Image via Wikipedia
There’s a new documentary coming soon. It’s called The Greater Good, and it purports to take an objective, rational perspective on the issue of vaccine safety.
According to the description provided below its trailer on YouTube, the film looks…
…behind the fear, hype and politics that have polarized the vaccine debate in America today. The film re-frames the emotionally charged issue and offers, for the first time, the opportunity for a rational and scientific discussion on how to create a safer and more effective vaccine program.
Although we cannot review the movie itself since we have only the trailer to go on, let’s take a look at that trailer:
Oh boy! Where to begin?
There’s a lot of distortions and logical fallacies in there.
1. While the number of vaccines has increased, the number of antigens (the only thing that actually matters) in those vaccines is lower than the previous generation.
2. False equivalency, or false balance, by treating Barbara Loe Fisher as if she’s an authority when she has no medical background and has a long history of making factually incorrect statements.
3. Baseless linking vaccines to alleged rise in disabled children. This is a red herring. They start us off by saying they’re investigating vaccine safety, and then they go off on a tangent about how there are allegedly more children with disabilities today than in the past, leading viewers to make the connection themselves. There are also lots more children in general today than in the past. So what? How do we know there’s a rise in disabled children? And if there really is, how do we know it wasn’t the decline of prohibition that caused it? Why assume vaccines are to blame when all the science clearly demonstrates otherwise?
4. Leading questions such as 34 seconds into the clip when we see a local news reporter ask: “What if these shots that are supposed to protect kids actually hurt your child?” In response, as I’ve asked before, what if broccoli came to life and starting eating you? Anyone can simply ask speculative questions, but to do so in a film trailer like this one makes the intent quite transparent; it appears designed to manipulate viewers into making a connection between vaccines and harm, even though no specific claim nor evidence has been asserted.
For instance, suppose I asked what if the very crossing guards you trusted to protect your kids were really harming them? Now I haven’t actually said crossing guards are risking child safety; I merely subtly insinuated it with an unstated major premise. Now just imagine if I had asked what if the very *Hispanic* crossing guards you trusted to protect your kids were really harming them? All of a sudden, I’m giving the impression that Hispanic crossing guards are less safe than non-Hispanic crossing guards without ever actually making an accusation.
5. There’s no such thing as “complete” research, so asserting that research on vaccine safety is incomplete is deceptive and again hints at doubt that may not (and in this case, doesn’t) really exist.
6. Vioxx is used as a red herring. Nothing regarding the case of Vioxx has anything to do with whether vaccines are safe. This is the ever-popular tactic of trying to poison the well of pharmaceutical companies. The next step of course is to try and link all vaccine research to pharmaceutical companies so that it appears that all vaccine research is suspect…
7. …which is exactly what the trailer does next by unambiguously stating the majority of vaccine research is paid for by pharmaceutical companies. This is probably false but I can’t imagine the amount of effort required to actually determine this. Why, one would have to look at the funding sources for every vaccine study, ever! And if the filmmakers have done so, I’d love to see those notes. But of course, even if it were the case that most vaccine research was funded by pharma, that, in and of itself, would not invalidate any of that research one bit as well-known protocols exist to keep funding sources from tainting research…cause scientists aren’t stupid.
8. Implying advertising equals vaccines are bad = huh? Somehow, this trailer manages to make the mere use of advertising by pharmaceutical companies sound sinister. I also sometimes see commercials for Old Navy. OH MY GOD! Old Navy is plotting to kill us all!!!!
9. The trailer claims you can’t sue for vaccine injury. This is, of course, patently false. You absolutely CAN sue for vaccine injury. We have a vaccine court, which compensate many plaintiffs each year in cases of unavoidable risks, and vaccine manufacturers can be sued directly in negligence cases where the harms were avoidable.
10. Someone in the trailer is heard saying out of context, “it’s politics, not science” The steps taking to keep vaccines safe absolutely are science and not politics.
11. Vaccines are safe REGARDLESS of the filmmaker’s shameless ploy to convert libertarians to his or her misguided anti-scientific cause. Again, this is just the chocolate and vanilla gambit from Thank You For Smoking, where the subject is changed from the science to empty platitudes about freedom…cause everyone loves freedom and so you can never be wrong.
12. Adults are not forced to be vaccinated. And with regard to children, there are medical, religious, and philosophical exemptions. However, public schools absolutely do have the right to maintain policies that will best protect kids from deadly diseases…even if anti-vaxxers would rather put everyone’s lives at risk for their precious freedom to be as reckless as they want.
