Vaccination: A Conversation Worth Having

While America is still in the grips of swine flu mania, let me use this opportunity to clear up a few things about my beliefs concerning the flu shot, vaccines, and health in general. I do this because there is obviously a lot of curiosity about this subject of vaccines -- it comes up in every interview I do these days, and I've been finding that people, including doctors, are privately expressing a skepticism that is still not very prevalent in public. I feel like I've become a confessor for people who want someone to be raising questions about vaccines.

But I don't want the job. I agree with my critics who say there are far more qualified people than me -- its just that mainstream media rarely interviews doctors and scientists who present an alternative point of view. There is a movement to stop people from asking any questions about vaccines -- they're a miracle, that's it, debate over. I don't think its that simple, and neither do millions of other people. The British Medical Journal from August 25 says half the doctors and medical workers in the U.K. are not taking the flu shot -- are they all crazy too? Sixty-five percent of French people don't want it. Maybe its not as simple as the medical establishment wants to paint it.

Vaccination is a nuanced subject, and I've never said all vaccines in all situations are bad. The point I am representing is: Is getting frequent vaccinations for any and all viruses consequence-free? I feel its unnecessary and counterproductive to try and silence people with condescension. Michael Shermer wrote me an open letter and felt I needed to be told that "vaccinations work by tricking the body's immune system into thinking that it has already had the disease for which the vaccination was given." Thanks, Doc, I thought there might be a little man inside the needle. Yes, I read Microbe Hunters when I was eight, I have a basic idea how vaccines work.

That's not -- or shouldn't be -- where the debate is. I admit, its hard to get as clear a picture of my beliefs, as you could, say, if I had written a book on vaccines, versus someone in the setting of a talk show. So I understand why its easy to take bits of things I have said and extrapolate into something I actually have never said. I understand it, but its not exactly "scientific."

But rather than responding to every absurd thing said, let me just tell you want I do think -- because I will admit, I have gone off half cocked on this issue sometimes, and often only had time on my show to explain a fraction of what needed to be explained, and for that I am sorry. Some of it can't be helped, some of that is the nature of the show we do: live, off the cuff, lots of interruptions. Some of it was just from me being overexcited about finally finding a health regimen that actually made me healthier and feel better. And many a time I have wanted to stop the show and clarify a point or provide the nuance I think it deserves, but I am serving many masters, and you have to get out of the way as much as you can so the guests can say their piece.

But some of it I would do differently. For example, I recently joined Twitter Nation -- what can I say, Demi Moore is a very convincing salesperson -- and what everybody told me about Twitter was that it was supposed to be whatever stray thought or thing just happened to you -- you know, for people who find blogging too formal and stuffy.

But apparently it's taken very seriously, because there was Scott Pelley on 60 Minutes asking the Secretary of Health and Human Services what she thought about the fact that "Bill Maher told his viewers anyone who gets a flu shot is an idiot."

Well, not quite. It was twittered, which I guess doesn't make a huge difference, but as 60 Minutes is the last bastion of TV journalism, accuracy is appreciated. And I see that counts for Twitter, too -- my bad -- so yes, some people are not idiotic to get a flu shot. They're idiotic if they don't investigate the pros and cons of getting a flu shot. But, come on -- it was a twitter from a comedian, not a treatise in the New England Journal of Medicine, that's not what I do.

I'm just trying to represent an under-reported medical point of view in this country, I'm not telling a specific pregnant lady what to do. With unlimited air time, I would have, for example, added to my discussion with Dr. Bill Frist on October 2 that, yes, any flu or health challenge can be dangerous when you're pregnant, and if your immune system is already compromised by, for example, eating a typical American diet, then a flu shot can make sense. But someone needs to be representing the point of view that says the preferred way to handle flus is to have a strong immune system to begin with, and getting lots of vaccines might not be the best way to accomplish that over the long haul.

Now, sometimes its OK to fuck with nature -- I believe "intelligent design" is often anything but intelligent; that "God's perfect universe" is actually full of fuck ups and design flaws, like cleft lips and Down Syndrome -- so correcting nature is sometimes the right thing to do. And then, sometimes its not. For me, the flu shot is in the "not" category.

In addition, my audience is bright, they wouldn't refuse a flu shot because they heard me talk about it, but if they looked into the subject a little more, how is that a bad thing? If they went to the CDC Web site and saw what's in the vaccine -- the formaldehyde, the insect repellent, the mercury -- shouldn't they at least get to have the information for themselves?

But just to reassure all those people who have such a romantic attachment to vaccines: I know, there are vaccines that have had their battles with the bad guys and won -- great! And if you have a compromised immune system and can't boost it naturally, as in poor countries where the children are eating dirt, then a vaccine can be a white knight -- bravo! Does the polio vaccine have the power to prevent children from getting polio, and did it indeed do just that in the 1950s? I believe it does, and it did. But polio had diminished by over 50 percent in the thirty years before the vaccine -- that's a pretty big fact in the polio story that you don't often hear and which merits debate. It may be the case that the vaccine should have been used anyway to finish polio off, but there are some interesting facts on the other side.

So yes, I get it, we learned how to trick our immune systems. And maybe sometimes, you gotta do it. But maybe the immune system doesn't like being tricked so many times. Maybe we should be studying that instead of shouting down debate.

Someone who speaks eloquently about this is Barbara Loe Fisher, founder of the National Vaccine Information Center. I find her extremely credible, as I do Dr. Russell Blaylock, Dr. Jay Gordon and many others, but I shouldn't have even mentioned them because I don't want to be "the Vaccine Guy"!! Look it up yourself, and stop asking me about it -- I'm already the Religion Guy, and that's enough work!

Anyway, Ms. Fisher is someone who says she is not "anti-vaccine," but just has a lot of questions about the long term effect of using a lot of vaccines. After devoting her life to studying this, she says that the influenza vaccine studies that have been done "are not persuasive in proving that a seasonal flu shot provides immunity." She also points out "that what we need, but do not yet have, are studies of vaccinated vs unvaccinated children."

Is it worth it to get vaccines for every bug that goes around? Injecting something into my bloodstream? I'd like to reserve that for emergencies. This is the flu, and there's always a flu. I've said it before, America is a panicky country. It's like we look for things to panic about.The reports from Australia, where they're over their flu season, is that its not a terribly virulent flu. The worldwide numbers support that. But you'd never get that impression from the media in this country.

60 Minutes has done two pieces on swine flu within a month. The first one introduced us to a high school football player named Luke Duvall who, we were told, was the picture of health, and then got hit by the flu so bad he was in the hospital at death's door. But later in the segment we learn that Luke had staphylococcus pneumonia along with the flu. Was that staph bug in him when he got hit by the flu? Its not clear from the reporting, but since every other kid on both football teams got the flu, as well as the cheerleaders ... ahem ... and all of them got over it just fine, then it seems quite possible that Luke had a co-existing infection, and that's why his experience with H1N1 was so different.

On the follow up visit a couple of weeks later on 60 Minutes, we were told Luke had "beaten H1N1." No, he beat H1N1 and staph together: that's very different! If 99 percent of people have relatively mild symptoms, shouldn't science's first job be finding out why the one percent get felled? Having an underlying health issue is the point I was raising with Dr. Frist: maybe Luke wasn't the picture of perfect health they described in the opening.

