It's rare that one sees an editorial this spot on, but it happened a couple of days ago in The Washington Post:
The debate over vaccine litigation has thus shifted from a presumption of innocence to a presumption of guilt. While the number of major studies that have failed to find any substantive link between vaccines and developmental disorders or autism is now in the double-digits (including a September 27th CDC study in the New England Journal), critics are effectively demanding that scientists prove that thimerosal does not cause illness -- an impossible standard.
The very success of vaccines has become their downfall. As Dr. Offit writes in Vaccinated, "When [vaccines] work, absolutely nothing happens¿Parents go on with their lives, not once thinking that their child was saved."
It is time to rescue vaccines from the witch hunts that go on when science fails to provide easy answers for complex diseases like autism.
Perhaps the Post is controlled by BAF (Big Pharma/AMA/FDA). Can't trust that worthless piece of newsprint. Or any other "mainstream media"--they are too likely to be corrupted by BAF's influence. We are better off relying on illiterate screeds penned by misanthropic troglodytes living in their mother's basement.
Worse, if no one dies for years of a disease, eventually they can claim it is no longer necessary because it wasn't doing anything anyway.
I get really irritated with things like this;
Parent shows up at school and gives the nurse a hard time about child needing to be vaccinated before they enter school.
Parent goes to administrator (in this case all the way to the top - Superintendent) and pleads case.
Super says to parent, "oh thats just a formality, you child can enter the classroom without being vaccinated.
Nurse finds out about casual waiver and is understandably pissed.
Heck I am understandably P.O'd just about the apathy or lack of concern about vaccine maintenance, let alone the ignorant cessation of them!!!
We are continuing to see more third world people and families entering this country and other developed countries. It is only the vigilance of vigorous public health programs that have all but eliminated once rampant disease.
Lets not forget the flu epidemic of the late 1918 era that wiped out hundreds of thousands of people. Yet to this day, we have some knuckle heads that feel a flu shot is tooooooooooo Dangerous. Good god!
Wait!! Sorry, I just had a flashback to the famous Saturday Night Live sketch with Steve Martin as;
"Theodoric of York" Medieval Doctor
Maybe my methods are not scientific, or perhaps....
Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa....
"Lets not forget the flu epidemic of the late 1918 era that wiped out hundreds of thousands of people. Yet to this day, we have some knuckle heads that feel a flu shot is tooooooooooo Dangerous. Good god"!
You are kidding, right? You are going to compare a flu epidemic of the late 1918 era to the situation today? This is what is wrong with people today. They don't think straight. The conditions today are very different from the 1918's. The typical flu of today is not going to kill people (except under the most extreme situations -- not close to the 36,000 people that they claim die each year). Even so, what are the chances that those who "guess" about the strains of the flu that are going to hit are really the ones that are going to get you... it is such a crock of shit and is simply a way for the pharma companies to make money off of ignorant people.
Ps... I really can't believe that you are pulling out the flu epidemic of 1918 as your comparison to the situation today. How sad.
lighten up dude.
No is is not a comparison.
It is an example of something that killed hundreds of thousands of people very quickly and something for which we knew very little about.
Nooooooo it is not likely going to kill hundreds of thousands of people today (at least in this country). But we have people today that feel a flu shot too dangerous or even a scam.
Thereby people whom are older, or the very young whom are more susceptible and could concievably die from influenza merely because of some sort of of conspiracy or Pharmacological scheme to profit.
Lets not forget rubella, diptheria, small pox (of which our 1960's small pox vaccination, that scar on your arm, is likely useless to a present day small pox outbreak terroist maybe??) Correct me if I am wrong here doctors?
So what you saying is that today, we have nothing to worry about from disease is that it?
My, how sad indeed.
The conditions today are very different from the 1918's. The typical flu of today is not going to kill people
Wait, are you suggesting that the problem with the flu of 1918 was the "conditions" of the time, and not the severity of the flu strain itself?
What are you suggesting is different today from 1918 that would prevent a flu strain from killing people?
"But we have people today that feel a flu shot too dangerous or even a scam".
Right because it is both... dangerous and a scam.
"Thereby people whom are older, or the very young whom are more susceptible and could concievably die from influenza merely because of some sort of of conspiracy or Pharmacological scheme to profit".
How many people die from the flu each year? ps... don't quote the CDC's number.
"Lets not forget rubella, diptheria, small pox (of which our 1960's small pox vaccination, that scar on your arm, is likely useless to a present day small pox outbreak terroist maybe??) Correct me if I am wrong here doctors"?
WTF are you talking about here? What is terroist? I am too young for a small pox vaccination... thank you very much. As I've said a million times. I'm not going to argue with you if you come up with a sane vaccination schedule... Once you start spouting about Hep B vaxx at birth, 5 in one shots being safe, thimerosal in vaccines, too many vaccines at one time, I will take huge issue. If the powers to be smartened up a little bit they would find that people may actually start trusting their judgment again... Until then, they have no one to blame but their own sorry asses :)
"So what you saying is that today, we have nothing to worry about from disease is that it"?
Hmmmmmmm, let's see did I say that? Survey says... no.
"Wait, are you suggesting that the problem with the flu of 1918 was the "conditions" of the time, and not the severity of the flu strain itself"?
Well certainly that was a factor. We would be much better off today at keeping people alive who contracted the flu. Do you disagree? The main point is though... Do you really think that the brainiacs who "guess" at which strains are going to be the worst each year are going to magically get it right and thereby avoid a huge epidemic of the flu which saves hundreds of thousands of lives. That, my friend, is called being gullible.
How many people die from the flu each year? ps... don't quote the CDC's number.
Why can't we quote the CDC's number? Aren't they the people whose job it is to gather such numbers?
Don't you know by now? Because the truth, gathered through scientific methods is personally inconvenient for these people. After all, their ad hominems and no one else's are the basis of reality.
"Why can't we quote the CDC's number? Aren't they the people whose job it is to gather such numbers"?
The reason that you cannot (or should not) quote the CDC's numbers is because they are extremely misleading. Let's just say that you were going to quote the standard 36,000 figure that is always tossed around everywhere as the number of people who die annually from the "flu" (cough, cough)... Well, all you have to really do is to do some digging. That 36,000 figure comes from the CDC's number of people who die from either the flu or pneumonia. They lump them together. In actuality, it is well known that the numbers who die from the flu is typically well under 1,000 people and the balance (majority) die from pneumonia. So, what does that tell you? It tells me that the CDC uses scaremongering to get you to get your flu shot each year. Despite what they say... 36,000 people do not die from the flu each year... Got it? So, by all means use the CDC's number as long as you get it correct... Less than 1,000 people die from the flu each year.
We would be much better off today at keeping people alive who contracted the flu. Do you disagree?
Well, I unfortunately wouldn't really be the best person to discuss how flu treatment has changed between 1918 and now; the biggest single difference I can think of personally is that we didn't have flu vaccines until 1948.
I know we certainly have new kinds of treatment now, like antiviral drugs. Nevertheless, my understanding is that such treatments were something of a last resort and that it would be better to try to prevent flu, for example via vaccines, rather than to wait for flu to strike and then try to treat it. Meanwhile, what you said is "the typical flu of today is not going to kill people". Unless this is some kind of wordplay trick based around the word "typical" (why compare typical flu to the decidedly atypical 1918 flu?), that sounds like a pretty extreme statement, implying treatment today to be entirely effective and, in conjunction with your other statements, implying the effort put into prevention to be not worth it when compared to just treating it after it strikes.
It seems reasonable to expect that if you're going to make such an extreme statement, you'd have some specific idea why it's true-- rather than falling back on vagueries like "well, we're better at keeping people alive today, right?", and expecting someone else to fill in the exact degree to which flu treatment has improved since 1918.
The main point is though... Do you really think that the brainiacs who "guess" at which strains are going to be the worst each year are going to magically get it right and thereby avoid a huge epidemic of the flu which saves hundreds of thousands of lives.
So you're saying that it is difficult to predict which flu strain will be the one to possibly develop into a pandemic. Wouldn't this be an argument for more flu vaccination, not less? After all, if it is the case that flu strains can turn out to be more serious than we thought, surely we should err on the side of caution.
Also, are you sure that the people whose job it is to predict which flu strains are likely to spread make their predictions "magically"? Perhaps there are non-magical methods by which one might direct public health policy.
"That 36,000 figure comes from the CDC's number of people who die from either the flu or pneumonia. They lump them together. In actuality, it is well known that the numbers who die from the flu is typically well under 1,000 people and the balance (majority) die from pneumonia. So, what does that tell you? It tells me that the CDC uses scaremongering to get you to get your flu shot each year."
Yes, but what happens is the flu often leads to pneumonia. Don't catch the flu don't get the pneumonia, less chance of dying. For a long time it was hard to prove the immunizations were really helping, though it made sense. I just read a recent study, and unfortunately I think I read it in a paper so have lost the reference, This study followed people who took flu shots and those who did not, they compensated for things like how well and healthy the two groups were, and the result was a very significant reduction of deaths of the immunized group from pneumonia, and also a much lower hospitalization for the immunized group. Since I cannot remember the source I do not expect you to believe it, but maybe someone else out there saw the same thing?
This was one report of the study:
http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/healthday/071004/flu-vaccine-doe…
Terroist: violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands
"Well, I unfortunately wouldn't really be the best person to discuss how flu treatment has changed between 1918 and now; the biggest single difference I can think of personally is that we didn't have flu vaccines until 1948".
I imagine that you can understand how in the year 2007 we would be able to better treat/accomodate people who caught the flu than we would in 1918, can't you? So, you believe that the number of cases of the flu have gone down over the years because of the annual flu shot introduction? Please cite your evidence of that.
