I suppose I had better get ready for another e-mail with a wounded, puppy-dog, plaintive complaint of "I'm not really anti-vaccine" in it. You see, that's what has happened in the past a couple of times after I wrote about that pediatrician to the children of the stars (in particular Jenny McCarthy's child) and ubiquitous go-to pediatrician whenever the media wants to hear some "skepticism" about the safety of vaccines, Dr. Jay Gordon. Clearly, it really, really bothers him when someone refers to him as being "anti-vaccine," but what other term fits him so well these days? After all, Dr. Gordon toes the anti-vaccine party line from Generation Rescue, Talk About Curing Autism, and, of course, the celebrity mom of his patient, and he has the "too many, too soon" spiel down pat. He shows up at rallies to give speeches to parents carrying explicitly antivaccination signs proclaiming their children as "poisoned" and "damaged' by vaccines, one sign even referring to them as "weapons of mass destruction."
Honestly, what am I supposed to call Dr. Gordon, if not "anti-vaccine"? He hangs out with hard-core antivaccinationists--more than that, leaders of the anti-vaccine movement--and talks the anti-vaccine talk so well. He's become the go-to interview whenever a lazy journalist wants some vaccine "skepticism" from a medical professional. What more does one need?
The other day, once again Dr. Gordon demonstrated his skill with anti-vaccine talking points in this interview with Cookie Magazine. It's painful to read such idiocy flowing from the lips of a physician. Indeed, it's even worse than listening to Dr. Michael Egnor spew creationist nonsense hither and yon, because at least for Dr. Egnor evolution is not part of his area of expertise. For Dr. Gordon, vaccines should be considered part of his area expertise, but you'd never know it from the data-free, anecdote-filled nonsense he spouts. For example, listen to his response to a question about why he buys into the "too many, too soon" mantra and advocates "staggering" vaccines:
I think the immune system, like every other system of the body, matures slowly, and that it can better tolerate viral infection at older ages and better tolerate one virus at a time. The other thing is that vaccines all contain other ingredients. They contain aluminum, they contain tiny bits of formalin [an aqueous solution of formaldahyde]. So I recommend waiting as long as parents are comfortable, and vaccinating very, very slowly. I also ask parents to wait at least six months before the first vaccine. I prefer to wait a year.
Formaldehyde? Aluminum? Oh, my God! Toxins! I can't believe a physician is parroting the "toxin" gambit about vaccines. That's the single most idiotic and scientifically ignorant rhetorical gambit antivaccinationists use, and Dr. Gordon apparently buys into it. Did Dr. Gordon skip pharmacology class in medical school?
Of course, Dr. Gordon, showing that even physicians can be prone to putting too much stock in testimonials and anecdotes over science and epidemiology, points out the cases of regression he's seen after vaccination, argues:
Now, many people would argue that vaccines are only for the better. I would say that there's no free lunch; it is lovely to be immune to whooping cough, but if I have to diminish your health a little bit to do that, I have to hesitate. Integrity demands that I tell you other parts of the story: I saw one child who developed seizures two days after her two-month appointment, and she didn't get any shots. It's true that the onset of autism often coincides with the time that kids are getting their shots. But the vast majority of times that I see a temporal relationship, I'm assuming it's not a coincidence.
Assuming? Note that Dr. Gordon cannot produce a single scientific study to support his beliefs. Not one. In fact, I once replied to one of his e-mails chastising me for referring to him as "anti-vaccine." In my response, having seen snippets of his video posted to YouTube and other places as well as a video of his speech to the "Green Our Vaccines" rally, I asked him pointedly but politely if he could provide me with the references to the scientific studies that support what he said in those videos and, most importantly, at the Green Our Vaccines rally.
Dr. Gordon never got back to me. I wonder if he'll get back to me now.
While I wait, I'll point out that Dr. Gordon continues to say truly dumb things about the MMR like:
It's a live-virus vaccine. A live-virus vaccine, in order to work, creates a little bit of an infection. And when you get measles, you get it through your nose and your throat, [which triggers a very specific immune response.] When we inject measles, we are bypassing that system and going right into the bloodstream. And we're finding that yes, there can be some impact on the intestinal tract and to the brain from the measles vaccine. And it's a vaccine of almost no benefit to American children, one by one. Now, in terms of public health, I don't want to be the guy who said, "Boy, this vaccine stinks." It doesn't stink. It works very, very well. The reason we don't have measles in America is because the vaccine works great. But sit down, please. Let's talk about the fact that your cousin and your other cousin both have autism. Or that your son has some questionable neurological issues, he seems to be speaking or walking a little later. I don't want to mess with him.
Number one: The measles vaccine is not of "almost no benefit to American children." It keeps measles at bay, and the resurgence of measles that we have seen in the U.K. and are now seeing in the U.S., thanks to decreased levels of vaccination due to fearmongering about the MMR vaccine shows how little it would take for herd immunity to fail. Number two: There is zero scientifically sound evidence that the MMR causes autism or other neurodevelopmental disorders--or even "autistic enterocolitis." None. All we have is Andrew Wakefield's litigation-driven and incompetent "research," research so badly done that his co-authors almost all disavowed it when its deficiencies came to light. That Dr. Gordon apparently believes that shoddy pseudoscience does not speak well of him.
It gets worse. Gordon parrots the usual misinformation about mercury in flu vaccines and even mentions a 7-year-old getting a tetanus booster with mercury in it. It makes me wonder if he served as an uncredited background consultant for Steve Wilson, so similar is his patter to the misinformation served up by that "investigative journalist." Here's a hint, Dr. Gordon: Most children do not get the flu vaccine, especially not under two years of age, and, even as the use of the flu vaccine is encouraged, flu vaccines containing more than trace amounts of thimerosa are increasingly uncommon because of low demand. It is likely that the marketplace will soon render them all but extinct. Also, children don't suddenly get autism at age 7 after getting a vaccine. The bottom line is that children's exposure to thimerosal from vaccines is lower than it has been since the 1980s and is continuing to decline, but there's no sign of a significant decline in autism diagnoses. None. That's about as bulletproof epidemiological evidence as there is showing no correlation between the two. I know, I know, I'm probably wasting my time, given the way that Dr. Gordon goes back to the whole "toxins" idiocy again:
Right now we're creating vaccines using ingredients that are cheap preservatives, but it could be done better. It means, let's see if we can get the aluminum out of them. Let's see if we can get the formaldehyde out of them. Let's see if we can produce them in a way that makes a little more sense for safety.
Word to Dr. Gordon: Aluminum is not a preservative. It is an adjuvant. It's there to make the vaccine produce a stronger immune response and thus make the vaccine work better. It's an integral component of what makes the vaccine work. There's also no evidence it has anything to do with autism or any other neurodevelopmental or immunological disorder. Of course, now that the mercury is gone from all vaccines routinely given to children under two, we all know that aluminum is becoming the new mercury for antivaccinationists. Never mind that aluminum has been used for 80 years and has an exemplary safety record.
Oh, and, please, Dr. Gordon, please stop with the formaldehyde bit. I know it's a convenient scary-sounding chemical used in the vaccine manufacturing process that antivaccinationists like to point to, but by the time the finished vaccine is made, there's nothing more than a trace amount in any vaccine. You breathe more formaldehyde sitting in an L.A. traffic jam in your Mercedes (or whatever no doubt highly expensive care you drive, thanks to credulous patients like Jenny McCarthy) than is in any vaccine. The plastic products and varnishes in your house produce more. Really, Dr. Gordon, I'm not kidding when I say that it's downright embarrassing to me as a physician to see a fellow physician like you saying something so utterly scientifically ignorant for public consumption. Really. Take it as a bit of advice from one physician to another. Your repeating that particular bit of antivaccinationist propaganda just makes you look really, really ignorant. Of course, if you actually believe that stuff about formaldehyde, you are really, really ignorant. If you don't believe it, then you're really, really cynical. Take your pick.
On the other hand, perhaps you don't care. What else could explain your pièce de résistance? What else could explain this statement:
I think that the public health benefits to vaccinating are grossly overstated. I think that if we spent as much time telling people to breastfeed or to quit eating cheese and ice cream, we'd save more lives than we save with the polio vaccine.
The stupid, it sears. It burns thermonuclear. No, it flames supernova. Yeah, that's right, Dr. Gordon. Breast feeding and keeping cheese out of the diet will prevent the spread of infectious diseases better than vaccines. Funny, but Europeans eat lots more cheese than Americans, and they don't seem to be any less healthy than we are. On the other hand, per capita U.S. cheese consumption has been rising since the 1980s. Hey, I have an idea! Maybe it's maternal cheese consumption, not vaccines, that causes autism! In the meantime, we can have a whole bunch of svelte kids suffering from vaccine-preventable diseases.
As bad as Dr. Gordon's interview was, there was one thing even worse. I bet you know what it was if you've taken the time to look at the actual interview. That's right, the title of the web page is Q&A: Vaccine Experts. Dr. Gordon, a "vaccine expert"? I think not. But it's worse than that. Dr. Gordon's fact- and science-free interview is presented on equal footing, as a sort of "Point/Counterpoint" format with a real vaccine expert, Dr. Paul Offit. This is akin to telling "both sides" of the evolution-creationism manufactroversy by pairing Richard Dawkins or Sean Carroll as the expert supporting the theory of evolution and Ken Ham or Casey Luskin as the "expert" supporting creationism. It's the whole lazy, wretched "tell both sides of the story as though they are equivalent" habit that journalists just can't seem to stop writ large. As long as this is how anti-vaccine propaganda is reported by the media, advocates for the value of vaccines as a public health measure are losing. As long as Google searches for "vaccine" and other vaccine-related terms inevitably turn up page after page of anti-vaccine propaganda, we're losing, as PalMD points out. One website, the Vaccine Education Center, is not enough, nor is one book like Do Vaccines Cause That? (hat tip: Skeptico).
Finally, one last word to Dr. Gordon: If you're going to e-mail me and complain about how mean I am, please do me a solid. Please don't bother unless you can stir yourself to provide me something other than whines about how unfair I'm being when I describe you as "anti-vaccine." You think I'm being unfair? Prove it. Of course, doing so would take some actual--oh, say--scientific evidence to back up your statements, and you've assiduously avoided providing that in the past.
More like this
...or to quit eating cheese and ice cream...
Ice cream?
ICE CREAM?????
IS HE FUCKING NUTS?????
Obviously, yes. Remember: "Without ice cream, there would be chaos and darkness" (Don Kardong)
Ok, so which came first: Has Dr. Gordon's spouting of fearmongering nonsense to uneducated, credulous, deep-pocketed patients like Jenny McCarthy contributed to her and others wallowing in this pseudoscience, or was the 'GOV' movement already underway before he hitched his wagon to Jenny's star? Either way it's deeply repugnant to see a pediatrician go off the rails like this--I'm just interested to know the 'first cause'. Do all roads lead to Andrew Wakefield?
psst...Orac, it's 'toe the line', not 'tow'. Feel free to delete this after you make the change.
A correction, it wasn't incompetent research by Wakefield, it was fraud plain and simple. He was told before the paper published that all of the positives were false positives. He was told by the man who ran PCR on them, a technique that is orders of magnitude more sensitive and more precise than the immunological method Wakefield used.
It was fraud, not incompetence. There is a big difference.
And when you get measles, you get it through your nose and your throat, [which triggers a very specific immune response.]
- I heard that recently from a woman I met socially. She claimed her doctor had told her. It sounded dubious to me - is there any truth in it?
Danio:
Gordon's been at it for at least three years that I know of. In May 05 I wrote about an article of his in The Huffington Post. His arguments haven't gotten any better in the interim.
Has Dr. Gordon managed to get the pathogens to buy into his new leisurely schedule of immunizations? What if the ?Bordetella pertussis clan don't prefer to wait a year and decide to visit a 3-month old child?
Skeptico ... measles is a respiratory infection, airborne when the victim sneezes and coughs. In the early stages it's hard to tell from a cold, and conveniently for the virus, that's also when viral production is at a peak. By the time the spots appear, the child has been infecting everyone in sight, and anyone who inhales his virus-loaded sneeze particles for as long as half an hour AFTER the child has left the room.
Perhaps it's about time to do a similar "point/counterpoint" on subjects like, oh, racism or embezzlement.
Actually, Dr. Gordon's gotten a lot worse in the last three years. I used to think he was at least semi-reasonable about vaccines and only leaning towards drinking the antivax Kool Aid. Now I know he's drunk deeply of it. His whine that "I'm not anti-vaccine" notwithstanding, he has clearly made his decision and gone over completely to the Dark Side. It won't be long now before he starts making claims that better sanitation, not vaccines, eliminated various diseases.
Meanwhile, he's not even making a pretense anymore of distancing himself from the more radical anti-vaccine groups, such as Generation Rescue.
Still, I haven't given up all hope. I hope I'm not wrong about this, but in his heart, Dr. Gordon seems decent, just misguided. After his involvement in the Eliza Jane Scovill case, Dr. Gordon clearly felt really, really bad, apparently bad enough to stop flirting with HIV/AIDS denialism, as he had been doing before. Gone from his website are all the dubious "natural" treatments for HIV/AIDS and bits about anti-HIV therapies harming the immune system. That's a good thing. I just hope it doesn't take a similar vaccine-related disaster to persuade him that the anti-vaccine path he has started down is both bad patient care and bad public health.
Cue the violins and cry me a river for poor Jay Gordon, who is really, really bothered
when he is referred to as being anti-vaccines, just because he associates with celebrity anti-vaccination activists, speaks at anti-vaccination protests, and spews anti-vaccination talking points in the media.
Those who choose to deviate from the mainstream into the "alternative," certainly have the right to make that choice, but they must also accept that that choice, like any other choice, has consequences.
I am just a beauty school drop-out, and I find his ignorance embarrassing -- especially that nonsense about cheese and ice cream. I cannot even begin to imagine how embarrassing it must be for physicians.
On consideration, it looks like Dr. Gordon is doing a bang-up job in his business. Any professional who wants to be successful as an independent practitioner (engineering, law, accounting, whatever) has to spend at least 30% of hir time in "marketing" -- generating new business. The marketing strategies can vary, but the necessity is always there.
One of the key characteristics of the professions is that the customers have limited ability to tell the good from the bad (although in engineering and law there's more likelihood of peer review showing up the posers.) Add the need for marketing and what happens is that the system selects for good marketers.
Which is what's happening here -- Dr. Gordon is a very good marketer, and is being lavishly rewarded for his specialization (which is not paediatrics but marketing.) In a society that defines "value" in market-driven terms, Dr. Gordon is a great paediatrician -- his bank balance proves it.
Tsu Dho Nimh:
I obviously didn't phrase my question well enough. I'll try again. The woman I spoke to said that because you get measles through your nose and your throat (not directly into the bloodstream via injection), this meant the vaccine was not as effective as getting immunity by catching the disease. I just wondered if there was anything in this supposed "benefit" in having your immune response triggered through the nose and throat.
Behavioral psychology 101: you get what you reward.
What is Dr. Gordon being rewarded for? What rewards is he actively seeking? Answer those and you've plotted his course.
Ick. That is something you have to wash off with a couple of showers.
Gordon on whether there is a population of kids genetically vulnerable to developing autism post vaccination: "I am 100 percent certain. The NIH child health division has a poster that says, 'Genetics load the gun, but environment pulls the trigger.' And that was invented mostly for pesticides and cleaning fluids underneath your sink. But we know that there is a genetic predisposition for diabetes, but you need a trigger. They've done identical-twin studies, one gets it one doesn't. What the hell happened? We know there's a genetic predisposition to autism, but I don't think that accounts for all cases."
He is right up there with holocaust deniers, creationists, and NARTH for being able to take things out of context.
Clap.
Clap.
Clap.
Actually, he may be technically correct on that one. Polio at its worst only killed a few thousand a year in the USA, and the consequences of obesity easily top that today.
Of course, it does make a difference what metrics you choose. "Lives saved" is not the same as "life-years saved" and especially not the same as "quality-adjusted life-years saved." Polio is nasty on those last two due to the ages of the typical victims and the lifelong consequences for the survivors.
On that note, the house my parents were living in when I was born is currently occupied by one of the youngest polio survivors in the USA. He's active in the survivor community and sees, in the others older than he, his future as post-polio syndrome works its course. Life is good -- enjoy it.
1) Vaccines aren't injected "directly into the bloodstream," they're injected into muscles. This should be a clue as to the reliability of the source.
2) There isn't some sort of "immigration and naturalization service" in the upper or lower respiratory system that magically causes a stronger immune response. Through the nose or through the skin or into the muscles, the immune system gets its cue when a macrophage picks up a virion.
The only thing that's accomplished by nasal-spray vaccines is a reduction in skin punctures in return for a much more problematic delivery; the adjuvants aren't as effective and the body's mechanical barriers (e.g. nasal mucus) have the potential to block enough of the vaccine to make immunogenesis less predictable.
Why are the likes of Jay Gordon not brought before the appropriate professional standards body for professional misconduct ?
There is no credible evidence that vaccines such as MMR are harmful, and to discourage patients from having such vaccines is surely beyond what would be expected of a doctor behaving in a professional manner.
What -- and get all that bad press for suppressing his freedom of speech?
State Medical Boards, like State Bar Associations, have a certain disinclination to micromanage the licensed practitioners. In both cases, there are "crash and burn" offenses (in law, the biggie is taking liberties with the escrow accounts.) Outside of those, a great deal of latitude is necessarily granted to professional judgment.
D. C. Sessions,
I take your point, but one might have thought that in medicine a biggie might just be advocating a policy that will kill and maim people.
ugh! i feel the distinct urge to bang my head against the wall now. as a pharmacologist, i have attempted (in a futile manner, i might add) to refute the "data" spewed by one of the followers of such alt-med/antivax campaigns by discussing the pharmacology of such. the result could be likened to throwing things at a brick wall. either the pharmacology (which i brought down to such a level that i felt was almost insulting) was too complex for the person to integrate into their understanding of the world, OR the synthesized arguments that he was pulling from whatever website did not account for an argument against someone from that angle. i say this because most of his biochemical arguments technically incorrect. (if one has to actually point out that a "protein" is not the same as a "nutrient" even if both are different types of chemicals, we have issues.) these synthesized arguments just lead to lots of mouths spewing the same bullshit over and over. and we all know that the side with the biggest mouth(s) must be right. especially in the world of hush-hush vaccine toxin autism etc coverups.
i won't go into the ridiculousness that spawned from that conversation, but i will say that if one more person tells me that copious amounts of vitamin c will negate the world's need for vaccines through its potent magical immune-boosting powers, i will not be liable for spasms in my right arm that might cause injury.
Actually, there are some differences. For instance, oral polio and nasal flu probably provide some IgA-mediated immunity at the mucosal surface, but it's usually not enough of a difference to matter.
Thanks for the correction. I could also add the relative reduction of patient-to-patient transmission risk in mass immunization scenaria, but that would depend on the specifics of the aerosol delivery used.
None of you donkeys have a study that compares unvaccinated people to those who recieved the 1991 levels of mercury etc so you should shut your pieholes until that study comes out by decent independant scientists.
if you look at the amish unvaccianted population as a whole they dont get autism, jeez wonder why? Let the ad hoc excuses about genes come, waiting.
Cooler has no concept of Ockham's Razor because s/he is not allowed to have sharp objects. Remember that, now.*
*Paraphrased from someone or other in another Cooled thread.
I don't know how you can stomach it day after day Orac. Obviously a voice of reason needs to exist but if I come across the stupid (say, a reiki vs. quantum touch discussion on an aromatherapy board) I fight the urge to troll, read half a page and close the page because I know the frustration is futile.
I guess blogging with the insolence is catharsis in a way but you must get.. so.. fucking.. tired.
Why is it that Cookie magazine made a big deal of asking Offit about his financial interest is vaccines, but they let the money grubbing Jay Gordon off the hook? I would bet that Gordon is making more money off of his Hollywood practice and DVD sales, let us not forget the perquisites he gets, such as maybe, unlimited free tanning and pedicures for including a brochure from Felicia's House of Suntans and Wellness in his "new baby" gift baskets. This man is going to be responsible for deaths of babies (I mean other than the child who died of AIDS), but dang it he's going to look fine while they are dying.
I can't speak for Orac (although we've done a fair bit of tag-teaming over the years) but for me it comes down to a few very simple principles:
1) Remember the lurkers. The brighter the stupid burns, the more chance there is that someone will see the light.
2) You can't make someone else look stupid, you can only uncover the light of their burning stupidity for the world to see.
3) It may be a strain to remain polite to the online idiots, but at least you can sometimes tell the truth -- unlike with, say, your management or your son's girlfriend.
He can haves our cheessse when he prisesss it from our cold dead handses, Preciousss.
He cantsss have my chessse. My chessse is holy.
Itsss edam.
Well, hopefully within the next 10-20 years, aluminum will be out of vaccines anyway. Not that it's not safe, it's just primarily a Th2 inducer, which is not the most effective way of stimulating the immune system to respond to pathogens like bacteria and viruses (the Th2 response is really more for parasites). And they'll be more 'natural' - or at least sound that way. CpG oligonucleotide derivatives? You have nucleotides in your DNA! GMCSF/Ifn-g antigenic liposomes? Those are natural cytokines your body produces!
But I'm not taking bets that this will change anything. Actually, to take a page out of their book, a GMCSF-antigen liposome will be derided as "Liposomes are made out of lipids! Lipids make people fat! And GMCSF is used in chemotherapy!"
The trauma of vaccination in childhood can cause the false memory of alien abduction in adults many years latter.
Isn't the amount of aluminum in vaccines neglible compared to what we get from deodorant and from eating food cooked in aluminum pans?
Ace of Sevens: You are correct about the aluminum. I've been using aluminum cookware for 30 years nd ters nthng rong wid me brani (bad Saturday evening humor). I'm a clinical pathologist and know much about toxicology. The aluminum as neurotoxin claims always annoyed me, since there was never evidence that aluminum was toxic.)
Unfortunately, throughout the history of medicine in the U.S., there have been physicians more interested in fame and wealth than in improving the health of patients. Dr. Gordon is just one more name on a long list of such doctors. Perhaps someone should try the conflict of interest ploy on him: Dr. Gordon, doesn't your disparagement of vaccines mean that you will get more business when non-vaccinated kids get mumps, measles, pertussis, rubella, tetanus, etc.?
Skeptico - The big difference is not the route that the virus takes, but the quantity of virus. When you have natural measles, you have virus partying and replicating in cells all over your body ... the viral load is significantly greater, so you have a stronger antibody response.
Vaccines are calibrated to give "enough" immunity to prevent a clinical infection if the person is exposed to wild virus, and a booster shot in 10-15 years is not evidence of failure. An occasional mild case of the disease is not a failure either.
If you give a huge load of antigen, the swelling, pain and fever as the immune system reacts are more severe.
Felicia's House of Suntans and Wellness?
Nomad, please tell me you're making that up.
I wonder what else is in the good doctor's new parent kit. A brochure about the secret lethality of carseats? A recipe for homebrewed baby formula sweetened with honey?
Yup. It's the sort of journalistic play-it-safe cowardly mindset that Paul Krugman, only half-jokingly, predicted would lead to headlines like "Shape of Earth: Views Differ".
actually, there are already huge wastes of energy by the alt-med fanboys/fangirls in the sectors of artificial hormones. synthetic progesterone is bad, natural progesterone has NO side effects! LOL, ask a pregnant woman how that progesterone surge is treating her and see the "lack of side effects" in action!
taking this back to vaccinations, and my point: i suspect if we load synthetic cytokines to stimulate immune response- or other synthesized versions of chemicals we produce (it's been 4 years since my last immunology class and i honestly slept through it, apologies), that we'll get the same reaction. synthetic kills, natural has NO side effects.
the issue is that there will always be an issue.
I guess Jay's got his crosshairs on Warren Buffet and Dairy Queen.
mmm, Blizzards.
I thoughts the holey cheese was Swiss(ssss).
That piece gives Jay Gordon's job as "Assistant Professor of Pediatrics, UCLA Medical School". He's not listed on their website. (I'm looking at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA: I assume its on the only medical school there!)
"I don't know how you can stomach it day after day Orac. Obviously a voice of reason needs to exist but if I come across the stupid (say, a reiki vs. quantum touch discussion on an aromatherapy board) I fight the urge to troll, read half a page and close the page because I know the frustration is futile.
I guess blogging with the insolence is catharsis in a way but you must get.. so.. fucking.. tired."
I must say that as a professional scientist, but in a field about as removed from medicine as you can get (I'm in the atmopsheric and physical sciences) I find Orac's take downs very usefull. While I'm educated enough to spot the really, really stupid outburst (such as cooler's drivel) with ease, I'm really lost when it comes to some of the more technical, jargonistic arguments put forward. That said, I'm unlikely to be swayed by most of the anti-vax crowd anyway, but I still like having someone with indpeth knowledge of medicine spell it out to me.
So take it from me Mr. Orac, your efforts are helpful to at least one person.
Isles, there isn't a "Felicia's House of Suntans and Wellness"
http://www.santamonicawellness.com/
but Dr. Gordon is probably willing to agree to moms making their own formulas with raw honey and organic dolphin milk if they don't want to breastfeed for the same reason Jenny didn't breastfeed, because they have silicone breast implants and are sure that they will leak unspecified bad junk into the breast milk. Considering his locale, 100% of his patient's mothers may have breast implants, come to think of it. Maybe Dr. Gordon would like to tell us how many of his patients are crystal and indigo children?
Dr. Gordon has a link to PETA on his website for information about milk and a reference to Seinfeld. Maybe he had a bad experience with milk as a child. He's also not keen on fluoride.
Orac, he's still an HIV denialist.
http://www.drjaygordon.com/development/alternative/hiv.asp
Cooter claimed: "if you look at the amish unvaccianted population as a whole they dont get autism"
Can you provide a link to the scientific literature that confirms this, it sounds interesting.
He can't - there isn't one. "The Amish don't vaccinate and they don't have autism" is simply a lie.
C'mon, leigh - I looked at your blog and you're staining with antibodies. You needed GMCSF and interferon to get those antibodies. If you don't know what CD30340 is, you're not a biologist ;)
But you did hit on the thing that I forgot. Anything that any pharmaceutical company makes is by definition unnatural.
He's probably right about one thing -- lots of people would be healthier if they gave up dairy products, or at least cut down by a whole lot, since adult lactase persistence is the exception, not the rule, in many human population groups. (Cheese still has enough lactose in it to bother some people.)
Dairy product overuse is about the one thing I agree with PETA on, albeit for entirely different reasons, PETA being morons and all (but a stopped clock is right twice a day). I guess by that metric we can say that both PETA and Dr. Gordon are dumber than stopped clocks.
There's something gravely messed up about an HIV denialist/anti vax/homeopathy promoting pediatrician. Criminally irresponsible, I would think.
That piece gives Jay Gordon's job as "Assistant Professor of Pediatrics, UCLA Medical School". He's not listed on their website. (I'm looking at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA: I assume its on the only medical school there!)
-------------------------------
I looked through the UCLA site (school & clinic)and searched under "Jay", "Gordon", "Jay Gordon". Nada.
(But I did find this from 1994, so Dr. Gordon may be resting on past laurels and extrapolating current hospital privileges.)
Cover Story Take Two Herbs and Call Me in the Morning Health: Your child is teething or has an earache?
LA Times May 15, 1994
PHOTO: Pediatrician [Jay Gordon], a self-taught homeopathic, talks with [Gail Gutierrez] and her son, [Daniel], about treating the boy's ear infection with homeopathic eardrops.
"Half of my practice turns to homeopathy," said Dr. Jay Gordon, ... a Santa Monica pediatrician and assistant clinical professor at UCLA Medical School..."
Between the homeopathy and the Maggione story, I am wondering why people and the media are listening to this guy. Cheese, ice cream...rriigghhtt.
"I looked through the UCLA site (school & clinic)and searched under "Jay", "Gordon", "Jay Gordon". Nada."
Yeah, me too.
He still works at a hospital?! If so, ouch.
Did you hear that Generation Rescue had a fund raiser in Hollywood and Britney Spears (older sister of 17 year old mom, Jamie Lynn) showed up to support their antivaccine goals. I was shocked to hear that Hugh Hefner also showed up with his Gardasil Girls (TM). I hear that someone told him that GR was against girls and boys getting the Gardasil vaccine to prevent them from getting genital herpes and cancer, but Hugh's hearing went a few years ago and he thought that Jenny McCarthy was hosting a benefit to pay for Gardasil for preschoolers. A natural mistake. But embarassing for Hef and the Gardasil Girls (TM), not to mention for GR.
A photo of Hef and his girls.
http://www.picoodle.com/view.php?img=/4/7/20/f_hughandgardm_bcb3635.gif…
Dr. Scifi: "The trauma of vaccination in childhood can cause the false memory of alien abduction in adults many years latter."
Actually I had a very good memory of getting my 5 year old shots. They adminstered them at the local Headstart where I was enrolled. The local paper wanted a cute pic of a kid getting his shots. However, being 5 we were not so happy to participate in public health efforts so every kid kept squirming and bawling. The photographer (who had wasted half a roll of film already) said to all of us that if one of us didn't cry he would get his picture in the paper.
I was *fascinated* by the idea of being in the paper. So I walked up to the nurse, sat down (unrestrained), and got my shot with a big semi-toothed smile on my face... and made the front page (top fold) of the local paper (which I still have).
Though I was abducted by aliens around 18 months... I wonder if that was related?
I thought aluminum was linked to Alzheimer's, or something similar...
That said, I don't see how the tiny amount in a few shots or even a dozen shots can matter. Especially when compared to how much people get from antiperspirants - which is in what context I heard the "OH NOES, aluminum!" comment.
durr.. Sorry about that.
"Actually, he may be technically correct on that one. Polio at its worst only killed a few thousand a year in the USA, and the consequences of obesity easily top that today."
You're comparing apples and oranges. All of those polio deaths were directly caused by polio. Obesity related deaths aren't directly caused by eating dairy. Obesity itself isn't even caused directly by eating dairy.
Dave,
Being nasty and disdainful doesn't make you right. It just means you're willing to be anonymously nasty.
People like you are dangerous because you feel comfortable dismissing other's points of view and further polarize an important discussion of the safety and efficacy of vaccinations.
Jay Gordon
Jay-
Quacks like you are dangerous because your baseless point of view will lead to a drastic insult to public health.
Tell me which is worse: dismissing baseless lies and arrogance or a resurgence of lethal diseases?
Why are you whining about Orac's style? You should be addressing his substance.
Orac is right because the data thus far says he is. Dispute the data.
So Jay shows up!
whoopie.
Jay, please cite the publications that support any of the claims you make about vaccinations. Also, just for grins, throw in a few that show homompaths are providing anything more useful than water.
Folks, I suspect that Dr. Jay has left the building.
Seriously, though - you don't expect him to stick around and go toe-to-toe with people who know more about biology, medicine and science and general than he does, do you?
Just remember how Dr. Jay didn't believe that HIV (the virus) caused AIDS until he had a patient who died from it. From what I see on his website, he still thinks that HIV is not a sufficient cause, just "a factor".
Come on, folks - "practitioners" like Dr. Jay can't be bothered with data and all that "sciency" stuff - they are more into their "gut feelings" and the "narratives" their patients relate, not to mention whatever is hip, cool or new (as long as it has nothing to do with science). Expecting him to stick around and support his "beliefs" about medicine is like asking the Pope to give data supporting his belief in God.
No, Dr. Jay is much better suited for petulantly pointing out how "mean-spirited" and "dismissive" other people are when they refuse to be "inclusive" about his "other ways of knowing". In other words, if you don't buy his line of BS, he's going to pack up his carpet bag and huff off.
Prometheus
Didn't Dr. Jay and Heidi Fleiss' dad say that infant formula was so dangerous it should only be given by prescription?
People like you are dangerous because you feel comfortable dismissing other's points of view and further polarize an important discussion of the safety and efficacy of vaccinations.
My irony meter just pegged.
So, Flash Gordon, what's up with the UCLA thing? Are you an assistant professor of pediatrics at UCLA medical school? Which hospital(s) do you have priveleges at?
Dr. Jay Gordon said (paraphrased) "wah, wah... Orac is being mean to me"
Oh, cry us a river and come up with some answers to these two questions:
1) What real evidence is there that the MMR which has been around since 1971 and has never contained thimerosal is more dangerous than measles, mumps or rubella?
2) What real evidence is there that the DTaP is riskier than diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis?
Jay, Jay, Jay, Jay.
Obviously I'm not "anonymous" to you. Actually, I'm not "anonymous" to a lot of my readers.
In any case, it's impossible to resist pointing out that whining about how "mean" and "nasty" I supposedly am does not make you right, either, especially since you still can't produce any evidence to support your assertions. Do you think being "nicer" than me somehow renders you magically immune from being expected to produce data to defend your assertions? Besides, didn't you write on a certain e-mail list that you "responded too moderately and too conversationally" in the article I deconstructed above? Sure, you did. I guess your inherent "niceness" kept you from saying what you really think in that Cookie interview.
I have no such compunction--at least when it comes to you anymore. (For why, see below.) Indeed, I responded to your last e-mail with a pointed but polite request for some evidence to support what you said at the "Green Our Vaccines" rally and in your video. Your lack of response led me to believe that being nice wasn't cutting it. Tell you what, though. I'll take the "anonymity" excuse away from you. If I post my criticisms of you on a forum where I use my real name, will you respond? Come on, what do you say? I was thinking...perhaps next Monday.
I even promise to be "nice" (well, for the most part, anyway).
My irony meter just exploded. You owe me a new one.
I'm "dangerous"? Dr. Jay, with all due respect, I'm not the one spreading ignorant misinformation about vaccines that most first year medical students would know better than to spout. I'm not the one who's fear-mongering about vaccines, the medical intervention that has arguably saved more lives than all other medical interventions combined. I'm not the one who's making demonstrably incorrect statements that run the risk of decreasing vaccination rates and contributing to a public health disaster in the form of a return of vaccine-preventable diseases.
You are, Dr. Gordon. You are. And over the last three years I have come to view your spreading of misinformation about vaccines as a profound betrayal of the Hippocratic Oath that we both took. Sorry if my saying so that bluntly hurts your feelings or makes you mad, but that's the way I view it.
Worse, some of the demonstrably incorrect things you're saying are really, really dumb--so dumb that even now I have a hard time believing that you actually said them. I'm still shaking my head in disbelief, three days later. Whatever our disagreements, I thought you were smarter than that. I really did. I also really meant it when I asked you to take it as some friendly advice not to use the "formaldehyde" gambit again. It does make you look incredibly ignorant, and I really don't want that.
I mean, really, Dr. Jay. Formaldehyde? You've got to be kidding! I'm sorry, I used to have a modicum of respect for you, believe it or not. I actually thought that you were at least semi-reasonable, just misguided. However, you've just proven me wrong. Any medical professional who can actually mention formaldehyde in vaccines with a straight face as though it's likely to cause autism or have a major effect on human health has, IMHO, forfeited the right to be treated with collegial respect, because a medical professional should know that that particular gambit is utter B.S. That you either do not know or (even worse if true) do not care suggests to me that mockery is the only appropriate remaining response. I suppose I should be grateful that you restrained yourself and didn't pull the "fetal parts" or "monkey kidneys" gambit that anti-vaccine propaganda so likes.
Still, if my "anonymity" is all that keeps you from answering my requests for evidence, there is another venue where I use my real name. I could post there a comprehensive discussion of your errors of reason, science, and fact. You could try to refute me if you can.
I get the "anonymity" gambit all the time, typically from people who already know my name. Gordon won't be back. The jig is up for him, just as it for the anti-vaccine movement in general.
Doctor "too little, too late"!
It seems to me that once you start flirting with HIV Denialism and anti-vaccine quackery that you have to accept the consequences of your actions.
As to the UCLA thing, Jay Gordon could be an assistant clinical professor for the med school there. Lots of doctors are clinical professors. It's not exactly a big thing, you just get a title and are paid a couple hundred bucks a day to let a med student follow you around. You get a little more if you give a lecture during their rotation. It sounds way more impressive than it actually is.
Dr Gordon,
I'm parent to an autistic child. I'd like you to know that I am sickened by your behaviour and thank my lucky starts that there is a very large body of water between us so that you can do no harm to the children of the country I live in.
I think your inability to back up anything that you say at antivax rallies and your inability to behave as you do on 'secret' email lists where Jenny McCarthy is the subject speaks volumes for the sort of shabby, underhanded sort of man that you are. For example, I believe you said (in relation to Amanda Peet) that:
Of course I doubt you actually had the nerve to actually say that to her face. Men like you only seem to have the courage to say such things on private lists.
So . . . you asked and I'll answer. I've been on staff at Cedars Sinai Medical Center for nearly thirty years in good standing. I attend in the nursery for a month at a time with med students, and residents and occasionally spend another month attending in the residents' continuity clinic. I review cases, compare and contrast what I do in my private office with what they're comfortable doing in a clinic setting or a large nursery setting.
I occasionally teach at noontime conference at Cedars and have many, many meetings with house staff and NICU attendings to talk and compare notes. At the present time, I'm caring for a child with a large staph abscess status post I&D on Clinda and Cephotax pending MRSA report tomorrow. This month, I'm mentoring a summer program for aspiring medical students who spend a day each week in my office seeing patients.
The caricature you paint of me is inaccurate but enjoy it if you must.
I just returned from UCLA where I attended the long hard birth as the family's private pediatrician. I do this fairly often when a family would prefer to have a doctor they've met give immediate care rather than have house staff at the delivery. The residents also like this because it lightens their load a little for that hour or two. I still can intubate when I need to and I do all my own lumbar punctures. In a pinch, I can still start a great subclavian line because I was trained for a year as TPN Fellow in the early days of TPN.
My third hospital today is St. John's Medical Center where I'm caring for two growing premie twins and a premie singlet doing well. Brief rounds only are needed because neonatal staff does a great job and I act as liaison.
My fourth hospital today is Santa Monica/UCLA where I also have premie twins doing great, just growing and requiring very little of my time and energy.
