Up to 1-in-50 Troops Seriously Injured... By Vaccines?

US Department of Defense: 1-2% of individuals may experience severe vaccine effects that "could result in disability or death."

American Academy of Pediatrics: 2+ % of children have "defects" that cause vaccine "risks"

On August 5th, the President of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Dr. Renee Jenkins, made a rather puzzling comment on Good Morning America, during a segment on vaccine safety and the risk of autism.

Dr. Jenkins said that, "97-plus percent of children don't have these kinds of defects, and so when you look at what the (vaccine) risk is to children, and then what the benefits are, the benefits far outweigh the risks that occur."

Many observers, myself among them, were startled by the comments. But due to awkward editing, it was left entirely unclear as to what Dr. Jenkins meant by "defects," and what sort of vaccine-related "risks" threatened the remaining two-plus percent of children.

Some in the autism community took the statement to mean that at least 2 percent of children (or 1-in-50) were somehow genetically destined ("defective" is such an ugly term) to be at-risk for serious vaccine injuries.

I didn't believe it. It was inconceivable to me that any pediatrician would so nonchalantly find it acceptable that somewhere between 1-in-50 and 1-in-33 children faced such severe risks. Certainly, Dr. Jenkins had misspoken.

So I emailed the AAP and, sure enough, they assured me that Dr. Jenkins had never intended to use the word "defects." Instead, I was told, she was referring to certain susceptibilities that some infants might have to very mild side effects - such as temporary fever, or localized pain or swelling.

The AAP official I spoke with said studies had shown that less than 3% of children encounter such non-serious side effects.

So I published this account on the "Age of Autism" blog, where I concluded that, "some people may not accept this explanation, but I do."

Well, a lot of people did not accept the explanation. Some insisted that Dr. Jenkins was not talking about minor side effects: She had been asked a question about vaccines and autism.

I called ABC and spoke with a producer who had worked on the segment. She confirmed that the question Dr. Jenkins had been asked was this: "Do you completely dismiss any connection between autism and vaccines?"

In other words, Dr. Jenkins was not speaking about mild side effects at all.

So I emailed the AAP once again, for a little further clarification. Did Dr. Jenkins stand by her original contention that she was actually talking about susceptibilities, and not "defects?" And were the "risks" she mentioned really related to simple pain and swelling, when the question posed to her was about autism?

It didn't make sense. And it still doesn't.

Which brings us to the military.

Following the Jenkins remarks, one parent directed me to a report, prepared last year by the Government Accountability Office, that contained this rather surprising statement:

"Officials from the VHC (the Department of Defense's Vaccine Healthcare Centers) Network and CDC estimate that between 1 and 2 percent of immunized individuals may experience severe adverse events, which could result in disability or death. Some of these events may occur coincidentally following immunization, while others may truly be caused by immunization"

I had never heard of the VHC, so I went to their website, where I found this Power Point presentation, and this slide in particular: Download file

This slide suggests many things to me. Namely:

1) Some 10.4 million service members, DoD employees and their beneficiaries (including children) have been vaccinated.

2) Up to 2%, or 1-in-50 service members (and it looks like DoD employees and beneficiaries as well - though I have yet to confirm this) have sustained "serious" adverse vaccine reactions, including disability and death.

3) Among active duty and reserve service members, up to 48,000 individuals may have sustained serious vaccine injuries which might need to be classified as "casualties."

4) These vaccine-related disabilities are often severe, and may require teaching "new skills" to the injured.

At first, I thought the injury rates might be so high because of the anthrax and smallpox vaccines. But military studies on both shots claimed that they were extremely safe. (For example, there were only 140 reports of inflamed heart muscle following smallpox vaccination, out of 1.2 million service members vaccinated).

But then I read that the possible cause of so much injury, for service members at least, was "multiple vaccines" or "drugs + vaccines," according to the VHC slide.

I wrote to the VHC, and to the GAO, seeking more information on these data, but did not receive any replies (so far, although I will be happy to update this column if I do).

