I've discussed several times over the last several years my impression that the media have become in general less tolerant of antivaccine views. At least, the media seem less willing to indulge in "tell both sides" false equivalence. Back when I started blogging, I routinely used to bemoan how news stories about vaccines or autism would almost inevitably include obligatory quotes from antivaxer like J.B. Handley, Jenny McCarthy, and sometimes even Andrew Wakefield. More recently, over the last five years or so, such tropes seem a lot less common. I don't have any solid evidence to back up my impression, but I'm not alone in it. I'd like to think it was because of evidence, but generally I've attributed much of this change to the the downfall of one of the most famous antivaxer of all (at least before the rise of Donald Trump, and even then most people didn't know that he has antivaccine views), Andrew Wakefield. When Wakefield lost his medical license and the was revealed to be a fraud, it provided a handy shorthand way to dismiss antivaccine views. Again, that wasn't my preferred way to have won people over, but stories tend to be more effective than evidence.
It's against that backdrop that I came across a story about a study examining how the mothers of unvaccinated children are viewed by other people. From the story in the Vancouver Sun:
Mothers of unvaccinated children are judged harshly by other people and their children are more likely to be shunned by other families, according to a study from the University of B.C.
And it really matters why the child is unvaccinated.
Those moms who outright refuse to vaccinate their kids are viewed most negatively, said co-author Nicholas Fitz, now a research associate at Duke University in Durham, N.C.
“On measures of social distance — like would you let your child befriend an unvaccinated child or work on a school project together — across the board unvaccinated children suffered from stigma,” he said. “People felt the most anger and the least sympathy for the refusal group and viewed the mothers as a danger to the community.”
But, because of the perceived health hazard, the child is most likely to be shunned.
“They don’t want the family to move into the neighbourhood … and they don’t want their children to play with (unvaccinated) children,” he said.
The authors Carpiano et al discuss how parents in the US are frequently judgmental of each other in the introduction to their study and then point out that vaccination status has become another area where judgmental attitudes can come into play:
In addition to these cultural expectations, media coverage of undervaccination has heavily focused on “anti-vaxxer” parents (mostly mothers), who refuse vaccinations for their children. This small, but vocal proportion of parents of the total undervaccinated population—more likely to be white and higher SES and thus with greater capacity to undertake healthy practices—are (a) known for rejecting certain evidence-based medical recommendations, (b) engaging in emotionally-, time-, and (often) financially-absorbing “intensive mothering” practices centered extensively on managing a child's development; as well as (c) often identifying with essentialist notions of mothers as the best caregivers for their children (Reich, 2016 ; Hays, 1998). Popular media has even characterized anti-vaxxers as dangerous (e.g., Sriram, 2015). This attention paid to anti-vaxxers has contributed to misconceptions and even stereotypes about other vaccine-hesitant parents who refuse or delay vaccinations for their children (e.g., Haelle, 2015).
Of course, antivaxers are dangerous, but I always try to distinguish between vaccine-hesitant parents who have fallen under the sway of antivaccine views and the hard core antivaxers themselves, who spread the message. The former can be reached; the latter are virtually unreachable with rare exceptions.
In the study by Carpiano et al itself, the authors consider three issues:
- Is undervaccination stigmatizing for the parent and the child?
- Do stigmatizing attitudes depend on the reason for undervaccination?
- What are the policy consequences of undervaccination attitudes?
Guided by these issues, the authors sought to investigate three questions:
- To what extent does the causal reason for a child's undervaccination status predict people's: a. Evaluations of child undervaccination (in terms of attribution theory-based emotional reactions and/or mother judgment-based differentness, credibility, and dangerousness) and b.Stigmatizing behavioral orientations (i.e. social distance and discrimination) towards undervaccinated children and their parents?
- Do people's evaluations of child undervaccination explain differences in stigmatizing orientations observed across different undervaccination reasons?
- Do these undervaccination evaluations and stigmatizing orientations predict support for specific child vaccination policies?
Carpiano et al examined these questions by designing a survey-embedded vignette experiment that was administered in 2015 using Amazon's Mechanical Turk (MTurk), an online crowdsourcing Internet marketplace that allows individuals and businesses (referred to as Requesters) to coordinate the use of human intelligence. It's a tool that's been increasingly used to recruit subjects for social science experiments like this one. Carpiano et al designed a survey-embedded vignette experiment with checks for whether or not the participants paid attention to the instructions and had understood the survey items. Overall, the sample surveyed included 1,469 participants representing at least 46 US states and Washington, DC. The four vignettes were about a mother who either has:
- Concerns about vaccinations and has decided to refuse vaccinations for her child (“refusal”).
- Concerns about vaccinations and has decided to delay some of her child's vaccinations (“delay”)
- No concerns about vaccinations but whose job and family demands have made it difficult to schedule medical appointment so her child has only received some vaccinations (“time constraint”)
- No concerns about vaccinations and has decided that her child always receives recommended vaccinations (“up-to-date;” the control condition).
The mother in each vignette was randomized to be:
- either white (and named “Molly”) or Hispanic (and named “Maria”)
- either high or low socioeconomic status (in terms of education and job).
The authors note:
We selected Hispanic (versus White) because, in addition to Hispanic being a minority demographic group in the US, at the time we developed the study (i.e. following the Disneyland measles outbreak), politicians and pundits had publicly raised concern about illegal immigrants (often portrayed as being Hispanic) being unvaccinated and thus posing a risk for spreading disease (e.g., see Kessler, 2015). Hence, randomizing the mother's demographics enabled us to determine if they influenced respondents' reactions to the undervaccination condition at hand. As further context, US White and Hispanic children ages 19–35 months had similar 2014 national coverage rates for most vaccines and dosages (Hill et al., 2015).
The authors then asked questions about how the parents in the vignettes were viewed, stigmatizing behavioral orientations, and policy support. Results of evaluation measures for the vignette parents are shown in this figure:
Basically, undervaccination reflected negatively on the mohter. Anger and blame at the mother were highest for mothers refusing vaccines, less so for mothers who were time-constrained. These time-constrained parents also evoked much more sympathy than the other groups, which makes intuitive sense.
Here are the results on stigmatization:
What these results suggest is that both unvaccinated children and their parents are socially stigmatized, but that the child is stigmatized more than the parents, as the differences in the scores between fully vaccinated children and the undervaccinated were much greater than the differences in stigmatization between the parents. The authors themselves note in the discussion:
Third, participants reported even stronger social distancing attitudes towards the undervaccinated child than the mother. This suggests that children bear the bigger burden in undervaccination—in addition to not being protected from one or more vaccine-preventable diseases, they may be the recipients of courtesy stigma via the stigma of their parent's decision/inaction (Phelan et al., 1998). We further discuss this idea below in relation to advancing stigma research.
It also turns out that those who read different vignettes also ended up with different attitudes towards what should be done to encourage vaccination. Those who read the refusal vignettes tended to be more supportive of punitive measures, such as banning unvaccinated children from school, but the differences were not large. For instance, those who read the vaccine refusal vignetted were only 24% more likely to support banning undervaccinated children from school. In addition, those who read the delay condition were only 15% more likely to support more education and services and 16% more likely to support reporting school vaccinated rates, while those reading the time constraint condition were 30% less likely to support a fine or a tax on parents of undervaccinated children.
So basically, the results of this study show that negative portrayals of antivaxers appears to be having an effect. However the message is being received, via the media, the Internet, or other sources, the parents of undervaccinated children are viewed negatively, and the reason matters. Outright refusers are viewed the most negatively, and time-constrained parents the least. The latter group even provokes a fair measure of sympathy. This does not bother me. What does bother me is that the children are stigmatized more than the parents. It bothers me because it is not the children's fault that they were born to parents who won't protect them from infectious disease, whatever the reason for their refusal or delay of vaccines.
The authors, to their credit, tackle the issue head on. They note that social stigmatization can work in changing behavior, noting the most obvious example, smoking. They then point the similarities and differences between smoking and vaccine policies:
Our investigation also informs stigma research more generally. First, it highlights the interplay of evaluations and consequences for the parent and child. Stigma research has considered how family members of stigmatized persons can also be stigmatized as recipients of courtesy stigma (Phelan et al., 1998). Child undervaccination extends the courtesy stigma concept, as the focus of the stigma is both the parent and the child—for mutual and distinct reasons. A child's (under)vaccination status is a consequence of the parent's actions, regardless of whether those actions are by choice or constraint. This status is beyond a child's control, yet the child bears the burden of any negative consequences from parental (in)action. Thus, the child risks being doubly stigmatized as both the identified child of a vaccine-hesitant parent and a perceived health risk.
Second, our focus on stigma of undervaccinated children and their parents provides important angles to scholarship on the ethics of using stigma (or more broadly, denormalization) as a policy tool for modifying behaviors (see debates between Bayer, 2008a ; Bayer, 2008b and Burris, 2008; and Bell et al., 2010 ; Bayer, 2010). Given that vaccinations are necessary for ensuring the health of a community (including people who cannot be vaccinated), they juxtapose individual and public rights (as well as the role of government). This situation is similar to anti-smoking policies and second-hand smoke, but is more complex in that it entails the parent (as the decision maker) and child (as a beneficiary and health risk). This additional dimension is essential in ongoing debates about stigma and policies that aim to address adult and child health conditions and behaviors (e.g., eating unhealthy foods, obesity).
Of course, hard core antivaccine parents feed on any perception of stigmatization. How often have you read posts by such parents ranting about how they feel judged when interacting with health care providers, the press, and others? They revel in painting themselves as the persecuted minority, sometimes going to ridiculous extremes, such as donning a yellow badge with a syringe on it patterned after the Yellow Star of David that the Nazis required Jews to wear, thus likening their "plight" to that of the Jews during the Holocaust. Indeed, antivaxers are quite enamored of Holocaust analogies, either with vaccines causing a Holocaust or laws requiring children to be vaccinated before they can attend school being likened to Nazi-ism. Even mildly vaccine-hesitant parents can be turned off by excessive judgment.
Basically, stigmatization is highly problematic because it is the children who suffer far more than the parents, even as they are unnecessarily left vulnerable to infectious diseases. Also, we basically know that stigmatization only makes the beliefs of committed antivaxers stronger and increases their will to resist. However, this group of antivaxers is, as I pointed out at the beginning, different from the mere vaccine-averse. Their numbers are smaller, even though they are much louder and more responsible for spreading antivaccine beliefs. The question is whether stigmatization has an effect on vaccine-hesitant parents and whether it makes them more likely to vaccinate or less likely—and at what cost, given that it is the children who suffer far more than the parents. While it's encouraging that parents of undervaccinated children are not viewed favorably because it indicates that pro-vaccination views predominate and that the reason for not vaccinating matters, we have to ask: How can we as a society maximize the social pressure to vaccinated without harming the very children that suffer from not being vaccinated? The answers to those question await further research.
- Log in to post comments
/stigmatization is highly problematic because it is the children who suffer far more than the parents
I have not read the Sun article or the original one but it strikes me that the "stigmatization" of the children may not be so much stigmatization as simple self-defence.
An un-vaccinated person, adult or child, is a time bomb. I would not want a child of mine associating with such a person. Heck, I would not want to associate with such a person.
As a poor analogy, I live in an area where rabies was endemic and still occurs despite heroic efforts by the provincial and federal governments. I would not even think of petting a dog that I knew had not had their rabies vaccination.
I am sorry for the children who are stigmatized (shunned?) but it is morfe a case of child abuse by the parents than a problem with other people.
jrkrideau said exactly what I wanted to say. The isolating of unvaccinated children is to protect other children.
I share Orac's concerns about unvaccinated children bearing the burden of their parent's foolish decisions. Children can be very cruel to one another, and young children in particular cannot understand the reasoning of adult decisions. Teens need to be able to form stable peer groups.
This is the kind of issue that can have a negative impact on social development.
I have no idea what the answer to this problem is, but dismissing it as "them's the breaks, vaccination is too important" is not it.
Exactly. It's way more complicated than simplistic dismissals and the apparent lack of empathy for the children of antivaxers and the vaccine hesitant. How far should people go in stigmatizing children who had no part in the decision not to be vaccinated? How do we protect our children without adding to the harm unvaccinated children are already suffering?
I don't think it's as simple as those children being isolated for defense. I do hear people talk about them in ugly terms. That is a problem. Vaccine-deprived children are victims. I think social anger about non vaccinating is needed to get policy changes, but we need to consider the cost.
This is important work, and I hope they continue and look at the other questions Orac mentioned - how does stigmatizing affect vaccines hesitant parents.
Yes. I've occasionally seen provaxers describe unvaccinated children in the same sort of ugly terms that nativists use to describe immigrants, as "dirty," spreading filth and disease, etc. I must confess myself to having occasionally drifted in that direction in the past, but I'm trying to watch myself to stop from doing it in the future. These children are victims; they didn't choose not to be vaccinated. We should not forget that. It might be necessary to isolate them by keeping them out of school and daycare to protect others, but if it's done abusively and punitively it will harm them.
Of course, AVers *never* stigmatize vaccinated children....
Another excellent reason not to stigmatize the children of antivaxers. We don't want to emulate antivax behavior.
I've been accused many times of making fun of children who are "vaccine damaged." When I ask for evidence of my actions, I get only evidence of me berating anti-vaccine parents. Children are, as you and others have stated, innocent in this whole discussion. Even if the kiddos are at protests with their parents, holding signs and whatnot, they don't know any better. Adults, on the other hand, should know better... For them I have no patience.
I actually divide such parents into two groups. There are the real antivaxers. For whatever reason they've come to believe that vaccines are dangerous, and nothing will change their minds. These sorts of parents are relatively few in number and are the "leaders" of the antivaccine movement. They write the blogs, form the organizations, make the videos and movies, show up on TV and other media, and support the bogus science claiming to find that vaccines cause autism. With them I have no patience and tend view our job as trying to inoculate parents whom they can influence from their malign views, because changing the minds of such parents is incredibly difficult and rarely successful.
Then there are the vaccine-averse. They tend to be the ones who have heard scary things about vaccines (often from the former group) and are taking what they view as a cautious, reasonable path. These parents range from being almost part of the first group to being just mildly scared when their children are vaccinated. As I've said many times, if you don't have the scientific background to recognize antivaccine misinformation, that misinformation can sound very convincing and it is not unreasonable to take precautions. These are the parents who are reachable, and for them we must have patience for the good of their children.
I think a missing vignette is where the child is not fully vaccinated because of a reason recognized by national health authorities as a good reason not to get certain vaccinations (e.g., had a life threatening reaction to the first DTaP so does not get the second). How would the children and parents be treated then?
jrkrideau (#1) writes,
An un-vaccinated person, adult or child, is a time bomb.
A "time bomb" is defined as a process or procedure causing a problem that will eventually become dangerous if not addressed.
A vaccination could be a "time bomb" by definition in that it's a process or procedure that may become dangerous (i.e., contraindications) if not addressed.
Are parents who fail to immunize their children simply over- reacting to the vaccination "time-bomb effect"?
If this is the case, social pressure to vaccinate may increase their will to resist.
In my opinion, if medical science fails to eliminate vaccine contraindications there will always be a small number of parents that break the social contract of herd immunity.
In a worst case scenario, increased social-pressure to vaccinate may turn into bullying and that is a sickening thought.
@MJD-There are legitimate contraindications to vaccination-for example, immunocompromised patients often cannot receive live virus vaccines. These patients, who, for legitimate medical reasons, cannot be vaccinated, rely on herd immunity and are (along with infants who have not yet been vaccinated) the ones who are endangered the most by ignorant parents who refuse to vaccinate their children.
Also, MJD, this post is discussing children who are unvaccinated not because they have a legitimate reason why they cannot be vaccinated, rather, it is discussing children who could be vaccinated, but are not because their parents are misinformed. There is a huge difference.
I don't think that children with a legitimate medical reason why they can't be vaccinated would face stigma, much less "bullying", because they are unvaccinated.
For one thing, in many cases, a serious illness (e,.g., acute leukemia), that those in their schools/communities would be aware of, would be the reason why they couldn't be vaccinated.
Since vaccination is a medical procedure and therefore private personal information, it seems to me that any stigma experienced by the child would only be because the parent chose to share their child's vaccination status with others. That's on them unless/until our society starts demanding unvaccinated individuals be publicly identified whether with yellow stars or pick triangles or some other easily visible means. I don't think that is likely to happen.
@Orac-Ginger Taylor springs to mind when you mention the first group.
It's quite a conundrum. On the one hand I agree that children of antivaxers are victims and don't deserve social isolation. On the other hand I've already vaccinated my child, mostly to protect him but also with the vulnerable (such as unvaccinated children) in mind. Should I go even further and encourage interaction between my child and an unvaccinated child? That feels too risky to me.
If your kids are vaccination, why do you consider it risky for them to associate with an unvaccinated child? It's very unlikely that both the unvaccinated child is infectious for a VPD and your child's vaccine won't provide protection against that disease.
This is a common trope used by antivaxers: "If vaccines protect your child, then why would you be worried about your child playing with my unvaccinated child?"
I call it a trope because it is one. Vaccines are never 100% effective. The measles vaccine is one of the most effective vaccines there is, well over 90% effective after the full series, but even that level of effectiveness still means that a small but significant minority of children vaccinated against measles are not immune. So CC's concerns are not irrational. It's a real issue. Certainly I agree with CC that at least I wouldn't encourage interaction between one's child and the unvaccinated.
@Orac-Regarding reaching the second group--the "vaccine hesitant", I think that a clear discussion of the dangers of the diseases might be effective. Perhaps watching a video in which the parents of a child who died of a VPD speak about their loss, or a video of a polio survivor discussing their illness, and subsequent permanent disability, would go a long way towards convincing the second group of parents to vaccinate.
I think that part of the problem is not just the misinformation regarding autism, but also that the vaccines have been so successful that some people no longer really fear the diseases that they prevent., and therefore having vaccine-hesitant parents watch a video that illustrates that the dangers of skipping vaccination is very real might be effective.
I also think a video might be more effective than just a doctor discussing the dangers of VPDs, since people could personally relate to a video more than they would a doctor discussing what they might view as "hypothetical" risks.
Like jr and Julian, I question the whole issue of "the kids bear the stigma". This is the kind of thing that gets me POed about "social science" – a brute quantitative measure of an ill-defined and uncontrolled subjective concept ('stigma') as if it was some concrete, coherent and consitent property. Duh, of course you can expect parents to express "social distance" from potential sources of dangerous infectious disease. But this is not necessarily "stigma". That is, while parents may not want their kids to befriend or be schoolmates with an unvaccinated kid – they may still view that kid with sympathy and compassion as a victim or irresponsible parenting.
There is simply no nuance or depth in survey research. In this study, the results probably have as much to do with the way the "vignettes" were written than with the set of attitudes out in the world the authors were trying to study. The way a parent responds to a hypothetical kid identified as "an unvaxed" will be different from how they respond to a real 3-dimensional non-vaxing family down the block who have been their neighbors for years (for good or ill, among other things).
Social scientists are often masters of hiding their biases and motivations, not just from others, but from their own spheres of cognition. I take these authors expressed concern for the supposedly stigmatized un-vaxed kids as a form of propaganda working to guilt-trip vax-hesitant parents into doing the right thing out of fear their kids will be socially/psychologically harmed. While likely over-stated, I guess it's still legitimate enough a persuasion strategy...
Also, you ignore that children live in households and communities. My vaccinated child also has a younger brother who is too young to have received all his vaccinations. My vaccinated child and I also regularly see parents of children who are immunocompromised in addition to being in regular contact with the elderly. No one lives in a vacuum.
Focusing on the individual is part of the reason the "your kid is vaccinated so why do you care" argument is so misleading.
This article from Washington Post that looked at the relationship between education, skepticism, and support for mandates might be interesting and related:
Because these parents are likely readers of Social Science & Medicine?
I also note that this study rated very little news coverage. It was really only by chance that I came across the one news report about the study that I saw. If the authors were trying to guilt trip vaccine-hesitant parents, they sure are doing a crappy job of it, given that their study got very little news coverage.
Orac, I'm not saying it not possible for a vaccinated child to contract a VPD from an unvaccinated child, I'm saying it's extremely unlikely because it requires the confluence of two rare events - that a) your child was not immune despite the vaccine (rates vary by vaccine, but most are effective in more than 90% of recipients) AND b) the unvaccinated child is contagious for a VPD but not showing symptoms of illness. If you assume that the vaccinated child has a 10% of not having immunity (a high estimate) and the unvaccined child has a 1% chance of being infectious without displaying symptoms (again, a high estimate), then the probability of your vaccinated child might contract a VPD is only 0.1%. In other words, even with high estimates of the probabilities of those events, CC can be at least 99.9% certain that his/her child will not contract a VPD as a result.