I began my day with phone work after a little hike with my dogs. I then drove a short distance to my office in my (five year old) car because I like to have it nearby in case I have to be somewhere fast. My new young associate is out on maternity leave so my workload is quite high. I juggle, as you all do, 15 kids in the office, countless phone calls, kids' parents needing referrals, x-ray reports, lab reports, being short-staffed by one because of illness and then a phone call from Larry King's show to appear in a few hours as they discuss Savage's comments about autism and "idiots." I agree to appear and move a patient to Tuesday to eliminate any possibility of an hour off that day.
You know, Dave, I am the closest thing on this board to "anti-vaccine" so if the epithet suits you gentlemen please feel to use it. It's a helluva lot easier than saying "pediatrician who over the past thirty years has realized that vaccines and the schedule could be safer so he minimizes shots for all patients and actually give no shots at all to many kids even though he believes so much in public health that he's traveling to Africa in late September to bring Five Million tetanus shots to the Ivory Coast because between 100,000 and 200,000 people die from neonatal tetanus in Africa each year."
Calling me "anti-vaccine" is a lot simpler and might even have enough accuracy to stick: I am very much opposed to the way vaccines are formulated with aluminum as the chief adjuvant, thimerosal as a preservative in many if not most influenza vaccines and I truly am "anti" the increasing number of combinations of vaccines. (Edit that well and it becomes: " . . .I am very much . . . anti . . .vaccines . . . " Good enough for certain journalists.)
"Pediatrician to the Stars" Aaah, my favorite appellation. I told you before and I'll tell you now, I think that if I worked in Detroit I'd care for the most discerning and educated autoworkers and in Los Angeles, many medical consumers are discerning and they seek me out because I work really hard and make it my business to know the medical news and treatment best for their families. More than that, I listen when they know just as much--or more--than I do and we reach conclusions about their families' health care as partners. And, yes, there certainly seem to be more than a few actors and directors in my neighborhood. Sometimes I get falsely proud because people who could afford to take their children anywhere for medical care, travel any distance and spend any amount of money choose to trust me.
And yes, I think the slogan ""too many, to soon" is a nice bumper sticker summary of the goal of many vaccine (not anti-vaccine) activists. Better quality medicine for our children, tested well and administered in a more logical fashion.
Orac, Dave . . ., stop calling me names. It no longer hurts my feelings but it diminishes you in public and detracts from the possibility of a discussion. If I scattered the phrase "illogical dickhead" through everything I wrote about you, it doesn't exactly elevate the discussion. By the way, why haven't you ever publicly identified yourself. Step out here and let us talk to a real person rather than a clever nom de . . . guerre.
Long ago, we acknowledged that the immune system matures slowly. I won't discuss the minutia of encapsulated and non-encapsulated bacteria being dealt with differently in infants but we all here know that a newborn's immune system is very different from a one-year-old's and a two-year-old's different still. If you really want me to elaborate on this, I will. But I know you already can crack open the same books I can to verify that what I just said is, while undetailed, correct.
I'm parroting nothing, you dope! (That actually felt good! Dave, you're entitled to call me utterly moronic one extra time.) There are other ingredients in vaccines besides the antigens themselves and they are toxic substances. The FDA, the CDC, the AAP and virtually every other responsible medical body has declared the amount of mercury which was found in shots up until 2001 excessive. The exact same type of calculations have concluded that there's far more aluminum than the government allows. These are facts not parroted speculation and you know it. If you deny these two simple points about quantity--not necessarily causation, just excessive quantity--you are lying and anyone reading this blog who can do simple math will know that you're lying.
Dave, studies have been done and then the data were manipulated. You know the Verstraeten story better than I do and you also know that Bernadine Healy's comments can't be ignored.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/06/15/couricandco/entry2934107.shtml
Orac, stop using pejorative terms like "parroting" and making it sound like anyone who disagrees with you must be an idiot. Sometimes, people just disagree with one another. That doesn't make you an idiot and it certainly doesn't make me one either.
The measles vaccine causes problems. Sometimes, counter to the cliché, the plural of anecdote is data. I've seen post-MMR problems too many times and heard about hundreds more and I believe the people telling the story. I do not claim proof. I merely claim that there's enough evidence to warrant a real investigation into the possibility that the MMR causes autism and other problems in some children.
We both agree that Wakefield's original study was too small, not well enough done and should never have led to the conclusions which were published. Move on. And please stop attacking the man because he accepted money for testifying. The "other" side does that every single day. I don't know all the details and neither do you, so stop pretending to know so much about his arrangement.
"That Dr. Gordon apparently believes that shoddy pseudoscience does not speak well of him."
I don't support Wakefield's conclusions. I've told you this before but you persist in your dishonest attempt to tie me to the small MMR study. Lots of pilot studies have been done and many lead to larger better studies. This one has not led to the research which we'd all like to see.
There are variations on the cliché "Don't challenge men who buy ink by the barrel." And they apply here. No matter what I say, you own the website and can have the last words. You have gathered a group of true believers who are not really ready to think. Gentlemen, ladies, please realize that sometimes people just disagree.
Hey, Dave, the CDC and the AAP recommend that every single child in the age group you've mention get the flu shots. As of last year, the majority of those vaccines contained 25 micrograms of mercury. And, yes, a child getting a tetanus shot at age seven, nine or ten years would get the same dose and it also is formulated with 25 micrograms of mercury. You knew this but you lied to your readers anyway. Shame on you.
http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/thi-table.htm
Less autism? I sure hope so. But we still have enough other toxic exposure to create problems. I don't know what it is! All I know is that autism is triggered by a variety of environmental chemicals some of which are found in children's medicine and vaccines.
And, yes, there are just "teeny tiny" bits of formalin and other things. But they are injected directly into the blood. I loved the comment about IM shots. Where do you think vaccines and other meds in IM shots go? Directly to the toe nail? They get into the blood stream. We were all trained in medical school that if you couldn't get an IV in during a seizure, get the IM shot in because it might cost another 15-20 minutes but it would get into the bloodstream and stop the seizure.
I do not drive a Mercedes. I have a five-year-old Lexus Hybrid which I bought because I liked it. I knew I wasn't saving the world or even saving much fuel, but I like the car. I did decide not to replace it as an environmentally sound move. Big deal.
Taken out of context, my ice cream comment looks very silly. Taken in context . . . it still looks dumb. Oh, well.
My point--poorly stated--was that there were lots of public health measures which merit more funding and media attention. I was prescient because the front page of every newspaper the past week is talking about nothing but obesity. You win one. I win one.
Skeptico, nice to see you. Yes, the portal of entry for measles is the nose or throat and the immune response is mediated differently from the response to an IM or SQ injection. I think this causes some of the problems that susceptible families have reported. These probably include autism.
OK, folks, here's the truth, we have an epidemic of something in America and it's not measles. It's obesity in children and adults. It's Type 2 diabetes in ten-year-old kids. The cause: Cheese and Ice Cream. No further analogy will be drawn to vaccines because that didn't work so well the first time, did it? But, ignoring the medical problems with the American child's diet or denigrating my attitude about the dangers of obesity doesn't make you right no matter how nasty or loud you are.
Sessions, I'm not a marketer. My practice has been full since the late 1980s. Call and try to make an appointment. I do what I do and people benefit. I have been at this for almost thirty years. Yes, as people have pointed out, I stepped in dog poop a couple times and paid for it. For thirty bucks you can check my malpractice record and my Medical Board Record. Don't bother. Zero. So far :-) I readily admit that I spend parts of some days out on the fringe of medicine but I really do serve as an effective bridge between those who might never get into the system at all.
Sessions: "Rewards?" Fame and fortune. That's why all of us pediatricians pick this specialty. It's a the short cut to wild fame and great wealth. Plastic surgery? Ophthalmology?? Radiation Oncology?? Naah. You want real money and fame, go into pediatrics. My books? Countless hundreds of them in print! My web page. Ads for a couple baby creams with a firm agreement that I get no compensation. Kinda' funny.
The State Medical Board? I was called up. I told them I wish I had done things differently in the Maggiore case. No action was taken. Again, for $29.95 you can get all the records from my entire career.
I'm getting tired but I just found the comment about my "money grubbing" DVD sales. I lost money. Ask the IRS. This was made to get information out and someday I might see some money. My practice is successful but my profit is far less than those practices which sell lots of vaccines. I have no new baby gift baskets . . . good idea, though! And, if any children had been injured, let alone fatally injured, by the way I practice, you would have heard about it. Nomad, unintelligent, uniformed comment. Your bravado setting is up too high because you're surrounded by all these doctors saying the same thing over and over again. Dial it down before your next keystrokes.
Brian, aluminum should be out. You're right: there are better and safer adjuvants.
Dr. T--yes, I make an absolute fortune off the countless cases of measles, mumps, pertussis and tetanus I see. Incredibly good insight, sir. You have finally stumbled on my motive! I must move on and find another name. I think I'll choose . . . ORAC.
Nomad--Call me an HIV denialist to my face. HIV causes AIDS. I think you protest a bit too much. Swear, Nomad, swear, that you believe the virus causes the disease before us all. Thanks, doofus. Lumping me with that group doesn't serve the discussion.
Nico--not me
Dave/ORAC--Formaldehyde does not cause autism. You are wrong, there.
OK, that's enough. This should give you clones a week's worth of fun.
As I wrote this, I realized two things, firstly, I'm more of an "expert observer of vaccination" than a "vaccine expert." OK? And, I am damn sure that Dave/Orac does not have a real job: It takes hours to write and edit this stuff and mine's nowhere near as good as Orac's!!
Night all.
Jay
As bad as it is when well-meaning laypeople get sucked into the ever-more-unfathomable nuttery that is the vaccines-cause-autism campaign, it's truly inexcusable when people who should know better start waving the antivaccine flag.
The fact that Jay Gordon believes in this nonsense shows a troubling lack of scientific acumen - any competent physician ought to be able to easily see through the ginned-up pseudoscience that is bandied about by the antivaxers - as well as an utter unwillingness to recognize incontrovertible facts, even when they are served up for him on a silver platter already cut up into nice little bite-sized morsels.
And then to come here and whine that people are being meeeeeean to him. IT'S NOT ABOUT YOU, dumbass. It's about the kids you hurt. Got it?
I agree that formaldehyde does not cause autism and I never said that it did. Indeed, I brought it up because you were implying that it either caused autism or was some horrific "toxin" in vaccines. Nice straw man, though. Of course, that does bring up one question: Why on earth did you ever mention it in your interview, Dr. Jay, which was about vaccine safety and whether vaccines caused autism? I wasn't exaggerating when I said the "formaldehyde gambit" one of the dumbest bits of anti-vaccine propaganda there is. Truly, few gems can compete with it. So why did you repeat it? Are you telling me you didn't know better?
Obviously, I've gotten under your skin. Good. You need to rethink the causes you support and the people you hang out with, and if getting under your skin is what it takes to get you to think about some of the pseudoscience you've been supporting, so be it. Science-free rants such as the one you posted do not impress me.
Contrary to your lame insinuations, however, I do, of course, have a day job and a series couple of meetings starting in five minutes. Of course, I also happen to have good reason to know that you already know that, so, following your lead I throw the word "liar" right back at you. I also leave you with one three questions:
1. What percentage of children get the flu vaccine? How about the flu vaccine with thimerosal?
2. What's the total exposure of children to mercury from vaccines now, compared to the late 1990s? Compared to the 1980s?
3. Given that the total exposure to mercury is lower than it's been since the 1980s (oh, wait, I gave you the answer to #2), then why hasn't the prevalence of autism fallen in the least, if mercury in vaccines is a significant cause or contributor to autism?
Sadly, there's no time right now to give you the attention you want more than that. Work calls. We'll take this up again tonight--that is, if there's anything left after my commenters have some fun.
Oh, and did Lexus actually make a hybrid auto five years ago? I certainly don't recall it. The first hybrid Lexus made was the RX400h in 2005. I remember because I briefly considered buying it and then decided not to. Instead, I stuck with my present car.
Assuming that Dr. Gordon is an excellent and caring clinician (this is how he describes himself as a physician, apart from the vaccine issue) one would also assume that he behaves according to the best available knowledge in his field.
Then why doesn't he advise patients on immunization according the best available knowledge in his field? How can he speak about vaccines in a way that departs so dramatically from scientific knowledge?
How can he reconcile faith in science with faith in a non-scientific belief system? It's a bit like the genius physicists in India who also believe in astrology, or the evolutionary biologists who are devout Christians, but with one big difference: he has not drawn a line between the two. He may do a magnificent job with a difficult delivery or a premature birth, and then put the child at risk by speaking out against vaccines.
Assuming that Dr. Gordon is an excellent and caring clinician (this is how he describes himself as a physician, apart from the vaccine issue) one would also assume that he behaves according to the best available knowledge in his field.
Then why doesn't he advise patients on immunization according the best available knowledge in his field? How can he speak about vaccines in a way that departs so dramatically from scientific knowledge?
It's a bit like the genius physicists in India who also believe in astrology, or the evolutionary biologists who are devout Christians, but with one big difference: he has not drawn a line between the two. He may do a magnificent job with a difficult delivery or a premature birth, and then put the child at risk by speaking out against vaccines.
How can he reconcile faith in science with faith in a non-scientific belief system?
Hey Dr. Gordon,
Throughout that whole rant of yours you failed to provide one iota of scientific evidence to back up your claims. Just anecdotes. Comment on the affect of changing the diagnostic criteria.
By the way, I like your faulty reasoning regarding IV and IM injections. You seem to have forgotten your pharmacology from med school. Yes, things injected IM do get into the bloodstream but, importantly, at a more dilute concentration than following a bolus IV injection, since the dose is diluted by extracellular fluid. That's why max blood concentrations following IV dosing are much higher than following IM dosing. This greatly affects pharmacokinetic parameters since they are dependent upon blood concentration. By this same reasoning things taken orally are injected into the bloodstream because given 15-20 min they will begin to show up in the bloodstream.
"In the meantime, we can have a whole bunch of svelte kids suffering from vaccine-preventable diseases."
Unrelated to vaccines:
As someone who doesn't eat dairy products (for ethical reasons) I feel a bit defensive- non-dairy eaters are not all svelte, or joyless, or whatever else people come up with..
Yes, as people have pointed out, I stepped in dog poop a couple times and paid for it.
Dr. Gordon, are you counting the Eliza Jane Scovill case as one of those times when you stepped in dog poop and paid for it? 'Cause I'd argue you're not the one who paid for it, or that at least whatever price you've paid is dwarfed by the fee levied on that little girl.
Doc J.: "I am very much opposed to the way vaccines are formulated with aluminum as the chief adjuvant"
What would you prefer in it's place? Are you saying that you understand it's purpose but you just don't want it to be the primary adjuvant?
If Doctor Gordon is half the physician he claims to be, and I have no reason to doubt his word, that only makes the contrast between his medical practice and his extra-curricular activities with Green Our Vaccines even more inexplicable. When he is in Africa delivering tetanus shots I hope he takes the opportunity to enquire about the 90% reduction in deaths from measles in Africa following a mass vaccination campaign. He might also wish to enquire about the rise of polio because of doubts about vaccine safety, particularly in Nigeria. There is also a massive problem with HIV-AIDS denialism in parts of Africa.
I believe that Dr Gordon has entertained some doubts about HIV as well as vaccine safety. This may only result in isolated tragedies amongst the prosperous Americans who constitute his patients. But the consequences can be disasterous for more vulnerable populations.
Some earlier "brilliance" from the man. I tried to reply, but he set up his email to a verification bit.
Note some the lame stuff... like measles being rare now. Uh, yeah... and what happens when an unvaxed kid goes to Europe and brings measles back to his charter school with lots of other unvaxed kids AND a clinic waiting room with babies too young for the MMR?
Which makes the "XENOPHOBIA" crack so much more amusing.
I am also trying to grasp why he thinks that 1 in 1000 deaths for measles, and then an about equivalent for neuro disabilities as "rare" complications. Also a year later there was an outbreak of mumps in the American Midwest. For less than 3000 infections over two dozen young men may be sterile (orchitis) and four people became deaf. Um, yeah... "PRODUCE SERIOUS COMPLICATIONS BUT RARELY DO". See:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5520a4.htm
As far as polio goes, little did he know that just a few months after this exchange polio returned to Minnesota:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm54d1014a1.htm
> >> From: Jay Gordon
> >> To: HCN
> >> Subject: vaccines
> >> Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2005 01:09:18 -0700
> >>
> >> Thanks for your comments.
> >>
> >> I will be more rigorous in constructing and publishing my posts.
> >>
> >> Most vaccines protect against illnesses American children can no longer
> >> contract
> >
> > Like measles and mumps?
>
> WELL, YES, AS YOU KNOW, MEASLES CASES NOW NUMBER 35 OR SO IN THE USA EACH
> YEAR. MUMPS SOMEWHAT MORE AT 200-300. BOTH DISEASES CAN PRODUCE SERIOUS
> COMPLICATIONS BUT RARELY DO. WHEN THE INCIDENCE OF A DISEASE DROPS TO THESE
> LOW LEVELS, THE RISK/BENEFIT ANALYSIS CHANGES.
> >
> > Pertussis? Chicken Pox?
> THE DPT IS A REASONABLE SHOT AND I GIVE IT TO THE MAJORITY OF KIDS IN MY
> PRACTICE. VARICELLA IS AN INNOCENT CHILDHOOD DISEASE WHICH WE HAVE NOW
> TRANSFERRED INTO ADULTHOOD. I TELL ALL FAMILIES TO EITHER GET THE DISEASE
> OR THE SHOT BY AGE TEN YEARS.
> >
> > Haemophilis influenza b?
> ALMOST GONE, AS YOU KNOW. I STARTED PRACTICE WHEN HIB WAS AROUND A LOT.
> NOW, AGAIN, THE RISK/BENEFIT ANALYSIS FAVORS LOOKING HARDER. I DO GIVE LOTS
> OF THESE SHOTS, THOUGH.
>
> > Tetanus?
> AGAIN, UNDER 50 CASES/YEAR INTO HE USA--PROBABLY OWED IN LARGE MEASURE TO
> VACCINATION BUT NOT COMPLETELY>
> > Kids in the US still get those... and they are only an airplane ride away.
> XENOPHOBIA DOES NOT SERVE THIS ARGUMENT WELL
> > Diptheria? (see what happened in Russia)
> GONE
> > Polio... So you don't think anyone will fly in from Yemen or Indonesia to
> > the USA ever again?
> NO, I DO NOT THINK SO. AS YOU FAMILIARIZE YOURSELF WITH THE HISTORY OF
> POLIO, YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE HAS NOT BEEN WILD POLIO IN THE USA FOR OVER 25
> YEARS AND THE LIKELIHOOD OF AN IMPORTED CASE BEING ACTIVE AND SPREADING IS
> NIL
> > The drop in hepatitis B was only after infants started to be vaccinated
> > against it.
> TRUE. BUT EACH PARENT HAS THE RIGHT TO DECIDE. THIS SHOT MAY BE OF GREAT
> BENEFIT TO PUBLIC HEALTH BUT OFFERS NO BENEFIT TO EACH INFANT
> >
> > This is a county in the USA, it lists the incidences of disease:
> > http://www.metrokc.gov/health/epilog/vol4505.htm ... the only thing that is
> > missing from the present vaccine schedule is polio, diptheria and mumps ---
> > all three of those are still occuring only an airplane ride away. Chicken
> > Pox is also not listed, but it is still occuring -- and it does maim and
> > kill every year in the USA:
> > http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5223a3.htm
> >
> >
> > and must therefore be subject to different risk/benefit analyses
> >> that in other times or in other countries where these diseases are still
> >> endemic.
> >>
> >
> > Should this be done by lawyers or by health professionals? You should
> > perhaps speak to the public health folks in Indiana about that.
>
> DOCTORS AND PATIENTS TOGETHER
>
> AGAIN, THANKS FOR MAKING ME THINK HARDER.
>
> BEST,
>
> JAY GORDON
>
Ozzy, injected vaccines or medications bypass the intestinal tract and the respiratory tract, obviously. The immune response to vaccines is different enough from the response to illness to concern me. And, no, I make no claims to expertise in either pharmacology or immunology. I have practiced for a long time and base most of what I write on my observations and my interpretations of what I read. I'm certainly not always right and I welcome the comments on this board even though I still don't understand the degree of anger.
Scovill/Maggiore is a complicated issue. I've voiced my thoughts many times here and elsewhere: I would not repeat what I did in my care of that child.
I understand the purpose of aluminum and other adjuvants in vaccines. Perhaps many other adjuvants are worse and that's why aluminum is used so frequently. I believe that better adjuvants are available.
I have never voiced ANY opposition to vaccination programs in areas where vaccines have a favorable risk/benefit analysis. For many vaccines, this is no longer the case in many countries including our own. When disease incidence drops as low as it has here, I think we have to look harder at vaccine side effects. Nigeria needs polio vaccinations and the measles programs in Africa and elsewhere certainly benefit children and others.
I have never doubted that HIV causes AIDS. I wonder why some people who are HIV positive do not get AIDS but have nowhere near enough expertise to comment here. I have cared for only four or five other HIV positive families in my entire career. Every single one of them had the appropriate tests and medication given.
Measles remains extremely rare in the United States. Nothing "magic" here: The vaccine works. I support parents' rights to refuse this and other vaccines. I do not want a forum for hyperbolic ranting about "terrible vaccines" I merely want risks and benefits assessed honestly and with as little rancor as possible. I want more research. Less heat and more light.
Polio did not return to Minnesota and you know it. These kids were exposed to someone shedding OPV and they did not get sick.
The chickenpox vaccine was invented for immunoincompetent children and adults and the vaccine is doing more harm than good as it's being used now.
And, my car is 3-4 years old, not five. Sorry.
Jay
Well Jay,
Let me put a few words in...
Let me start with your words "who are not really ready to think". So, now I'll remember you as someone who asked not to be smeared, but did just that to everyone else. Its a strawman stance. And you ask others to be reasonable... But "whatever". Implying that I'm merely a "follower" because I occassionally write here is silly.
Let me address a few statements from your long post on July 22, 2008 8:18 AM that seem either misleading or wrong to me.
Your credentials in the magazine piece start with "Assistant Professor of Pediatrics, UCLA Medical School" -- This conveys the impression of a full-time academic appointment, whereas in practice you are just called in once in a while for a few hours? If the latter is true, it might be wise to stop using it, its misleading.(Your position in your clinic appears to be your main position, so why isn't that presented in its place?)
"they are toxic substances" means nothing until its put in context of concentrations, half lives in the body, localisation in the body, the natural tolerance to the substance, and so on. And when done so, evidence seems to suggest that they aren't the issue you make them out to be.
"the plural of anecdote is data". No, unless you're trying to duck scientific evidence or process ;-) There are good reasons why this isn't true, e.g. anecdotes are uncontrolled information and so can't be measured or compared in any sensible way.
"These probably include autism." (My emphasis.) How scientific: no supporting evidence at all.
"As I wrote this, I realised two things, firstly, I'm more of an "expert observer of vaccination" than a "vaccine expert."" Please don't tell us you've only just figured that out... Anecdotal observation is a terrible way to draw conclusions, as has repeatedly been demonstrated in the past. Anecdotes can sometimes point to good leads to look into, but they are perfectly lousy to draw conclusions from, as you seem quite happy to.
In your latest post you say "I make no claims to expertise in either pharmacology or immunology.", yet I'm under the impression you tell large audiences what is "right". One of the key elements of science, done properly, is honesty, meaning honesty about want you really know (or don't).
You can't pass judgement on what you don't (fully) understand. And you say you have no real expertise in these areas. By that count, you should be honest and say that you can't draw conclusions, certainly not ones fit to present to the public at large. A scientist making "conclusions" about something they had no expertise in, in a context expecting their expertise, would be akin to a medic tossing the Hippocratic Oath aside at work. Just a thought.
Dr. Jay has told us a great deal about what he "believes" and that he bases his "beliefs" on his "experiences". Very nice, very "holistic" and also very, very vague.
How about some data? Is there any data that supports his "beliefs", or are they based solely on anecdotes, "narratives" and his own personal interpretation of reality?
One of the main reasons that medicine has trended away from "personal narratives" (i.e. "anecdotes") and toward blinded, placebo-controlled studies is that people - even Dr. People - are terribly capable of deceiving themselves, of "believing" things that are contrary to the data -contrary to reality.
This is not an indictment of any particular person, it is true for all of us. Science - as practiced by real scientists - is foremost a means of not fooling ourselves into seeing what we want to see.
Dr. Jay is a relic of a bygone era, when doctors relied only on their own interpretations of reality to guide them. These may have been the "Good Old Days" as far as bedside manner and all, but they were also the days of bleeding, purging, high infant mortality and short life expectancy.
Dr. Jay let his own interpretations of reality convince him that HIV didn't cause AIDS, leading to the inevitable (at least, inevitable to a microbiologist like myself) and unfortunate consequences referred to above. Now, he's letting his own interpretations of reality guide his pronouncements about vaccines. I can't speak for the rest, but I certainly would follow the advice of someone with a documented track record like that.
Prometheus
Dr Gordon wrote
I have never voiced ANY opposition to vaccination programs in areas where vaccines have a favorable risk/benefit analysis. For many vaccines, this is no longer the case in many countries including our own. When disease incidence drops as low as it has here, I think we have to look harder at vaccine side effects.
I live in the UK. Fears about MMR mean that measles is once more endemic in my country. My country has a significant asian population. (Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi) The measles eradication programme is less well advanced in those countries than it is in Africa. There is regular two way traffic between the UK and those countries. If UK asians take measles to India which risk 'benefit/analysis shall we apply? It used to be that opponents of immigration raised the spectre of disease ridden foreigners coming to our shores. Perhaps less developed countries should now insist on vaccination certificates from western visitors?
I think that when disease incidence drops as low as it has here we have to remind people what those diseases can do in order to maintain high vaccination rates and low incidence, for ourselves and to help those countries with less developed health services who do not want us to carry disease into their lands.
I love the talk of "toxins"! It is like they are some mystery stuff we need to avoid at all costs.
But are the "toxins" in the DTaP seriously worse than these:
tetanospasmin, tetanolysin, diphtheria toxin and pertussis toxin ?
By the way, work on your reading comprehension when you say "Polio did not return to Minnesota and you know it. These kids were exposed to someone shedding OPV and they did not get sick."
From http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm54d1014a1.htm it says "The patient has no paralysis; the source of the patient's infection is unknown. Subsequently, poliovirus infections in three other children within the index patient's community have been documented."
Umm... they were infected, one was hospitalized. What you meant to say was that they were not paralyzed.
To continue "Given the degree of difference (2.3%) from the parent Sabin poliovirus type 1 strain, the virus isolated from the index patient is estimated to have been replicating for approximately 2 years, which means the virus likely is older than the infant. OPV is still widely used in most countries; however, because OPV has not been used in the United States since 2000 and in Canada since 1997, the original source of this virus likely was a person who received OPV in another country. Neither the infant nor her family members had any history of international travel. This virus is not related to other known iVDPVs or to any type 1 cVDPVs that caused outbreaks such as those in Hispaniola during 2000--2001, the Philippines during 2001 (1), or Indonesia during 2005."
In a sense, it was a virus from the OPV that traveled a bit. Oh, and yes that is why the IPV has been used in the USA for several BEFORE it reappeared in Minnesota.
Now again, tell us nice and safe the diseases are compared to the actual diseases. Tell us that you are willing to accept a 1 in 1000 death rate for measles or at the minimum a 1 in 5000 rate of neurological damage from measles. By the way, unlike you, I don't pull the information out of the air... I actually use real documentation:
http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/160/3/302 ...
"Approximately 1 in 1000 children with clinical measles develops encephalitis.36, 39 Although most children with encephalitis recover without sequelae, approximately 15% die and 25% of survivors develop complications such as MR.39 We assumed that approximately 1 in 5000 cases of measles leads to MR."
and that also includes HiB (something you claim is now rare, well... that is because there is a vaccine for it!)... "With regard to natural history, Hib meningitis was once the leading cause of acquired MR in the United States. Slightly more than half of the Hib meningitis invasive cases presented as meningitis, and one third of children with Hib meningitis went on to have MR. Approximately 1 in 10 children died from Hib meningitis."
Again, I join the chorus with:
Hey, Dr. Jay, you got any data to go along with that scaremongering?
"There are other ingredients in vaccines besides the antigens themselves and they are toxic substances."
Wow, Dr. Jay, would that be like the water & salt in vaccines? Because you know like H20 and NaCl 're like you know, scary toxins and all. Both can kill cells in a dish and both can kill people not in a dish. And both have killed people at the right dose.
http://books.google.com/books?id=lYAFAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA57&lpg=PA57&dq=%22a+…
of course that was taken orally and not injected into the "bloodstream".
The "toxins" in vaccines are not toxic at the levels found in vaccines, Dr. Jay. And the amount of toxins released by a viruses and bacteria in a vaccine preventable infection are far higher, but you would expose infants to those toxins wouldn't you deary? And what about the danger of all those toxic drugs the baby will get if he's in the hospital fighting for his life with a pertussis infection?
So Dr. Jay, a baby has such a delicate immune system it can't handle vaccines, but that same weak immune system can cope with the real deal, a measles infection? How about the opportunistic infections that can attack while the child is dealing with measles? You would leave a child open to them? Why because it makes you feel good to be a "brave maverick doctor"? And if people follow your advice won't we have measles outbreaks just like they have in Africa?
You have let your Santa Monica lifestyle rot out your mind and your conscience, Dr. Jay. You keep talking to Orac like you don't know precisely who he is and exactly what he does for a living. That makes you a liar.
Maybe you should talk to your buddy Jim Carrey and tell him that he's wrong to suggest that babies shouldn't get the tetanus vaccine because babies even here in the states can get tetanus and have contracted it here from a mosquito bite.
You think you haven't killed any babies yet, but you don't know if some mom in Tennessee or New Jersey lost her baby or her child lost it's hearing to a vaccine preventable disease because of your scaremongering.
You seem to skip over the fact that you were very helpful in the killing of Eliza Jane Scovill. Are you going to go for some more deaths like hers in Africa? Are you going to tell those Africans, that they should take some herbs for their HIV infections like your website says? How very helpful you are. Will you tell them to avoid Ma Huang because it takes away their energy? Where'd you get that little gem, Dr. Jay, from Sapphire-Morningstar the indigo guru down at Santa Monica's Holistick Herb Shoppe and Zen Emporium? Or is it the ghost of Eliza Jane Scovill who returns from beyond and gives you these tips? And why blame obesity on just one food type? Why aren't you blaming beef, pork, chicken, tofu, potato chips, candy bars and soda?
Orac and the guys--
It's too late at night to address all those non sequitors. I'll give it a try tomorrow.
But, those kids did not have polio. They had the finding of exposure to oral polio vaccine. Check the CDC data for confirmation. Not the story, which is poorly written and intentionally ambiguous, but the actual record of the number of cases in the USA that year.
And, saying, "A Statement of Fact Cannot be Insolent" doesn't make it so. Rude nasty posts are just plain insolent even when they have a few facts or bits of truth. And the anonymity of the Internet and a high degree of disagreement don't justify the viscious ad hominem attacks and the absurdly rude comments.
Jay
Jay,
Just as an exercise I'm going to respond using the CDC report on the polio cases in Minnesota mentioned earlier (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm54d1014a1.htm).
As the report points out, the infection was preventable: the current IPV (Inactivated Polio Vaccine) confers protection from OPV-derived polio, as well the "wild" counterpart. Indeed, that's part of the reason for the move to this vaccine, as previously pointed out.
Regardless of the source of the virus, they were poliovirus infections and they were vaccine-preventable with the current vaccine.
Just because it didn't cause "full blown" polio in the observed cases, doesn't mean it won't or can't. I'm not familiar with the poliovirus subtypes and their risk profiles, but the CDC report mentions that past experience shows the potential for wider transmission and paralytic disease. (Had they occured, any further transmission and diseases cases would be limited to unvaccinated individuals and those with immune system issues in contact with infected individuals.)
Just more thoughts ;-)
And just because a pediatrician to the stars whines about everyone being so very, very mean to him doesn't make it so, either. Sometimes certain pediatricians richly deserve what they get--particularly when one of them doesn't even have "a few facts or bits of the truth" to back up his misinformation and can't be bothered to support what he says with--oh, say--actual studies from the scientific literature. Say outrageously stupid things, such as playing the "toxins" and "formaldehyde" gambit about vaccines in an interview for a national publication, and you deserve abuse--especially since you still apparently can't seem to understand or acknowledge just why the "toxins" and "formaldehyde" gambits are such egregious examples of scientific ignorance and instead bob and weave and manufacture straw men.
As for the "anonymity" whine, I keep telling you, Dr. Jay: Be very, very careful what you ask for. One day, sooner than you may think, I may very well take away your excuse to dismiss me because of anonymity. (Never mind that you know who I am, as do a significant minority of my readers.) Then you'll have to answer the science or be shown to be a poseur.
Dave--
This is just what I talking about. Instead of addressing the issues, you cloud them and call me "stupid" and a "whiner." I'm not stupid and I'm not whining. I just disagree with you. Your name-calling is just plain rude and uncalled for.
Honestly, you're the one who doesn't have the facts at hand or you wouldn't resort to persistent nastiness. Just talk to me.
Jay
Yup -- he's been fisked eight ways from Sunday and so he's going to rise above all the "non sequitors" [sic].
Any takers on whether he actually comes back? Any takers on whether, if he does, he selectively responds to only the ones he can tackle as straw men?
No, I called what you said stupid (there's a difference), and you are whining. Remember when I said this to you:
I meant it then, and I mean it now. I did think you were smarter than that. However, despite my optimism, you appear to be doing everything in your power to disabuse me of that view. You also appear to be having a very hard time distinguishing criticism of what you say with criticism of you personally.
Let's look at what I just said:
Again, what I am saying is nothing more than that what you are saying is scientifically incorrect--outrageously so--and that you should be prepared to take the consequences for spouting so much misinformation. (And you have manufactured a number of straw men in this comment thread.) One of those consequences of saying outrageously erroneous things is blunt criticism. Hiding behind the "you-big-anonymous-meanie" defense is lame.
As for "who has the facts," well, when you accused me of not having the facts, you destroyed yet another of my irony meters. I have yet to see you present in a coherent fashion anything resembling science supporting your view. All you have is anecdotes and slogans.
Dr. Gordon,
1. Please address the possible role of diagnostic substitution in the increased diagnoses of autism.
2. What reliable evidence (meaning scientific, not anecdotal) have you seen that the incidence of severe adverse effects of vaccines outweighs the incidence of diseases such as measles. And you have to take into account the fact that these diseases will come back if vaccinations stop.
3. You still haven't addressed the difference between IV and IM injections and how that can affect the toxicity of vaccine additives. Or is the statement "injected into the bloodstream" just used to sensationalize your argument?
Dr. Jay, the "rudeness" directed at you here and elsewhere is a consequence of our stepping outside the bounds of science and marketing yourself as herbologist to the stars. It's like you deliberately wandered off the UCLA quad and marched into Compton, waving your Glock and talking trash. Different rules, dude.
My mother told me about a scary video email she received showing a few cellphones causing a popcorn kernel to pop. When I explained to her why it was physically impossible, she told me I was being rude and I should watch the video before I made up my mind.
Maybe there is a kernel of truth to some of your pop science, Jay, but I'll have to take it with a grain of salt.
When you step into the autism field, you have to be a grown-up and that means expecting harsh criticism. If you are going to go on Larry King Live and support an anti-science position, you have to be able to take it. If you are going to make money and get the narcissistic gratification that comes with media exposure, you have to expect people to oppose you, and to oppose you strongly. The anti-vaxers intimidate and bully. They can dish it out. They should be able to take it. I have no sympathy for Jay Gordon's defensiveness and whining.
So Dr. Jay, are you against Gardasil like Generation Rescue's JB Handley and our fellow bunny Jenny is? Do you think it could save the lives of bunnies who bed hop like Jenny has? If Jenny got AIDS would you tell her to take herbs or prescription medication? If a bunny had AIDS and had a baby should she breastfeed her baby and take herbs?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Maggiore
That is seriously corny. You'll have to do butter next time.
Jay said The chickenpox vaccine was invented for immunoincompetent children and adults and the vaccine is doing more harm than good as it's being used now.
Evidence of harm being what?
I had a tenant with two healthy girls, no known immunodeficiency, well nourished ... the older one acquired chickenpox at school and ended up in PedsICU because her throat was clogged with pox and she couldn't breathe. No sooner was she out of the woods than her younger sister was hospitalized for the same reason. Both girls were convalescing for a few months ... miserable, short of breath, and terrified that it would come back.
What do you tell a mother after that, especially if she asked your porfessional opinion and you said, "the vaccine does more harm than good."?
Imagine what would have happened to Eliza Jane Scovill if she had encountered measles or chickenpox in her final days. She would have died that much quicker, and in part because people like Dr. Jay are discouraging vaccines and keeping the germs circulating to ever larger groups. Jay you are no help to the people of your community and other communities that have immunocompromised kids & adults! You, Jenny McCarthy, Jim Carrey and JB Handley are signing their death sentences by attacking vaccines.
Hi Dr. Gordon,
On your website there's a video ad for your "Vaccinations" book.
In the video, I noticed a slide that contained the following:
Autism by the Numbers:
U.S. and Europe
USA - 1980'S: 1-2 per 10,000
USA - Late 1990's: 1 in 500
USA - 2000: 1 in 250
USA - 2004: 1 in 166
Given that the video is not much more than a short advertisement, if you mention the changes in diagnositic critera as well of the very definition of "autism," it's not evident in the clip.
Aside from diagnostic substitution, earlier diagnosis, increased awareness, and better recognition, etc., from a scientific perspective, to what degree do you think the following changes impact the numbers you have presented?