"So you're saying that it is difficult to predict which flu strain will be the one to possibly develop into a pandemic. Wouldn't this be an argument for more flu vaccination, not less? After all, if it is the case that flu strains can turn out to be more serious than we thought, surely we should err on the side of caution".
... Here lies the problem... More is always better. Let's vaccinate for everything under the sun plus some because you never know. That sounds great until you wake up and realize that there are side effects to all these vaccines. So, what is your suggestion... 5 flu shots for everyone just to cover all the different strains? I'll pass thanks.
"Perhaps there are non-magical methods by which one might direct public health policy".
Coin, it's a guessing game based on their yearly predictions of what strains may be a problem. This is quite convenient so when you do go to the doctor with the flu after receiving the flu shot the doctor can just say ... you must have a strain of the flu which was not covered in the shot this year. Thanks doc. Mercury poisoned for nothing.
"Yes, but what happens is the flu often leads to pneumonia. Don't catch the flu don't get the pneumonia, less chance of dying".
The CDC would have to first prove that the pneumonia was caused by the flu first in order to say that 36,000 people die from the flu each year... instead they simply lie and hope that people fall for it. Typical... but not an honest approach.
"Thats WTF I am talking about".
Can someone grab this dude a dictionary? The fact that you can't spell terrorism correctly is a sign for me that I've just wasted valuable minutes here.
ps. are you suggesting that we all run out and get ourselves a small pox vaccine... you know, just in case?
CS, I wouldn't be surprised if you applied this very same logic toward rabies and, in fact, attempted to keep your cat or dog from getting thier shots.
Lines on the return of Polio
A mother, doing what she thinks is right
Believes the lies and chooses now to fight;
She will not vaccinate. She is too young;
How quickly we forgot the iron lung.
http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com/2007/10/lines-on-return-of-polio…
The idea that today we have better treatment-specifically support technology-and that means that an epidemic won't have a 1918-style effect is predicated on the assumption that there will be enough technology for everyone (and enough staff to deliver it). Sit in on a pandemic planning conference for a major hospital some day. The main tool of patient tretament is the ventilator. How many does your hospital have on hand? 100 would be a lot. What happens when 200 folks will die without vents? Who gets 'em? The problem is not treating influenza at the retail level-it's the wholesale operation that simply collapses. Sure, we've got the capacity to treat a few cases, with a high success rate. But thousands at a time? No.
And in fact scientists are afraid that the bird flu might mutate into a pandemic flu very much like the one that swept the world in 1918. That's why they're working so hard on figuring out how to make a vaccine that would protect people, because all the medical measures in the world will not help much after the fact for a flu that no one is immune to, and that is as vicious as the 1918 flu. (Remember, this is a flu that struck hardest at the young and healthy). "Common Sense," I suggest that you get over your vaccine phobia and actually learn something about biology and the history of disease from people like Orac who know much more than you do.
If you want to learn about pandemic flu, go over to Effect Measure.
http://scienceblogs.com/effectmeasure/2007/05/the_military_and_pandemic…
They discuss a Pentagon study that assumes 3 million dead in 6 weeks. Using about the same fatality numbers as the 1918 flu. Of course it looks like the H5N1 flu is worse, perhaps as much as 10x worse, with 60% fatality instead of 1-5.
Common Sense (is this deliberate irony?) had an opinion about the 1918 influenza that is at odds with most virologists. While the mutation that resulted in the 1918 influenza is not likely to happen, that doesn't mean that it will never happen again.
A mutation that would allow the avian influenza polymerase to replicate in humans would probably cause an influenza virus as lethal as that of 1918.
Actually, I suspect that "Common Sense" knows about as much about influenza as my left shoe does. He/she/it is simply repeating what others (who are equally uninformed) have said.
So, "Common Sense", what sort of genome structure does the influenza virus have?
"Common Sense" is just a parrot.
Want a cracker?
Prometheus
"Yes, but what happens is the flu often leads to pneumonia. Don't catch the flu don't get the pneumonia, less chance of dying.
The CDC would have to first prove that the pneumonia was caused by the flu first in order to say that 36,000 people die from the flu each year... instead they simply lie and hope that people fall for it. Typical... but not an honest approach. "
Yes Common Sense but I gave you a link to a study that shows just exactly that - that giving a flu shot cuts death from pneumonia by about 50%. You chose to quote-mine and ignore the study. But I hear that is in the pack of denialist cards anyway.
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/05/denialists_deck_of_cards_the_…
Uncle Dave: "Lets not forget the flu epidemic of the late 1918 era that wiped out hundreds of thousands of people."
That was just in the US alone, mind. Worldwide, it killed maybe 50 million.
http://www.google.com/search?&q=1918+flu
has
I tried to limit it to just the US, I left out Europe. Tough enough for some to believe as it is..
My god, this is my first experience with the anti vaccine blogger nut cases. I need to sit back and let some the experts handle the luney toons...
fascinating really...
Oh, wow. All of this to argue with one person who isn't old enough to have had a small pox vaccine? That says it all right there. He doesn't remember people dying of measles. He doesn't remember the crippling effects of polio if someone died, and what about those with post-polio syndrome, sentenced to die a horrible death from a virus we didn't have a vaccine for that worked consistantly until the 1960's. This doofus has never had influenza, and should count his lucky stars. There's a definite difference between a chest cold and influenza, as I found out after having it, and having several of my friends end up in the hospital because of the "flu."
That's our problem. Not only do many people not know how good they have it, they won't listen to those who work in healthcare who truly want to prevent these epidemics.
Maybe these anti-vax folks should go to a third world country and see how it really is.
We need to stop feeding the trolls. They don't care. They are narcissistic, and thrive on chaos, and couldn't care less about debate. They are just this side of violence, and are emotional terrorists. The only people they care about are themselves.
Definitely agree with you there, Rjaye. It's just so hard to hold myself back, lately, though.
Especially since I recently bumped into a mom who thinks letting her kids get immunity 'naturally' is better than getting a vaccine.
Of course, the fact that she's relying on a free ride from herd immunity like all the other negligent parents makes it worse. When I was a kid, I was one of the unlucky ones whose measles immunity didn't take.
Now watch as they construe one failure in a very successful system as making it worthless while they make heavy, heavy excuses as to why their program doesn't have to bother tracking failures and why the concept of accountability is an evil capitalist/communist/Illuminati scheme to suppress people who are more interested in making money than proving efficacy.
Emotional terrorists? Thank you, Rjaye, for that refreshing dose of calm, clear-headed rationality.
I think you should familiarize yourself with the definition of 'troll'; it doesn't mean what you think it does.
Well, I for one am going to ignorantly give in to the scam and give my money to big pharma so I can receive a randomly chosen influenza strain vaccine shot complete with mercury poison.
Why? Because #1 I don't want to die or even miss two days of work feeling like crap and #2 I just don't buy the crap the loonies like Common Sense are selling. Talk about fear mongering.
"Can someone grab this dude a dictionary? The fact that you can't spell terrorism correctly is a sign for me that I've just wasted valuable minutes here."
Sue,
Kin u poynt to iny minuts youv spent hear that wer not "waisted"?.
Enyware on duh internett?
The 1918 pandemic is a VERY useful lesson.
It is not at all clear that even with modern medicine we would do much better:
1) People apparently (from historical records) became rapidly septic and developed respiratory failure--the kind of resp. failure that would require a ventilator.
2) We just don't have that many ventilators. Simulations have shown that our hospitals cannot handle that kind of load. Hell, I work at one of the busiest hospitals in the country, and we have no overflow capacity--we are on critical bed status before flu season even hits.
"I recently bumped into a mom who thinks letting her kids get immunity 'naturally' is better than getting a vaccine."
I'm always struck by the number of antivaxers who are so ready and willing to let children bear the brunt of preventable diseases.
It's the kids who pay the price for their ideological purity.
I'm beating a dead horse but. Last I checked vaccines were a one shot deal. The drug companies get to make profit off of one sale, relatively low profit. A full regiment of mid range anti-viral drug costs a whole lot more. I know that the number a vaccine manufactures has dropped in the us but those are mainly from government sites so they won't listen and claim conspiracy. I had to use an even more conspiracy crazy group as a counter point.
I'm having trouble finding specific numbers but even nut job socialist extremists think there is a shortage of flu vaccines. They trust the government even less then the anit-vacs people.
http://www.geocities.com/mnsocialist/flu.html
Wouldn't the evil NWO under the iron fist of Big Pharma with it's FDA shock troops, supported by CDC heavy armor make more money by not releasing the flu vaccine. Instead release the flu strain that they have Anti-virals for? Again why do they make their logic so faulty, it's not even fun when it's this easy.
"Sure, we've got the capacity to treat a few cases, with a high success rate. But thousands at a time? No".
What does this have to do with the flu shots of today? Ah, nothing... Absolutely nothing. Does anyone here actually think that the flu shots that are given each year are going to protect you from a flu epidemic which could kill hundreds of thousands of people?
Common Sense's "cough, cough" aside (comment 11) reminded me of this, correct me if I'm wrong (not you, Common Sense, I can guess what you think),
My understanding is that few people these days have ever actually had influenza, and that what most people call "the flu" is actually just a (severe) cold.
"We would be much better off today at keeping people alive who contracted the flu. "
From historical accounts, the flu of 1918 progressed from first symptoms to pneumonia rather quickly - sometimes in one day, usually less than in a week. Given that most people with early flu symptoms don't rush to the ER (and if they do, how will ER take care of all these people?), it seems unlikely that everyone will be able to get help quickly.