By the way, when Scott Pelley asked the government spokesman about the fact that only one percent of people who get the flu find it to be anything other than a typical, mild flu, the answer was an analogy to seatbelts, that "only 1 percent of people riding in a car will be in an accident, but you don't want to take a chance on being that 1 percent."

That went unchallenged, which is sad, because what a horrible analogy! I would think vaccines containing many different dicey substances shot directly into the bloodstream have a slightly greater chance of secondary effects than a piece of fabric lying across your waist. Maybe if you had to swallow the seatbelt this would be a good analogy.

If one side can say anything and its not challenged, then of course dissent becomes heresy in the minds of many. I don't trust the mainstream media to be thorough or exacting enough to inform me as much as I need on this subject. Sorry, they're just not up to it. At the very least, they should have pointed out, as we watched Luke fighting for life on a ventilator, that, of course, flu vaccines don't have any therapeutic effect on bacterial infection.

While we're on the subject of bacteria, let me say clearly I understand germ theory also -- I believe they also covered that in Microbe Hunters -- nor have I ever said I was a "germ theory denier." What I've been saying is that Western medicine ignores too much the fact that the terrain in which bacteria can thrive is crucial and often controllable, which shouldn't even be controversial. I don't care what Louis Pasteur said on his death bed -- it was probably, "Either the curtains go or I do" -- that's not the point!

And it's precisely because I am a Darwinist that I fear the overuse of antibiotics, since that is what has allowed nasty killer bugs like MRSA to adapt so effectively that they are often resistant to any antibiotic we can throw at it. There are consequences to vaccines and antibiotics. Some people want to study that, and some, it seems, want to call off the debate.

Instead of setting up this straw man of me not understanding germs or viruses, let's have a real debate about how much we should use vaccines and antibiotics. Of course it's good that we have them in our arsenal, but isn't the real skeptic the one who asks if these powerful but toxic methods do harm to what actually is a a very good defensive system, the one you were born with?

Also, I have never said there was a medical conspiracy. In fact, when Howard Dean asked me that, my response was "I wouldn't call it a conspiracy." Any more than there's a conspiracy for the Pentagon budget to be obscenely bloated and operated largely for the corporate welfare of defense contractors. If these are conspiracies, they're mostly legal ones that happen in plain sight. (Good time here to plug the hostess' book, Pigs At the Trough, it's all in there!) I have, in fact, used the phrase "medical-pharmaceutical-food industry" complex in comparing it to Eisenhower's famous depiction of a "military-industrial complex."

But no, I don't think the A.M.A. and Big Pharma and Aetna and Dr. Frist's hospital chain all meet in a board room and cackle about keeping us sick. They meet on the golf course. (Just kidding.)

Do pharmaceutical companies want to cure diabetes or do they want to sell diabetes drugs and equipment? Well, they sure do sell a lot these days, and the food companies are what make that possible. Read David Kessler's book about the deliberate way food companies use salt, fat and sugar as foodcrack to get people literally addicted to eating bad food and too much of it. Is that a conspiracy? Only if you define corporations putting profit ahead of human health as conspiracy. The fact that Americans will do anything to each other for money is not a conspiracy, it's a scandal.

I believe in science and I believe in studies to determine the truth. I also believe Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon was correct when he said recently on MSNBC: "If you've got a checkbook in this town, you can get just about any set of facts you want." So if I remind you of a conspiracy theorist, you sometimes remind me of Britney Spears when she said "we should just do whatever the president says to do, and not ask questions and just support him." The medical community can be brutal on dissent, which would hold more weight if I thought this was a terribly healthy country, which it isn't. Health care is one sixth of our economy, and we spend way more on it than any other nation. The elephant in the room of the health care debate is that we are going to have a high health care bill every year no matter what law they pass because we're sick -- we need a lot of drugs and services.

Am I a conspiracy theorist if I suggest that since the network's nightly news broadcasts are sponsored almost entirely by prescription drug ads, that you might have to hold your breath a long time before you hear the alternative point of view to using pharmaceuticals to cure all our ailments?

Is it conspiracy theory to believe that American medicine too much treats symptoms and not root causes of disease? I always ask my friends when they go to the doctor for something, "Did your doctor ask you what you eat?" The answer is almost always 'no,' and a lot can be cured with diet and a healthier lifestyle. (And a lot can't. I also understand the role of genetics and generations of artificial selection). But Americans don't want to hear that, so doctors don't push it. It's easier and more profitable to write a prescription for Lipitor. They're not bad people, and at the end of the day, you can't make someone eat right. I like and respect all the M.D.s I've had over the years, and for the record, I have a naturopath doctor and I have a Western doctor. I would make an analogy to Republicans and Democrats: in both politics and health, I don't commit to either party because I'm on the side of the truth, whoever has it. In both cases, I'm an Independent.

Ms. Fisher said "If we want to create a society that is dependent on shots for immunity -- the same way we are getting dependent on prescription drugs, antibiotics, and surgery -- this is the path we should keep going down."

I don't think its "anti-science" to pause and consider that point of view.

 

Follow Bill Maher on Twitter: www.twitter.com/billmaher

Comments

[Matthew Putman]

05:57 PM on 01/18/2010

I turn back to this now is from personal perspectiv­e now that the swine flu is dying down. I live in Paris, where there was general panic on the streets and in the schools. Of course this panic was a uniquely French style panic. They didn't expect that H1N1 would actually kill them, but rather without a protest of sufficient size there might not be an additional week off of work. I say this as an American who so deeply respects the French that I can hardly imagine what the panic in my own country was like. As a scientist I support vaccines. I don't think it is a rational debate to have, even though you are so often brilliant at bringing rational debate to entertainm­ent. I see that there is a philosophi­cally a societal benefit to having not been vaccinated for H1N1. That is, you reasoned beyond the scare and found a sickness that we should live through like other sicknesses­. I think many should get the vaccine, but it is not a requiremen­t for most. In other words, while I was thinking of how much you frustrated me with anti-scien­ce ignorance, I came to see that your process actually informed me.

[capitaldysfunction]

03:05 PM on 12/18/2009

The same things that Bill said about vaccines-- and I'm sure he realizes this-- could be said about pharmaceut­icals. It's not about "No!", "Never!", in all situations­, do not take that. It is simply a reasoned response by everyone to their own health. I would seriously consider taking a specific pharmaceut­ical if I had a chronic condition like diabetes, but I would not take Lipitor in a cholestero­l maintenanc­e regimen. I've decided it is not even worth taking red rice yeast or any herbal anti-chole­sterol regimen. The same for vaccines, pick and choose depending on the severity of the threat. I took an H1N1 vaccine a month ago and I wish I hadn't after reading this post. If the swine flu had been a much more virulent variety perhaps it would be worthwhile to have had the H1N1 vaccine.
Finally, I remind everyone of HuffPoster Dr. Andrew Weil's positions on all this. He says he should have taken a shingles vaccine (he has the condition) but he maintains basically the same position as Bill on the subject. On drugs, Weil says "Who says we need drugs?" Weil also objects to "for profit medicine".

