I grew up in Boston, and am old enough to recall when the Catholic Church adamantly denied the sex scandal. Priests harming children? Sex abuse? No one wanted it to be true, and so it was easier to swallow the denials than to believe the children and adults whose lives were altered forever and who had the courage to speak out. That is, until the injured parties brought forth so much proof that the Church had to do its own digging and Catholics had to open their eyes and say, "My good God, the children and parents were right." The Church has survived and programs are in place to avoid going back to those dark times.
The November issue of Wired Magazine included a cover story titled, Epidemic of Fear: How Panicked Parents Skipping Shots Endangers Us All, about vaccination. Wired, "The magazine of the digital future" writing about vaccination? The only digit here is Dr. Offit waving his middle finger at the vaccine safety community.
The article, written by Amy Wallace, a Yale graduate and freelance writer who is also a former entertainment reporter, begins, "To hear his enemies talk, you might think Paul Offit is the most hated man in America. A pediatrician in Philadelphia, he is the coinventor of a rotavirus vaccine that could save tens of thousands of lives every year."
That sets up the article, which is a really a long press release designed to make Dr. Offit look like an heroic martyr. It's also an opportunity to attack vaccine safety advocates (many of whom are in the autism community and are parents of vaccine injured children) by making them sound like dangerous crazy people.
Ms. Wallace writes about Dr. Offit, "... he boldly states - that vaccines do not cause autism or autoimmune disease or any of the other chronic conditions that have been blamed on them."
I can boldly state that I am a 5'10" blonde with a 36C chest too. (Mirror check. Not so much.)
Author and HuffPo blogger David Kirby has written extensively on the national push among federal health officials, scientists, research organizations and doctors on the need to further examine vaccine safety. His post titled, US Health Officials Back Study Idea on Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Children - Will Media Take Note? included this:
On Friday, February 27, a special group convened by The Keystone Center on behalf of the Department of Health and Human Services' National Vaccine Advisory Committee Vaccine Safety Working Group (NVAC VSWG) recommended appointing a panel of experts to explore the strengths and weaknesses of conducting studies on health outcomes in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated populations. The group, known as the "Salt Lake City Writing Group," said it was "desirable" to include autism as one such health outcome.As they stated in a draft "consensus statement": (There is) a strong desire to study the health impact of the immunization schedule, potentially through a 'vaccinated vs. unvaccinated study'. Outcomes to assess include biomarkers of immunity and metabolism, and outcomes including but not limited to neurodevelopmental outcomes, allergies, asthma, immune-mediated diseases, and learning disabilities. The inclusion of autism as an outcome is desired"
Will the media take note? No. Because Dr. Offit, as the Pope of the Church of the Immaculate Vaccination is going to continue to evangelize that vaccines are infallible. His skillful use of the media has made them the clergy who will protect his Church, even at the cost of children's health and future. Dr. Nancy Snyderman has been on TV daily berating Americans to get their H1N1 vaccine. She ended one interview by saying, "Forget the hysteria. Just get the damn vaccine!" When questioned by Matt Lauer about the vaccine/autism controversy, she replied, "There is no controversy Matt." Really? Check out Bill Maher's post Vaccines: A Conversation Worth Having with over 3000 comments.
The vitriol toward people who question vaccines or who report vaccine injury is startling. I had a commenter come into Age of Autism and tell us, "I hope you and all of your progeny die from otherwise easily preventable viral diseases."
Here's a fine comment from the Wired article:
Disgusting, these losers can't allow themselves to think it was their own rotten genetics that brought these mental diseases to their children so they have to blame someone else. Why this kind of shit only happens in the USA and the most primitive and backwards places on Earth?
It makes me wonder if Dr. Offit doesn't have biology on his side, the way the Catholic Church had two thousand years of respect and fear on its own.
For as long as homo sapiens have walked the earth, until just about sixty years ago when vaccinations came into wide use, mothers and fathers buried as many or more children than they raised to young adulthood. Perhaps we're biologically programmed to want to protect our children to such a degree that unless we've been badly burned, we simply can not wrap our heads around the concept that the very medicine designed to save our children, so that we can raise them past infancy, could be causing harm.