Personally, I wouldn't consider that a risk worth actively avoiding (I find the security of having vaccinated my child sufficient for my comfort level) but it's up to CC whether that is worth the effort to both find out the vaccination status of potential playmates and avoid contact with those who are unvaccinated. My point was that the risk is quite low under normal circumstances and I was curious how CC evaluated it and decided it was too high for his/her comfort level.
Even accepting your numbers that would be a 0.1% risk per encounter. Kids can easily have hundreds of encounters with their friends over the course of years. Those risks add up.
@Jinny Suh #22 - I'm aware of this issues, but I don't think those risks played into CC's concern as stated in #17.
@Orac - exactly. What anti-vaxers fail to realize as well, is that a similar percentage of people will also not gain immunity, even if they got the disease naturally. There are plenty of individuals who suffered multiple infections of chicken pox or even measles, because their body could not develop the antibodies necessary.
In today's world. where international travel is commonplace, any disease is merely a plane-ride away.
Orac, no, that's not the risk per encounter. But I didn't make that clear, so let me be more explicit. I was taking the 1% chance of a child being infectious but symptomatic as cumulative, for any particular encounter, the probability that a child was infectious would be orders of magnitude lower than 1%. Even during an outbreak, as in Minneapolis, the probability that any particular child is currently contagious without showing symptoms is considerably lower than 1%.
Jonas (#13) writes,
-There are legitimate contraindications to vaccination-
Absolutely, and at the top of the list is a severe allergic reaction (e.g., anaphylaxis) after a previous dose or to a vaccine component.
The unpredictability of allergic reactions from vaccine components and their packaging (e.g., Orac's restriction for MJD) is a real "time bomb".
Again, medical science has failed to eliminate such vaccine contraindications and thereafter continue to administer a defective product-by-process.
Unfortunately, children are not immune to a vaccine learning-curve that seems to have plateaued.
Q. Do vaccine safety advocates have a right to preach and practice exclusionary measures in an effort to accelerate vaccine continuous-improvement.
@Beth - funny that you consider that risk to be "minor." Because where you compare that percentage to the percentage chance of a serious adverse reaction to a vaccine.....which works out to about 0.00013% (or 1.3 ten-thousandths of a percent), it's obvious which is the safer course of action.
Heheh. You beat me to it. That's where I was leading. No problem, though. It doesn't matter if it's I or someone else providing the message, as long as the message is provided. :-)
Remember a few years ago, when a 17-year old girl ("Cassandra C" was forced to undergo chemotherapy for Hodgkin's disease, against her will and against her mother's wishes?
It amazes me that the state will intervene in that case, where the person in question was almost old enough to make her own medical decisions, and where refusing treatment affected *only* her, and did not endanger anyone else, when the state will not intervene to ensure that children are vaccinated (refusal of which not only endangers the health of the child in question, but also the health of those who are exposed to them).
Obviously it's not a perfect comparison, considering that, without chemotherapy, Hodgkin's disease is fatal, but I still think it's a comparison worth making.
Sadly, I recall seeing last year that Cassandra C had suffered a relapse, and was not going to have chemotherapy to treat the relapse, so, unless she changes her mind and decides to undergo chemotherapy, it seems almost certain that she'll die from her illness.
Ignoring that measles is perhaps the most contagious disease on the planet.
It is a testament to the effectiveness of the vaccine that there has only been 73 cases....at least 68 of them completely unvaccinated.
And you're still wrong Beth - Orac's math is correct, your's is not.
Beth: "If your kids are vaccination (sic), why do you consider it risky for them to associate with an unvaccinated child?"
Beth: "I’m not saying it not possible for a vaccinated child to contract a VPD from an unvaccinated child, I’m saying it’s extremely unlikely"
There's more to this story than vaccines not being 100% effective. Beth may wish to educate herself about risks to children who can't be protected by vaccination due to primary or acquired immunodeficiencies. Should the parents in the following case be criticized for "shaming" parents who avoid vaccination or for "shunning" their unvaccinated kids?
Personally, I have some fundamental issues with parents who intentionally not vaccinate their kids.....I don't feel comfortable having my children exposed to that kind of thinking - it's just ignorance.
@Lawrence - I consider the risk of adverse reactions to be well worth the benefit of vaccination for most vaccines so I agree with you on that point.
And which ones do you not, and why?
The "American Loon" ignores the studies and evidence that anaphylaxis has been shown to occur in vaccinations at a rate of less than 1 in 1 million......
What this discussion does bring home for me is the question of how am I going to work with the vaccine adverse once I begin professional practice as an FNP.
During the Spring Semester, I did my Women's Health rotation in an affluent practice where many of the mother's to be were heavily into woo. I always felt like I was walking a fine line with some of these ladies who instantly shut down when I discussed influenza and TDaP vaccinations with them, or where convinced Hep B was bad for their babies . . . and of course, there was the issue of the fact I was a guest there, in a student role. I met some actual anti vax folks there, not just vaccine adverse.
In a few weeks, I head to Iowa for four and a half weeks for my Peds rotation. I don't know what I'll find when I get there, but I have no doubt I'll run into vaccine adverse parents, though perhaps not anyone anti-vax.
Seriously . . . I'm trolling for suggestions. How DO you approach someone who's vaccine adverse without driving them into the arms of the antivaxxers?
Anaphylaxis from a vaccine is EXTREMELY rare, so much so that even bringing it up is kind of silly.
Not to mention that it's pretty much irrelevant to this thread, since vaccine-averse parents don't refuse to vaccinate their children because they are concerned about a TINY risk of anaphylaxis, they refuse to vaccinate their children because they mistakenly believe that vaccines could cause autism, or because they mistakenly believe that "natural immunity is better" (another common anti-vax trope).
And while I shouldn't even have to say this, are you aware, MJD, that the risk of acute encephalitis from measles (13 in 1,000 measles patients, per the review article in Clinical Infectious Diseases) is vastly higher than the extremely small (maybe one in 1-2 million) chance of anaphylaxis from a vaccine?
It seems that you are either unaware of this, or, more likely, you are aware of it, but choose to wildly exaggerate the minute risk of anaphylaxis from a vaccine, while not mentioning the serious risk of encephalitis and other severe complications from measles and other VAPDs, to further your anti-vax agenda.
Sure, the vaccinating parents shouldn't stigmatize the unvaccinated children, but there's no reason for the vaccinated children not to do so. Child-child interactions might be more productive than parent-parent interactions.
Mom, the other kids won't play with me because they say I haven't had the vaccine against cooties!
@Lawrence #40: Since you asked, I will answer your question. I understand that others may disagree, but I'm not particularly interested in debating these opinions. I'd rather just agree to disagree.
I'll assume your asking about areas where I disagree with the current CDC recommendations, not about vaccinations for diseases like smallpox and yellow fever. We didn't deviate much from the CDC recommendations for our kids although we did insist on the killed polio vaccine back when the live vaccine was recommended.
In general, because the risk of catching the disease can spike overnight in the case of a local outbreak, I find vaccinations worthwhile for easily communicable diseases like measles and mumps. The exceptions would be for relatively mild diseases like the flu or chicken pox (although I did vaccinate my kids for that) because the risk of serious harm from the disease is very low. In those cases, it's not that the risk of the vaccine too high (they are very safe), but that I don't consider the risk from the disease to be sufficient to necessarily justify the cost ($ and time) but I don't object to them and would get them when it was convenient.
I don't agree with the CDC that newborns need to be vaccinated for Hep B when no one in the immediate family has it. I'm not currently convinced that HPV is worth the risk for boys although the evidence for that is still coming in. Since neither of these are easily communicable diseases, I don't think they should be required for school attendance nor are they relative to the current discussion about the risk of letting your vaccinated children play with an unvaccinated friend.
@Lawrence (#38). You're right. And the same type of thinking that leads parents not to vaccinate can lead them to make other poor choices-for example, I bet anti-vax parents would be much more likely to buy raw milk products (which are potentially quite dangerous), or to treat potentially serious illnesses with quackery like homeopathy rather than taking their children to a real doctor.
Anti-vaxxers are usually hostile to science in general.
@Beth-You are wrong. Even previously healthy children can die from the flu. Almost all children who have died from the flu were unvaccinated. Look up the website Families Fighting Flu and read some of those families stories, and you might think differently about the necessity of the flu vax.
As for Hep B, while the risk of a child getting Hep B might be low, why not protect them? There is no way to predict what they might eventually be exposed to, and Hep B actually can be transmitted more easily than many people think. You can get it from sharing toothbrushes or razors, for example.
And the HPV vaccine is necessary for boys. Even if one were to assume that males were not at risk for HPV-associated cancers (they are), vaccinating them would still be needed to protect females. Besides, like I said, men do get HPV-associated cancers, for example, many cases of head and neck cancer are caused by HPV infection.
Also, Beth, you might want to reconsider your view of chickenpox as "mild".
I had chickenpox as a child. I didn't consider it "mild." In fact, it's one of the few things I remember from that early in my life because it made that much of an impression on me. I was so sick and miserable.
Plus, the varicella-zoster virus doesn't just go away-it oftentimes later resurfaces as shingles, which is often extremely painful.
Lawrence (#41) writes,
...anaphylaxis has been shown to occur in vaccinations at a rate of less than 1 in 1 million……
Did you notice that the CDC used anaphylaxis as an example of a severe allergic reaction.
Another severe allergic reaction, not mentioned by the CDC, would be vaccine-induced allergies suspected in the etiology of REGRESSIVE AUTISM.
Oh....I wish I had the freedom to speak openly here at RI in the absence of Orac's auto-moderation proclivity. :-(
And that's the reason why you remain in automoderation. The last time I let you out it didn't take long at all before you were back to your old ways.
I used to think that. Then I caught a case of the flu. Not a bad cold. Not a upper respiratory illness. For darn sure not the 'stomach flu'.
I had fever. I had chills. I ached, and I ached everywhere. And I did all that for several days straight. Come the second week, those symptoms finally went away, but it left me weak as a kitten for a few more days. I missed almost 2 weeks of work, and, frankly, wan't much use when I went back.
I make darn sure I get a flu shot now.
There's a lot of things that get called 'flu' that aren't. But if you or yours ever come down with the real flu, I'll bet you change your mind about the flu shot.
Yep. I got the flu 9 years ago. It was before the flu vaccine was mandatory, and for some reason I foolishly didn't get it. I think part of the reason was because I was too busy wrapping up my old job in NJ and preparing for a new job in Michigan. In any case, it knocked me on my ass for a whole week. What so many people refer to as "the flu" isn't really the flu but some mild viral flu-like illness. The real flu is bad. I learned that, and since then would have continued to get a flu shot every year even if it weren't mandatory for my job.
He also seems to not understand that 'rights' only exist in the context of a government and it's citizens. I'm not aware of the US government, or any other government on the earth, adopting any policy that restricts anybody's right "to preach and practice exclusionary measures in an effort to accelerate vaccine continuous-improvement".
That's not to say that you can't have your 'preaching' restricted in a private forum, or that you won't be laughed at for saying silly things.
Let me be specific in where the CDC fails to address the concerns of some vaccine-safety advocates.
A "severe allergic reaction" after a vaccine dose or to a vaccine component is clearly a recognized contraindication. (see comment #31).
The definition of the word "severe" is something bad or undesirable.
Therefore, a "severe allergic reaction" is effectively a bad or undesirable allergic reaction.
In children with atypical immunity, the long-term affects of a vaccine-induced allergic reaction (non-anaphylaxis) are not clearly understood.
In my opinion, the CDC gives the impression that if the vaccine doesn't temporarily harm you or kill you (e.g., anaphylaxis) it makes you stronger.
Q. When is a vaccine-induced allergic response to beneficial proteins acceptable.
Well, I can speak directly to Chicken Pox, because I just suffered from an incredibly painful, month-long bout of Shingles at the end of last year.
I wouldn't wish that on anyone & I am extremely happy that my kids are now vaccinated against Chicken Pox.
As for HPV, my boys will also get vaccinated - because women just don't "get" HPV from nowhere, they get it from infected men. Plus, HPV causes a number of very nasty kinds of Cancer in men too - and the fact that we have another (HepB vaccine was the first) vaccine that prevents Cancer - we should definitely be celebrating.
There is a saying amongst us nerds - 'The Internet treats 'censorship' like 'damage', and routes around it'.
If you feel that you are unfairly restricted on this blog or any other, you can, for the price of zero dollars, start your own blog, where you will have the completely unrestricted ability to go on at great lengths about any topic you wish, as well as impose any and all restrictions on readers comments you want.
While I do not, can not, and will not speak for our host, I'd go so far as to say he'd probably even allow you to mention your blog here, a time or two at least, because he's just that kind of guy
@Beth #45: I'm sorry but you are horribly wrong on the flu. Bear in mind, much of what people think of as the flu is simply gastroenteritis. Actual influenza will knock you on your ass. I've had it twice . . . both in years I skipped the flu shot, or got it very late in the season (through my own neglect I will admit). Both times I got pneumonia and it took MONTHS for me to recover.
You are also wrong about Hep B. The CDC recommends it because not every other knows whether they've had it or not, and because while it is a blood borne disease and can be detected through a blood test, when a person has the active disease it clears so rapidly there are a lot of false negatives. The titer for the antibodies (anti-HBs) show's you have had it or been vaccinated but doesn't show if you have a current infection.
That's why newborns should be vaccinated. The chance of passing this disease along is too serious for a hope for the best attitude. The newborn's liver is immature and vulnerable.
Boys get HPV as well. Besides the head and neck cancers already mentioned, 90% of penile cancers are caused by HPV (granted it's a rare cancer but one we could virtually eliminate by vaccinating). In addition, some of the HPV forms that cause genital warts are covered with this vaccine; boys do get genital warts, and on the penis they can cause life threatening urethral obstructions. Nasty stuff.
MJD: the CDC considers vaccine reactions. But they are so incredibly rare to be anything more than a fever and the icks for a day or two, that there is NO reason not to vaccinate on schedule. The benefits so far outweigh the risks as to make your position laughable . . . in fact it's why we laugh at you and refer to you as the American Loon.
You're demanding a perfect world. Such a thing does not exist.
@ Johnny (#58),
I've been commenting at RI for seven years.
Orac has skillfully and persistently provided a blog site that reaches a substantial global audience.
Thank you Oracmeister!
Panacea (#59) writes,
You’re demanding a perfect world. Such a thing does not exist.
A message to all the children learning how to make a difference:
The perfect vaccine, become a science-based thinker and make it happen.
MJD (#41) wrote: "Another severe allergic reaction, not mentioned by the CDC, would be vaccine-induced allergies suspected in the etiology of REGRESSIVE AUTISM."
Well, you just confirmed what I already suspected: You are anti-vaccine. No, you are not a "vaccine safety advocate", you are anti-vaccine.
There is a mountain of evidence indicating that vaccines do not and cannot cause autism. Refusing to accept that evidence makes you, to put it bluntly, delusional.
@Jonas: MJD isn't *completely* antivax. He just has a bee in his bonnet about latex, which he believes leads to autism in certain individuals. However, in his 7 years, the story of his son's reaction morphed and changed, so we all rather take anything he says with many grains of salt.
(He claims he'd be fine with vaccines if they didn't have latex at the top of a vial - which I assume means he's fine with anything in an ampule)
He's in moderation because EVERYTHING leads to latex allergies in his comments. No one denies they exist. We do deny that latex sensitivities lead to regressive autism.
And I hope explaining things to you doesn't put me into moderation hell - not sure how Orac flags things.
Jonas (#62) writes,
There is a mountain of evidence indicating that vaccines do not and cannot cause autism.
Did you mean to say autism spectrum disorders?
Said spectrum-disorder is believed to encompasses numerous dissimilar etiologies.
The subgroup most likely to be affected by vaccine insult, at the moment, is allergy-induced regressive autism.
Please provide the mountain of evidence indicating that vaccines do not and cannot cause allergy-induced regressive autism.
Do you work at the CDC?
OK, I see. Thanks for explaining why he's anti-vaccine.
I'm going to politely back away from commenting again in this post.
You all have a great weekend!
He's even got his own entry here:
And I have to say, MJD's "theory" is extremely farfetched-even by anti-vaccine standards, which is really saying something....
Another bit of history -
You may have noticed friend Lawrence referring to MJD as the "American Loon". This may give a false impression that MJD is the only being referred to as "American Loon". MJD is just one of many American Loons. He is in fact the 628th example of the American Loon of the 1844 identified to date.
Lawrence types faster than I do, it seems.
I wonder if MJD has heard about the studies that have come out in the last few years that show that the brain abnormalities that have been found in people with autism would have been present in utero (thus completely ruling out vaccines as a possible cause)?
My guess is that he has, but he is so convinced that his bizarre theory is accurate that he has ignored them. Anti-vaxxers do not listen to evidence.
Oh, and thanks for clarifying what the "American Loon" comment (Lawrence #41) meant.
125 words per minute - I credit my high school typing class....
i didn't say the authors were intentionally trying to mount a guilt-tripping propaganda PR campaign. it's more like their thoughts come through in the research publications that are their... "idiom". You could say it's a social science study that's repressing it's dreams of being a clever propaganda campaign.
Perhaps I should note I don't necessarily consider "propaganda" a bad thing. I'm a fan of 'agit-prop' creative work, for example...
I see no reason not to include a frank and sensitive discussion with vax-hesitant parents about how un-vaxed children may feel stigmatized by the social isolation they will rightly feel when their peers stay away from them, not knowing whether or not they are disease vectors. To bring that home, you also present them with material on the consequences real-life unvaxed kids (often due to reasons OTHER than antivax) have suffered from VPDs. The Texas Children's Hospital has and excellent photo-book on this, available online. (ATTN JONAS: This is what you're talking about, just not in video. It's good, and an equally strong video would be hard to pull off.)
I hope Beth is not the Beth Clarkson who was in pre-med when I met her.
HPV is not that much of a risk for boys? Someone needs to look up the literature on it, because I think someone hasn't done their homework.
I had the real flu as a teen. 105 temps for a week and could barely get out of bed. Hurt to even blink my eyes. Been getting flu shots since and wish more people would.
I left a note for you about talking to the vax averse on yesterday's thread. Where in Iowa are you headed? It's not all the same. Take a look at the Texas Children's Hospital VPD book I noted above. As a general rule of thumb, I'd advise keeping Orac's description of vax hesitance above in mind:
To slightly adjust what Orac says, antivaccine misinformation can sound credible enough that reasonable parents will be concerned enough to worry, and maybe worried enough to 'take precautions', seeing non-vaxing as 'better safe than sorry'. That is, the vax hesitant don't believe vaccines cause autism, they're just not 100% sure it doesn't. (Of course, as Orac notes, the degree of worry and drive toward caution can vary from approachable to almost-gone-to-the dark-side.)
Still, if you gauge you're not talking to a true anti-vax nutter, you ought to be able to identify and sympathize with the concern low-information parents may pick up from social media and local gossip. The folks spreading this may be friends they otherwise trust, so I'd try to include them in the web of sympathy, too. You can tell the parent something like, "If I hadn't studied this, didn't know what I know about science, and heard or read the stuff going around, I'd be worried too. But, you know word-of-mouth goes, and some pretty weird things can just get a life of their own, even though they have no basis in fact...."
I'd probably go on to offer an explanation of why vaccines have become a target of opportunity for fears and frustrations so profound that once some people latch onto the shots as a perfect too-simple scapegoat, they're never going to let go. But whatever path you take, try to prep the emotional ground before you introduce any info on the science, and then keep that short sweet and pithy.
Yah, back in the dark ages only girls took typing class - they were the only ones likely to touch a keyboard in their careers. Us boys were all in shop class.
MJD, you keep saying, "Again, medical science has failed to eliminate such vaccine contraindications..."
I'm not a doctor, or even very good at science, but smarter people than me have said almost everything (and I'm hedging here) has a possibility of causing a bad reaction.
We can save the horrible, terrible, macro-triggering imperialism of stigmatizing the anti-vax VPD vectors by moving them to a place where they may be among like minds, those who also block vaccinations. That would be the Pashtun areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan. I believe those places also practice organic farming, use no GMOs and are free of chemtrails.
Oh, we'll explain that there's an alien time portal at the border and if they return to their point of origin in the USA, they will cause a time aneurysm. So, it's go go go, no come back. Their irreplaceable indigo uniqueness will be missed
by no one.
Thanks for the kind words. I appreciate it. I'll try to keep your suggestions in mind. I am very nervous about this rotation, in part because I'll be so far from home. I couldn't find a preceptor in my state, but since I'm licensed in Iowa I looked there and lucked out.
I'll be in Council Bluffs, across the river from Omaha Nebraska. I have no idea what kind of a community it is. I've never been there before.
It really bothered me in my last rotation, dealing with so many families that were really into the alt med thing. I really want to do a good job counseling parents, but I also have to consider where the parents are so I don't close the door so they don't hear me at all. That's something I'm still learning how to do.
It really is different from the regular practice of nursing. I had no idea. It's been a humbling experience.