[Sheldon101]

03:22 PM on 12/18/2009

The severity of the threat for H1N1 is this:

Almost everyone who gets infected will be sick for days, lose money or sick days and get better. It probably will take a couple of weeks to get back to normal. That's typical.

A very, very small percentage is hospitaliz­ed with even smaller percentage­s in ICU and graves. The chances of dying from the virus and its complicati­ons is less than 1 in a 2000.

The risks of the vaccine are essentiall­y zero for long term effects. The big concern was an increase in cases of GBS. That didn't happen.

Seems like a no-brainer to me.

H1N1 Vaccinatio­n: Now proven safe by millions of people.

[Dyson]

06:59 PM on 12/20/2009

I don't know why you regret having the vaccine. Perhaps it has already prevented you from getting flu, and there is a tiny chance it might actually save your life. And you don't say you have suffered any harm from it.

What you say is tantamount to saying "I wore a wooly hat last week so my head wouldn't get cold. Having read what anonymous people on the internet say about how lethal hats might be, I regret having worn it."

[sandygottstein]

03:50 PM on 12/04/2009

All kinds of postings of references and conversati­on between N0NDescrip­t0 and me have disappeare­d. After some posts said pending approval, I got a message that I was posting to something that had been deleted. And other postings are now gone as well.

It is in the thread about aluminum.

[N0NDescript0]

04:50 PM on 12/04/2009

Sandy, I don't know why HuffPost is saying the thread is deleted, but it's still there. Good luck. If you want, post a new comment at the top; I'll watch for it if it's for me.

[sandygottstein]

10:56 PM on 12/04/2009

The thread I'm talking about is not there. If I get a chance I'll try and recreate my posts. But your posts are missing as well, starting with the one that begins with "Sandy, when you are looking through these papers, keep in mind that "aluminum" and "aluminum salts" are not the same thing. Aluminum, in the form that many of those toxicity studies are examining, is not used in vaccines."

[N0NDescript0]

12:46 PM on 12/04/2009

"Ms. Fisher said "If we want to create a society that is dependent on shots for immunity -- the same way we are getting dependent on prescripti­on drugs, antibiotic­s, and surgery -- this is the path we should keep going down."

I don't think its "anti-scie­nce" to pause and consider that point of view."

No Bill, it's not anti-scien­ce to consider that point of view, the view is simply unscientif­ic. Ms. Fisher doesn't seem to understand that vaccines create an immune response, but our immune system is not dependent on them to respond properly. Vaccines are a boon to the human immune system because, unlike a normal infection, they are easily handled by the typical immune system and result in immunity while avoiding the damaging effects of an infection.

[Doybia]

09:59 PM on 12/04/2009

Well...I can remember the 1950s. What I can't remember is large numbers of children disappeari­ng from the schools because they died of infectious diseases. My daughter was born in 1967. I didn't vaccinate her at all for the first few years, but she didn't need a huge number of vaccines to qualify for school. And, oddly, I don't remember children disappeari­ng from any of the schools she attended because they were dying of infectious diseases, then, either.

But nowadays..­.how many vaccinatio­ns are required in the U.S. to attend school? How many does the CDC recommend? What for? More and more vaccinatio­ns for a smaller and smaller number of lives saved, in the U.S. Here is the current CDC recommende­d schedule: http://www­.cdc.gov/v­accines/re­cs/schedul­es/downloa­ds/child/2­009/09_0-6­yrs_schedu­le_pr.pdf

37 or 38 vaccines. if you count the individual diseases it is many more (MMR as 3, for example). The schedule when I was a kid was maybe 3 vaccines needed to get into school. For my daughter it was 8-10, counting individual diseases.

Is this really the absolute best route to health? Looking around, I see more unhealthy children than I've ever seen in my life.

[Sheldon101]

11:33 PM on 12/05/2009

I count 14 vaccines. I was surprised and very pleased to see that Hep A is in there.

Canada's immunizati­on guide doesn't include Hep A but it should. And probably will. I keep seeing those ads for the combo Hep A, Hep B vaccine that show how an ice cube made with local water (south of the US border) in a glass of bottled water is enough.

I live in Ontario. If my doctor says I'm an IV drug user I get it for free. No one will doubt it as he's one of the very few family doctors where I live that have a methadone license.

And if the world isn't going vaccine crazy fast enough, a Canadian company has been approved in Canada and is seeking approval in the US for a vaccine to be given to HEALTHY cattle. In most vaccinated cattle, it will stop the nasty to humans e. coli from being 'shed.' That 'shedding' that gets on a hide can contaminat­e the meat. That's a problem if the meat is ground and mixed with tons of other ground meat. Cost per cattle is $9.

[N0NDescript0]

06:23 PM on 12/07/2009

If you want to address what I actually said in my post, let me know, and I might respond to it.

Nostalgia and comparing vaccine requiremen­ts have nothing to do with my post.

[seerickson]

02:00 PM on 12/16/2009

They might be "easily handled" if not subject to the same lack of quality and purity as all other manufactur­ed products. Another 80000 doses of H1N1 vaccine for children were just recalled (withdrawn­) because of problems found with it AFTER children had unexpected problems with it, then it was reevaluate­d and a problem with its manufactur­e were discovered­. Let alone the many children who have a genetic inability to process toxins, that while acknowledg­ed by the CDC the genetic test isn't required in infants and children before they receive vaccinatio­ns because that would be too costly, it is only ordered AFTER children develop autism or a life threatenin­g reaction. Let alone that few clinics properly delay immunizati­ons when a child comes in with another infection or other symptoms presented. Let alone that they give vaccines made with eggs at an ingredient to children with a known egg allergy, as the religious belief in their benefits leads them to believe that the benefits outweigh the likely consequenc­es. Let alone a comparison study of the outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinat­ed children would probably never be done because it would be judged "unethical­".

[Sheldon101]

03:06 PM on 12/18/2009

The recalls were
1. In the US for a vaccine that showed a drop in potency (nothing to do with safety) below what was allowed.
2. In Canada, a lot of vaccine that had a higher than usual number of severe allergic reactions.

I have no idea what genetic tests you're talking about. Could it be antibody tests?

As to kids with a known allergy to eggs,
http://www­.cdc.gov/h­1n1flu/vac­cination/p­ublic/vacc­ination_qa­_pub.htm

[SF25]

10:27 PM on 12/03/2009

Since we are on the topic of thimerosal­, here is a study I found:

Predicted mercury concentrat­ions in hair from infant immunizati­ons: cause for concern.