I am also old enough to have been vaccinated against smallpox, while my mother was old enough to have survived diphtheria as a child. My grandfather also got it at the same time. This was no fun from what she told me, and plenty of people in the hospital where she was treated died. Including a young mother who caught it while caring for her sick child.
"Using about the same fatality numbers as the 1918 flu. Of course it looks like the H5N1 flu is worse, perhaps as much as 10x worse, with 60% fatality instead of 1-5".
What does this have to do with annual flu shots?
"My god, this is my first experience with the anti vaccine blogger nut cases. I need to sit back and let some the experts handle the luney toons..."
Well, yes, with your comments on this blog it is painfully obvious that this is your first time arguing against the sane people. Clearly, you have no experience in the topic whatsoever. Your ignorance shines through. Check your spelling again...
"I'm having trouble finding specific numbers but even nut job socialist extremists think there is a shortage of flu vaccines".
Why are you quoting from an article in 2004? There is no shortage of flu shots today... Get your facts straight.
"Oh, wow. All of this to argue with one person who isn't old enough to have had a small pox vaccine"?
Ok old man... I happen to be 37 years old with 3 kids ... Not exactly a child. I have also been studying this topic for 4 years ever since two of my kids started having bad reactions to every set up vaccinations that they had... How about you? What's your personal experience with TODAY'S vaccination schedule. You can talk all you want about polio and measles, etc... that's great. How about Hep B at birth? How about 36 vaccinations by the age of 2? How about the total amounts of mercury given to babies in the early 90's-2000(ish)? How about the 5 in 1 shots of today given to infants? That's what I care about. Do your research on that and get back to me.
"Why? Because #1 I don't want to die or even miss two days of work feeling like crap and #2 I just don't buy the crap the loonies like Common Sense are selling".
I actually encourage people like you to get your annual flu shots. It's the sane people that I like to protect.
Talk to your conspiracy friends the socialists. They are better at screaming non-sense at you then we are.
What evidence would you need to see to show that flu vaccine reduces the amounts of pneumonia? What sources would you need to hear from without claiming that it's a conspiracy. I have already pointed out that it's more profitable for the NWO and associated special forces to prevent heard immunity. Let me know what you want to see as I'm having a slow day at work.
"What evidence would you need to see to show that flu vaccine reduces the amounts of pneumonia"?
Why do you have some actual evidence? My son had pneumonia last year. Guess what? He didn't have the flu first... just pneumonia... Again, how is it that the CDC is claiming that 36,000 people die from the flu each year again (despite the fact that the vast majority die from pneumonia)? How do they get away with that? I call it lying what do you call it - stretching the truth? Making a hypothesis? A guess? What would you call it?
Not stating that there is a flu vaccine shortage currently. It was the only non government sponsored article about the decreases in vaccine manufacturing. I figured you would accuse me of being one of the NWO plants fighting to keep the information secret. So I used an organization that's as far from the government as you can get.
"How about the total amounts of mercury given to babies in the early 90's-2000(ish)?" So which one of your kids as Autism? Sever mercury poisoning?
No one here is saying that vaccines are risk free. The benefits defiantly out weigh the risks. If all the people who can tolerate vaccines get them then those who can't will still remain relatively safe. By can't I do not mean the crap that the anti-vacs groups are shouting, I'm reffering to actually immune suppressed children.
...I *still* think Common Sense dosen't believe in rabies shots.
"Ok old man... I happen to be 37 years old with 3 kids ... Not exactly a child. I have also been studying this topic for 4 years ever since two of my kids started having bad reactions to every set up vaccinations that they had... How about you?
I detect a certain degree of hysteria in your delivery at this point. Relax.
You are still too young to have any personal recollection of the destruction of any of these serious diseases. Your perspective reminds me of the saying "Those whom do not know history are destined to repeat it." ;)
Jonas Salk was aparently a a major scam artist...
"So which one of your kids as(sic) Autism? Sever(sic) mercury poisoning?"
Speaking as someone who's been autistic from birth...
SCREW YOU.
"...I *still* think Common Sense dosen't believe in rabies shots".
For you they are fine. In fact, I think that you may need 3 rabies shots just to be safe of course...
"Your perspective reminds me of the saying "Those whom do not know history are destined to repeat it." ;)
Did you read my entire comment in regards to that. I don't have an issue with a safe and effective vaccination schedule. Again, how much do you know about *today's* vaccination schedule. Did you know that on day 1 or 2 of life babies are injected with the Hep B vaccine which is unnecessary unless their mother is a carrier? Did you know that we are now giving babies 5 in 1 shots which have proven to be more dangerous than giving babies separate shots? Did you know that they have now come up with a combination of the mmr and chicken pox vaccine which is known to have 10x the amount of the chicken pox virus in it (despite the fact that there is still a question of whether or not babies can handle such a large viral attack)? Did you know that babies are now getting a minimum of 36 vaccinations by the age of two? What do you know about *today's* schedule... I believe that you are far too old to know much about this at all... Those who are too old to understand the present situation are far too old to comment on it. Feel free to do some research and get back to me in regards to today's vaccination schedule and it's impact on children's health.
First, pnuemonia without flu is not proof that flu does not lead to pneumonia. Second, when you compare two poulations, one that recieved the shot and one that did not, compare death rates and see a higher rate of flu and/or pneumonia deaths in the no-vacc group, that's how they can say that.
Dear Common sense, pneumonia is most often caused by bacteria and thus is not associated with the flu. However, the flu can both be a cause of pneumonia as well as make people more susceptible to bacterial pneumonia. In order for the CDC to classify a case of death that is flu related, it A) has to occur during flu season and B) the flu virus has to be detected either via nasal swab or other lab technique.
As someone who is so keen on telling people to check their facts, perhaps you should listen to your own advice.
PS I apologize if there are any miss spellings in this comment I never tool a typing class.
No they are not lying nor are they stretching the truth. They are using a model. The model that they use is partially explained here:
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/289/2/179
I have not been able to find how the model has evolved since 2003. The methods they use to define the model are explained. Could there number be off? Sure. If you have a better way of counting flu deaths I'd love to hear the proposal. However read the article above before you propose anything.
Common Scents: "I don't have an issue with a safe and effective vaccination schedule."
You mean safe and effective by your standards. Are you expecting people to listen to the opinions of an uneducated housewife/stay at home mom, over the CDC and medical community in general?
Again, tell us which vaccines and which ingredients earn your seal of approval? Short list, right?
The interesting thing about the pneumonia in the 1918 influenza is that it appears (from animal studies done with the reconstructed 1918 influenza virus) that the victims died from viral pneumonia.
This explains why the deaths were so rapid, as the influenza virus has a shorter replication time than bacteria and produces hundreds of new virus particles with each replication, not simply doubling, as bacteria do.
As I said above, "Common Sense" is merely repeating what he has heard other people say. He has no more understanding of what he says than any other parrot does.
Have you ever tried to have a rational discussion with a parrot?
Have you ever been successful?
Prometheus
Laser Potato: Easy I was taking pot shots at her. I'm not suggesting that there is any link. I'm just trying to see if she just anti-vacs or suffers from a deeper delusion. No offense towards you was meant.
Vlad
Thanks for the JAMA link. Very interesting...
Signed,
Por spellor
Common Sense,
I haven't followed all of your screed, too tiresome, but you seem to think that influenza is no more dangerous than a common cold. When I was in High School in the 1970's(healthy young adult) I was clobbered with a strain of influenza that came damn close to killing me. I get tired of you pooh-poohing the dangers of influenza. It is a very serious disease that requires serious efforts to keep it at bay, including vaccinations.
vhurtig
I believe you like a lot of us "Old men" got hit by the Asian Flu strain of the 1970's.
Well you can now get flu vaccines that are mercury free. Completely mercury free with no thimerosal being used any where in the production process.
http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/thimerosal.htm
Common Sense:
So what's your current objection to vaccines? I'm also curious what medication do you approve of?
Check that;
See below
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=26428
Taken from link above;
"The virus came to the United States quietly, with a series of small outbreaks over the summer of 1957. When children went back to school in the fall, they spread the disease in classrooms and brought it home to their families. Infection rates were highest among school children, young adults, and pregnant women in October 1957."
Again, my source of dismay with hysterical mothers living in fear of vaccines - insisting there is a greater danger in the vaccine.
Schools sites are the petri dishes of our society.
It is possible to be allergic to vaccine ingredients. I know, I was quizzed on that point by the infection control officer at the hospital where I got my hepatitis B series as an EMT.
If the kids are consistently having bad reactions, maybe you should check that possibility.
Hmm. The five in one vaccine is more dangerous than regular vaccines, eh?
Okay, sure. I'll buy that. Is it more dangerous than FIVE regular vaccines? I find that highly unlikely ... and far more relevant. Compare apples to apples, not apples to oranges.
"First, pnuemonia without flu is not proof that flu does not lead to pneumonia".
I never said that flu *never* leads to pneumonia. I am saying that when the CDC says that 36,000 people die a year due to THE FLU ... they are blatantly lying. It's pretty simple.
" B) the flu virus has to be detected either via nasal swab or other lab technique".
Well, good... So you should be able to back up the information in discussion. Please point me to the medical records information for all 36,000 people who supposedly die from the flu each year so we can see if there were nasal swabs done to see if these people actually died from "the flu". Come on, the CDC stretches the truth when they claim that 36,000 people die from the flu each year... just admit that.
"You mean safe and effective by your standards. Are you expecting people to listen to the opinions of an uneducated housewife/stay at home mom, over the CDC and medical community in general"?