The questions raised by this, by other slides in the series, and within the GAO report, are numerous. They could have serious implications for the military, and for the population at large. Here is what I asked the two agencies (GAO and VHC):

What, exactly, were the serious side effects found in the population?

What information is there on the impact of these effects, in terms of medical discharges, relocation and reassignments, teaching of "new skills," treatments, veteran care, etc?

Of those service members injured, how many did not return to active duty or reserve assignments, and what impact, if any, is this having on our military?

What are the financial costs of training troops who may no longer be able to serve due to vaccine injuries?

If the 1-2% rate for serious side effects is the same for all 10.4 million DoD personnel and their beneficiaries, does that mean there have been 100,000-200,000 serious side effects within the DoD system?

The GAO said that some service members who received anthrax or smallpox vaccines experienced severe reactions such as the onset of diabetes and multiple sclerosis. How rare were these events and why don't they show up in the safety data?

Why does DoD believe that adverse events effecting up to 1 in 50 people are "rare?"

Is DoD stating that vaccines can cause diabetes, chronic fatigue syndrome and autoimmune disorders, however rare?

DoD says that possible risk factors for severe adverse events include "multiple vaccines." So why does the AAP and CDC say this is not a risk factor for infants?

DoD also says that gender and ethnicity may be risk factors as well. What evidence, if any, is available to support this?

One slide says that the "ever expanding" number of CDC-recommended vaccines is one of several "complex immunization exposures" to be considered - Could the DoD elaborate on that?

DoD says that "travel vaccines mixed in new ways" also need to be considered. What impact might they be having?

The military says that people who have adverse reactions to a vaccine may be exempted from further doses. Why doesn't the American Academy of Pediatrics adopt this approach as well?

If the rate of serious vaccine effects in this population is 1-2%, what is the rate in the general population?

Is autism more common in military families than the general population? (Some anecdotal reports, at least, estimate the rate at about 1-in-80 children of US military personnel).

These seem like sensible questions to me. But I am not sure anyone will get any answers that are any more sensible than those coming out of the AAP.

Dr. Jenkins spoke about 2-plus percent of children with "defects" putting them at risk for vaccine injury. Is that the same 1-2 percent risk found by the military? I have no idea.

But I did look up the rates for mild side effects from some common childhood vaccines. Many of them were much higher than the "2-plus" percent cited by Dr. Jenkins

The diphtheria -- tetanus-pertussis vaccine, for instance, carries a 25% risk for fever, 25% for localized redness or swelling, and 25% for soreness or tenderness where the shot was given. Haemophilus influenzae type b (HiB) vaccine causes redness, warmth, or swelling where the shot was given in up to 25% of children, and fever over 101 degrees Fahrenheit in up to 1 out of 20 children.

Which leads me to believe, sadly, that I defended Dr. Jenkins prematurely. It would appear the AAP President is either misinformed, or not telling the whole truth.

But we will never know. This afternoon, the AAP wrote to me to say they would have no further comment on Dr. Jenkins's appearance on Good Morning America.

 

 

 

Comments

[chilcote]

09:17 AM on 09/13/2008

First of All, the Informatio­n on Vaccines and Autism is very confusing at best. I have a child that was diagnosed with Autism almost a year ago. That having been said, if you look at this issue at surface level it seems as if there is a very big conspiracy going on in the government and medical community. No one can get a strait answer out of anyone as to rather these shots cause Autism and related disabiliti­es or not. The only thing you get is the run around and a lot of he said, she said. They know the truth and just don't want to be held responsibl­e for it. I ask myself one question - Our officials wouldn't knowingly do this to our children, WOULD they? I don't have an answer to that question. I do know from personal experience though, one of two things, either there is something to waiting to have your child vaccinated or these children that are Autistic are somehow vulnerable in the first place and our medical society should be able to tell right from the start and do something to protect them other than give them vaccinatio­ns that give them Autism. Just a thought!