Dirty fkkn' LAIVed kids everywhere you damn go.
Orac: "The measles vaccine is one of the most effective vaccines there is, well over 90% effective after the full series, but even that level of effectiveness still means that a small but significant minority of children vaccinated against measles are not immune."
And every child before their first birthday. Children under the age of one year old are also unprotected from mumps and chicken pox due to the fact the vaccines for those diseases are not given until after their first birthday. Not to mention that the DTaP series is not completely protective until then.
Won't anyone think of the babies?
I say because my youngest had chicken pox when she was six months old a full year before the varicella vaccine was available (saying she was miserable would be an understatement, her older brothers also suffered). Now as a grad student, she has a much higher chance of shingles in the next three years.
I do not think well about those who think chicken pox is a "mild" disease.
Orac (from the main article): "... but I always try to distinguish between vaccine-hesitant parents who have fallen under the sway of antivaccine views and the hard core antivaxers themselves, who spread the message. The former can be reached; the latter are virtually unreachable with rare exceptions."
From my personal experience the latter are also very annoying snooty "better parents than anyone" types. My oldest son had seizures as an infant, so only got the DT instead of the DTP. While our county was having a pertussis outbreak. It was over twenty five years ago, as a direct result of Lea Thompson's "investigative journalism" and the efforts of Barbara Loe Fisher.
So whenever I went to a new mom/kid group I would ask about vaccine status to protect my kid. I got one woman who proclaimed that her "doctor" said that vaccines were not necessary for her children. She was really obnoxious.
I am sure her kids were perfectly wonderful little beings. If they were stigmatized it was because their mother walked and talked like a big ol' broomstick went from her posterior all they way up to her snide mouth. No loss in socialization by avoiding that extremely unpleasant person.
# 45 Beth C
I don’t consider the risk from the disease to be sufficient to necessarily justify the cost ($ and time) but I don’t object to them and would get them when it was convenient.
Jesu, you Americans have one insane health care system. Around here you practically have to beat off nurses and doctors armed with loaded syringes whenever you step inside the clinic!
I dropped in for a flu shot last fall and ended up with two shot-up arms. Flu in one arm and Shingles in the other.
Personal cost for vaccination – wave your health card.
Well, this is partially optional since if it has expired or you forgot it, if you are a registered patient and they have your ID and health card number, they just tell you to get the (new) card and come back when you get the time.
@ 49 orac
I spent one Christmas, at about the age of 18, with the blankets pulled over my head and listening to some Nashville basketball game while I had chickenpox. Since a) I don't live in the USA and b) don't like or understand basketball you can imagine just how horrible I felt. You have my complete sympathy.
Urg... in moderation again!
By the way, the cost of the vaccinations even in the USA in total is often much less than the cost of the diseases. Especially if you count lost wages due to a parent having to stay home with kids.
Twenty plus years ago if you were lucky your employer would help pay the $$$$ for sick kids to stay in a special daycare at a local hospital so you would not have to lose work. They even included a special chicken pox room. Guess what happened to those less than ten years after the varicella vaccine was introduced.
I see where you are coming from, but think of the children, if they all cluster like that it maximises the risk.
There's no reason Indigo children shouldn't be vaxed as well, viruses do not discriminate on aura colours ;)
@ 66 MJD
Don't let the electrons hit you on your rear on the way out.
Antivax parents need to recognize that stigma falls squarely upon them, as opposed to their unvaccinated children. This shouldn't be that tough to recognize, as in their view, everything is about them and their rights.
Simiilarly, I've always viewed the stigma for bad child behavior in public as falling on their parents. When you're dawdling at your table in the restaurant long after the meal is finished, eyes glued to your cellphones while your kids scream in boredom and run about, you're the ones at fault.
My oldest caught the Flu when he was only 3 months old, it was a very scary experience & certainly not one I would see any baby have to repeat.
This blog never fails to provide a chuckle--the dark sort of chuckle that phrases like "science never lies" inspires. Bertrand Russell always gets a kick out that one from his grave.
"At least, the media seem less willing to indulge in 'tell both sides' [']false['] equivalence." Gee, ya think? I guess that's because the media is more honest and objective than ever. :D
"An un-vaccinated person, adult or child, is a time bomb." It's amazing we all didn't explode in the 60s, 70s & 80s, before the Childhood Vaccine Injury Act opened the vaccine flood gates with its cozy protection from liability!
"Vaccine-deprived children are victims," wrote Dorit, with a sly wink and knowing smirk, which unfortunately isn't visible online.
"Anti-vaxxers are usually hostile to science in general." Change the spelling to 'psyence" and it would actually make sense!
I'm amazed by the exceptionally weak immune systems among the vaccine army that regularly patrols this blog, and their families. Seems they all have a tale about how something like the flu or chicken pox almost took them out. If I believed them, I'd suggest they spend less time in the basement pounding on a keyboard, and more time in the sun absorbing some vitamin D.
Jesu, you Americans have one insane health care system.
Clarkson's talking through her hat. All pediatric vaccinations are covered by insurance in the US, and for low-income families who can't afford the doctor's visit, the county health department administers a program called VFC (Vaccines for Children) that's paid for by the CDC.
(having said that, yes -- we do have an insane healthcare system).
If I believed them, I’d suggest they spend less time in the basement pounding on a keyboard, and more time in the sun absorbing some vitamin D.
My generation spent most of our time out of doors in good weather - no cable tv, no tablets, no Gameboys, nada. My generation also universally came down with measles, mumps, chicken pox and whooping cough.
I'm amazed we all didn't explode! I'm just glad that you, me and all the kids I went to school with lived to tell the tale. But I'm going to take a wild guess that you have a tale of tragedy to tell. ;)
I am impressed (to laughter, mainly) by the insistence of the woo crowd that they need not concern themselves with dangerous infectious diseases because of their purportedly superior immune systems. In addition a lack of evidence that their immune capacity is better than that of non-wooists', a bit of education about what can happen when genuinely strong immune systems overreact to infection and disproportionately cause suffering and death (as in the case of certain influenza strains) should temper their egos a bit, not that it ever does.
Our resident New World Order paranoiac apparently has gotten the wrong idea about Bertrand Russell. Rather than being a harsh critic of science (and vaccination), antivaxers seem to generally loathe him for statement like this (from The Impact Of Science On Society):
"Science has already conferred an immense boon on man-
kind by the growth of medicine. In the eighteenth century
people expected most of their children to die before they were
grown up. Improvement began at the beginning of the nine-
teenth century, chiefly owing to vaccination. It has contin-
ued ever since and is still continuing. In 1920 the infant
mortality in England and Wales was 80 per thousand, in
1948 it was 34 per thousand. The general death rate in 1948
(10 -8) was the lowest ever recorded up to that date. There
is no obvious limit to the improvement of health that can be
brought about by medicine."
Some people can learn from the experiences of others, and some people just have to piss on the electric fence for themselves.
Sure, Chicken Pox wasn't the end of the world, but feel free to spend a Month with the Shingles & get back to us on how you felt.
Suggesting the chicken pox vaccine prevents shingles is a bit too nonsensical to be clever. Surely you can do better than that. :)
And NWOR - that's what we call "survivor's bias."
Just because you came through okay, doesn't mean everyone will (or did).
In fact, I'm happy to use your own analogy against you.....my kids are fully vaccinated & came through just fine, thus everyone did and will & you're talking out of your ass.
Sure, Lawrence. If a few points were shaved off your children's IQ, who would ever know? And if, down the road, they have certain difficulties coping, or develop chronic diseases or cancer, you'll "know" it had nothing to do with the vaccines you agreed to. No worries!
Yes, and I've been through the flu often enough to never want to go through it again. Hence, I get vaccinated every year.
I had chicken pox as a child. My sister just got shingles. I will in short order be getting the shingles vaccine as that is something I never want to go through.
@NWOR (#98). And there is exactly zero evidence that vaccines would do any of the things you mentioned in your post. In fact, a study done in the Philippines found that vaccinated children on average scored half a standard deviation HIGHER than unvaccinated children on cognitive tests. So there!
@Lawrence (#97). Survivor's bias seems to be the reason why many people will say things like "I had measles/mumps/chickenpox and was fine"-these people don't realize that just because they were lucky enough to have a mild case of a VAPD doesn't mean everyone will. I had a mild case of chickenpox, but unlike some people, I'm not ignorant enough to think that just because I had a mild case, chickenpox isn't potentially dangerous.
Yes, yes--we've all heard about that 'study.' Must be all the aluminum that made them smarter, garnished with a little mercury--or was it the polysorbate 80? That high-pitched encephalitic scream after vaccination--don't worry, it's all perfectly normal. It means your child is getting healthier--and smarter! :D
NWOR-You seem to have some serious issues with reality-even your username suggests that you are a conspiracy theorist.
Conspiracies? Nah, never happens. Sure, people are convicted of criminal conspiracies all the time in the judicial system, but that's a fluke. Once people rise above a certain socioeconomic level, they don't engage in conspiracies. Everyone knows that. :D
NWO Reporter asked
Indeed, it is difficult to ascertain that an individual's IQ was affected by particular early-childhood life experiences. We do know, though, that IQ is negatively correlated with the burden of childhood disease.
NWO Reporter's apparent hypothesis that vaccination has a similar negative correlation with cognitive development has been refuted in the case of at least the MMR vaccine and thimerosal-containing vaccines.
Mrozek-Budzyn D et al. Measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccination has no effect on cognitive development in children – the results of the Polish prospective cohort study. Vaccine. 2013 May 24; 31(22): 2551–2557.
Mrozek-Budzyn D et al. Early exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccines and children’s cognitive development. A 9-year prospective birth cohort study in Poland. Eur J Pediatr. 2015; 174(3): 383–391.
@Brian (#104) And that's in addition to the study I mentioned above. NWOR is making a claim with absolutely no basis in reality.
@Ren -- No, that would not have been me.
Re: Chicken pox being a relatively mild disease, I believe that's an appropriate characterization compared to diseases like cancer or meningitis. Do you really want to claim it's comparable to those? I understand that it can still be very unpleasant, even deadly in rare cases. But as a generalization I think that diseases that have very low rates of requiring hospitalization or resulting in serious complications can be characterized as mild and despite all the moaning about how awful it is (and yes, I have had similar miserable experiences) I notice no one has claimed to have required hospitalization or suffered serious harm as a result of chicken pox or the flu.
It's still a disease and the suffering through a disease is the only solid reason for getting a vaccine IMO. Others here disagree, I understand. Just as I understand that others disagree about the cost/benefit analysis I make on Hep B and HPV vaccines.
With regard to the Hep B and HPV vaccines, I was answering a request to describe where I had had differences with the recommended CDC schedule. When I was making those decisions were 18 years ago and four or five years ago, so those decisions are dated. If I was making the same decision today I would review the current arguments and evidence pro and con and I might make a different decision. The evidence at that time for those vaccines was not convincing to me.
@Shay, #90, I am NOT 'talking out of my hat'. My kids are adults now, but back in the 90's my family went through periods of not having insurance not to mention that many people, including me at the moment, have high deductible insurance which doesn't cover anything unless we exceed the deductible which I hope won't happen this year. Worst of all, when you are uninsured, you are billed at full retail rates for all medical services. Nobody is negotiating lower prices for the uninsured. Single payer is the only sensible solution to this mess IMO.
That high-pitched encephalitic scream
Are you under the impression that there is a specific kind of infant cry associated with and diagnostic of encephalitis? Perhaps you can point me to the source for this?
There's a Gofundme page from March. It has three donations; I have no idea what the story is.
@Narad-Orac wrote about her case a number of times. I think this is his most recent post on her case.
No, seriously. Chicken Pox and shingles are caused by the same virus. If you are vaccinated against one, you're vaccinated against the other. What's so hard to get about that?
Oh, please. The vaccine injects the attenuated chicken pox virus. No one has any idea whether that might theoretically help prevent shingles down the road, or cause it. Stop lying to people.
@NWOR-Well, I suppose you can argue that we don't yet know for sure, since the chickenpox vaccine is fairly new, and those who received it are not yet old enough to be at high risk of shingles, but it is logical to assume that it would prevent it.
If you substitute "magical thinking" for "logical," and we'll have a point of agreement. :D
Speaking of conspiracies, it'd be educational to see a list of all the pharma/government/military conspiracies that were unraveled by Internet devotees sharing breathless theories with their online compadres.
Is this whole "the word $X is defined as $Y," with $Y the output of some sort of random etymology generator, a regular MJD thing, or is it a new development?
^ Yah, yah, more blockquote fail. Sorry.
Mirrors, Ginny. Use them.
NWO Troll: we don't have a point of agreement. We already have known for years that the shingles vaccine prevents shingles in people who have had chicken pox. People who get vaccinated from chicken pox are less likely to ever get shingles, but can still benefit from shingles vaccination. Despite a mixed review of the literature, the potential risks are outweighed by the benefits because even if you get shingles after getting the vaccine the pain from it is far less than what it normally would be.
I've cared for people with shingles. They often require opioids to manage the pain until the outbreak resolves itself.
The vaccine is safe. I'd rather get the icks and maybe a headache for a day than the shingles.
" Sure, people are convicted of criminal conspiracies all the time in the judicial system, but that’s a fluke."
Yeah, of 2,3,5 or even occasionally 10 people!
A conspiracy the likes of which you're talking about would never have made it past the planning stages.
Come visit reality, it's nice here.
Well, it is true that conspiracies of this magnitude rely heavily on manufacturing consent. Edward Bernays has a couple of useful books for an introduction to the art, which is as old as civilization itself. Manufacturing a false perception of scientific consensus is essential. So is compartmentalization, along with vested interests, clueless minions and mercenaries. That so many believe it's not possible--and in fact, eagerly ridicule anyone who suggests it is possible--it indicative of its success.
"Manufacturing a false perception of scientific consensus is essential."
And do you have, he said knowingly, any, ANY evidence that this is so? Anything at all?
Are you seriously calling us all minions?
Are disputing, again he said knowingly, that vaccines have been responsible for saving perhaps billions of lives? (A number so large, that some portion of population are going to suffer a negative reaction - and no I don't mean autism).
You come here and spout off all this completely unsupported B.S. without so much as a lick of proof.
The conspiracy you're suggesting would involve different governments, different universities, different political persuasions, different religions, different countries.
OCCAM'S RAZOR. All the evidence is in front of you and your willfully ignoring it all in favor of your view of the world.
That's zealotry, not science.
You may want to read my comment again...anyway, I have no idea if you are a minion, and I don't get the sense you are part of this den of vipers. We all receive the same vaccine indoctrination--and yes, it is global. It can't be overcome without evidence, and the evidence indicates it is one of the greatest and most insidious frauds ever perpetrated on humanity.
Vaccines have not saved billions of lives--they have harmed many more than they have saved, if in fact they have saved any at all. The harm will increase as the number of vaccines on the schedule increases--and it will increase. There were 24 doses in 1983; 74 doses in 2016. How many will there be a decade from now?
I wish you good luck if you choose vaccination. As long as you don't try to impose your choice on others, there won't be a problem.
"Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible." -- Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science on Society (1952)
Then again, you might just be a wholly incompetent dumbshіt who does nothing but regurgitate the same fυcking script over and over again, Ginny, but with the extra frosting of some sort of incredibly stupid tic that causes you slap smiley faces on everything until your sustained failure turns you pissy.
You're a classic case of just the sort of patsy one would want to support if one were actually running a conspiracy.
NWOR at #120:
the evidence indicates it is one of the greatest and most insidious frauds ever perpetrated on humanity.
Vaccines have not saved billions of lives–they have harmed many more than they have saved...
if in fact they have saved any at all.
Plenty of citations for this though!
The harm will increase as the number of vaccines on the schedule increases–and it will increase. There were 24 doses in 1983; 74 doses in 2016. How many will there be a decade from now?
PERHaps it's because we've discovered better vaccines for more things...assumning your neighbors are accurate, which I won't believe.
I wish you good luck if you choose vaccination. As long as you don’t try to impose your choice on others, there won’t be a problem.
Do you want children to die? Seriously, from what I can tell, and I'm a layman, these are SERIOUS diseases.
You really are divorced from reality aren't you?
And, naturally, you failed to provide any evidence to support anything you've said.
So you're expecting someone to dispel a lifetime of insidious indoctrination in a blog comment? Talk about divorced from reality! :D
NWOR @ 121
Except that doesn't count as science, and since I haven't read the whole book, I'm going to assume your'e cherry picking it, as does apparently a bunch of other woo meisters.
Also, are you saying diet is a conspiracy by the government to control us? I thought you woo-ey types thought diet solved everything!
Okay, okay, I'll admit it--I may have been wrong. It appears from your follow-up comments that you may, in fact, be part of this den of vipers. It was your apparent discombobulation and poor grammar than threw me. Sorry. :(
NWOR @ 124
Nope, just a study (JUST ONE RELIABLE ONE NWOR), some evidence, or a plausible mechanism.
Smallpox went from killing 1/3 of each new generation to eradication, due EXCLUSIVELY to vaccination, so yes, that's billions of lives.
I don't want to see any buIIshıt about sanitation—it's airborne, you brainless gobshıte!—or nutrition. That's nutrition with the same modern diet that's making everybody sick in your next sentence, right?
You post utter bullshit, then characterize facts as bullshit and demand they not be posted. Classic. :D
Okay, okay, I’ll admit it–I may have been wrong. It appears from your follow-up comments that you may, in fact, be part of this den of vipers. It was your apparent discombobulation and poor grammar than threw me. Sorry.
Still not evidence, a study, or a reliable mechanism.
We're waiting...but thanks for the textbook illustration of an ad hominem.
Waiting? Nah, you're just posturing for the rubes. Have fun! :D
Seizing upon a lone taker is a sign of very poor trolling indeed, Ginny. Are you ever going to explain that whole alterno-gravity thing from your Y—be "channel"?
I mean, just how much "essential" piercing of the veil of "manufactur[ed] . . . false perception of scientific consensus" is really part of your – for lack of a better word – agenda?
Nice own goal, there, Gins.
"Waiting? Nah, you’re just posturing for the rubes. Have fun!"
I find you and your opinions (or unsupported assertions) to be pathetic, but I find minds like yours, or "minds" like yours fascinating (Thank you very much Narad ; ) )
So, here, let me help you:
noun ev·i·dence \ˈe-və-dən(t)s, -və-ˌden(t)s\
a : an outward sign : indication
b : something that furnishes proof
Heh. Nice catch.
manufacturing consent. Edward Bernays has a couple of useful books for an introduction to the art
It is always sad to see some self-styled skeptic uncritically accepting Bernays' essays in self-promotion. The #1 client of his advertising work was always his own reputation, but it's OK to take a skeptical stance to Bernays' claims about how easily he could manipulate the minds of the masses he despised.
That high-pitched encephalitic scream after vaccination
Evidence for the existence of this "high-pitched encephalitic scream" phenomenon -- other than the fraudulent fabrications of antivaxxers -- would be nice. Any pediatric textbook will suffice.
Vaccination is a private decision in the sense that your, or your child's, doctor can't disclose your vaccination status. And yes, you can say "none of your business" if the parent of an infant asks whether your children are vaccinated, or if your own pertussis booster is up to date.
That parent in turn can say "Better safe that sorry" and not let you or your child visit you or your infant. They don't need proof that you're a risk, because you have no constitutional right to a play date or to hold someone else's baby. Prudence makes it reasonable to assume there's a risk, as someone else might when told "no, of course I haven't been tested for HIV" or "how dare you ask if I ever drive drunk?! What kind of person do you take me for?"
NWO Reporter is probably the type of right-wing conspiracy theorist nut job who believes in chemtrails, Reptoid shape shifters, and the Illuminati. He or she is probably a birther, 911 truther and a holocaust denier/antisemite as well. I would not put it past the likes of those who use the term NWO seriously in their username.
Lemme guess--you think this string of cliches illustrates how clever you are, right? Standards are so so low these days. You could at least try to write a slew a derision with some originality. My condolences if this was your best effort. :D
Conspiracy theorists can come in several types.
There are the ones who, like sideshow carnival barkers, are basically bullshit artists and con artists who sell their ideas to idiotic rubes without believing in the ideas themselves. These ones take the PT Barnum quote "A sucker is born every minute" to heart as a mission statement and tool to scam the rubes. As an example, Andrew Wakefield started out as this when he committed several acts of medical fraud to fabricate the idea of "autistic enterocolitis". Wakefield's idea to fabricate "evidence" linking bowel disease and autism to the MMR was based on greed, deceit, and a business partnership with a shady American shyster who claimed to cure autistic kids with "transfer factor" crap.