By rational peoples' standards, Clown. I have been very open to hearing alternative vaccination schedules. I have talked to people about using the alternative schedules as opposed to NO VACCINATIONS whatsoever. I simply have a problem with a bogus and unsafe schedule... yet the morons here want to call me crazy because I don't want a known neurotoxin injected into babies. Go figure.
Prometheus, is there a reason why you have to sign your name twice? Do you think that you are that important?
The most recent death stats that I can find from the CDC are for 2004.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm
The stats cite 59,664 deaths from Influenza/Pneumonia. If you review the final data (p32), the actual break down is 1,100 deaths from Influenza and 58,564 deaths from Pneumonia.
Laser Potato - Funnily enough, I *have* actually read comments from various mercury moms saying they've quit vaccinating their pets.
I wonder if C.S. would understand the influenza/pneumonia deaths if it were put in an analogy:
Fred is in a serious car accident, is in the ICU for two days, then develops a severe MRSA infection and dies.
If you were assessing the overall danger of cars, would you count Fred as a car accident fatality?
Common Sense,
You need to change your name since you obviously have no "common sense". Influenza is a killer. Influenza can kill all on it's own and getting pneumonia as a complication only makes matters worse.
"Fred is in a serious car accident, is in the ICU for two days, then develops a severe MRSA infection and dies.
If you were assessing the overall danger of cars, would you count Fred as a car accident fatality"?
Ah, no I would say that he died of a severe MRSA infection. So, no, he didn't die from a car accident and wouldn't be included in the car accident fatalities... How does this help your side though?
"I don't want a known neurotoxin injected into babies" I knew it. So it's the whole freaking mercury thing again isn't it. See laser potato this is why I made the comment. Well given the nature of your argument I would think you would be all in favor of the 5 in 1 vaccine. This would reduce the amount of themerisol your baby would be exposed to. Um, wait I forgot it's not used in the majority of vaccines.
http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/thi-table.htm
So is there a different neurotoxin that we need to be looking for? Also while the themerisol may exceed the mercury levels for a child unless your anorexic it will not even come close to an adult daily dose limit.
(continued in next post)
Common Sense, I am a father of 3 children (5, 3 and 1), and I can understand your concern regarding the aggressive vaccination schedule for infants. From my research and in talking with various pediatricians in town, my wife and I came to the conclusion to do what is called a 'delayed' vaccination schedule for our kids. Our kids were breastfeed until they were at least 12 months old, but if they had been formula fed (which the majority of US babies are), then I don't think I would have felt safe with delaying the schedule any as they would not have the antibodies from their mom to help them in that first year. Now even with the delayed schedule there were still a couple vaccines that we got for them in that first year to be safe (whooping cough for example)... but I have a strong feeling (no proof of course) that the fact that the vast majority of kids do not get breastfed is a primary motivator for the aggressive schedule... but that is just opinion, so take it for what it's worth.
An aside on the effectiveness of breastfed immunities: my older two came down with the chicken pox (which they were vaccinated against) when my youngest was only 4 months old... we were told by all but one pediatric nurse that she would come down with it too, but she never did. Breast milk is pretty amazing stuff!
The world health organization sets the weekly allowable does limit of 1.6 micrograms per kilogram body weight for pregnant mothers.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/notes/2003/np20/en/
So if you weigh at least 15 kg (25 micrograms per vaccine) of you will not exceed the WHO safe limits while you are pregnant. Though using the EPA maximum DAILY exposure of .1 microgram per kg you will exceed your DAILY limit. Which would sound like your argument has merit except we do not get DAILY vaccinations. So even using the worst case scenario you could get vaccinated every 100 days and still be within EPA limits. Unless you live in an area of high environmental mercury. In this case you are screwed regardless of vaccinations.
"I would think you would be all in favor of the 5 in 1 vaccine".
Then you are an idiot. The reason why I am not in favor of the 5 in 1 vaccines is because they are more dangerous than getting single vaccinations spread out over time. You see, it's called research. Feel free to do some. I have said this from day 1 it's not only about mercury... The mercury is simply the worst of the worst and proves that the people in charge of vaccinating our children have no clue what they are doing.
"themerisol"
Grab a dictionary.
"Also while the themerisol may exceed the mercury levels for a child unless your anorexic it will not even come close to an adult daily dose limit".
Spoken like a dope who can't even spell thimerosal.
"(continued in next post)"
Dude, don't even bother....
"Spoken like a dope who can't even spell thimerosal." Well actually if you use my spelling on a Google search you will see that many of the anti-vacs nut bags spell it this way. I got the spelling from one of those sites. If the best counter argument you have is my spelling I am satisfied in the validity of my argument.
"The reason why I am not in favor of the 5 in 1 vaccines is because they are more dangerous than getting single vaccinations spread out over time." And this would be because? Being the expert on vaccines that you are want to explain to me how this works? So you would rather 5 doses of theses "toxins" which can not metabolized as per you anti vacs nut bags (I see no reason to polite at this point) as opposed to one?
"The world health organization sets the weekly allowable does limit of 1.6 micrograms per kilogram body weight for pregnant mothers.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/notes/2003/np20/en/
So if you weigh at least 15 kg (25 micrograms per vaccine) of you will not exceed the WHO safe limits while you are pregnant. Though using the EPA maximum DAILY exposure of .1 microgram per kg you will exceed your DAILY limit. Which would sound like your argument has merit except we do not get DAILY vaccinations. So even using the worst case scenario you could get vaccinated every 100 days and still be within EPA limits. Unless you live in an area of high environmental mercury. In this case you are screwed regardless of vaccinations".
I told you not to bother... I wouldn't even know where to begin in terms of enlightening you after this post. First off, you are linking to an article on the methylmercury limit (fish, dietary) as opposed to a ethylmercury limit (injected into the body). What's the difference? Do you know? Nobody knows because it has never been tested... Please don't compare apples to oranges.
Then, of course, there's the unfortunate question about what happens with the fetus and the thimerosal (mercury)? You are giving me the weight information based on the pregnant mother ... wonderful thanks for the info... but frankly it's irrelevant to the issue in regards to the fetus and mercury question, isn't it? How much does the fetus weigh? How much mercury goes directly to the fetus? Do you know? Didn't think so...
Then, of course, you want to give me that analogy with the example of the daily limit (of the kind of mercury not in question here) and you say... it doesn't matter because we don't get vaccines everyday, blah, blah, blah. It's called a bolus amount -- or a large amount in one day... what does that do to you? Here's my analogy.
I have a headache. I take one aspirin. The next day I have another headache. I take one more aspirin. This continues for 90 days. At the end of those 90 days (one aspirin a day)... I come out fine.
Compare that to a person who decides to take 90 aspirin in one day. Do you think that the outcome would be different? Something tells me it would. That, my friend, is why you can't compare a daily upper limit to a bolus amount (as what would happen with a flu shot). It is a large amount given at one time...
My 2 cents on the 5-in-1 vaccines: I personally would prefer to give my child one of these types of vaccines rather than 5 different vaccines: why? Well, the 5-in-1 vaccine will be tested for effectiveness & safety in a controlled study. 5 different vaccines will each be studied for their effects individually. Unless another study comes out showing that it is safe & effective to give all 5 at one time, then I'm much more likely to schedule multiple trips to the doctor. But that's just where I'm coming from.
"Well actually if you use my spelling on a Google search you will see that many of the anti-vacs nut bags spell it this way. I got the spelling from one of those sites. If the best counter argument you have is my spelling I am satisfied in the validity of my argument".
Perhaps if you did more research on thimerosal you would finally realize how dangerous it is... the fact that you can't spell it (even remotely close) shows me that you have no idea what you are talking about and haven't even bothered to do the most basic research.... I happened to have "google-searched" your spelling and could tell in a nano-second that the spelling was wrong. How old are you? You need some google-search education. If you are satisfied in the validity of your argument (despite the fact that you can't even spell the word that you are arguing about) it tells me that you are not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
Common (Non)Sense says: Ah, no I would say that he died of a severe MRSA infection. So, no, he didn't die from a car accident and wouldn't be included in the car accident fatalities... How does this help your side though?
You're wrong, as usual. In my province anyway, an incident like this would be investigated by the coroner, and the contribution of the MVA injuries to his death would be assessed. For example, if he were on a ventilator because of brain or chest injury and developed MRSA pneumonia, the MVA would be considered the underlying cause of death, and this would be recorded as a death from an MVA.
It's funny that you're willing to blame vaccines for everything under the sun, but you can't make such a connection with a death directly attributable to an MVA.
"How much does the fetus weigh? How much mercury goes directly to the fetus? Do you know? Didn't think so..." Um, want to actually read the article I posted. Two points you just missed; methyl-mercury is more toxic the ethyl-mercury, and that limit will protect the fetus.
"World Health Organization (WHO) recently announced agreement on recommendations regarding safe intake levels for a variety of different chemicals occurring in food, including cadmium and methylmercury, the most toxic form of mercury."
"Based on this, the experts revised the PTWI for methylmercury, recommending that it be reduced to 1.6 µg per kg body weight per week in order to sufficiently protect the developing foetus."
Dad of 3,
You seem like a very reasonable person. There have been studies indicating that the 5 in 1 shots are MORE dangerous than getting the shots individually and spaced out over time. This, however, is something that you can research for yourself and decide on your own which is the way to go.
Dad of 3,
You seem like a very reasonable person. There have been studies indicating that the 5 in 1 shots are MORE dangerous than getting the shots individually and spaced out over time. This, however, is something that you can research for yourself and decide on your own which is the way to go.
"methyl-mercury is more toxic the ethyl-mercury".
No, I didn't miss that... It's just wrong. I did point out to you that you can't compare the two forms without making yourself look ignorant.