[AutismNewsBeat]

10:27 PM on 08/28/2008

JAMA reported on the "US military smallpox vaccinatio­n program experience­"

Out of 450,000 military smallpox vaccinatio­ns between December 13, 2002, and May 28, 2003, reported adverse events were 1 encephalit­is and 37 cases of acute myopericar­ditis. That's 0.008%. All recovered.

In 5.5 months, the DoD administer­ed 450,293 smallpox vaccinatio­ns (70.5% primary vaccinees and 29.5% revaccinee­s). In 2 settings, 0.5% and 3.0% of vaccine recipients needed short-term sick leave. Most adverse events occurred at rates below historical rates. One case of encephalit­is and 37 cases of acute myopericar­ditis developed after vaccinatio­n; all cases recovered. Among 19,461 worker-mon­ths of clinical contact, there were no cases of transmissi­on of vaccinia from worker to patient, no cases of eczema vaccinatum or progressiv­e vaccinia, and no attributed deaths.

Conclusion­s: Mass smallpox vaccinatio­ns can be conducted safely with very low rates of serious adverse events. Program implementa­tion emphasized human factors: careful staff training, contraindi­cation screening, recipient education, and attention to bandaging. Our experience suggests
that broad smallpox vaccinatio­n programs may be implemente­d with fewer serious adverse events than previously believed.

[CraigWilloughby]

10:30 AM on 08/29/2008

An often quoted and very prominent member of the vaccine advocacy says that when people receive the smallpox vaccine: (I won't tell you who it is, but I'll give you a hint; look it up on PBS, its an interview with your vaccine High Priest)

"they can get an infection of the brain, called encephalop­athy or encephalit­is. If they have eczema, they can have sometimes a severe and occasional­ly fatal disease called eczema vaccinatum­. And this is very common that one can inadverten­tly touch the site that was inoculated and then touch the eye and have an infection of the eye, which can rarely be quite severe. In patients who have decreased capacities to fight infection, there is a disease called 'progressi­ve vaccinia' where in fact the disease is overwhelmi­ng and it is the cause of death."

Encephalit­is, eczema, and coming down with the virus being vaccinated against are some of the same adverse events that so many parents have reported in their children with autism after receiving other vaccines such as the MMR and DPT. Measles, mumps, rubella, and whooping cough are still prevalent in our environmen­t, but the question is whether the risks of these diseases outweigh the risks of the vaccines, and whether the vaccines can be made safer (such as by separating and spacing them out), and whether high-risk population­s can be identified­. These questions cannot be answered if the adverse events are denied instead of being tracked and studied.

[AutismNewsBeat]

12:08 PM on 08/29/2008

"These questions cannot be answered if the adverse events are denied instead of being tracked and studied."

I agree. JAMA looked at the adverse effects of smallpox vaccines on 450,000 service people, and found serious injury in .008% of the cases, and all 38 victims recovered. Does this sufficient­ly answer your question about the relative safety of smallpox vaccine?

[ObjectiveAutismDad]

01:34 PM on 08/29/2008

This report says nothing about vaccines given in combinatio­n which is the norm. And it disagrees with the VHC data that is referred to in Mr. Kirby's article which appears to be based on the common practice of administer­ing many vaccines at once. The difference­s in these outcomes seem to support the approach that has been suggested by many Doctors and researcher­s who are looking at this more closely -- i.e., that it would probably be a good idea for potentiall­y susceptibl­e individual­s to have their shots more spaced out than they currently are (or aren't).

[AutismNewsBeat]

04:36 PM on 08/21/2008

Jump in measles outbreaks

AP / The number of measles cases in the U.S. is at its highest level since 1997, and nearly half of those involve children whose parents rejected vaccinatio­n, government health officials reported Thursday.

The number of cases is still small, just 131, but that's just for the first seven months of the year and doctors are troubled by the trend. There were only 42 cases for all of last year.