There are the conspiracy theorists who create such wacky theories by satire or trolling. These guys are the ones who prove the validity of Poe's Law. A prime example would be the online satirical website The Onion inadvertently fanning the flames of the Satanic Panic moral hysteria by creating a satirical "news article" claiming or at least inferring that Harry Potter promotes Satanism. I am sure that the Onion did not intend to cause the Religious Right to believe in a link between Harry Potter and Satanism. If conservative Christians believed in such a link beforehand, I am sure that the Onion didn't intend to lend that crazy theory any validity.
Then there are the true believers and the gullible folk who become true believers. This type of conspiracy theorist comes in three overlapping subtypes: the gullible undereducated/ inadequately educated folk who lack critical thinking skills, the paranoid mentally ill folk whose delusions would subside with proper psychiatric/ psychological treatment, and the religious or conservative folk whose beliefs and faith are threatened by facts. These sad suckers are the most likely ones to be tricked by con artists and scumbags. They are the ones who are most likely to be fooled by satirical articles, deliberate disinformation, right wing authoritarian lies and tabloid crap.
Parents who are antivax because they truly believe that vaccines cause autism....are neither truly con-artists nor trolls indulging in satire. They are either gullible folk or true believers who are too far down the rabbit hole of delusion to convince otherwise. Sadly, their status as parents to vulnerable kids makes them villains as well as victims.
Melissa@140 -- yep. Always a sign of crank magnetism.
Vicki, vaccination is not a private matter. Mostly because you and your little walking petri dishes can infect others. Public health is part of being in society.
And seriously, with an attitude like yours --- other kids would be better off staying away from your family.
Vicki, vaccination is not a private matter. Mostly because you and your little walking petri dishes can infect others. Public health is part of being in society.
And seriously, with an attitude like yours — other kids would be better off staying away from your family.
"NWO Reporter is probably the type of right-wing conspiracy theorist nut job who believes in chemtrails, Reptoid shape shifters, and the Illuminati. He or she is probably a birther, 911 truther and a holocaust denier/antisemite as well."
That sounds about right. Although there are other elements of the Conspiracy that the New World Order clan fears and despises, including Freemasons, the Bilderbergers, the Club of Rome and many more secret organizations whose threat only they realize.
"Conspiracy theorists believe that the New World Order will also be implemented through the use of human population control in order to more easily monitor and control the movement of individuals. The means range from stopping the growth of human societies through reproductive health and family planning programs, which promote abstinence, contraception and abortion, or intentionally reducing the bulk of the world population through genocides by mongering unnecessary wars, through plagues by engineering emergent viruses and tainting vaccines, and through environmental disasters by controlling the weather (HAARP, chemtrails), etc."
They're to be pitied, really. Whatever satisfaction they might gain by being In The Know (unlike the sheeple) is more than balanced by the panicky realization that there are way too many enemies to prevent their eventual doom.
There's no rest for conspiracy fighters, just a round-the-clock debilitating surge of cortisol and adrenaline to no useful purpose. :(
@Vicki (#139) "Vaccination is a private decision".
Actually, states can and do require proof of vaccination for school attendance, and in CA, unless your child has a medical exemption from vaccination, they cannot attend public school. So no, it's not an entirely "private" decision.
Also, SCOTUS has already ruled, in the 1905 Jacobson v. Massachusetts case, that compulsory vaccination is *not* a violation of your constitutional rights.
So, while HIPAA does prevent your healthcare provider from disclosing your vaccination status or your child's vaccination status, vaccination is still not just a "personal" and "private" matter that the government has no say in. When there are outbreaks of VAPDs, unvaccinated children are usually barred from attending school for a period of time, for example (and then your child's vaccination status would, presumably, become known to other parents at your child's school).
Sometimes, public safety trumps individual rights.
@NWOR (#123). That comment reinforces my belief that you are indeed completely out of reality. Vaccination is one of the safest and most efficacious medical interventions that we have.
Harm from vaccination is rare, and the vaccines with the most potential to cause serious adverse effects are not even on the CDC's childhood vaccine schedule.
I'd say that the vaccines that most often cause serious adverse effects would be the Yellow Fever vaccine (in very rare cases, i.e., 0.4 cases for every 100,000 people vaccinated, the YF vaccine can cause Yellow Fever Vaccine-Associated Viscerotropic Disease), the Smallpox vaccine (in rare cases can cause progressive vaccinia or eczema vaccinatum, those two complications usually only occur in patients with either a history of atopic dermatitis or in immunocompromised patients, respectively), and perhaps the Sabin Polio vaccine (can cause vaccine-derived polio in extremely rare cases).
Keep in mind that all of the adverse effects I just mentioned are VERY RARE, and that, because of the risk of PV and EV, the Smallpox vaccine is listed as contraindicated in immunocompromised patients and patients with a history of atopic dermatitis (in other words, just by not giving that vaccine to those for whom it is contraindicated, most cases of EV and PV would be avoided)-and, even for those vaccines, which as mentioned are not even on the CDC schedule (in the case of Smallpox, because the vaccine was so effective that Smallpox was ERADICATED), the benefits of vaccination still vastly outweigh the very low risk of any of those serious adverse events.
For the vaccines on the CDC schedule, any reaction worse than a transient fever is incredibly rare.
I doubt you'll listen to any of this though, since you view anyone who disagrees with you as "part of this den of vipers."
Ginny is simply an occasional attention whore who happens to be dripping with both stupidity and bad faith.
Ginny is simply an occasional attention whore who happens to be dripping with both stupidity and bad faith.
NWOR's modus operandi is to dredge up fabrications from elsewhere, and troll them here in high-rotate. Eventually someone points out the mendacious nature of a claim, at which point it vanishes from her consciousness --- much as the contents of a cat's dirtbox ceases to interest the cat after its use -- and she moves on to some new BS.
Here it is the "encephalitic scream" fan-fic. A few months ago it was
Selective amnesia is certainly one way to not lose arguments, but it's no way to acquire new knowledge.
I'm not sure Vicki meant there weren't legitimate reasons for health care officials to know the vaccination status of her children; school nurses for example need to know to comply with state laws.
But other parents don't have an automatic right to know. And the consequence of that should be that their kids don't play with yours.
@ 136 Narad
Skitt's Law http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/skitt-s-law.
Presumably a derivation of Murhy's
@ 143 Melissa
Not a list but it's being studied
Yeah, the NWO Troll aka Ginny is just the type of idiot I had to suffer through outside of my math/physics classes in a Central Texas high school in the mid 1970s (for less than a year because I was an Army brat when my dad was stationed at Ft Hood).
Her website and youtube page are just spouting off the same inane tropes I heard from an elderly aunt over forty years ago! It is not a coincidence that my Killeen High School friends in my math/physics classes mostly ended up in Austin. Hi Roxanne and Russell!
My guess is that Council Bluffs will have far fewer anti-vax or vax-hesitant parents than most places. Western Iowa is very conservative, but the Omaha metro area is moderate, very middle-everything. Not any of the typical anti-vax profiles, really, on either side of the Sonoma Cty. vs Orange Cty. polarity. It's also an agricultural economy, which fosters a certain pragmatic respect for science and technology. There are definitely anti-abortion nuts there, so I'd be more worried about running into issues other than anti-vax. In any event, Iowans in general tend to be nice, friendly, polite and very low-key interpersonally, so I'd guess whatever their beliefs, you'll have fewer angsty encounters with vociferous parents than you would in other environs.
(My mom's family is from Iowa and we visited often when I was young. I went to grad school there, and travelled around the state working on documentary film projects for Public TV...)
How stigmatized are unvaccinated children and their parents?
How stigmatized are parents who question vaccine safety?
I co-authored a teeny-weeny book about vaccines and autism several years ago.
After Orac's/Prometheus'/Minions respectfully-insolent deconstruction, I'm now a parent (i.e., vaccine safety advocate) in Google purgatory.
Specifically, a Google search using the terms "Dochniak" and "Vaccines" provides the following search terms related to Dochniak Vaccines:
anti vaxxer movement; and
anti vaxxer meme.
Vaccine safety advocates are not antivaccine, although, because of Orac/Prometheus/Minions/Google Search some parents that question vaccine safety are labeled anti-vaxxers and worse.
MJD needs to be put back in Moderation.
Julian, IIRC, Douchniak has violated the terms that Orac imposed to allow him to be only auto-moderated: isn't he forbidden to peddle his book'o'nonsense, under pain of actual banishment?
MjD created his own purgatory.......
As far as I know, MJD is still under auto-moderation, meaning that every post he makes has to be approved by our host. I suspect (but cannot prove) that his latest was allowed because it mostly addressed his feelings of persecution by our host and the minions. I feel that engaging MJD on his silly book is unsportsmanlike because of this restriction, but to address other matters is fair game. In that spirit, if I may -
MJD, you're a laughingstock because you wrote a silly book, and when our host used it for blog fodder*, you came here and totally failed to defend it. Valid questions were raised, and your response was 'read my book'. When it was pointed out to you why your ideas were silly, you failed to provide any reasonable arguments. This happened over several months, and (IIRC) about 1500 post on this very blog. Minion Prometheus did read you book, and, on his own blog, gutted you like a trout. You completely failed to defend your stupid book on that site also.
Your complete inability admit you were wrong, learn from your mistakes, and move on is why you are considered a loon. Your failure to move on is the reason our host says it was necessary to restrict your posting here in his own house.
You seem worried about your Google reputation. Like the King of Sock Puppets (who I don't name if I don't see his posts), you earned it. You earned it by your own actions and your own words.
You can redeem yourself. I've offered this advice in the past, and I offer it again - start your own blog**. Fill the inter-web with your 'vaccine-safety' message. Tell us, in your own unrestricted corner of the web why vaccines are unsafe,and how to make them safe, and then back up that message with facts, figures and citations, and make people believe. Then you can call yourself a 'vaccine safety advocate'.
*This is probably the best use of the book, as paper is really not the best firestarter, and the pages were too stiff to make effective a$$ wipe.
** This is not a foolproof course of action. Your further writings may only serve to enhance you reputation as a loon. Frankly, based on what I've seen lately, I'd pretty much bet on that happening. But I really do think it's your only chance to rehabilitate yourself.
@ Johnny (#162),
I respectfully disagree with EVERYTHING that you've written.
Relying on the antiquated insolence of Prometheus is like eating an expired can of SPAM from Hormel - Desperate times require desperate measures.
If Johnny fails to improve the breadth and scope of his respectful insolence will he be stigmatized like Prometheus was in the academic realm?
Now 130 anti-vaxx families in northern Italy plan to seek asylum in Austria. They don't want theirs childs to be poisoned by thiomersal etc.
They could compare themselves to LGBT parents in Russia, "we are stigmatized" etc ...?
If Austria's smart, they'll be turned back at the border.
Wouldn't Romania be a more appropriate place for this pro-VPD crowd, what with the current measles epidemic?
In my freakin' dreams. I'm honored that you compared Prometheus and myself using the word 'like' and not 'unlike', but that just shows how clueless you are.
Doing MJD's suggested Google search, one finds (appallingly) that there are only a handful of refutations to his silliness on the first search page, and it takes 8 citations to reach his Encyclopedia of American loons entry.
More embarrassingly for Michael, there are 627 Silly People ranked ahead of him in the Loon Hierarchy, and another loon is garnering far more attention:
I'm still trying to figure out how this (stigmatization) is happening. 11 kids ages 13 to 31 & now caring for a 4 year old grandson & not once in 31 years has anyone ever asked about vaccination status in any social situation.
Obviously you get asked when enrolling a child in daycare, preschool or k-12 & it's entered into the student record. It's not like they display a chart with gold stars on the wall.
And in an urgent care/ER they always ask but that's not a social setting.
The one & only unusual experience I've had was at a pediatric urgent care center last year. My 14 year old daughter was the patient but her nurse noticed (hard to miss) my 12 year old son flapping, toe-walking & making odd vocalizations & said "I take it HE was vaxed."
I'll take "shit that never happened" for 800, Alex.
Somehow I doubt that happened.
Please describe this "trying."
I suspect that a subgroup analysis for "professional baby factory" would be woefully underpowered in this case.
^ Compliments, though, on describing your 12-year-old in the same comment in which your youngest is 13.
I understand; I’m an Antivaxer. Despite the fact that I’m fully vaxed, my kids are fully vaxed (well; minus hpv) & I don’t “advocate” antivax creed … I am still an Antivaxer & I can’t expect you to find me credible.
Because I’m determined that my son will be a part of his community, I have had to learn how to not care so much about what other people think. My son is very large for his age (5’11 & 189lbs) & vocalizes loudly & continuously; I’ve become accustomed to the stares & the whispers. He’s super strong & when he “flaps” it resembles a full body lunge. I realize he can be intimidating but he is a part of the community too & a valuable one at that(I do not allow him to be inappropriate or disruptive).
It caught me off guard & left me momentarily speechless. I’ve been asked all sorts of things before but never ever, not once has anybody ever asked me about vaccines in relation to his Autism.
I just answered that yes; he is fully immunized. She asked if I thought that it was “because of” the vaccines & I answered truthfully that yes; I did (but that he had been inadvertently “double dosed” at his 2 year check-up).
I guess it had not occurred to me that this is what people might be seeing & thinking when they look at my son & that bothers me. You know; my son makes people smile. He might not be able to answer your questions but he has no problem with standing in a crowded grocery store at the checkout line & launching into a perfect-pitch rendition of Michael Jackson’s “Man In the Mirror”. THAT’S what I want people to remember when the subject of Autism comes up; not “vaccine injury” or worse; “damaged”.
Maybe I handled the situation the wrong way; I don’t know. I doubt I came off like a determined vigilante because I’m not; I still have a lot of questions.
A quick note on just this one statement: Just because one's kids are "fully vaxed" does not inoculate (can't resist) one against the charge of being an antivaxer. As a counterpoint, I offer you the example of RFK, Jr., who goes on and on endlessly about how all his kids are "fully vaccinated" while spewing the most nonsensical, pseudoscientific antivax nonsense and referring to vaccines and autism as a "Holocaust." He is as antivax as they come, a leader in the antivax movement. The same can be said for other leaders of the movement, several of whom brag that their children were "fully vaccinated" before their "eyes were opened."
Narad; this Urgent Care visit for my daughter occured last year, when they (my youngest girls are twins) were 14 & my now 13 year old son was 12.
The twins are now 15 & youngest son is now 13.
I should have written it differently; I apologize for not being more clear.
To be clear, I have serious doubts as to whether any legitimate medical professional would have made that statement to you.
Second, I have noted that there seems to be a subset of boys with autism - those on the lower end of the spectrum that are described, invariably, as "big or large" for their age.
It has led me to wonder if this is yet another genetic marker of autism - a physical manifestation (much like one sees with Downs and other genetic conditions) of the condition?
It's a very unscientific hypothesis on my part - but it has peaked my interest to hear physical descriptions which are so similar, tied to autism.
Orac is correct. I remember encountering an anti-vaxxer who, in one sentence, stated that "because they vaccinated their child, they could not be considered anti-vaccine", and then in the next sentence ranted about "vaccine damage".
And BTW Christine, you really should stay up to date on the latest research about autism. Recent research indicates that the brain abnormalities that have been found in the brains of people with autism are already present in utero, thus completely ruling vaccines as a possible cause, and that is in addition to the numerous studies that have found zero link between vaccination and autism (yes, I know, I'm very unlikely to get you to change your mind, but I still thought I'd try).
Also, it has been known for more than a decade now that one of the strongest risk factors for autism is having an older father (I think the first study that pointed strongly in this direction was a 2006 Israeli study). If there is a real increase in autism incidence (rather than just an increase in the number of people being diagnosed due to broader diagnostic criteria and more awareness etc), it could be due to the fact that more people are having children later in life.
@Lawrence (#177). I haven't heard that some autistic boys are unusually large for their age before-I have, however, heard that some autistic people have unusually large heads (macrocephaly).
Apparently, a subset of autistic people with macrocephaly have been identified as having PTEN (?) mutations, which presumably explains both the autism and the macrocephaly. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3581311/
Christine Kincaid, if you are continuing to vaccinate yourself and your children, which is a lifelong proposition now, then you are not an "antivaxer." Did you come here to convey the idea that "anti vaccine" actually means "anti medical error" because your doctor accidentally doubled up on your son's vaccines?
There are a lot of ways the vaccine opposition is being controlled, but that's a new one for me. Usually we hear that "anti-vaccine" means "make vaccines safer." Or "vaccines cause autism" (but not any other serious damage). Or we see anti-vaccine leaders using click bait titles, or mixing in outrageous claims to destroy the credibility of the anti-vaccine concept. Or we hear that "autism is a blessing." Although I guess you did throw a bit of that one in--along with the "vaccination = immunization" trope.
Anything is better than the terrifying truth: That the vaccine paradigm is an enormous fraud masquerading as science. Its entire foundation is fundamentally flawed, and its sole purpose is to keep the population sick, weak and obedient, while ensuring a continuous profit stream for the oligarchy.
I love to see something like that said in the face of standards of living and life expectancies which have never been equaled before in human history.....(not to mention lowest infant mortality rates, ever).
But what about the fake Moon landings and Mars rovers, Ginny?
Face it, you're the worst disinfo agent ever.
Two doses of MMR (which DO prevent Measles, Mumps and Rubella) are a mere fraction of the cost of treating even one case of any of those diseases in hospital.
"Profit Stream" my foot.
Yes; it’s the standard “I’m not an Antivaxer” preamble & I’ve noticed it multiple times, especially with politicians & lawyers
There is another one, favored by some members of congress & researchers who may be publishing any study with unfavorable findings. The requiem: “There is no argument that Vaccine’s are the greatest medical achievement of the 20th century …” And they then go on to state anything but.
Maybe it’s considered proper etiquette? At any rate, I don’t have much of an employment future to risk anymore (unfortunately). And unlike Kennedy I am clearly going on the record as an Antivaxer. I don’t like it; I don’t like what it implies but it is what it is & I am what I am. For now (I’m still learning & I reserve the right to change my mind).
My reasons for stating that my children have been vaccinated was, however, intentional:. My son is the youngest of 11. It’s one thing to have one or two unvaccinated kids running around in a community. It’s quite another to have 11 & if that were the case I think I would deserve the harsh criticism of your readers.
I also feel like I should clarify that this was not an easy accomplishment for myself because one might assume that since it is the youngest that is disabled that I never had to make those decisions for the next baby. That would be incorrect; in 1994 my 5th child & that time my only daughter passed away in her sleep at the age of 3 months & 26 days. I was the one who found her. I tried so hard to revive her; it took 4 grown men to pull her out of my arms because I just could not stop trying to do CPR. When I followed the ambulance to the ER & the doctor walked out, looked at me & said “I’m sorry …” I heard a girl screaming & didn’t even realize it was me.
The following days (months) were a blur; some sort of traumatic amnesia took hold but twice, BOTH of the Grandmothers asked me “Didn’t they get their shots that day?”
(Okay, Narad; to clarify; I’ve had twins, twice)
I remember actually feeling very offended that they asked this. There were SO many other factors potentially at play: PROM at 24 weeks followed by 6 weeks inpatient, premature c-sec for Chorioamnionitis (30weeks) followed by 2 months in NICU then discharged home on O2. In fact, that very day her O2 had been D/C’d & that’s what had been nagging at me. Not the immunizations. I remember biting my tounge & answering “Yes, they did but this was SIDS”.
And sure enough, the autopsy report came back saying SIDS. But that “bug” had been put in my brain & I’d be lying if I told you that I wasn’t terrified every time her twin brother had to get more vaccines. And the same with “baby #7”. And “baby #’s 8, 9 & 10” & finally #11. Over & over I had to struggle with that “what if …” & overcome it because I truly believed I was doing the right thing by having my kids immunized.
I just want you & your readers to understand; when I say “My kids are vaxed” that this was no small feat. I deserve to fly that flag; I’m not a “silly Antivaxer”. I’m just (for now) an Antivaxer. With vaxed kids.
(Now; go enjoy your vacation & don’t let me distract you. Your readers can handle me; I’m quite sure.)
Wow, NWOR is so out of her mind that she actually criticizes other anti-vaxxers for being more in reality than she is.
In her case, it seems that being anti-vax is simply part of an extremely paranoid, bordering on psychotic, worldview.
I've noted before that anti-vaxxers tend to be quie paranoid in general, and that there is often overlap between anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theorists, and she seems to be an extreme example of this. Based on her comments, as well as her username, I'm quite sure that her divorced-from-reality beliefs go way beyond her opposition to all conventional medical care.
@NWOR-I assume that Christine Kincaid has stopped vaccinating herself and her children. What she most likely meant was that she got her vaccines as a kid, and her children got their vaccines when they were infants/small children, but then, when her son was diagnosed with autism and she erroneously blamed it on vaccines, she stopped vaccinating.
Which is unfortunate, because with some vaccines (e.g., the Tdap) immunity wanes after a period of time and periodic (in the case of the Tdap, every 10 years) boosters are needed.