13. Someone in the video states that vaccine critics are not zealots. The overwhelming evidence suggests otherwise. The leaders of the current movement against vaccines are the very definition of zealots who invent conspiracy theories to deny facts and maintain their ideology no matter what.
14. Barbara Loe Fisher states in the trailer there’s there’s no accountability when nothing could be further from the truth. There’s PLENTY of accountability regarding vaccine safety.
15. Contrary to the awful display in this trailer, neither parents nor health officials are to blame for disease, and shame on the filmmakers for misinforming parents into thinking they bear some responsibility for these tragedies, so much so that it brings them to tears.
16. We ALREADY have shown Barbara Loe Fisher the science and she ALREADY has the choice. She’s been free to not vaccinate & spout her baseless accusations for years.
17. And last but not least, the trailer provides no data at all to support its thesis that vaccines aren’t safe and yet features no shortage of anecdotal evidence of alleged vaccine victims. Well, two can play that game. Once again, here’s a link to videos about infants who were harmed because they and the people around them WEREN’T vaccinated.
I also stumbled upon this article about the film where the filmmakers expose their real agenda with a pathetic straw man that mainstream medicine rejects anyone who questions the “status quo” of vaccines. That is simply not true. The fact is that actual medical authorities constantly challenge the “status quo.” That’s what science is. It’s not the fault of medical experts that some anti-vaccine fanatics refuse to accept reality, and reject the fact that vaccines are both more than reasonably safe, and more than reasonably effective.
--- 
How much do you want to bet, that in the same movie where they’re claiming that you can’t sue for vaccine damages, they also tell us that some two billion dollars have been paid out for vaccine injury? Wasn’t Barbara Loe Fisher herself instrumental in getting the ‘vaccine court’ set up? Has she forgotten that it exists?
Suing the government for damages in order to pay for medical costs of a persons vaccine related injury and suing a vaccine manufacturer are two vastly different concepts. In most cases, the vaccine responsible for the proven damage still remains on the market, ready and able to screw up many more innocent lives.
Could that be because it wasn’t the vaccine which did it?
If it wasn’t the vaccine that did it, no money would be awarded. Duh. Kind of a no-brainier.
You’re right. It is a no-brainer. Cause if you had a brain, you might have thought to do some actual research about how the vaccine court works before making silly assumptions. Here’s a quick primer. Vaccine Court is not a scientific body. They are in no position to determine scientific truth. The Special Masters in Vaccine Court are not scientists. All they do is decide whether a particular injury claim has plausibility and rule accordingly based on a “preponderance of evidence,” which is the only standard that must be met to win a case in Vaccine Court. That’s it. Prove it’s plausible the plaintiff’s injuries COULD HAVE reasonably been the result of vaccine injury, and you receive compensation.
So your implication that Vaccine Court has the know-how and authority to dictate science and only awards compensation to injury cases that have been scientifically proven to be the result of vaccine injury is flat-out wrong. Further, you can either rail against Vaccine Court or use them as an authority yourself, but you can’t have it both ways. If you’re going with the latter, you should realize that Vaccine Court categorically does not share the views represented in the movie trailer presented above and would view such misinformation with just as much incredulity and skepticism as I have.
Hey genius, you can’t sue the makers (pharma companies). You sue the government in the vaccine injury court. There is a tax (.75/ vaccine-preventable disease, combination vaccinations are worth slightly more obviously) that goes directly to the court to cover vaccine injury cases.
The Act that protects vaccine manufacturers from lawsuits only protects them from unavoidable injuries that are well known and can be expected to occur in a small percentage of patients, much like strict liability laws in other fields that come with expected risks like construction. It does not protect them from negligence or other risks that could have been reasonably prevented, which seems to the accusation vaccine critics are making.
When you get a vaccine it causes an inflammatory response; not an immune response. And when you follow the money it leads back to Big Pharma pushing these vaccines and they are the rightful owners of these vaccines. Do you think they are for your best interest? You guys are brainwashed. Everything they produce has a side effect; so why are vaccines any different?
What! It is the Pharma Shill Gambit again! Can’t you guys think of something more creative? Like actual evidence?
This is the best they’ve got given that they don’t have any actual evidence.