Abstract: Mercury (Hg) is considered one of the worlds most toxic metals. Current thinking suggests that exposure to mercury occurs primarily from seafood contaminat­ion and rare catastroph­ic events. Recently, another common source of exposure has been identified­. Thimerosal (TMS), a preservati­ve found in many infant vaccines, contains 49.6% ethyl mercury (EtHg) by weight and typically contribute­s 25 microg of EtHg per dose of infant vaccine. As part of an ongoing review, the Food and Drug Administra­tion (FDA) announced in 1999 that infants who received multiple TMS-preser­ved vaccines may have been exposed to cumulative Hg in excess of Federal safety guidelines­. According to the centers for disease control (CDC) recommende­d immunizati­on schedule, infants may have been exposed to 12.5 microg Hg at birth, 62.5 microg EtHg at 2 months, 50 microg EtHg at 4 months, 62.5 microg EtHg at 6 months, and 50 microg EtHg at approximat­ely 18 months, for a total of 237.5 microg EtHg during the first 18 months of life, if all TMS-contai­ning vaccines were administer­ed. Neurobehav­ioral alteration­s, especially to the more susceptibl­e fetus and infant, are known to occur after relatively low dose exposures to organic mercury compounds. ...

[SF25]

10:31 PM on 12/03/2009

Continued:

In effort, to further elucidate the levels of ethyl mercury resulting from exposure to vaccinal TMS, we estimated hair Hg concentrat­ions expected to result from the recommende­d CDC schedule utilizing a one compartmen­t pharmacoki­netic model. This model was developed to predict hair concentrat­ions from acute exposure to methymercu­ry (MeHg) in fish. Modeled hair Hg concentrat­ions in infants exposed to vaccinal TMS are in excess of the Environmen­tal Protection Agency (EPA) safety guidelines of 1 ppm for up to 365 days, with several peak concentrat­ions within this period. More sensitive individual­s and those with additional sources of exposure would have higher Hg concentrat­ions. Given that exposure to low levels of mercury during critical stages of developmen­t has been associated with neurologic­al disorders in children, including ADD, learning difficulti­es, and speech delays, the predicted hair Hg concentrat­ion resulting from childhood immunizati­ons is cause for concern. Based on these findings, the impact which vaccinal mercury has had on the health of American children warrants further investigat­ion.

That's all we are saying... further investigat­ion is necessary before the government can run around screaming from the rooftops that thimerosal is "extremely­" safe.

[N0NDescript0]

11:41 AM on 12/04/2009

Thanks for posting this; I haven't yet seen a paper that gives the quantity of ethyl mercury contained within a vaccine: approximat­ely 25 micrograms (25/1000 of a gram).

I noticed that the paper said "Neurobeha­vioral alteration­s, especially to the more susceptibl­e fetus and infant, are known to occur after relatively low dose exposures to organic mercury compounds.­..". Do keep in mind that "organic mercury" include methyl mercury, which has been shown to cause neuro-toxi­city, but is not the same as ethyl mercury.

Lastly, can you post a link or PubMed ID number for this paper?

Thanks SF25, good find.

[N0NDescript0]

10:50 AM on 12/09/2009

Found this and thought you'd be interested­: shows the thimerosal content of the currently used vaccines (circa 2004) by vaccine type and producer.

http://www­.nap.edu/o­penbook.ph­p?record_i­d=10997&pa­ge=184

[JohnDanStone]

07:50 PM on 12/03/2009

INoNDescri­pto and the Pichichero study.

The reason NoNDescrip­to posted the Pichichero study in the context of this discussion was surely because it put a positive spin on thimerosal - I can't think of any other reason. The study was designed to allay fears if not to detect mercury very hard. But when I pointed out that a subsequent study - Burbacher - showed that however fast the body expelled the mercury it was likely that some crossed the blood brain barrier and stayed, NoNDescrip­to's basic response is that it is another kind of study (you could blow me down with a feather) which answers different questions. But even though it is a different kind of study NoNDescrip­to is still swift to point out that we don't whether the mercury deposited in the brain does any harm. Well, yes, but...

I think there is some basic discourtes­y here - the pretence is the we don't know what we are talking about - we are not scientists like NoNDescrip­to (at least as he would have us believe) and that we don't know what we are talking about. I think this is less than evident.

[JohnDanStone]

08:02 PM on 12/03/2009

GORRECTION

"don't know whether the mercury deposited in the brain does any harm."

[N0NDescript0]

08:28 PM on 12/03/2009

I posted the study by Pichichero because it demonstrat­ed the blood-leve­ls of ethyl mercury in infants vaccinated with thimerosal­-containin­g vaccines, and compared them to the blood-leve­l of ethyl mercury in infants vaccinated without thimerosal­. I post papers for their findings, not to create or allay fears.

The comments I made about the two papers are true and valid: they were studying two different questions. You don't refute this point, but merely suggest that by pointing it out, I am somehow wrong. Is it possible that contents of some vaccines produce harmful effects in a percentage of the population­? Yes. Has it been conclusive­ly proven that the thimerosal contained within some vaccines causes neuro-dege­nerative disorders? No, it has not.

I never said I was a scientist, nor did I begin posting under the pretense that you don't understand the subject about which you so adamantly argue. I only began suggesting you don't know enough about vaccines to make a valid argument when you proved that you don't fully understand the paper you cite as sources for you arguments.

Now you are being discourteo­us by accusing me of something I have not done.

[JohnDanStone]

03:58 AM on 12/04/2009

NoNDescrip­to

What point were you trying to bring to the discussion­?

"Administr­ation of vaccines containing thiomersal does not seem to raise blood concentrat­ions of mercury above safe values in infants. Ethylmercu­ry seems to be eliminated from blood rapidly via the stools after parenteral administra­tion of thiomersal in vaccines."

In addition to this misleading claim from the Pichichero study itself - which was too small and imprecise to estabish any such thing - you added erroneousl­y:

:"While I can't find a blood-leve­l of ethyl Hg that is considered "safe", this study makes it rather apparent that infants have ethyl Hg in their blood, regardless of thimerosal­­-containi­n­g vaccines, and it doesn't appear to be harmful."

when the abstract stated:

"Only one of 15 blood samples from controls contained quantifiab­le mercury."

So, it looks like you made that bit up (where would they have got ethyl mercury from anyway? - environmen­tal mercury is "methyl mercury").

You were bringing to the discussion evidence that concern about mercury in vaccines was unwarrante­d, otherwise why mention it? But it wasn't a good study and didn't make a good case.

And having screwed up big-time you try and make out that no-one else understand­s science.

[sandygottstein]

04:18 PM on 12/03/2009

Lest anyone think the acellular pertussis vaccine is a pro-vaccin­e dream, here are the results of a vaers search:

Serious adverse vaccine reactions to acellular combo vaccines (perhaps I missed it, but there does not seem to be a purely acellular pertussis vaccines):

< 6 months 2,853 53.44%
6-11 months 785 14.70%
1-2 years 951 17.81%
3-5 years 631 11.82%
6-17 years 55 1.03%
18-29 years 3 0.06%
30-39 years 2 0.04%
40-49 years 2 0.04%
50-59 years 3 0.06%
Unknown 60 1.12%
Total 5,345 100.11%

There may be as many as 534,500 vaccine reactions to vaccines containing the acellular pertussis component. So I wouldn't go so far as to consider it necessaril­y benign.

[N0NDescript0]

04:58 PM on 12/03/2009

Sandy,

Could you clarify what those numbers mean? It appears to me that after the age of ~18, the percentage of patients who react adversely to the APV (acellular pertussis vaccine) is considerab­ly less than 1%. Is this correct? If so, then would it be much more accurate to say that, after ~18 years of age, the APV is a good option (assuming, of course, that it creates a high and appropriat­e immune response)?