Now now, your fuming again. Lets not resort to name calling Mrs. Common Sense.
"The mercury is simply the worst of the worst and proves that the people in charge of vaccinating our children have no clue what they are doing."
And you do? Thats quite a statement from someone that as far as we can tell has no credentials of any sort to bolster said claim - other than Jenny McCarthy credentials (I'm a mom).
sincerely,
pore spellor
Now now, your fuming again. Lets not resort to name calling Mrs. Common Sense.
"The mercury is simply the worst of the worst and proves that the people in charge of vaccinating our children have no clue what they are doing."
And you do? Thats quite a statement from someone that as far as we can tell has no credentials of any sort to bolster said claim - other than Jenny McCarthy credentials (I'm a mom).
sincerely,
pore spellor
"it tells me that you are not the sharpest knife in the drawer." That's not what my Masters Degree Biomedical Engineering says but being insulted by a high school drop out is amusing though.
"No, I didn't miss that... It's just wrong." You can judge better the the WHO. Oh I'd love to see your credentials.
I think we all need to take a deep breath and go back and look at the title of this post one more time.
On vaccines, immune to reason.
With a big, special emphasis on the "IMMUNE TO REASON".
Dad of 3 said "... we were told by all but one pediatric nurse that she would come down with it too, but she never did. Breast milk is pretty amazing stuff!"
I counter your anecdote with mine... My boys had chicken pox in 1994, about a year before the vaccine was available.
The reason I know the year is because it is the same year my daughter was born. She was also only breastfed, and she also came down with chicken pox (which I learned later is really very dangerous for infants).
Count yourself lucky.
Later this month will be influenza vaccine time (In 1967 I went to bed with the flu, and woke up two weeks later --- my brother said that there was a worry that I might not survive. Fortunately I did. I did however have to have most of my long hair cut off because of some serious bedhair knots), and I will discuss with the family doctor about my daughter getting the HPV.
(I am also ignoring Common Sue, she hasn't changed her tune or opened up her closed mind since the last time she spammed this blog)
Instead of allowing Common Sense to hold court, let's get back to the editorial in the WaPo. Yes, it's good to read the excerpt Orac provides, but the overall message of the piece is quite disturbing regarding the likely chilling effect of litigation on vaccine production and development. It seems to me that we urgently need to be able to separate legitimate criticism of pharmaceutical companies from the paranoid assumption that their only purpose in the world is doing evil.
Clare said "It seems to me that we urgently need to be able to separate legitimate criticism of pharmaceutical companies from the paranoid assumption that their only purpose in the world is doing evil."
Exactly, and good luck with trying to do that with those that are into the paranoia.
Like one who is posting here, "Common Sense", also known as "Sue M." and who I call "Common Sue", who is the ultimate example of being "Immune to Reason".
One thing about paranoia - those that have it are convinced that they see a threat that "everybody else" doesn't (or, that "everybody else" sees the threat, but is in on the plot).
Sound familiar?
Is there such a thing as "shared paranoia"? Maybe we should write this up for one of the psychiatric journals.
Prometheus
Dad of 3: yes, breastmilk is amazing stuff - it does squat against pertussis or chicken pox though. Maternal immunity is confered through IgGs that pass through the placenta in the last weeks of pregnancy (this is why premature babies have such bad maternal immunity). There are no disease specific neutralizing antibodies in breastmilk after about 2 weeks after delivery. The IgAs and other anti-microbial agents in breastmilk reduce the risk of: polio, RSV, severe rotavirus infection, Hib and cholera, but that is about it in terms of acute infection (no need to go into long term benefits of breastfeeding in this thread).
Why were your older children not vaccinated against varicella? With a baby in the house that would have been the sensible thing to do, IMO.
"And you do? Thats quite a statement from someone that as far as we can tell has no credentials of any sort to bolster said claim - other than Jenny McCarthy credentials (I'm a mom)".
Hey, dope... I'm not making the vaccination guidelines... The people that do are the ones who need to know what they are doing. Clearly, they don't. That's the issue. As for credentials, it's called seeing it with your own eyes.
Catherina, he said his older children WERE vaccinated for varicella. He said "An aside on the effectiveness of breastfed immunities: my older two came down with the chicken pox (which they were vaccinated against)"
The varicella vaccine is not the most effective, but it does make the disease milder for those who are infected. Which is probably why the baby escaped chicken pox.
"Hey, dope... I'm not making the vaccination guidelines..."
Well no lucky for us but I get the distinct feeling that you think you should be making the guidelines.
"As for credentials, it's called seeing it with your own eyes. " Not being blind is not a legitimate credential for evaluating medical guidelines.
"(I am also ignoring Common Sue, she hasn't changed her tune or opened up her closed mind since the last time she spammed this blog)"
Actually HCN... we are all better off without your commentary. It is a win/win for all.
"it tells me that you are not the sharpest knife in the drawer." That's not what my Masters Degree Biomedical Engineering says but being insulted by a high school drop out is amusing though".
You have a Masters in Biomedical Engineering? This is a sad statement on our education system. A person can get a Masters and still not be able to understand that you should be able to spell something that you are arguing about. Otherwise, you look like a complete moron.
Where did you ever get the idea that I am a high school dropout? Not even close, my friend... You should know... the majority of the people who question vaccinations are highly educated. I wonder why?
ah, thank you HCN, I had not seen that. Oh well, my son had chicken pox with 6 months AND with 2 years. Second infections with varicella are not uncommon. If Do3's older children were vaccinated, my guess is that they weren't very contagious and did not have many lesions to begin with.
"the majority of the people who question vaccinations are highly educated. I wonder why?" Like who?
Oh, and still waiting on your credentials.
"Where did you ever get the idea that I am a high school dropout? Not even close" So based on your previous use of not even close (me being one letter off) that would imply that you graduated. Now we have sad statement on our education system.
"Oh, and still waiting on your credentials.
You will keep waiting... All that matters is that I run circles around your sorry ass on this issue.
"So based on your previous use of not even close (me being one letter off) that would imply that you graduated. Now we have sad statement on our education system".
Thimerosal vs. Themerisol
I would say that you were actually 3 letters off. Check my work on that though... far be it for me to question someone with a Masters degree... Ooohhhhhh!
I think this is where Orac would say, "The stupid, it really burns."
"I run circles around your sorry ass on this issue" How, because you are big on sarcasm and a good speller. That's your only credentials. I'll stick with my initial theory of high school drop out.
Common Sense, an excessive interest is spelling rather than the message, would indicate a rather strange personality.
I notice people suggest you are a mother. I think you said parent. Interesting, there is something in testosterone level of your writing style which would suggest masculinity.
First off you are right in saying that immunizations incude risks, and these include risks of allergy. There has been little evidence to suggest that immunizations might be life threatening. This cannot absolutely be discounted, but if so it is extremely rare so it does not show up int the statistics.
There are also risks to not vaccinating, these risks tend to be lower if everyone else is vaccinated. Vaccinations have been amazingly successful, when I was young I saw many people with withered limbs from polio. Not any more.
So yes making decisions can be complex, but there is no question if we stopped immunizations tomorrow many more would get sick.
Your protests about flu and pneumonia are poorly thought out. You have to be able to counter studies of the actual results of flu shots on death and hospitalization such as:
http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/healthday/071004/flu-vaccine-doe…
One thing about paranoia - those that have it are convinced that they see a threat that "everybody else" doesn't (or, that "everybody else" sees the threat, but is in on the plot)... Is there such a thing as "shared paranoia"? Maybe we should write this up for one of the psychiatric journals.
Perhaps see: The Paranoid Style in American Politics
"I'll stick with my initial theory of high school drop out".
That's fine... All I know is that your supposed "high school dropout" is kicking your ass in common sense. As for the spelling issue... I've said this 1,000 times... it's not about the spelling. As an example, I rarely point out spelling errors that people make (although that terroism one earlier was hilarious - how can you not be able to spell terrorism). Anyway, I digress. It's not the spelling mistake... it's what the spelling mistake represents. That is ... ignorance to the topic. If you had spelled 10 words wrong the only that would have stood out for me would have been thimerosal. Why? Well, it's simple, that was *the* topic of discussion. You were trying to offer up some information on a topic and you couldn't spell the word correctly? That's hilarious.
"I'll stick with my initial theory of high school drop out".
That's fine... All I know is that your supposed "high school dropout" is kicking your ass in common sense. As for the spelling issue... I've said this 1,000 times... it's not about the spelling. As an example, I rarely point out spelling errors that people make (although that terroism one earlier was hilarious - how can you not be able to spell terrorism). Anyway, I digress. It's not the spelling mistake... it's what the spelling mistake represents. That is ... ignorance to the topic. If you had spelled 10 words wrong the only that would have stood out for me would have been thimerosal. Why? Well, it's simple, that was *the* topic of discussion. You were trying to offer up some information on a topic and you couldn't spell the word correctly? That's hilarious.
One thing I wonder about - if "Big Pharma" was so interested in making money (even including the CDC in its conspiracy) why would they WANT to immunize people? Surely they would make more money off treating them *after* they got sick? Prevention is always cheaper than a cure.
Do you eat fish?
Oh man. How scary! How can I possibly have survived that? I'm 25 years old. My brother is 22, and my sisters are 20 and 15. And for the record, the one closest to autism of the whole lot (I seem to have a few symptoms of Asperger's "Syndrome") am I, which probably is because I was born so slowly. How is it that my siblings are entirely normal? Oh, sure, we don't live in the USA, but I really don't think Austria's vaccination schedule can be much different. It does, in any case, include plenty of vaccinations in the first two days after birth.