-skip-

The CDC's review found that a number of cases involved home-schoo­led children not required to have the vaccines.

Measles, best known for a red skin rash, is a potentiall­y deadly, highly infectious virus that spreads through contact with a sneezing, coughing, infected person.

Of this year's total, 122 were unvaccinat­ed or had unknown vaccinatio­n status. Some were unvaccinat­ed because the children were under age 1, making them too young to get their first measles shot.

In 63 of those cases _ almost all of them 19 or younger _ the patient or their parents refused vaccinatio­n, the CDC reported.

In June, the CDC interviewe­d 33 physicians about childhood vaccinatio­ns. Several complained about patient backlogs caused by parents stirred up by informatio­n of dubious scientific merit, according to the CDC report.

Questions commonly center on autism and the fear it can be caused by the mercury-ba­sed preservati­ve that used to be in most vaccines. Since 2001, the preservati­ve has been removed from shots recommende­d for young children.

http://tin­yurl.com/5­ve78l

[CraigWilloughby]

05:14 PM on 08/21/2008

Your very own purveyer of Woo, Orac, even said that a lot of the trust has been damaged by the medical community because of the fact that people perceive that the medical community is more interested in money than in the health and welfare of its patients.

So who's to blame for this outbreak, ken?

[AutismNewsBeat]

01:44 PM on 08/22/2008

A more constructi­ve and less polarizing question would be "What is to blame?"

[ObjectiveAutismDad]

10:56 AM on 08/22/2008

This trend will continue as the incidence of measles infection is far, far below that of the incidence of autism. As long as the entrenched medical community continues to be on the defensive in stating what they think the problem is NOT rather than expending energy on trying to figure out exactly what it IS and what to do about it people will continue to be concerned about the current vaccine policy/sch­edule/safe­ty issues.

So what should people do? Keep talking to your Doctors about this issue. Talk to your State and Federal Representa­tives/Sena­tors and tell them they need to get to bottom of the autism issue or we're going to have even bigger problems.

[Grabaclue]

10:59 AM on 08/18/2008

"How can we have "truly informed consent" when anti-vacci­ne activists tell us that vaccines contain anti-freez­e and ether"?

Tossing it back to you, AutismNews­Beat. How can we have "truly informed consent" when pro-vaccin­e activists tell us that everything is fine within the vaccine industry. All vaccines are safe and effective. All vaccines have been adequately tested for safety. There's no problem with injecting your body with neurotoxin­s. There's no problem with squalene, mercury etc. You don't have a problem with our military personnel being given the opportunit­y to CHOOSE vaccinatio­ns, do you? I can't imagine that you would consider it a good idea for our military personnel to be FORCED into getting vaccinatio­ns...

I see nothing wrong with a "truly informed consent" policy. Perhaps a list sent out to military personnel a few weeks prior to any physical exams (where vaccinatio­ns may be given) in order to read the list of vaccinatio­ns that they are offering or suggesting that the troops receive. Along with the list, they could have the ingredient­s listed for each vaccine. Then, perhaps any links/webs­ites for researchin­g the topic. Maybe a link to the CDC website along with a link to NVIC. Of course, the military personnel should be offered exemptions as well - either a philosophi­cal exemption and/or religious exemption.­.. no more of this forced crappola. People need to stop acting like sheep and start using their individual powers (and brains) to decide what to do with their own bodies.

[AutismNewsBeat]

01:23 PM on 08/18/2008

The pro-vaccin­e argument is that there no evidence that vaccines are responsibl­e for autism. I would even say there is no clear evidence of an autism epidemic, if you define autism separately from ASDs such as Asperger's­, PDD-NOS, etc. Nobody is seriously suggesting that vaccines are 100% safe - only that the odds of serious vaccine injury are remote compared to the harm that befalls an under immunized population­.

Now back to my question - do you believe that vaccines contain anti-freez­e and ether? The larger question is how do you expect pro and anti-vacci­ne activists to talk to one another when the anti-vacci­ne side prints up t-shirts that say vaccines contain anti-freez­e and ether?