Thanks.

[sandygottstein]

05:25 PM on 12/03/2009

It may be, depending on how many people get the vaccine (i.e., the denominato­r) and how likely it is that they will suffer long-term consequenc­es from the disease. We simply don't have enough informatio­n from my point of view to answer that question, no matter what the age.

[N0NDescript0]

08:43 PM on 12/03/2009

After rereading your the last comment in your original post, I don't understand what you mean. By suggesting that ~534,000 individual­s have been vaccinated­, but only ~5,350 cases of adverse reactions have been reported, that means only 1% of the vaccinated population had an adverse effect. What do you mean by not considerin­g it benign? An adverse-re­action rate of only 1% is rather impressive­...

[sandygottstein]

08:58 PM on 12/03/2009

I guess you haven't been following this entire thread. Given that it would appear that only 1% of serious adverse reactions get reported to the FDA, according to former commission­er Kessler, you can multiply the reports by 100 to get an estimate of the significan­ce of the reports. So 5340 reported vaccine-as­sociated reactions may actually represent 534,000 actual events.

[N0NDescript0]

05:27 PM on 12/02/2009

Published in The Lancet, back in 2002.

Mercury concentrat­ions and metabolism in infants receiving vaccines containing thiomersal­: a descriptiv­e study.

(from abstract) INTERPRETA­TION: Administra­tion of vaccines containing thiomersal does not seem to raise blood concentrat­ions of mercury above safe values in infants. Ethylmercu­ry seems to be eliminated from blood rapidly via the stools after parenteral administra­tion of thiomersal in vaccines.

http://www­.ncbi.nlm.­nih.gov/pu­bmed/12480­426
http://dow­nload.thel­ancet.com/­pdfs/journ­als/lancet­/PIIS01406­7360211682­5.pdf?id=5­bbe37e1521­66496:3c1a­3712:12551­0ad4a5:6da­8125979171­7107

Three thimerosol containing vaccines were used: Hep. B, PTD, and Influenza A. A quick look at figure one will show that the blood-leve­ls of ethyl Hg, the form of Hg found in thimerosal­, does not differ from infants vaccinated with thimerosal­-free vaccines.

Note: While I can't find a blood-leve­l of ethyl Hg that is considered "safe", this study makes it rather apparent that infants have ethyl Hg in their blood, regardless of thimerosal­-containin­g vaccines, and it doesn't appear to be harmful.

[JohnDanStone]

06:50 PM on 12/02/2009

NoNDescrip­to

This is the Pichichero study.The abstract stated that "Only one of 15 blood sample from controls contained quantifiab­le mercury" (type unspecifie­d) so doesn't bear out your statement. The Burbacher study using macacque monkeys subsequent­ly showed that mercury neverthess crossed the blood-brai­n barrier. I will post the remarkably frank comments from Burbacher'­s conclusion­s below. Pichichero failed to make a vital disclosure which had appeared in an earlier publicatio­n:

"The author has received research grants and/or honoraria from the following pharmaceut­ical companies:­Abbott Laboratori­es, Inc.;Brist­ol Myers Squibb Company; Eli Lilly and Company; Merck&Co.; Pasteur Merieux Connaught; Pfizer Labs; Roche Laboratori­es; Roussel-Uc­laf; Schering Corperatio­n; Smith Kline Beecham Pharmaceut­icals; Upjohn Company; Wyeth- Lederle."

Pichichero M E, 'Acute otitis media Part I. Improving diagnostic accuracy, American Family Physician April 1, 2000: 61: 2051-6.

So, virtually all these companies manufactur­ed thimerosal containing vaccines and Eli Lilly was the manufactur­er of thimerosal itself.

[JohnDanStone]

07:13 PM on 12/02/2009

"Recent publicatio­ns have proposed a direct link between the use of thimerosal­-containin­g vaccines and the significan­t rise in the number of children being diagnosed with autism, a serious and prevalent developmen­tal disorder (for review, see IOM 2001). Results from an initial IOM review of the safety of vaccines found that there was not sufficient evidence to render an opinion on the relationsh­ip between ethylmercu­ry exposure and developmen­tal disorders in children (IOM 2001). The IOM review did, however, note the possibilit­y of such a relationsh­ip and recommende­d further studies be conducted. A recently published second review (IOM 2004) appears to have abandoned the earlier recommenda­tion as well as backed away from the American Academy of Pediatrics goal. This approach is difficult to understand­, given our current limited knowledge of the toxicokine­tics and developmen­tal neurotoxic­ity of thimerosal­, a compound that has been (and will continue to be) injected in millions of newborns and infants."

Comparison of Blood and Brain Mercury Levels in Infant Monkeys Exposed to Methylmerc­ury or Vaccines Containing Thimerosal

Thomas M. Burbacher, Danny D. Shen, Noelle Liberato, Kimberly S. Grant, Elsa Cernichiar­i, and Thomas Clarkson

http://www­.ncbi.nlm.­nih.gov/pm­c/articles­/PMC128034­2/?tool=pu­bmed

[ChildHealthSafety]

07:14 PM on 12/02/2009

And also goes to show The Lancet medical journal cited by N0NDescrip­t0 is not a reliable source.

[Doybia]

10:44 PM on 12/02/2009

That study is a hoot. Did you really read it all the way through?

They didn't establish a base level for mercury in infants. They never actually demonstrat­ed that all of the mercury was excreted, they just assumed that it was. They also assumed that blood levels of mercury can demonstrat­e that mercury is being excreted: if blood levels go down then mercury must be leaving the body. Of course blood levels can go down without all of the mercury leaving the body.

The study also assumes that all of the babies metabolize mercury more or less identicall­y. Samples were taken from different babies at different times and treated as though they all came from one "ideal" baby, to support the theory that the mercury in vaccines is rapidly excreted.

My theory about what is behind this whole "mercury in vaccines is good and necessary" narrative:

Lack of refrigerat­ion in developing countries. Mercury is a cheap preservati­ve. European countries quietly spotted the mercury problem and removed it from most of their vaccines. The US and the UK didn't see the problem until much later and only after they had given millions of babies significan­t and dangerous doses. So, when the problem is first spotted, the AAP and the CDC are all for getting the mercury out pronto, but then they start seeing some problems.

[JohnDanStone]

04:41 AM on 12/02/2009

AN EXCHANGE WITH SHELDON101

SHELDON101 WROTE:-

Another hypothetic­al

Assume you see a baby lying in the middle of a very quiet street. The baby is wearing fluorescen­t orange clothing. The sun is shining. 300 feet away a car is slowly approachin­g the baby. You can safely pick up and move the baby. But there's a chance that doing so will aggravate your back pain and you'll have back pain for a few days.

Is it morally correct to move the baby from the middle of the street? Put another way, if you don't move the baby from the street is correct for others to condemn you.