1. Autism was first added to the DSM in 1980.
2. PDD-NOS was added to the DSM in 1987.
3. The criteria for autism was changed (greatly broadened) in 1994.
4. Aspergers's Syndrome was added to the DSM in 1994.
In formulating a response, please keep in mind that the numbers you presented are for all autism spectrum disorders (which were not even all acknowledged in terms of diagnosis until well into the 1990's. Also, please keep in mind that two-thirds of the estimated prevalence of "autism" is PDD-NOS and Asperger's, according to current epidemiology.
Given that the numbers you present in this slide cover a wide range of changing diagnostic criteria, are they even meaningfully comparable?
Your best scientific response would be most appreciated.
Sessions, I can never remember how to spell "non sequitur" and my Spell Check failed me. Thanks.
So . . . drop the formaldehyde stuff? OK. Can I have the rest then?
I'm sure that your comments, Ozzy and Do'C are correct: The revision of diagnostic criteria and registering of autism cases in various countries has made gathering data difficult and I use the numbers that suit my case. Are there sources that you consider more meaningful? Do you think that the "1/150" number is accurate or exaggerated?
"Those who who about to die" and Tsu Dho, I think that the we are taking a relatively benign childhood illness and transferring it into adulthood. I can't predict the future but I think we'll regret this. Yes, just as I claim that vaccines can lead to tragic consequences, so can these diseases. My denying that would be dishonest. I think that disease incidence is so low in many instances, that there has to be strong consideration of the possible side effects of all medications including vaccines.
Jay
Jay, you ignorant slut. You go around publicly scaring parents about formaldehyde and now you want to take it back? Your problem is that you were doing harm by spreading misinformation, now you think "never mind" can reverse that??
You just use the numbers that suit you??!! Do you realize how shocking that admission is? Lives are at stake, and you are just winging it!
We still await your analysis of the risk/benefit ratios for vaccines. If medical lit. confuses you, try this for starters- measles, it's no joke: http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2008/04/measlesits_no_joke.php
Jay: You say "drop the formaldehyde stuff?" Surely, the correct thing to do is get the story straight before you tell all and sundry? Its part of the "honesty" point a few of us mentioned earlier. Prometheus put it better than me: "Science - as practiced by real scientists - is foremost a means of not fooling ourselves into seeing what we want to see." (I have a feeling that this close to some words from Feynmans' "Cargo Cult" Lecture, it certainly conveys the same meaning. Wouldn't do you any harm reading that, for that matter: its easy enough to find via google.)
As for "the rest", I think some of your other points have been addressed by others earlier.
How many people are there including infants who are not well equipped to face chickenpox and measles? Are you not concerned with protecting them? What data do you have that shows that a childhood disease is being shifted to adulthood and that that is worse than allowing small children with immune deficits, identified or not, to die of chickenpox because their playmates are getting chickenpox? Why is it more dangerous for a 3 month old to get a diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus vaccine than to risk being exposed to diphtheria, pertussis or tetanus. We know that pertussis can kill a 3 month old. Why not do something to make that less likely, and why not keep every baby, even those that might survive pertussis, from becoming a spreader of pertussis?
Your thinking works out fine usually if the herd immunity around your pampered clients remains high. It fails your patients if they run into an au pair, hairdresser, grandmother or mosquito carrying the disease.
What is your advice going to be to Africans with HIV? Should the mothers breastfeed their babies and take herbs or nothing for their HIV like Eliza's mother?
Have the African authorities in the country to which you are traveling informed you that you will need to be quarantined once you get there because you are in constant contact with unvaccinated children which may mean you will be bringing a vaccine preventable disease with you to their shores?
You want the rest? Sure!
Would you like to start with antifreeze?
Maybe you'd prefer to explain the horrible hazards of sucrose?
It's a long list you've been using to frighten parents, and we have time.
TATDSY ... Your thinking works out fine usually if the herd immunity around your pampered clients remains high. It fails your patients if they run into an au pair, hairdresser, grandmother or mosquito carrying the disease.
Or a friend's pampered child coming back from a class trip to Europe. Switzerland? The Netherlands? Austria? England? They all have endemic measles.
Maybe a sailing trip to Whidby Island near Seattle could do it? They have a community outbreak of pertussis going strong this summer.
Re: "antifreeze" in vaccines
None.
Anti-freeze is a mixture of water and ethylene glycol with trace amounts of marker dye(s) and other "additives". There is no ethylene glycol in any vaccine.
There are, however, a few vaccines that contain small amounts of polyethylene glycol - a waxy solid that is used to precipitate and concentrate viruses.
The similarity between ethylene glycol (a compound that is "toxic" in larger amounts - with a no observable adverse effect level (NOAEL) = 40 mg/kg/day; about 120 mg per day in a newborn infant) and polyethylene glycol (found in a variety of foods, drugs and cosmetics) is the same as the similarity between ethylene (a flammable gas) and polyethylene (a waxy plastic used to make impermeable food containers and cutting boards).
The vaccine fear-mongers really need to get some competent scientific advisors - this is Chemistry 101 stuff.
Prometheus
Dr. Gordon wrote: "The revision of diagnostic criteria and registering of autism cases in various countries has made gathering data difficult and I use the numbers that suit my case. Are there sources that you consider more meaningful? Do you think that the "1/150" number is accurate or exaggerated?"
How about a stab at the actual questions Dr. Gordon?
I'll repeat it for you.
Aside from diagnostic substitution, earlier diagnosis, increased awareness, and better recognition, etc., from a scientific perspective, to what degree do you think the following changes impact the numbers you have presented?
1. Autism was first added to the DSM in 1980.
2. PDD-NOS was added to the DSM in 1987.
3. The criteria for autism was changed (greatly broadened) in 1994.
4. Aspergers's Syndrome was added to the DSM in 1994.
In formulating a response, please keep in mind that the numbers you presented are for all autism spectrum disorders (which were not even all acknowledged in terms of diagnosis until well into the 1990's. Also, please keep in mind that two-thirds of the estimated prevalence of "autism" is PDD-NOS and Asperger's, according to current epidemiology.
Given that the numbers you present in this slide cover a wide range of changing diagnostic criteria, are they even meaningfully comparable?
Your best scientific response would be most appreciated.
In an effort to be sensitive of your time, you could certainly answer the questions in the following way.
1. The changes in diagnostic criteria do have an impact, the changes in diagnostic criteria do not have an impact, I don't know what impact the changes in criteria would have, or I don't understand the question.
2. The data are meaningfully comparable, the data are not meaningfully comparable, I don't know if the data are meaningfully comparable, or I don't understand the question.
To answer simply: Yes, the changes in diagnostic criteria do have an impact and make comparisons more difficult. However, I don't agree that the data are not meaningfully criteria.
But, the wall is beginning to crack as this evening CBS News story began revealing the conflicts of interest in the vaccine promoters' world. They are shameless.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/25/cbsnews_investigates/main4296…
Jay
Dr. Gordon is just foolish and immature. The remarks he has made recently on a listserve, showing utter glee over CBS's hit job on Offit, are immature, and unprofessional.
Jay,
That story doesn't report any actual conflicts of interest, only things that might be, in fact it says just that itself: "risk for conflicts of interest" (my emphasis). Not actual conflicts, risk for conflict. You could do this for any number of perfectly innocent people.
The conflicts don't lie in the money itself, they lie in obligations "tied" to the money.
Calling holding a patent a conflict is silly if you understand how these things are developed.
All this article amounts to is trying to fluff up "what if", "possibly", "could it be" into a story. But then, that's the mainstream media for you... they're happy to "use" things like this. (Seriously: have you ever considered that they are using you in the same cynical way?)
Earlier you objected to people being rude to you, but I note that you haven't replied to those that haven't been rude to you, but who have raised serious concerns. My usual response to people selectively replying in this sort of situation is to consider that the concerns raised, but not addressed, are likely to be legitimate, and that the person asked isn't answering, because they have no answer (i.e., they're sidestepping these issues). Maybe its just my reading of it, but I'd like to think that others see it this way too.
So the fact the Dr. Offit has created a vaccine that will save hundreds of thousands of lives, easily, fills Dr. Jay Gordon with ... awe? respect? gratitude that fewer infants will die or be hospitalized with a rotavirus infection?
No, it makes Dr. Gordon go all bubbling with glee, and giddy with hate, and what is that other thing, simpering envy? Envy because Dr. Gordon only helping to kill children by discouraging their parents from using medical advances (remember Eliza Jane Scovill) and will never do anything as good as creating a new vaccine to save many lives. This is the post he titled, "I'M TIRED OF THE DISRESPECT FOR DR PAUL OFFIT" not the screaming all-caps.
"From: Jay Gordon
Date: Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 7:44 PM
Subject: [JennyDCAutismRally] I'M TIRED OF THE DISRESPECT FOR DR PAUL OFFIT
To: JennyDCAutismRally@yahoogroups.com
Dr. Offit is a tireless advocate of vaccination and a respected medical authority.
I am tired of hearing people refer to Dr. Offit as a "shill" and a dishonest profiteer willing to lie repeatedly. I tired of hearing people on this list imply that he lacks integrity, hides his profits and is a disgustingly disingenuous man.
Actually, I've decided I'll never tire of people say those things about Dr. Offit. Carry on!!!"
Perhaps it's time for Dr. Offit to investigate the possibility of suing people for defamation and slander.
Dr. Paul Offit is a whore. He makes money off vaccines. He's in bed with the vaccine makers. He's a walking conflict of interest.
I like Dr. Gordon, but have no idea why he is wrestling with these inarticulate, unscientific bozos on this blog (run by a goofy, inconsequential, mediocre cancer surgeon)
Simple concept: The idea of a vaccine is great. Who wouldn't want a simple pill to ward off evil future germs.
Once the idea of a vaccine, however, is translated into concrete action, affecting real, concrete people, amazing things happen -- the benefits wane, the costs wax.
Typo alert: "note the screaming all-caps."
In the real world the numbers of children with rotavirus infections in this country have been dropping precipitously since the recent introduction of the rotavirus vaccine. This angers the antivaxers who want to see babies die and be buried naturally without "unnatural" vaccines. Witness Ky Sanderson's hate of Paul Offit whose vaccine has already saved many children in this country from being hospitalized. Whoring his MD degree is what Jay Gordon does best, that's why he surrounds him self with people like Jenny McCarthy, he's at home with them.
I don't hate Paul Offit, you twerp. I'm just calling them like I see them. We're all whores to some extent. We all know where our bread is buttered.
But, the worst are these sanctimonious, white-smocked hypocrits like Offit. Every word, phrase or sentence out of his mouth on any medical or scientific matter, should be: "Hi, I'm Paul. I make lotsa $$ when you buy vaccines. Now, let me examine the medical costs and benefits of..........
You may be a whore to some extent. I am not. Do you think that you can prove that Offit's main interest was some cash (we don't know how much) as opposed to making life difficult for the rotaviruses in your neighborhood and mine? Do you realize that they found an apparent effect that looks like herd immunity when they introduced the rotavirus vaccine? It appears that the children who would have had infections and diarrhea (messy stuff, ever seen it?) are not passing the infection around to their peers. How many infants are being taken care of in day care?
If you didn't hate Paul Offit, you twerp, you would have looked into what good the vaccine is doing now and thank him for working for years on figuring out how to outsmart this deadly germ. Now to get it out to millions of infants who don't have the luxury of going to a hospital if they are infected. They just die, like dead little baby twerps who break their mothers' hearts by lying there all blue and dead.
The rotavirus? The effing rotavirus?!!? Are you kidding me?
Who gives a rat's ass about the rotavirus?
From the CDC:
From 1979 through 1985, an average of 500 children died annually from diarrheal disease in the United States (5); an estimated 20% of these deaths were caused by rotavirus infection (3).
Umm, that's an "estimated" 100/year in a population of 250 Million -- not so high, eh?
Now, in poor countries, viruses are much more opportunistic. You need to give those folks food and water and basic hygiene and infrastructure to make a medical dent. That takes time and money. Wealth breeds health -- sad but true. But you're too dumb and inexperienced to understand that, Twerp.
I realize it's just wikipedia, but it's smarter than you Ky, way smarter:
"Rotavirus A, which accounts for more than 90% of rotavirus gastroenteritis in humans,[59] is endemic worldwide. Each year rotavirus causes millions of cases of diarrhoea in developing countries, almost 2 million resulting in hospitalisation[7] and an estimated 611,000 resulting in death.[60] In the United States alone, over 2.7 million cases of rotavirus gastroenteritis occur annually, 60,000 children are hospitalised and around 37 die from the results of the infection.[10]"
The number of hospitalizations here is dropping off since the very recent introduction of the rotavirus vaccine.
If they feed and give clean water to all the world, and don't provide easy and quick access to hospitals babies would still die of rotavirus. If you give everyone on the planet proper food and water and free and easy access to state of the art hospitals, babies will still die of rotavirus and many will still spend days in the hospital. Apparently that would be fine with you twerp.
So lets thank Dr. Offit for trying to put a dent in the harm done by rotavirus instead of playing judge and jury instead of deciding that he only invented the vaccine to make money and actually harm children because he's working with the international Jewish bankers and the alien-half-breed rulers of the world.
Dork. :p
Dr. Offit is dishonest about his conflicts of interest. They should be revealed much more clearly. He is making millions of dollars. Possibly tens of millions of dollars from the use of a vaccine he's promoting. This is NOT illegal, but it's not proper.
Rotavirus is NOT a dangerous virus in developed countries and the disease incidence and mortality figures you're quoting could be used in the discussion of many, many viral illnesses. Appropriate medical care for most viral illnesses leads to uncomplicated resolution.
Yes, I believe that this vaccine could save lives in Third World countries but the cost of the vaccine far exceeds the annual per capita income of most of those families. I'm sorry I don't have a Wikipedia quote to back that up.
And, yes, I am happy as hell that CBS revealed that the AAP, Offit and others have extreme conflicts of interest which are inadequately revealed. The way I posted this on a listserv was juvenile and a semi-clever attempt aimed at the member of that listserv. I don't regret it for one moment.
Heraclides, you are correct. I haven't adequately addressed your responses. As we all know, if you remain on staff at a hospital affiliated with a medical school you can apply for a variety of important-sounding titles. I think I'll use greater care in calling myself by a title which might mislead. I am an experienced pediatrician in private practice on staff at four hospitals in the Los Angeles area. I am very well trained and a member in good standing of the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Defining science the way you'd like might be at odds with others' definitions. On the same basis, I disagree with the founding motto of this blog: A statement of fact certainly CAN be insolent.
When one works in a particular field or discipline for some decades the accumulated wisdom, experience and anecdotes are valuable.
I would argue that this aggregation of wisdom is more valuable that most randomized double-blind control studies. These studies often last six months or a few years before they are completely refuted and overturned by the next RDBC study.
Ky, I thank you for your support. Orac, again, thanks for the superb post about Steve Jobs. I would appreciate help in using the HTML tags that work here. The ones I've tried don't do what I expected them to. Thanks.
Jay
INSOLENT:
insulting in manner or words; rude
impudent: marked by casual disrespect; "a flip answer to serious question"; "the student was kept in for impudent behavior"
Boldly rude or disrespectful; contemptuously impertinent; insulting
1. Presumptuous and insulting in manner or speech; arrogant.
2. Audaciously rude or disrespectful; impertinent.
HEY! Many of the statements of facts on this site are really insolent. They are also far, far, far from respectful in most cases.
Jay
Right, JJ. Now you are giving others lessons on what is rude?
"Dr. Offit is a tireless advocate of vaccination and a respected medical authority.
I am tired of hearing people refer to Dr. Offit as a "shill" and a dishonest profiteer willing to lie repeatedly. I tired of hearing people on this list imply that he lacks integrity, hides his profits and is a disgustingly disingenuous man.
Actually, I've decided I'll never tire of people say those things about Dr. Offit. Carry on!!"
What is this? Rude? Yes. Insolent? Yes. Factual? No, it's without any support. Incendiary? Yes. Libelous? You bet your botox treatments JJ. Good thing you have a lawyer in case Dr. Offit thinks so, too.
Apparently you'd rather keep making money as a pediatrician visiting babies in the hospital after they've contracted a rotavirus infection. Never mind the suffering caused by a bout with rotavirus even in a best case scenario. No skin off of your behind, JJ. Convincing people to refuse vaccines, what do they call that? Job security? A dependable income to make sure you have the dough to make those payments to the plastic surgeon?
Saying things that can lead to the deaths of people while faking being polite does not mean you are a mensch, sonny. It means you are a fake and a misanthrope.
"Dr. Offit is dishonest about his conflicts of interest. They should be revealed much more clearly. He is making millions of dollars. Possibly tens of millions of dollars from the use of a vaccine he's promoting. This is NOT illegal, but it's not proper."
I would gather profiting from an invention you developed is not proper to you. Bizarre. (You made a DVD apparently, didn't you intend to make a profit from it?)
But more importantly, you're shifting conflict from what it is, to what its not. (I previously addressed this, but you seem to have overlooked it. Deliberately or not I have no way of knowing.) Money itself isn't conflict.
As a practical matter, if the deal is any like those I know personally, it will be the university or his institution that gets the lion's share, not Dr. Offit.
With all this in mind, your statement is way off base.
But lets compare this with yourself. You said that you don't aren't an expert in the relevant science, yet you seem happy to tell people what is "right" without sound evidence. To me, that's thoroughly dishonest. Its not proper either. Whether its illegal or not would depend on how the fraud laws in your state work.
"Rotavirus is NOT a dangerous virus in developed countries and the disease incidence and mortality figures you're quoting could be used in the discussion of many, many viral illnesses. Appropriate medical care for most viral illnesses leads to uncomplicated resolution."
Leaving aside your playing down of the effects, some illnesses can be detrimental without killing, as you will certainly know. Do you think you think that all your treatments for things that are certainly not going to kill are worthless? And that pre-emptive alternatives for the same worthless, too? The vaccines would have to be worth at least as much as the alternatives, plus some more for long-term prevention. Doesn't the cliché go "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"? Your argument here is a contradiction in terms.
"that CBS revealed that the AAP, Offit and others have extreme conflicts of interest" No, it didn't as I and others have already pointed out.
"I haven't adequately addressed your responses." I wasn't asking for responses to my posts actually, but to the others in a similar position.
"I am very well trained and a member in good standing of the American Academy of Pediatrics." Others should be the judge of that; your statement by itself is moot. It also isn't relevant when applied off your patch: you already said you aren't an expert in the relevant sciences. Being good at one thing doesn't grant yourself the right to being an expert at another. (And "experienced" doesn't stop you from later going off the rails. Even a few Nobel laureates have.)
"Defining science the way you'd like might be at odds with others' definitions." I didn't define science, I highlighted an element considered important. I'm hardly the only one who considers this honesty important in science, even in this thread. Its for scientists to define what is important in science, not non-scientists such as yourself. Incidentally, its the same as Feynman's view. Isn't Feynman a good enough scientist for you?
I have to admit this remark reads like a convenient dismissal to get rid off the logic that would hold you as being dishonest. But you should remember that you effectively declared your dishonesty, not me, by admitting that you aren't an expert in the relevant sciences.
"When one works in a particular field or discipline for some decades the accumulated wisdom, experience and anecdotes are valuable." But extremely limited, too. That's why most doctors limit this type of knowledge to hypothesis or "case history" articles in medical journals, not to conclusive views dished out to the public. They recognise the limits of "anecdotal wisdom". I would venture that you appear to have lost recognition of that. Perhaps the siren call of the media is too strong for a susceptible ego: who knows?
"I would argue that this aggregation of wisdom is more valuable that most randomized double-blind control studies." History would prove you wrong. The history of medicine is replete with examples. (Isn't that your patch?) Anecdotal "wisdom" lead medics of an earlier era to do some things considered extremely "odd" today (to be overly polite about it).
Controlled studies show that anecdote-based beliefs can be quite misleading. Hypotheses, such as is all that can derived from anecdotal "wisdom", remain hypotheses until confirmed by controlled studies.
"help in using the HTML tags that work here" Forgive me, I had a laugh at this. Its not that you don't really know HTML. That's OK, its no great shame (to most people, anyway). But why do you feel the need to hide this with "don't work here"? I can't help but wonder if this reflects your personality, possibly an element of what is behind all of this (but then pop psychology is trite). Try give you credit as I might, you're coming across to me as having a runaway train of an ego that denies all your errors and shortcomings.
Now I'm getting even wordier than Orac. Well, OK, not quite as wordy. (Excuse me, Orac!)
So you tell us that your personal experience, with the cumulative weight of decades of experience, outweighs fundamental science and controlled studies.
That being so, I trust that you will accept the wisdom of millennia of clinical experience and adopt the time-proven methods of the 18th century: bleeding, purging, etc. They have, after all, vastly more clinical observation behind them than your own brief years.
I'm also going to say that Dr Jay Gordon can't have the rest by default if he agrees to cede the baseless grounds for scaremongering about the formaledehyde (however, I do hope that he will soon publish that retraction on his website, issue errata slips for any books etc.).
A useful addition to this toxins post is this mention of the toxicokinetics of aluminium/aluminum in vaccines and the comparative exposure from diet and vaccines.
As for measles-I don't know the number of cases in the outbreak but Professor Margaret Stanley recently commented:
There has been an outbreak of measles in Antwerp: from the reports, at the heart of it is a anti-vax, homeopathic doctor who is threatening to sue anyone who names him/her. That person is reported to be very free with comments on the evils of Big Pharma and the alleged profit motive of vaccines v. the negligible impact of preventable childhood illnesses.
Attkisson is a Kool Aid drinker who apparently believes that vaccines have something to do with autism. She's also not very bright, because she's prone to using some really dumb logical fallacies and misstatements of science--not unlike the level of dumb represented by the formaldehyde or "toxins" gambit, Dr. Jay. See this link for some examples:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/06/antivaccination_crankery_on_t…
How callous. I'm sure their parents cared very much. What an asshole you are.
However, just because in the wealthy, comfy U.S. "only" 100 children a year die of rotavirus doesn't mean diarrheal diseases aren't a huge problem. In fact, over 1.5 million children a year die of diarrheal diseases in developing nations. If even only 10% of those are rotavirus, that's 150,000 a year.
In other words, Ky, you're a moron.
I'm all for transparency, and I disagree that Offit has been in the least bit dishonest about his conflicts of interest.
However, speaking of conflicts of interest, how about these? How much are Mark and David Geier making off of their chelation therapy, Lupron protocol, and their consulting for vaccine lawsuits, eh? Or how about Wakefield, who not only received hundreds of thousands of pounds from law firms that sue vaccine manufacturers, but received them while he was doing his "research" that led up to his infamous 1998 Lancet article, yet was not disclosed until early 2007?
Why aren't you railing against that far more blatant conflict of interest than anything Offit's ever been accused of?
Here's a another story of a very interesting undisclosed conflict of interest:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/05/some_monkey_business_in_autis…
The principal investigator of the execrable trial described above is not only a plaintiff in the Autism Omnibus and has a husband who works for Paul Offit, but apparently she never disclosed her status as a litigant when she submitted her abstract.
Here's the deal, Dr. Jay. Almost everyone has conflicts of interest in science. The general principle to be followed in evaluating them is that undisclosed conflicts of interest are far, far more worrisome than disclosed conflicts of interest. Dr. Offit has, as far a I can tell, disclosed all of his potential conflicts of interest. He's very up front about it, and people can judge how important they are for themselves. The anti-vaccine brigade is rife with undiscloised conflicts of interest. Indeed, I'd love to see Attkisson do a followup companion piece on the undisclosed potential conflicts of interest among the anti-vaccine brigade, but that will never happen, even though it would be a very interesting story. She's drunk the Kool Aid.
And so have you. You rail against Paul Offit's publicly acknowledged potential conflicts of interest but remain silent on those among your buddies.
By the way, Dr. Gordon, are you willing to disclose how much you make giving talks and doing rallies for the antivaccine movement?
Ah, yes, the infamous "appeal to other ways of knowing" or the "science doesn't know everything" gambit in defense of pseudoscience! Very good, Dr. Jay. You're learning to become a woo-meister.
I therefore agree with D.C.: If your clinical experience trumps science, then you really must adopt purging, bloodletting, and the laying on of hands in your practice forthwith!
"The way I posted this on a listserv was juvenile. . ."
At least Dr. Gordon admits he's juvenile. I'd give him some points for that. But then he defends being juvenile! I'm confused. He seems to have no shame. But then he comes on this site and digs himself deeper. Dr. Jay, are you a good model for how a physician is supposed to carry himself? Don't you care that you look unprofessional? Just compare your own behavior with those of your peers.
Doesn't that depend on the "peers" in question?
The answer you get depends on whether you consider those "peers" to be Drs. Geier, Wakefield, etc. or whether they are the glitterati who pay for the fame and lifestyle.
Jay- a quick trawl through the uspto.gov database reveals that Offit's patents on rotavirus are assigned to two non-profit organizations. The ones he works for, the ones his labs are in.
Inventors: Clark; H Fred (Philadelphia, PA), Offit; Paul (Philadelphia, PA), Plotkin; Stanley A. (Doylestown, PA)
Assignee: The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (Philadelphia, PA)
The Winstar Institute of Anatomy and Biology (Philadelphia, PA)
The way these deals usually work is that the researcher is an employee of the institute, and by termsofthe employment contract assigns any patentable discoveries to the institute. There may or may not be a sharing of income from licensing that is done by the institute, that's not part of the patent application.
I would be very surprised if Offit made more than a few thousand dollars a year from his patents.
Actually, I wouldn't be. In order to keep top researchers, universities often make the profit-sharing a bit more equitable. The usual split is that the university gets half to three-quarters, and the investigator gets the rest.
"The principal investigator of the execrable trial described above is not only a plaintiff in the Autism Omnibus and has a husband who works for Paul Offit..."
Orac, I suspect that you meant "works for Thoughtful House."
Patents? Conflict of interest?
I am personally (you can look this up) the inventor or co-inventor of more than 20 inventions patented in the United States. I don't make a dime from the sale of any products based on them.
As for Dr. Offit's rotavirus vaccine patent, it was licensed at a fixed sum by the assignees (two nonprofits). The terms, as best I can tell, do not include any share of sales or profits so Dr. Offit, like me, has no financial interest in those sales.
Of course, he has even less interest in MMR, DTaP, etc.
Jay - says he is a member in good standing of the American Academy of Pediatrics. Isn't that a conflict of interest? After all, they are funded by Big Pharma, and we know that Big Pharma is eeeevul.
D'oh!
Although it would be really funny if her husband did work for Paul Offit!
Heh.
Of course, that means Dr. Jay's dues are going to help fund all those pro-vaccine activities that he so hates...
I wonder if Dr. Jay will cancel his membership in AAP immediately, the better to avoid the horrific taint of that organization! :-)
Dr. Gordon, I'd be interested to hear your opinion about Dr. Jon Poling's failure to disclose his status as a VICP petitioner in the paper he co-authored with Dr. Andrew Zimmerman and Dr. John Shoffner, which he eventually offered as evidence in his claim.
Excellent example, and one that I forgot to mention in my previous comment!
Jay says, "I would argue that this aggregation of wisdom is more valuable that most randomized double-blind control studies."
If you like aggreation of wisdom in your medicine, it's too bad you aren't a gynecologist. You could do all those "wisdom of the ancients" things like fumigating wombs: For cancer, Hippocrates directs to try the effect of fumigating the womb by introducing into it a pipe attached to a pot. Steams from garlic and the fat of seals are to be applied in this manner.
Now using the "fat of seals" is going to attract the wrath of various groups, but it's ancient wisdom. They'll understand.
ORAC writes:
<
The "anti-vaccine paid shill gambit" ORAC!!! I love it
I committed to speak at the Washington D.C. rally a couple months before the event. Whether you agree or disagree, there are many families who feel that they're not being heard. Of course, the rally's sponsors offered to pay for my airfare and expenses. I declined. I bought my own airline tickets and paid my own expenses. I cancelled two days in the office and have calculated that the trip cost me upwards of $7000. Last Saturday, I spoke at a fundraiser at Jim Carrey's house. Again, I declined to accept any honorarium or money of any kind. I believe that we can improve vaccines and the way we vaccinate and I don't want to profit from this endeavor. The vaccine DVD was made from out of pocket funds, has not and probably never will show a profit.
This week, for the first time ever, I was asked to review a vaccine injury case. I agreed. The condition being that I would not accept a fee of any sort.
I remain a member of the AAP because I hope to effect change from within the organization. I agree that I wish my dues and the AAP's activities weren't "tainted."
The hyperbole about blood letting and similar cliche's obfuscates the central issue of the value of experience and collected anecdotal evidence standing side by side with so-called "evidenced based medicine." We're all familiar with the recent scandals surrounding Dr. Biederman, Vioxx, Vytorin and other issues.
Jay
Ah, I see -- special pleading. The collected observations of a hundred generations of your predecessors can be dismissed in a sentence, but your own ad hoc observations trump the organized and cross-checked work of thousands of your contemporaries, despite your own self-described lack of expertise.
My, you are a Special Person indeed.
So how the hell do you spell the plural of cliche'????
Again, though, you resort to hyperbole and exaggeration. My observations do not "trump" everyone's research and thoughts and I am not arrogant or dumb enough to dismiss peer-reviewed research and others' ideas. My observations are worth consideration as are yours.
Ask ORAC if he has ever performed surgery using techniques he's developed which are at odds with the published peer-reviewed techniques. Every surgeon has. Every doctor uses medications for so-called "off label" indications based on personal and collected experience. Science does not have just one definition and one pathway.
And, dammit, please point me to an HTML guide for this site.
Jay
I have the utmost respect for Dr. Jay Gordon. He is honest, caring, and LISTENS to the parents.
My child WAS injured by vaccines last year. Let me tell you how irate I was to learn that he had been given Phenoxyethanol in his DTaP vaccine. In May of 2008, the FDA pulled Mommy's Bliss Nipple Cream from the market because they felt that even the slightest bit of ingestion of this ingredient may cause convulsions, respiratory distress, depression of the central nervous system and exzema. Yet, YOU DOCTORS DO NOT KNOW WHAT CAN CAUSE SIDS?! I am lucky that my child is with me today. He did suffer from convulsions from this vaccine (among other things).
Aluminum? The FDA feels that this ingredient is toxic (because too much at any given time will accumlulate in the brain) and humans are exposed to roughly 4 - 5 micrograms per day as it is. The FDA even set a limit on how much a human can receive daily via an intravenous solution - 25 micrograms! This ingredient has been shown to cause Parkinson's and Alzheimer's. What the heck do you think that 1,200 micrograms at any given time to an infant will do - long-term? According to the FDA's standards - even one vaccine is OVER THE LIMIT for anyone.
Formaldehyde - TRACE AMOUNTS IN VACCINES? I don't think so! My infant was given 100 micrograms of it each time he was given the DTaP vaccine. This is NOT TRACE! He was exposed to roughly 300 micrograms! This is currently being classified as a carcinogen by the EPA. Yet, it is in half of the vaccines on the market?! WHY!?
Well, imagine my surprise when I learned that the head of the FDA holds a lot of stock with the drug companies. No wonder why this person just approves everything. No sense in rocking the boat of affecting profits. Also, I was angry to learn that there were only 14 cases of Congenital Rubella Syndrome ONE YEAR before the vaccine came out in 1969. Even less in previous years. Was my hearing loss worth it? This vaccine almost killed me too.
My infant was injured by vaccines last year. He suffered from convulsions, congestion, developmental delays, regression in milestones, and high-pitched screaming. The extent of his injuries will not be known until the school years. I suffered from hearing loss from one vaccine last year - the Rubella. My 14 year old's right eye sustained nerve damage from the HEP B vaccine. My brother suffered from an unknown life-threatening mutated virus from all of his live-virus vaccines a few years earlier. My niece was KILLED by her 2 mo. vaccines. How dare you say that vaccine injuries are 1 in a million. That is a lie!
Dr. Jay Gordon deserves an award for his actions. The rest of you should be thrown in jail and heavily fined for your crimes.
Jay Gordon wrote "The hyperbole about blood letting and similar cliche's obfuscates the central issue of the value of experience and collected anecdotal evidence standing side by side with so-called "evidenced based medicine." We're all familiar with the recent scandals surrounding Dr. Biederman, Vioxx, Vytorin and other issues."
If I may add to D. C. Sessions inre special pleading-
As to so-called "EBM," a doctor I know likes to say "We only started to make progress when we realized that we were fooling ourselves." That is what you are doing (fooling yourself), your personal observations do not trump careful research.
As for the scandals you mention, it is important to realize that EBM/SBM is self correcting. Ignorance-based "medicine" is not.
Real browsers have a "page source" option (I have no idea whether yours does.)
That, and the "preview" button works.
When I wrote "As to so-called "EBM," a doctor I know likes to say "We only started to make progress when we realized that we were fooling ourselves.""
It might have been clearer if I wrote "As to the 'value of experience and collected anecdotal evidence' a doctor I know likes to say "We only started to make progress when we realized that we were fooling ourselves.""
The bottom line- anecdote, despite you wishes, is not on a par with controlled experiment.
Joe, I do not practice "ignorance-based" medicine.
And . . . I think I have finally figured out the HTML tags!
Jay
Dawn -
There is a considerable difference between getting 2.5mg of 2-Phenoxyethanol in an injection and consuming an unknown quantity of it every day, for months, by mouth because mommy has sore nipples.
BTW, it is used as a preservative in place of thimerosol ...
As for your "Yet, YOU DOCTORS DO NOT KNOW WHAT CAN CAUSE SIDS?! rant ... it's been known for quite a while that there are unexplained lapses in their regulation of body temperature and heart rate, and postmortem examinations suggested an association with defective signaling. A really recent report (July 08) on mice with a genetic instability in serotonin seemd to indicate that the association may be correct:
http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2008/07/03/sids-like-sympto…
I was angry to learn that there were only 14 cases of Congenital Rubella Syndrome ONE YEAR before the vaccine came out in 1969. So the thousands of miscarriages, stillbirths and congenital defects don't bother you?
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3447200490.html
"According to statistics for 1964-1965, prior to routine rubella immunization in the United States, there were 2,100 newborn deaths and 11,250 miscarriages attributed to rubella infection of pregnant women. In addition, about 20,000 infants were born with birth defects attributable to rubella infection in utero. Of these babies, 11,600 were born deaf; 3,580 were born blind; and 1,800 suffered severe developmental delay ."
Vaccines are administered neither daily nor intravenously.
Compared to the concentration naturally occuring in the blood, which is around 2 milligrams per litre.
Jay says, I am not arrogant or dumb enough to dismiss peer-reviewed research
So, Jay, what are you doing when you blather about "toxins" in vaccines, and lend support to groups who are dismissive of large international studies that do not show a causal link between vaccines and autism?
I'd call you a fellow traveller at best.
Hi Orac,
You write:
How callous. I'm sure their parents cared very much. What an asshole you are.
However, just because in the wealthy, comfy U.S. "only" 100 children a year die of rotavirus doesn't mean diarrheal diseases aren't a huge problem. In fact, over 1.5 million children a year die of diarrheal diseases in developing nations. If even only 10% of those are rotavirus, that's 150,000 a year.
Starfield from JAMA estimates that 225,000 patients/year die in the US just from bad doctors, toxic drugs and unsanitary hospitals.
So, compare mortality rates:
Rotavirus =100/year
Modern Medicine: 225,000/year (and still counting)
Who's the asshole now, Orac?
Still you.
"Joe, I do not practice "ignorance-based" medicine." Jay
Saying that formaldehyde in vaccines is dangerous is not based in ignorance??
We must not agree on what counts as ignorance ... A person who does not understand that the dose makes the poison is ignorant. And not knowing that the amount of formalin in vaccines is negligible, is ignorant.
Perhaps you can explain how I am wrong here. What am I missing?
Correction: You are what political groupscalla "UsefulIdiot"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot
D.C. Sessions writes: My, you are a Special Person indeed.
Maybe so, and so are you. I have Googled around and read some of your legal and IP related posts. I learned more in twenty minutes than I learned in the past ten years about those issues. Thanks. Also thanks for pointing me to "source" where I saw I was using the wrong symbol ([] instead of <>)
And, by the way, I have learned from those of you on this board to stop using formaldehyde as an exemplar of the problems with vaccines. I still feel that even miniscule amounts of certain chemicals injected in multiple vaccines could be dangerous, but there are far better examples than formalin.
The context for discussing rotavirus disease mortality is difficult. Certainly no one wants to discuss "acceptable loss" although we/you imply this in discussion of automobile use and deaths from accidents or modern medicine and the well-acknowledged iatrogenic deaths. My persistent request is to continue to elevate this discussion. Perhaps you think I have nothing valid to add to the debate by continuing to suggest that "experience-based" medicine can stand toe-to-toe with evidence based medicine but I'd like you to consider the possibility anyway.
And, D.C. how do you spell the plural of cliche'?
Jay
Tsu Dho Nimh:
You are sadly misinformed. Records were not kept on Congenital Rubella Syndrome until 1966. So, the bogus figures that you are looking at is just that - bogus. Like I said earlier - 14 cases of CRS according to government records in 1968. Even less cases were reported in 1967 and 1966. So, you need to check your sources because they are not accurate.
The CDC has ADMITTED that fewer that 10% of adverse reactions to vaccines are reported. Fewer than 1% of serious adverse reactions are ever reported either.
Long-term studies on vaccines have NEVER been done. The majority of chemicals used in vaccines have had horrible outcomes on lab animals.
Like I said earlier, people like you should go to jail for your crimes (whether you are a doctor or scientist). Parents like me are tired of your lies and misinformation that you are spreading.
Jay G. wrote "... I have learned from those of you on this board to stop using formaldehyde as an exemplar of the problems with vaccines. I still feel that even miniscule [sic] amounts of certain chemicals injected in multiple vaccines could be dangerous, ..."
So, on the one hand you realize you are grossly incorrect; but, on the other hand, you are not sure. Which is it?
Jay G. wrote "... "experience-based" medicine can stand toe-to-toe with evidence based medicine but I'd like you to consider the possibility anyway."