You just want to believe that, eh?
If that's true, I must say I'm shocked.
Well... if we already have Common Sense complaining about spellings, let me complain about facts: methylmercury is a form of mercury like how water is a form of oxygen.
The one who looks like a complete moron are you -- you look paranoid, you look like you want to believe no matter what the evidence says, and you make arguments from ignorance. Perhaps just calm down a little.
And why do you only complain about spellings and not about the uses of "whom", every single one of which in this thread so far has been wrong? :^)
"Vaccine Beliefs of Parents Who Oppose Compulsory Vaccination":
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1497722&blobtype=…
"Vaccine Criticism on the World Wide Web":
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedi…
Acceptible spellings for thimerosal are thiomersal and thimerosol. Actually, thiomersal is the most accurate if one goes by the chemical composisiton: "thio" for the sulfer ion, "mer" for the mercury and "sal" for Salt.
"It does, in any case, include plenty of vaccinations in the first two days after birth".
*Plenty* of vaccinations in the first two days after birth? Check that. I highly doubt it.
"And why do you only complain about spellings and not about the uses of "whom", every single one of which in this thread so far has been wrong? :^)"
Because whether or not someone uses who or whom or whatever... has absolutely *nothing* to do with the topic at hand. When someone can't spell the word that they are attempting to educate others about... it becomes an issue. It's simple people.
If your mother tongue is English (for the record, mine isn't), and if your fictitious president pronounces "terrrists" with a distinctly triple R (and that once per day)...
Also, if you have a language where "themerisol" and "thimerosal" count as different spellings of the same word, you people really have to do something about your rules of orthography (and the occasional lack thereof). In any other language I wouldn't dream of pronouncing these two spellings anywhere near the same way. But I digress.
That's what vlad said way above. And Common Sense will never answer it because Common Sense wants to believe.
I can't check that before Christmas. But the US plan explained above sounds familiar.
I've seen happen that a couple of times. In my experience it has a poor correlation to the quality of the writings of the same people. Behold Pharyngula: almost without exception, creationists spell Myers "Meyers", but so does a large portion of his admirers. Or think of the philosopher Peirce... or of Gandhi...
HCN
Thanks for the link to a paper on Opposition to Compulsory Vaccination. Very interesting...
Thanks
120 responses?
Whats the record?
No doubt we scored big on obsessive compulsive
"I can't check that before Christmas. But the US plan explained above sounds familiar".
Well, rest assured that you didn't get *plenty* on vaccinations on day 1 or 2 of life.
I'm curious about something 'Common Sense'. You repeatedly claim that the 5 in 1 vaccines are much more dangerous than the standard single target types. Why, and how? You've ranted plenty but I have yet to see any proof at all from you, compelling or not. Since you claim to be qualified you should already know that anecdotal evidence is completely worthless for any serious medical or scientific study.
Similarly, just because someone is a poor typist or can't spell a particular word doesn't mean they're ignorant as regards their subject. ALL it means is that they can't spell. Please, if you want your arguments to have any weight cease with the ad hominem attacks and actually present evidence to refute the points being made. If they are as feeble as you seem to think it should be easy, and you clearly do have the time to write a treatise on the subject so please don't insult our collective intelligence by claiming you don't "have time to do the research for you" or something similar.
Somewhat tangential here but can someone enlighten me as to whom this 'Common Sense' character is? I think someone called it 'Sue', but does CS have a scientific background? What are their credentials to refer to people who hold opinions counter to its as 'idiots'? What does the spelling of terrorist have to do with vaccination and the flu?
Is there a single shred of evidence, as published in a peer reviewed journal that lends credence to CS's arguments?
Sue M. calls herself "Common Sense". She claims her children's celiac disease and diabetes are from vaccines.
You can see her in action in the cached page of LeftBrain/RightBrain:
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:c3D2rsvZau0J:leftbrainrightbrain.co…
Where she spoken about:
http://notmercury.blogspot.com/2006/10/passive-aggression.html
And some more:
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:fV75bTqVx8kJ:leftbrainrightbrain.co…
Just look for instances of "Sue M".
"Laser Potato: Easy I was taking pot shots at her. I'm not suggesting that there is any link. I'm just trying to see if she just anti-vacs or suffers from a deeper delusion. No offense towards you was meant."
Apology accepted.
CS, still not giving Fido his shots?
Deja Vu. Common Sense, you keep telling everyone here about your "research", but it's Orac who's keeping current, and you who repeat the same warnings without citing valid, reliable sources. At the very top, the fact that thiomersal has been shown to have no connection to autism or developmental disorders in yet another study (with none showing causation at all) apparently had no impact. One of your first comments: "This is quite convenient so when you do go to the doctor with the flu after receiving the flu shot the doctor can just say ... you must have a strain of the flu which was not covered in the shot this year. Thanks doc. Mercury poisoned for nothing." Even if thiomersal had not been removed from all vaccines no later than 2003, a flu vaccination would not cause mercury poisoning in adults, and certainly would not cause any kind of adult-onset autism or developmental delays. Now, since the thiomersal has been removed from vaccines, in addition to having been proven unconnected to neurological problems, your continued insistence that vaccines contain "neurotoxins" should really be backed up with some kind of citations. Some kind of solid evidence that there is a causative relationship between any specific vaccine, or even a single ingredient in any specific vaccine, and neurodevelopmental problems would be a lot more convincing than attacking the education and/or spelling of those who have evidence to the contrary. Giving links or bibliographic information that supports your point would win a lot more people over than hurling insults. But, if ranting about spelling errors, educational background, or personal grooming habits of others are what you prefer to use to support the truth of what you say, so be it.
The only "circles" you run around anything are your circular arguments.
For those of you who wonder why I can be a bit over the top... it's because I've been dealing with many of these people for years. It gets old and I have given up using sane commentary with them. It's only for fun now.
I do have to give Orac a little bit of credit here... somehow when I do post here (which is quite rare these days) this site somehow generates newbies galore. Sure there are the old standby's but overall there are always one or two new people who have no idea about which they speak. They do try though despite the obvious signs that they have no clue. This is another reason why it is pointless to start linking to articles, etc here... I can't count how many times I have done just that yet someone will soon come looking for sources, etc... despite the fact that I have posted them approximately 25 times on this site. I'm sure even those who actually follow the controversy (probably only 2-3 of you)... have to laugh at some of the newbie questions/commentary here. Don't you? Come on, don't deny it... Despite what you think about my views (crazy as I am)... Don't you laugh when people try to educate about thimerosal but spell it wrong? Don't you laugh when people link to sites about methylmercury? Don't you giggle just a bit when people try to compare amounts of mercury ingested/injected and don't catch on to the "bolus" amount all in one day? You have to at least crack a smile, don't you?
Nope.
Nope
Now I know your a nut
On a far more interesting note
History channel has a piece on Mega disasters concerning the 1918 flu pandemic and a controversial idea that the origin of disease may have been introduced from space called, "Alien Infection"
I know I know, but the timeliness of this episode was astounding;
http://www.history.com/minisite.do?content_type=Minisite_Episodes&conte…
Nope. I crack a beer.
"And why do you only complain about spellings and not about the uses of "whom", every single one of which in this thread so far has been wrong? :^)"
You're my hero.
One thing about paranoia - those that have it are convinced that they see a threat that "everybody else" doesn't (or, that "everybody else" sees the threat, but is in on the plot)... Is there such a thing as "shared paranoia"? Maybe we should write this up for one of the psychiatric journals.
Isn't this what's meant by the term folie a deux? Except here we'd have to substitute whatever is French for "mass" in for "deux."
Common Sense, I find you about as amusing as the plague. I don't crack a smile, to dangerous credulity. I peg you about hair higher than HIV/AIDS denialists, right there with the neurodiversity denialists.
But then, I never really have had much of a sense of humor.
Common Sense, here's an excellent study which shows that ethylmercury from thimerosal leaves the body much faster than methylmercury. Since ethylmercury's halflife in the brain is a little more than a third of methylmercury's (24 days vs 60 days in the study), and the toxicity guidelines used for vaccines are for methylmercury, this should put your mind at ease.
About the only times I laughed on an issue this serious is when some anti-vaxxer starts showing their ability to flunk 5th grade science by being completely unable to tell the difference between an element and a compound containing that element.
If the universe worked under that bit of anti-vaxxer logic, the oceans would be explosive, since they contain water, a LOT of hydrogen, oxygen, and sodium.
It's not so funny over time and repetitions.
Oh, no, Shiritai! In the mercury mom world, that study *supports* their beliefs! The lead author is now getting funded by one of their activist organizations, so they must have found something about it to like. I'm not sure who's exploiting whom there.
(Did I accomplish the thread's first correct use of "whom" in that sentence?)
No.
Oh wait... maybe you did use it right:
http://web.ku.edu/~edit/whom.html
Never mind...
Well, i did a bunch of research on the CDC stats today...legit, but complicated. Makes brain hurt. Very well done, but makes conspiracy theorists eyes bleed.
No one has yet (that I know of) suggested the realm of epigenetic research.
Its not your vaccines, its not even what mom or dad was doing in their past, or during pregnancy. It may possibly be an environmental issue with grandma or grandpa, which carries over an environmental effect of their DNA to the grandchildren. Your genes are not set in stone but may be changed by environmental factors from your ancestors past.
Why don't more of these "gene useless's" start looking into family history and getting acquainted with the environmental issues affecting DNA?
Now that would be a sobering thought for many. It's not the drug companies, or what your child is exposed to today but the epigenetic possibility that grandpa help shape, by whatever they were voluntarily or involuntarily exposed to sometime at a critical point in their life.
