagree with everything in this. People should let MDs know if they are sick or are immunocompromised prior to vaccination. They should also report having severe reactions to previous vaccines prior to getting vaccinated again.
However, Dr. Raiderdawg, PhD Microbiology, M.S Immunology, B.S. Biology, Postdoc fellow pathogenic bacteriology, NSF subject matter expert in bacterial physiology and NIH funded researcher, believes that vaccination, even with its low percentage of risks, and disagrees with Dr. Blaylock (the neurosurgeon).
As for Dr. Blaylock's points -
1. The link between vaccination and autism has been refuted by every reputable study conducted. What Dr. Blaylock suggests is a matter of of correlation without causation. Essentially, people who make this argument say that a child is healthy, gets vaccinated and then has autism. They completely ignore the fact that the typically age for presenting autism features (regardless of vaccination) occurs in the same age range. Why do these anti-vaccine people never address the fact that children without vaccination have the same rate of autism (see the studies referenced earlier) as the vaccinated and these children present symptoms at the same age range? The science, repeated by reputable investigators that are not part of a vast conspiracy, never backs up the anti-vaccine folks. I promise you, if I ever saw ANY data that supported vaccines cause autism, I would be the 1st to publish it.
2. Dr Blaylock has stated that the H1N1 vaccine is more dangerous that the virus. See the attached study. H1N1 infection has been attributed to over 12,400 deaths during the 2009 - 2010 pandemic year and over 274,000 hospitalizations. There were less than 5000 adverse reactions to all vaccinations last year (see above). 274,000 + 12,400 deaths > 5000.
My last point on this thread. Vaccines have a low risk to cause a severe reaction. There is no evidence that vaccines cause autism. They development of vaccines have lead to the eradication of smallpox and lowered mortality rates by infectious disease. The problem with science is when people allow emotion and bias effect their conclusions. Good science lets the data support their conclusions. The data supports the idea that it is safer to vaccinate than not. The funny thing is, those who are against vaccination are currently somewhat protected by the many that are vaccinated. Their is a direct correlation in the number of controllable infectious disease outbreaks and a drop in vacciationation rate.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21342903
However, Dr. Raiderdawg, PhD Microbiology, M.S Immunology, B.S. Biology, Postdoc fellow pathogenic bacteriology, NSF subject matter expert in bacterial physiology and NIH funded researcher, believes that vaccination, even with its low percentage of risks, and disagrees with Dr. Blaylock (the neurosurgeon).
As for Dr. Blaylock's points -
1. The link between vaccination and autism has been refuted by every reputable study conducted. What Dr. Blaylock suggests is a matter of of correlation without causation. Essentially, people who make this argument say that a child is healthy, gets vaccinated and then has autism. They completely ignore the fact that the typically age for presenting autism features (regardless of vaccination) occurs in the same age range. Why do these anti-vaccine people never address the fact that children without vaccination have the same rate of autism (see the studies referenced earlier) as the vaccinated and these children present symptoms at the same age range? The science, repeated by reputable investigators that are not part of a vast conspiracy, never backs up the anti-vaccine folks. I promise you, if I ever saw ANY data that supported vaccines cause autism, I would be the 1st to publish it.
2. Dr Blaylock has stated that the H1N1 vaccine is more dangerous that the virus. See the attached study. H1N1 infection has been attributed to over 12,400 deaths during the 2009 - 2010 pandemic year and over 274,000 hospitalizations. There were less than 5000 adverse reactions to all vaccinations last year (see above). 274,000 + 12,400 deaths > 5000.
My last point on this thread. Vaccines have a low risk to cause a severe reaction. There is no evidence that vaccines cause autism. They development of vaccines have lead to the eradication of smallpox and lowered mortality rates by infectious disease. The problem with science is when people allow emotion and bias effect their conclusions. Good science lets the data support their conclusions. The data supports the idea that it is safer to vaccinate than not. The funny thing is, those who are against vaccination are currently somewhat protected by the many that are vaccinated. Their is a direct correlation in the number of controllable infectious disease outbreaks and a drop in vacciationation rate.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21342903
I do appreciate your input on this topic as I am an information junkie. That said, don't feel obligated to respond because I will be adding additional links as time permits.
Linked below is an interview with Dr. Stephanie Seneff who talks about the role of aluminum and glyphosate in autism. She states that autism has risen since 2002.
Explanation of the Vaccine/Autism Connection
Linked below is an interview with Dr. Stephanie Seneff who talks about the role of aluminum and glyphosate in autism. She states that autism has risen since 2002.
Explanation of the Vaccine/Autism Connection
She is a computer scientist. She also says glyphosphate causes gluten intolerance and she says she knows why there is an increase in cardiovascular disease.
As stated before, the current austim spectrum was increased to include more people from previous years. Modern autism spectrum is based on the revised Autism Diagnostic Interview Revised in 2003. So I would expect the total number of individuals diagnosed on the autisum spectrum to have increased markedly since 2003.
Again, her data is correlation without causation. You can honestly use that scenario to claim any 2 variables that have increased over the past 2 decades cause each other. However, repeated studies have shown there is no autism rate differences between the vaccinated and non-vaccinated.
Accordingly,
Organic food consumption has increased over the past 20 years, as did autism. So that could be the cause of autism.
Greek yogurt consumption has increased, causation?
The number of Chick-fil-A restaurants have increased yearly since 1967, so autism is Truett Cathy's fault.
You see what I am saying? Good science tests the link between correlation before a hypothesis is supported.
Find a reputable microbiologist/virologist that has published a well designed study in a peer reviewed journal and I will absolutely be open to it. Good science should be repeatedly testable.
As stated before, the current austim spectrum was increased to include more people from previous years. Modern autism spectrum is based on the revised Autism Diagnostic Interview Revised in 2003. So I would expect the total number of individuals diagnosed on the autisum spectrum to have increased markedly since 2003.
Again, her data is correlation without causation. You can honestly use that scenario to claim any 2 variables that have increased over the past 2 decades cause each other. However, repeated studies have shown there is no autism rate differences between the vaccinated and non-vaccinated.
Accordingly,
Organic food consumption has increased over the past 20 years, as did autism. So that could be the cause of autism.
Greek yogurt consumption has increased, causation?
The number of Chick-fil-A restaurants have increased yearly since 1967, so autism is Truett Cathy's fault.
You see what I am saying? Good science tests the link between correlation before a hypothesis is supported.
Find a reputable microbiologist/virologist that has published a well designed study in a peer reviewed journal and I will absolutely be open to it. Good science should be repeatedly testable.
In the link below neurosurgeon Russell Blaylock discusses his views on vaccines and the effect on the brain.
Dr. Russell Blaylock
Dr. Russell Blaylock