I agree with Julian Frost's comment (#183), and I would add that some pharma companies would make MORE $$ if there was no flu shot. When the flu shot is a poor match for the predominant circulating strain of influenza (like it was in the flu season of 2014-15), Roche and GSK, which manufacture Tamiflu and Relenza, respectively, make more $$, so no flu vax at all would mean that Tamiflu and Relenza sales would skyrocket and Roche and GSK would make far more $$.
Is that simple enough for you to understand, NWOR?
the vaccine opposition is being controlled
Ah, the "controlled opposition" trope. Have we ruled out the possibility that NWOR is part of the Controlled Opposition herself, working hard to discredit the antivax cause even as she pretends to be part of it?
I've noticed the large size + low functioning reference also.
His pediatrician estimates he will be 6'7" by the time he is fully grown.
"Two doses of MMR (which DO prevent Measles, Mumps and Rubella) are a mere fraction of the cost of treating even one case of any of those diseases in hospital." LOL. But nowhere near as funny as "...some pharma companies would make MORE $$ if there was no flu shot." You guys are hilarious!
Measles, mumps and rubella almost never require hospitalization--at least they didn't before the vaccine. And the flu vaccine cannot prevent most cases of "flu" even it worked, since most cases of eyeball diagnosis "flu" do not test positive for influenza at all--when people bother to seek a doctor's care for it.
But it is true a lot of the 'rewards' of vaccination for the oligarchy are in the long-term iatrogenic damage, and the obedience training. :)
Nice use of reversal, herr doktor himler. Rather predictable, but I still got a chuckle out of that "controlled opposition" thing. :D
Measles hospitalised 1 in 4. In the US, in the 21st century.
I'm surprised she can even type with Rappoport's dong hanging out of her mouth.
@NWOR-You wrote "Measles, mumps and rubella almost never require hospitalization"-this is yet another blatantly false claim that anti-vaxxers often make. It is also a claim that is very easily refuted.
The reality is that, the last time the U.S. saw a major measles epidemic (between 1989 and 1991), 55,000 people contracted measles, 11,000 of them required hospitalization, and at least 123 of the 55,000 died.
Philadelphia was especially hard-hit by this epidemic, and 9 children, all from two fundamentalist Christian churches that rejected vaccination, died of measles. The situation in Philadelphia became so bad that a court order was eventually obtained to vaccinate children against their parents wishes. Even the ACLU, which is known for it's willingness to defend extremely unpopular causes, refused to represent the parents who were refusing to vaccinate their children.
Also, in addition to the well-known complications of measles (e.g., pneumonia, acute encephalitis, and SSPE), it appears that after having measles, one is more susceptible to other infectious diseases for the next 2-3 years-in other words, if you get measles, you may recover fully, but 1 or 2 years later, you might become severely ill from a different infectious disease that you wouldn't have contracted in the first place if you'd hadn't had measles.
So no, measles is not "mild".
With Rubella, the most serious concern is its devastating impact on a developing fetus-there was a major Rubella epidemic in the U.S. between 1964 and 1965, and as a result, 20,000 children were born with Congenital Rubella Syndrome.
Hey, Orac, why didn't my last post go through? I linked to the Just the Vax blog, but I have posted links here before and the comment has posted. What's up?
Hmm, it looks like you can't link to Just the Vax here. That's odd.
For the NWO Troll, I dare you to read this paper:
Pediatric hospital admissions for measles. Lessons from the 1990 epidemic.
Before the vaccine was introduced, there were 48,000 hospitalisations a year for Measles.
To quote Mhairi Black, a Member of the Scottish Parliament:
"Ye talk shite, hen."
@NWOR-Once you are done reading the above link, you should also read the below links.
One of the things missing from this study is interviews of friends and family. I really have to wonder how much of the avoidance is just due to anti-vaxxers (especially upper middle class suburban ladies of the sneery variety which dominate that movement) simply being awful people with awful children. I mean, seriously, would people like their children to play with Barron Trump or NWOReporter's kids, or Anne Dachel's kids?
The late/hesitant vaxxers would be more likely to be pleasant people.
Don't blame the children for what their parents have done, or the ideas they have.
Actually, PGP, I haven't heard anything negative about Barron, so I'd be willing to let my children play with him if he was UTD with vaccines. Same with NWOR or Anne's kids. However, if they are horrible brats, then even if they are UTD I would oppose my children's contact with them.
Since NWOR's children/grandchildren are unvaccinated, the question is moot. They would not be welcome.
Renate: Yes, but at some point you do have to take responsibility for your own child's safety. Would you let them play at the home of a known molester or peeping tom? A Nazi? Would you cheerfully send your daughter with severe allergies (to say beestings or something?) over to a house where you know the mother is more likely to pray then call 911 or use an epipen? Even if the kids of all these people had haloes reserved?
MIDawn: Well, see my question to Renate. During a playdate, interaction with the other child's parents is unavoidable, and then there's Barron's dad's record of behavior around women and children. (The POS used to throw rocks at toddlers. I don't know if you knew that.) So you have one extremely volatile parent with no boundaries and one ghost.
Out of respect for the child (he didn't get to pick his parents), I'd like to consider them outside of this conversation, if you please.
@MI Dawn-I actually suspect that Barron Trump may have autism, and his father blames it on vaccines.
President Trump has very few consistent positions-for example, he used to be pro-choice, now he's anti-choice, during the campaign he said he opposed arming Syrian rebels and opposed attacking the Syrian government, then less than 100 days into his Presidency he ordered airstrikes on Syrian government forces, he once stated (more than 15 years ago) that he supported universal healthcare, he once even praised Hillary Clinton (I think in 2007) and said that the economy did better under Democratic administrations, etc etc, yet he has been consistently opposed to vaccination, and has blamed autism on vaccines, for years now, and I suspect that it's because Barron Trump has autism and President Trump thinks it's because of vaccines.
Barron seems a little "off" to me, and the fact that he and the First Lady didn't move into the WH as soon as President Trump was inaugurated is also odd.
Also, it would makes sense since President Trump would have been 59 or 60 when Barron was conceived, and advanced paternal age is a well known risk factor for autism.
I could be wrong about this, but I've seen a number of other people who have also suggested that perhaps Barron Trump has autism.
In any case, regardless of whether Barron Trump is autistic, his father's statements about vaccination indicate that he is probably not up to date on his vaccines.
By the time the measles vaccine came out, measles was considered such a benign disease in the industrialized world that most people never sought medical attention for it at all. Only about 10% of an estimated 3.9 million cases in the US each year were ever reported.
Among those that did seek medical attention for measles, this doctor described it in 1959: "In the majority of children the whole episode has been well and truly over in a week, from the prodromal phase to the disappearance of the rash, and many mothers have remarked ‘how much good the attack has done their children’, as they seem so much better after the measles." Measles: Reports from General Practitioners, British Medical Journal, February 7, 1959.
There are always going to be exceptionally weak people who are vulnerable to pretty much everything. That's not a reason to subject the entire country to invasive medical procedures they don't need, which always have risks--some of which are not even known or understood.
@NWOR-That is just plain ridiculous-but I shouldn't be surprised, since most if not all of your posts here are. As I mentioned last night, of the 55,000 people who contracted measles in the 1989-91 epidemic, 11,000 required hospitalization and at least 123 died. 9 children died of measles in that epidemic in Philadelphia ALONE.
And this statement "many mothers have remarked ‘how much good the attack has done their children’, as they seem so much better after the measles." is absolutely nonsensical. In sharp contrast, measles leaves you MORE susceptible to other infectious diseases for a 2-3 year period following measles infection.
Also, in the pre-vaccine era, measles caused 5-10% of cases of acquired deafness.
@NWOR-Mark Twain would disagree with you-he wrote, in "A Turning Point In My Life": "The summer came, and brought with it an epidemic of measles. For a time a child died almost every day. The village was paralyzed with fright, distress, despair. Children that were not smitten with the disease were imprisoned in their homes to save them from the infection. In the homes there were no cheerful faces, there was no music, there was no singing but of solemn hymns, no voice but of prayer, no romping was allowed, no noise, no laughter, the family moved spectrally about on tiptoe, in a ghostly hush. I was a prisoner. My soul was steeped in this awful dreariness–and in fear. At some time or other every day and every night a sudden shiver shook me to the marrow, and I said to myself, “There, I’ve got it! and I shall die. Life on these miserable terms was not worth living, and at last I made up my mind to get the disease and have it over, one way or the other. I escaped from the house and went to the house of a neighbor where a playmate of mine was very ill with the malady. When the chance offered I crept into his room and got into bed with him. I was discovered by his mother and sent back into captivity. But I had the disease; they could not take that from me. I came near to dying. The whole village was interested, and anxious, and sent for news of me every day; and not only once a day, but several times. Everybody believed I would die; but on the fourteenth day a change came for the worse and they were disappointed."
Are you still going to try to claim that measles was widely viewed as "benign"?
@NWOR-13 in 1,000 measles patients develop acute encephalitis, and 1 in 10,000 will eventually develop SSPE, a uniformly fatal complication of measles that on average develops 7-10 years after the initial illness. For infants who contract measles, the risk of later developing SSPE is much higher-probably about 1 in 600, based on research published last year.
That is yet another reason why high vaccination coverage is so important-to protect infants who are too young to have been vaccinated, who face a much higher risk of SSPE if they do contract measles.
There was a terrible case in Germany in 2000 when an unvaccinated child with measles went to his pediatrician and infected 6 other children-3 of them infants. While all 6 children initially appeared to recover fully, 3 of the 3 infants years later developed SSPE, and both have since died of the disease. If the parents of the unvaccinated child had made the right choice and had him vaccinated, those 2 children would be alive and well today.
Jonas, encephalitis can be caused by the MMR vaccine, too. Other serious adverse reactions that have occurred during clinical trials of the vaccine are vasculitis, pancreatitis, diabetes mellitus, thrombocytopenia, leukocytosis, anaphylaxis, arthritis, pneumonia. nerve deafness, retinitis and death--to name a few.
Yah. Protip: Everybody else has seen this shіt, too (AoA was on "the case"). Half-assed horseshіt is bad enough per se, but babbling about the kid is just putrid.
"Reported Adverse Events" - that's a completely different thing.
Sure, Lawrence. "We made no attempt to prove those adverse reactions were caused by the vaccine. So just assume they weren't." LOL. :D
You're an Ed Gein wannabe, Ginny. Deal with it.
@NWO Troll #206: Of course, you neglect to consider that there was no measles vaccine in 1959. You also neglect to consider that this is a general letter, not any kind of research study. It doesn't matter if mothers really thought their kids were the better for measles since this doctor didn't follow how well these kids did long term and report back on that in the BMJ.
Basically, you're suggesting one anecdotal letter somehow surpasses everything else we know about measles. It doesn't pass the laugh test.
So, NWO Troll is relying on anecdotes, how droll. Well here is another:
It's amazing how research continues & we discover exactly how bad measles was.....
"What do Earth men offer you? What have you obtained from them in the past? Powders and liquids for the sick? We Klingons believe as you do. The sick should die. Only the strong should live."
When you start knocking out the pillars on which anti-vaxers base their arguments, they quickly find themselves left with nothing but a foundation of sand:
1) These diseases are / were beneficial - nope, measles infections have been found to be related to an increased overall mortality rate, leading to the hypothesis that the measles virus "resets" or wipes away immunity, leaving children vulnerable to other diseases (with plenty of evidence to support this hypothesis - read the paper above).
2) Getting "life-long immunity" - so, kids have to get sick to not get sick again? Not exactly a logical argument.
Plus, some percentage of the population, infected naturally, won't sero-convert & will still be vulnerable to re-infection later on. Also, diseases such as Pertussis don't grant life-long immunity anyway, so people get re-infected down the line.
3) Vaccines don't grant "real immunity" - which is one of the stupidest arguments, since the body doesn't care if the antigens it reacts to come from the disease or the vaccine.
Plus, without vaccines, diseases would re-emerge as soon as enough non-immune people exist within a given population. The cyclical nature of epidemics was caused by the increased number of babies (non-immune) added to the population until the threshold was reached where the disease could once again circulate freely.
Diseases which only have humans as hosts (like measles, polio, smallpox, and others) can be eradicated simply by denying the disease "fertile ground" or non-immune people to infect.
Smallpox was eradicated because all known cases were tracked & everyone within the immediate area (sometimes for miles around) were vaccinated, denying the disease anyone else to infect.
Diseases aren't like animals - they can't just hang around in the open, they require a host to replicate. Deny them that host, and then they die.
Immunology and Epidemiology are amazing branches of science & it pains me to see such ignorant anti-vaxers who can't even recognize the disease life-cycle & why vaccines are so important to break that cycle.
@Narad-I didn't see it on AoA (which I don't read). And it's just pure speculation.
But I did see an article on MSNBC that described how, when Trump visited a school, he, completely unprompted, stated: "So what’s going on with autism? When you look at the tremendous increase, it’s really – it’s such an incredible – it’s really a horrible thing to watch, the tremendous amount of increase. Do you have any idea? And you’re seeing it in the school?”
Of course, that statement was false-there is no evidence that the true incidence of ASDs has increased-it's most likely just broader diagnostic criteria and more awareness-but I think we both know that Trump routinely makes assertions that have no basis in reality.
That, in combination with the meeting with RFK Jr. after the election and Wakefield before the election, makes me wonder if Barron Trump has autism and he incorrectly blamed it on vaccines.
On the other hand, Trump has also praised Alex Jones, called global warming a hoax, claimed that former President Obama wasn't born in the U.S., and made numerous other claims not grounded in fact both before and during the campaign, and as President, so it's also entirely possible that paranoia about vaccination is just another crazy "theory" he latched onto.
@Lawrence (#219) I will add that, in addition to the increased risk of other infectious diseases after measles, at least one study has found that pertussis increases the risk of later developing epilepsy-so measles isn't the only VPD that has long-term detrimental effects even in those who appear to recover fully.
Here's the link: http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2467554
Epilepsy is a rite of passage. It only affect the poor & weak.
Lawrence: Here's the thing: at school and in neutral territory, (playgrounds, daycare, camps,zoos) the parents don't matter. However kids like to play at each other's houses, so sooner or later the character of the parents and sometimes the siblings does come into play. Unless a third party takes charge of the kids.
IE: One or both sets of kids has a nanny and the parents never meet each other or the kids.
PGP - we know you're an ass. A barely tolerated one, but an ass regardless.
Try not attacking children for the sins of the parents.
Again, if the kids are going to be under the supervision of a parent who has questionable beliefs/is prone to violence what's wrong with saying 'your friend can come here, but you can't go there?" No one's punishing anyone in that context.
FFS, Lawrence, do you know how parenting WORKS?
A lot more than you, it seems. Personally, I don't bring someone's kid into the conversation, even if it is Trump.
I am familiar with both the head circumference research & the age of father research.
They are both applicable in my son’s presentation. His father is 12 years older than I & was 48 when he was born. The head circumference research is interesting because they found that children with Autism are actually born with heads that are smaller than average circumference & by age 2, measure as macro-cephalic.
This would mirror my son’s statistics also; he DID have a smaller than average head circumference at birth but after age 2 his skull grew so rapidly you could see his scalp through his hair.
Given that this is a noted scientific finding, I find the recent research regarding the prenatal “Autistic Brain” to be of high interest. I’m not sure if this was the study you mentioned but I will reference:
... In which fresh-frozen postmortem cortical tissue blocks from children, 2 to 15 years of age, with autism (case samples) or without autism (controls) were studied.
This study discusses a finding of abnormal neuron growth in the brains of children with Autism that subsides by young adulthood & notes that macrocephaly does not continue past young adulthood. They state:
" Our data are consistent with an early prenatal origin of autism or at least prenatal processes that may confer a predisposition to autism."
If children with Autism are born micro-cephalic & start a pattern of neuron overgrowth around age 2 & become macro-cephalic; I feel this is indicative of an environmental trigger. But I’m not a research scientist. And yes, I admit I could do better with staying on top of the latest research.
I’m a mom. And not a “new” mom either nor a “beginner” mom. My son with Autism was # 11; I’m extremely well versed in developmental milestones & have spent decades being “right” about each individual child’s reactions to everything from sleep cycles, foods, medications & their specific personality assets & flaws … I think I know the difference between forwards (neurotypical) & backwards (regression) by now.
My son was going “forwards” as of 11/17/2005. And by 11/29/2005 the “whatever it was” that made him go “backwards” had already started & it was hitting him hard. And the only thing that was different in his world between the 17th & 29th was: birthday cake, ice cream & a double dose of vaccines.
So interviews with doctors about their experience with measles patients are mere anecdotes, worthy only of disregard. Similar to the attitude toward parents who observe their children deteriorate physically and mentally after vaccination. Or who observe growth spurts and other indications of improved health after natural infection and recovery from something like measles.
When the facts are not on your side, as is the case with vaccine dogma, the only alternative is deception and manipulation. There is ample psyence to facilitate it, and ample opportunity for people who are short on ethics and long on smug arrogance and obnoxious incivility to earn a little (or a lot of) extra scratch purveying it.
Not necessarily. Physicians are trained experts in diseases and conditions. Their collective opinions are weighed more heavily versus people who, like you, get most of their information/education/knowledge/wisdom from non-accredited, non-validated sources.
@NWOR-Measles is a potentially very serious illness. The fact that you refuse to even admit that, despite the fact that a number of people here have described the potentially devastating complications of measles, and have pointed out the fact that measles appears to induce a 2-3-year long period of "immune amnesia", suggests to me that you are just trolling, and have no interest in a real conversation.
@Ren-Saying that NWOR gets her information from "non-accredited, non-validated sources" is an understatement-I bet she gets most of her "information" from conspiracy theory-obsessed websites.
@Jonas - she "runs" a conspiracy theory-obsessed website.
Can't say I'm surprised...
It's pretty easy to find, just do Google Search on her "name."
I think I found it-it's "NWO Report", right?
"I think I found it"
Why would you want to find it? Some things are better left buried: nuclear waste, corpses, CT sites, et cetera.
NWO Reporter wrote of
It happens that, since measles virus infection produces a powerful immunosuppressive effect that lasts for months or years due to depletion of B and T lymphocytes, reports of "improved health" following recovery from measles should be considered in the light of the extensive evidence that shows increased risk of both infection due to other pathogens and all-cause mortality increase following measles infection.
Mina MJ et al. Long-term measles-induced immunomodulation increases overall childhood infectious disease mortality. Science. 2015 May 8; 348(6235): 694–699.
Karp CL, et al. Mechanism of suppression of cell-mediated immunity by measles virus. Science. 1996;273:228–231.
Hahm B. Measles virus-induced immunosuppression. Current Topics in Microbiology and Immunology. 2009;330:271–287.
Schneider-Schaulies S, Schneider-Schaulies. Measles virus-induced immunosuppression. Current Topics in Microbiology and Immunology. 2009;330:243–269.
de Vries RD, et al. Measles Immune Suppression: Lessons from the Macaque Model. PLOS Pathology. 2012;8:e1002885.
I guess just to see how far gone she is...I almost feel sorry for her, after looking (very briefly) at that website, it is abundantly clear that she is totally and completely out of reality.
@Brian-Indeed. Plus, there is also this meta-analysis that conclude that measles vaccination decreased all-cause mortality: Non-specific beneficial effect of measles immunisation: analysis of mortality studies from developing countries, 1995, BMJ
And on top of that, it also appears that vaccination decreases the risk of SIDS (the opposite of what anti-vaxxers claim): Do immunisations reduce the risk for SIDS? A meta-analysis, Vaccine, 2007
FYI-I tried to link to these studies, but for whatever reason my comment didn't "go through" when I included the links, so I'm re-posting my comment without the links.
Gosh, how dare we (as NWOdiot says) ignore the word of a doctor regarding the severity of measles? How about this one (and I didn't have to dumpster-dive into a 58-year-old medical journal to find his comments)?
"Roughly one quarter of cases will have some sort of complication as a result of measles. These complications range from ear infections and diarrhoea to pneumonia and encephalitis. While in developed countries less than 1% of cases die, fatality rates can rise to 3-5% in some African and Asian countries. Complications are more likely in children less than 5 years of age (in up to 40% of cases) and in adults (in up to 30% of cases), and are more severe in those with malnutrition, HIV, or immune deficiencies. Before the first vaccine was licensed in 1963, measles killed more than 2 million children globally each year."
"Measles is one of the most contagious diseases known to man and anyone exposed will develop measles, unless they are immune from prior disease or vaccination. Vaccination is typically done from 9-12 months of age and again in the second year of life, as two doses of vaccine are needed to ensure adequate protection."
Replies with multiple links appear after they are released from automatic moderation.
How in the heck does one go about “to destroy the credibility of the Antivaccine concept”??
If I’m to blame for that it had to be the easiest “destruction” I’ve ever been responsible for.
