Why We Worry about Vaccines
Even as doctors try to reassure the public, and TV news anchors get their swine flu shots on the morning news, there remains a great unease about vaccinations in the US. People hesitant to take the needle are marginalized as anti-vaccine nuts, regardless of the many justifiable reasons to distrust giant pharmaceutical producers and government regulators. Money can easily trump morality and the five drug companies contracted with the U.S. government to produce the H1N1 vaccines will be paid from $250 to $690 million each for mass production.
Profits are not evil, of course, and making money does not mean a company lacks principle. There are, however, causes for concern. The last time there was a mass vaccination attempt of this scale was the 1976 National Influenza Vaccination Program for swine flu. Vaccinations were suspended when 1,098 people suffered from Guillain-Barré syndrome, a disorder that causes the body's immune system to attack parts of the nervous system. There was a 1 in 100,000 rate of occurrence. Although we must assume vaccines have improved considerably in the intervening years, the insert on the Novartis swine flu vaccine being administered this fall lists Guillain-Barré as a possible side effect.
The public's wariness about pharmaceutical companies did not suddenly arise. Distrust is a product of consistent deception ranging from Merck's Vioxx debacle to the billions in fines paid by drug companies for marketing products "off label," which is a usage other than what has been approved by the FDA. American cynicism with big business has been born of corruption ranging from Wall Street to the boardrooms of Halliburton, and big pharma has played a significant role in this downfall of capitalism's image.
The government is also culpable. When Madoff and debt bundlers played no-lose poker under the nose of regulators, they made it even harder to believe that Washington can offer protection from unscrupulous companies. In the pharmaceutical industry, a decade ago, a congressionally mandated study conducted by the FDA recommended the removal of mercury-based preservatives from vaccines. Ethyl mercury, an ingredient in thimerosal, is used to prevent bacterial contamination of vaccines. But because it accumulates in the body as a potent toxin to the developing brain, in July of 1999 the CDC and the American Academy of Pediatrics agreed that "thimerosal-containing vaccines should be removed [from the market] as soon as possible." Although the joint statement insisted -- based upon no valid evidence -- the risk of harm to children was miniscule compared to the risk of disease from being unvaccinated, the change of policy still called for the end of thimerosal's inclusion in vaccine formulas.
Thimerosal, nonetheless, continues to be used as a preservative in sixteen vaccines, five of which are given to infants. Although it was taken out of the Hepatitis B, Diptheria,Tetanus and Pertussis, and the hemophillus B shots in the US in 2000, the mercury-based additive is included in the multi-dose seasonal flu shots and H1N1, and is also in some childhood formulations of meningitis vaccines. The CDC has identified pregnant women and children as "high priorities" to receive the flu shots with thimerosal. No one seems to know why the mercury has not been removed. In fact, the government has all but ignored the 1986 Mandate for Safer Childhood Vaccines, the Combating Autism Act, and a unanimous decision in June from the National Vaccine Advisory Committee, which all called for safety studies and research comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated humans and animals. This has never been done for thimerosal or even the Measles, Mumps, Rubella (MMR) vaccine, which an increasing number of parents have associated with the onset of autism in their children.
The failure of health institutions in the government to conduct these studies will eventually do great harm to the uptake of vaccines and will likely jeopardize critical herd immunity.
Private research, in collaboration with universities, is endeavoring to fill this gap and is turning up disturbing results. A new study from a group of scientists, which was just published in the journal NeuroToxicology, has shown that the birth dose of a thimerosal-containing Hepatitis B vaccine given to macaque monkeys caused developmental delays in key survival instincts. A team of scientists led by Dr. Laura Hewitson of the University of Pittsburgh and Dr. Andrew Wakefield of Thoughtful House in Austin, reported findings that indicated newborn rhesus macaques injected with Hepatitis B vaccines adjusted for their body weight experienced critical developmental delays in the reflexes of "root, snout, and suck," which are essential for survival. The peer-reviewed study was not designed to determine if the harm was caused by the thimerosal or some other ingredient in the vaccine, but revealed the neurodevelopment delays were statistically significant without regard to birth weight or gestational age.