Interesting program "The ghost in the genes..."
There are identical twins out there where one child has autism and not the other. This throws vaccines right out immediately. Why is the hippocampus altered for one twin and not the other when both have been exposed to the same environment and treatments? Explain that with vaccine exposure.
Our complex genome structure may turn out to be far more complex than originally thought based on new and detailed genetic research of epigenetics. Are rising autism rates being affected by grandpa and grandma's environment back in the 60's and 70's? What happens to you may affect your grandchildren later.
As Theodoric of York, medieval doctor would say, Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.....
Hey! Uncle Dave, I saw the same NOVA program tonight!
Here is the link: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/genes/
When you put in the following search terms into www.PubMed.gov you get:
epigenetic autism ... 33 papers, 14 reviews
epigenetic diabetes ... 104 papers, 49 reviews
epigenetic celiac ... nothing
epigenetic hypertrophic cardiomyopathy ... one paper:
Rev Esp Cardiol. 1995 Oct;48(10):677-85.Links
[Myocardiopathies (II). Genetic changes in the etiopathogenesis of hypertrophic myocardiopathy. The therapeutic prospects][Article in Spanish]
Reyes Engel A, Diéguez Lucena JL, Galván ET, Espinosa Caliani S.
"Plenty of vaccines" would include BCG (live bacterial) as newborns and smallpox ("live" viral). Then DTwP (whole cell pertussis with thimerosal), OPV ("live" viral) - by that time I and my generation had seen 1000s of antigens and a fair dose of mercury through vaccines only and all in the first year of life.
My son and children in his generation see no mercury through vaccines and under 100 antigens in their first 12 months.
BTW, European kids win, because most get the hexavalent vaccine these days, DTaP/IPV/Hib/HepB and it has an excellent safety profile.
"Common Sense, here's an excellent study which shows that ethylmercury from thimerosal leaves the body much faster than methylmercury".
Good job linking to a study that actually supports my view and not yours. That gave me a good chuckle.
"Our complex genome structure may turn out to be far more complex than originally thought based on new and detailed genetic research of epigenetics. Are rising autism rates being affected by grandpa and grandma's environment back in the 60's and 70's? What happens to you may affect your grandchildren later".
You know I never understood this type of logic... Not that I don't believe that it isn't a possibility because it could be but what disturbs me is when people have no problem in going back in time and realizing (rightly so) that the "environment" could have affected "genetic" outcomes but when it comes to the environment today and/or mercury, aluminum, live viruses, formelehyde, etc. etc... it's like ... Nope, it can't be that. Quite odd. So perhaps our genetic beings were injured due to our grandparents working in a facility which manufactured some toxic ingredient but the injury can't be from injecting that same toxic ingredient into our babies. Interesting take on things.
common sense wrote: "[W]hat disturbs me is when people have no problem in going back in time and realizing (rightly so) that the 'environment' could have affected 'genetic' outcomes but when it comes to the environment today and/or mercury, aluminum, live viruses, formelehyde, etc. etc... it's like ... Nope, it can't be that. Quite odd."
You can stop being disturbed, because that's not the way anyone thinks. The folks who don't think autism relates to vaccines have formed those opinions not because it *couldn't* have happened, but because they believe the results of numerous studies done specifically to test the proposition that it *could* have happened. You are of course free to disbelieve such studies on the ground they were not well done and are therefore not authoritative, were rigged, were never actually done and reports of results are part of a government/big pharma PR conspiracy, or any other basis you choose.
"Good job linking to a study that actually supports my view and not yours. That gave me a good chuckle."
The heck? I've no clue how that study could support what you say, unless you've changed your mind and decided that inorganic mercury is now the culprit, of course without informing us of this major change in your belief.
"You are of course free to disbelieve such studies on the ground they were not well done and are therefore not authoritative, were rigged, were never actually done and reports of results are part of a government/big pharma PR conspiracy, or any other basis you choose".
Why thank you. I do just that along with thousands and thousands of others. Never mind all the people now who have listened to common sense under the guidance of such people as Jenny McCarthy of all people... Parents are smart and because of this... children will become healthier and less and less vaccinations will be given. YOU should want a safer vaccination schedule and less bogus and unnecessary vaccinations in the schedule. YOU should be attempting to weed out the vaccinations which are the most dangerous and most unnecessary (ie Hep B, Prevnar, ProQuad, 5 in 1 shots, etc). Concerned about children coming down with vaccine preventable diseases? Start cleaning up the schedule so that parents can see that much is being done to "protect" and not "destroy". It's not hard to understand...
Hmm...nice comment from Lamarck up there.
Anyway, I've posted a the references to the stastistical methods behind tracking flu mortality.
It's probably to hard for people with "common sense" however.
CS, you admitted you don't believe in rabies shots. So you wouldn't take one, even if you were bitten by a stray dog that showed obvious signs of the disease?
"The heck? I've no clue how that study could support what you say, unless you've changed your mind and decided that inorganic mercury is now the culprit, of course without informing us of this major change in your belief."
Don't act so surprised, these types are well-known for shifting goalpoats at the speed of light.
Also, a bit late, but...
"How many people die from the flu each year? ps... don't quote the CDC's number."
It's never a good sign when a poster refuses to use peer-reviewed scientific research to back up thier claims. It's even worse when they NAME a source of peer-reviewed scientific literature they specifically want to avoid. It invariably means "Fooey with science! I'm getting a source that agrees with MY argument!"
Hey, speaking of stray dogs, I wonder how Sue sleeps at night knowing that John Best Jr. lives mere minutes from her home. John says that all autism is caused by mercury poisoning and only the very specific mercury compound, thimerosal, when given in vaccines.
Sue thinks it's vaccines in general that are bad, fymairosel only one of them. John's a terrible speller too Sue so you best get on over there and straighten him out. Come to think of it, there must be something in the water, there in [TOWN DELETED by ORAC] that makes people psychotic paranoid anivaxxers. You two aren't alone.
You know, just yesterday I was having coffee with some women, one of whom said she doesn't believe in flu shots. But her in-laws! "They're in their 70s, and get a flu shot every year! And every year they get the flu!" The elderly are most susceptible to the flu's ravages. I'm guessing it's people like her daughter-in-law who harbour the bug, and give it to society's most vulnerable. Another thought: I believe people are mistaking getting a yearly flu shot with becoming immune to antibiotics -- apples and oranges.
HCN, thanks for the links. They were both enlightening as to what this woman believes and frightening that people can be as ignorant as she clearly is.
I'm just amazed that CS thinks that arguing about spelling somehow makes her pseudoscience right and years and years of good scientific research wrong. CS, there is an obvious reason why you are subject to repeated tongue lashings here. You have been repeatedly taken to task for doing nothing more than insult people and attempt to prove that you have half a clue what you're talking about because of childish spelling errors. I'd suggest you actually learn about microbiology and immunology before you keep going with your tired cycle of 'open mouth, insert foot, repeat'. It remains that there is not a single shred of scientific evidence to support your purported 'research' while there is mounting evidence to the contrary of your uneducated rants.
"Never mind all the people now who have listened to common sense under the guidance of such people as Jenny McCarthy of all people"
Make no mistake- having Jenny McCarthy as the figurehead for your cause is a far greater detractor than a person such as yourself could be, despite endless intellectually bankrupt, childish posts on the internet.
HCN
Glad you saw the NOVA special as well. While the vaccine ranting goes on in the background there are (fortunately for all of us) researchers working laboriously (hope I spelled that right) for years and years on genetic history and epigenetics. Looks very promising and quite complex. Wish they could have elaborated a bit more on the critical time frame for male sperm and female egg mutation, but it was only an hour program.
"Good job linking to a study that actually supports my view and not yours. That gave me a good chuckle."
She is in fact correct. The study does support one of her claims. The methyl-mercury can not be used as a guideline for ethyl-mercury. I had the same response when I read the intro to the paper in the link.
"The results indicate that MeHg is not a suitable reference for risk assessment from exposure to thimerosal-derived Hg."
What common missed is that the relation is opposite of her supposition. If you read the study past the introduction you will see what I mean. While I know you (CS) are too busy spreading crap with a butter knife to read the whole paper just read the results. The MtHg and EtHg groups received the same amount of mercury. The blood levels and brain levels were much lower for EtHg. Which would imply that less mercury remained in the blood and brain given the same dosing and time. Lower concentration means lower toxicity.
CS, you should think about the fact that you have a non-falsifiable thesis. Any study you disagree with (as in, the majority of them) can be explained away with "big pharma", bad science, etc; any study you like is accepted as proof of your thesis. This kind of thinking is not a good way to get accurate results. If you are going to persist in it, don't pretend to be scientific, because you're not.
Sue has nearly zero comprehension of the Burbacher study. all she needs to know is that some other, smarter, parents told her that inorganic mercury is higher in Rhesus brains after thimerosal exposure, inorganic mercury species cause neuroinflammation, and microglial activation has been reported in one PM autism study.
Therefore, thimerosal causes autism. It's so simple even Common Sue gets it. Why can't everyone else see things as plainly as Sue M?
Never mind that the inorganic mercury was no doubt sequestered and that it wasn't even close to the levels established (by the very same PI) to cause neuroinflammation.
Never mind that the MeHg was administered orally which can't be compared to i.m., and never mind that the animals were sacrificed before washout time could be established but well after they should have developed something akin to autistic behavior which is immediate and unmistakable, according to the mercury malicia.
Eh, I'm waiting for the audio book edition of the Burbacher study read by Jenny McCarthy. Jerry Kartzinel will help her with the big words.
"CS, you admitted you don't believe in rabies shots.