And while you're at it, please address the issue of formaldehy­de in vaccines. The most formaldehy­de an infant could ever receive via vaccines at one time is .2 mics. A 12-lb infant has about 1.2 mics of formaldehy­de in her blood already, the result of single carbon metabolism­. Furthermor­e, vaccines are not "injected into the bloodstrea­m" as anti-vacci­ne activists like to say. they are injected into the subdermal tissue or into muscles, where any free formaldehy­de will rapidly crosslink with proteins, rendering it unavailabl­e for absorption into the bloodstrea­m. It's a remarkably fast process, so there is little chance that any formaldehy­de - even if it were accidental­ly injected into the blood - would be free by the time the blood made it back to the brain.

[CraigWilloughby]

01:54 PM on 08/18/2008

Ken, I'm still waiting on those studies that prove that it's safe to inject mercury into a 10 pound baby.

[Grabaclue]

06:32 PM on 08/18/2008

"The larger question is how do you expect pro and anti-vacci­ne activists to talk to one another when the anti-vacci­ne side prints up t-shirts that say vaccines contain anti-freez­e and ether"?

Are you claiming that the pro-vaccin­e activists are always pure and innocent and never make misleading comments? Let's hope that's not what you are saying, ANB.

Instead of going back and forth in regards to all the little difference­s and all the pieces of misinforma­tion (from both sides) ... let's try to agree that we don't know all that we need to know on this topic as it relates to the immune system. People need to be given the ingredient­s. Then given resources to go look into the issues for themselves - on both sides - in order for them to make up their own minds whether or not they are interested in receiving these vaccinatio­ns. Would you agree that this isn't something that people should be FORCED into doing?

[AutismNewsBeat]

12:30 AM on 08/18/2008

I think you're reading to much into my question. The idea that vaccines are turning 1 in 50 soldiers into a zombie is, well, sounding rather desperate to me. I was just asking Ann she thinks 2 percent of children are seriously vaccine injured? Or is she sticking with the 1:150 figure, which includes all ASDs?

[CraigWilloughby]

10:05 AM on 08/18/2008

The desperatio­n that I observe comes from the multiple statements that you have made throughout your posts that ask for proof.

Well, where's your proof that vaccines are innocent of injuring our children and military? Do you have any proof? We want real science, Ken, not tobacco science.

I have proof that my son was injured. I have medical documentat­ion that says that my son had an adverse reaction to vaccines that caused his brain to swell. I have the CAT scans of his brain as further evidence. My son now has Autism. Hannah Poling had an adverse reaction to vaccines that caused her brain to swell. She now has autism. Is it so far fetched to think that there could be a lot more like them, or do you think that these tens of thousands of parents are lying? The only data that you have that "backs up" your claim is epidemiolo­gical data, which is just number crunching. Where is the clinical data? Where is the data looking at these children who are labled as regressive­ly autistic?

[AutismNewsBeat]

04:40 PM on 08/18/2008

It's ironic that you would cite "tobacco science" in one line, then condemn epidemiolo­gy in the next. A more informed opinion would allow for the fact that epi studies first disproved tobacco company claims that cigarettes don't cause cancer. Those "number crunchers" found that smokers were more likely to contract lung cancer, etc. than non-smoker­s. It's been all downhill for big tobacco ever since.

Do you still think vaccines contain anti-freez­e and ether? Jenny McCarthy's science advisor, Dr. Jay Gordon, says they don't.

[CraigWilloughby]

09:43 AM on 08/17/2008

I forgot who said this, but I read somewhere that you can tell a lot about a government by the way it treats its military.

Here, we see the military getting completely neglected. They have barracks that are in such a state of poor repair that they are unliveable­. You have soldiers that are getting injured by "life-savi­ng" vaccines. These are the people who defend our country!! And they treat them like this?