"Had this study been done as a pre-clinical trial, the FDA could have never licensed a mercury-containing Hepatitis B vaccine, nor could the CDC have ever recommended one, at least for infants and young children," said Theresa Wrangham, president of the group SafeMinds. "We are especially alarmed because the seasonal influenza and swine flu vaccines contain mercury. We think pregnant women and young children should not be given mercury-containing medicines with such significant side effects."
The main effect on the macaques was measured in the function of the brainstem, which controls autonomic functions like breathing and heart beat. Unvaccinated "control" monkeys, either given saline or nothing, did not experience any developmental problems. Regardless, the CDC continues to insist that there is "no convincing evidence of harm" caused by vaccines, though the studies often cited in support of vaccines are criticized as deeply flawed and are frequently compared to "tobacco epidemiology" as proof of safety.
The Hewitson paper was published in the wake a recent epidemiological report from Stony Brook University Medical Center that demonstrates an association between Hepatitis B and a nine-fold increase in special education services and an apparent triplingof the risk for autism. The data are likely to increase pressure on the government to re-examine already approved vaccines. Health and Human Service's National Vaccine Advisory Committee, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Institute of Medicine, Congress, Dr. Bernadine Healy, the former Director of the National Institutes of Health, and Dr. Lou Cooper, the former President of the American Academy of Pediatrics have all said that current research on vaccine safety is inadequate. Even the CDC has conceded that some safety "claims against vaccines cannot be disproved" and that it "does not have complete adverse events surveillance data on which to base health messages."
Who is reasonably against a reassuring level of "safety" in vaccines? Drug companies continue efforts to marginalize these scientists as anti-vaccine quacks but most of these researchers believe as strongly in the importance of vaccines as do other physicians. They simply demand proof of safety. The University of Pittsburgh study begins to deliver the kind of data required to identify what are clearly preventable vaccine-caused injuries in our children. Doctors and researchers who do not demand a safety-first agenda that is transparent and accountable will ultimately be responsible for the public's failure to vaccinate. More and more parents will continue to revolt until they are completely confident their children are safe.
Hardly seems like that's too much to ask.
Also at www.moorethink.com
Follow James Moore on Twitter: www.twitter.com/moorethink
Dr. Frank Lipman: Swine Flu: What To Do?
From what you may have read, you might think that the swine flu vaccine is the answer to swine flu. Unfortunately this is not true and until we know that the vaccine is safe, I cannot in good conscience recommend it to most of my patients.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Excellent article on the influenza vaccines at The Atlantic:
http://www
From Age of Autism:
http://www
NY State Health Commissioner Dr. Richard Daines is Not Taking an H1N1 Shot Himself
"Daines says he is not planning to receive the swine flu vaccines but tells us that, if he finds that he will be dealing face-to-face with patients, he will receive the vaccinatio
http://www
Here's some more reasons why I worry about vaccines:
Letter from Rep Weldon to CDC
http://www
Government's Defense of Mercury in Vaccines Shaken by Withdrawal of Expert Reports
http://www
Bailey Banks
http://big
Simpsonwood retreat
http://www
Here's another reason why I worry about vaccines:
http://www
Hi Dugmaze,
You should be very, very worried about GenerationRescue’s competency and their integrity.
You know very well that the vaccine schedule isn’t mandatory. Why doesn’t it bother you that they lied?
And come on, they state that the schedule is from birth to 6 years—but then they include prenatal.
Are they truly not smart enough to understand what prenatal means?
Was it your intention to make a mockery of your side?
Maybe you want to think a bit more critically before posting these links?
Are you saying the schedule is wrong?
Maybe your right.
Here's the one from the CDC:
http://www
I counted 42 shots before the age of 6. Counting the swine flu.
"Are they truly not smart enough to understand what prenatal means?"
Are you truly not smart enough to realize that the fetus is exposed to the contents of the influenza vaccine given to the mother during prenancy?
Mr Foot meet Mr mouth.
Here's one reason why I worry about vaccines:
- The CDC routinely grants waivers from conflict of interest rules to every member of its
advisory committee.
- CDC Advisory Committee members who are not allowed to vote on certain
recommendations due to financial conflicts of interest are allowed to participate in
committee deliberations and advocate specific positions.