As long as magazines like Wired are willing to give Dr. Offit an open pulpit from which to preach, the gospel according to Paul will remain intact, and we members of the vaccine safety advocacy community will remain the heretics seated in the pews of the Church of the Poisoned Mind.
Follow Kim Stagliano on Twitter: www.twitter.com/KimStagliano
insidevaccines
http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/2010/02/11/vaccine-myths-round-two/
Specific details on this other, approved study, have not been easy to find. I never could understand it. Thanks to the nice people at Age of Autism, where Ms.Stigliano is one of the editors, we now have the details.
The approved study that is supposed to exonerate them was merely permission for Professor Walker-Smith to take 2 additional biopsies for research purposes during colonoscopies he performed at the hospital. That's it.
For details see http://vaccineswork.blogspot.com/2010/01/16295-or-162-95-two-studies-defense-of.html
Are you going to post anything beyond the typical fear-mongering, factless, and innane isolated incidences that have nothing to do with vaccine affects or side-effects? You constantly argue that vaccines are bad and cause autism, yet you provide no evidence what-so-ever.
Then why don't you present the "evidence" that you have on hand? Refusing to provide evidence you claim to have, accepting audience or not, is simply not acceptable. If you don't have any evidence, or you don't claim to have any, then why don't you stay out of this?
If isjois has no evidence to support his/her claims that vaccines are wrong, while continuing to post news stories about isolated incidences of unethical behavior (while adamantly denying the unethical behavior of Dr. Wakefield, see below), then he/she is doing nothing but fear-mongering. Without evidence or probably cause, it's nothing but fear-mongering.
It appears that NoN was tapped to focus on "fear". He talks out of both sides of his mouth. People advocating vaccines can use "fear" - because he argues that infections are dangerous. But, people can't question vaccine safety - because they might "scare" people out of getting their shots.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8483865.stm
And - by the way - the critical work of Dr. Andrew Wakefield has been replicated:
http://www.la-press.com/article.php?article_id=1816
"Autism Insights"? Not JAMA the BMJ or the Lancet is it......
Actually, I think they went beyond that. They state at page 2:
" It [the panel] has drawn no adverse inference from any doctor’s inability to recall certain matters and has only found a fact proved if it is sure there is other corroborating evidence."
Now that is a kindness.
Wasn't the trial initiated by Brian Deer?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29160146/ns/msnbc_tv-countdown_with_keith_olbermann/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/feb/02/james-murdoch-in-glaxosmithcline-role
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/gsk-insists-mmr-jab-is-safe-as-profits-rise-660773.html
Intelligent people can connect the dots.
http://www.briandeer.com/
"H1N1 and seasonal influenza vaccines are now being given to sick hospital patients with or without their doctor’s consent."
"My patient, with kidney failure and an autoimmune disorder had been given a flu shot without my consent."
"I was informed that according to a hospital policy that had been in effect since 2007, a pharmacist is permitted to visit a patient and offer them a flu vaccine. If the patient agrees, the RN is instructed to administer the shot and document the event in the chart. The attending physician’s signature stamp is used to complete the order. No one called to ask, “By the way, your patient wants a flu shot; can we give her one?” I’m not sure what was said to her, but she obviously agreed, and I didn’t need to be involved. The pharmacist had written an order for an injectable substance that I considered toxic and inappropriate for my patient, and it was administered by the RN before I even got to the floor."
http://www.medicalvoices.org/vaccination/articles/vaccination-without-doctor-approval-in-a-us-hospital.html
Putting a doctor's signature to the vaccination request is wrong unless the doctor actually ordered it.
.
Why do people like you insist on untruth when the facts on this matter are out loud and clear?
Thank goodness people like you are having no effect on truth in this matter as shows by the refusal to take the toxin by the majority of people.