Jay, that possibility been considered, and rejected, for around a century. What part of "no" don't you understand.
Dawn said "You are sadly misinformed. Records were not kept on Congenital Rubella Syndrome until 1966"... actually they weren't really STARTED until 1966.
From http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/rubella.pdf ... "The largest annual total of cases
of rubella in the United States was in 1969, when 57,686
cases were reported (58 cases per 100,000 population)." ... and enlarged plot available at (munged URL) w w w .cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/Slides/Rubella10.ppt#13 (the plot starts at 1966)
And from http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/160/3/302 ... "In the United States, epidemics of rubella occurred every 8 to 11 years through the 20th century. The last major epidemic was in 1964 to 1965, when there were approximately 20 000 cases of CRS.57 For the period between 1969 and 2004, we used the estimated incidence of CRS as reported by the CDC." ...
Then it references MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2005;54:279-282 ... which is at (mung URL because I am at the limit of two): w w w .cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5411a5.htm
Rubella waxed and waned like lots of disease, and there was a major epidemic in the early 1960s(read "Deaf Like Me" by the Spradley brothers), which is perhaps why it required the CDC to officially count rubella. Just because they are not officially counting a disease does not make its effects less dreadful (Hib was not an officially reportable disease until there was a vaccine for it). Then in 1969 a vaccine was introduced, and rubella is now no longer endemic. What is the big surprise?
If we stopped vaccinating against rubella, then it will come back. Just like measles and mumps (and rubella) have returned to the UK and Japan. Why do you want that?
Again, Dr. Jay... are the "toxins" in the DTaP seriously worse than these:
tetanospasmin, tetanolysin, diphtheria toxin and pertussis toxin ?
The majority of these disease were pretty much eradicated PRIOR to each vaccine coming out according to the CDC. Even so, by vaccinating the age groups have been shifted nonetheless. You must look at the age groups affected by Rubella PRIOR to the vaccine coming on the market. That speaks volumes. As far as vaccinating for each disease, what we are actually doing is giving the patient the chronic, not acute form of the disease itself. So, in essence, the person would need to be revaccinated every 10 years or so for life. When you factor in all of the possible side effects (which are very real, very large numbers, and very concerning), which is worse - acquiring the disease naturally and building life-long immunity - or shooting yourself up with known neurotoxins? I think I will take my chances with the disease after everything my family has been through.
JG:
I hope not. Case counts, as long as you're Googling you can find my occasionally-posted definition.
The alternative interpretations aren't terribly flattering:
"I advocate ignorance-based medicine but don't practice what I preach" being the the least contorted.
If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. "Acceptable loss" may not be a pleasant topic but it's our responsibility as professionals to deal with it. It would appear that that is a responsibility that you have abdicated.
There is no plural of "cliche'," because there is no such word. The plural of the word you have in mind is "clichés" (hoping accents work here), though I doubt anyone would take issue with "cliches."
Who cares what you feel? How irresponsible does a physician have to be to base his actions and public statements on his feelings? I knew little about you prior to this, Dr. Gordon, but reading your comments here (particularly the one in which you ask about keeping the rest and admit to cherry-picking data to suit your purposes) has convinced me that you are without shame. And this "voice of civility" garbage is fooling no one. It is perfectly plain that you are using it, consciously or not, as a dodge to avoid substantive engagement.
Jay, "Perhaps you think I have nothing valid to add to the debate by continuing to suggest that "experience-based" medicine can stand toe-to-toe with evidence based medicine but I'd like you to consider the possibility anyway." Why? You are attempting to use purely anecdotal information of dubious provenance to make recommendations affecting millions of children. There are NO studies which demonstrate any correlation between vaccination and autism. You have not provided them, despite being asked. You appear to desire to rely wholly on your "gut" feelings.
Whatever that is, it isn't sound science or medicine.
Molly
Dawn - If you get a posting error, please follow the instructions on screen. It usually prevents repeat posts.
As for my statistics, they are not bogus ... Congenital Rubella Syndrome was not the OFFICIAL label until 1966, so the constellation of symptoms was listed separately before then. Those were miscarriages, still births and birth defects caused by rubella in a pregnant woman ... even without the latest label.
I saw a few stillborn babies and late miscarriages with CRS when I was a lab tech in the early 70s. We collected tissue samples from the corpses for the CDC so they could do virus studies. Tiny heads, cataracts making their eyes milky-white, heart defects ... if they had lived they would have been severely retarded, blind, maybe deaf, and die early from heart disease.
Long-term studies on vaccines have NEVER been done. Well, considering that I was one of the first few thousand children to get the Salk vaccine in an early field trial, and that we probably have 20-30 years left on our clocks ... would you hold off on polio prevention until all of us have died?
Sometimes, you have to make go/no-go decisions without 100% of the information you would like to have, because the consequences of choosing to not decide are far worse.
The majority of chemicals used in vaccines have had horrible outcomes on lab animals. Please cite your references: Depends on how you administer them, and in what dose. I could kill you with pure oxygen or pure water.
Rattlesnake venom, for example, can be safely swallowed, but will kill you when if the snake injects it. Botulin toxin can kill ... or in small carefully injected doses, either treat muscle spasms or remove the facial expressions of vain women.
Dawn, Dawn, Dawn. Just because you normally get your notions from others as clueless as you are doesn't make it wise to come to a surgeon's [1] blog and run that kind of BS.
Here are the annual reported rates for rubeola and rubella in the United States for three decades:
RUBELLA CRS ** MEASLES
Year Cases Deaths Cases Cases Deaths
1960 NA 12 NA 441,703 380
1961 NA 14 NA 423,919 434
1962 NA 8 NA 481,530 408
1963 NA 16 NA 385,156 364
1964 NA 53 NA 458,083 421
1965 NA 16 NA 261,904 276
1966 46,975 12 NA 204,136 261
1967 46,888 16 NA 62,705 81
1968 49,371 24 NA 22,231 24
1969 57,686 29 31 25,826 41
1970 56,552 31 77 47,351 89
1971 45,086 20 68 75,290 90
1972 25,507 14 42 32,275 24
1973 27,804 16 35 26,690 23
1974 11,917 15 45 22,094 20
1975 16,652 21 30 24,374 20
1976 12,491 12 30 41,126 12
1977 20,395 17 23 57,345 15
1978 18,269 10 30 26,871 11
1979 11,795 1 62 13,597 6
1980 3,904 1 50 13,506 11
1981 2,077 5 19 3,124 2
1982 2,325 4 7 1,714 2
1983 970 3 22 1,497 4
1984 752 1 5 2,587 1
1985 630 1 0 2,822 4
1986 551 1 14 6,282 2
1987 306 0 5 3,655 2
1988 225 1 6 3,396 3
1989 396 4 3 18,193 32
** Became reportable in 1969
*** Sorry about the formatting -- tags don't work and spaces seem to get merged.
Take a few moments and look closely. Do you notice anything interesting about those sequences? Are there any dates that stand out? Maybe graphing them would help (did you learn to graph in school?)
[1] And Orac was active in the anti-vaccination wars long before oracknows went live.
Dawn said "The majority of these disease were pretty much eradicated PRIOR to each vaccine coming out according to the CDC. "
Documentation, evidence? You seem to say things that are OPPOSITE of what the CDC says. You claim they stopped counting rubella in 1966, but that is when they started, possibly because there was a rubella epidemic. Why would they stop counting during an epidemic? (oh, and my county dtill has it as a reportable disease, munged URL due to the two URL limit: w w w. metrokc.gov/health/epilog/vol4806.pdf)
I showed you that rubella peaked in 1969 just as the vaccine was introduced. The same goes for mumps in 1968, see chart at page 10:
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/Slides/Mumps10.ppt#…
Then for measles, a list (hand transcribed, there might be typos):
Disease: Measles in the USA
Year Cases Deaths
1961 423,919 434
1962 481,530 408
1963 385,156 364
(^^ first vaccine licensed)
1964 458,083 421
1965 261,905 276
1966 204,136 261
1967 62,705 81
1968 22,231 24
1969 25,826 41
1970 47,351 89
1971 75,290 90
(^^^ MMR licensed)
1972 32,275 24
1973 26,690 23
1974 22,690 20
1975 24,374 20
1976 41,126 12
1977 57,245 15
1978 26,871 11
(^^^ Measles Elimination Program started)
1979 13,597 6
1980 13,506 11
1981 2,124 2
This is from Page 3 of http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/G/cases&… . This file also shows that mumps and rubella started to be officially counted in in 1968 and 1966 respectfully.
Where are you getting your information from? It seems a bit flawed.
HCN, I have a spreadsheet with all of the MMWR rollups on reportable diseases going back to the 1930s. If you want a copy, you can either light a fire under Peter Bowditch (who was going to put it up on his site), mail me, or suggest another good location. I'm thinking of creating a Google Docs account for the purpose but am open to other suggestions.
Thanks, D.C., but no. I prefer to have something from an online document I can reference. Also, I cut and pasted it from a previous time I posted it on this blog.
I am very interested in where Dawn got her information, it seems to not jive at all with what is available online. It seems she is a victim of the types of folks that this critique of internet vaccine information written about here:
http://www.pathguy.com/antiimmu.htm
(in short, she has been lied to)
I'm slightly more charitable than you in that regard. I suspect it's more of a case of "anti-vaccine truthiness:" the effect of passing a meme around the telephone circuit enough times that random mutation and selection transform it into one fit for the environment.
Truly, the embodiment of Jack Nicholson's famous line from A Few Good Men.
Dawn wrote:
Apparently, it is not true that "acquiring the disease naturally" confers life-long immunity (quoted from SBM).
Harnden et al [1] reported that their analysis revealed that "neither infection nor immunisation results in lifelong immunity" for whooping cough. However, they found that prior immunisation resulted in attenuated clinical features.
Chickenpox is a lifelong infection that mostly remains dormant - it is not always a one-shot deal. The 15% chance of remission is why aging adults or those under stress may develop shingles. That is why the over-60s are advised to have a booster.
[1] Harnden A, Grant C, Harrison T, Perera R, Brueggemann AB, Mayon-White R, Mant D. Whooping cough in school age children with persistent cough: prospective cohort study in primary care. BMJ. 2006 Jul 22;333(7560):174-7.
I'm wondering about Jay going to Africa to help spread around tetanus vaccine. How does that sit with the gang he went to Washington D.C. with, many of whom are 100% anti-vaccine and proud of it. I also wonder what Jay thinks of JB Handley's stand that Gardasil is entirely a creation of the devil. Do you host diphtheria parties at your home, Dr. Jay? How about polio parties and pertussis parties? Otherwise, how do you make sure that your little patients develop immunity before they hit adulthood? When is the ideal time for children to contract polio at a polio party? When is the ideal time for a child to contract rubella (and so develop that highly vaunted "natural immunity")? When is the ideal time for a mom with a 2 month old and a 8 year old to get her children exposed to measles? If there is no circulating measles, do you just let the 8 year old go unvaccinated until he decides to travel to Africa at age 17? Do you send him to Africa to catch measles, or tell him to wait until he's 45 years old? When is the idea time for JB Handley's daughter to catch rubella? When she had rubella, should she go hug all the women of child bearing age she knows so they can miscarry and have deaf children? How will she know she's not carrying death and disability to her friends who may be pregnant and not know it yet? Should JB Handley ever vaccinate his daughter with Gardasil? If not why not?
Dr Jay don't listen to these idiots I adore you I know how giving you are and you pay your own way and help those of us who may not be able to afford to pay to take the trip to have our voices heard for once if it weren't for you our bus would have never left PA to attend the rally. WE LOVE YOU Dr Jay and will never forget you. I have two children with vaccine induced autism. They have the measeles virus in their intestinal tracts. They were vaccinated even though if we knew they had a mitochondrial disorder (rare my butt) they would have been contraindicated. Why are these people so worried about unvaccinated kids if the vaccines work the way they say they should then they have nothing to worry about. Also for those of you on the Amish thing I live in and around an Amish Community in PA and I am friends with several of the families. They DO NOT vaccinate and in their community there should be about 9 or 10 autistic children according to the rates or even a few more and know how many there are 0. So if you don't know anything about stuff like that shut you big fat mouths. Paul Offit almost killed my son and you people think he is a hero he is a liar and a fraud. We won't even go to CHOP anymore we travel out of state to a better hospital. Dr Jay pay these fools no mind and ignore them they are only attention seeking prats.
A
From Orac:
"Sometimes certain pediatricians richly deserve what they get--particularly when one of them doesn't even have "a few facts or bits of the truth" to back up his misinformation and can't be bothered to support what he says with--oh, say--**ACTUAL STUDIES FROM THE SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE.**"
From: Dr Jay, those about to die salute you:
"The toxins in vaccines are not toxic at the levels found in vaccines,"
Really? Says who?
And you accuse us of making statements that aren't based on science? Give me a break!
Dr. Jay, your definition of *insolent* is dead-on and describes this site to a tee. Personally, I wouldn't waste one more minute arguing with these people. It's a waste of your valuable time and energy.
Best,
Kelli Ann Davis
Dr. gordon,
these people are mad, they dont have one study that compares unvaccinated people to those who recieved the 1991 levels of mercury, not one animal model to see what happens to monkeys exposed to the 1991 levels of thimersol, they just lie, make ad hoc excuses why these studies can't be done, they are just totally pathetic.
Luckily, the American people are on our side, the poll on Larry King said 88% of people think there is a link between Thimerosol and Autism, so the more these people rant the further respect they'll lose, and Im enjoying it all very much! Not only do they lack the science to back up thier positions, they lack public support as well, every normal person thinks they're nuts! I love it!
Oh yeah I forgot to mention they dont have any original safety studies from the 1930's that proved it was safe to take thimerosol in the first place, what a bunch of turkeys!
Says me, based on pharmacology, knowledge of exactly what "toxins" are in vaccines. (Hint: there is no antifreeze in vaccines; that's a lie, pure and simple. In fact, it's an outrageously stupid and ignorant lie, as has been explained many, many times. Also, you're exposed to more formaldehyde on a daily basis just from plastic products, air pollution, and various household items, particularly those with lacquer or varnish, than any baby is exposed to from any vaccine. Heck, your own body makes formaldehyde as a byproduct of normal physiologic processes. Again, the dose makes the poison. But, hey, formaldehyde is a scary-sounding chemical to people without a little medical knowledge. These days, I use the "antifreeze" or "formadehyde" vaccine gambits as a test of sorts. When I see someone using them, I know that they are (1) anti-vaccinationists and/or (2) utterly clueless about the science.
At least Dr. Jay now realizes how stupid the "formaldehyde" gambit is, and I hope he also now realizes how stupid the "antifreeze" gambit is as well. Perhaps he will persuade J.B. Handley that repeating such idiotic nonsense only makes him look really, really dumb. On the other hand, the repetition of such misinformation by antivaccinationists is so idiotic that it makes my job really easy. If the "vaccines cause autism" crowd really wanted me to work, they'd immediately stop using such easily debunked nonsense.
Finally, it's interesting to see that someone has apparently called in the anti-vaccine contingent for reinforcements for Dr. Jay. True, he did need the help, as he wasn't doing so good. Too bad the best they could come up with was cooler and Kelli Ann.
Given how many times you've pulled the "pharma shill" gambit on me, I thought it only appropriate to return the favor to you.
Of course, you really should consider demanding more money than just airfare and hotel. With celebrity fundraisers run by Jenny McCarthy and Generation Rescue somehow conning the WWE to do fundraising for it, the anti-vaccine contingent will soon be flush with cash. You should get a taste of it, given how much aid you give them. It's only fair.
Ice cream?
Clearly, I'm gonna die.
However, it won't be from measles; I've been vaccinated (my mother had sense.)
The extremely modestly named AutismHeroMom said "I have two children with vaccine induced autism. They have the measeles virus in their intestinal tracts."
How do you know they have "measeles virus in their intestinal tracts"?
What kind of test does that involve?
Considering that is was brought out in the Federal Autism Omnibus Court that the tests Wakefield claimed found measles were flawed, contaminated and he ignored being told this (see http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Autism_omnibus_trial#Measles_detected_in_t… )... How do you really know?
What real evidence do any of you have, other than Wakefield, that MMR has anything to do with autism? Why didn't autism start increasing in 1971 when it was introduced in the USA? What peer reviewed papers replicate Wakefield's withdrawn Lancet paper?
Who diagnosed the mitochondrial disorder?
Do you routinely request invasive tests like scoping of intestines and muscle biopsies on your children?
Also, and so what if the Amish do or do not vaccinate? Your anecdote that you live near them is just as accurate and Olmsted's "journalism". They have unique genetic makeup, and suffer from several different other syndromes. See http://clinicforspecialchildren.org/CSC/Research.html ... where there are papers on Maple Syrup Urine Disease, Salla disease, Amish Lethal Microcephaly and a few other things that happen in populations with little genetic variation.
Kelli, The onus is on you and your friends to prove that the amount of "toxins" in vaccines are toxic. Rational people are not going around making silly statements about things they absolutely can't grapple with mentally.
Sweetums, what about if you have Dr. Gordon get a blood sample from you to check for formaldehyde levels in you after you've finished a Long Island Iced Tea and three boilermakers.
http://student.bmj.com/issues/02/06/education/184.php
Maybe they'd have to declare your blood hazardous waste! Next time someone is hungover they can thank formaldehyde.
Dr. Gordon can't get any intellectual challenge from his antivaccine friends. He needs to come here. Don't worry, the worst that could happen is that he'd decide not to be an idiot any more and separate himself from Jim Carrey and the wrestling bunny and announce that he's vaccinated his teen daughter with Gardasil.
Yes, Celia, I do host diphtheria parties. That was a very good question. We just don't serve ice cream and cheese.
Here's my attempt at a good question: I know, and some of you know, that the suggestion that vaccines, like all other medical and surgical interventions have side effects is valid and reasonable.
Casting aside the consideration or inaccurate mentions of formalin and antifreeze because they're not really worth defending, do you completely discount the possibility that certain vaccines or combinations of vaccines may have significant adverse consequences for some children who receive them?
And, if you can possibly accept that possibility, why not continually reevaluate our use of vaccines as we do with all other areas of medical care?
Jay
Casting aside the consideration or inaccurate mentions of formalin and antifreeze because they're not really worth defending...
No kidding. Can we stop taking Jenny seriously, too? How about Wakefield and Geier? C'mon Dr. Gordon, you're on a roll. What else about the anti-vaccine movement is not really worth defending?
Obviously you would not serve cheese or ice cream. it is a known fact that diphtheria is no disease at all in anyone, unless the toxin produced by the bacteria is potentiated by the nightmare toxins in dairy products. >:-o Could you possibly answer my other questions? If a child in your practice is not being vaccinated at all, how will that child develop immunity to the vaccine preventable diseases. Presumably you vaccinate infants for tetanus? Or would that just be in Africa? Why is it more dangerous to risk exposure of an infant to pertussis than to the pertussis vaccine? Are the toxins produced by Bordatella pertussis not really toxins, whereas aluminum at vaccine levels really is? How do you arrive at that calculation? Consultations with a crystal child? Maybe Jenny's son Evan can telepath you some answers to these new age questions since crystal children like him have been sent to the solve the world's crises.
If you aren't throwing tetanus parties, then how do you propose the child of antivaccine extremist parents, e.g., the youngest Handley child, gain immunity to tetanus? Or is tetanus best dealt with by keeping the child in a sterile glass bubble for life, or by treating tetanus after the child contracts it? How about HPV? Maybe the true pharma shills are fighting vaccine acceptance because having thousands of babies dying in the hospital and thousands of adults with cancerwould be good for sales of many pharmaceutical products, and keep doctors nice and busy and richer than ever.
You asked: "why not continually reevaluate our use of vaccines as we do with all other areas of medical care?"
What makes you think that vaccinologists are not constantly working to improve vaccines and refining the vaccine schedule? Have you just decided that they are all bad people and don't care the way you do? Do you really think that going around spouting nonsense about thimerosal and aluminum being dangerous at vaccine doses and telling innocent people that vaccines contain antifreeze and frightening levels of formaldehyde is helping to make vaccines safer?
Dr. Jay said "And, if you can possibly accept that possibility, why not continually reevaluate our use of vaccines as we do with all other areas of medical care?"
Why do you think that in the USA the IPV has now been used for eight years instead of the OPV? Or that smallpox was removed from the schedule a few decades ago?
And "they" are so super-secret they actually publish "their" meeting schedule:
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/recs/ACIP/meetings.htm
Celia wrote:
You have an HPV party, silly! I heard there was one at Jenny and Jim's house the other night. Britney and Charlie and all the other cool kids...went.
Dr. Gordon,
I appreciate that you've attemtped to answer my two questions. But, your answers are still a little vaqgue (and the slide in your presentation is not).
when asked as simply as possible,
"to what degree do you think the following changes impact the numbers you have presented?"
followed by the actual DSM changes, you replied with:
"To answer simply: Yes, the changes in diagnostic criteria do have an impact and make comparisons more difficult."
and
"However, I don't agree that the data are not meaningfully criteria."
I'll assume you meant "comparable" instead of "criteria".
I'll also take the liberty of converting your negative phrasing to the positive. Please correct me if I am wrong.
You're essentially saying that you would agree to a statement that the data may be meaningfully comparable.
Would you please expand on that. Feel free to draw upon your education, years of experience, logic and reason, and of course, actual descriptive epidemiology.
Can you explain, in light of the changes in diagnostic criteria, how the data in your slide could be meaningfully comparable?
Jay, "And, if you can possibly accept that possibility, why not continually reevaluate our use of vaccines as we do with all other areas of medical care?"
Some folks do; apparently you don't. You are trying to reevaluate the nation's use of vaccines based purely on your own gut feelings, which are, in a word, worthless.
Where are the studies that actually support your contention? Where is the DATA, doctor? Or aren't you troubled by a complete lack of empirical evidence to support your ludicrous claims?
Molly
AutismHeroMom & HCN:
There are published studies reporting that the Amish do in fact vaccinate. I recall one of the studies being based on self-reporting, i.e. the Amish themselves are saying they vaccinate.
AutismNewsBeat:
I agree. Now its formaldehyde and anti-freeze he's asking to "put aside". I'd really like to see Jay stop saying anything at all to the public until he's actually got his facts straight first. It'd be the honest and responsible thing to do after all.
Dr. Jay said "do you completely discount the possibility that certain vaccines or combinations of vaccines may have significant adverse consequences for some children who receive them?"
Sure, that is why there are thousands of hits at PubMed when there is a search for "vaccines".
How about you tell us which of those actually show that the DTaP is riskier than tetanus (which produces tetanospasmin and tetanolysin), diphtheria (which produces diphtheria toxin) and pertussis (which produces pertussis toxin). Those toxins are kind of why antibiotics have limited use once someone has the actual disease. But you went to medical school, you should know that better than this mere engineer!
How about the MMR? It has been around since 1971, surely in that time there should be paper showing it is more deadly than measles, mumps and rubella? (you might want to ignore the studies on the right hand side of this list:
http://www.immunize.org/catg.d/p4026.pdf )
: Eur J Intern Med. 2008 Jul;19(5):383-5. Epub 2007 Dec 4. Links
Status epilepticus and lymphocytic pneumonitis following hepatitis B vaccination.
de Carvalho JF, Shoenfeld Y.
Rheumatology Division, São Paulo University School of Medicine, São Paulo, Brazil.
The case reported refers to a patient who developed status epilepticus in the day of her third dose of hepatitis B vaccination and we review the literature on this subject. A 12 year-old girl, without a relevant previous history, taking no drugs, developed a seizure attack followed by unconsciousness, and eventually died after three days of her third dose of hepatitis B (HB) vaccination. Autopsy study revealed cerebral edema with congestion and herniation and diffuse interstitial type pneumonitis. There seem to be a straight forward time relationship between the third HB vaccine, the event of convulsion and the sudden death of the patient. We suggest that, in some cases, vaccination may be the triggering factor for autoimmune and neurological disturbances in genetically predisposed individuals and physicians should be aware of this possible association.
1: Eur J Dermatol. 2008 Mar-Apr;18(2):188-9. Links
Cutaneous lymphoid hyperplasia and reactive lymphadenopathy induced by hepatitis B vaccination.
Atalar H, Sarifakioglu E, Dener C, Yanik B, Koktener A, Bayrak R.
: Toxicol In Vitro. 2008 Jun;22(4):927-34. Epub 2008 Feb 1. Links
Genotoxicity of thimerosal in cultured human lymphocytes with and without metabolic activation sister chromatid exchange analysis proliferation index and mitotic index.
Eke D, Celik A.
Mersin University, Faculty of Science and Letters, Department of Biology, 33343 Mersin, Turkey.
Thimerosal is an antiseptic containing 49.5% of ethyl mercury that has been used for years as a preservative in many infant vaccines and in flu vaccines. Thimerosal is an organic mercurial compound used as a preservative in biomedical preparations. In this study, we evaluated the genotoxic effect of thimerosal in cultured human peripheral blood lymphocytes using sister chromatid exchange analysis in culture conditions with and without S9 metabolic activation. This study is the first report investigating the genotoxic effects of thimerosal in cultured human peripheral blood lymphocyte cells using sister chromatid exchange analysis. An analysis of variance test (ANOVA) was performed to evaluate the results. Significant induction of sister chromatid exchanges was seen at concentrations between 0.2 and 0.6 microg/ml of thimerosal compared with negative control. A significant decrease (p<0.001) in mitotic index (MI) and proliferation index (PRI) as well as an increase in SCE frequency (p<0.001) was observed compared with control cultures. Our results indicate the genotoxic and cytotoxic effect of TH in cultured human peripheral blood lymphocytes at tested doses in cultures with/without S9 fraction.
"The "anti-vaccine paid shill gambit" ORAC!!! I love it"
Touché! One point for Doctor 90210.
"I committed to speak at the Washington D.C. rally a couple months before the event. Whether you agree or disagree, there are many families who feel that they're not being heard."
Same goes for alien abductees and 911 conspiracy theorists.
"Of course, the rally's sponsors offered to pay for my airfare and expenses. I declined. I bought my own airline tickets and paid my own expenses. I cancelled two days in the office and have calculated that the trip cost me upwards of $7000."
Appeal to righteous intentions St. Jay. One JB brown-nose button for you.
"Last Saturday, I spoke at a fundraiser at Jim Carrey's house. Again, I declined to accept any honorarium or money of any kind."
Jeebus folks, why hasn't this man earned a free trip on the space shuttle?
"I believe that we can improve vaccines and the way we vaccinate and I don't want to profit from this endeavor."
And those improvements and methods would be???
"The vaccine DVD was made from out of pocket funds, has not and probably never will show a profit."
Probably true. Probably boring as hell and full of bullshit too.
"This week, for the first time ever, I was asked to review a vaccine injury case. I agreed. The condition being that I would not accept a fee of any sort."
Gad zukes! How is it that this super humanitarian is not the King of the United States already? No fee? How does he know it was vaccine injury before he's reviewed it? Superpowers.
"I remain a member of the AAP because I hope to effect change from within the organization. I agree that I wish my dues and the AAP's activities weren't "tainted."
"The hyperbole about blood letting and similar cliche's obfuscates the central issue of the value of experience and collected anecdotal evidence standing side by side with so-called "evidenced based medicine." We're all familiar with the recent scandals surrounding Dr. Biederman, Vioxx, Vytorin and other issues."
Tu Quoque King Jay! Three or four wrongs do NOT make a right.
I have permission to forward this. It's one of hundreds of similar emails I have gotten the past few months. Vaccines can cause harm. The discussion on the board can deal in abstractions and data sets. Please remember that their are real children involved just as you remind me that real children can get these vaccine-preventable illnesses. You're not wrong about that concept and I'm not wrong either. We just disagree.
The article abstracts are an example of what you get if you set a pubmed scanner.
Jay
Dr. Gordon,
I recently saw some of the footage of you & Jenny McCarthy on Larry King. It was the first time I actually heard someone say it out loud! My 4 month old baby girl was given 4 shots on March 7, 2006, sadly, on March 9, 2006, I found her non-responsive in her crib. She ran a fever after her injections and had diarrhea to the nape of her neck within an hour of receiving the injections. Her autopsy report said she died of SIDS, but my husband and I were never able to live with that diagnosis. Much like Jenny McCarthy, I went online and did some research of my own and learned about the horrific ingredients in the vaccinations. It all seemed like "mad science" to inject an infant with aluminum...Before my baby girl died, I knew nothing about vaccinations. I just went with whatever my pediatrician recommended. Can I tell you how sorry I am that I didn't educate myself enough to have saved my baby girl's life? Now I know a lot about vaccinations but feel so small in the big fight. In some way it was almost vindication to hear Jenny McCarthy say what she said about the schedule, the weight of the child vs. the dosage and the horrible ingredients.
This past December, the government conceded in our case against them with regards to our daughter's death. They offered us 175,000 to go away. Isn't that a shame? They've actually put a number on what they thought my daughter's life would be worth to myself and my family. There is no number. Sadly, I'm not famous so it's impossible for me to get my story out there-so I have to depend on Mom's like Jenny McCarthy to spread the word, what a brave soul she is. I'm just glad her son has recovered and now has a second chance at life. My husband and I often wonder if our daughter had lived, what would she have been like? The thought terrifies me. I've attached a picture of my baby girl, her name was (omitted), she really was an angel.
Jay Gordon, do you really not get it or are you playing stupid again?
Having empathy for someone who lost a child does NOT require giving up all logical thought. You can say "I'm sorry your baby died" without continuing on, "Whatever you feel is indeed the truth."
This is like having a logic argument with a four-year-old...
"The article abstracts are an example of what you get if you set a pubmed scanner."
Hmmm.
A 12-year old (doesn't seem to fit the too many, too soon mantra).
An information-free citation from a dermatology journal.
An in-vitro thimerosal experiment.
Overall relevance... below the limits of detection.
Dr. Jay, have you been listening to all the audio recordings and reading the available transcripts from the omnibus hearings? I suggest you do. What concentration of thimerosal was used to expose the blood in the the genotoxicity in vitro study? Has this genotoxicity EVER been found in a living animal? Is there any evidence in the least that thimerosal (which is NOT 49.5% mercury. It is 49.5% mercury by weight, by virtue of the fact that mercury is a much heavier molecule than Sulfur and Carbon). Any chemical can do all kinds of horrid things in a glass dish in a lab, Dr. Gordon. It doesn't mean that the same thing happens to a significant extent in a living human. How much diphtheria toxin or aflatoxin from common peanut butter would do the very same thing to those chromasomes in PBCs? When you were a kid did your parents paint your sores with mercurochrome? Did you get some bad genes from it? Is that what happened?
Isles, one thing's for sure they aren't serving gouda on wheat crackers, or ice cream ala naked sushi at Jenny and Jim's HPV party.
Dr. Jay, you do understand it is not a good idea to drink and post on blogs, right? I am sitting here in my kitchen while a pair of 14 year old girls create a rolled cake. I am just hanging out here to tell them where to find stuff, and answer questions.
Ummm... neither the DTaP nor the MMR have thimerosal. The MMR has never had thimerosal, even when it was approved in the USA in 1971.
Might I also say that you are digging deep into some second rate journals?
Are you okay?
The risk of contracting vaccine-preventable diseases is extremely small.
The risk of an untoward side effect (not the incidence of side effects, which also might be quite low) is 100% each time we give a shot, perform surgery or use antibiotics.
Celia, I'm sure that some of my friends in the "safer vaccines" movement will not like my having anything to do with vaccines being given to anyone, anywhere. I may measure risks and benefits differently than they do or than you do.
Yes, when children and families travel to Third World countries or have other increased factors (nursing school, med school, paramedic work and other things) I modify my discussion about vaccines with them. I give vaccines to them. This discussion would be a lot more civil and intelligent if you'd stop assuming that I'm stupid just because you disagree with me, Celia. And by the way, you must be familiar with Dr. Julie Gerberding's press conference entitled "Rubella No Longer Major Public Health Threatâ¨in the United States."
http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/pressrel/r050321.htm
Orac, I did not say that the "formaldehyde gambit" is stupid, as you put it. I merely think it's not the best topic to argue about.
I do not accept money because I think it creates a conflict of interest. I'm not saying that there might not be a time and situation where it's appropriate to have my expenses paid, I'm just saying it hasn't happened yet. (Oh, God, are you going to have fun with this one.)
ANB, the term "anti-vaccine" allows a facile dismissal of those of us who just feel that we're not doing things as safely as we could be. It's not an accurate portrayal of many people involved on "my" side of the discussion.
Celia, I might have, for better or worse, more experience with pertussis than almost any other pediatrician outside a tertiary care facility. I absolutely hate the disease. I just don't think the way we give vaccines right now is as safe as it could be. Could someone please give me a single antigen, single-dose vial, simple pertussis vaccine rather than the one-size-fits-all DPT? I'll resume the pertussis discussion when that vaccine comes along.
We do not reevaluate vaccines, schedule and doses often enough.
HCN, the oral polio vaccine is still used with tremendous success--albeit with some cases of VAP--in many other countries. Doctors did not kick that vaccine out of America, lawyers did!
Sorry for the typos and the lack of clarity Do'C. What I meant to say was that the data can be compared meaningfully even though the diagnostic criteria have been changed. I think that we need new studies generating new data because I agree with you completely when you imply that changing diagnostic criteria over the years have made comparison much more difficult. Actually, you obviously are implying that the data are not meaningfully comparable. I think that things could be a whole lot better with new studies and new data but we have to work with what we have. I'll have to look at the slide you're referring to.
Molly, again, nothing "ludicrous" about what I'm saying. What you say isn't ludicrous, either. We disagree and I do not base my writing or my practice on "gut feelings" but on three decades of observation of patients and reading the medical literature. And, no, there are certainly not enough studies or data to support my position yet.
Heraclides, I feel like a broken record, I have my facts straight. I'm just willing to listen and learn when I'm challenged here and elsewhere. The over-riding principle is still the same: Vaccines as they are formulated and given now have enough potential for causing harm to lead us to do more studies of this important issue. I'm not recommending cessation of all vaccines in America or elsewhere. I'm just asking for more evaluation of the existing data and the generation of much more data.
Curtis E.Flush . . . OK, I really have no answers for you. Rock on, sir.
Good night, all.
Jay
Dr. Orac, could you make sure that those postings are actually from Dr. Gordon, and not from someone else who is trying to make look even more idiotic? Thank you.
Just when I thought I was done for the night! HCN, I don't drink and I am OK. Thanks for the compassion, though.
HCN, your facts are excellent and stand alone and make me and others think harder. When you resume ad hominem attacks you diminish yourself. Yes, some people might be cheering your cleverness, but it still diminishes you.
Jay
Brave Maverick Doctor,
There are about 70 compensated vaccine injuries per year in the U.S. The are not all children. They are not all deaths.
http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/statistics_report.htm
(while you're there, you might check out all the autism dismissals)
Yes vaccines are not 100% risk-free, but are we to believe that you really received over 200 e-mails just like the one you posted in just a few months?
That would likely mean that EVERY mother of a child who died due to vaccine injury has e-mailed YOU 6, 7 or 8 times or more in the last few months. I'm guessing MOST of them don't know who you are.
It's just a guess though.
Not all the emails I receive are from parents whose children have died. Almost all of them are from parents whose children developed autism in close temporal relationship to receiving vaccines. The majority of these parents believe that the vaccines caused the child's autism.
Thank you for the link. It's a great site.
Jay
Jay, "Molly, again, nothing "ludicrous" about what I'm saying. What you say isn't ludicrous, either. We disagree and I do not base my writing or my practice on "gut feelings" but on three decades of observation of patients and reading the medical literature. And, no, there are certainly not enough studies or data to support my position yet."
In other words, you openly admit that science does not support your contentions; yet you are willing to let millions of children suffer terrible diseases without evidential support except your own, unverified, highly selective anecdotal data?
That is not a rational policy. It bears the marks of someone who is more interested in ideology and money than helping children.
Molly
Dr. Gordon, I'm still interested to know what you think of Dr. Jon Poling's failure to disclose his status as a VICP petitioner in the paper he co-authored with Dr. Andrew Zimmerman and Dr. John Shoffner, which he eventually offered as evidence in his claim.
Dr. Jay Gordon,
You say about yourself that "he believes so much in public health that he's traveling to Africa in late September to bring Five Million tetanus shots to the Ivory Coast because between 100,000 and 200,000 people die from neonatal tetanus in Africa each year."
You are going to make sure that 5 million neonates (that's newborn infants) are going to get vaccinated with monovalent tetanus shots? Or is that fewer than 5 million neonates who are getting more than 1 tetanus shot?
For argument's sake, lets say that they will be giving 1.5 million infants under one year 3 tetanus shots.
Using local Ivory Coast statistics, of those 1.5 million infants how many will die within 12 hours of being vaccinated (of sudden infant death or in an accident)? How many of them will die within 36 hours? Would you expect at least one of them to die in a manner similar to the one the woman described in her email to you? If not why not? If one or more infants who receive one or more of your vaccines dies in the same manner as that woman's child, will you personally be responsible for that child's death, or will you say that the child might have died of the same cause even if he or she was never vaccinated. In other words, if you are going to vaccinate more than a few babies, statistically some are going to have bad things happen to them right when they get vaccinated. Some babies are going to die of SIDS on a particular day because of factors unrelated to vaccine status. This is the truth.
If you were bringing the rotavirus vaccine to those Ivory Coast babies, too, then fewer would have an attack of diarrhea after receiving your tetanus vaccine.
I don't mean to discourage you from bringing millions of vaccine doses to Côte d'Ivoire, but you can be sure that some of those babies will end up autistic, with seizures or dead before they turn 5 years old. Do you want to take the blame for this or do you want the citizens of that country to understand statistics?
What kind of toxins are in the tetanus vaccine or are you just going to arrange individual pre-filled syringes of sterile water in front of you and "a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CBell1809.jpg">succuss a print of a man suffering from a tetanus over them? Since everything is a toxin at some dose, we must assume you are taking toxic vaccines to Africa and helping big pharmaceuticals to make a profit, too. And if you are going act wounded again, remember you didn't stop Jenny McCarthy from abusing those doctors on Larry King, so you must not be too sensitive to harsh words.