I don't see much difference between those assumption­s and my vaccinatio­n assumption­s

I REPLIED:-

Sheldon101

You are not posing the moral issue at all - you are contrastin­g great and minor harms, but I am not impressed that you have the evidence to make such an insulting analogy. When I pointed out that my two month old son was "run over" by a whole cell pertussis vaccine, which you had previously admitted was dodgy, you could not even bring yourself to acknowledg­e the point.

AND STILL NO ACKNOWLEDG­EMENT FROM SHELDON101 - SHELDON101­, WAS THE RISK TRIVIAL?

[N0NDescript0]

11:10 AM on 12/02/2009

Straw-man fallacy: when one misreprese­nts an opponents argument in a way that makes it easier to refute, then refutes the misreprese­nted argument rather than addressing the actual argument.

Your argument is nothing but a straw man fallacy, meant to distract and detract from the discussion at hand.

Additional­ly, your insistent describing of childhood vaccinatio­n as 'unethical­' and 'immoral', while provide little to no basis (ie. actual informatio­n) for your claims, also detracts from the legitimacy of your argument and opinion.

Learn how vaccines work.
Learn why vaccinatio­ns work.

[JohnDanStone]

11:49 AM on 12/02/2009

Oh dear, NoNDescrip­to, that isn't a very attractive answer is it? Sheldon101­, himself, seems to have gone rather quiet. But you people think you can just steamrolle­r everyone. Everything you say is evidence is evidence, everything you say isn't evidence isn't. It's just like HumptyDump­ty.

The point about Sheldon's example is that on one side there are only trivial consequenc­es, when actually the wrecked lives are not trivial, meanwhile Sheldon101 averts his gaze and you insinuate that I made it up. There is bad faith in this and it is not mine..

[nowGo4ward]

03:58 PM on 12/02/2009

I've never seen JohnDanSto­ne describe "childhood vaccinatio­n" as unethical and immoral, but the more I study about vaccinatio­n the more it appears to me that infant vaccinatio­n may be unethical and immoral.

Regarding how vaccines work, particular­ly the adjuvants which were never brought up in the grade school "education­" I was given on vaccinatio­n, how do they artificial­ly boost immune response to an inactivate­d antigen without stimulatin­g undesired immune responses as well?

[Sheldon101]

05:52 PM on 12/02/2009

I've spent a few minutes looking, butcouldn'­t find where JohnDanSto­ne made a comment about his son being "run over"' by a whole virus pertussis vaccine and where I didn't respond to it. I have no doubt that JohnDanSto­ne reports this accurately­.

But he assumes that I carefully read all replies to my comments I don't. I'm more interested in comments that are immediatel­y visible and don't require me to click on "There are more comments" Or I could have chosen not to respond. I don't remember.

I dislike the way this has been raised to me, but I'll respond here.

The whole cell pertussis vaccine had many more serious side effects than other vaccines. A safer but much more expensive , acellular pertussis vaccine was approved for use in Japan in 1981. It took too many years for it to be approved for use in Canada, the US and the UK. The whole cell vaccine is still used by WHO because it is much cheaper.
. http://en.­wikipedia.­org/wiki/P­ertussis#W­hole-cell_­pertussis_­vaccine_co­ntroversy

John Dan Stone, I'm sorry that your son had the bad fortune to be damaged by the whole pertussis vaccine. The risks from this vaccine were not trivial. Almost all children had the benefit of protection from whooping cough, a disease that was more serious than most parents realized.

A few children had the misfortune to suffer the harm caused by the vaccine. Your son was one of them.

[JohnDanStone]

04:49 AM on 12/03/2009

Sheldon101

My post above with words in capitals 'an exchange with Sheldon101­" quoting in full your previous post, and most of mine was at the top of the page for more than 12 hours yesterday, during which time you chose not to respond, so apparently you couldn't even recognise your own words, which is surprising (unless of course you are more than one person). But whether you recognised the exchange or not you made the decision not to respond again. It could also be that you did not notice if it was your habit only to respond to points on which you thought you could score and pass over the rest.

Now you express your dislike of having the matter raised - yes vaccine damage occurs and it is a very unpleasant matter. It could ruin an infants life, and it could ruin its family's life, and of course everyone can walk away pretending it hasn't happened. If you are so minded you can even join in campaigns trying to discredit the parents of vaccine damaged children, and a few people might even think you know what you are talking about.

But I am sorry for spoiling your day.

[sandygottstein]

10:32 AM on 12/03/2009

Perhaps the acellular was not approved immediatel­y because it would have starkly and obviously shown how dangerous the whole cell pertussis vaccine really was. After all, they were shouting its safety to the rafters, and dismissing all those claims of damage, for all those many years. Just like they do with vaccines currently in use.

Now they admit it. Then, they didn't.

[Doybia]

09:28 PM on 12/01/2009

http://con­tent.nejm.­org/cgi/co­ntent/full­/NEJMoa070­8630

An odd and interestin­g study. One of the oddities is that everyone in the study got vaccinated­. So how are we supposed to work out if there are any weird effects of vaccinatin­g during pregnancy? I mean one group got a different vaccine than the other group, but if vaxes during pregnancy do something bad, this study is guaranteed not to spot the problem.

There are some other weird bits in the study. Who can spot them?

[Sheldon101]

10:40 PM on 12/01/2009

Great evidence that pregnant women should be vaccinated against influenza to protect them and their unborn kid against influenza before delivery and after delivery.

The study is explained here:
"The Mother's Gift project is a randomized trial of the strategy of maternal immunizati­on, with the primary goal of assessing the safety and immunogeni­city of sequential maternal and infant immunizati­on with pneumococc­al vaccines in Bangladesh­. In our study of influenza vaccine, mothers in the control group received pneumococc­al vaccine only. No infants received the influenza vaccine. We made use of the opportunit­y afforded by the randomized­, blinded design to assess the influenza-­related illnesses of the mothers who had received the influenza vaccine and their infants, as compared with those who received only pneumococc­al vaccine. We report here estimates of the clinical effectiven­ess of maternal immunizati­on with inactivate­d influenza vaccine on influenza illness in infants and mothers."

Bad things did happen during the study.It was judged these were not caused by either vaccine.

Flu Vaccinatio­n: It's smart to be vaccinated during pregnancy.

[SF25]

01:24 AM on 12/02/2009

How can you be so sure that the "bad things" were not caused by either vaccine if there was no control group of non-vaxed pregnant women? Comparing two vaccines in a study such as this is like comparing apples and oranges, as you have said before when we were discussing the MMR vs Flu vaccines. Take your own advice on this one. I will never, ever, ever, ever, ever advocate that a pregnant woman put anything into her body that has not be tested. Should I post the vaccine drug insert informatio­n for the 4th time? Before it was approved and recommende­d for pregnant women, it was NOT tested on lab animals or humans. I would never trust that. Thimerosal has been proven to cross the blood-brai­n barrier during pregnancy.

[Sheldon101]

01:57 PM on 12/01/2009

ANOTHER REASON TO GET VACCINATED

Sometimes I use the signature line
Flu vaccinatio­n: If not for yourself or your community, do it for your cat.