They are waking up and that's a good thing. Maybe soon the damage of the evil and ignorance behind this mess will be stopped.
http://www.who.int/csr/disease/influenza/A58_13-en.pdf
-------------------------------------
The World Health Organization responds to the allegations that there was a fake pandemic.
WHO has been consistent for years on the definition of pandemic. It has to do with the how widespread an infectious disease is --- it doesn't have to do with the virulence, the danger of the disease.
This came up against a public misunderstanding, that an epidemic was less virulent, less dangerous than a pandemic. Which the media had trouble making clear.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/vpc_transcript_14_january_10_fukuda.pdf
Did they perchance change it in 2003? When the "bird flu" scares began?
The build up to the current flu crisis took a bit of planning--launching something this large and profitable can't happen overnight.
I'm amused at the way you always take statements from WHO or the CDC at face value.
"Skeptics aren't skeptical about the corruption and dishonesty in the pharmaceutical industry. They believe whatever the drug companies say, without asking a single intelligent question."
"Skeptics aren't skeptical about the motivations and loyalties of the FDA. They will swallow, inject or use any product that's FDA approved, without a single reasonable thought about the actual safety of those products."
http://www.naturalnews.com/028012_skeptics_medicine.html
we've got actual evidence that the definition changed in 2009!
What fun.
Here is the link: http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/2010/01/24/pandemic-when-did-the-definition-change/
That's absurd.
"Second, vaccinations also deposit a foreign protein (or protein particle) and its attendant cocktail of chemicals (and possibly heavy metals) into the body without natural processes (e.g. injury) to alert the body to repel any invaders."
"These two factors (immune mal-development and deposited supertoxins) have long been criticized by outspoken doctors as possible contributors to rising rates of cancer and other diseases. (3) According to Dr. Richard Schulze, the London Journal of Medicine published two articles in the 1890s which voiced the concerns of medical doctors that cancer rates had quadrupled since the introduction of the compulsory vaccination act there."
http://www.naturalnews.com/028000_vaccinations_health_problems.html
And there is very little quality control. The article at naturalnews.com is a great example of this. It is so bizarre in its understanding of the human body that you would think that the slightest attempt at accuracy would mean that it would be rejected. Yet it wasn't.
"In the world of medicine, "skeptics" claim to be the sole protectors of intellectual truth. Everyone who disagrees with them is just a quack, they insist. Briefly stated, "skeptics" are in favor of vaccines, mammograms, pharmaceuticals and chemotherapy."
" Skeptics believe that human beings were born deficient in synthetic chemicals and that the role of pharmaceutical companies is to "restore" those deficiencies in humans by convincing them to swallow patented pills."
"Skeptics don't believe in a higher power of any kind: No God, no spirit, no angels, no guides, no creative force in the universe... nada. They think the universe is a cold, empty, lonely, stupid place full of soulless, mindless, zombie biological bodies who have no free will and no consciousness."
"Gee, no wonder these skeptics are so misguided. They have the most pessimistic view possible. No wonder they seek to destroy themselves with chemicals -- they don't even think they're alive to begin with! Skeptics are bent on self destruction. And they believe that when you die, the lights just go out and you cease to exist. Nothing happens after that. You're just a mindless biological robot whose life has no meaning, no purpose, no higher self."
http://www.naturalnews.com/028012_skeptics_medicine.html
http://www.orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v06n04.shtml
Here's the link to the annual report - http://www.aapcc.org/dnn/Portals/0/2008annualreport.pdf
"The same report documents 1,315 deaths from pharmaceuticals including 520 deaths from aspirin, acetaminophen, and NSAIDs. How ironic, doctors dispense pharmaceuticals like candy and warn you of the [non existent] risk from supplements." (Mayer Eisenstein M.D. J.D. M.P.H)
For example, the 1315 number has to be way, way too low.
I would have expected vaccine opponents to realize that this isn't where you'd find deaths, if there are any, for overdose of supplements and vitamins.