Jay,
I see that in response you've decided to bring out the violins :-) I prefer to look at facts rather than listen to your attempt to play "sympathy" music. (I see a lovely play on your words "broken records" here...)
I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve with the citations you list.
The first is a case study. Even if relevant (and it doesn't appear to be relevant outside of very select target), by their nature case studies are limited to the individuals they examine. Any extension to other people or larger numbers of people are hypothetical, possible, suggestive, not confirmed. In fact the authors say this in the abstract themselves, in rather tortured words: "We suggest that, in some cases, vaccination may be ... of this possible association." (all in one sentence!, my emphasis) This tentativeness isn't faux politeness, it reflects the limits of what they have. (I addressed this issue in passing earlier.)
Case studies also very rarely show causation, they usually show association.
The second paper is also a case study and so has the same limitations as the first.
The third is an in vitro study, with the artificiality that these have: Celia has already addressed some of the issues and I won't repeat them here.
"ANB, the term "anti-vaccine" allows a facile dismissal of those of us ..." You encouraged people to say this of yourself earlier. Now you're playing it the other way?
"I have my facts straight" I'm under the impression you've been shown several times you don't. Given that, I'll stand by my point that the responsible thing to do would be to stop talking to the public until you have it all straight.
Picking up from an older post:
"The hyperbole about blood letting and similar cliche's obfuscates the central issue of the value of experience and collected anecdotal evidence standing side by side with so-called "evidenced based medicine."
Anecdotes don't/can't stand "beside" evidence. They can be backed by evidence. They can precede evidence as "possibles", hypotheses. But they don't stand beside them; they don't have the same weight.
I'm not just playing word games here, the two are fundamentally different. Anecdotes can't back or support evidence, as such. They can be used to raise questions, but not provide sound answers. They can be consistent with evidence, but that's a different thing.
I'm not saying that experience isn't important, nor that case studies are useless. As I wrote before, you can use these to suggest studies to be done, and for that they can be very useful, but they remain as hypotheses or isolated observations until backed with evidence.
"The risk of contracting vaccine-preventable diseases is extremely small. --Jay Gordon
But Jay, that's because most people have been vaccinated. If we stop vaccinating, the risks of contracting those diseases go up. It keeps happening wherever vaccines are stopped. In my part of the world, we had a pertussis outbreak that ran through a nearby community that has a population that eschews vaccinations.
Almost all of them are from parents whose children developed autism in close temporal relationship to receiving vaccines. The majority of these parents believe that the vaccines caused the child's autism.
The first identifiable symptoms of autism generally occur at age 18 months-2 years. Children get a number of vaccinations at the same time. That doesn't mean that the two are related. It's not surprising that the parents should believe that they are related, but you should realize that correlation does not equal causation. The children probably also started potty training about the time that the symptoms first showed up, but that doesn't mean that potty training causes autism. The data are clear: there is no correlation between thimersol or any other vaccine component and autism.
Almost all of them are from parents whose children developed autism in close temporal relationship to receiving vaccines. The majority of these parents believe that the vaccines caused the child's autism.
If you had asked me a few years ago, I probably would have said the same thing. I changed my mind when my second, completely unvaccinated, child first showed the signs of autism around the time most children are vaccinated.
I think if you pressed many of these parents for details, you would find the temporal relationship isn't quite as close as they say.
Jay said, do you completely discount the possibility that certain vaccines or combinations of vaccines may have significant adverse consequences for some children who receive them
No ... but if there are some, then how do you propose identifying them? If it's possible to screen to find these children, how thorough and invasive a screening do you want to do? How much money will this cost, and who do you expect to pay for it?
Remember the cholera epidemic of the early 1990s in Peru? Amazingly, some public health officials resisted and refused to increase the chlorine levels in their water supplies because of the "risk" of trihalomethanes (estimated at one extra death per 100,000 persons exposed for a period of 70 years). In part because of this, there were 1,041,422 cases and 9,642 deaths.
The thrust of precautionary public health management is to take steps to reduce potential harm, even when uncertainties remain. Yet a true precautionary approach also means that you do not do away with a proven health intervention.
Given that nothing is 100% safe, what sort of risk/benefit ratio would you find acceptable for vaccines ... and how far back into the pre-vaccine morbidity and mortality numbers do you want to slide?
Jay says, "The risk of contracting vaccine-preventable diseases is extremely small."
YOU BLOODY STUPID GIT!!!! The risk is small only because almost everybody has been vaccinated.
Ask yourself this: what happens when people believe you about the risk, and don't vaccinate their children?
"Kelli, The onus is on you and your friends to prove that the amount of "toxins" in vaccines are toxic."
Wrong.
The law for the regulation of drugs including vaccines and other biological preparations classified as drugs, explicitly require that all drugs (as the term is defined in 21 U.S.C. Section 321(g)(1)13, including any component used in a drug [21 U.S.C. Section 321(g)(1)(D) must be SAFE (based on the definition of SAFE in 21 U.S.C. Section 321(u)14) and effective in human and animals.
Personally, I can't recall ONE STUDY where mercury, a KNOWN NEUROTOXIN is determined to be SAFE.
The burden is not for me to prove that a neurotoxin injected into individuals is UNSAFE (although I personally think it's a no brainer) rather the burden in on the "person" who declares its SAFETY....and in this case, that would rest with the manufacturer who places it in their product.
That *sweetums* is the law and whether you accept it or not is completely irrelevant -- the court is going to look at *that* when deciding the merits of an issue -- not your opinion (sorry to burst your bubble).
And with that, I bid adieu.
Kelli Ann Davis
Jay says, "when children and families travel to Third World countries or have other increased factors (nursing school, med school, paramedic work and other things) I modify my discussion about vaccines with them."
You mean those undeveloped, disease-ridden, impoverished Third World countries like England, Switzerland, Japan, Belgium, the Netherlands, Austria, Germany, Canada, and Italy? Because they all have community outbreaks of various vaccine-preventable diseases.
And what about the people who come visit your safe little non-vaccinated enclaves from the Third World countries I listed above? The recent San Diego and Tucson measles outbreaks were traced to unvaccinated people (one Swiss tourist, one returning American child) who contracted the disease in Switzerland, than caught a plane to the US.
You have no evidence that thimerosal at vaccine doses has ever harmed any child. If you want to refer to the omnibus vaccine court records you will see this is true. All of the lab tests used by DAN have been shown to be totally useless to prove mercury from vaccines have caused harm. Every single infant born on planet earth has a considerable amount of mercury in his or her brain, right out of the chute. Then the amount of mercury that the child is exposed to from non-vaccine sources is much larger than that children received in the 1990's in the United States. Since what remains in the brain from any source is inorganic mercury, and since the amount of mercury in the child's brain at birth and what he gets from breastmilk or formula and solid food- remember Dr. Deth mentioned how high the mercury level is in chicken in his testimony- in addition to mercury from water and air it is obvious that even if you thought a few micrograms of thimerosal were bad, you have failed to protect your child from a much larger exposure from other sources.
You have no case. Thimerosal is being used now world wide and children are not being harmed by it in any way. This is obvious to any observer. Game over, sweetums. Now go calm your nerves with another bottle of beaujolais and think about all that formaldehyde your body is making with it. But remember never to eat anything again because all food should be assumed to contain some mercury. Even JB Handley's companies sell food with mercury in it. Think of all that chicken salad loaded with mercury he's profiting off of!
Diane said "In my part of the world, we had a pertussis outbreak that ran through a nearby community that has a population that eschews vaccinations."
If it is Whidbey Island, I believe it is still going on. Though, perhaps Dr. Jay thinks that our little state on the west coast just south of Canada is "third world", even though it is where Microsoft, Cray Computer, Costco, and Amazon are headquartered (and where Boeing Commercial still is, even though the Boeing Company headquarters moved to Chicago... yeah, the 727s, 777s, and 747s that Dr. Jay may actually fly in are made in our portion of the "third world").
My son was born almost 20 years ago, and due to neonatal seizures only got the DT vaccine, not the DPT. At that time our county was going through a pertussis EPIDEMIC (you know, that part of the "third world" that Bill Gates lives in).
Thanks anti-vax guys for making sure that the herd immunity I needed for my infant was completely obliterated. Fortunately by questioning the vaccine status every child he came into contact with and keeping him away from anyone who coughed, he missed out on pertussis (though several of the kids of my friends did get it).
Still waiting for the answer to if the "toxins" in the DTaP seriously worse than these:
tetanospasmin, tetanolysin, diphtheria toxin and pertussis toxin ?
Dr. Jay? Kelli Anne? The modestly named AutismHeroMom?
(note, Heraclides, yes I know the Amish vaccinate. That still does not alter the fact that they have a unique genetic make-up and have severe disability issues)
The "swallowing camels and straining at gnats" award goes to:
Quick mental arithmetic: the range given is 0.2 to 0.6 mg/kg of body mass, so to add a 100% safety margin (and simplify the calculation) let's use 0.1 mg/kg as a threshold. In a 10 kg toddler that comes to one milligram of thimerosal in the kid's body.
A milligram of thimerosal. In a child that's only at the 25th percentile of weight for 18 months (the low end of the range for regressive autism.) And this is supposed to be so closely tied to the MMR immunization that we have parents reporting that their children regressed immediately following the shot.
I never knew that the MMR contained a milligram of thimerosal.
I suppose Dr. Gordon could plead innumeracy, but Ockham's razor counsels us to take him at his word: he cherry-picks the material that is useful for his purposes.
Jay says, "Almost all of them are from parents whose children developed autism in close temporal relationship to receiving vaccines. ."
And in the 1800s, when children went into convulsions and regressed during that time period, they blamed teething. The majority of these parents -and their physicians - believed that the teething caused the convulsions and brain damage. After all,it was in close temporal relationship ... so it must be the cause.
***********
Kelli Ann says, "any component used in a drug [21 U.S.C. Section 321(g)(1)(D) must be SAFE (based on the definition of SAFE in 21 U.S.C. Section 321(u)14) and effective in human and animals."
Here's the definition: "(u) The term "safe" as used in paragraph (s) of this section and in sections 348, 360b, 360ccc, and 379e of this title, has reference to the health of man or animal."
FYI, Kelli Ann ... safety is always calculated relative to the quantity of the material and the means of delivery.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LD50
That's nice, Dawn. How much did his liver produce on each of those days? Do you feed him pears? Other fruits? Beets? Other root vegetables?
D.C. Sessions said "I never knew that the MMR contained a milligram of thimerosal."
It doesn't, and it never has even since its approval in the USA in 1971. Nor is it in the DTaP anymore.
I suppose he was attempting to answer my question on the relative toxicity of the DTaP versus the toxins created by the bacteria that the vaccine is designed for.
Diversions to a preservative no longer in the vaccine, or to other vaccines don't count as valid answers.
Wow, this has been fun.It's like when John Best visited Skeptico a while back. Its calmer and more reasoned here (on both sides believe it or not).
I have a couple of questions:
Kellie Ann Davis: Could you look up the following chemicals and tell me if you think they are poisonous/dangerous?
Chlorine Gas (Cl2)
Sodium metal (Na)
Carbon (C)
Hydrogen(H)
Oxygen(O2)
some of these are, some are not, some (as have been said before it depends on the quantity, mode of ingestion, etc).
Chlorine gas is very toxic, small amounts of it can kill you. Sodium metal explodes when it contacts water. Stick em together what do you have? Salt.
Hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon are prety harmless arent they? Stick em together in various forms and what do you have? Methanol (1 shot of which can kill you), Benzene (hello cancer), etc etc.
When you make alarmist statements about mercury, you look ignorant. Do you think thimerisol is the same form of mercury that is seen in a thermometer? Mercury may be a neurotoxin, but ethylmercury is not. Its a compound, just like salt is a compound of two deadly elements. The form of the compound is important, as is the mode of ingestion, concentration etc.
Dr. Jay Fan Club: I agree Dr. Gordon is probably a very nice and caring person. He probably listens to all your concerns. He is probably sympathetic and understanding and gives you tons of good advice about dealing with the various difficulties that you are enduring. I highly doubt that he is doing anything deceitful, I truly believe he thinks he is doing his best. But so do astrologers, psychics, homeopathic 'doctors', water dowsers, etc etc. They are very nice, believe what they are doing and so forth. It doesnt mean they are providing any real service. The real service comes from critical examination of evidence and your own biases and experiences. He has done this here with formaldehyde and antifreeze, I hope he continues.
Anti-vaxers (including Dr. Gordon): since study after study shows no causal link between vaccines and autism, (I mean they take out the bad stuff and the rate of autism doesnt drop? - come on), perhaps you have the causation wrong? I read through this entire chain, maybe I missed it, but don't you think you have the causation wrong, don't you think its entirely possible that the autism is there first?
They are starting to detect autism waaaay earlier. There are some studies showing genetic factors. Even the poling case, the disease was there first.
So yeah, there may in fact be many times where a kid gets an injection and shows new symptoms of autism that he did not display before the shot. But that just means that the autism was there first, not that the shot causes it.
Instead of ranting around spreading misinformation, 2 modes of which you have now retracted (will you do that at your next rally?), would it not be more prudent to say:
There is no causal link between vaccines and autism
There is no data to show any negative health effects of any ingredients of vaccines in the quantities they are used in.
There are many cases where symptoms of autism occur after an injection, sometimes directly after, sometimes weeks after.
We perhaps should look for more interaction between kids who have autism (severely symptomatic or not) and the reaction to the shots they may receive.
It seems that what may be happening is that some vaccines cause a reaction in kids who already have autism. This reaction might be due to a chemical in the vaccine, but its just as likely that it is an immune response to the vaccine that people with autism have. If this is the case, then running around with signs about mercury, anti-freeze, etc etc is completely counter productive. Find a way to detect autism in infants, then we can start talking about risk analysis with appropriate populations.
Again, I am throwing this out there, I am not an expert on autism and perhaps this has already been suggested/thrown out. But when you said the a plethora of anecdotal evidence is the same as data, that scares me. Its not, not even close. That is a dangerous definition that is ripe for abuse.
thanks
-tech
HCN, old friend, I was referring to Dr. Gordon's citation of a paper on the effects of thimerosal in vitro as support for his groupies' claims that their children went from bright, precocious toddlers to the ruined husks that they are today immediately after the MMR -- measles in the gut and all.
Being, like you, an engineer I reflexively ran the numbers and came up with the one-milligram lower bound that I posted.
Can you explain, in light of the changes in diagnostic criteria, how the data presented in your slide could be meaningfully comparable?
Please be specific, and please provide supporting science for your explanation.
Dr. Gordon, Please don't attribute a position to me that I do not hold. I don't think the changes in diagnostic criteria, nor the changes in the very definition of autism (now considered a spectrum of disorders), make the comparison "much more difficult". In fact, they make it very "easy" to make a completely invalid comparison.
That's because they are not. Feel free to refute this position with actual science - epidemiological data.
Therein lies the apparent difference between you and a scientifically minded person. A scientifically minded person would recognize that the data cannot be used to draw certain conclusions (such as implied by your slide titled "Autism By The Numbers"), simply because the criteria and definition refer to very different things over the time period represented on your slide. A pseudo-scientific position frames erroneous hypotheses or draws erroneous conclusions from such data.
No you won't. I'll assume that you are not purely lazy, or that you are not dodging this very simple question, rather, I'll assume that you simply missed the fact that I already posted the information from your slide upthread. Again, I'll attempt to save you some time and repost the information here.
So, to repeat, here is the question I have for you:
Can you explain, in light of the changes in diagnostic criteria, how the data presented in your slide could be meaningfully comparable?
Please be specific, and PLEASE provide supporting science for your explanation.
Also, Dr. Gordon,
Please try to resist temptation to respond to my statement that the criteria are not meaningfully comparable, with, "I disagree". My statement is a fact, not an opinion. Your agreement or disagreement is irrelevant if you cannot provide evidence to substantiate your position.
The numbers presented in your slide are not meaningfully comparable due to the following reasons:
1. The definition of "autism" has changed over the referenced time period. It has gone from a singular disorder diagnosed with very strict criteria to a spectrum of disorders diagnosed by a wide range of criteria.
2. The criteria have broadened for autistic disorder alone to be much more inclusive.
(See the relevant versions of the DSM between 1979 and today if you need verification)
In order to show that your numbers are meaningfully comparable in reference to "autism," you'll need to provide evidence that numbers 1 and 2 are incorrect, or you'll need to provide other scientific evidence that shows despite 1 and 2, the numbers are meaningfully comparable.
What do you say of someone whose education and training [1] require the ability to recognize the effects of changing diagnostic criteria and who has been in practice long enough to have seen the changes as they happened -- and still presents the fatally flawed comparisons for persuasive purposes?
[1] recall that paediatricians are often the first care providers to encounter autistic children
The calculation for in vitro exposure is actually different. You need to look not at the mercury concentration in the growth media, but the concentration in the cells growing in the growth media. Mercury partitions into cells from the growth media by a factor of at least 1,000. If you have relatively few cells in 1 mL, the mercury concentration in the cell is at least 1,000 times higher than in the growth media (the loss of mercury from the growth media due to partitioning into the cell is negligible), if the cell has been in the growth media long enough for equilibrium to be reached.
In other words, if the volume fraction of cells in the in vitro growth system is much smaller than the volume of media (it essentially always is because otherwise you need to replace the media continuously because cells consume it too fast), mercury can concentrate in the cells to levels much higher than in the media. This doesn't happen in vivo because there are always more cells than media in vivo (the whole body is cells).
If you actually measured the mercury in the affected cells in vitro, you could compare that to the exposure in vivo. In this case the mercury content of the cells would be ~1000 times higher (or more), or something like 500 ppm.
If we were to grant your 1000:1 proportion, that would imply that the MMR is being accused of containing 1000 mg of thimerosal instead of 1 mg -- but I'm sure that Dr. Gordon would argue the value of the multiplier, so I believe we can safely establish his indictment of the MMR as having a lower bound of 1 milligram.
Hey, I'm an engineer. Bounding theorems are bread and butter.
More love from Dr. Joy. He posted this to the JennyDCRally list in reference to my sharing the content of his other slam against Dr. Offit. One thing, Dr. Jay is right. He's juvenile. Are juvenile MDs allowed to practice medicine in Santa Monica?
"There are members of this list who are not our friends. They are watching every word we write and getting it to places we don't intend to go.
They have joined to monitor what we say and we should be aware that our posts may be taken out of context and used in ways we had not intended.
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/07/dr_jay_gordon_pediatrician_to… (Worth a visit and maybe even a comment or two.)
I recently posted a note expressing joy and happiness that Paul Offit had been revealed as a deceptive shill for the vaccine he's invented with his profits running into millions of dollars.
My post was disrespectful and juvenile.
What I meant to say is that he's dishonest, dishonorable and I'm embarrassed to have him in the same profession I'm in.
Any implication that I was immaturely calling him a poophead is a misunderstanding of me and all I stand for. I have never called Dr. Offit a poophead. Whether or not he deserves it is up to others to judge. I am, however, aware that there are some who think the man is a major poophead. I, personally, would never say that.
Best,
Jay
P.S. If the spies leak this back to Dr. Offit, I must emphasize that I was not implying that what you're doing is illegal.
Immoral, unethical, dishonest, disreputable and embarrassing to your profession, maybe. But not illegal.
Well, not really illegal.
Perhaps in violation of the code of ethics physicians should adhere to. But not illegal.
Maybe disgraceful, incredibly deceptive and crossing a line between being a researcher and being a shill. But not illegal.
I mean, some people might say it's illegal to not reveal your involvement in vaccine profits in certain things you've written but I would have to disagree and say that what you're doing is not technically illegal.
Might friggin' immoral, though Dr. Offit!!
JNG,MD"
I'm sure you could address your concerns to him directly. Your most hateful friends on the JennyDCRally list have his email address. They'd be happy to share it with you.
Just what exactly is Dr Offit being accused of? That he is making money out of something he is widely known as the inventor of?
Is that how low the anti-vax smear campaign has had to go? Can't dig up anything decent, so we have to be shocked that someone might have actually worked in the field they're an expert in?
Are we supposed to be shocked that he doesn't state the obvious - i.e. that a vaccine expert with an extensive publication history has involvment in vaccines? How stupid would you have to be to be shocked that Offit makes money from his expertise?
It's low, it's illogical and it wouldn't stand up in a libel court.
RE: Dr. Gordon's recent tirade. When someone starts talking in this manner (the language is so loose that it appears to be bordering on the manic)it either means he/she is unprepared intellectually to engage in the subject or is sick. I'm starting to feel sorry for him.
D.C. Sessions said "If we were to grant your 1000:1 proportion, that would imply that the MMR is being accused of containing 1000 mg of thimerosal instead of 1 mg"
Except, old friend (by the way folks, some of us are old Usenet friends... where we "met" Orac), that the MMR has NEVER contained thimerosal. There may be a trace from the steps in manufacturing, but that is all, and that is much less than 1 mg.
Dr. Jay, "First law of Holes: If you are in one, stop digging"(Denis Healy). My amateur analysis of this situation is that Dr. Jay is worried that he will be remembered as one the worst doctors of the current and past decade, so in order to deflect attention from his unprofessional conduct and practice of "emminence based medicine" he needs to make a whipping boy out of someone else. Seeing himself losing face in this widely read forum, he is frantic to execrate someone else so he would look better in comparison. This would explain the manic appearance of his writing. Dr. Jay, all you have to do is break off contact with the antivaccine brigade and stop getting your CME credits from granola-crunching indigo children at Esalen and Commonweal, and instead focus on the latest scientific consensus.
Well, darn. That would seem to be a bit below the threshold that Dr. Gordon is suggesting would be necessary to cause the effects he's blaming on the MMR shot.
I just can't imagine how he could have possibly overlooked a thing like that.
I'm crushed.
D. C. Sessions:
It is you who are sadly misinformed. Yes, there were roughly 56,000 cases of Rubella reported in 1970 (the vaccine came out in 1969) and those figures have steadily declined over the years. However, after the introduction of the vaccine, the number of CRS cases skyrocketed. In other words, the vaccine may have lowered the number of Rubella cases, but DID NOT lower the number of CRS cases (remember the vaccine's purpose - to prevent CRS, not strickly rubella). From 1966-1968 77% of all persons who contracted rubella were 14 years of age or younger - they will then more often than not, be granted lifetime immunity. By 1990, 81% of rubella cases reported were in ages 15 and older. From 1994-1997 it then rose to 85% of the older groups being affected by Rubella. The vaccine does not offer lifetime immunity and it comes with a lengthy list of side effects - many permanent.
Sources:
MMWR October 25, 1996 (for reported cases of CRS throughout the decades)
MMWR 1989;38:173-178
MMWR Weekly (February 15, 1991); 40(6):93-99
Baker, B. "Rubella ready for possible worldwide eradication" Pediatric News 2000;34 (1):18
Dawn, Dawn, Dawn. You still haven't learned how to lie convincingly with numbers. It takes a serious True Believer who wants to see proof in this one. I mean, making a claim ("number of CRS cases") and then switching the terms to "age of rubella patients" is just pathetic:
Here are the five-year averages for reported CRS from 1970-1993:
1970-1974 53.4
1975-1979 35.0
1780-1984 20.6
1985-1989 5.6
1990-1993 15.4
I'd add another decade or so but the CDC changed the format for MMWR rollups and it's going to take more work to extract. Control your impatience.
I can't comment on the incidence of congenital rubella syndrome (CRS) or associated terminations in the US but the leading deaf-blind charity Sense has published a surveillance report for the UK (doc or html version). They report that rubella vaccination programme has been very successful.
Wow! Excellent smackdown, DC! I was going to killfile Dawn, but it's worth leaving her out in the upper air just so I can fully savor your dismantling of her.
"However, after the introduction of the vaccine, the number of CRS cases skyrocketed."
What are you talking about?
Are you purposefully equivocating rubella and CRS? When you say "skyrocketed", you mean from 14 to 70? Are you insane? In the meantime Rubella has dropped unbelievably dramatically, by orders of magnitude. So did the CRS cases. So again... what is the complaint? you have no idea why there were that many many CRS cases that year, it could have been because the number of rubella cases were so high the year before. It could have been because the number of swimming pools increased or the number of barbie dolls got sold was higher. You are truly confusing correlation with causation (as so many anti vaxers do)
Then you play the percentages game? 85% of the older groups affected by rubella...duh! The number of people affected by the disease is remarkably small compared to when they started! You are you are talking about percentages of populations of people that are orders of magnitude smaller than at the start of the vaccination program. You pretend to know that catching and living through rubella is a guarantee that it wont come back again if you don't get a vax. Got a study for that? No! because first off it would be unethical to perform that study right now, and no one thought to gather this data before. You think rubella virus doesnt mutate? Of course some small fraction of people got it twice before, you are simply presuming that didn't happen because this wasn't studied. The vaccine certainly offers lifetime immunity, it just doesn't guarantee it, neither does getting it 'naturally'.
To look at the dramatic decrease in people afflicted with this disease and pretend there is not a complete victory for evidence based medicine is pathological.
I am again reminded of the antivax discussion with John Best over at Skeptico's.
Mary Parsons:
Thanks very much for posting the document. I hope to read it slower later, but I think the final few words are telling.
It would appear that Dawn is one of the more extreme of the antivaccine activists from the JennyDCRally list where Jay posted his comments about Dr. Offit. She came here to post as support for Dr. Gordon. It looks like Dr. Gordon won't be backing her up. And why should he, the woman is nutty. She posted links to several websites that explain conspiratorial mind control schemes (Project MKULTRA, a mind control page from rense.com,) after complaining that her child's doctor wanted her to sign a release because she was refusing vaccines. On the wikipedia page she linked to for Project MKULTRA it says their first goal was to find "Substances which will promote illogical thinking and impulsiveness to the point where the recipient would be discredited in public." ----------------> The CIA must have put a double dose of it in Jay Gordon and Dawn's Kool Ade.
I don't know what you will do with this information--I can pick who I want for our family doctor. We could easily seek you out. Instead, we actively avoid your practice.
I am not saying others should follow my example. Just sayin--I have a choice and am not a part of your practice.
Good Morning All--
I have responses for lots of the posts above and support for Dawn's efforts to present data but this has gotten increasingly unpleasant.
As I've mentioned to Do'C, I've brought a knife to a gunfight and will temporarily withdraw from this discussion. I interpret and "cherry pick" data according to you and I think you might be guilty of the same offense.
I'm not sure of the source for all the anger and vituperative ad hominem attacks but I'd like to think that this stems from a collective desire to protect children from being unvaccinated and therefore susceptible to some illnesses. Other outlets for all of us might be more productive. You've made me aware of how, what I regard as objective data, is in fact subject to a variety of interpretations. I stand by my claim that my thirty years of experience is a valuable set of anecdotal information. You disagree vehemently. So be it.
Best Wishes,
Jay
"but I'd like to think that this stems from a collective desire to protect children from being unvaccinated and therefore susceptible to some illnesses." The issue that precedes this is "misrepresenting the situation", which then brings on the issue you mention. I, and I'd like to think the others, are more focused on the preceding point here. You're leaving a step out ;-)
"I stand by my claim that my thirty years of experience is a valuable set of anecdotal information. You disagree vehemently." Shift the target, then hit the straw man? I doubt anyone is arguing that experience isn't valuable, I certainly haven't. I've addressed (what I see as) the real issue in several earlier posts, as have others: while anecdotal experience can be valuable to develop hypotheses, anecdotes can't be presented as conclusions.
As an exercise, why don't you compare the sentence above with the one prior to it in your post? First, you make "objective data" interpretable, then you "stand by your anecdotal information"... but your "anecdotal information" is highly interpretable, more so that studies that at least attempt to control the variables involved. I won't belabour the point, but doesn't this read hypocritically?
Both your remarks strike me as stating undeniable things, but shift the target to omit what people were actually objecting to.
DC, if you bathed in a swimming pool of vaccine until each cell in your body came into equilibrium with the mercury in that swimming pool of vaccine, then a 1000x multiplier would be appropriate.
The in vitro cells are in a swimming pool of growth media many tens of thousands of times their own volume. That is a very different exposure scenario to an injection of 0.5 mL of vaccine in a organism with 20,000 mL of volume (a 20 kg child).
There isn't enough mercury in the vaccine to give a 1000x higher dose to every cell in an organism 40,000 times its volume. There is plenty of mercury in a swimming pool of vaccine to give a 1000x dose to a cell 1/50,000 times the volume of the swimming pool.
This is the flaw of exposing cells in vitro to the same concentrations as in vaccines and pretending it means something. It doesn't.
All cells would be killed by immersion in straight vaccine. Why? Because vaccine isn't a growth media. It doesn't have the nutrients that cells need to survive. The same way that cells would die if suspended in normal saline. Why? Because normal saline doesn't have any glucose, or any of the other nutrients that cells need to survive. If cells are killed by immersion in normal saline in vitro, does that mean normal saline will kill people if injected? No, it doesn't because the volume of a person is much larger than the volume of the injection, and the normal saline is diluted by the internal growth media (that would be blood, plasma and lymph).
Cells will die very quickly (a few seconds) if put into pure distilled water. Is distilled water toxic? At the right dose it is, as is everything.
It would seem that our esteemed Dr. Gordon has been studying logical fallacies from John Scudamore. Well, I'm afraid he missed the point: Scudamore is the example, not the authority.
Having reviewed the thread history, I'm afraid that the only argumentum ad hominem in evidence is the "pharma shill gambit." The rest of the personal attacks vary, but all are of the valid-if-not-terribly-Respectful forms such as "you've just admitted to picking your facts to support your agenda."
It's depressing how few people who participate in "debates" online have even the most basic acquaintance with rhetoric.
For those who could use a wonderful source on the subject:
http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/
I'm not disputing that at all. I'm merely pointing out that it's not necessary to make the point. If someone runs the numbers and comes up with a threshold thimerosal amount of 1000 ucg, it really doesn't matter whether (per you) it would actually be more accurate to raise the threshold to 1000 mg. Either way vaccines (and, as HCN points out, especially MMR) don't meet the threshold -- and yet Dr. Gordon is using this as a polemical prop.
I'm content to knock out the prop. The fact that you and HCN are offering to pile a tonnes of ANFO around it is nice but not necessary; Dr. Gordon's own citation, without added information, is enough to show that he is either swallowing propaganda uncritically before advising parents (highly unprofessional, and IMHO unethical) or knowingly picking inapplicable material to support propaganda to the detriment of children.
Pick one: he's either a clueless tool too dim or credulous to check his facts, or he's actively engaged in disinformation. I'll let him tell us which one.
D.C. Sessions opines: "Pick one: he's either a clueless tool too dim or credulous to check his facts, or he's actively engaged in disinformation. I'll let him tell us which one."
May I have another day or two? This is a difficult choice and at the present time I'm stuck on an escalator during a power outage accessing the blog via my handheld device.
Thanks.
Jay
Jay said "I'm stuck on an escalator"
Have you considered walking up or down the escalator? With no power you treat them just like a staircase. Now if you were stuck in an elevator, then you might be really stuck.
at the present time I'm stuck on an escalator during a power outage
Oof! One of my least favorite situations to be in. Best of luck for the power outage being brief!
Dianne, why wouldn't you walk up or down the escalator?
The worst part is that it jerks when the power comes off. During Sakura-Con I had to hit the emergency stop button on the large escalator at the Convention Center because a kid got his shoe caught in the part on the bottom where the stair rolls under the floor. It cause the crowd on the steps to sway and shift.
"This is a difficult choice"
Jay, as I've suggested several times, by far the best option is to stop the public work until you're got the facts sorted out first.
At the moment, at best, you're guilty of giving credibility to something that you haven't honestly checked out first.
If you're half the doctor you should be, ignore the peer pressure from the anti-vaccine crowd and the media's sweet talking, the ego goodness that comes with it all, and check it all out properly before continuing any further. You may need to talk to scientists, as, with all respect, I doubt you'll have the skills to critically judge the literature or the time to get yourself up to that level.
On this note, would anyone recommend Allen's book "Vaccine"? I haven't had a chance to look at it and besides my budget is a bit tight, too! I doubt its quite at the level of primary literature, but would it serve as something to give the general landscape?
Looking further ahead:
You might lose face if you stop supporting these people, and I'm sure they provide lots of peer pressure, but you're going to lose even more if you don't. But lets face it, the only people you are going to lose face to are a small, if vocal, anti-vaccine crowd. You're currently looking stupid to a much larger group of people, so you're not really going to lose.
People admire someone who can admit to having screwed up and who moves on. People don't really admire those who just carry on "because others wanted me to", in fact they don't think much of people like that. Words like "gormless" come to mind. And I have to say that your current approach does look this way, at least from where I stand (i.e. I can't speak for others, but its how I see it).
My point is there is little to lose by stopping for a while and checking things out and you may well end up quite a bit better off for it.
PS: I doubt this post will count for much, but you have to try...
Heraclides, your post counts a lot. I have been honest and open in admitting that my interpretation of the facts and the literature is not the only way to interpret this data. Participating in this discussion has made me realize that.
Contrary to the only insulting part of your post, I do have the skill to critically judge what I read and merely differ with you and others in that judgement.
I am sorry to keep saying the same thing but I guess it needs to be said: Unlike many of you, I refuse to stop believing my eyes and ears. Most of the studies that you read in today's journals will be tossed out over the next 3-4 years. You know that.
Jay
But Dr. Gordon, Your eyes and ears are telling you things that thousands of other doctors' eyes and ears are not telling them. What is it about your practice, that although has a lower rate of vaccination within it has so many bad reactions to vaccines when other practices do not? Or would you say that you are the only one with the right kind of perception and they are all dullards? We know what the anitvaccine crusaders would say, "All the other pediatricians have entirely sold their souls to big pharma and the evil CDC."
There is something profoundly wrong with your instincts if you are the only one "feeling" that measles vaccine is more dangerous than the child getting measles, or that leaving an infant unprotected for pertussis for a year is a good idea. Neither is it smart to say, "Look we have all this herd immunity right now. That means we don't need to vaccinate for these diseases any more." There is something profoundly wrong with your worldview if you think it's alright to go spreading falsehoods about autism and vaccines and then admit that you hadn't really looked into the topics properly.
I"m sorry, Dr. Gordon, but you think you have the skill to critically judge what you read. You have demonstrated unequivocably in your statements (and particularly in your speeches and the things you've said to the media) that you do not.
Ah, yes, the "science has been wrong before" gambit. Actually, anti-vaccinationists have been saying this about the studies that have failed to find a link between vaccines and autism for several years now. The results still stand; none of the later studies have contradicted the later studies. But, hey, you can keep hoping.
As for "believing your eyes and your ears," you've just demonstrated the difference between practitioners of science-based medicine and practitioners of anecdote-based medicine. Practitioners of science-based medicine are actually more humble in that we realize how easily our cognitive quirks (which every human being has) can mislead us. Practitioners of anecdote-based medicine are arrogant enough to think that somehow they are magically immune to being fooled or that they can tell when they are being misled by their own observations. The scientific method is the best way--excuse the term--inoculate oneself against that.
Dianne, why wouldn't you walk up or down the escalator?
Because I read too quickly and thought that it said "elevator" (which I assume from context was what he meant). I'm not sure that one can be stuck on an escalator barring serious mobility problems (in which case how did you get on in the first place?)
(Or should I have tried for a more surreal answer like, "I thought he said IN an escalator and it's so tricky to get out of escalators once you get stuck inside"?)
Re: getting stuck on an escalator, I get the feeling that he were trying to be cute. There are different ways to get people to stop being mean to you and be your friend. Being cutesy, and whining about how mean people are, are two of them.
Jay says, "Almost all of them are from parents whose children developed autism in close temporal relationship to receiving vaccines. ."
Centuries ago, sailors used to sleep with their heads on a clump of sod, because of the temporal relationship between sleeping with sod and recovery from scurvy.
Why do you suppose that was, Dr. Gordon?
Heraclides said "On this note, would anyone recommend Allen's book "Vaccine"? I haven't had a chance to look at it and besides my budget is a bit tight, too! I doubt its quite at the level of primary literature, but would it serve as something to give the general landscape?"
Yes, it is a very good overview of the history of vaccines and the controversies about them that have existed since Jenner's day.
By the way, find your local library and check it out. It is at my city anc county libraris and the community college library (where I took it off the shelf to re-read some parts instead of studying for a physics exam). I don't think I could afford buying or even storing all the books I read.
(Sorry, Dianne, I could not resist)
Any thoughts on the SV40 Virus/Polio Contaminate? Anyone on this forum test positive for it? Just curious.
Nope.
Nope. http://jco.ascopubs.org/cgi/content/full/24/26/4356
Here is what I have.
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2000/02/002bookchin2.htm
Ooooh, an eight year old magazine article versus a two year old article in the peer reviewed Journal of Clinical Oncology!
Big deal.
"Heraclides, your post counts a lot."
Flattery, true or false, rarely buys much with me. (I reading "false" here: you more-or-less object to everything I've written.)
More to the point, if this is true, why don't take my advice instead of ducking it or "defending" yourself.
"I have been honest and open in admitting that my interpretation of the facts and the literature is not the only way to interpret this data. Participating in this discussion has made me realize that."
Rubbish and you're being patronising.
I've repeatedly pointed out that you're being dishonest in presenting unconfirmed "ideas" to the public as results. They're barely even ideas given there is (substantial) evidence directly against them.
I doubt the sincerity of your last sentence. If you want me to believe it, show it by stopping your public presentations and try writing up your "results" in respectable, peer-reviewed publications. The people who write in those journals include doctors too, only they have the humbleness to let the wider community judge their views, not hold their opinions above others' opinions or, more importantly, above controlled studies addressing the same issue.
"Contrary to the only insulting part of your post, I do have the skill to critically judge what I read and merely differ with you and others in that judgement."
There are no insults in that post. To critically judge you must know the relevant science in depth--you already have said you don't, so you can't. There is nothing about insults in that.