Let me be clear; Autism is no blessing. I left the employed world for a life at 200% below poverty level because I KNOW I’m the best person to care for my son. My boy can’t ride a bike or a skateboard but he wants to. He wants friends & to be invited to birthday parties but he has none & doesn’t. He can’t answer when I ask him “Where does it hurt”. He can’t play outside because he will just run … run into/over people, into roads & towards water. He can’t toilet himself.
I take him to playgrounds at 10pm so he doesn’t scare or injure “little” kids with his “bull in a china store” affect. He makes paper “valentines” for girlfriends he will never have. Travel plans right down to Google Maps street view directions for vacations we’ll never be able to afford to take. Thousands of pages of illustrations for his future “job” at Nintendo that he’ll never be hired for. It’s heart-breaking. And so NOT a blessing.
But HE is a blessing.
Would it further serve to disenfranchise myself from the Anti vaccine “concept” for me to announce that I don’t use experimental alternative/biomedical therapy for my son? He has two things that make him happy: A day organized by his little “routine” that is not cram-packed with appointments & Pepperoni Pizza. I’m not taking that away from him.
I’m still an Antivaxer. I won’t be vaccinating until I’m taken seriously by scientific research that is relevant to “me & mine”.
And I don’t subscribe to conspiracy theories that the U.S. Immunization policy/program is fueled by de-population Eugenicists. And Orac’s followers are not “in on” any conspiracy; that’s counter-intuitive to think that a conspiracy could be maintained by your average doctors, lawyers, media & scientists; numbering in the hundreds of thousands.
What IS a factor as to “why” started almost 60 years ago. It didn’t start with Autism & it won’t end by Autism. And I will now step off those toes.
There; now I’ve gone & done it. I’ve destroyed my credibility as an Antivaxer. (??)
"So interviews with doctors about their experience with measles patients are mere anecdotes, worthy only of disregard. Similar to the attitude toward parents who observe their children deteriorate physically and mentally after vaccination. Or who observe growth spurts and other indications of improved health after natural infection and recovery from something like measles."
In the letter you mention, yes, it is mere anecdote because they don't rise to the level of case history, where extensive details of the case are provided to the reader. Case histories are the weakest form of data, but they often form the basis of further scientific inquiry. Your letter doesn't even rise to that level.
"When the facts are not on your side, as is the case with vaccine dogma, the only alternative is deception and manipulation."
Then why you do keep doing this? Is it because you are getting some of the scratch you mention? After all, there must be some reason you put yourself in the position of a ridiculous fool on such a consistent basis.
The Paypal "Donate" button provides a clue. What a way to make a living!
So are you an official representative of Panacea Biotec? You make an appropriate rep for the corporate rep. You should post your company financials, instead of lying about donation buttons.
Similar to the attitude toward parents
I am reminded of "The Force", who was all about “believe the parents”… until the parents don’t share theForce’s intuition that “their chidren were vaccine-damaged”. Then the story becomes “Ignore what the parents say, they were brainwashed! What would they know? -- their experience is worthless.”
Like NWOR, 'TheForce" claimed to believe in CIA Parker's fabrication of a special diagnostic high-pitched “encephalitic cry”, unknown to paediatrics.
So many parents have noted a distinctive high-pitched scream in the hours or days following vaccination. What do YOU call it (other than "nothing to worry about")?
Lawrence: Fine. Than how about Mr. Crosby or the adult Palins, who are horrible people raised by other horrible people? Would you really want to have them as your neighbors? Would you let your children play with theirs?
NWO reporter's youtube cartoon take on our evil leader was highly amusing though.
@PGP - as adults, they've made their own choices & the choices of the parents are, in fact, relevant - but please, keep the kids out of it.
Bloody hell, that (NWOR) Stoner woman's off her head, isn't she?
Of course she is - it takes a special kind of crazy to be like that.
And also, at one point I took pity on the Gnat - but with his recent foray into the worst areas of the alt-right movement, I no longer feel anything but complete disgust.
What do YOU call it (other than “nothing to worry about”)?
"Just another rectally-sourced fabrication" is the term that comes to mind.
I'm not easily impressed, Ginny, but that there was some outstanding creation of a speech action directly from raw medulla oblongata input.
@NWO Troll: Wow, struck a nerve there I see. So are you actually trying to say you DON'T have a Paypal donate button on your website? Now who's lying.
I never heard of Panacea Biotec before today. I don't suppose it ever occurred to you that a nurse might use the 'nym Panacea, because of the history of the word (from the Greek "cure all"), and the Greek goddess who cures disease, and not have anything to do with some small little start up in India (I live in Ohio btw)?
Although, actually, Panacea is the name of my superhero nurse with super strength and flight in Hero System 5th Edition who lives in the fictional city of San Angelo, CA. I like the name of the character so much I started using it for my professional 'nym to seperate it from my 'nym I use for fun stuff.
Given that you continue to lie about me having a donation button, I wonder if you are also lying about your association with Panacea Biotec. But you seem to be a chronic liar, so it's pointless to expect a straight answer from you about anything. You probably think a panacea is built on lies.
Yes, that must be why when I clicked on the donate button, it led to an email address for "nwo report world news" from YOUR website.
I saved a screenshot, but I'm not handy with Word Press. Any of our regular and sane readers have a suggestion?
There has never been a donate button on my website. Nor have I ever asked for or received donations from anywhere. So either you've been looking at the wrong website all this time (LOL), or you are lying again. I'll bet on the latter. You lie like a rug. You lie like a con artist whose living depends on it. By why mess with euphemisms?
No wonder you are so secretive about your identity. With your prolific and singularly obnoxious vaccine proselytizing all over the web, you are doing more single-handedly to destroy the credibility of the vaccine paradigm than I could ever hope to achieve. Keep up the good work! :D
This does raise some interesting questions. If you have been looking at the wrong website, how could you have doxed me like you have? Either you just made up a lie about the existence of a donate button, or someone has fed you the information you needed to dox me. Let me know if I can help you with that screen shot. ;)
So many parents have noted a distinctive high-pitched scream in the hours or days following vaccination.
NWOR seems to have backed quietly away from the original fan-fic about an encephalitis cry, in preference for "distinctive".
What I especially like about the "encephalitic cry" story-line is the way that the ThinkingMoms and NVIC numpties and CIA-Parker-Wannabees like to dress up in white coats and pretend to be paediatricians... solemnly assuring one another that "it is called the 'encephalitic cry'", and exchanging medical-sounding definitions for something that they know they made up.
Some would say "Munchausen's by Proxy", but I could not possibly comment.
So, are you claiming that parents have not reported a high-pitched scream in the hours and days after vaccination? Or do you acknowledge that such reports have happened, but claim the parents don't know what they're talking about?
Hey, Ginny, is the seahorse implanted in your head working well enough for you to get back to your bitching and whining over here, or did you "decide" to cut your losses or something?
Just as well, as it could start firing 'Christina England' rules in the Mouse Trap.
* Bonus track.
it could start firing ‘Christina England’ rules in the Mouse Trap.
Yes, I recall that Christina was second link in the human centipede of "encephalitic cry" fabulation.
#39 NWO Reporter, June 15, 2017
I think you just nominated yourself as an entry in the "What is an “altie”? list.
You mean that desperate attempt to to paint everyone who questions the supremacy of Rockefeller medicine as an idiot? Oh, horrors! I'd better spend the afternoon genuflecting at the CDC shrine to prove my devotion. :D
Too bad that cute derogatory name never caught on. Considering some the foul names I've been called on this site, "altie" sounds like a term of endearment. :)
What does that even mean?
A book on this subject was written in the early part of the 20th century called Rockefeller Medicine Men. A reprint is available on Amazon.
Didn't you know that the Rockefeller's merged with the Rothschild's back in the 1920's to form the modern version of the Illuminati which controls a substantial portion of the world's wealth & is constant battle against the Reptillians and Greys for control of the planet?
Oh, and supposedly they also control the medical / military industrial complex as well......
Actually, the book Rockefeller Medicine Men was written long before there was any discussion about so-called Illuminati, Reptilians, Greys, or the military industrial complex. But by all means, don't let facts get in the way of an opportunity for derision. I trust it boosted your opinion of yourself. :)
Intimate knowledge of CT literature is not something to boast about.
* Gets up from chair *
* Takes elevator to B-level *
* Pulls R152.B730 c.2 *
No, you shіthead, it was written in 1979. I'm holding a fυcking copy.
P.S. Am I the only one that gets a bit creeped out between between movable bookstacks in an empty library basement?
I am SHOCKED that posters here continue to be distracted by futile loon-shaming, when HOLISTIC doctors continue to be murdered IN COLD BLOOD while the pharmaceutical establishment CACKLES with glee.
The latest holistic doctor murder (alertly reported by HealthNutNews and Mike's like-minded Nutnural News) occurred around Memorial Day in Boulder, Colorado. And while local reporters try to paint the death as fueled by jealousy, testosterone and ordering too much food at an organic restaurant, we all know what's really behind it.
Not sure how high the body count has to climb before we agree that something has to be done, like pointing and laughing.
Narad @50 "Am I the only one that gets a bit creeped out between between movable bookstacks in an empty library basement?"
Not at all! Especially if they're automatic condensed shelving. If they're the manual kind I'd rather be alone. I once had someone start to close a set on me and couldn't hear me shouting because of their headphones.
A book on this subject was written in the early part of the 20th century called Rockefeller Medicine Men. A reprint is available on Amazon
Quite precocious, for an author who was born in 1942! It is almost as if NWOR is citing a book when her knowledge of it is limited to skmming a faulty Amazon review.
Actually, the book Rockefeller Medicine Men was written long before there was any discussion about so-called Illuminati, Reptilians, Greys, or the military industrial complex..
Are you going to stick to the date, or just run away from it like everything else?
All this kerfuffle because CJTX asked: "Rockefeller medicine? What does that even mean?" I assume the book reference alone cleared that up. :D
Yeah, looks like I was mistaken about the published date. I didn't recall the date, and pulled up one of the versions on Amazon that said "This book was originally published prior to 1923..."
Therefore, I guess stigmatizing "undervaccinated" children must be okay. Because Richard Brown published Rockefeller Medicine in 1979, after Eisenhower warned about the military industrial complex, but before the promotion of Reptilians by the Illuminati. Under traditional vaccine doctrine, that means vaccines are safe and effective and saved the world. :D
Am I the only one that gets a bit creeped out between between movable bookstacks in an empty library basement?
I do hope that the possibilities of the moving stacks have featured in a horror movie some time.
So, are you claiming that parents have not reported a high-pitched scream in the hours and days after vaccination?
I don't actually give a fuck.
You started out by claiming, as an unambiguous fact, that there exists a "high-pitched encephalitic scream after vaccination". You have now wimped out to the mere assertion that infants sometimes make a "high-pitched scream" -- this will not be news to most parents! -- whle putting that claim in the mouths of unspecified "parents" because you do not have the guts to stand by it yourself.
But please proceed, say whatever you feel will bring the lols.
Some people call it the "encephalitic cry" because it is similar to the high pitched scream observed in children with encephalitis. Some theorize it is caused by a swelling of the brain following vaccination. But herr doktor himler assures us he doesn't care in the slightest (in more vulgar terms, to emphasize his point). Sieg heil vakzine!
"Still a better story than Twilight."
#44 NWO Reporter, June 15, 2017 seems to be a second nomitation for the "you might be an altie" list, in the form "You might be an altie if you can write
with a straight face.
You might be an altie if you can write
I'm waiting, counsel flunkie.
Just post the URL and maybe the date. The Wayback Machine has a long memory.
Yeah, Panacea--post that link. Because I'm still wondering whether you repeatedly lied about that donate button, or you were looking at the wrong site, and got the info you needed to dox me elsewhere. :)
Is this the twilight zone? Plenty of the regular vipers here obviously know my website. It's not a secret site. Entering my screen name in your favorite search engine should pull it right up. Anyone can look it up on the Way Back Machine. There's never been a donate button on my site. I've never solicited or accepted donations.
Not that there's anything wrong with donations, BTW. They're totally voluntary. It's not like vaccines, where your children might be denied an education, or your public benefits might be taken away, or your arms might be otherwise twisted if you don't contribute to the cause. :)
Vaccination is voluntary, in all cases. Just like telling the truth is voluntary: things just go better, in general, when you do it.
Your kids are never denied an education. Unvaccinated kids may be denied access to schools in places where the social contract is considered important, but the education is still the parents' responsibility.
Gime, gimme!! I want benefits from the public treasury without needing to do my part to keeping the public healthy or doing my part of the social contract.
Please explain whose arms get twisted for being the greedy, self-centered types you're arguing in favour of.
A social contract? Give me a break. Lemme guess--you're a brave knight enforcing that "social contract." No doubt it's rewarding. And you get to wave your toy sword around at anyone who won't sacrifice their children for the King's "Greater Good."
Greedy and self-centered? Right. All people in Australia receive the child benefit. That is, unless they decline to fully vaccinate their children, in which case it's taken away. Get informed before you start waving your toy sword around.
Nice to have the means to home school your children. That's the only option now in California for parents who won't sacrifice their children to the King.
You should be careful about your air of desperation. Knights with toy swords who sound desperate don't get many supporters.
No more breaks. Those of you who want all the benefits of society while denying all responsibility to society have already taken all the breaks you're entitled to, and then some.
Nope. No sword; no king; no sacrifice. Just paying one's debts rather than taking benefits without offering anything in return.
Tank you for your self-awareness.
Presumably limited to those with children—or do the greedy without children demand yet another benefit for themselves?
No, it's not taken away: it's not given in the first place to those who just demand the benefit without the responsibility.
The great-grandkids that hang around here have tpy light sabres: would that count?
No king; no sacrifice. Public school is available for the unvaccinated when it's a matter of health, not when it's just a matter of parental greed&mdashparents who don't mind endangering the kids who can't be vaccinated.
No sword; no desperation. No need to desperately invent conspiracies to try to justify any greed.
Vaccines have not saved us from any deadly diseases. None. Nada. Your proposition is ridiculous in light of that. No one has a "social contract" to "protect" themselves against diseases that are not a serious threat in the first place--particularly when people who want the vaccine are free to get it, and "protect" themselves if they think the vaccine works, and is less of a risk than the disease.
And if you want to protect those "vulnerable" few--buy them a bubble. It's the only thing that could arguably help protect them, as they are at risk from everything.
NWO Troll @68
Seriously, you're dull.
Assertion after assertion with nothing approaching the slightest bit of evidence.
Thousands and thousands of doctors and researchers and scientist involved in thousands of studies involving perhaps millions of people are wrong.
Make your case. You've been challenged before and never come through. Put up or shut up.
LOL. Right. You're not interested in the case against vaccines, you know that--you're interested in convincing people not to examine it objectively and closely. People who are interested in learning about the case against vaccines are not going to come here. And they undoubtedly understand that their deeply held lifelong beliefs are not going to be changed by a blog comment. :D
so nothing? you'vw got nothing, you're just going to keep shrieking untrue things at us. got it.
FYI, "LOL" does not mean "shrieking" in common internet parlance--it means I'm laughing out loud at your blatant attempts at manipulation and deception. But I realize it must be difficult for you, with only psyence on your side. :)
Your reply here also means you don't bother reading what others have to say, that you're too greedy to endanger your religious beliefs with facts.
What might those "attempts at manipulation and deception" be? Are you looking in the mirror again?
No, CJTX and the rest of us have reality, evidence, and science on our side. If we knew what "psyence" might be, we might consider it, too.
Here, I'll make it easy. Give us the title of a book, a blog post, ANYTHING that you would say is persuasive evidence to support your absolutely, completely BASELESS assertions.
(And thanks for the textbook example of ad hominem)
Thanks for reminding me...I forgot reversal--accusing others of the fallacies you utilize yourself. That's a big one in your tactical manual that deserves specific mention.
"forgot reversal–accusing others of the fallacies you utilize yourself."
I could say the same about you - just now. Oh, if only there were some objective measurement to settle this dispute. "My kingdom for a fact."
Oh well, nevermind.
"That’s a big one in your tactical manual that deserves specific mention."
II have apparently misplaced my tactical manual...wait, I never had one.
PROOF! EVIDENCE! Something besides assertions..gives us something or go away.
No? Still nothing? Thought so.
Where and how, specifically, has CJTX used "reversal–accusing others of the fallacies you utilize yourself", specifying the fallacy or fallacies you accuse CJTX of?
We would be if you actually had one. It appears that your "case against vaccines" consists of wild claims and accusations, along with excuses for not having any actual evidence.
The people who hang out around here are the people who are most interested in examining actual evidence closely and objectively.
That's right, since this blog is one of those that works with evidence, not wild claims and excuses.
Yes, we challenge people who come here with their religious beliefs, like you, who wouldn't be interested in reality. We don't challenge them with mere blog comments, either, like yours: we provide evidence.
You don't provide evidence. You provide (cherry-picked) 'evidence' (notice the sneer quotes), with a generous helping of derision, ridicule, straw men, ad hominem attacks, and every other logical fallacy in your tactical manual.
What claims have I made that require evidence not already provided, specifically.
What's the difference between "
evidence" and "
'evidence'", specifically. You must imagine that there is some significant difference, otherwise your second sentence flatly contradicts your first.
I prefer being a generous person, particularly with well-deserved ridicule and scorn.
I'll admit that nearly everything I've read from you is ridiculous, and thus deserving of my scorn..
Ridicule is redundant, since it's a part of derision.
What straw men, specifically, have I set up?
I admit to attacking your ridiculous claims and opinions, and to drawing obvious inferences from them. How does this constitute out-of-bounds ad hominem attacks?
Where, specifically, have I needed to employ any (I won't insist on 'every') logical fallacy in addressing the silly stuff you're claiming?
You're making a serious claim here. You therefore have a serious responsibility to provide irrefutable, sound, credible evidence to support it. You will not be able to, in this universe (only in the NWO Conspiracy universe), so you have the responsibility to yourself, any ethics you may have, and reality to withdraw it.
When [***snorfle***] you present your evidence (not just CT babblings) we'll discuss "ridiculous".
The social contract includes taking steps to avoid endangering others. Such steps include co-operation in eradicating dangerous diseases. The only known way of doing so is vaccination. The fact that you may be protecting yourself in the process is just a side benefit to you.
Herd immunity is another side benefit of disease eradication, a step on the way to eradication. Claiming that those who are especially protected by herd immunity are somehow less than human, and don't deserve to be treated as real people but as animals belonging in a bubble is nothing more than a demonstration of the greed of the anti-vaxxers.
Please review, Gindo.
^ Hey, remember when SM and Chris were the same person? Good times, Ginny.
Sad blockquote fail.
"Some" also believe that they've been kidnapped by extraterrestrials.....
And "some" believe whatever they're told to believe. And "some" pretend to, for the right price.
So are you a Troo Believer™ in the conspiracy theories you peddle, or just a paid shill for them?
Tell us more about this "high pitched scream observed in children with encephalitis". I repeat the invitation to cite any medical or paediatric textbook or paper that lists "high-pitched screaming" as a symptom of encephalitis in infants.
No, wait, there is no such source, as this "high-pitched screaming = encephalitis" link does not exist outside of the diseased heads of CIA Parker and her human centipede of followers.
Some people call it the “encephalitic cry” [...] Some theorize
Citing the authority of "Some people say" is the epitome of cowardice. I don't give two tugs on a dead dingo's dick what "some unnamed, nebulous people" might say or theorise, I am wondering what you believe.
The organ-grinders aren't here so I'm asking the monkey.
Why am I so not surprised that NWO doesn't understand what the social contract is?
At this point, when I think of NWO I think of the line from the Weird Al song "If I'm bit by a zombie, probably not telling you".
You keep describing yourself, to a tee.
Again, this blog turns into the Twilight Zone. :D
In The World According to Lawrence, the idea that vaccines are designed to keep humanity sick, weak and obedient is being thrust upon us by all the major media, government health agencies, 'official' experts--even our own doctors! "Don't take the vaccines!" they plead. And I, in my naivete, believe them.
But brave free-thinker Lawrence and his comrades are bucking consensus reality. Against all odds, they rally the vaccine flag! :D :D :D
Your blathering betray your ignorance.
Why don't you go back to the Gnat's site?
He could use no commenters.
It's nice to know that there are no deadly diseases, then.
Seriously, little baby-child, you're gonna say smallpox isnt extinct in the wild? If it's still out there, why don't we still feed kids sugar cubes with pink drops on them? It was a common tactic of the evil doktors to pop a sugar cube in us kidz mouths, then stick us with mecury filled syringes just so they didn't have to listen to our "encephalitic cries".
(Please forgive my spelling. NWOR seems to like silly spellings, and I'm trying to relate to the kids. I may be old and in the way, but, hey, while your only young once, you can be childish your whole life.)
No, it means that one is an imbecile. See "September, Eternal."
I assume the book reference alone cleared that up.
In the sense that you barfed it up purely Because Title?
^ More blockquote fail on my part.
I think you were more right the first time. Who would be wanting to share a platform with Hans Litten/White Rose?