Really? I did... Prove it.
"I'm just amazed that CS thinks that arguing about spelling somehow makes her pseudoscience right and years and years of good scientific research wrong".
You guys still can't get it through your heads that I don't care how you spell things... The fact is if you can't spell the word that you are arguing for... Then, you are a moron. Is this really that hard for you to understand... Again, I have to laugh at you. I am sorry.
"The fact is if you can't spell the word that you are arguing for... Then, you are a moron."
So then yes you are freely admitting that by the fact that we can not spell we do not know what we are talking about. Spelling means little (except not having a spell checking browser) but bad circular reasoning would point to moron.
"Really? I did... Prove it"
Um, your comment to Laser Potato would point to your feelings about the rabies shot.
"For you they are fine. In fact, I think that you may need 3 rabies shots just to be safe of course..."
Now not reading or remembering your previous comments before commenting would make you a?
Clone,
I have emailed Orac in regards to this issue. You feel it necessary to tell people where I live? How pathetic of you. Perhaps if you stopped hiding behind a fake name I could dig into where you live and publish that for the world to see as you just did. Sad.
"You feel it necessary to tell people where I live? How pathetic of you."
Had you not responded then none of us would have known if clone was correct about your location. I'm seeing a pervasive lack of thinking before you come to a decision.
"Had you not responded then none of us would have known if clone was correct about your location. I'm seeing a pervasive lack of thinking before you come to a decision".
This is perhaps the third time that Clone has done the same thing. He really is quite pathetic. Orac has helped me out before and hopefully will again but Clone needs to be called out for being an ass...
CS,
You posted you information on a public site so you can't really blame clone. You gave your full name, city and state. Someone was smart enough to blank out your phone number. How can you not know that posting personal info on the web will come back to bite you. A bunch of the Anti-vacs people even posted phone numbers too. Are all of you out of your freaking minds, names, number, addresses; and your pissed at clone? No I'm not going to give any links or info so don't start crying, I'm not cruel enough to share it.
"You gave your full name, city and state".
Really, I did? On a *public* site? It must have been ages ago. I simply find it pretty pathetic that apparently Clown feels like some sort of a tough guy by publicizing the information here (again)... What a strange dude.
With every post I grow less and less inclined to even try to make this a meaningful discussion, as CS seems determined to avoid making a valid point.
There is credible, peer reviewed research that directly refutes your views CS. A good example is here. (That paper is on the measles/mumps/rubella combo vaccine) In reading the comments on that paper alone I see evidence and correspondence where the conclusions of the study were questioned, further tested and upheld.
The thing I find most frustrating is that you apparently feel the entire medical/scientific establishment is hell bent on either intentionally brain damaging children or on hiding the fact that they did so accidentally and continuing the practice to maintain their cover. Not only is the difficult to believe based entirely on the logistics involved in trying to get that many people to keep a secret, it's an utterly apalling view of humanity in general. (and I'm a misanthrope) Most doctors chose their profession in order to help people. Do you honestly think a pediatrician would go into their career looking forward to maiming toddlers? If not, how else do you explain the motivation needed to engage in the type of misinformation campaign you appear to be alleging?
I had the experience of volunteering at a hospital in a wealthy Marin county California community in the late 90s during a pertussis outbreak. It was one of the first to happen in a middle to upper class population, due to parents reading anti vaccination misinformation on the web and not vaccinating their children. I felt sad for the parents, who were horrified by how sick their children were, and had no idea that "whooping cough" could land their child in the ICU.
I think a lot of Americans are vulnerable to conspiracy mongering because in general we live surrounded by a lot of manipulative media - Fox News, Weight Loss Scams, Lying Tobacco Companies - and we feel instinctively mistrustful.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/1998/07/02/MN20754…
"On April 4, a 2-month-old boy died at Lucile Salter Packard Children's Hospital, shortly after he was transferred from Kaiser Permanente's Santa Clara Medical Center.
"One month later, a 2-month-old Contra Costa County girl succumbed to the disease at Children's Hospital Oakland."
Ask Common Sue if she cares... she probably thinks death is better than celiac or diabetes. (by the way if she cries "foul" on what I said... she deserves it... her circular arguments brought it on, she deserves all derisive comments, just like her neighbor, John Best... the man who is now complaining about the depiction of his character on Skeptico's blog! http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2007/10/john-best.html#comment-86741… ).
Laser Potato,
In my case it's Generalized Anxiety Disorder combined with Having to Deal With Obtuse Jerks. I've found that when I get frustrated with someone like Common Sense it helps to go out and do something strenuously physical. At my age a long walk suffices. In your case you may want to try chopping wood or a similar activity. Just keep in mind that Sue has an even more serious problem than either of us, and is far more likely to wind up permanently hospitalized as her condition worsens.
"Ask Common Sue if she cares... she probably thinks death is better than celiac or diabetes. (by the way if she cries "foul" on what I said... she deserves it... her circular arguments brought it on, she deserves all derisive comments, just like her neighbor, John Best... the man who is now complaining about the depiction of his character on Skeptico's blog! http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2007/10/john-best.html#comment-86741… )".
I think that I understand why some of you guys act as if you do. You continue to enjoy the banter between Mr. Best and the Neurodiverse beliefs. Anyway that you can use me to link to/or to bring more attention to Best is your ultimate goal. Hence, Clown's comment yesterday... and HCN's today. Your obsession with him is somewhat sad. I would *think* that you would be able to move beyond that childish sort of behaviour - apparently not.
ps. HCN, do you really think that I would think death is better than Type 1 Diabetes or Celiac disease... how moronic. Again, I feel sadness for you. I do believe that vaccinations can trigger such diseases as type 1 diabetes in children. Therefore, I would also believe that having a very selective vaccination schedule spread and not beginning until the child is 6 months old would be a start to protect children from vaccine preventable diseases but also protect them from lifelong autoimmune and neurological damage. Apparently this concept continues to be lost on you.
Ok, now you want to add type 1 diabetes to the vaccine issue. While I doubt you will listen to the CDC they show that while diabetes is on the rise it's mainly type 2. Which has onset in later adulthood. These are adults who were on the lower vaccination schedule you claim to support.
You believe that vaccines can trigger type 1 diabetes? This belief is based on what? How can you actually show that had your son not gotten the vaccine he would not have been diabetic? Same question for Celiac disease?
"Ok, now you want to add type 1 diabetes to the vaccine issue".
You use "now" as if this is some sort of new revelation... I've been talking about this for approximately 4 years. Please get your facts together... or if you don't have your facts... don't make silly assumptions.
"While I doubt you will listen to the CDC they show that while diabetes is on the rise it's mainly type 2".
Why don't you do some research on the rise of type 1 diabetes over the last 20 years and then come back and talk to me? How does that sound?
I don't feel as if I need to discuss my children's medical status with you (more than I am willing to share). That is up to me... What you should know is that the medical records back up my claims at least to the point that the "hypothesis" that vaccinations had ill effects on my children is a good possibility. The fact that I also have a perfectly healthly 3 1/2 year old minimally vaccinated little boy also supports my opinion. It's too bad that most of you don't want to research the issue at all... I am one who believes that in order to get your hands around the issue, there needs to be honesty in the process. As for right now... there isn't any.
There is also a link between cows milk and diabetes. Also type 1 diabetes is on the rise but, the US does not lead the way in this. Take a peak here http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/328/7442/750 and you will see that 6 countries have a higher increase in type 1 diabetes at least two of which have not developed our vaccination schedules.
Speaking of research where is your research? You have not provided on single shred of evidence so support your claims.
"I don't feel as if I need to discuss my children's medical status with you " You point it out then back pedal when you start to look stupid.
"There is also a link between cows milk and diabetes".
Really, you KNOW that? Please.... spare me. That may or may not be true, however, why do you so easily fall for the cow's milk theory but can't fathom a link to vaccines? That is what I find so sad about many of you. You'll believe the cow's milk theory but KNOW that it can't be vaccines.
Go look at the incidence of type 1 diabetes in Australia in the last 10 years. Check out how their vaccination policies changed in the late 1990's and now look at their incidences of type 1 diabetes. Did Australian kids start gulping down milk at a higher rate starting in the late 1990's? Perhaps but please cite a source for the gulping milk campaign. Thanks in advance.
I'm not supporting the link between cow's milk and diabetes. It's called sarcasm, which you missed in a spectacular fashion. Look at the link I included. It has one study that shows a link between milk and type 1, then a few studies that refute it. I can only assume you are ignoring the study that shows the connection, so am I. The same thing for vaccines one study shows a relationship and a few that found no correlation. So why are you all for the vaccine correlation not not buying into the milk correlation? What makes one different then the other?
"I'm not supporting the link between cow's milk and diabetes. It's called sarcasm, which you missed in a spectacular fashion".
I guess the reason why I missed your "sarcasm" is because there a lot of studies out there pointing to cow's milk as a possible trigger. Your use of sarcasm was pretty lame considering all the studies which have been done and all the media reports which have linked cow's milk and type 1 diabetes... the sarcasm was tough to see.
Ah, I return to Orac's blog after a sabbatical, and get to see all of Common Nonsense's ignorance on display.
The cow's milk-type 1 diabetes link has been pushed as gospel by altie-wackos like Mercola, but at best the science is inconclusive. Attempting to imply that vaccines are a trigger for type 1 diabetes (there is virtually zero proof of that) is just going back to your tired pet theory. And furthermore, implying that you somehow want a "selective" vaccination schedule when we all know you hate vaccines and drug companies and wouldn't let your kids within 10 miles of a vaccine is just completely disingenuous.
It's the same (expletive deleted), different day.