Most doctors have the humility to know their limitations.
"I am sorry to keep saying the same thing but I guess it needs to be said: Unlike many of you, I refuse to stop believing my eyes and ears."
And as I keep saying, observations are useful to generate hypotheses, but they are only hypotheses, not conclusions.
I have ideas from observations too. But I know that they don't amount to more than ideas until I prove they have substance. I have some ideas that I think may underpin some aspects of the molecular biology of some specific cancers. Very grand and all that. We all have ideas like that, don't we? ;-) But until they're tested, they're just ideas. Funding anyone! ;-) (Just kidding.)
"Most of the studies that you read in today's journals will be tossed out over the next 3-4 years. You know that."
Successful results withstand decades and, in case, even centuries of re-examination. These are invariably evidence-based by their nature. Of course individual papers are refined over time, because they're focused on exploring tiny aspects of a large picture. Most people look at the larger picture: its a cop-out to object to small aspects of large stories being refined.
HCN: Thanks. Thanks for mentioning the library, too, it gave me an idea--my local library more-or-less buys every book readers ask for... I'll drop in a request next time I'm in. Didn't think of that earlier. It'd be a good addition to their shelves if they don't have it already.
re polio: The story in the Swat region of Pakistan doesn't look too bright. I've visited that area myself and if its anything like it was then, I can imagine it'll take a lot of persuasion to calm the influence of the local religious wallahs [sic].
Any thoughts on the SV40 Virus/Polio Contaminate? Anyone on this forum test positive for it? Just curious.
Yes, and it's a BFD as far as I'm concerned, even though I had easily 3x as many polio shots as most kids.
No significant increase in overall cancer incidence between exposed and unexposed birth cohorts has been demonstrated for medulloblastoma, osteosarcoma, ependymoma, mesothelioma, choroid plexus tumor and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
Studies of neonates inoculated with SV40-containing poliovirus vaccine and followed up after 6 to 8 years, 17 to 19 years, and 35 years all found no excess risk of cancer attributable to SV40 exposure.
Hey, Dawn... do you have any real evidence (not magazine articles) that the "toxins" in the DTaP are seriously worse than these:
tetanospasmin, tetanolysin, diphtheria toxin and pertussis toxin ?
Remembering that the reason why antibiotics do not work so well for those bacterial infections is due to these same bacteria pushing those toxins into the body. Which is why the best way to to avoid a the dozen deaths of babies in the USA each year is to make sure enough people are immune to pertussis, and the same goes for diphtheria. There is no herd immunity for tetanus (it exists in the soil, and has been known to infect through bug bites), and has about one death per ten infections.
Since you love CDC references, from http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/tetanus.pdf ...
"In recent years, tetanus has been fatal in approximately 11% of reported cases. Cases most likely to be fatal are those occurring in persons 60 years of age and older (18%) and unvaccinated persons (22%). In about 20% of tetanus deaths, no obvious pathology is identified and death is attributed to the direct effects of tetanus toxin."
...
"Antibiotic prophylaxis against tetanus is neither practical nor useful in managing wounds; proper immunization plays the more important role. The need for active immunization, with or without passive immunization, depends on the condition of the wound and the patient's immunization history (see MMWR 2006;55[RR-17] for details). Rarely have cases of tetanus occurred in persons with a documented primary series of tetanus toxoid."
...
"Tetanus may follow elective surgery, burns, deep puncture wounds, crush wounds, otitis media (ear infections), dental infection, animal bites, abortion, and pregnancy."
Oh, Dr. Jay, I hope you were able to escape the dreaded electricity free escalator. I hope it was not in you gym. It would have been dreadful if you could not figure out how to walk a set of moving stairs that lost power (doesn't that happen often in So. Cal. when the air conditioners stress the power network?).
Anyway, I just thought I should tell you that my younger sister was born very premature in the early 1960s (at 7 months gestation, we blame our mother's smoking habit). It was due to her iron-clad constitution that allowed her to survive, and the only "adverse" thing was that she was lactose intolerant.
So, despite living a childhood without milk, cheese or ice cream she still managed to get sick. She got pink eye, strep and chicken pox (she was one of the earliest to get the rubella vaccine, like me, as an Army brat she got every vaccine imaginable, including Yellow Fever). I remember she had a terrible set of infections that led to a tonsillectomy. During high school she got mono (something I missed).
Now explain to us very carefully how skipping milk products protects against pertussis, measles, mumps, diphtheria, tetanus, polio, rubella, and any other infection.
Heraclides, I was serious. How often does one get to get one's ideas tested in an almost 100% hostile environment? Hostility from scientific minds prepared to knock down my arguments and keep them down unless I back them up with critical thinking.
If something like this doesn't make me think harder and reevaluate some of my ideas, then I am the idiot most of you think I am. I'm not.
I'm reading everything you send and link me to including the full Simpsonwood text.
I'm just not prepared to match insult for insult and I can't possibly muster up the anger you somehow find.
HCN, no offense, but you deviate from the topic pretty wildly in your last post. Not eating dairy products does not protect one from the diseases you list and we're a little too far along in this discussion for you to suggest that I meant something that silly.
Yes, I had hoped that the old "escalator" joke might be recalled by some of you and lighten the mood in the room a little. Not so . . .
Best,
Jay
"unless I back them up with critical thinking" Of course you have to. It goes without saying. And of course ideas are going to be knocked down if they're not backed. What do you expect? None of us wwould get far in science if we just tossed out ideas without critical thinking--and the necessary testing that follows it.
Read Feynman's Cargo Cult lecture. You're supposed to do this yourself. Idea. Hypothesis. Test, test, test. Spend most of your time trying to find all the flaws in your hypothesis. And when you can't find more flaws, then you're ready to talk about it. If you're limited by your particular skill-set such that you know there are some issues you can't test, then what you have done will be conditional on the open questions that remain. And if there are too many open questions remaining, the work is probably not so much use, and that probably reflects your skills (or choosing the wrong project for yourself). Because you haven't done all this, you're getting the "find the flaws" from others. It just means that your ideas aren't ready for an audience, especially an untrained audience like the general public.
To be honest, I doubt your "ideas" will ever be "ready for publication", as a little reading should show that they conflict with too many established results to be worth considering seriously. Put another way, I'm giving you enough rope to hang yourself ;-)
But to be very short: let's just say you don't sound like a scientist...!!
"I'm just not prepared to match insult for insult and I can't possibly muster up the anger you somehow find." I'm not angry at all and I have not called you names or "insulted" you. I have (firmly!) criticised what you wrote; if you're "insulted" by the criticism, look at what you wrote, but don't plant "bully" on me to try "paint me black", please.
I'm up-front about what I see in your posts, but that's not being "insulting" either, unless you can't face what others see in your posts.
Since you are now twisting my actions, however modestly, I'm tempted to leave dealing with you to others: I don't care for posters who "defend" themselves in this way. (In past experiences, including a very recent case, I have found that once a poster starts to twist the meaning of posts, they get on a bandwagon with it and its not something I enjoy facing.)
Possibly last words, in this thread anyway, so I'll leave you with this:
If you want me to believe you sincerely, show it with actions, not words.
Just to be clear, by "twisting" I'm not trying to accuse you of grand crimes! Read it as "misreading" if that wording sits better with you.
HCN: Actually I have an uncle who LIVED through Tetanus (without antibiotics or vaccines). As far as Pertussis is concerned, I truly believe that it would not be deadly if the child wasn't vaccinated for anything else. I have yet to meet a completely unvaccinated child who died from it - yes, many have had it too. In fact, I am having a hard time finding any completely unvaccinated children/adults who died from these so-called vaccine preventable diseases quite frankly. Yes, some have died from these diseases, but if you dig a little more they were usually recently vaccinated for something else.
If you are really into reading the "peer-viewed medical journals", than I highly recommend reading the "Vaccine Safety Manual" by Neil Z. Miller. There are over 1,000 sources (the majority are from well-known medical journals)cited in this book that you can further investigate.
For everyone:
I keep hearing about all of these studies proving that vaccines do not cause Autism. Yet, I am only familiar with a handful of them (from what I could see they were either inconclusive or seriously flawed due to lacking sufficient test/subject data). I have been told that there are roughly 16 studies according to Dr. Paul Offit. Can anyone name all of them?
"Any thoughts on the SV40 Virus/Polio Contaminate? Anyone on this forum test positive for it? Just curious."
KRRRRRRRRRRRR
what was that noise?
Goal posts being moved. Again.
Anger? Not at all, Doctor. Do you get angry at the staphloccus in an abscess? That would be both unproductive and unprofessional. A much more rational approach is to assess the situation, identify the characteristics of the active agent involved, and to the extent within one's abilities apply corrective measures.
If that involves a bit of deflation, whether of pus or ego, so be it.
Of course, I can only speak for myself.
You make a good point, Dawn. I have never met anyone who has died from decapitation, now that you mention it. Must not be a problem.
As for "completely unvaccinated," I'm not quite with you based on family and written history. Back before there were routine childrens' vaccines for anything, pertussis killed a lot of babies. The fact that we can keep many of them alive today in paediatric ICU (although ususlly with lifelong sequelae) is not proof that the disease isn't a killer.
But that was a nice try, Dawn. Keep in training.
O.k. I guess I must repeat the question because nobody has answered it yet...
I keep hearing about all of these studies proving that vaccines do not cause Autism. Yet, I am only familiar with a handful of them (from what I could see they were either inconclusive or seriously flawed due to lacking sufficient test/subject data). I have been told that there are roughly 16 studies according to Dr. Paul Offit. Can anyone name ALL of them?
DC Sessions: I am not referring to "back in the day". That is irrelevant because during that time cleanliness was not an option.
You stated: As for "completely unvaccinated," I'm not quite with you based on family and written history.
Are you stating that your family is NOT vaccinated?
Keep trying, Dawn. I do love your idea that soap, water, bleach, etc. were only invented in your lifetime. Never mind, of course, that they have nothing to do with the transmission of bordatella pertussis.
Dr. Gordon,
If you're still around, I urge you in the strongest possible terms to reread what Heraclides and Orac are saying. I don't think you mean ill or are driven by base motives. To speak of conflicts of interest assumes that there is a scientific process to be corrupted by other incentives. In your case, there's nothing to corrupt - you lack a basic understanding of how scientific knowledge is produced. I believe that you genuinely care about your patients, but you are behaving extremely irresponsibly. Please, please take their advice.
Dawn,
Do your homework? Should do it yourself (I assume you can use goggle...) One minutes' work: google 'autism vaccination studies', third hit: http://www.immunize.org/catg.d/p4026.pdf lists 23 studies against a MMR vaccine-autism link and three Suggestively for (but one since retracted, so its two). Google cache as an HTML version, too. There are others for vaccines in general.
DC Sessions: I thought so. You cannot/will not answer any of my questions. Keep dodging the issue though. You just proved my point.
Heraclides: So, are you telling me that you one of those studies that you hold your faith with is the Denmark Study? Again, I urge you all to purchase the "Vaccine Safety Manual" by Neil Z. Miller.
Then talk to me. Until then, you really haven't done your homework on the subject.
Dawn:
I was pointing out the one minutes' work found more than you asked for, so you're not trying really. Even if you chose to overlook the Danish study (not a correct claim, I believe), you've still got 22 others...
re: people that don't vaccinate getting vaccine-preventable diseases: Diane gave an example of a community that doesn't vaccinate that are currently suffering from a vaccine-preventable disease in earlier this very thread... You'll see the same in some religious communities and of course if you look back to before a particular country vaccinated (remember other countries started vaccination later than in the USA and Europe), you'll see the same.
For many viral infections (as opposed to bacterial), the "cleaniness excuse" doesn't really hold, and where it does contribute (unless being a hermit is your idea of cleaniness), its often a contribution to public health, not a full prevention.
There are also nice (or not nice, depending on your point of view) examples of where a particular vaccination was ceased, followed by a rise in the particular disease that vaccine targeted, but not the other diseases targeted by other vaccines, nicely illustrating the effect of the particular vaccine.
(Excuse my apparently wild typing, its in the wee hours over here!)
Dawn: "I keep hearing about all of these studies proving that vaccines do not cause Autism."
Dawn, there isn't a single study to prove vaccines don't cause autism. The best you will find are attempts to investigate causal relationships and potential mechanisms, some of which have been suggested by people like Andrew Wakefield and the Geirs. In most cases, when good science is applied, these investigations fail to replicate or confirm the hypotheses that are held up as evidence of harm.
Let's take Mady Hornig's infamous autistic mice study as an example. When an independent group of scientists attempted to replicate her findings they failed. Does that prove vaccine don't cause autism? No, of course not, but it at least closes one avenue of investigation.
When multiple studies fail to reveal a link between autism and vaccination, it doesn't prove anything but it makes a convincing argument against one.
The parents and scientists who believe thimerosal and/or MMR cause autism have had an awfully long time to come up with a plausible mechanism to explain how either might cause autism. They have failed.
To put it in your terms, I have been told that there are roughly hundreds of studies that prove vaccines cause autism. Can you name ONE of them?
Have to run for now.....but I am having a lot of fun. I will be back with some challenging questions later today though. In the meantime - get the BOOK!! If you really believe the information/studies in these peer-reviewed medical journals - then BUY THE BOOK!
notmercury: the two reference in the source I just gave are "suggestive", rather than proofs, of course. Just a head's up.
I have to head off... (my editing is getting too sloppy with the late hour...)
I can't stick around for all the fun, but Dawn -- 3 minutes on Google will provide the information that the majority of recent (that is, since the 80s) Pertussis deaths in the US, England and Wales have been infants a few weeks old (i.e. <2 mos.) -- before any immunizations were given. More information for England and Wales is available here, for example:
http://www.hpa.org.uk/webw/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1195733807029…
I forgot, the "less than" sign does weird things to one's post. To continue that:
Pertussis deaths in the US, England and Wales have been infants a few weeks old (i.e. less than 2 mos.) -- before any immunizations were given. More information for England and Wales is available here, for example:
http://www.hpa.org.uk/webw/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1195733807029…
Hasn't anyone pointed this out to Dawn and Jay?
http://www.iom.edu/?ID=4705
This is uncanny. I just picked up this reference on another blog and read it and then I read Dawn's latest comments (about never having met a child who had died etc.).
Shermer on How Anecdotal Evidence Can Undermine Scientific Results.
Luna - thank you for that reference about the pertussis.
The trick is that you have to use the escape codes: & lt ; and & lt ; (take out the spaces)
Thats ampersand-l-t-semicolon.
Jay said, "How often does one get to get one's ideas tested in an almost 100% hostile environment? Hostility from scientific minds prepared to knock down my arguments and keep them down unless I back them up with critical thinking."
People standing around being 100% approving and supportive is called a fan-fest, or an esteem building exercise.
People standing around yelling "good answer" is called a game show.
People asking you to validate your ideas, cite your sources and explain how the hell you arrived at a conclusion is science. It's often abrasive ...that's how you polish your ideas.
Dawn said, As far as Pertussis is concerned, I truly believe that it would not be deadly if the child wasn't vaccinated for anything else.
I have death records starting way before it was routine to vaccinate infants ... going all the way back to the 1600s. In Glasgow, 1844, 17 children under the age of 1 year died of "hooping cough" in January. 449 Glasgow children under 5 died of it in 1844. It caused over 10% of the deaths in that age group.
notmercury: You stated the following:
Dawn, there isn't a single study to prove vaccines don't cause autism. The best you will find are attempts to investigate causal relationships and potential mechanisms, some of which have been suggested by people like Andrew Wakefield and the Geirs. In most cases, when good science is applied, these investigations fail to replicate or confirm the hypotheses that are held up as evidence of harm.
The group of children who "became sick and regressed into Autism directly after their vaccines" have NEVER been studied. One example is the Denmark Study - this study was flawed in every way imaginable....my guess is that they all are.
We must also question why our politicians refuse to support a House Bill at the moment that will study the unvaccinated and vaccinated populations. Only a handful of them have co-sponsored this bill! Why? Don't we all want answers? What is there to hide?
Why did the Director of the CDC RESIGN during the Autism/Thimerosal Congressional Hearings in 2001-2002?
Why did the former Director of NIH, James Shannon state that the only safe vaccine is one that is never used?
Why did Bernadine Healy, another former Director of the NIH blast our government agencies for not dealing with this alarming issue? What else did she say? The children who regressed into Autism have NEVER been studied.
What about what Julie Gerberding recently stated in front of the House of Appropriations Committee?
I, for one DO NOT believe that mercury or genetics alone cause Autism. I believe it depends upon many different factors (again, not just mercury as the sole toxin). If studies have proven that viruses can trigger certain conditions in predisposed individuals, what do you think live-virus vaccines are capable of? It is not that hard to figure out. By the way, according to the U.S. Dept of Education in 2007, 1 in 64 children in Elementary School have Autism and are in Special Ed. It is not due to better diagnosing skills either. 1 in 150 was in 1994 according to this same government agency. That is alarming. Why/how is the CDC allowed to get away with this BS?! I have the Dept of Education links if you need them to see for yourself.
Prior to 1999, Autism was almost unheard of in China. They then began buying U.S. manufactured vaccines. By 2005, they reported 1.8 million cases of Autism. Wasn't it the very next year that they poisoned our pets, children and food supply? This is no coincidence. This is about so much more than just vaccines.
The evidence is there. You just need to open your eyes wide enough to see it.
(Sorry, Dianne, I could not resist)
HCN: I can't imagine why you should. Resist that is. What's the internet for if not teasing people when they make silly reading comprehension errors?
In fact, I am having a hard time finding any completely unvaccinated children/adults who died from these so-called vaccine preventable diseases quite frankly.
This is just another anecdote, of course, but I have. A kid whose parents didn't vaccinate for religious reasons. On a farm. The inevitable occurred and one of their kids got tetanus. He died after several weeks of being in spasm so severe that his feet touched the back of his head. Any light or noise or touch could make the spasm worse so he was never able to see his parents again, much less be comforted by their touch or voice. If that's the death you want for your child, then don't vaccinate. Myself, I wouldn't wish it on Osama bin Laden, much less an innocent kid.
Still waiting for some real evidence that the "toxins" in the DTaP are seriously worse than these:
tetanospasmin, tetanolysin, diphtheria toxin and pertussis toxin ?
Dawn, anecdotes do not count. The same goes for magazine articles.
By the way here are the latest statistics for pertussis from http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/G/cases&… ...
Year_____Cases_____Deaths
1950___120718_____1118
1955____62786______467
1960____14809______118
1965_____6799_______55
1970_____4249_______12
1975_____1738________8
1980_____1730_______11
1985_____3589________4
1990_____4570_______12
1995_____5137________6
2000_____7867______ 12
2001_____7580______ 17
2002_____9771______ 18
2003____11647______ 11
2004____25827______ 27
2005____25616______ 39
2006____15632______ 16
The last death figures are from this slide set:
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/Slides/Pertussis10… ... Slide 9. Of the 82 deaths from pertussis during 2004 through 2006, 69 were of infants under the age of three months, while the remaining 13 were older than three months.
If you look at the plots of slides #12 and #13, you will see a nice plot of the numbers of pertussis cases I listed above. They go down to very little in the 1980s, only to start rising again in the 1990s and later.
Like Tsu Dho Ninh said, those deaths are more often those of infants too young to be immunized. They need to rely on herd immunity. From the numbers, it looks like the efforts of folks like you and Dr. Gordon are making sure it gets eroded away... so more babies get to die.
Wow Dianne! You were the only one who responded and how many hours did it take for you to come up with 1 CASE!!?? Like I said everyone, buy the book that I mentioned earlier. You may find it very interesting. Again, the majority of "facts" are derived from well-known peer-reviewed medical journals (again, over 1,000)!! Compare each vaccine/disease to what you have read/learned earlier.
Dawn: Did you read HCN's post, above? Perhaps you cross posted. Be that as it may, 140 people have died of pertussis alone since the year 2000 in just the United States. Is that not enough for you? How many more dead children do you demand?
Dawn ... Autism was almost unheard of in China. They then began buying U.S. manufactured vaccines. By 2005, they reported 1.8 million cases of Autism. quoting Robert Kennedy on autism? Not only was it known, it was being researched in Hong Kong. They had a registry in that region in 1987 or so, way before
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedi…
J Appl Behav Anal. 1997 Spring; 30(1): 59-68.
J P Leung and K I Wu
Psychology Department, The Chinese University of Hong Kong
Autism in China: From Acupuncture to Applied Behavior Analysis
Psychology in the Schools, v42 n3 p285-295 Mar 2005
Clark, Elaine; Zhou, Zheng "Although efforts are currently under way to determine the prevalence of autism in China, to date there are no reliable data that indicate the magnitude of the problem. There are no formalized education programs for children with autism and only a handful of treatment programs"
How telling is it that Dawn only responds to the anecdote, and ignored the actual statistical evidence?
If anyone is really in doubt about the efficacy of vaccination, consider the case of measles. The first measles vaccine was licensed in the US in 1963. Within two years the number of cases and deaths due to measles fell by about half. By five years, the number of cases and deaths fell nearly an order of magnitude. There was a small spike in incidence between 1989 and 1991. Does anyone know what's up with that? Was that a period of particular vaccination hysteria? Or is there some other explanation?
Dianne said "There was a small spike in incidence between 1989 and 1991. Does anyone know what's up with that? Was that a period of particular vaccination hysteria? Or is there some other explanation?"
There have been lots of theories about that. A chunk of about 6 to 9 of the cases were from a pair of churches in Philadelphia that refused all medical intervention. Then there is another large chunk of cases that have to do with families who were too poor to afford medical care, and did not get vaccinated (many states then started to make sure vaccines were more available to these people), and for some it was just being too lax. In the biography of Maurice Hilleman by Paul Offit he relates an interview with a woman whose child died from measles where she lamented that she thought that measles was gone and the vaccines were not needed anymore (I remember reading that in the newspaper, but it must have been an AP story since I cannot find it in that paper's online archives... it is a kind of story that just sticks with you, but it is in the book "Vaccinated").
A couple of papers that address the issue:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedi…
and
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedi…
Also read the editorial that is linked to from the second paper. What is interesting is that California (and many other states, including mine) have worked to make sure that the low income get their vaccinations (and everyone, I was sent many reminders for me to vaccinate my one child born after 1991). The most recent measles outbreak was started from a higher income family who chose not to vaccinate their children, and it spread amongst the other voluntarily unvaccinated kids in the charter school (oh, and to some kids too young for the vaccine who happened to be in the doctor's waiting room).
Okay, special for Dawn...though she's obviously being disingenuous and will never read these...
These are just the studies showing thimerosal is safe. There is a whole separate set showing MMR is safe.
*Original Data*
Schechter R, Grether JK. Continuing increases in autism reported to California's developmental services system - mercury in retrograde. Archives of General Psychiatry 2008 Jan; 65(1): 19-24.
Thompson WW, Price C, Goodson B et al. Early thimerosal exposure and neuropsychological outcomes at 7 to 10 years. New England Journal of Medicine 2007 Sep 27; 357(13): 1281-92.
Fombonne E, Zakarian R, Bennett A et al. Pervasive developmental disorders in Montreal, Quebec, Canada: prevalence and links with immunization. Pediatrics 2006 Jul; 118(1): e139-e150.
Jick H, Kaye JA. Autism and DPT vaccination in the United Kingdom [letter]. New England Journal of Medicine 2004 June 24; 350(26): 2722-23.
Heron J, Golden J, ALSPAC Study Team. Thimerosal exposure in infants and developmental disorders: a prospective cohort study in the United Kingdom does not support a causal association. Pediatrics 2004 Sep; 114(3): 577-83.
Andrews N, Miller E, Grant A et al. Thimerosal exposure in infants and developmental disorders: a retrospective cohort study in the United Kingdom does not support a causal association. Pediatrics 2004 Sep; 114(3): 584-91.
Verstraeten T, Davis RL, DeStefano F et al. Safety of thimerosal-containing vaccines: a two-phased study of computerized health maintenance organization databases. Pediatrics 2003 Nov; 112(5): 1039-48.
Hviid A, Stellfeld M, Wohlfahrt J et al. Association between thimerosal-containing vaccine and autism. JAMA 2003 Oct 1; 290(13): 1763-66.
Madsen KM, Lauritsen MB, Pedersen CB et al. Thimerosal and the occurrence of autism: negative ecological evidence from Danish population-based data. Pediatrics 2003 Sep; 112(3): 604-06.
Stehr-Green P, Tull P, Stellfeld M et al. Autism and thimerosal-containing vaccines: lack of consistent evidence for an association. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2003; 25(2): 101-06.
*Review Articles*
Parker SK, Schwartz B, Todd J et al. Thimerosal-containing vaccines and autistic spectrum disorder: a critical review of published original data. Pediatrics 2004 Sep; 114(3): 793-804.
Immunization Safety Review: Vaccines and Autism. Institute of Medicine 2004, available at www.nap.edu.
Hasn't anyone pointed this out to Dawn?
http://www.iom.edu/?ID=4705
I think I did, it seems inconvenient for her to respond to it.
"The evidence is there. You just need to open your eyes wide enough to see it."
Anyone know where I can buy those clamps to hold my eyes open wider? [cue Ludwig Van]
HCN: Actually, your "evidence" is missing some critical information.
The whole cell pertussis vaccine was developed in the early 1900's.
The whole cell pertussis vaccine was put into general use in the mid 1930's and early 1940's.
In 1946 it was mixed with Diptheria and Tetanus.
The CDC failed to mention that from 1900-1935 (before the vaccine was introduced) the death rate in the U.S. from Pertussis declined 79%! (82% in Great Britain) Source: International Mortality Statistics - 1981 Michael Anderson
You also failed to include the high rate of failure with this vaccine (I have documentation for this also if you would like).
70% of SIDS cases occurred within 3 weeks after vaccination w/Pertussis. Source: Torch, WC Neurology 1982; 32(4): pt.2
Breathing Patterns Documented before/after Pertussis Vaccine
Source: 100 Yrs of Orthodox Research by Dr. Viera Scheibner (Blackheath Australia 1993)
Then of course adverse reactions reported to VAERS. You must factor in that the CDC has stated that less than 10% are ever reported and fewer than 1% of Serious Ones are ever reported either.
I rest my case on that vaccine.
Dianne: You stated the following:
Dawn: Did you read HCN's post, above? Perhaps you cross posted. Be that as it may, 140 people have died of pertussis alone since the year 2000 in just the United States. Is that not enough for you? How many more dead children do you demand?
If my mind serves me correctly, I remember reading that 6,000 people die each year due to vaccine reactions alone. When you factor in all of the other vaccine-related injuries, which is worse?
Sorry, the above post is mine. I wrote Dianne's name in the wrong area....Long day. I will copy and repost here...
Dianne: You stated the following:
Dawn: Did you read HCN's post, above? Perhaps you cross posted. Be that as it may, 140 people have died of pertussis alone since the year 2000 in just the United States. Is that not enough for you? How many more dead children do you demand?
If my mind serves me correctly, I remember reading that 6,000 people die each year due to vaccine reactions alone. When you factor in all of the other vaccine-related injuries, which is worse?
Joe: You stated:
Hasn't anyone pointed this out to Dawn?
http://www.iom.edu/?ID=4705
I think I did, it seems inconvenient for her to respond to it.
WHO were the members of these meetings/committees???? Funny, I heard that there was a recent "Vaccine Safety Meeting" too. Upon further research you will find that these meetings are comprised of biased individuals (who side with the vaccine manufacturers of course). It is not open for debate I have learned. So, any "concerns" are not recognized.
Isles: One of the studies that you have quoted was seriously flawed also. I have to go back and look through my notes on the one that you cited below...
Verstraeten T, Davis RL, DeStefano F et al. Safety of thimerosal-containing vaccines: a two-phased study of computerized health maintenance organization databases. Pediatrics 2003 Nov; 112(5): 1039-48. FLAWED!!
You also failed to mention that the FDA recommended banning Thimerosal in 1982 from over the counter products because of its toxicity and ineffectiveness.
You also failed to mention the "Top Secret" Simpsonwood Conference that was held in June 2000. Several "insiders" THAT WERE PRESENT DURING THIS MEETING have come forward and claimed that there was a link found. However, the official release stated there wasn't. WAS ANYONE ON THIS THREAD PRESENT FOR THIS CONFERENCE TO STATE OTHERWISE?
Dawn... your little history lesson has nothing to do with the data I posted, especially with the last decade. Again, where exactly is the evidence that the "toxins" in the DTaP are seriously worse than these:
tetanospasmin, tetanolysin, diphtheria toxin and pertussis toxin ?
I remember reading that 6,000 people die each year due to vaccine reactions alone.
Do you have a link or reference for your source? Because otherwise the claim is extremely unconvincing.
Dianne and HCN: I gave you a "wealth of information" - A book to purchase that contains all of the evidence that you need....again, over 1,000 points of reference. Whether you care to investigate both sides of the debate or not is entirely up to you. It has literally taken me months of researching BOTH sides of the debate before I came to the final conclusion that vaccines are just not worth the risk. The real "risks" involved are what the healthcare professionals fail to recognize - despite the adverse reactions listed on the vaccine package inserts! It is truly appalling.
Dianne: You did spark my curiosity with the Measles debate. I will be coming back to that shortly.
Dawn said " A book to purchase that contains all of the evidence that you need"
Oooh... you want us to buy a book? How does this compare to the freely available online documents that I have used?
Try harder, especially much of the "information" you tell us is factually wrong. This includes telling us that they stopped counting rubella in 1966, when in fact they STARTED in 1966... Then there is the old "China did not have autism until 1999", when it is clearly documented to have been documented before then.
Dawn: "It has literally taken me months of researching BOTH sides of the debate before I came to the final conclusion that vaccines are just not worth the risk."
I doubt anyone is interested in how many (literally?) months of researching it took for you to arrive at your point of view, though I personally would love to know what it would take to change your mind.
The "wealth of information" you've provided is meaningless unless you can point to specific facts to support your opinion. You may as well drop a link to Google and say, "Look it up."
Dianne:
Here is what I found on measles...
From 1915 to 1958 (before the measles vaccine was introduced), the death rate had already declined in the U.K. and U.S. by 98%. (For example, in 1955 .03 deaths per 100,000 were reported in both of these countries combined - which was 8 YEARS before the vaccine came out). Source: International Mortality Statistics 1981:182-183
What your data fails to show is the shift of age groups affected by measles since the introduction of the vaccine. Infants are now susceptible to this disease under the age of 1 yr. However, it was extremely rare for this age group to contract it BEFORE the vaccine came out. Now, older age groups are largely affected too since the introduction of the vaccine.
What about the history of reported outbreaks among the vaccinated populations? A large percentage of vaccinated populations contracted measles according to the sources below from the years 1984-1995.
New England Journal of Medicine 1987;316:771-74
JAMA 1990;263:2467-71
Several CDC MMWRs
When you weigh the adverse reactions associated with this vaccine against the risk of disease, I think you might agree with me that a person would be better off taking their chances with the disease.
"Buy the book" sounds very much like the silly Jock Doubleday fraudulent challenge where it is required in the contract to actually buy and read their propaganda:
http://www.spontaneouscreation.org/SC/ContractPartA.htm ...
"D. Book Purchase
To assure Participant's complete and thorough familiarity with and understanding of possible immediate and long-term physical and psychological hazards of chemicals commonly used as disinfectant, preservative, medium, or other additives in vaccines, as well as possible immediate and long-term behavioral changes that may occur from ingestion of or contact with these chemicals, Participant agrees to obtain at Participant's cost the following recently published books (the "Books"):
1) Vaccines: Are They Really Safe and Effective? by Neil Z. Miller;
2) Immunization: The Reality Behind the Myth, by Walene James;
...."
There it is... that book. No, I am not going to spend money on that book.
I will, however, accept any and all data that you find that is indexed at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez/ ... or from official public health department information sites (like the CDC number I gave... you claimed the CDC said one thing, yet the actual information was quite different).
The CDC failed to mention that from 1900-1935 (before the vaccine was introduced) the death rate in the U.S. from Pertussis declined 79%! (82% in Great Britain) Source: International Mortality Statistics - 1981 Michael Anderson
Presuming its true (no link), what was the reason for this? Are you claiming that this drop was due to no vaccine was given. what about the rate before 1900? How did it get so high? Was it because there was a vaccine given? (I clearly think not). The best you can claim is that there is a way to reduce pertusis without vaccinations but we don't know what it is. Meanwhile vaccinations work great.
You also failed to include the high rate of failure with this vaccine
What do you call a failure because from every single report on incidence and death, the the DTaP vaccine is highly effective. how do you explain an order of magnitude drop? fairies?
70% of SIDS cases occurred within 3 weeks after vaccination w/Pertussis. Source: Torch, WC Neurology 1982; 32(4): pt.2
so what? 3 weeks? that isn't even close to being 'after' as you are implying. You could easily say 70% of SIDS cases occur 3 weeks after PCV or HiB, considering they are given at similar intervals. You could also say that 90% of SIDS cases occur before the Rotavirus vaccination. Now you are claiming the vaccines causes SIDS? How come changing the directions babies face reduces the incidence of SIDS? how come pacifier use lowers SIDS incidence? how do you explain almost a 5x drop in SIDS in the US and 3x drop in Canada despite increased use of vaccinations? Once again you are intentionally skewing statistical results. you are all over the place screwing up what might even be decent studies.
I think I see the problem, well two of them. You have absolutely no idea how to discern a good study from a bad one. When wakefield does a study with less than 100 people in it and makes a claim that MMR causes autism, that study needs to be replicated, when it is and similar results can't be found you must be suspicious. Science is not a monotonically increasing repository of accurate knowledge. you have to check everything. Later some folks come out with studies of tens of people in them claiming that thimerisol is a problem. When When Montreal removes it from their vaccine in the 1990s and the autism rate doesn't change for population of tens of thousands, then this is replicated in the US and once again the autism rates dont change, you have to suspect that the initial studies are flawed. Its time to move on.
The second issue is that you started out here claiming that all these people around you died or got hurt from vaccines. Perhaps, however statistically unlikely, you got the shit end of the stick in life and yeah, lots of people around you got hurt or had fatal adverse reactions from the vaccines. You still don't get to presume that that everyone has the same risk as you experienced. That is why large population studies are done in a controlled fashion.
I think you anti-vaxers simply have the causation wrong and can't seem to get past a causation-correlation fallacy (especially if you stretch out a causation time interval into the weeks and months range!). When you point out that a bunch of people showed signs of something bad a while after a shot, you need to look at how many people had similar symptoms before a shot, you need to look at population that didnt have the same schedule or was not vaccinated. It doesnt matter how many people you site in the post study, without numbers that are comparable. The reason all these studies are out there (and you are simply being lazy by not looking at them)that say there is not a link is because there really isnt one.
You are wasting time and money that should be used to identify causes of autism and other issues, you are hurting our population. Is that strong enough for you?
Here are some "scientific studies" that "proves" telepathy exists. Its done by scientists, it was published. Shall we presume that these studies are to be accepted for these reasons? Of course not! They are bunk. The studies are poorly constructed, have low populations and are not reproducible.
Someone pointed out that with the advent of the internet everyone thinks they are an expert because they now have access to data. The sad part is only a few of us really know how to use it (there are only 17% of Americans who pursue science and engineering).
I know you are worried, but you and people who behave like you do are making things worse and slower. you are having the opposite effect than what you are intending.
HCN stated:
Oooh... you want us to buy a book? How does this compare to the freely available online documents that I have used?
Try harder, especially much of the "information" you tell us is factually wrong. This includes telling us that they stopped counting rubella in 1966, when in fact they STARTED in 1966...
My reply to you is this:
Actually HCN, I was trying to save you a headache of shifting through a lot of BS. The book is only $22.00. WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO LOSE, except of course this argument?
I ALSO NEVER SAID THAT THEY STOPPED COUNTING RUBELLA IN 1966! Refer back to my previous post and re-read it for July 26th at 2:18 p.m.
You're right, you didn't say they stopped counting rubella in 1966. What you said was even MORE stupid...
[Records were not kept on Congenital Rubella Syndrome until 1966.]
Lest you think I'm misquoting you, here's the whole thing....
[Tsu Dho Nimh:
You are sadly misinformed. Records were not kept on Congenital Rubella Syndrome until 1966. So, the bogus figures that you are looking at is just that - bogus. Like I said earlier - 14 cases of CRS according to government records in 1968. Even less cases were reported in 1967 and 1966. So, you need to check your sources because they are not accurate.
The CDC has ADMITTED that fewer that 10% of adverse reactions to vaccines are reported. Fewer than 1% of serious adverse reactions are ever reported either.
Long-term studies on vaccines have NEVER been done. The majority of chemicals used in vaccines have had horrible outcomes on lab animals.
Like I said earlier, people like you should go to jail for your crimes (whether you are a doctor or scientist). Parents like me are tired of your lies and misinformation that you are spreading.
Posted by: Dawn | July 26, 2008 2:18 PM]
You have yet to provide evidence for any of these claims. Then again, should we be surprised at all?
What you TechSkeptic and HCN DON'T get is that people are HURT by vaccines - at a rate more alarming than you can possibly imagine. Whether you choose to accept this fact or not, the evidence is there. I will gladly supply the U.S. Dept of Education 2007 links. 1 in 67 CHILDREN HAVE AUTISM!! What will the real numbers be say 5 years from now as more vaccines have been added? It is not due to genetics factors alone unless there is a whole lot of incest going on and families are screwing like the bunny rabbits.
What you can also do to "learn" about this alarming epidemic is talk to any veteran school teacher about what he/she has witnessed over the years with students. My 14 year old son cannot add, subtract, multiply, divide (2nd grade math he cannot do) and cannot comprehend more than a paragraph of reading material. Yet, in all of the schools across the country OVER THE YEARS(who evaluated him) - THEY TOLD ME HE IS FINE WHEN THEY COMPARED HIS SCORES TO OTHERS HIS AGE. This is fine? This is acceptable? This is NORMAL? Hell, NO this is not NORMAL! I urge you to go to any learning disability community forum and find out just how large this problem really is. Parents will tell you about their battle to prove their child is learning disabled.