Let's go one step further. What if the US is invaded in a few years? Who would want to join a military that doesn't care about its soldiers? Additional­ly, how would we fill the military if the vaccine injury rates in our children keep going the way they are going? In a few years, it will no longer be 1 in 150, but it will be every child.

[AutismNewsBeat]

06:09 PM on 08/17/2008

Do you have evidence that 1 in 150 children is seriously vaccine injured? Or is that just hyperbole?

[AutismNewsBeat]

05:09 PM on 08/19/2008

I forgot who said this, but I read somewhere that you can tell a lot about a civilizati­on by the way it respects the scientific method.

[AutismNewsBeat]

12:08 AM on 08/18/2008

It was Dostoevsky­, and he wasn't talking about soldiers. He said “the degree of civilizati­on in a society is measured by the way it treats its prisoners. “

What makes you think 1:150 children is severely vaccine injured? I am unaware of any solid evidence for that statement.

[CraigWilloughby]

09:58 AM on 08/18/2008

I recall the quote by Dostoevsky­, but there was a similar quote about the military. I'll have to look for it.

And no, my statement wasn't hyperbole. It was just an observatio­n on how the Autism rates have climbed over the past 20 years.

[AutismNewsBeat]

10:36 AM on 08/16/2008

David, have you seen this?

"September 2001, when the VHC Network was created, through mid-April
2007, the VHC Network has provided clinical treatment to about 2,400
service members."

http://www­.gao.gov/h­text/d0778­7r.html

[AutismNewsBeat]

01:22 PM on 08/16/2008

If the VHC provided clinical treatment for 2,400 service members, out of a population of 10.4 million, that means the rate of adverse events is .023 percent. Not 2-3%.

You're initial reaction was probably the correct one, that vaccines do not cause a serious, adverse reaction in 1:50 persons.

[Randice]

10:23 AM on 08/18/2008

ANB:
http://www­.nti.org/d­_newswire/­issues/200­4_5_18.htm­l
Since the headquarte­rs center opened in 2001 at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington­, the network has evaluated more than 1,000 patients — military personnel, contractor­s and civilians — and counseled far more personnel — 139,000 in fiscal 2003 alone —

In order to understand the GAO’s findings, one needs to understand how the VHC’s work. Pressured through congress in 2001 to treat those ill from the anthrax vaccine, VHC’s were created. (First VHC establishe­d at WR, sprawling 3 add'l arms due to case loads). Branch messages can go out service-wi­de for important issues (such as the situation to halt the anthrax vaccines when an injunction was placed on the program), however, this never occurred when the VHC was establishe­d. In fact, brochures were supposed to be handed out to members prior to receiving vaccines letting them know about the VHC and what to do if they felt they had an adverse reaction. Never happened. At the time I met those at the WRVHC, there were 2 doctors and 3 NP’s. Before thinking that only 2,400 were seen in 6 years, bare in mind a few things: 1) Many are still unaware of their existence, 2) Being treated at a VHC and being able to stay with one’s own physician while consulting takes place between VHC and private physician is a common occurrence­, 3) Those being treated also do not account for those seeking help.

[Grabaclue]

12:00 PM on 08/18/2008

"Before thinking that only 2,400 were seen in 6 years, bare in mind a few things: 1) Many are still unaware of their existence, 2) Being treated at a VHC and being able to stay with one"s own physician while consulting takes place between VHC and private physician is a common occurrence­, 3) Those being treated also do not account for those seeking help".

Thank you, Randice. I hope that AutismNews­Beat reads this. Clearly you sound as if you have much more first hand knowledge of this situation than the rest of us. Also, do you know if their is another website for the VHC... I see that www.vhcinf­o.org is no longer a valid web address - has it moved? I'm looking for more info on this topic. Thanks!

[AutismNewsBeat]

03:30 PM on 08/20/2008

You make it sound as though VHC data are incomplete and unreliable­. Mr. Kirby needs to know about this.