- The Chairman of the CDC’s advisory committee until recently owned 600 shares of stock
in Merck, a pharmaceutical company with an active vaccine division.
- Members of the CDC’s advisory committee often fill out incomplete financial disclosure
statements, and are not required to provide the missing information by CDC ethics officials.
- Four out of eight CDC advisory committee members who voted to approve guidelines for
the rotavirus vaccine in June 1998 had financial ties to pharmaceutical companies that were
developing different versions of the vaccine.
- 3 out of 5 FDA advisory committee members who voted to approve the rotavirus vaccine
in December 1997 had financial ties to pharmaceutical companies that were developing
different versions of the vaccine.
Copied from:
Conflicts of Interest in Vaccine Policy Making
Majority Staff Report
Committee on Government Reform
U.S. House of Representatives
August 21, 2000
http://www
Please take the time to read the whole thing.
Hi Dugmaze,
Did you notice the date? And how many ethicists support this document?
Here is the reason why putchildrenfirst didn’t have an ethicist comment on this political document:
An ethicist would point out that this is a completely immoral character attack which seeks to deceive people by giving snips of facts without providing the ethical context to understand what would constitute ethical behavior.
Doesn’t it seem strange to you that everyone except for the vaccine critics noticed that the report was nothing more than a hatched job?
Try reading it.
WhiteAndNerdy,
"Here is the reason why putchildrenfirst didn’t have an ethicist comment on this political document:
An ethicist would point out that this is a completely immoral character attack which seeks to deceive people by giving snips of facts without providing the ethical context to understand what would constitute ethical behavior."
I'm surprised you can make that statement with a straight face. You didn't make a single argument about the contents of the document, you just disregarded it based on who posted it. That's called an illogical argument and is most hypocritical considering your own criticism of the same thing. Additionally, your tidbit about the date of publication is equally irrelevant if you can't demonstrate that any policies or procedures have changed.
Your credibility takes another blow.
There seem to be some fairly sweeping generalizations by the author regarding fear levels among the citizenry regarding flu vaccines. Are most people worried about adverse effects, about being rendered suddenly autistic?
New studies regarding autistic adults show that, just as there 1 in 100 kids who are autistic, there are 1 in 100 adults who are autistic. Hardly seems validating for the vaccines cause autism charge, unless we will now shift the argument to incorporate previous generations into that causation formulation.
If you're concerned about vaccines, try reading reputable information, and by all means, be as cautious regarding your medication usage as well as your CAM usage. At least the FDA regulates medications. Not so for your vitamins and homepathics. Oh, and there's nothing to stop wackaloon doctors from profiteering off of desperate parents and peddling them the idea of deranged mineral transport and ALA as a chelator or the idea of RNA supplements that are, if they actually contained any RNA, destroyed instantly by saliva.
If some people would have as much skepticism of the woo as they did of mainstream medicine, well, some quacks might be out of business.
"New studies" was one study -- Do you really think the UK study that showed this was reasonable??? Have you read this study? To save you asking -- I did. It's ridiculous on the face of it and has been highly criticized for being -- in short -- a sham.
Hi OAD,
Interesting how you claim the study is ridiculous and a sham, but don’t actual provide any reason why.
On the other hand, I can’t find any statisticians saying anything like this.
Do you think it might be significant that the people that understand the study don’t agree with your assertions?
The majority of the participants in the survey were self diagnosed, correct? Also, they only accepted participants above the age of 16, so anyone between the ages of 16 and 20 would have been subjected to the increased vaccination schedule. The study also isn't peer-reviewed, and the participants were surveyed over the phone, not seen in person by someone who could give an observational diagnosis.
I can't see this study fitting the profile of ASD rates worldwide.
There are clearly more children being diagnosed with ASD than adults.
This study suggests that rates are the same no matter what the age.
Yes, children are more likely to be diagnosed with PDDs than adults.
This is a must watch video.
Every time I watch this video I get more information out of it.
http://www
Boyd E. Haley, Professor of Chemistry
http://www
If you really care about science or our lack of in our medical community, then do something about it:
Let Scientists Speak Out
http://www
Then join the Union of Concerned Scientists:
http://www
Hi Dugmaze,
Do you think that it might be helpful if you filled in a few details?