All people in Australia receive the child benefit. That is, unless they decline to fully vaccinate their children, in which case it’s taken away
No no no no. I realise the effort involved, but you really should take the effort to educate yourself about what you are talking about, before, umm, talking about it.
Perhaps you are confusing the Australian Child Benefit options with the Australian Child Care Benefit, and Child Care Rebate, the last two being available for children in child care, and contingent upon the child not spreading diseases to other children using the same child-care options.
Perhaps you should consult an Australian about this rather straighforward distinction? Or perhaps you would rather remain in ignorance, with the additional options for uninformed shouting that are thereby available?
"Seriously, little baby-child, you’re gonna say smallpox isnt extinct in the wild?"
But of course smallpox still exists. Doctors on PHarma's payroll employ rule #32 in their Tactical Manual, covering up smallpox cases by calling them something else - acne, eczema, Lyme disease and so on. Concealed smallpox is what causes those encephalitic cries.
Does anyone realize that many of those murdered Holistic Doctors were intentionally given similar diseases by covert vaccine injection? It's all in the Manual.
What you are ignorantly referring to is Family Tax Benefit Part A Supplement. This is an amount up to $726.35 per child paid to families at the end of the tax year provided they meet the requirements. These include a combined taxable income of under $80,000 and the immunization requirements.
If you don't meet the immunization requirements, the money is not taken away, as it has not been given. The purpose of the payment is to incentivise childhood vaccination, so those who don't vaccinate are not entitled to the payment.
Reading the rules is easy.
Blimey, what's with these anti-vaxx gobshites? Just because they run about creating socks to pat themselves on the back doesn't mean the rest of us do.
I know, right? Just look at all the pats on the back I get when I come here--it's not fair! :D While poor Science Mom has to bravely stand alone in the battle for mass vaccination. :D
Well, you are the fυckwit making up the sockpuppet shіt, after all. Doesn't Julian also get that moronic treatment in your Xtranormal Nawmal brain dropping?
So true - if by "pats on the back" you mean "pats" on the lowest part of your back administered with a foot. Yet here you are, again and again.
Narad @ #105
Although I earlier thought your description of Ginny as a 'f*ckst@in'* was appropriate I've reconsidered. An actual f*ckst@in has information and reflects reality - proof that something happened, possibly who was involved. However, Ginny's posts have no information whatsoever - a null set - and any relationship to reality is purely coincidental.
I'd therefore like to apologize to the trillions of male gametes who left only a f*ckst@in to document their existence. They deserve better than to be compared to Ginny.
On a more serious note, I've been exposed to a woo-natic for years; he's married to my sister. He, Ginny and the Gnat have one characteristic in common which I find noteworthy: They are all failures.
My brother-in-law has sipped ever more deeply of the fountains of woo as he slid from comfortably middle-class to borderline poverty-level. He started out thinking that mildew was a health concern, worked his way through Wakefield true believer status and now is liable to spout German New Medicine and Hulda Clark in the same sentence.
The Gnat is unable to survive on his own, without funding from his parents. To make matters worse, every check comes from the two people whose genes probably contributed to his neurological issues and he can't admit it to himself.
Finally Ginny is apparently a failure in two careers. Her 'fine art' is anything but, as a cursory look at her website reveals.. An attorney working for a private IV-D agency is about like a Culinary Institute of America graduate dropping fries at McDonalds. She's in the legal field and the CIA graduate is in the culinary field, but neither one has anything to be proud of.
My working hypothesis is that failure drives them to search for competence, and since they can't achieve that in real life they construct a reality in which they are competent. It would all be fine but they insist on inflicting their alternate reality on the rest of us.
*Although, for the record I still think that "Ginny F*ckst@in and the Stoners" would be a great band name.
Since we seem to be on a first and last name basis here instead of our chosen screen names, why don't all you charming intellectuals provide yours? Seems like the regulars here make a habit of doxing dissenters, while hiding behind their own anonymity. :)
Strictly speaking, I'd disagree. I've often found her post to be the opposite of established fact as I know it to be true, so I just assume everything she says is a lie. I do agree with your assessment of her artistic abilities, and wonder if there is anyone who has paid more than $7.00 USD for anoriginal of her work.
And I'd provide my last name, but it wouldn't help you, Ginny. According to http://howmanyofme.com there are 1346 in the USA with 'Johnny' and my last name, so I'd have to tell you the town also, but that wouldn't help, because my real name is John and that adds another 22K+ to the mix (I go by Johnny, because my whole life I've been surrounded by up to 3 other Johns, and it was an easy way to avoid confusion).
It may interest you to know that there are 388 Virginia Stones in the US, according to the same site.
I'm sure you could clarify who you are, regardless how common the name. But I don't blame you for not wanting to--I can imagine the embarrassment. :D
Johnny: "Look how good I can insult people online, Mom!"
Mom: "Oh, Johnny, I'm so proud of you!" :D
I'm an old guy, and I don't Facebook or anything like that, so I'd have to post my address, and that ain't gonna happen anytime soon. The anti-vax loons are, well, loons. I've been retired a few years, but I wouldn't put it past 'em to show up and bother the neighbors.
And Mom (and Dad) are dead, but Mom probably wouldn't be much impressed - low degree of difficulty, and all.
You must be young at heart, considering the way you embrace online anonymity to reject old school civility.
Johnny does seem young at heart, and he's quite civil, at least to those who merit traditional civility.
One can't "dox" someone whose name is an advertisement for their own site (and sad-trombone Twatter presence) when they contain the fυcking information in the first place, you puddle of anaerobic decay.
Sounds like you need to look up the definition of doxing, Narad. Who are you?
In what respect would Narad's IRL identity matter? are you "reporting" to an enforcer of your conspiracy religion?
NWOR, if you were doxed, it was you that did the doxing. Blaming Narad won't change reality.
Now, Narad, you can't really expect one who follows and proselytizes for a conspiracy religion to actually understand the way the world works and what words really mean.
Why does it matter who is writing? What matters is whether what they write is correct and has value. Something you have failed to achieve on either count so far.
The fact that you have a website for splashing your opinionidiocy around and use the name of that website as your screen name does make people wonder what other idiotic ideas you are proud of.
All people in Australia receive the child benefit. That is, unless they decline to fully vaccinate their children, in which case it’s taken away. Get informed
I just want to repeat this down here at the bottom of the thread, to make it easier to look at it and laugh.
Of course herr doktor finds it hilarious that benefits are being withheld from the poorest families in Australia unless they subject their children to vaccination. No doubt Merck and company find it hilarious, too. Sieg heil vakzine!
In other news from the Land of Conspiratorial Pseudoscience, Dan Olmsted will soon be reaching out from the grave with a new book (warning, shield your irony meters):
And the societal cost of unchecked diseases?
Certainly far more than whatever is withheld from those who knowingly put the lives of others in danger by not vaccinating.
Your comment presumes vaccines reduce all cause morbidity and mortality. At best, that's unproven, and may very well be entirely false. Your comment implies that vaccines don't necessarily protect those who get them. That's true. Your comment also implies that very weak children will be saved if all the healthy children are subjected to vaccination. That's false. The very weak are at risk from everything--it wouldn't be possible to vaccinate for most of those risks, even if vaccines would necessarily protect from those risks, which they don't.
Still no proof, evidence, or even a citation I see.
Somethings never change.
It is not possible to produce a citation to prove that a claim is unproven. No citation is needed to prove that vaccines don't always work--it's common knowledge, even the manufacturer's acknowledge it. And as for weak children being at risk from everything--it's common sense, and common knowledge.
1) I didn't ask for proof, I asked for evidence.
2) Researchers demonstrate the non-effectiveness of a treatment all the time - Dr. G. talks about them, they're called studies. He's gone through many studies that show things like reiki and acupuncture show NO demonstrable benefit.
3) If you're going to claim that ALL the studies that have been done showing demonstrable benefit of vaccines, then you need SOMETHING to back that claim up. You have nothing.
4) Common knowledge is not nearly as common as you seem to think and very often not useful. See the use of tobacco, lead, mercury, heroin, asbestos, etc etc etc.
It is not possible to provide evidence that a claim is unproven, only to point out the absence of evidence. There are no long term studies comparing the overall morbidity and mortality of fully vaccinated and fully vaccinated children, where "overall morbidity and mortality" includes not only the illnesses they were vaccinated for, but also SIDS, cancer, epilepsy, chronic allergies, asthma, diabetes, neurological disorders, and other common conditions.
So you dispute the claim that vaccines don't always prevent the disease they were intended to prevent? In other words, you contend the vaccine always prevents the disease? I just want to be sure you dispute it before I take the time to provide evidence of a claim that even vaccine manufacturers agree with. :)
Also, just to be clear, you dispute the claim that weak children are at greater risk of virtually everything, not just so-called vaccine-preventable diseases? Again, I don't want to waste my time until you confirm that you dispute this.
Oh, and she skirts right on the line of openly advocating that "weaker" children just be allowed to die of preventable diseases....
Actually, I'd favor providing them with bubbles to live in if they so desire. Certainly they are not gong to be safer by wandering around vaccinated people--especially those who are known to be infected because they were recently vaccinated with a live virus vaccine.
Perhaps we can get our resident troll to give us her dissertation on the disappearance of Rinderpest?
You know they're delusional when they start throwing about "It's common knowledge."
Common to whom? Certainly one like yourself should be able to provide ample proof of your statements, right?
Surely you can't be serious with regard to the 3 propositions I stated. You actually dispute them? :D
Posted for informational purposes, and not cause I think it'll make somebody's head explode (metaphorically):
June 19, 2017
Posted with permission from Newsweek
Amid a measles epidemic spreading throughout Europe, the Italian government approved a measure to fine parents who don’t seek medical help on vaccinating their children. The measure even puts parents at risk of losing custody if they don’t vaccinate their kids.
Related: Zika vaccine headed to Phase 2 trial
Despite objections, Italian officials in May ruled that children must be vaccinated against 12 common illnesses—including polio, tetanus, hepatitis B, measles, mumps, chicken pox and whooping cough—before they can enroll in state-run schools, the BBC reported. Parents reportedly will face steep fines for sending non-vaccinated kids to child care facilities or schools.
Public health officials point to extensive research showing vaccines protect the common good and that adverse side effects are rare, and numerous scientific studies have failed to find a connection between vaccines and autism. But concerns about a direct relation have lingered.
Measles, a preventable disease, is still common in many parts of the world, including some countries in Africa, Asia, Europe and the Pacific. It’s hitting Europe hard this year, mainly in Italy and Romania, according to the World Health Organization. Romania has reported more than 3,400 cases and 17 deaths since January 2016, with the majority of cases concentrated in areas where immunization coverage is especially low. Italy has seen a sharp rise in cases, with at least 400 already this year. Experts predict the outbreak will only get worse.
Amid the measles outbreak, other countries have tightened their laws. In Germany, for example, parents who don’t seek medical advice on whether to vaccinate their children could face fines of up to about $2,800, the BBC reported.
The CDC recommends that travelers to Italy protect themselves by ensuring they are vaccinated against measles, particularly infants ages 6 to 11 months and children 1 or older.
So, measles isn't "fatal" until it is......I ask anti-vaxers to let us know exactly how many kids have to die before they consider it unacceptable.
How many children have to die or suffer serious injury from the measles vaccine before you consider it unacceptable?
She's just hopeless.....
Lawrence @ 135:
All of them, Charlie.
"What do Earth men offer you? What have you obtained from them in the past? Powders and liquids for the sick? We Klingons believe as you do. The sick should die. Only the strong should live."
None would be a good start - which is why vaccines are tested, and re-tested, and tested again through multiple stages of clinical trials & then tracked by multiple vaccine safety methodologies, includes VAERS & the vaccine safety datalink to ensure that they remain safe.
Diseases aren't "safe" and there is no way that they ever would be.....
Vaccines aren't "safe" and there is no way they ever could be. The entire paradigm is fundamentally flawed.
The evidence for this statement would be what, exactly? It's not necessary to demonstrate 100% unsafty, just show that vaccines are more than 1% as "unsafe" as the diseases they address.
On what basis is the communicable disease vs vaccine paradigm "fatally flawed"? What evidence do you adduce to demonstrate this/these fatal flaws(s)?
It's useless having a conversation with an idiot conspiracy theorist who doesn't even understand the fundamental basics of immunology.
Obviously, it's easier for her to run a conspiracy website and regurgitate the same old lies and misinformation than it is to crack open a textbook.
The vaccine theory of disease prevention is totally outside of usual training in immunology. Vaccines introduce disease to the body in a way that does not occur in nature, and the immune response is very different than it would be for a naturally introduced pathogen.
Are you referring to the body's "usual training in immunology" or the immunologist's "usual training in immunology"? In either case, evidence (not just unsupported claims) is required that the claim is true and that the difference has any sigmnificance whatsoever.
How does he pathogen or antigen not "occur in nature"? How are any such differences of any significance whatsoever? (We can ignore the obvious, that the antigen is not capable of causing the disease that the pathogen usually causes—here we can also ignore cowpox vs smallpox.)
How is the immune response different for the antigen vs the pathogen? In what respects might such difference(s) be at all significant?
And she gives herself an easy excuse for her own ignorance "the textbooks are all bought or filled with fake info" - therefore she never has to face up to the fact that she's nothing more than a uneducated buffoon.
Vaccines introduce disease to the body in a way that does not occur in nature
Inhalation and swallowing do not occur in nature? I am seriously concerned about NWOR's metabolism.
Working on those aerosol vaccines, herr doktor himler? How's that going? Are you spreading them by plane now, to get the job done without the pesky need for consent? Inquiring minds want to know!
PS: Which vaccines are swallowed? Is that some kind of nanotech that can slipped into our food and water supply on the down low? :)
Wow - you really believe that the body's immune system cares where the antigens come from?
You really are a complete imbecile.
Oh, really. I suppose you think people naturally acquire measles by injection into muscle tissue, instead of through mucus membranes, too. And that the immune response is the same in both cases. :D
What distinction does the immune system make between various routes of entry of the pathogen? If it did, why would not one would logically expect the immune system to respond more vigorously to the "unusual" route than to the usual one.
What evidence do you have that the immune system responds in ways that are significantly different? (Unsupported claims, as always, are nonresponsive.)
I'm not here to convince you. This is not the right forum for people who want to learn the other side of the vaccine story, and there are many experts who can explain it far better than I can. :)
oooh, give us the name of just a few of these "experts."
It's the closest you've ever come to anything resembling support for your (bizarre) positions.
Nope. They're easy to find. Once people review their work, they can come back here better prepared to accurately assess your proclamations that they've been "discredited" or "thoroughly debunked." :D
So another big whiff...cause there are no experts, are there?
I've been Lucy'ed!
In that case, you'll have no problem citing them as partial fulfillment of your burden of proof.
It's only partial, since your burden of proof (that your claims have some substance to them) can only rely on evidence, not on somebody you know will just parrot them.
In other words, you admit that you have no evidence, but you have some silver-tongued salesmen who you'd prefer to palm us of on.
We don't care about your designated authorities: we're interested in evidence, since the evidence—all of it—is the best, the only, reflection of reality.
Ginny said: "The vaccine theory of disease prevention is totally outside of usual training in immunology. Vaccines introduce disease to the body in a way that does not occur in nature, and the immune response is very different than it would be for a naturally introduced pathogen."
It's easy to see why you're a failure as a lawyer, if your respect for legal precedents resembles in any way your attitude toward medical/scholastic references.
If we apply Ginny's 'logic' to a closing argument in a criminal case she'd end up with something like this: "Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, the defense has based their entire case upon the concept that, under American law, one is presumed innocent until proven guilty. This is absolute balderdash. It's common knowledge that guilty people have no protection against self-incrimination. It's common knowledge that there is no such thing as an illegal or unconstitutional warrant for people who are guilty of crimes. The cases the defense has cited, Miranda v. Arizona, United States v. Jones, Riley v. California, never happened. The defense is fabricating bogus Supreme court decisions because they don't have a defense otherwise. It stands to reason, therefore, that the defendants would not have been charged with a crime had they not been guilty. I rest my case."
What's your name, Opus?
Squirm, Mason, squirm.
The vaccine theory of disease prevention is totally outside of usual training in immunology.
Do go on.
^ Blockquotes again.
hilarious that benefits are being withheld from the poorest families in Australia
I feel inspired to point and laugh when some numptie flips between "All people in Australia" to "the poorest families", while lecturing everyone else on the need to educate themselves. Pointing and laughing at Australians is also part of my national heritage but it doesn't seem applicable in this case.
How's that search going, for evidence that "a high-pitched scream" is a diagnostic symptom of encephalitis?
Nice attempt to deflect the issue: That you find it hilarious that benefits are being withheld from the poorest families in Australia unless they subject their children to the full vaccination schedule. :)
Perhaps you could use your doubtlessly exquisite knowledge of "usual training in immunology" to explain how the responses differ, O talentless cartoonist.
It's a good thing that the mind is not needed to direct immune responses, or NWO would be in serious trouble.
How things change, in the past my pro-vaccine stance was because of having lived through many of the diseases that are now easily preventable (for most children). I am now going to become a step-father (at my age) in about 3 months. My stepson (probably but not quite sure yet) will have every vaccine available to protect his/her health.
Dribbling idiots like you NWOR need to learn what the real world is like. Living is hazardous to your health and you must do everything you can to protect your health.
I recently had prostate cancer. Researchers are now showing a probable link between HPV and prostate cancer. It very possible that if HPV vaccine had been available when I was young, I would not had to deal with all the issues of prostate cancer. So shut the f up until you actual know something.
I'm sorry to hear about your cancer. Life is certainly a learning experience. I also lived through many of the usual childhood diseases without any problems, as did everyone I knew and went to school with. When I first heard about the chickenpox vaccine as an adult, I actually thought it was a joke.
I know that people recover naturally and fully from the vast majority of HPV infections, often without realizing they have it. I know there are dozens of HPV strains, and the HPV vaccine claims to help prevent only a few of them, and the duration of the claimed protection is unknown. I know that HPV infection can occur in childhood or even in the womb, and getting the HPV vaccine after prior infection with HPV could actually increase your chances of developing cancer. I know the HPV vaccine has not been proven to have prevented a single case of cancer. I know the HPV vaccine has not been tested for carcinogenic or mutagenic potential. I also know the HPV vaccine has one of the highest reported incidence of serious adverse reactions of any vaccine. It certainly doesn't sound worth pining for a lost opportunity to take it.
NWO Reporter, how do we know you're not in the pay of the big Pharma companies? Prevention of diseases is nowhere near as profitable as treatment.
Vaccines are far more profitable. Not just the administration of the vaccines, but from the wide range of iatrogenic illnesses caused by the vaccines, many of which are chronic and lifelong. By contrast, many of the once common childhood diseases are so mild, they often don't require medical attention at all. By the late 1950s, only 1 in 10 cases of measles was even being reported, for example. It was likely much lower for chicken pox.
Evidence is required for this claim, which we fully expect to be as spurious as your other claims.
Evidence is required for these claims, as to prevalence, duration, and profitability of vaccine-caused conditions..
In the 1940s, my chicken pox, rubella, and mumps did not get medical attention, because it was well known that there was no medical treatment available. For my measles, in the 1950s, the family doctor did show up to evaluate me. He decided that unless I got worse before he came back, that I was safer not being transported to the hospital.
How is this significant? Is it actually true (supported by evidence)?
Of course, in a conspiracy religion like yours, "likely" is a synonym for "certain", with no evidence needed for the claim, right?
NWO Reporter, do you know how many scientists in the 60's said tobacco was harmless? Two. Both paid by Philip Morris. Which possibility is more likely:
1) Every single scientist on the planet in being paid off and hiding the truth.
2) You are being paid off to spread fear and doubt.
Ridiculous. Most doctors and scientists and social manipulators believe what they've been taught to believe. They don't question it, because they can't fathom how it could have been taught to them by all those smart people unless it were true. That's how deception is easily perpetuated in academia. Some may begin to discern the truth at some point, but choose to remain willfully blind out of self-interest.
There are definitely mercenaries, though--willing to peddle anything for money. They're all over the web. Some are in government and academia. A small number at high levels know the real purpose of vaccines is to keep the population sick, weak and obedient--and they want it that way.
WOW, that's dumb.
Your response on the other hand...BRILLIANT! Can I quote you? :D
It's the response your comment deserves.
You refuse to believe in facts, evidence, and logic, so I'm just using mockery now.
Well, yes...I assumed it was a rudimentary attempt at mockery. I'd say my own mockery topped yours, but I suppose I'm biased. :D
You really are wrong about EVERY THING, aren't you?
As you so noisily exemplify.
Most doctors and scientists and social manipulators believe what they’ve been taught to believe. They don’t question it, because they can’t fathom how it could have been taught to them by all those smart people unless it were true. That's why there has never been any progress in medicine or science, ever. All the science-type people have been taught that everything there is to be known is known so there's no use doing anything original, no use doubting that the ancients—"all those smart people"—knew it all.