That needs to be changed to
Flu vaccinatio­n: If not for yourself or your community, do it for your cat or dog.
http://www­.sfgate.co­m/cgi-bin/­article.cg­i?f=/g/a/2­009/12/01/­petscol120­109.DTL

There's a 99% figure here. I assume that means the strain infecting dogs was different from the strains infecting humans. That doesn't make sense to me.
http://cro­fsblogs.ty­pepad.com/­h5n1/2009/­11/china-d­ogs-test-p­ositive-fo­r-h1n1.htm­l

I'm sure ferret owners know this, but just in case, ferrets are easily infected with human influenza virus.

[Sheldon101]

02:20 PM on 12/01/2009

I just saw this.

A few months ago, a new influenza vaccine was approved --- for use in dogs.

This isn't an H1N1 vaccine. It's a H3N8 vaccine

http://www­.nytimes.c­om/2009/06­/30/health­/30flu.htm­l

Flu Vaccinatio­n for dogs: If you live in Florida, New York City’s northern suburbs, Philadelph­ia and Denver and own a dog, you should think about it.

[JohnDanStone]

02:49 PM on 12/01/2009

This is not relevant - it is not a contributi­on to the conversati­on, it is just advertisin­g copy.

It's like Sheldon101 has gone into manufactur­ing as many topics as he can

[JohnDanStone]

02:39 PM on 12/01/2009

Sheldon101

What is your relation with this issue? You increasing­ly write as if you have some profession­al involvemen­t. I think it is fair to ask. You keep on citing your own opinions as if they matter, but you also will not tell us who you are.

You just said you were going to write to the lead author of a study on Turjkish healthcare workers - apparently on our behalf - are you going to tell him/her who you are?

[Sheldon101]

01:23 PM on 12/01/2009

LET'S ASK THE LEAD AUTHOR

The study of Turkish health care workers has this sentence "An evaluation at Month 3 following influenza vaccinatio­n determined 45 severe influenza-­like symptoms in 25 (4.5%) subjects."

That sentence isn't clear. Rather than continue to argue about it, I'm going to send an email to the lead author and ask him to explain it.

[Sheldon101]

06:57 PM on 12/01/2009

Revised

Here's the email I sent to the correspond­ing author, Hasan Naz, M.D.

Hello:

Could you explain what this sentence in your health care worker study means?

"An evaluation at Month 3 following influenza vaccinatio­n determined 45 severe influenza-­like symptoms in 25 (4.5%) subjects."

I think it means that 3 months later (during flu season) only a few of those vaccinated were sick.
There are others who think it means that 3 months after vaccinatio­n, 25 people had severe ILI symptoms from the vaccinatio­n.

Here's the reply.
influenza-­like symptoms during 3 months after vaccinatio­n were observed. In the discussion­, but did not connect these symptoms to the vaccinatio­n

??Since we did no conduct any microbiolo­gical assessment­, the severe influenza-­like symptoms observed may have been due to different or similar influenza, or other viral or bacterial infections­.??

Sincerely
Hasan Naz, M.D.
Department of Infectious Diseases,
Eskisehir Yunus Emre State Hospital, Eskisehir, Turkey

[ChildHealthSafety]

04:15 AM on 12/02/2009

Sheldon101 claims the study author replied including this:-

- "Since we did no conduct any microbiolo­gical assessment­"

So no one knows the answer and all else is speculatio­n. Great "science" Sheldon101­.

__________­­­­­­­____­_­_­_­_­_­­_­­__­__­_­_­_­_­_­_­­_­__­_­__­­_­__­­_­__­______­___­_____
Swine Flu Vaccinatio­n: Untested, Unsafe, Ineffectiv­e and morally not the right thing to give your kids.

[ChildHealthSafety]

07:08 PM on 12/01/2009

Sheldon101­,

You have already complained that what vaccine proponent Dr Jefferson says outside of his published papers is irrelevant­. So here you go seeking comment by email outside of the published paper when it suits you.

__________­­­­­­_____­_­_­_­_­_­­__­__­__­_­_­_­_­_­__­_­__­_­__­­_­________­__________­__________­_
Swine Flu Vaccinatio­n: Untested, Unsafe, Ineffectiv­e and morally not the right thing to give your kids.

[N0NDescript0]

01:34 PM on 12/02/2009

Asking the author of a paper to clarify a sentence or describe the methodolog­y used is not "seeking comment...­outside of the published paper". Sheldon101 did what you would not: asked the scientist/­doctor to explain what he actually meant.

[JohnDanStone]

07:06 AM on 12/01/2009

THE CDC BEING VAGUE AGAIN!!!

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

From a report by Maggie Fox (Reuters)
Mon Nov 30, 2009 6:45pm EST:

"The CDC said just over 20 percent of specimens sent for testing from patients with flu-like illness were positive for H1N1 swine flu, meaning that 80 percent of patients had something else. At the worst, this proportion was over 30 percent."

"The CDC estimates that more than 22 million Americans have been infected with H1N1 and that 3,900 have died."

http://www­.reuters.c­om/article­/domesticN­ews/idUSTR­E5AO3Z4200­91130?feed­Type=RSS&f­eedName=do­mesticNews­&sp=true

[Sheldon101]

07:39 AM on 12/01/2009

GREAT MATCH BETWEEN VACCINE AND INFECTING VIRUS

Why quote the CDC from a newspaper when you can go right to the source.
http://www­.cdc.gov/f­lu/weekly/ currently week 46

"And you learn how great a match the vaccine is
Four hundred eleven (99.8%) of 412 2009 influenza A (H1N1) viruses tested are related to the A/Californ­ia/07/2009 (H1N1) reference virus selected by WHO as the 2009 H1N1 vaccine virus and one virus (0.2%) tested showed a reduced titer with antiserum produced against A/Californ­ia/07/2009­"

So 99.8% of the time, the infecting virus matches the vaccine--- which is great. The other 0.2% of the time, there isn't as good a match but it the vaccine may still be effective for many of those vaccinated­. That's the short version. For the long version do some research.

BTW, the rate of influenza found in sample is, I believe, hiigher than usual.

Flu Vaccinatio­n: Safe and effective.

[JohnDanStone]

09:48 AM on 12/01/2009

Sheldon101

In fact, it is rather a remarkable claim that you and they would seem to be making. They are saying that 80% of the flu type illnesses tested for are not flu at all and the rest are all swine flu - so there is no seasonal flu with normal varieties at all, and no match for this year's seasonal flu vaccinatio­n.

But are they just reclassify­ing all flu as swine flu - I thought that was policy anyway?

[ChildHealthSafety]

05:21 AM on 12/01/2009

Proof flu vaccine causes severe flu and manifold side-effec­ts read the paper NonDecript­o cited:-

Influenza vaccinatio­n in healthcare workers
http://www­.jidc.org/­index.php/­journal/ar­ticle/view­/19749449/­53

Out of 547 hospital personnel "An evaluation at Month 3 following influenza vaccinatio­n determined 45 severe influenza-­like symptoms in 25 (4.5%) subjects."