But it isn't hard to find that overdoses of vitamins can have serious reprecussions. See http://vitamins.lovetoknow.com/Vitamin_D_Overdose and http://cerhr.niehs.nih.gov/common/vitaminA.html
Yes - ANYTHING can kill us if we overdo it. But, most people will die of pharmaceutical overdoses long before they have a chance to take lethal doses of supplements!
After surgery, I was taking massive doses of acetominophen for a long time period. My doctor never checked my liver. Not one blood test was ordered to see if that drug was harming my system. When I read about this product now, I'm shocked at it's toxicity. I'm amazed that my doctor never had a serious discussion with me about using this drug.
Drinking too much water can kill you - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication
I know you wouldn't suggest we stop consuming water. I also doubt you would tell people to abstain from using acetominophen. Please consider following the same logic with supplements. Remember - not enough of certain vitamins/minerals can cause medical conditions too (scurvy, ricketts, etc.)!
Vaccine promoters keep citing their "science" in claiming that H1N1 vaccines are safe and effective. NaturalNews and the CWC ask one simple question: Where is this science?"
For more details - http://www.naturalnews.com/027985_H1N1_vaccines_safety.html
---------------------
The offer is an April Fools joke as it sets rules that are impossible. It is slightly subtle in that the deadline for making a claim is not April 1, 2010 but March 31, 2010. How else can you explain a requirement of a one year followup on those vaccinated when the expiry date is about a year from the virus was discussed.
And that's just one impossibility.
As I've said before, vaccination opponents screamed that the H1N1 vaccine wasn't safe. It has proven safe --- so they're now looking for new ways to fool the public. This is a really funny one.
Read it again. How can pharma, the CDC or any other group say that this vaccine is "safe" - when they didn't do long term studies to evaluate side effects and outcomes?
How can you continue to say this vaccine is safe - when long-term studies were never done? Long-term studies were never done. They were not done.
A more serious response can be found here.
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=3547
Rickets - Vitamin D?
You know that vitamins, minerals, amino acids, etc. are all needed to be healthy.
The swine flu hoax was a huge success not only for drug company profits, but also for certain influential individuals including Dr Julie Gerberding, former head of the CDC who has now accepted a high-paying job as the president of Merck's global vaccine operations.
One minute you're running the CDC, warning the country about a pandemic while urging everybody to get vaccinated, and the next minute you're running the for-profit vaccine division of the world's largest drug company. Amazing how that works, huh?"
http://www.naturalnews.com/027984_swine_flu_vaccines.html
All we heard for months and months was how dangerous the vaccine was, even the plain jane, boring, strain change only, United States vaccine.
Now, after millions and millions and millions of people have been safely vaccinated in the US, there isn't a single apology, an oops we were wrong, we were overblown.
And the same has been true of the vaccines with that horror of horror, processed fish oil (squalene) added to the vaccine.
If this week it looks like the Europeans dodged a bullet and have bought too much vaccine, that's a shame. I say this week as it is still early for the usual flu season to see what happens.
Swine flu vaccines (all versions) are dangerous for some.
The article I posted was about a false pandemic being used to scare people into getting vaccines that financially rewarded people distributing/recommending them.
Stop changing topics.
Wolfgang Wodarg, head of health at the Council of Europe, claimed major firms organized a "campaign of panic" to put pressure on the World Health Organization (WHO) to declare a pandemic.
He believes it is "one of the greatest medicine scandals of the century," and he has called for an inquiry.
An emergency debate on the issue will be held by the Council of Europe later this month."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,582749,00.html
Monday, January 11, 2010
And Information on Monitoring VAERS
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Via promedmail.org (free signup)
[1] USA (vaccine safety)
Date: Sat 16 Jan 2010
Source: Dept. of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC)
Summary of 2009 Monovalent H1N1 Influenza Vaccine Data ?VAERS:
Data through 8 Jan 2010
-------------------------
Vaccination opponents complain that no one is paying attention to reports of serious adverse events that occur after vaccination. This report explains the processes used here.