Like the facts that:
Haley’s testimony on vaccines/thimerosal causing autism has been ruled by US courts as inadmissible, characterized as “junk science”. You know the court rulings that according to your side don’t exist.
Or that he runs a business selling OSR as a supplement to help kids with autism. He has publicly stated that they can’t manufacture it fast enough to keep up with sales.
Or that OSR has been marketed as “approved for sale by the FDA” when in fact the FDA ruled that the safety data didn’t support even accepting it as a supplement much less approving it for sale.
Shall we keep going about apparent violations of everything from interstate commercial laws to unethical testing on animals etc…or should we just ask where is there anyone on your side that as done a fair job of presenting the issue?
OSR is an industrial chelating agent. It's never been tested on children until now.
2 of 2
Unsurprisingly there are a number of substantial technical problems with the tox study
including experimental design, spiking of the vaccines, and apparently the
statistical analysis is wrong.
Most importantly monkeys don't get Hep B infections and you get all sorts
of irrelevant tox results when you expose an animal to a biologic that they
don't normally see.
Which is why one is suppose to use validated animal models. Too bad they didn’t have any qualified running the experiment. If they had maybe we would have gotten some meaningful data.
Which leads to the obvious question: where are all the toxicologists?
They didn't perform the study; they aren't out here writing articles in
support of it.
So I believe that one of the reasons that people worry about vaccines is
that they are being deceived by misinformation.
"that they are being deceived by misinformation"
Maybe you should write the editors of NeuroToxicology and express your disbelief in their information. Here's there contact information:
http://www
Hi Dugmaze,
Do you understand the meaning/si
And you didn’t address the bigger issue. Pick your source (Huffington, AoA, whatever).
Why don’t they have toxicologists comment on tox studies?
Why don’t they have statisticians comment on statistical studies?
Given that people already accuse Wakefield of being a fraud, and given that the study would seem to increase his personal wealth, why would he run an intense tox study with extremely difficult statistical analysis without a toxicologist or a statistician?
I think that for the middle 99% of people who aren’t totally fanatical in their beliefs (one way or the other) this whole storey does nothing but reinforce the idea that the vaccines cause autism is nothing more than a con.
Thanks for the contact info.
When in your rant do you get to the part about how mercury is safe and how it may actually protect our kids from developmental disabilities? I mean if you going to shill for big pharma you should read all the talking points. You don't like the article because you simply can't understand how and why your wrong about vaccines-but others can and do!
Hi Sarahsam,
Nice posting. Please try looking up cognitive dissonance before posting again.
Of course there was no actual substance to you posting, just personal attacks. How typical.
You can argue forever that we should have surgeons run tox studies. But I think the ~99.9% of people with any degree of being open-minded will tell that is an incredibly stupid idea.
But then your problem is that the people that truly understand the article—that is to say toxicologists—don’t agree with your POV.
PS please try looking up what safe means in this context. The rational world is getting pretty tried of correcting the absurd arguments made by people that don’t even understand the jargon that they are using.
sarahsam, any substance in toxic, given large enough dose and concentration. Table salt, distilled water, white wine - you name it. Too much can kill you. The same goes for thimerosal. Botulinum toxin is among the deadliest pathogens known, but the FDA approves its use in Botox®. Jenny McCarthy, who still thinks vaccines contain anti-freeze, is unconcerned enough about botulinum toxin to have some injected into her face. So calling something "safe" or "unsafe" is meaningless without specifying a quantity.
I don't understand your comment. The HepB vaccine has been thimerosal free for a decade.
1 of 2 Hi James Moore,
You asked a very important question: why do people worry about vaccines?
Although unintentional, I think your article demonstrated why.
You discuss a toxicology study, which was lead by:
(1) An unlicensed former surgeon, who runs a business treating kids with
autism, using methods that while very profitable don't have a shred of
evidence of efficacy, and there are serious questions bout his integrity
and his competency.