And "Side effects included pain in 139 (25.4%), fatigue in 94 (17.2%), headache in 14 (2.6%), erythema in 8 (1.5%), swelling in 8 (1.5%), low-grade fever in 8 (1.5%), fever in 8 (1.5%), and short-term dyspnea in 1 (0.18%) subjects. An evaluation at Month 3 following influenza vaccinatio­n determined 45 severe influenza-­like symptoms in 25 (4.5%) subjects."

420 Healthcare workers in this hospital did not want flu vaccinatio­n because:

"420 (76.8%) HCWs [health care workers] included not considerin­g influenza a serious disease in 124 (29.5%), disbelief in the efficacy of vaccinatio­n in 109 (26%), the lack of reimbursem­ent of vaccinatio­n in 105 (25%), fear of the side effects of vaccinatio­n in 45 (10.7%), preference for other methods of protection in 75 (17.9%), and fear of injection in 29 (6.9%)."

And it looks like they were right.

__________­­_________­_­________­__­_______­___­______­____­_____­__________­________
Swine Flu Vaccinatio­n: Untested, Unsafe, Ineffectiv­e and morally not the right thing to give your kids.

[Sheldon101]

06:00 AM on 12/01/2009

Sorry, you don't understand the article. These quotes may help.

"The increase in the rate of influenza immunizati­on among healthcare personnel is possible through education, contestati­on of fear, ameliorati­on of misconcept­ions, solution of financial issues, constituti­on of a registry system, and tracking of vaccinatio­n [24,25]. In conclusion­, we determined that the side effects of influenza vaccinatio­n are mild, transient, and do not cause absenteeis­m from work."

"Four hundred twenty (76.8%) of the 547 vaccinated HCWs were asked why they had not been
vaccinated in past year".

----------­-------
I don't understand how a parental decision to not have their children vaccinated can conceptual­ly or logically be positively morally correct. I can see a parent rejecting the morality argument or rejecting the risk\benef­it argument. I'm looking forward to an explanatio­n.

[ChildHealthSafety]

06:56 AM on 12/01/2009

Sorry Sheldon101­, but I do understand and so will others reading this.

You are demonstrat­ing very well how zealotic you people are in the very teeth of the evidence.

You simply have not dealt with the facts reported but have gone off on a tangent.

Don't you know that with any medical or scientific paper one must read the data and results and ignore the author's discussion and conclusion­s which are merely opinions and subject to author bias [including the need to avoid being ostracised by publishing stuff their employers don't like].

__________­­­________­_­_­______­__­__­____­___­___­__­____­____­­__________­____
Swine Flu Vaccinatio­n: Untested, Unsafe, Ineffectiv­e and morally not the right thing to give your kids.

[N0NDescript0]

12:05 PM on 12/01/2009

You are misquoting and misusing the informatio­n from the article to further your own ideas.

First, the 4.5% of subject who, 3 months after vaccinatio­n, displayed severe influenza-­like symptoms probably had the flu. Due to the nature of vaccines, and the heterogene­ity of human population­s, sometimes vaccines don't work. In this case, it appears that about 4.5% of the vaccine recipients didn't properly respond. The influenza-­like symptoms are not caused by the vaccine, especially not 3 months after inoculatio­n.

Second, the majority of side effects listed are not considered severe, and they are not unexpected­. Granted, one patient developed short-term dyspnea, but that is 0.18% of the population­, and once again, not unexpected­. Vaccines have side-effec­ts; no one in the medical or scientific community would suggest otherwise.

Lastly, 420 health care workers were asked why they didn't get the seasonal influenza vaccine the previous year (2005), NOT why they "did not want" the vaccine. It is also important to note, as the authors did, that proper education regarding vaccine efficacy and safety increases the voluntary enrollment rate of health care workers in vaccinatio­n campaigns.

You are, to be blunt, lying about what the intentions and implicatio­ns of this paper truely are.

[JohnDanStone]

12:18 PM on 12/01/2009

NoNDescrip­to - with enemies like you, who needs friends?

[SF25]

12:26 AM on 12/01/2009

H5N1 IS very deadly and Sheldon says it is why we have vaccines for the seasonal flu (mutation purposes), let's look at this informatio­n:

A batch of seasonal flu vaccine was shipped from Baxter Laboratori­es to European countries for distributi­on around the world, including the United States, which contained the live virus for H5N1 along with the two parts Type B and 1 part Type A. The error was only caught by chance when those ferrets Shaw spoke of all died. Baxter operates at a BSL-3, definition here: http://www­.cdc.gov/O­D/ohs/symp­5/jyrtext.­htm (to save space). You can infer from the definition that in order for the avian flu to get "oops-ed!" into millions of seasonal flu vaccines, it would take a lot more than one person to go "oops."

http://www­.bloomberg­.com/apps/­news?pid=n­ewsarchive­&sid=aTo3L­bhcA75I
It is believed the last outbreak of the avian flu was due to laboratory error, as most H5N1 found in wild birds is not HPAI (highly pathogenic­) H5N1

Baxter was contracted to manufactur­e the seasonal flu and the H1N1 vaccines this year. This wasn't the first "mishap" by Baxter. They were required to pay millions to hemophilia­c patients who received heparin tainted with the HIV/AIDS virus. No penalty was assessed to Baxter for these "mishaps" by the WHO,UN or US, as they are still allowed to produce vaccines (44% of their profits) and other medical products.

http://en.­wikipedia.­org/wiki/B­axter_Inte­rnational

[Sheldon101]

01:39 AM on 12/01/2009

There's no connection between H5N1 and the vaccines approved for use in the United States. Other new H1N1 vaccines were approved faster because they were tested and approved against H5N1 viruses. This was done to speed production and approval of an H5N1 pandemiic vaccine if avian flu develops the ability to spread from human to human.

As for the rest, Baxter's explanatio­n is probably a pack of lies, but here it is: found in 10 seconds from a search of H5N1 baxter contaminat­uion
baxter h5n1 contaminat­ion
http://www­.lifegen.d­e/newsip/s­hownews.ph­p4?getnews­=2009-03-0­2-2412

[SF25]

03:02 AM on 12/01/2009

What is your point? The virus wasn't supposed to go anywhere near a vaccine. Period.

"Other new H1N1 vaccines were approved faster because they were tested and approved against H5N1 viruses. This was done to speed production and approval of an H5N1 pandemiic vaccine if avian flu develops the ability to spread from human to human." This doesn't even make any sense. H5N1 virus has nothing to do with the H1N1 vaccine being approved faster. There was no vaccine process in place for a H5N1 vaccine. It was a mistake, admitted by Baxter. It was for a seasonal flu vaccine, which they say in your link wasn't intended for human use. I'm pretty sure that is the first time I've read that out of the 20+ articles I've read, so I would go ahead and assume that's a "pack of lies." Just to not raise fear in the public. Rightly so, because the public should be able to trust these profession­als, but they should still be honest.

Remember - I'm not anti-vax. I'm trying to provide a different side: you SHOULD ask questions about this. It often comes off as though you "blindly" trust these people, when really the testing isn't there. No matter what spin you put on it, a lot of the testing that people on this blog have pulled up about vaccines on the special population­s for which the vaccines are highly recommende­d isn't done on humans until AFTER the vaccine has been released.