Oh, wait a sec...you're describing religion, including conspiracy religion, not "[m]ost doctors and scientists". Carry on.
NWO Reporter, if everyone has a price, what's your price?
Everyone doesn't have a price. :)
So the mercenaries you were just babbling about don't exist? Or maybe they're not counted in "everyone". Or maybe you don't just logic very well.
"I'll take door number three".
I suppose you think people naturally acquire measles tetanus by injection, instead of through mucus membranes, too. And that the immune response is the same in both cases
Fixed for additional entertainment.
Well, that's true. But even if someone believed the tetanus vaccine were safe and effective, the ones available are combination vaccines.
What evidence to you offer us that this is somehow of some significance?
Oh, man! And I was just about to catch a flight to my Illuminati meeting, too! Sleep well, NWO Reporter, on the night of 23 July.
Is that some kind of threat? Or does that date have a particular meaning for you?
@NWOR: If VPDs were so benign, how come people were put into quarantine when they got them? How come my grandfather, a GP, was so very pro-vaccine when they cut into his income immensely (it was far more profitable to make house calls for 6-7 days than give one shot). As for your claim that vaccines lead to all sorts of chronic diseases...prove it. Prove that the vaccines increased the diseases rather than let people LIVE long enough to GET the diseases. None of the disease are new. Diabetes used to be a death sentence. So was leukemia. Now we can treat them and keep the persons alive, rather than dying.
Of course, you apparently figure that because YOU and your family didn't suffer from sequelae of the diseases, no one else counts. You are so self-centered.
Not quite--no such traumatic experiences with those illnesses for me, my family, anyone I know, or anyone I went to school with grades K-12. I will say, though, that I've heard an extraordinary number of such tales from the commenters on this blog. :D
Maybe, just maybe, you'll recognize that reality is so much broader than your personal experience. Maybe, just maybe, you'll begin to see that what you've taught to imagine about vaccines does not conform to reality.
Or maybe, since you're a Troo Believer™ in your conspiracy religion, you'll decide that since reality conflicts with your chosen imaginings, that reality must be wrong.
Sure. Broader than all the thousands of people who've had the same experience I have. And all the doctors in the 1950s and 1960s. And all the data that shows deaths from common diseases declined by 95% prior to widespread vaccination. And that children were much healthier, with not nearly as many cases of autoimmune disorders and neurological problems. There just happens to be an extraordinary abundance of exceptionally vulnerable people on blogs devoted to extolling the wonders of vaccination. That's "reality" for you. :D
But not broad enough to encompass people whose experiences differ from yours.
"All the doctors"? Evidence required that The Wife's cousin did not experience, despite medical care, measles encephalopathy that left her disabled for the past sixty years.
Yes, dear, we've seen the data that shows how the medical system learned to save many, but not all, e.g. measles patients. We've also seen the data that shows the effective eradication of these diseases and their associated deaths as a consequence of the vaccination programs.
Evidence definitely required.
Evidence required, with adjustments or other elimination of confoumnders like recognition of the listed disease states and their separation from the undifferentiated problems. Adjustment is also needed to account for those people who would have died from VPDs, but didn't because of vaccines.
But you, possibly due to your religion, are not vulnerable? Or maybe it's only your ego that's invulnerable; while your body was protected by herd immunities?
Look into your claims; maybe you'll find some reality underneath.
Oh, crud. Typed a long comment that hit moderation due to our old sock-puppet friend figuring out the other email.
Orac: sorry...using another computer and didn't realize it auto-entered the other email. Please feel free to delete; I'll copy/paste the comment below.
@NWOR: If VPDs were so benign, how come people were put into quarantine when they got them? How come my grandfather, a GP, was so very pro-vaccine when they cut into his income immensely (it was far more profitable to make house calls for 6-7 days than give one shot). As for your claim that vaccines lead to all sorts of chronic diseases…prove it. Prove that the vaccines increased the diseases rather than let people LIVE long enough to GET the diseases. None of the disease are new. Diabetes used to be a death sentence. So was leukemia. Now we can treat them and keep the persons alive, rather than dying.
Of course, you apparently figure that because YOU and your family didn’t suffer from sequelae of the diseases, no one else counts. You are so self-centered.
Athlete's foot ordinarily won't kill you--why bother to wash your socks or clean the locker room floor?
Working on those aerosol vaccines, herr doktor himler? How’s that going?
Not my personal area of research, but nasal-spray vaccines are common.
PS: Which vaccines are swallowed?
I am surprised that you have never heard of the Oral Polio Vaccine; or the numerous oral vaccines in a veterinary context. But that is what these exchanges are good for, to learn from one another.
NWO Reporter: So, where are all the honest, intelligent doctors who are against vaccines? Which is more likely:
1) Every doctor on the planet is stupid, greedy, or cowardly, or
2) You are mistaken.
Oh, there are many of them--dozens of doctors, immunologists and scientists who are fairly well known, and lists of doctors who respect vaccine choices. It's easy to find them. All people have to do is ignore proclamations like "Dr. X has been discredited!" or "Dr. Y's theories have been thoroughly debunked!" They should simply read or listen to those people for themselves, and exercise their own judgment. :)
We know that religions, including conspiracy religions, based their arguments on authorities—people the religiosi designate because (a) they seem to have credentials, and (b) can be said to agree with the idea being promoted.
The difference between those religiosi and people who like to live in reality is that we work from evidence—both for and against the idea—and use our judgement there instread of on proclaimed credentials.
That's right: listen to my choice of authority and ignore the evidence.
IGNORE THAT EVIDENCE!!!! Listen to MY authority!!!!
It's hilarious you're referring to conspiracies as a religion. Vaccines are the most insidious religion out there. Suggesting to a true believer that vaccines may not actually be safe and effective as we've all been raised to believe is like telling a lifelong devout Christian that Jesus is a myth. The emotional reaction to what should be an objective issue is immediate and intense, as if an atheist walked up to the pulpit to deliver the Sunday sermon. :D
How do conspiracy religions differ, in any essential degree, from any other non-theistic/non-deistic religions?
How can vaccines, with their base in reality, data, and evidence, be honestly characterized as a religion? Where is the unfounded faith that is essential to religion to be found in vaccines?
As I have pointed out once before on this thread, with a link to the rules, that benefits are not being withheld. This particular payment is structured as an incentive for vaccination. Those who choose not to vaccinate their children have no entitlement to it.
It is much like someone complaining that the old age pension is being withheld from 25 year olds.
Clearly some minds are immune to data.
For comparison purposes, consider an actual instance where a misleading journal reference and profit-driven medicine led to disaster: The opioid epidemic. Now that the truth is known, more are more doctors are taking notice, and the CDC is actually warning doctors against prescribing them carelessly:
This is something that can potentially make more money than vaccines, easily, and yet, there's nothing close to a cover-up. Wonder why?
Three may keep a Secret, if two of them are dead. Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack
Nice attempt to deflect the issue:
Come now. I am sure that everyone else here can handle more than one issue at a time.
So this rhetorical strategy of proclaiming that (a) ridicule directed at your elective ignorance about Australian policies is really ridicule directed at Australians, and (b) this redirection is now "the issue" (leaving you free to squirm away from previous outbursts of Dumbth)... whom is it supposed to convince? Does it fool you?
NWO Reporter asked:
As ususal, you're a bit slow on the uptake, Ginny. A more astute conspiracy theorist would have recognized that as an indication of the first available timeslot for black helicopter action. (You'll be among the first to know if we have a cancellation.)
So...yes, it was...emboldened by anonymity, and punctuated with sarcasm. Creep.
I’m not here to convince you. [therefore no need for evidence]
Yes, readers have worked out that NWOR does not really come here for the hunting.
Sure you are.
I'm sorry about your thought disorder, although I have more sympathy with those who end up reading your drivel.
Ginny, think about it; Illuminati, black helicopters. . . . Now tear yourself away from Info Wars and try to crawl back to reality. It will be difficult--perhaps the hardest thing that you've ever done, since you have so far to go-- but you can do it if you try.
Stay away from me, creep.
It's interesting to see how a person who teases you about your NWO religion gets to be a creep. When will it be my turn?
Ms. Kincaid: "I’m still an Antivaxer. I won’t be vaccinating until I’m taken seriously by scientific research that is relevant to “me & mine”."
So has your family joined https://sparkforautism.org/ to compare the genetic sequences between your son, his father and yourself? Considering you, as parents, were both much older than forty years old when he was born there is a very high chance of a de novo mutation.
Remember, not only will you be actually helping the science of autism, but you may find a pathway to treatments that are actually relevant.
Yes, because chickenpox is such a joke; never mind the amount of suffering it causes for children, even if it is rarely fatal.
I had chickenpox something awful in kindergarten, and I still remember it. It was at least a week of misery, lying in bed or on the couch, stiff and incredibly itchy, but forbidden to scratch, feverish and out of it. It stand out very well in my memory.
Why do you want children to have to go through that when it can be prevented? Are you a sadist?
Not to forget rabies and some forms of hepatitis as more cases where vaccine and pathogen are both introduced through the skin. Nor should we forget FluMist and OPV. If it is such a big deal when isolated antigen and disease enter the body and encounter the immune system in different ways, can we agree that these are good vaccines?
But first, perhaps we should address the casual question-begging intellectual dishonesty of "Vaccines introduce disease to the body".
Obviously it is unnatural for vaccines to be injected into our soft tissues, seeing that germs only gain natural entry into our bodies by ingestion or inhalation, never through cuts, scrapes and penetrating wounds. If the latter occurred, our immune systems might have evolved to cope with it...
Re. chickenpox, the NZ health funding people weighed up the expense and the benefits, and decided that it is cost-effective to offer free vaccination for 11-year-olds and younger.
So, let's watch the troll ignore all evidence that contradicts her narrative:
1) Massive decline in disease incidence rates in Third World countries after vaccination.
2) Vaccines which were removed from the market (or never approved) for concerns about safety - like the DTP, the original crop of Lyme vaccines, and the original Rotavirus vaccines.
Not to mention every HIV vaccine so far - none of them got approved, because they couldn't pass clinical trials. If it was all one big conspiracy, why wouldn't they have been approved anyway?
3) Eradication of Rinderpest - anti's can never explain this one, since it blows their whole sanitation argument out of the water.
4) Every nation on Earth supports vaccinations - which means that countries which have a vested interest in not supporting the United States (or Western nations in general) or multi-national corporations either, still readily vaccinate.
All of these little "inconvenient" facts just get glossed over and ignored by the likes of the trolls, because they have no explanation....
An earlier mention of the Gnat has prompted me to enquire; is his site down? I can't access it on this public WiFi.
Nope - unfortunately his site is still up, for as long as his parents decide to pay the electric bill.
Chris @210 wrote "So has your family joined https://sparkforautism.org/ to compare the genetic sequences between your son, his father and yourself?"
She should, in my opinion. I actually know the principal investigator for that study in the Northern New England region, Dr. Matthew Siegel.
I also agree that it is very likely that Christine's son's autism is the result of him having been born to older parents. A 40-year old father passes on more than double the number of de novo mutations that a 20-year old father would.
It is very unfortunate that she incorrectly blames vaccines for her son's autism, rather than what is clearly the most likely cause-advanced parental age (from what I understand, the father's age is more important than the mother's age when it comes to the risk of autism).
I will also note that the king of socks has posted a Jake's place under his Lord Windemere name.
It's a good place for him - he could be Jake's dumber, but just as offensive, brother.
@JP-Chickenpox can be fatal even in previously healthy patients. Yes, death from chickenpox in previously healthy patients may be uncommon, but it can happen.
Also, why isn't the NWO covering up the opioid epidemic? Surely they would benefit heavily from a population hooked on painkillers.
Once you start picking apart her carefully constructed narrative, the entire thing just collapses under its own weight.
Globally, vaccines generate just a little over $30 Billion in revenue (not profit, just revenue) - when you figure in the R&D costs, personnel costs & other overhead, the profits from vaccines probably amount to only a few billion (at best), spread across multiple companies, globally.
Let's compare that, to say, Exxon Mobile, who managed to, in a single quarter some years back, to generate more than $70 Billion dollars in PROFIT.
Vaccines are chicken feed compared to any other type of successful pharmaceutical produce - yet they have the exact same overhead - meaning that the money spent on R&D doesn't generate nearly the profits as say, another Viagra.
Anyone with even a passing education in economics understands this & again, why these grand conspiracy theories fall apart under even the most basic observation.
It's sad really.
I know Lawrence-I mean if you compare profits from, say, statins, to profits from vaccines, there is simply no comparison.
I also pointed out to NWOR, a few weeks ago, that if there wasn't a flu vaccine, some pharmaceutical companies (GSK, Roche) would make MORE $$ since demand for Tamiflu and Relenza would go way up. As I expected, she ignored it.
Oh...I accidentally posted a comment using my full name.... on my tablet, it automatically includes my full name. ("chrome autofill settings, or something automatically includes my last name). That comment is awaiting moderation since it looks like a new commenter... I don't know if Orac can remove my last name from that comment or not and just approve the comment without including my last name...?
This is the comment I accidentally posted under my full name:
"I know Lawrence-I mean if you compare profits from, say, statins, to profits from vaccines, there is simply no comparison.
I also pointed out to NWOR, a few weeks ago, that if there wasn’t a flu vaccine, some pharmaceutical companies (GSK, Roche) would make MORE $$ since demand for Tamiflu and Relenza would go way up. As I expected, she ignored it."
but you may find a pathway to treatments that are actually relevant
Maybe that's because I spend a gigantic time being overloaded (Am moving out and getting my own apartment sometime around next week as a fix to that situation) but I'm curious about the possible treatment modalities enabled by gene research but I'd say, two possible hypothesis are gene therapy as well as psychological therapy based on the research finding done by a computational approach of cognition inferred by a large scale brain simulation like the human brain project and other, lower scale of the same approach (brain column and minicolumn based).
Any other hypothesis?
Indeed. One of the reasons it fails is that Medical Insurers, who would be prejudiced if vaccines are ineffective or harmful, vigourously support them. My Medical Aid provider not only lets me get the flu shot for free every year, it awards me points for getting it.
I've got to say I'm deeply amused by NWO's belief that scientists don't ask questions, or question the things they are taught.
Being a scientists means asking questions, picking apart conclusions (your own and other people's)and generally arguing about everything.
So, NWO, you hate vaccines. How do you feel about antibiotics? Soap?
Of course, you are more than happy to drag the reputation of any scientist who challenges consensus reality through the mud in the course of your duties. And you breezily pretend that scientists don't live and die by funding. Soap, which has been around for thousands of years, is good. Therefore, vaccines are good. Classic.
When will you be posting evidence that this actually happens, and that JustaTech participates or is even gladdened? I won't hold my breath, of course, given your displayed propensity for making unsupported accusations and claims and changing the subject when challenged.
Yes, yes...a peer reviewed study published in a reputable medical journal establishing that Justatech feels 'happy' when he belittles scientists who step outside status quo paradigms will soon be forthcoming.
Meanwhile, the excruciatingly literal Espol will cautiously defer any opinion about Justaech's feelings, and send others scrambling to compile a thesis on his comment history while Espol catches up on Super Friends reruns.
Thank you for noticing that I have this habit of assuming people to be honest and forthright in their utterances unless they give some hint that they're joking around. It's perhaps funny that I have no problem with people who actually are, unlike you, honest and forthright.
I was being honest and forthright, and I was not joking around. Yet still, your interpretation was excruciatingly literal. :)
So you were being "honest and forthright", not joking at all, when you wrote
Thank you for showing what an antivax propagandist considers "honest and forthright".
It's also telling that NWOR considers being taken seriously as "excruciatingly literal". But NWOR is an honourable man "honest an forthright".
The phrase you quoted above is called satire, Espol. I'll let you look it up yourself. :)
Which phrase is satire? I quoted a couple phrases: "honest and forthright" and "excruciatingly literal". On what basis can one recognize either one as satire? Or perhaps it's just another case of a religioso screwing up and calling it a jpoke when called on it.
Which phrase should I look up, and why?
a large scale brain simulation like the human brain project
Do not expect any results from the HBP itself. Its continued existence is a demonstraton of the power of institutional inertia in science funding, but that's all it's good for. Everyone in the EU funding establishment seems to accept that it's a billion-Euro boondoggle, but they have to go on funding it anyway rather than accept that the previous investment just went down rat-holes.
if you compare profits from, say, statins, to profits from vaccines, there is simply no comparison.
All the longer-established anti-vaxxers accept that vaccine development / production is only marginally profitable, so they pin their hopes on Trump repealing the vaccine-court legislation so that ambulance-chasing lawyers can drive pharma companies out of the US market.
From the conspiratorial perspective, this may demonstrate that all the anti-vax 'establishment' are all Controlled Opposition, mere dupes of the conspiracy
NWO Reporter: "Of course, you are more than happy to drag the reputation of any scientist who challenges consensus reality through the mud in the course of your duties."
Take a look at the list of Nobel Prize winners. Note the number who got their award for challenging the consensus.
NWO @233: I was not in any way shape or form saying that if soap is good then vaccines are good. That's just silly, not to mention illogical.
Let me spell it out more clearly. I am trying to figure out if you don't like 1) just vaccines, 2) modern medicine 3) germ theory.
I know you don't like vaccines. So I asked how you feel about antibiotics to elucidate your feelings on modern medicine. I asked how you feel about soap to see how you feel about germ theory.
So, being completely blunt and transparent:
NWO, how do you feel about antibiotics? How do you feel about any other part of modern medicine?
NWO, do you think that germ theory is a robust explanation of infection and disease?
@ Gray Falcon
Long before he received the Nobel Prize for challenging the consensus in chemistry, Peter Mitchell would sometimes include in his talks a slide with an upward-trending line plotted with the X axis labeled in years and the Y axis labeled with something like "scientists who accept the Mitchell Hypothesis."
Do not expect any results from the HBP itself. Its continued existence is a demonstraton of the power of institutional inertia in science funding, but that’s all it’s good for
I had this sinking feeling...basically, I checked out the number of publications by the Markram couple on autism and the only result they got are from mice studies and not that many at that. It seem (my own impression) that they are both really busy over, one the one hand, the HBP (H. Markram) and on the other hand, frontiers publishing (K. Markram).
On a remotely similar topic to #238, I'm involved (personal pet project) into the buildup of an intel core2 (old) computer with a brand new 1TB hard drive and a decent nvidia card. I also downloaded the entirety of the pubmed database (26GB in compressed xml form) as of last weekend to do text mining research assisted by the nvidia graphic card and tensorflow.
Should I get a slight bit of money available (got an appointment at my bank on Thursday for a credit card), there will be a bump in ram and a few other hard disks to delve into genetic mining.
bucking consensus reality.
any scientist who challenges consensus reality
I expect scientists to challenge our understanding of "consensus reality". Questioning the existence of "consensus reality" is best left to poets and surrealist painters.
I checked out the number of publications by the Markram couple on autism and the only result they got are from mice studies
I think the back-story went something like this:
1. The EU science-funding establishment decided to pour all the research money into a few ambitious, blue-sky projects (inspired by the moon-shot and the Human Genome project), on the theory that even if the goals were missed, the spraying-around of money would stimulate new technologies.
In effect they decided to throw colossal budgets at whichever scammers and charlatans came up with the most grandiose promises. But it let them pay themselves larger salaries.
2. The Human Brain Project, to simulate a complete human cortex and deliver AI by 2020. Promised by someone who can't even simulate the functioning of a single neuron. Linked to the 'Frontiers' academic Ponzi scheme.
3. Total debacle.
4. The HBP is still going, though under new management, and without any actual objectives (except the continued acceptance of money). Too big to stop.
Retroscope notwithstanding, I should obey my instinct a bit more often. From memory, I remember reading the papers coming out of the blue brain and finding them really hard to dissect as to what they ended up describing and had some self doubt that I needed more training / learning (yeah, I'm working on that).
But, what I'm thinking now is that they haven't done the due diligence of curating the needed paperwork (paperwork == scientific publications in this context) on the physics, chemistry and chemoinformatics field to build a functioning neuron (and yeah, I did test their software, couldn't figure out how it worked).
<sarcasm>I think I got my career set out in accounting...pardon, scientific accounting</sarcasm>
<more seriously>With the spare computer, I'm starting out with pubmed but over the next few years, I'll investigate other databases in the stem & computational stem field.
Alain: "... but I’m curious about the possible treatment modalities enabled by gene research... "
It has more to do with diet, similar to the issues with phenylketonuria. I can't find my notes but one pair of mutations had to do with sodium channels, one required more sodium and another required less sodium. Plus there are other similarities between children with certain genetic variations, so there are now online forums of families based on specific genetic variations to keep up with research, etc.
Searching on PubMed I found these:
There are several others.