How about pediatricians? I find it all too convenient that they too (like the schools) have "dumbed down" their own standards (milestone achievements). I never would have known this had I not had a child 14 years ago and another one last year. Walking is normal at 18 mo now?? Yet, 14 years ago, 12 months was the latest. Developmental delays are a good indicator of learning disabilities/future problems. Well, the school system already has your "back" on that one. Oh, I forgot to mention, schools receive funds for every fully immunized child. No wonder why they've kept their damn mouths shut.
Funny, for the past year I thought my teenage son had ADHD. It turns out there is no such thing. Just google right-hemisphere brain damage. They are one in the same. It was just given a fancy name. How is this type of brain damage caused - traumatic brain injury. How is TBI caused? A severe blow to the head, traumatic birth (neither one he had) or exposure to toxic chemicals (only two examples are given - lead and carbon monoxide). Gee, just what the hell ingredients go into vaccines? Growing up he also suffered from Sensory Processing Issues. Google Left-Hemisphere Brain Damage. Again, one in the same. What is even more disturbing is the talk of putting ADHD on the Autism Spectrum. Apparently, there are too many similiarities.
Yes, I have done my damn homework. You must care more about the "Vaccine Program" than your Code of Ethics.
Laser Potato: You stated:
You have yet to provide evidence for any of these claims. Then again, should we be surprised at all?
My reply:
Yes, if you read my previous posts I've cited a lot of literature to back up these claims. It is up to you to get off your lazy ass and research them at the local library.
Dawn, saying "read this book" is not a citation.
Oh, and I almost forgot....I did show the list of "common" adverse reactions to vaccines - under special senses - eye/ear to an Audiologist and Behavioral Optometrist. They were both quite shocked to read the vaccine package inserts and concurred that many learning disabilities that we are seeing today may be attributed to adverse reactions to vaccines. They too, DO NOT believe that the sharp rise in learning disabilities to include: Dyslexia, Auditory/Visual Processing Disorders, etc. are due to better diagnosing either.
Again, no long-term studies done on vaccines!! How convenient. If they are as safe and effective as you all maintain, Congress would support the previous House Bill that I mentioned. I guess the majority of Congress "has your back too".
Again, did anyone on this forum actually ATTEND the Simpsonwood Conference in June 2000? If not, then you really don't have a case on the "Vaccines do not cause Autism" theory.
Dawn, I am sorry I misremembered what you said. But as it was pointed out, you did err (and you really did err on autism in China).
And NO one has ever denied that vaccines cause harm. The question is how much harm, especially compared with the actual diseases. Something you don't seem to comprehend, or are willing to accept (I have read "The Cutter Incident", and "Vaccinated" by Paul Offit, plus I have read "Vaccine" by Arthur Allen, "Flu" by Gina Koleta and "The Great Influenza" by John M. Barry, "Polio, An American Story" by David M. Oshinsky and a few others... I do know a bit about what harm vaccines have done).
Again I ask, where exactly is the evidence that the "toxins" in the DTaP are seriously worse than these:
tetanospasmin, tetanolysin, diphtheria toxin and pertussis toxin ?
You said "1 in 67 CHILDREN HAVE AUTISM!!"... where is that documented, because it looks like quite a bit different number than has been bantied about? Please tell us what US Education Dept. website that is on. And what are the breakdowns on the kinds of autism, with the changes of the DSM definitions outlined here:
http://www.unstrange.com/dsm1.html
(by the way, that is a very good book, check it out of your local library... oh, and the Miller book is also at my library, but I much prefer to read books on science NOT written by those who believe astrology)
Dawn said "Again, did anyone on this forum actually ATTEND the Simpsonwood Conference in June 2000? If not, then you really don't have a case on the "Vaccines do not cause Autism" theory."
http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/06/robert_f_kenned.html
The flu is my most favorite recent example. Thank you for sharing this thought. How is it that we are told that 36,000 people die each year from the flu? Well, that is what the advertisements from the CDC state anyways. I know that they tell the healthcare professionals 20,000. Which is it? Neither according to the CDC. In fact, only 1,806 people have died in their most recent report for 2005. The majority were in the elderly too. Even less people died in previous years. This is exactly how every vaccine became accepted. Bogus, overinflated statistics to scare the public into believing that these diseases are so deadly. Heck you even go onto the CDC's website and they spout this amazing lie. But if you actually pull their reported findings, you will learn the truth. What is even more amazing is that our government agencies have you really believing that only 1 in a million people are harmed by vaccines. More lies. Sadly, you believe them too.
Arthur Allen is a dimwit. I challenged him with some facts and he ran. Paul Offit (cough) Proffit is a money hungry pig. No question of conflict there. By the way, what ever happened to all of those poor babies that developed obstructions from the Rotavirus vaccine? Didn't they have to have a portion of their intestines removed? For what? A vaccine that is a joke?
FYI - Controlled studies are a joke - we all know that.
For the link below, scroll to the last pages for the data. These people have just taken the time to format it neatly for you.
http://vaproject.org/yazbak/1-in-150-is-really-1-in-67-20071005.htm
The Simpsonwood Conference is outlined in the "Vaccine Safety Manual" by Neil Z. Miller on pages 240 - 242, again with sources outlined- much of which was derived by way of the Freedom of Information Act. Of course there are other sources listed too.
HCN stated: Again I ask, where exactly is the evidence that the "toxins" in the DTaP are seriously worse than these:
tetanospasmin, tetanolysin, diphtheria toxin and pertussis toxin ?
Until medical professionals start recognizing vaccine injury, I guess we will never know which is more deadly. Not trying to skirt the issue, but trying to make a valid point. VAERS is a joke because 90% of vaccine injuries go unreported. HAS ANYONE ON THIS FORUM ACTUALLY REPORTED A VACCINE INJURY OR REACTION? HAS ANYONE EVER ALERTED THE PARENT AS TO WHAT TO WATCH FOR AND INFORM THEM THAT IF ANY OF THE REACTIONS OCCUR, THEY MUST REPORT THEM - other than inflammation at the injection site or the child running a slight fever? Pleeeaassee! There is a lengthy list of adverse reactions on the package inserts for every vaccine. These are just immediate reactions too. What about long-term??
The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is a joke too. Roughly half of the cases are dismissed. Just go on their website to view this. Why are they dismissed? Lack of proper medical documentation on behalf of the medical professionals. Why? The majority of them don't recognize a reaction even if it occurred within minutes of a vaccine administration - to include death.
Dawn,
What information would make you change your mind (to believing that vaccines were safe)?
For me, if autism rates had dropped when thimerosal was removed from the vaccines, that would have been a big red flag.
It's weird to me that when our boys were born (guessing yours is roughly 1994, mine was 1996) the MMR was the Big Scary vaccine that Caused Autism. Then it was thimerosal. Now it's the never-testable "toxins." Why does the focus keep shifting?
Diane: Autism rates have not dropped and thimerosal was never removed from vaccines that contained them previously. The amount of thimerosal has been lowered to trace (previous amounts were 12.5 mcg to 25 mcg). Well, I did the math. Just a few "trace" shots of .3 mcg would exceed any infant's recommended safe guideline amount set forth by the EPA and FDA in 2003. Keep in mind that this formula was based on consumption of fish, not injection. The type of mercury in fish is not the same compound used in vaccines. What is even more disturbing is google "synergistic toxicity". When you combine aluminum and mercury- the result is that the mercury is in a higher concentration - therefore more toxic. While the mercury content was lowered in "recent years- as late as 2004", the aluminum content was sharply raised too.
Mercury is toxic in any amount, regardless of what our "higher powers" state.
I think that there were a lot of people trying to wrongly blame the mercury alone. I do not believe that mercury is the sole factor. Hannah Poling's case is a recent example. She developed regressive Autism after receiving vaccines without mercury. Health and Human Services also stated that her seizure disorder which occurred 6 yrs later were also due to her vaccines. After her case information started to leak to the public, the focus then shifted on this bogus disorder of hers. Bottom line is, why is it that the Justice Dept stepped in and demanded her case remain sealed. If you go on the court's website, as long as her parents gave permission for release of her records, they will be made public. Why did this agency interfere? Could it be that they are trying to stall the 4,900 plus other cases in this same court? If vaccines can cause Autism and there is concrete proof, the public has the right to know. My guess is that this would open up a HUGE can of worms for all of the other neurological disorders too. Can you see my point?
Goodnight everyone. It has been fun. I leave with one last thought on the subject. We all need to work together for answers. I'm convinced, but it sounds like many other people need to be too. Our government agencies have had plenty of time for solutions to this enormous problem and they have failed miserably. So, please do your own investigating on the subject. Start talking to other professionals in different fields too, teachers, parents, look at patient medical records/history, talk to independent chemists about each of the ingredients (ones with no ties to the drug companies or medical industry), Special Education Advocates, etc. You will get your answers.
Sigh...
http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/statistics_report.htm
Are you ever going to answer my question about the relative danger of the DTaP vaccine versus tetanospasmin, tetanolysin, diphtheria toxin and pertussis toxin... with some actual scientific literature? Not your rantings, not by VAERS (it is a self selected survey, it has as much scientific validity as a call in talk show... in short, none!) and definitely not with a silly book by a guy who cannot figure out that astrology is bogus.
By the way my son had his seizures before any vaccine. If you read up thread I even mention it. Though if you want to actually cyberstalk me try this link:
http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?hl=en&enc_user=pJnAhg4AAACW81YP…
(you'll find some other folks who have participated in this thread... in the mean time, I am signing off and going off to read a book on the creation of the Panama Canal, that if you actually had done enough cyberstalking would know that I was born and started high school in the Panama Canal Zone... which is why I've been vaccinated for Yellow Fever, twice... side note about astrology --- since I was born in Panama I told an astrology nut I was not affected by the "Zodiac" because those constellations are based in the Northern Hemisphere and do not affect anything south of the Tropic of Cancer! According to Wikepedia Neil Z. Miller believes in astrology, which is enough to dismiss anything he writes.)
Many, many times over the years. Dawn's an old hand at this and has seen it all. Make what you will of her motives, but she is not going to be persuaded by anything.
Dawn:
And here you told us that pertussis is only fatal to those who have been vaccinated.
Looks like you were taking a few liberties with the truth and knew it, doesn't it?
sigh
Indeed. Every concept of pharmacology and dose-response curves seems lost on people who say things like this.
Neil Z. Miller is not an astrologer as far as I know. He is a medical research analyst who has written some great books on the subject of vaccines. None of his books are biased - they only cite the facts. Facts from studies conducted and facts from well-known peer-reviewed medical journals.
Let's just hope that for Tsu Dho Nimh's sake and all of us also that he is right about the SV40 virus. I just thought it was awfully strange that the CDC changed their story about the virus on their website 3x in the past 6 mo. Sounds to me like they were trying to cover their ass once again.
If you don't want to look into the subject of vaccines any further, I'm sorry, but I cannot help you. I'm done here. Been fun, but bye
Has this been a marvelous example of the Gish Gallop or what?
"If you don't want to look into the subject of vaccines any further, I'm sorry, but I cannot help you. I'm done here. Been fun, but bye"
You've helped plenty. It's always Dawn before the darkest.
Hey Orac, the first thing that comes to mind when I read this is 'he who protesteth'. You don't give me alot of confidence when all I read, in what could have been a constructive scientific debate, were childish rants and raves. When did scientific debate devolve into such incivility. Why does Dr Gordons approach frighten you so much? Let's not be intellectually dishonest here either.
-------For Dr. Gordon, vaccines should be considered part of his area expertise, but you'd never know it from the data-free, anecdote-filled nonsense he spouts. For example, listen to his response to a question about why he buys into the "too many, too soon" mantra and advocates "staggering" vaccines:-------
Did they tell you to throw out your brain and replace it with the script you got in Med School? Just because you went to a different school than I did after college shouldn't mean you are no longer allowed to think independently and observe the world aroung you. Anyone with an iota of commonsense and knowledge of the infants non-existent immune system would have to agree that erring on the side of caution is preferable. What is so bad about the idea of going slower and staggering vaccines. That doesnt seem radical or anti-vaccine!
For Pete's sake you dont even give babies two different foods at the same time when you start solids. You give them one!! And they are 4 - 6 mos old then!
Starting with the most easily digested, wait two weeks and then add another if there was no bad reaction.
People are supposed to be CAREFUL with newborns. Until they get stronger - little by little. That is not a novel idea.
-------I think the immune system, like every other system of the body, matures slowly, and that it can better tolerate viral infection at older ages and better tolerate one virus at a time. The other thing is that vaccines all contain other ingredients. They contain aluminum, they contain tiny bits of formalin [an aqueous solution of formaldahyde]. So I recommend waiting as long as parents are comfortable, and vaccinating very, very slowly. I also ask parents to wait at least six months before the first vaccine. I prefer to wait a year.
Formaldehyde? Aluminum? Oh, my God! Toxins! I can't believe a physician is parroting the "toxin" gambit about vaccines. That's the single most idiotic and scientifically ignorant rhetorical gambit antivaccinationists use, and Dr. Gordon apparently buys into it. Did Dr. Gordon skip pharmacology class in medical school?
Of course, Dr. Gordon, showing that even physicians can be prone to putting too much stock in testimonials and anecdotes over science and epidemiology, points out the cases of regression he's seen after vaccination, argues:
Now, many people would argue that vaccines are only for the better. I would say that there's no free lunch; it is lovely to be immune to whooping cough, but if I have to diminish your health a little bit to do that, I have to hesitate. Integrity demands that I tell you other parts of the story: I saw one child who developed seizures two days after her two-month appointment, and she didn't get any shots. It's true that the onset of autism often coincides with the time that kids are getting their shots. But the vast majority of times that I see a temporal relationship, I'm assuming it's not a coincidence.
Assuming? Note that Dr. Gordon cannot produce a single scientific study to support his beliefs. Not one.
ARE YOU KIDDING ME ?? Doctors shouldn't notice patterns in their patients and by use of deductive reasoning arrive at beliefs based on their experience? There is no scientific study therefore there can be no truth or reality to an event. Where is the study that used random live infants and came up with the levels that are proven undoutedly to have no effect. How much more toxins can be administered before the toxic level is reached? Where is your study?
Didn't you take an oath or something that said : first, do no harm.
You ARE pumping these infants with dangerous toxins and chemicals and you have the audacity to ridicule that statement because some one said it was only a little bit - not enough to be toxic. Not that they could tell at the time and under different circumstances, and not in a study either!!!! That doesnt change the fact that it is still intrinsically toxic. Good thing you are so sure you are right! Because if you aren't right, and you are too arrogant to consider the possibility that you DON'T KNOW EVERYTHING, you may have done irreperable harm to countless children and their families.
Your level of arrogance is incomprehensible. You didn't even know that these chemicals can cross the blood brain barrier. You don't know consider anything about the neurological developmental stages these infants are in when they are vaccinated.
It is my theory that the overwhelming odds of a boy contracting autism at age 2 after vaccination, versus a girl is proof that these vaccines are causing the neural damage!
Why dont you learn something about the difference in brain development between boys and girls at the time of these vaccines that so obviously have a correlation to the onset of autism. See if something about the vast difference in maturation of female vs male brains at that stage might not explain the 8:1 overwhelming incidence of boys developing autism versus girls.
I dont think you have the integrity to consider you could be wrong.
Orac don't be one of the sheeple, you can do better. And don't bully people who disagree with you. Concensus does not create truth.
Dawn, I thought you were leaving us. Really, we don't mind. Go.
I am incredibly amused by your seeming inability to remember what you've said previously. In your second post you complain that "Long-term studies on vaccines have NEVER been done." Now you are saying "FYI - Controlled studies are a joke - we all know that." You entered this thread screaming "how dare you" at everyone who disagreed with your pet theory, and now you've devolved to calling dedicated medical professionals names.
You have some serious issues. You should seek professional help.
Dawn stated: "When you combine aluminum and mercury- the result is that the mercury is in a higher concentration - therefore more toxic."
Please provide a scientifically plausible mechanism and scientific evidence in support of that statement.
"While the mercury content was lowered in "recent years- as late as 2004", the aluminum content was sharply raised too."
Please provide some references for this statement. Plus do you have any concept of pharmacology? By the way, thimerasol was and aluminum is added to vaccines for completely different reasons. Thimerasol was added for its preservative properties and aluminum is added to act as an adjuvant. There is no plausible reason that removing one would result in the increase of another.
And I'm still curious what evidence an anti-vaxer would accept proving vaccines are safe (remembering, of course, that nothing is 100% risk-free).
It's deducible from known facts. You see, it's already established that mercury in vaccines causes autism. If you then reduce the amount of mercury in vaccines to less than the variation in mercury from other sources, it follows that the aluminum in vaccines is enabling the mercury to have more effect.
Likewise, the fact that autistic children don't have higher levels of mercury in their hair leads to the conclusion that autistic (or pre-autistic) children don't excrete mercury as efficiently as others, which leads to them sequestering it in their brains.
Alright, that's it. I've been thinking of writing something on this question for a while now, and after this thread I'm going to have to. I think I'll call it something like: "'You're All Just Mean': 'Offense'-Ploys and Appeals to Civility in the Avoidance of Substantive Debate." I mean, you've dedicated your life to an issue, but you can't engage in discussion about it if someone says your arguments are stupid or calls you a name? What planet are these people on?
O.k. I admit, I cannot help myself by coming back here to this forum one last time.
Yes, controlled studies are a joke. Here is why.
"Controlled" studies have been grossly redefined by health officials and physicians.The methods in the safety studies are not controlled as they are presumed and claimed to be. What is a "controlled" study? Well, when reading the package inserts, populations vaccinated in the "controlled" study are actually vaccinated by a previously licensed vaccine, another experimental unlicensed vaccine and/or other substances that are NOT inert like saline or a pure water solution. In controlled groups, vaccinated individuals deal with adverse reactions as well. These are not minor reactions. There are such listed reactions as convulsions, Guillain Barre and even death. For the Prevnar vaccine, there were 12 deaths after Prevnar injections and 21+ deaths in the controlled group. Children in the "controlled" study were injected with another experimental meningitis vaccine that was not licensed at the time. For the Zostavax (for shingles) over 20 deaths took place after Zostavax injections. Those are only a few of the examples. This information is made available to the public. Deaths taking place after vaccinations do not hold true to the definition of "control". Do not make the mistake of assuming the true definition of "control" every time you hear that word being used in defense for the immunization program.
As you read the package inserts you can scroll down the list of adverse reactions listed during prelicensure experimentations. Logically, readers start speculating a possible connection as they should. Then the authors attempt to put a halt to any speculation by blatantly stating none of the adverse reactions were associated with the vaccine. This is done only by the simple stroke of their pens. Not by countless hours studying all scientific data. This is where deceit in favor of the vaccine begins. So, we are expected to understand that deaths after vaccinations, including the ones that took place for the HPV prelicensure experimentations could not have been possibly connected.
Only healthy children with no history of compromised immunity are used in prelicensure experimentation (conveniently called "studies"). All children with neurological disorders, asthma, diabetes...etc. are excluded. However, once a vaccine is licensed by the FDA, it is highly recommended for all individuals with compromised immune system. The argument is that the immune compromised are more susceptible and should be protected. Yes, they are more susceptible. However, there is no scientific data that anyone in the scientific or medical field has been willing to share with the public in order to support this theory. That is because there is no data unattached with conflicts of interest that would sufficiently support the theory.
The terminology of efficacy has been seriously abused as well. Webster's definition of efficacy is, "The power to produce intended results." Research efficacy is the production of antibodies. Clinical efficacy is the ability to prevent infection. Health authorities give pediatricians and other physicians the green light on new vaccines by deceitfully assuring them safety and efficacy. One day the health authorities are claiming a vaccine is effective because it does produce antibodies against the disease. Another day they are claiming efficacy because the vaccinated will be immune to it.
Yet, CDC admits in their own literature that with the DTP vaccine, there is no direct correlation between antibody production and acquired immunity. We're talking about a vaccine that's been around several decades. For the past several years doctors and parents have been urged to give their children yet another dose. Now we are reading reports of increasing whooping cough cases despite the rise in DTP uptake per CDC suggestion. It just doesn't stop. For the chickenpox vaccine, CDC put out a report that there is NO DATA regarding post efficacy of the vaccine. In other words, CDC has no data on whether or not it even works! Now in 2007 CDC is admitting that the vaccine has a high failure rate. In regards to the Hib vaccine against meningitis, CDC also admits in their own literature in the "precise level of antibody production required for protection against Hemophilus Influenzae B invasive disease is not established." This was not known after the prelicensure experimentations or after...still. Even the manufacturer on the package insert admits the very same thing. Cofirming this is Dr. John March of the research institute in Scotland and makes no bones about the fact that antibody levels of viral diseases and protection are entirely UNCONNECTED.
This website further reveals with supporting publications (including scientific/medical journals and CDC literature) the history and ongoing failures with vaccinations. One dose is never "enough" to bring on intended results to keep children and adults ouf of the clinic and hospitals targeted diseases. Without the supporting scientific data, health authorities and CDC often respond to broadcasted failures by labeling them as sufficient evidence that another dose or more is necessary to stop the failures and bring on intended immunity. Yet, history is replete with ongoing failures despite the rise in recommendations. The failures still continue and most likely will never stop.
Yes, there is still mercury in the mercury-free vaccines. A physician took it upon himself to send four so-called mercury-free vials in for testing. This lab is looking for donations to test others. Apparently, there is no way to remove mercury 100% in the filtering process because it binds with other agents. So, the FDA does not enforce the labeling of the package inserts if the amount is trace (meaning more mercury has not been added during manufacturing). There are many advocacy groups right now fighting the drug companies to have this information disclosed on the package inserts. What else is in vaccines that there are not required to disclose to the public?
http://www.hapihealth.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=19&…
Ozzy, I urge you to research the work of Boyd E. Haley for answers on synergistic toxicity.
I also urge everyone to google the neurological developmental of an infant's brain. I have learned that the most important wiring/mapping process occurs from birth to 3 years of age. What happens when you disrupt this process with injected neurotoxins (ingredients that have been shown to cause nerve/cell damage in lab animals)? So, you can imagine the madness behind "Every Child by Two". It just so happens that this movement was started by a former First Lady whose husband's political agenda is a New World Order" (google New World Order for more information). Google the rest of the individuals who are backing this vaccine movement and see if they too support the "New World Order". Mighty strange "coincidence". I also find it very odd that the major media outlets are also in support of "Defense Initiatives". Could this be why the truth involving vaccines is simply not news worthy?
Aren't we told NEVER to give a child peanut butter until the age of two or eggs until the age of one? Well, what the heck is peanut oil doing in the HIB vaccine or eggs in the majority of vaccines for newborns? Would this explain the alarming rise in life-threatening food allergies? After my infant received his 2 mo. vaccines, he could no longer handle lactose. Another ingredient he was given.
Like I had stated earlier, many of my family members have been harmed by vaccines - my baby and I just last year. His symptoms were indictive of brain swelling and my hearing was damaged. I never would have questioned vaccine safety had we not experienced immediate adverse reactions (yes, I did file 4 VAERS reports on our behalf and sought the help of an attorney). I then dug through my older child's baby photos & baby book, medical records for my child and other family members, etc and received the rest of my answers. 1 in a million harmed by vaccines? Just my infant and I alone are proof that it is not so. I find it very alarming that the FDA has set strick limits on certain ingredients for consumption (though not for injection) or banned certain ingredients in any amount (though not in vaccines). A lot of questions remain to be answered. There is a lot of evidence out there to show that vaccines are not currently safe or effective based on previous government reports (just research the disease/death statistics up to 5 years prior each vaccine being approved). Any "professional" who has shown vaccines in a different light other than safe and effective has had attempts on their life, their career/reputation tainted, or other horrendous circumstances they have had to face. Why? Maybe there is some truth to their claims. Again, though, imagine the implications. Not only is our own government reponsible for this wreckless conduct against our children, but in many other countries also. Follow the money trail. Find out who gains from the sale of vaccines and all of their complications they cause (which result in more prescription drugs for ailments). Just who benefits when drugs are sold? Once you do learn of the truth involving the issue, please make it your mission to educate others.
Again, it has been fun. Thank you for the challenging questions.
Okay, I've been letting the rest of you guys handle Dawn, but I can't just stay quiet about this:
Is Dawn actually expecting us to believe that when aluminum is exposed to mercury that some of that aluminum alchemically transmutes into mercury? Either that, or I think she'd need to bring in some nuclear physics to tell us how nuclear fusion is possible in something as cold as the human body. She could win a Nobel Prize for working out cold fusion.
Dawn wrote a bunch of stuff... without any real cites, and ends with "Again, it has been fun. Thank you for the challenging questions."
Too bad you never answered any of them with any real evidence.
I knew that I'd seen Dawn's rhetoric before it is both taken from and borrowed from - The Biblical Case Against Vaccines (warning: preview tinyurl). It's a bit much to have quoted such large amounts without:
i) acknowledging it
ii) providing a link to the original.
A charming site that discusses the role of UNICEF as an agent of vaccination with the agenda of population control (preview and tiny). Yes - I should have guessed where this was going the moment that Yazbak was put forward as an authority but even so, it is a shock that Dr Jay Gordon is happy to affiliate himself so publicly with someone who posts that sort of material.
...it is a shock that Dr Jay Gordon is happy to affiliate himself so publicly with someone who posts that sort of material."
Yes, and therein lies the problem, Dr. Gordon. If you want to move this debate off center, and do something for your patients, you could address some of the more indefensible claims made by your fellow travelers.
Dawn,
"Any "professional" who has shown vaccines in a different light other than safe and effective has had attempts on their life, their career/reputation tainted, or other horrendous circumstances they have had to face."
Be careful of that red laser dot following you right now.
"Funny, for the past year I thought my teenage son had ADHD. It turns out there is no such thing. Just google right-hemisphere brain damage. They are one in the same."
Who needs medical and graduate school in which one learns about physiology and anatomy when there's GOOGLE U. I move we award Dawn the honorary Google doctorate (GD, Doctor of Google).
By the way Dawn:
1. I'm still waiting for a scientifically plausible mechanism and scientific evidence in support of that statement for thimerasol and Al synergistic toxicity. A single study unreplicated and unpublished experiment by Haley without any experimental replicates is hardly scientific evidence. You do understand the importance of replicating experiments?
2. I still waiting for the evidence that Al concentrations have increased in recent years.
3. But most importantly, please explain this statement:
"When you combine aluminum and mercury- the result is that the mercury is in a higher concentration - therefore more toxic." I'm dying for this explanation. (Thanks Bronze Dog, I don't know how I missed that one.)
But in the meantime keep you head low, blinds closed and keep your eye to the sky for those NWO black helicopters, because the Pharma Strike Force is out looking for you.
Sorry, back AGAIN with more links...just wanted to give everyone some real "data" to look at. This site is addictive...
Ignorance is bliss for many I guess. If it were me, I would want the truth. We are left to wonder what the true motive is for vaccines. Hmmm...just why aren't vaccines studied appropriately? If the CDC will be relinquished of their rights and Health and Human Services will soon take over, isn't this a major conflict of interest in studying vaccine safety? If these ingredients in vaccines have NEVER been tested individually on humans, aren't they experimental? Aren't live viruses in vaccines experimental if they have never been tested/studied on humans? Just who hands down the vaccination schedule? What is the role of H & H Services?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/usc_sec_50_00001520---a000-.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/usc_sec_50_00001524----000-.html
For the twisted flu facts....
http://www.cdc.gov/flu/
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/preliminarydeaths05_tables.pdf#5 (page 33 out of 40) **36,000 DEATHS, HUH?
Like I stated earlier, this BS has been shown with every disease/vaccine. Scare tactics.
Thimerosal content....
http://practice.aap.org/content.aspx?aid=106 (section 1 - they don't tell you that it is .3 micrograms per SHOT)
Once you start to question a few things, you then begin to question everything that you've been told.
Mary Parson's - I only cited the "facts" from that Biblical Website about "controlled studies". I didn't provide the link because I didn't want to offend anyone. We are not discussing religion - therefore, there was no need to insult anyone's beliefs.
[Mercury is toxic in any amount, regardless of what our "higher powers" state.]
Then you'd better avoid fish, getting rained on (rainwater contains up to a nanogram of mercury per liter), mascara, swimming pools, antique shops, soy products, and basically ever going outside again.
You know Dawn GD you really need to get a clue. The CDC is not reporting 36,000 infant deaths, they are reporting 36,000 total deaths in the population with a very high percentage of these deaths in the elderly. You link to a chart of infant deaths. By the way, unvaccinated children are very good vectors for flu transmission. Come here and give Grandma a kiss...
Please tell us where you get 0.3 ug/shot? That's not the case according to the CDC/FDA or your so called "testing" at happy health. Did you notice that is was a non-standard analysis. So it probably had not been validated. I have a hard time believing that a medical testing facility used to testing biological samples can accurately perform trace level analysis. Anyway, that revealed total Hg (not ethylmercury) concentrations ranging from 0.5 ng/shot (that's ~1000X less than 0.3 ug) to 0.15 ug/shot.
Dawn:
The entire transcript of the Simpsonwood meeting is readily available online. I have read it. Apparently you have not. There was no "admission" and nothing to admit.
It is only crybaby antivaxers who say the studies showing thimerosal to be safe are "flawed." All studies have limitations, but there are no material errors in these studies.
Dear me, it seems you aren't able to distinguish between the minute amounts of thimerosal used in vaccines and the large concentrations used in topicals.
It's clear that Dawn is a loon, but for any other interested readers who might be wondering about the answers to the fallacies she has postulated as truths, here are some realities:
- The current higher-than-in-the-past reported prevalence of autism is attributable to broadening of the definition of ASD, incentives to diagnose, and greater awareness overall. There is uncertainty whether there has been a little real growth or none at all, but no real scientist considers it plausible that there has been a sudden surge in true incidence.
- No school that I know of gets paid for kids being fully immunized. Of all the stupid things to make up, why that?
- "Controlled studies are a joke" - if anyone was unconvinced these were the rantings of a lunatic...
Bronze Dog, Dawn could figure out cold fusion with one hand tied behind her back! Isn't it obvious what a genius she is?
Dawn, your baby died of SIDS and you aren't dealing with it well. It's not too late to get into therapy. That would be a lot better than confusing well-meaning parents by spewing nonsense that encourages them to leave their children vulnerable to vaccine-preventable diseases.
Dawn wrote:
You copied and pasted huge chunks without attribution - that is known as plagiarism and something that I think even Dr Jay Gordon would deplore. By and large, those 'facts' are to reality as a dim bulb is to a klieg light.
Dawn wrote:
Other issues aside, in a sense, they do if you are prepared to do some mental arithmetic: your own link to the AAP says:
It would be helpful if you:
i) gave attribution to the author of text because otherwise it looks like you are passing it off as your own and given it some degree of thought that you have not
ii) read the links that you post and understood them.
Mary,
I agree that Dawn didn't "quote" the material, that's giving her too much credit, but plagarised it, presenting the material as her own words when they weren't. "Hiding" URLs is a way of hiding that the material comes from a disreputable source and denies people the chance to check the context the original falls in.
Dawn: "I only cited" You didn't cite at all, that's the problem...
Ozzy:
I can honestly say that you are an idiot. The link that I gave you - you must go to PAGE 33 for flu deaths - which I CLEARLY STATED EARLIER. It is not too hard to read or figure out. Do you want me to give you the line number too? I bet your mommy still wipes your behind too.
Hey Dawn,
A major complication that often results in death following the flu is pneumonia. That is usually what kills people once they get the flu. In other words, if these people didn't get the flu they would not get pneumonia and subsequently die. I bet you didn't learn that at Google U.
Is that what you were TOLD??!! Hello? Don't many of the cancer victims suffer from secondary illnesses too which they subsequently die from? I don't see those lumped together. Why? Because it wouldn't make any sense.
Bottom line - is the number of flu deaths is grossly overinflated - lies, really. So, if they can lie about that then they can lie about so much more.
FYI - they didn't start lumping the flu/pneumonia deaths together until recent years - shortly before they started their Bogus flu vaccine campaign.
Now, the real question is what risks are involved with the flu vaccine? Contact any vaccine injury attorney and they will death you how many death claims they have filed for that vaccine alone.
I've read through some of these comments after being directe here from elsewhere.
What people need to realize is that there is a huge difference between studies that focus on suceptibility groups and epidemiological studies. To date there have been NO STUDIES conducted on suceptibility groups to test for causality. NONE.
Also as far as vaccines not containing thimerosal... lookey here folks: http://www.fda.gov/cber/vaccine/thimerosal.htm#t1
"Much progress has been made to date in removing or reducing thimerosal in vaccines. New pediatric formulations of hepatitis B vaccines have been licensed by the FDA, Recombivax-HB (Merck, thimerosal free) in August 1999 and Engerix-B (Glaxo SmithKline, thimerosal free) in January 2007."
Newborn infants were still getting thimerosal containing Hep-B vaccines up to January of 2007. More will receive the remaining stockpiles of existing inventory. So it's more than likely a baby born today can receive a GSK Engerix-B Hep-B vaccine with the old amounts of thimerosal
What's so hard to understand here? There was NO recall on vaccines containing the old amounts of thimerosal. No wonder Autism rates haven't declined. It's right on the FDA website.
In 2000 my oldest got an old Hep-B vaccine that was made in 1998. Just think, the old GSK Hep- B vaccines could be around at least until 2011, or later depending on when they expire.
I work in infectious disease and you can ask any infectious disease doctor that the flu-pneumonia relationship is very real. Yeah, and I think I'll be contacting a lawyer, educated via Google U, to talk about science.
Mrs Corapoe,
The preservative-free Engerix (2nd gen, 2000) contained only trace amounts of thimerosal less than 1 ug/dose. The original was 25X higher, so someone receiving the 2nd gen vaccine would experience a 25X lower exposure. The new Engerix (3rd gen, 2007) is the thimerasol free meaning thimerosal was never used at any stage of the manufacturing process. Get your facts right. While you're at it, please explain to everyone why the autism rate has not decreased even though thimerosal exposure has been reduced by orders of magnitude.
Ozzy. YOU need to get your facts right. Where, when, and by whom has a study ever been conducted that says 'traces of thimerosal' are safe to inject in newborn infants?
I can't help but laugh at some of the earlier citations in Isles' post. Verstraeten & DeStefano? C'mon! Even the CDC has stated they can't use that crap for further 'ecological studies' to determine the potential association beetween exposure to thimerosal and the risk of Autism and/or Autism Spectrum Disorders.
For years the CDC used Verstraeten's as their vaccine safety flag ship study sort of speak. Now we hear a very different tune coming out of Gerberding's mouth.
I would strongly encourage you to read a copy of the "Report to Congress on Vaccine Safety Datalink;" House Appropriations Committee; Fiscal Year 2008. It was done by Julie Louise Gerberding. In case you don't know, she is the head of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Read it and weep.
Mrs. Corapoe:
Thank you for the refreshing insight on the subject. Unfortunately, it took me until tonight to realize that I have been wasting my time with egotistical college students on this forum - nothing more (Ozzy being one). They are "vaccine/disease" experts - or so they think (not all, but some). I really don't think that Ozzy can read very well either.
Thank you for the factual information though. It truly was a breath of fresh air.
No, it is a basic toxicological principle that the dose makes the poison, meaning that the toxic effects of a substance is directly related to the concentration of the bioactive molecule at the target. So, therefore, a lower dose of a substance means lower toxicity. It's pretty basic.
Quote from Julie Gerberding in Washington Post July 1, 2008 story about autism/vaccines:
"Our message to parents is, immunizations are lifesaving. There is nothing changed in the adamant recommendation we make to vaccinate children."
"egotistical college students on this forum - nothing more (Ozzy being one)"
Yeah, you're right Dawn. My BS, MS and PhD don't hold a candle to your ability to regurgitate "facts" from medical journalists (Neil Z Miller, Kirby, etc), celebrities and lawyers; plagarize websites; dodge any real questions regarding science and fail to understand basic biological and chemical principles. You wonder why scientists get a little perturbed by snooty, Google-educated, and conspiracy-obsessed "know-it-alls?"
Hey Ozzy, your comment says it all: "...the dose makes the poison, meaning that the toxic effects of a substance is directly related to the concentration of the bioactive molecule at the target." Do you even know the dose infants received since the vaccination schedule was changed back in 89? Check out the aggragate dose levels of thimerosal which were routinely injected into infants when the vaccination schedule was changed and before they started PHASING OUT the mercury from vaccines.
As I stated in my first post here, thimerosal hasn't been completely removed from vaccines. There is an enormous difference between 'phase out' and complete removal. The Hep-B was just one example. As the FDA's website clearly states: "the Engerix-B (Glaxo SmithKline) wasn't made available thimerosal free until January 2007." I find it disingenous they printed 'thimerosal free' when in fact it still contains 'trace' amounts. Again, where, when, and by whom has it been established that injecting 'trace' amounts of the 2nd most potent neurotoxin known to men, is safe for newborn infants? What will that do to a developing brain I wonder.
It's obvious to me that you haven't read a single page of Gerberding's Report to Congress on the Vaccine Safety Datalink (Fiscal Year 2008). Do you wish me to post what she said?
PhD indeed. Do you mean Pile Higher and Deeper?
Give me a break. The bottom line is that thimerosal exposure in infants is lower than it's been since the 1980s. So tell us: Why hasn't the autism rate fallen to what it was in the 1980s if thimerosal is a major cause of autism? All your dancing about over "trace" amounts is just that--dancing about to avoid that question. The observation that autism rates haven't fallen since thimerosal content in vaccines was either eliminated or dramatically reduced (depending on the specific vaccine) by the end of 2001 is powerful epidemiological evidence that there is no link between the two.
Anti-vaccinationists can't address that question without shifting the goalposts.
@Mrs Corapoe & Dawn, if you want to learn what the CDC actually said about the Verstraeten report and the discussion of ecological studies and data types then I recommend that you consider reading Epiwonk's analysis.