Vaccination: I recommend listening to the podcast "This week in virology" hosted by a NYU professor of virology. He makes the point that we have two ways to intervene in the fight against bacteria and viruses --- antibiotics and antivirals OR vaccines. And that eventually, if the these are viruses and bacteria that mutate, antibiotics and antivirals were all stop working. So the better answer is preventing the infection through vaccines.
"The CDC is intentionally not tracking how many of the dead were previously vaccinated. They want you (and mainstream media journalists) to mistakenly believe that ZERO deaths occurred in those who were vaccinated. But this is blatantly false. Being vaccinated against H1N1 swine flu offers absolutely no reduction in mortality from swine flu infections."
"How do I know that swine flu vaccines don't reduce infection mortality? Because I've looked through all the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials that have ever been conducted on H1N1 vaccines. It didn't take me very long, because the number of such clinical trials is ZERO.
That's right: There is not a single shred of evidence in existence today that scientifically supports the myth that H1N1 vaccines reduce mortality from H1N1 infections. The best evidence I can find on vaccines that target seasonal flu indicates a maximum mortality reduction effect of somewhere around 1% of those who are vaccinated. The other 99% have the same mortality rate as people who were not vaccinated."
http://www.naturalnews.com/027956_H1N1_vaccine_CDC.html
We know that there is an exceptionally good match between the California strain of virus used worldwide to make vaccine and the over 400 strains of H1N1 that have been found to date. Last time I looked, only one strain showed a weakening response from the vaccine in tests of antibody titers.
So I and everyone else would be astonished if published results don't show the vaccine as being very, very effective in preventing infection in the population at risk. Of course, those who aren't infected, don't get sick from H1N1 or have any complications from the disease.
I look forward to numbers appearing in peer reviewed studies.
I think articles like this may be a new, but temporary, response by vaccination opponents when all their concerns about H1N1 vaccine safety have been proven to be, as expected, nonsense.
---------------------------------------------
Tim Vawter never got an injunction from a New Jersey Federal District Court to prevent mandatory vaccination of any kind, including H1N1. I don't think he ever tried to mislead anyone himself. But neither did he seem to do anything to correct the error of others.
A look at the actual documents makes obvious how much confirmation bias was needed for anyone to believe that an injunction had been filed, issued or even breathed near.
In fact, during the time when the anti-vaccination community latched on to the story in Natural News and www.naturalnews.com until after it was retracted on August 11, 2009, there wasn't even a law suit issued from the District Court.
You can read the whole sad and bizarre story, including the court docket and documents and the retraction by naturalnews.com including a possible attempt to bribe a judge starting from http://vaccineswork.blogspot.com/2010/01/no-new-jersey-district-court-injunction.html
Null versus FDA
----------------------------
I've read the court docket and the documents from Vawter. I'll put them up on the web with some redactions to provide some privacy for Mr. Vawter. Vawter's case was pitiful bad and was dismissed by the judge solely on the documents filed by Vawter for a bizarre reason.
I've read the court docket, the complaint and the reasons for judgment in the Gary Null case. This was put forward by lawyers. It too is bizarre. There was a hearing and it was dismissed on the grounds that the issues it was concerned with had become moot by the time of the hearing. If the issues hadn't become moot, the judge speculated that he just couldn't understand why this complaint was being made in federal court. I agree. I'm not sure whether the lawyers were incompetent, absolute true believers or brought the action for the publicity. I'd like to say it was for the publicity --- but I don't think so.
I'm not being clear I know. Family matters have intervened. I'll get it all up in the next few days.
But I can categorically state that both lawsuits were bizarre and weird and that should have been obvious to anyone who read anything about them. Both cases were dismissed.
Perhaps, if *medicine* was more upfront and disclosed side effects (incl. via informed consent), we would have "better" scientists, doctors and companies putting forth tests/treatments/therapies.
2) when's the last time you took a prescription drug, or an OTC drug? they all contain disclosure information. if you want disclosure information about a treatment you get in a doctor's office, then just ask for it. it's available, and pretending it's not is deceptive.