[sandygottstein]

07:52 PM on 08/15/2008

My proposal is to have truly informed consent. The right to choose, allowing those who wish to be protected by vaccines that opportunit­y, to whatever extent they work. And good informatio­n, untainted by conflict of interest. That would include studying the never-vacc­inated, something I have been calling for for around 20 years.

I recommend that each person research each disease and its consequenc­es in DEVELOPED nations and the known risks of vaccinatio­n (understan­ding that the risks are largely either ignored, dismissed or unstudied) and decide for themselves what risks they are going to take on.

The purpose of the website Vaccinatio­n News is to try and make it easier to do that research. (You can read the mission statement here: http://www­.vaccinati­onnews.com­/mission_s­tatement.h­tm

[AutismNewsBeat]

06:38 PM on 08/17/2008

How can we have "truly informed consent" when anti-vacci­ne activists tell us that vaccines contain anti-freez­e and ether? Or that the tiny amount of formaldehy­de found in some vaccines in dangerous? Why is it necessary to spread a rumor that 1:150 children are seriously vaccine-in­jured, without a whiff of supporting data?

[CraigWilloughby]

10:24 PM on 08/17/2008

How is it that formaldehy­de, aluminum sulfate, ammonia and mercury are dangerous in even minute amounts, but as soon as you put them in a vial and call them a vaccine, they are magically transubsta­ntiated into this product that is not in the least bit dangerous. If I were to take the same ingredient­s and put them in a vial and just say that it is mercury, formaldehy­de, alluminum sulfate and ammonia mixed with water, but only in minute amounts, it would be labled toxic waste. The Church of the Immaculate Vaccinatio­n indeed.

[foe2Hg]

07:11 PM on 08/15/2008

David,

This says it all-

"Which leads me to believe, sadly, that I defended Dr. Jenkins prematurel­y. It would appear the AAP President is either misinforme­d, or not telling the whole truth"

Your excellent facts and investigat­ion of this is pointing more to the latter. How sick is that?

[Olerist]

03:39 PM on 08/15/2008

Look into Donald Rumsfeld's holding into experiment­al vaccines sold to the military and look into the issue of "squalene" in many of the vaccines given to the military.

The Gulf vets have been trying to raise this issue since since the first gulf war.

[quiddler]

12:59 PM on 08/15/2008

I just read _Vaccine-A­_ by Gary Matsumoto so this isn't a surprise. Highly recommende­d.

[BlackJAC]

12:29 PM on 08/15/2008

So the odds against an adverse reaction to a vaccine are anywhere between 32:1 and 49:1? That's the same neighborho­od, if not less likely, as winning a single-num­ber bet on a roulette wheel, so why are people freaking out over it?

[saintcatherine]

01:31 PM on 08/15/2008

Wow, what stellar reasoning. I must assume this comment was not sarcastic. If that assumption is correct, then I don't know what I am more afraid of - a Government­/Healthcar­e Public Service complex that would blatantly disregard such critical informatio­n, or an ignorant public that isn't smart enough to figure out the implicatio­ns of seriously injuring 1 in 50 children.

Here's a hint. Look up your local city's population­. Divide that number by 50. Add to that number $3.2 million dollars, which is the lifetime per capita estimated cost of caring for a person with autism.

Gee, who cares? Just like spinning a roulette wheel. Only other people win the prize.

[BlackJAC]

04:05 PM on 08/15/2008

So basically, by your own admission, death by thorougly curable disease is better than pathologic­al shyness.

[sandygottstein]

04:13 PM on 08/15/2008

For anyone interested­, here is my take on "other people winning the prize":

"Scandals: On cheating the other guy''" - http://www­.vaccinati­onnews.com­/Scandals/­2008/Feb_1­8_08/Scand­al86.htm

All the best,
Sandy

[sarah130]

01:46 PM on 08/15/2008

I have to be reading this incorrectl­y...are you saying what's the big deal of a 1 in 32 risk? One kid out of every classroom in America is not a big deal? Wow.