You might also read through Epiwonk's more nuanced analysis of what Dr Gerberding said as opposed to the interpretation that has made its way out into various polemical discussions.
Actually Dr. Gerberding is very explicit in the report in backing up the finding of Thompson, et al (NEJM, 2007):
"the weight of evidence does not support a causal association between ethylmercury exposure from thimerosal-containing vaccines through the first 7 mos of life and neurophyiological functioning at ages 7 to 10 yrs."
By the way, I would be interested in knowing the references stating that Hg is the 2nd most potent neurotoxin to man. I can think of a bunch of other substances that if a 50 ug dose was injected IM you would get about 100% neurotoxicity. I'm sure that's another number pulled out of your ass.
Ozzy: You are obviously very familiar with numbers being pulled out of asses (as well as letters PhD). It seems to be your specialty. I strongly recommend you take Dr. (Pr)Offit's advice and inject yourself with 10,000 immunizations.
Orac: Calling a parent of a FULLY vaccinated child an anti-vaxer is an oxymoron. You have yet to produce an INDEPENDENT study that examines the effects of thimerosal in suceptibility groups. Spare me the epidemiological studies.
Mary: Have you read the ENTIRE document? From the CDC's Fiscal Year 2008 "Report to Congress on Vaccine Safety Datalink."
"NIEHS Findings: Weaknesses: The panel identified SEVERAL areas of weakness that when taken together reduce the usefulness of the VSC project for conducting an ecological study design to address the potential association between the exposure to thimerosal and and the risk of AD/ASD.
CDC Response: CDC concurs with this conclusion and does not plan to use VSD for ecological studies."
This comes from Gerberding after years of being shoved the Verstraeten epidemiological study down our throats. Do you care to find out where he got his data? Ding! Ding! Ding!
Very typical and expected reply. All I ask for is a little evidence in support of your statements. I see your specialty is making shit up or not knowing what you talk about.
1. Please show me the quote where Paul Offit said 10,000 different immunizations. I believe he said 10,000 different antigens.
2. Please show me the data regarding Hg being the 2nd most potent neurotoxin known to man.
3. Tell us the difference between epidemiological studies and ecological studies.
You are totally disingenuous. Of course you don't comment on the fact that in the VSD report Dr. Gerberding completely agrees with the findings of the Thompson, et al study. The Thompson study, an epidemiological study, completely confirmed the findings of Verstraeten. In the Thompson study data on individuals were collected and used in the analysis. It's all there in the report, Mrs Corapoe. Perhaps you should read the report instead of cutting and pasting from other websites.
Why yes - I make it a habit of reading documents or links that I am discussing or advising others to read - I wish that this were a practise that would catch on but I see little evidence of it in the comments of Mrs C, Dawn or Dr Jay Gordon.
This is for anyone who hasn't been able to track a link to the Report to Congress VSD (pdf; tiny and preview because an antivax site). Now that I've set your mind at rest on that score I still advise that you should read Epiwonk to understand the specific meaning of ecological in this context in addition to paying attention to Ozzy's informed commentary on this topic. If you can answer Ozzy's questions then you have a fuller understanding of the document that you are citing and the issues that you wish to discuss.
Ozzy said "1. Please show me the quote where Paul Offit said 10,000 different immunizations. I believe he said 10,000 different antigens."
Actually he did say "10 000 vaccines", but he meant it as the number of antigens NOT the number of actual shots, and in the context that children are exposed to much fewer antigens from vaccines than they were years ago:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/109/1/124 ... (edited the superscript into E for exponent, for example 10E3 = 1000, 10E7 = 10000000 ... and removed reference numbers, you can check it out with the original formatting by clicking on the link)...
"A more practical way to determine the diversity of the immune response would be to estimate the number of vaccines to which a child could respond at one time. If we assume that 1) approximately 10 ng/mL of antibody is likely to be an effective concentration of antibody per epitope (an immunologically distinct region of a protein or polysaccharide), 2) generation of 10 ng/mL requires approximately 10E3 B-cells per mL, 3) a single B-cell clone takes about 1 week to reach the 10E3 progeny B-cells required to secrete 10 ng/mL of antibody (therefore, vaccine-epitope-specific immune responses found about 1 week after immunization can be generated initially from a single B-cell clone per mL), 4) each vaccine contains approximately 100 antigens and 10 epitopes per antigen (ie, 10E3 epitopes), and 5) approximately 10E7 B cells are present per mL of circulating blood, then each infant would have the theoretical capacity to respond to about 10 000 vaccines at any one time (obtained by dividing 10E7 B cells per mL by 10E3 epitopes per vaccine).
"Of course, most vaccines contain far fewer than 100 antigens (for example, the hepatitis B, diphtheria, and tetanus vaccines each contain 1 antigen), so the estimated number of vaccines to which a child could respond is conservative. But using this estimate, we would predict that if 11 vaccines were given to infants at one time, then about 0.1% of the immune system would be "used up." "
Other note: ng/mL means nanograms per milliliter ... that 1/1000000000th (or 0.000000001) of a gram in one 1/1000th (or 0.001) of a liter. See:
http://www.themetricsystem.info/overviewofunits.htm
I hope that helps.
I am still waiting for the answer to my question about the relative danger of the DTaP vaccine versus tetanospasmin, tetanolysin, diphtheria toxin and pertussis toxin... with some actual scientific literature.
"When did scientific debate devolve into such incivility. Why does Dr Gordons approach frighten you so much? Let's not be intellectually dishonest here either."
Can't remember in this long commentary, who wrote that. Never mind. I don't think anyone's particularly frightened of Dr Gordon, dismayed, perplexed and perhaps distressed at an apparent dissonance between professional responsibility and actual performance. Somebody coined the term 'Eminence-based Medicine' and I think it fits very well. This person wants to be able to ramble freely among the hedgerows of holistics without the inconvenience of facts cropping up here and there to cramp his style. He should get extra merit because he is 'eminent', a doctor, a paediatrician to the famous. It has to be something like that to explain how far (way upthread) he was prepared to pervert the facts in defence of the Wakefield paper. Amazing!
Not too sure that I would want this kind of thinker looking after the kids.
Good Lord Mabel!
You left out the Illuminati and the Bilderbergs.
khan, what is also indicative of not having a real argument or data is when someone tells us to "google xyz" to find information. Like that will somehow diminish the cites with real science that many of us have used.
Though, this reminded me of something... Googling "NWO kitty" is much more amusing. Though, I will tell you the entire comic is here:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=80591
Alyric, here's the citation for "Eminence based medicine"
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/319/7225/1618
Eminence based medicine---The more senior the colleague, the less importance he or she placed on the need for anything as mundane as evidence. Experience, it seems, is worth any amount of evidence. These colleagues have a touching faith in clinical experience, which has been defined as "making the same mistakes with increasing confidence over an impressive number of years."7 The eminent physician's white hair and balding pate are called the "halo" effect.
Santa Monica has it's own regional subtype of EmBM, In Santa Monica, the eminent physician's suntan, styled hair and Roberto Cavalli sunglasses, along with the high percentage of his patient load associated with the cinema and his personal appearances on television contribute to what is called the "Hollywood" effect.
To clarify, this is a quote.
"Eminence based medicine---The more senior the colleague, the less importance he or she placed on the need for anything as mundane as evidence. Experience, it seems, is worth any amount of evidence. These colleagues have a touching faith in clinical experience, which has been defined as "making the same mistakes with increasing confidence over an impressive number of years."7 The eminent physician's white hair and balding pate are called the "halo" effect."
This is not part of the quote. It is mine.
"Santa Monica has it's own regional subtype of EmBM, In Santa Monica, the eminent physician's suntan, styled hair and Roberto Cavalli sunglasses, along with the high percentage of his patient load associated with the cinema and his personal appearances on television contribute to what is called the "Hollywood" effect."
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?s=33939d8262a094490e84cdace984982e…
Thanks HCN, NWO Kitty is great.
July 30th 10:26 p.m. Please refer to this last post because it is VERY important. These morons on this thread don't have a leg to stand on. They think they do, but don't.
Sure, Dawn... Are you ever going to answer my question?
Until this, some reading for you:
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
First of all HCN Fyou....you are an ignorant and insenitive asshole.....after 5 family victims in all, what do you want me to say? Yes, I found out more since my last post. You people that promote vaccines are truly sick.
July 30th 10:26 p.m. Please refer to this last post because it is VERY important. These morons on this thread don't have a leg to stand on. They think they do, but don't.
I did not ask for anecdotes, I asked for scientific evidence. You don't seem to understand what that means. To help you I will post an example:
http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/160/3/302
If you want sob stories, perhaps you should contact that the families of the over 69 infants that have died from pertussis over the past few years. Now do try to keep up.
What are you going on about with your cryptic posting? Put in the link to the actual , since using Google gets a bunch of garbage (especially since the Fiscal Year 2008 ends in late September). Try to be more clear (other than calling us names for no good reason... especially if you check what was posted at on July 27 at 3:13 PM). The only thing that looks even close is this:
http://www.hhs.gov/nvpo/nvac/transcript_apr08.html ... and it is just a transcript of a meeting, that is very long, and contains sob story or two...
But absolutely NO science.
Now please answer my question with with some actual scientific literature of the relative danger of the DTaP vaccine versus tetanospasmin, tetanolysin, diphtheria toxin and pertussis toxin.
Again, NO anecdotes, NO transcripts of government proceedings, NO references to law transcripts, NO unreferenced web pages ... real actual scientific peer reviewed papers. Do try harder, please.
Let me add: also NO newspaper, magazine or television news reports. And no blog entries (even though there are several excellent ones out there like EpiWonk, AutismNaturalVariation, LeftBrainRightBrain, Neurologica and ScienceBasedMedicine.
Especially from the likes of a fellow who just reported the "errors" in a book... and included an "error" of something that was not even in the book! See: http://www.autismvox.com/the-truth-is-out-there-but-smallpox/
Just real actual factual scientific literature.
You can do that, can't you?
First of all HCN Fyou....you are an ignorant and insenitive asshole.....after 5 family victims in all, what do you want me to say? Yes, I found out more since my last post. You people that promote vaccines are truly sick.
July 30th 10:26 p.m. Please refer to this last post because it is VERY important. These morons on this thread don't have a leg to stand on. They think they do, but don't.
You said:
If you want sob stories, perhaps you should contact that the families of the over 69 infants that have died from pertussis over the past few years. Now do try to keep up.
I said:
Gee, while that is tragic, WHO were they and what were they vaccinated against earlier? That information would help quite a bit. But, of course you probably don't have it. How convenient. Liar liar pants on fire. Did you ever play that game? Well, you are IT.
Goodnight liar.
I also asked you to provide the link of the relevant report. Where is it?
Do you have any science?
Oh, and babies under the age of three months have barely been vaccinated, and definitely not for pertussis.
Actually, when I look at your posting history, I would assume that you don't like babies much. You started out posting about CRS, which mostly affects fetal development, and you don't seem too concerned about the rise in pertussis with the subsequent rise in infant deaths.
Now please answer my question with with some actual scientific literature of the relative danger of the DTaP vaccine versus tetanospasmin, tetanolysin, diphtheria toxin and pertussis toxin.
Thank you in advance.
To guide you through how to interpret scientific literature I present this other very good science blog:
http://photoninthedarkness.com/ ... "A Layperson's Guide to the Scientific Literature", now up to Part 3 are quite excellent. This should help you find a good answer to my question (and again, your anecdotes do not count).
Just a reminder... Just as the plural of anecdote is not data, the plural of meeting minutes are also not data.
ERROR ERROR! I made an error: "Oh, and babies under the age of three months have barely been vaccinated, and definitely not for pertussis"...
Oops, first pertussis vaccine is between 6 weeks to 2 months.
Sorry.
Didn't Dawn come here to back up the ultra polite, butter wouldn't melt in his mouth, Dr. Jay Gordon?
Dawn vituperated: "Goodnight liar." I wonder if Dr. Gordon would care to comment on the behavior of the ill-mannered Miss Dawn?
Come back Dr. Gordon and tell us what you think of Miss Dawn's manners. Do you have a pill for that? Perhaps you could prescribe a meditation for her?
http://stripgenerator.com/strip/159428/
391 comments? dr. jay is almost as popular as crackergate.
Dawn, you should really stop posting here. Orac & Co. are what I like to call "SMART IDIOTS." This sounds like an oxymoron but it isn't. They think because they have a couple of degrees in science and biology, they've got the knowledge-based scientific market cornered. I too once thought of the medical establishment as infallible. I was wrong. Orac better pray his children don't get regressive autism due to environmental insults such as thimerosal in vaccines.
For now I'll take my own advise and gracefully exit this debate. It's useless to debate with people who aren't open to legitimate investigation.
I'll leave you all with this one quote:
"...if you look at the evidence that there is no link, what I come away with is the question has not been answered."
-Dr. Bernadine Healy,
Former Director, National Institutes of Health
Enjoy your blissfull ignorance.
Not even close. That ridiculous affair known as Crackergate garnered thousands of comments over several posts. Although this may be the post here that has generated more comments than any other, it's nowhere near Crackergate league.
Mrs C,
Since you love to play the Dr. Gerberding truncated quote game, I'll supply you with another one:
"...the weight of evidence does not support a causal association between ethylmercury exposure from thimerosal-containing vaccines through the first 7 mos of life and neurophyiological functioning at ages 7 to 10 yrs."
Enjoy your conspiratorial ignorance...
"They think because they have a couple of degrees in science and biology, they've got the knowledge-based scientific market cornered."
Ha ha ha ha ha! Gee Orac, how dare you think you actually know anything about medicine. All you have are a few degrees and many years of experience!
Hilarious. Although I doubt it was intended that way.
Like I said earlier let's just hope that Tsu Dho Nimh is wrong with his theory that the SV40 virus doesn't cause cancer - 'cause if he is then we are all in a world of $%&*! The vaccinated and unvaccinated alike!!!
Oops!! I meant to say let's hope that he is right on that one!!!!! Not wrong!!
Dawn, where is your real evidence about SV40 that is more recent and as detailed as this:
http://jco.ascopubs.org/cgi/content/full/24/26/4356
Funny, that article doesn't mention anything about the fact that the SV40 has been FOUND in many tumors. So, yes, I believe that there is a connection with the virus and cancer.
prove it
Jay Gordon makes the following claim (repeatedly):
In all of the comments from Dr. Gordon, I fail to see any substantiation of this claim. Somehow, he just knows that Dr. Offit is making "...millions of dollars..." from the rotavirus vaccine.
If Dr. Gordon has documentation of his claim, then I feel he should reveal it. If not, then this is yet another example of Dr. Gordon irresonsibly spreading information that he cannot support with data.
Prometheus
Don't believe a word these "pro-vaccine" people say. The majority of them are paid "impersonators". I will give a great example.
Last year, I joined a forum called Great Schools aka Schwab for learning disabled children. Well, a met this horrible woman named "Denali". When I began to suspect that vaccines were to blame for the majority of our nation's handicapped children, she attacked me and had all of this BS scientific jargon to back up her claims.
Well, come to find out "Denali" is actually "LizDitz" and she doesn't have a learning disabled daughter at all (she claimed this on the LD forum). She is an imposter. When I checked out her blog - low and behold a lot of the names on this forum are the same posters on her blog.
http://lizditz.typepad.com/
A legitimate guess would be that isles, HCN, techskeptic, Diane, and others work for Big Pharma. The question is which company? They are paid to spread these "good vaccine" lies. They respond to news stories, blogs, and pretend to be something they are not and so on. They have probably infilitrated Learning Disability forums, SIDS groups, etc. - any groups that have been affected by vaccines.
Very clever you guys, but I'm not fooled.
Pharma shill gambit.
Really, Dawn, you'll have to do better than that. Your comment is utterly pathetic.
Well, if Lizditz or Denali or whatever the heck her real name is an imposter - than so are you. In fact your name is featured on her blog also.
http://lizditz.typepad.com/
ORAC my ass. Who are you really?
Hi Dawn,
My name's Kevin Leitch. I live and work in the UK and fully agree with and support the comments of both Liz and Orac. I am the parent of a severely autistic child. I receive no money from anyone other than my employer who works in a field utterly unrelated to vaccines, health, science or the government. I am a web developer.
I think you, on the other hand, are little more than a conspiracy-minded buffoon with nothing better to do than make up stuff about people who are both smarter and better organised than you. You really should stop. It makes you look like an idiot.
I'd like to propose the following as a new "Internet Law":
Having accused everyone who 'blogs or comments in favor of science and reason over rumor and superstition of being part of the "Big Pharma Conspiracy" (BPC), Dawn has raised serious concerns about her mental state.
Seriously, if everyone who objects to the simplistic "vaccines cause autism" arguments were in the pay of "Big Pharma", don't you think someone working in the pharmaceutical industry - some lowly clerk or maybe someone in the mail room watching the checks go out - would have "blown the whistle"?
Big conspiracies never stay secret for long, Dawn. Consider getting help.
Prometheus
Dawn, you are presenting a very strong case that your son's learning disabilities are genetic in origin.
Dawn will have to get up a lot earlier in the morning to prove her claims.
I'm hurt that you don't think I'm a clear plastic box full of multicolored blinking lights.
You guys don't have me fooled for a minute. Actually research is showing that yes, the damage done to our generations IS vaccine related. It is about "stealth viruses" introduced by vaccines. So, the children receive further assault when their parents were vaccinated and then they were subsequently vaccinated.
What vaccines are truly about it keeping people chronically ill, mentally deficient, and possible not able to produce. It is called population control and it dates all the way back to the earlier generations of the Rockefellers. I know how much everyone likes to google. Well, start with the Rockefeller family and their ties to Big Pharma. Then start researching the political movement of the United Nations, Trilateral Commission, and the Council on Foreign Relations. Then start researching their ties to "Every Child by Two".
The vaccine package inserts say it all "Carcinogenesis, Mutagenesis, and Impairment of Fertility: No studies have been done".
The sad part is that they have people like you eating right out of their hands. Whether you choose to vaccinate yourself or loves ones with polluted, contaminated vial products won't matter. If your children happen to have babies with vaccinated persons - chances are they will be affected too.
All of these scientific links that you supply are studies paid for by GUESS WHO? Of course they are not going to find fault with vaccines you big dummies!
"You guys don't have me fooled for a minute. Actually research is showing that yes, the damage done to our generations IS vaccine related. It is about "stealth viruses" introduced by vaccines."
Yeah? Where is this research? National Enquirer? Daily Mail? Whale.to? Rense.com?
Dawn, Dawn, Dawn.
Well, come to find out "Denali" is actually "LizDitz" and she doesn't have a learning disabled daughter at all (she claimed this on the LD forum). She is an imposter.
An imposter? [checking mirror, checking driver's license] Nope. I'm me. I'm real.
As to my daughter -- careful, here, Dawn. Like most mothers, I'm pretty fierce in protecting my daughter. I don't use her real name to protect her privacy. She's real too, as is her disability. I've got the documentation to prove it.
As to my employment by Big Pharma--nope, not that either. No big checks, no cash. I don't hold any patents, either.
she attacked me and had all of this BS scientific jargon to back up her claims.
I don't remember exactly what I said at Schwab & GreatSchools--it was back in February, I believe--but IIRC, you made large and unsubstantiated claims about a putative connection between learning disabilities and vaccination. I asked you for proof and provided factual evidence that your claims were unsubstantiated. If that's what you construe as "an attack," I would say that you are unused to vigorous intellectual discourse.
But thanks for the copious links to my blog.
As to why I'm a outspoken voice against anti-vaccination propaganda:
1. I got interested in the subject when my daughter was an infant, when a family member tried to convince me that vaccinating her was "dangerous to her immune system" (this was before the autism/vaccination meme came up).
2. I was astonished by the stupidity and anti-science ranting in the vaccine-rejectionist community
3. I believe that maintaining high levels of vaccine uptake (90%+) is an important step in public health and national security
4. It is not sufficient for vaccine support to come from physicians -- lay people ought to be vocal about the public and individual health value of universal vaccination, and ought to be vocal in pointing out the flaws in the anti-vaccination propaganda.
5. The focus on the failed hypothesis that vaccines are causal in autism takes attention and resources away from what families affected by autism need: earlier identification, more effective and efficient intervention, and more services, supports, and opportunities for adults with autism.
Dawn | August 7, 2008 2:57 PM wrote "You guys don't have me fooled for a minute." I guess we should concede it.
Have you read David Icke's book "The Biggest Secret"? He explains it all- the Reptilians created the Babylonian Brotherhood to keep us all under control. Anyone with two ears to hear with can see that only clear-thinkers such as yourself can get to the truth.
For the purity of our natural essence, I encourage you to campaign on. However, I must deny you my essence.
So, what you people are telling me is that there is such thing as herd immunity? Particularly the recent whooping cough incident - almost all were vaccinated. Funny, history proves you so wrong.
So, if even one child dies for the sake of the vaccine program, NONE of you have a problem with this is what you are telling me. I just spoke with 4 mothers who recently lost their children because of vaccines. A 4 year old, 5 year old and (2) 4 month old babies.
None of you here have a problem with a vaccine tracking system in schools the "Every Child by Two" is pushing? No more privacy when it comes to health issues. Remember the HIPAA form that you all signed? Read it very carefully. Have you had blood work done recently? Read the informed consent form very carefully under the section "Scientific Experimentation/Research". You don't have a problem with strangers having your DNA or your children's?
You don't wonder why just outside of Atlanta 500,000 plastic coffins are already lined up and waiting to be filled? By all means vaccinate your family. That is exactly what they are counting on when this bogus "pandemic" hits. Keep eating your GM foods, keep using your hormone altering plastics & health & beauty products, etc.
Funny, the only healthy people that I am hearing about (children) are the ones who are not vaccinated. Never even seen doctors other than the day they were born. Coincidence? Nope. Just further proof. One mother stopped vaccinated her kids when her 4th child was born. Her 4th is the only one not in Special Ed.
That sure would explain why a local elementary school has 35 Special Ed teachers and 28 regular teachers. There are less than 400 children in the entire school! Further proof that vaccines are to blame.
So, just why exactly are schools not saying anything? Why, they receive funds for every fully immunized child of course! They don't want to rock the boat. 1 in 67 children have Autism and are in Spec Ed according to the U.S. Dept of Education in 2007 (this number represents elementary school children). Further proof that the vaccines are to blame.
So, if none of these viruses or chemicals have been tested on humans, that sure would explain these links below. It would also explain the role of HHS. Vaccines are purely experimental.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/usc_sec_50_00001520---a000-.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/usc_sec_50_00001524----000-.html
FYI - the "Spanish Flu" only affected the vaccinated. How many died from it?
So, again by all means, keep spreading the lies because you have a growing number of parents not listening to them.
A legitimate guess would be that isles, HCN, techskeptic, Diane, and others work for Big Pharma.
In what planet would this unfounded speculation be legitimate?
I think Dawn is actually a paid shill for vaccine injury lawyers. Don't you see? She gets paid to try to smear people who are pro-vaccine. Of course, I don't have evidence of any of this, but who needs evidence to point out the obvious?
Can someone explain to me the connection between the Reptilians and "body thetans"? Is our Dawn a Scientology shill? http://www.xenu-directory.net/practices/bt.html
Dawn said: "You guys don't have me fooled for a minute. Actually research is showing that yes, the damage done to our generations IS vaccine related. It is about "stealth viruses" introduced by vaccines.
Sure Dawn, but fellow crackpot John Martin calls you anti-vaccine.
http://www.iminhere.ca/acestudy/Autism,%20Vaccines,%20Stealth%20Adapted…
"Again, the anti-vaccine proponents have argued for that vaccines are potentially damaging even to normal mitochondria because of chemical contaminants, including mercury."
Cue the theme from The Twilight Zone.
Dawn, did Dr. Gordon abandon you here to flap around in your paranoia?
Funny, the only healthy people that I am hearing about (children) are the ones who are not vaccinated.
Dawn, are you familiar with the organization named Generation Rescue? I'm sure you're a big fan. Explain this to me. When they conducted a survey of vaccinated and unvaccinated children, why did they find that completely unvaccinated children were diagnosed with ASD at a rate of 3.73%? (The rate for vaccinated was 3.01%). Not that they ever mentioned these findings.
Thanks Liz for that insight. I guess you should have listened to your relatives when your daughter was a baby. If you had, she probably wouldn't be dyslexic. That sure explains your hatred for the anti-vax movement. Guilt. Just how healthy were your relatives' kids? Hmmm...probably very.
Dawn, did Dr. Gordon abandon you here to flap around in your ignorance, too? So do children suddenly fall into the hell that is dyslexia following a vaccine? How does that work? If you give a 6 year old a vaccine will he suddenly lose the ability to read?
Dawn, so you now accept that I (and my daughter) are real people? So reassuring.
And no, vaccination didn't cause her dyslexia. It (and ADHD) seem to run in both of her parents' families, including now-dead members who were born in the 1870s and 1880s, and therefore likely unvaccinated against anything. One of my grandparents lost several siblings to diptheria.
Do I feel guilt over her dyslexia? Not at all--the dyslexia is part of who she is. And my selectively-vaccinating relatives' kids are in fact less healthy than my daughter.
Dawn, I'm going to repeat what was written to you several times at SchwabLearning and GreatSchools:
You express a great deal of fear and anger in your posts. You express some irrational ideas (such as the mind control stuff).
Please, talk to your pastor or a social worker about the anger and fear, and how you can become more centered and less reactive. Don't do it for you, do it for your children. Your children need a mother who is calm and realistic.
From Dawn:
I think that all the adults in this discussion should leave Dawn alone and stop aggravating her. Anyone who believes this has clearly shown that they are non compos mentis. It is cruel and inhumane to torment people who cannot discern the difference between reality and their own delusions.
You all can do what you like, but I'm done with Dawn - I hope she gets the help she needs.
Prometheus
You are probably right, Prometheus. Are Dawn and David Ayoub the same person, or is there actually more than one person who believes that?
Wow! Just like a pack of wild dogs! I guess I made some valid points for all of you to "jump' the way that you did. Thanks for the entertainment.
Oh, Prometheus, why must you be a voice of reason? Dawn has been more entertaining than television.
If you care at all about your children, Dawn, get help.
If anyone knows of any Gardasil victims, Erin Brockovich's law firm is taking cases free of charge.
Liz - I actually spoke with an Audiologist, Behavioral Optometrist, and Opthamologist....they were quite shocked to see the vaccine package inserts. Take a look under "Special Senses: Eye/Ear". They ALL agreed that the sharp rise in learning disabilities may actually be vaccine adverse reactions. I also find it funny that you used an unproven method to teach dyslexia and it worked. You are such a hypocrite according to your own blog! Where is the science? SHOW ME THE SCIENCE BEHIND YOUR TEACHINGS! I guess parents' anecdotal evidence is significant after all -your blog reinforces that.
http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/m/meruvax_ii/meruvax_ii_p…
(page 6 for common adverse reactions with Ears/Eyes - these can definitely attribute to many learning disabilities to include the following: Dyslexia, Visual Processing Disorders, Auditory Processing Disorders, Speech/Language Impairments, etc)
http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/v/varivax/varivax_pi.pdf (page 7 for info on posing a contagious threat to others)
http://us.gsk.com/products/assets/us_infanrix.pdf (page 7 to view ex. of new warning on EVERY vaccine)
http://vaers.hhs.gov/pdf/PackageInserts.pdf (to view all vaccines)
Google the mapping/wiring process of the brain. The most important process occurs between birth and 3 years old. The chemicals that go into vaccines have been shown to cause nerve/cell damage in lab animals. What on Earth do you think happens to an infant's developing brain?
It is time for all of you to start "thinking outside the box".
I hate to point this out LizDitz, but you state on your personal blog (referred earlier) that you used a method of teaching a Dyslexic with no proven science to back it up. You also stated that it worked. Well, I'm sorry, but you have proven that anecdotal evidence offered by parents is sufficient evidence. So, maybe these parents of Autistic children are right on target.
Lenny - I think you're going to be hard pushed to draw a comparison between teaching someone and risking their life via chelation/lupron/etc.
I am all for what Prometheus said, and leave Dawn alone with her delusions... but she said "So, if even one child dies for the sake of the vaccine program, NONE of you have a problem with this is what you are telling me. I just spoke with 4 mothers who recently lost their children because of vaccines. A 4 year old, 5 year old and (2) 4 month old babies."
Again those are anecdotes, and going by the fact that recently a child being killed in a car crash was blamed on a vaccine, and I have seen where a VAERS account was for a baby was was found on the floor next to the couch after co-sleeping with the mother... I would really need good evidence.
In the mean time we have some real data:
Numbers from http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/appdx-fu… ...
This is for pertussis:
Year____Cases____Deaths
2000_____7867______ 12
2001_____7580______ 17
2002_____9771______ 18
2003____11647______ 11
2004____25827______ 27
2005____25616______ 39
2006____15632______ 16
Total__103940______140
The last death figures are from this slide set:
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/Slides/Pertussis10… ... Slide 9. Of the 82 deaths from pertussis during 2004 through 2006, 69 were of infants under the age of three months, while the remaining 13 were older than three months.
Now for tetanus:
Year____Cases____Deaths
2000_______35______ 5
2001_______37______ 5
2002_______25______ 5
2003_______20______ 4
2004_______34______ NA
2005_______27______ NA
2006_______41______ NA
Total_____219______More than 20
Now for measles:
Year____Cases____Deaths
2000_______86______ 1
2001______116______ 1
2002_______44______ 0
2003_______56______ 1
2004_______37______ NA
2005_______66______ NA
2006_______55______ NA
Total_____460______3 or more
Now for mumps:
Year____Cases____Deaths
2000______338______ 2
2001______266______ 0
2002______270______ 1
2003______231______ 0
2004______258______ NA
2005______314______ NA
2006_____6584______ NA
Total____8261______3 or more
Total of cases of those four diseases over the seven year period is 112880, and over 150 dead. This does not include the 16 cases of Congenital Rubella Syndrome listed in the table for the years 2000 through 2006. But we already know Dawn doesn't care about babies. She would rather see them dead than alive. Nor does she care about the ones who lived and are permanently disabled.
Now if we went Dawn's way and eliminated the DTaP and the MMR then we will go back to the numbers that are listed for the 1950s (the return of pertussis is already happening, and measles and mumps have returned to Japan and the UK, the USA is not far behind). I have not calculated the deaths from tetanus, pertussis, measles and mumps for the the years between 1950 and 1956 inclusive, but a quick glance shows it to be multiple thousands. Perhaps that would make Dawn happy.
That it... I am done with Dawn's delusions.
Now if Dr. Jay would like to tell us how the DTaP and MMR are worse than the data shown above, I would love to see the real actual scientific data.
Actually HCN,
Your figures stated above are lacking one very important piece of evidence too. How many of those deaths occured in the vaccinated?
Of the now 26 probable whooping cough cases in Polk County the evidence is as follows:
16 cases completed their vaccinations with either 4 or 5 vaccinations.
4 cases had one or two vaccinations due to under age or parent did not keep up with vaccine schedule.
1 case was not vaccinated at all, due to age.
1 case was unvaccinated due to claming religious exemption
2 cases - info was not obtained due to case greater or equal to 15 years old
2 cases info was unknown either from inability to contact
or parent did not know or have info.
These facts derived from the director of public health for Polk County, Dr. Daniel Haight.
It is just my opinion, but those are not very good odds. That leads me to question other vaccines also.
It's interesting how people with no actual data turn to children's taunts and name-calling. For the record, Dawn, I have no association with any pharmaceutical company. I resent your efforts to paint mine (and others') comments as Big Pharma shills. I think I understand why you are anti-vaccine, what with the medical issues your family is facing and has faced due, you believe, to vaccination; do you understand why I support vaccinations despite having zero financial stakes in Big Pharma?
Lenny moaned "Your figures stated above are lacking one very important piece of evidence too. How many of those deaths occured in the vaccinated?"
Who the hell cares? That has nothing to do with reality. Check the numbers for 1950. Those people were NOT vaccinated (because the vaccines did not exist, and there was not a very good vaccine program until a decade or more after). Just for that year there were over 1000 dead from pertussis, over 400 for tetanus, over 450 for measles, and for the seven years of 1950 through 1956 there were over 3000 deaths just from measles (and the polio deaths were over 10000). No one has said the vaccines were 100% effective... but the chances of injury with the vaccine are lots less than with the real disease.
I see you still have no references, even if you mention a "Polk County", I don't see a URL listed --- did you forget that?.
Lenny continues "It is just my opinion, but those are not very good odds. That leads me to question other vaccines also."
Your opinion is worth the electrons going through your keyboard... not much. Just provide proof that the DTaP is more dangerous than pertussis, diphtheria and tetanus and that the MMR is worse than measles, mumps and rubella. NOT opinion... just real proof, real data, real science.
Until you post some actual factual data that can be verified and held to real scrutiny, I will ignore you, along with Dawn.
I honestly didn't think anyone could answer my previous question. I do urge you all to call Dr. Danial Haight though for clarification on why the majority of whooping cough cases were previously vaccinated. His number is (515) 286-3798. I would also like to know why this was not made evident in the news.
The article below mentions only 23, but there are 26 now.
http://www.theledger.com/article/20080729/NEWS/807280506
Again, HCN, your statistics are missing some vital information. How many of those deaths occured in the vaccinated?
"Who the hell cares? That has nothing to do with reality. Check the numbers for 1950. Those people were NOT vaccinated (because the vaccines did not exist, and there was not a very good vaccine program until a decade or more after). Just for that year there were over 1000 dead from pertussis, over 400 for tetanus, over 450 for measles, and for the seven years of 1950 through 1956 there were over 3000 deaths just from measles (and the polio deaths were over 10000). No one has said the vaccines were 100% effective... but the chances of injury with the vaccine are lots less than with the real disease". Stated by HCN.
I'm sorry, but the Pink Book is not exactly an accurate source of information. Their data shown conflicts with previously reported figures over the years.
Also, who exactly told you that the chance of injury is less than those figures stated? My advice to you my friend is to sit down with a hot cup of Joe and take a look at the information compiled in the link below.
http://vaers.hhs.gov/
I would suggest that's simply because most people (as in almost all) are vaccinated.
Funny, you think we're not familiar with VAERS? We know about VAERS and we know just how reliable its data is. I wrote a short post about it recently here.
VAERS? Do try to pay attention:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/08/sharyl_attkisson_of_cbs_and_g…
Might I recommend something? In a quest for the truth, you shall find it. I actually prefer the older editions of our beloved medical journals. The information contained in the older editions is quite different than what I read of today (same journals, yet different data). I just wanted to depart with that last thought for everyone.
I believe Dawn is providing evidence for why conspiracy theories and paranoid thinking run amok regarding the autism-vaccine hypothesis.
"Might I recommend something? In a quest for the truth, you shall find it. I actually prefer the older editions of our beloved medical journals. The information contained in the older editions is quite different than what I read of today"
Yeah, no s>?t! Current day experimental methods and basic understanding of disease could never compete with that of the 1940s.
Dawn,
This Pharma Shill really needs to talk to the Pharma commander about a raise so I can upgrade my current car with 100K+ miles and a muffler that's about ready to fall off. By the way, I have also scheduled a meeting with the Supreme Commander to discuss the reasons why the birth rate in the US has been on the upswing in recent years. I guess the population control plan needs to be retooled. Since you are so adept at labeling people, I think someone really needs to tell you that you are a raging paranoid schizo. As someone who has family experience with schizophrenia I suggest that you seek medical attention immediately. Early treatment is the key to a successful recovery.
Lenny wants to know how many of the fatalities due to whooping cough occurred in people who had previously been vaccinated.
According to the CDC, MMWR March 24, 2006:
Since the first pertussis vaccination is usually not given until 2 months of age, these figures imply that at least 76% of the deaths reported between 2000-2004 occurred infants who were unvaccinated because of their age, and many of the remaining deaths occured in infants who were too young to have received more than one or two doses of the vaccine.
All this controversy about vaccinations makes parents so anxious about what to do with their children. Parents want to do the right thing and there is so much passion telling parents not to vaccinate and so much passion telling parents to do it. I can tell you as a parent and psychologist that I would get judged and criticized if I did not vaccinate. On the other hand, I'm judged because I do by other people. As a psychologist, I feel like I'm more educated on the topic than most parents, but I can't help but doubt, whichever decision I made. Most parents feel like they don't want their child to get polio, but they don't want autism either! There is so much conflicting data out there.
Erin said "There is so much conflicting data out there"
Please share the data that shows that the IPV is a cause of autism, and the same with DTaP and MMR. I have asked, and yet no one has produced real actual scientific documentation with the evidence. Obviously, with your training you have it!
Erin, as a psychologist you must know that you are under no obligation to reveal your children's vaccination status to "other people". It is privileged medical information and does not have to be made public.
Of course, the school district, your children's physicians and - on occasion - embassy visa staff may ask you to provide that information. You can refuse those requests as well, but they may not be able to provide you with the services (public school admission, optimum medical care, entry visas). If you do decide to provide them your children's vaccination records, they are also required to keep that information confidential.
Seriously, when someone asks me if my children are vaccinated, I usually reply as I would if the same person asked me about any of their other confidential medical information. In most cases, the proper answer is "That's not really any of your business.", or words to that effect.
Just because friends, accquaintances and - on occasion - absolute strangers ask you if your children are vaccinate does not put you under any obligation to answer their intrusive question.
If saying "It's none of your business." seems rude or inappropriate, you can try to deflect the question with one of your own. My personal favorite is to say, "Since we're discussing personal medical matters, how much do you weigh?" This seems particularly effective at shutting down that line of inquiry.
There is definitely a lot of conflicting information "out there" - and some of it is truly "out there". On the other hand, the medical and scientific information published in journals is pretty clearly overwhelmingly in favor of the position that vaccines do not significantly contribute to the prevalence of autism.
As a psychologist, you should be able to look up the relevant studies and read them. Maybe you could even try to explain what you find to your friends, family members and even patients who are confused by the "conflicting information" they find on the Internet.
Prometheus