(2) An assisted reproduction biologist, who has sued claiming that her
child's autism was caused by vaccination, and whose spouse works at the
former surgeon's clinic
A highly complex toxicology study and not a toxicologist in sight.
How can anyone honestly claim that this a rational
way to get good data?
yeah, why isn't the media all over this research??
It doesn't fit the new narrative.
Hi Jened,
You asked: why isn’t media all over this?
Just a guess, but I suspect the answer is experience.
They know enough to wait until there is a paper to read and then to ask some qualified scientists for their opinion of the work before coming to a conclusion.
They also have many years of dealing with the vaccine critics, and maybe they simply are tried of publishing the errors of their arguments and getting death threats in return?
Exactly. The narrative has changed from "vaccines might cause autism" to "a noisy and delusional minority of parents are endangering their children by withholding vaccines."
What really reeks is the fact that the FDA has never required studies on the safety of mercury, even in amalgam dental fillings, even with approximately half a gram of mercury in just one filling. First they say (for many years) there is no leakage of mercury into the body. Then when that's proven scientifically beyond doubt false, they say it's so tiny it doesn't matter (unless you are allergic to mercury). Allergic?
Aren't we all allergic to being poisoned!? They lie like schoolyard bullies who can get away with whatever they want, while the population suffers silently. Especially poor people and children. I finally twigged on what was degrading my health- it was the 13 amalgam fillings I had had since childhood. Had them all replaced by an understanding dentist (dentists have to be careful about what they tell patients about mercury because they can be run out of business by the ADA/CDA). After a few months the difference in the way I felt was night and day, and continues to improve. The body of research linking mercury poisoning with health problems such as autism and immune system disease is massive, but really all we need is common sense. Mercury is a DEADLY neuro toxin!
Jim wrote:
"Although we must assume vaccines have improved considerably in the intervening years, the insert on the Novartis swine flu vaccine being administered this fall lists Guillain-Barré as a possible side effect."
With all due respect for Jim...I must strongly disagree that "we must assume vaccines have improved considerably in the intervening years". Where is the evidence that would support this assumption?
Indeed, if anything..
"Where is the evidence that would support this assumption?
Vaccines contain fewer antigens than they used to.
"Vaccines contain fewer antigens than they used to."
A myopic analysis of a single vaccine attribute does not satisfy the criteria for improved. That is a ridiculously simplistic and ignorant approach to safety or efficacy analysis especially when dealing with a complex system like the human body.
My dear friend....
Less "antigens" requires "adjuvants" (aluminum, squalene, etc) that excite or stimulate the immune response.
While the adjuvants are very cost effective for vaccine manufactur
In fact, the scientific likelihood that adding adjuvants will somehow allow vaccine manufacturers to produce a "one size fits all" is a stretch...
Thank you for the article, this is such an important issue for everyone.
I wish the media now reported on the these two University hepB studies with at least a fraction of manic enthusiasm they showed when reporting on the recent idiotic "study" that "revealed" there were 1 in 100 adults with autism. They embraced it with full power, though the report/study was so badly constructed as to render it completely useless. Its conclusions served to reinforce the dogmatic view that we are not seeing increase in autism rates nowdays, therefore vaccines could not have anything to do with it.
Lets wait and see.
Hi Natasa,
Did you notice that statisticians and epidemiologists are not claiming the UK study is idiotic or useless or any similar things?
And you haven’t offered any actual reasons as to why the study was so poor. Can you offer any valid criticisms?
On the other hand, I can link you to articles/comments that use much more vulgar language than you did in criticizing the UK study. Interestingly these folks failed to follow the most basic English meaning of the words in the study—unsu
Care to comment on the pattern? Tox or statistics or whatever, the reoccurring pattern is the scientific criticisms come from people that don’t understand the science.
Are you wiling to consider the possibility that maybe the scientific/medical community rejects these arguments because they aren’t valid?
Thank you for this post and thank you to the researchers beginning to perform the work that a naïve and more-trust
This is a good article. Well done. I would like to see a complete revolution against vaccination in this country. We have to GET IT. This is an antiquated technology, it is ineffective (or has never proven itself) and now the government is trying to made it mandatory. I will never submit to the shot. I will run for the border if they come after me with that toxic mess.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