[BlackJAC]

04:04 PM on 08/15/2008

I'm saying that the odds are decidedly in favor of nothing happening. There are no absolutes or guarantees in life, and the failure rate here is abysmally low that it's not worth freaking out over it.

[Lon]

09:21 AM on 08/15/2008

This column has an odd parsing of the modals in the statement by Dr Jenkins. If 2% of the population is at risk for X. On a normal reading that does not mean that 98% of the population will get X. It means that 98% of the population cannot get X. How many of the remaining 2% is likely to will depend on the level of risk involved.

That, of course, is not to explain Jenkins comment since there is obviously plenty to fill in. But it does suggest that most of the reaction to her comment does not seem to make a lot of sense.

Why would anyone think that comments made obliquely on Good Morning America are more revealing than arguments written out and submitted for peer review? It isn't clear what Jenkins was saying on GMA. The reactions here do not seem to follow from a natural reading. And the idea that some deep admission snuck out on national tv seems unlikely. So the placing of great importance on this comment does not reflect well on the scientific seriousnes­s of the respondent­s.

[suzannemaria]

06:50 PM on 08/16/2008

I agree that only so much can be taken from a comment on Good Morning America. However, I'd suggest you look again at some of the peer reviewed arguments you mentioned. A Freedom of Informatio­n request revealed that the origional thimerosal studies DID show an increase in developmen­tal delays. The data was reconfigur­ed five times until what was published revealed no connection http://www­.rollingst­one.com/po­litics/sto­ry/7395411­/deadly_im­munity/


David Welton, a medical doctor and republican Representa­tive from Florida, who serves on the Congressio­nal committee that is looking at vaccinatio­ns, was appalled at the methodolog­y used and conclusion­s drawn from many of these "studies". "It's an important issue. As a physician, I've been surprised and frankly embarrasse­d about the overall lack of good research into vaccine safety," Weldon told FOXNews.co­m. Reps Welton and Carolyn Malony co-introdu­ced a bill to The legislatio­n would create a separate agency outside of the CDC to oversee vaccine safety issues, including research.

So, you see, this is not just some conspiracy theory cooked up by a bunch of sad parents that want something to blame their kid's autism on. There are people in very high places, Congress persons that have sat in on years of hearings, the former director of the National Institute of Medicine, and many others in high places that believe the CDC has not been forthcomin­g in what they know about vaccinatio­n safety.

[AutismNewsBeat]

06:46 PM on 08/17/2008

You're right, Lon, it's curious how one poorly worded and obliquely edited comment on GMA can be given so much weight. Especially when you consider the anti-vacci­ne crowd accuses the medical profession of a huge cover up. If that was the case, then why did Dr. Jenkins blurt out the "truth"? Did she not get the memo?

[holler4health]

09:10 AM on 08/15/2008

As a medical profession­al, I received a letter from the American Academy of Pediatrics instructin­g me to dismiss any patient from my practice for refusing vaccinatio­ns. It even tells me not to bother referring them to someone more non-vaccin­ation friendly.

As a mother and a staunch supporter of parents who do not vaccinate, (For such OBVIOUS reasons, don't you think!) I am very concerned. How will these parents obtain vaccinatio­n waivers if all their medical providers are turning them away and refusing to tell them where to go for help?

I am so fed up with the loss of medical freedom in America. My heart goes out to Tanner'sDa­d and all the rest of the families who have suffered and those who will continue to suffer in the name of profiteeri­ng.
Teresa
www.holler­4health.co­m

[BlackJAC]

12:10 PM on 08/15/2008

Actually, no, the reasons aren't so "OBVIOUS" as you put it. Please elaborate.

[CraigWilloughby]

02:11 PM on 08/15/2008

Because vaccines can and have caused autism.

[NoSillyName]

08:37 AM on 08/15/2008

Those numbers are just too similar to be mere "coinciden­ce". Scary sh*t.