As Chris already said, the Big Pharma Shill Gambit is well past old and stale at this point. Of course pharmaceutical companies profit off of vaccines (though not much). So what? Barbers profit off of people’s hair continuing to grow; that doesn’t prove barbers are secretly putting something in our hair to make it grow. And just because funeral directors profit off of dead people, it doesn’t mean they kill people. And that seems to be your entire argument, that because a particular party may happen to profit off of providing a public need that this somehow means it isn’t a need at all and simply MUST be something we don’t really need. That is demonstrably false and is the logical fallacy of argument from final consequences. We live in a capitalist society where business savvy individuals see something that is a public need and agree to perform that service in exchange for money.
You know, grocers profit off of the belief that you require food to survive. Do you think they are for your best interest? If so, you are brainwashed. Everything they produce has a side effect and is capable of killing someone. Maybe you should try proving them wrong by fasting for several weeks.
Inflammation is a classic immune response.
But yeah, everything has a side effect, you’ll probably find that the only ‘medicines’ without side effects don’t bloody well work (homeopathic quackery fits there).
I think everyone needs to reserve a lengthy commentary until they’ve seen the film. Although the author of this article makes a ridiculous comment that not vaccinating your child “put everyone’s lives at risk for their precious freedom to be as reckless as they want.”, if vaccines work than the only person at risk is the child not vaccinated so his only rational argument could be child neglect by the parent (but the point here is who would you rather have make your family’s healthcare choices, the actual families or the state). If your child is vaccinated they are protected, so quit with the “putting everyone’s lives at risk” b.s.
tbagger:
If the movie declared that vaccines were 100% effective and those who are vaccinated are protected, then it was very very very wrong. That is a Nirvana Fallacy.
Sometimes vaccines do not take, and a child is not protected. And babies cannot get an MMR or chicken pox vaccine until they are at least a year old. Plus babies are not fully protected from pertussis until they receive at least four of the DTaP series. So how exactly are babies protected?
Then there are people who have immunity disorders, or those who have cancer. How are they protected? Should they suffer just like this little girl?
Perhaps you should not be using movies to learn about science.
But I wasn’t reviewing the film; I was reviewing the trailer, which was dangerous, horribly misleading fear-mongering.
As for your claim that, “if vaccines work than the only person at risk is the child not vaccinated so his only rational argument could be child neglect by the parent,” it’s entirely false. First off, there’s no “if.” It is a matter of scientific fact that vaccines do work and there is 200 years of research supporting that fact. And most importantly, there are MANY people at risk if you don’t vaccinate your child. For instance, people with autoimmune disorders which prevent them from being safely vaccinated are at risk. Also, contrary your false dichotomy, vaccines aren’t either 100% effective or 0% effective but rather there is a spectrum of effectiveness and no vaccine is 100% effective just like condoms aren’t 100% effective. That’s an unreasonable expectation. This means that even some small percentage of people who are vaccinated may still be susceptible to the infectious diseases spread by your unvaccinated kid. Lastly, given that kids tend to spend lots of time around other kids, those children too young to be vaccinated against a particular disease are most at risk of not only developing the disease but also having serious consequences as a result.
And no, the point most certainly is not this manufactured political controversy over whether parents should have the right to abuse their children by withholding necessary medical care. The point is the position laid out in the trailer above is dangerous, dishonest fear-mongering built on a foundation of factually untrue pseudoscience.
Choosing not to vaccinate your child not only seriously endangers their life and may be tantamount to child abuse, but like drunk driving, it also puts the lives of those they come in contact with. And despite your ignorance in this matter, this is an indisputable fact
Vaccinated people often are the very people spreading the disease you fear. A vaccinated person gets a persistent cough, walks around in public, spreads their germs not even suspecting for a moment that it might be whooping cough because they’ve been vaccinated. A non vaccinated person is more likely to stay at home and tough it out until they feel better. I should know. I have influenza. And before you jump down my throat and claim that my germs have put many innocent lives at risk, I was vaccinated for influenza yet here I am, with a confirmed case of it. Funnily enough, no other family members were vaccinated against it, nor are any of them sick – not even my unvaccinated 13 week old son whom was born before I was vaccinated. Go figure.
[citation required]
Unless their parent throws a measles party (or pox party).
Why is an unvaccinated person more likely to stay at home than a vaccinated person? Is is a conjecture made up by people who want to feel better about being a public health risk.
Further, please realize that many of these diseases are contagious before they are significantly symptomatic. And, of course, vaccinated people are much, much less likely to get the disease in the first place, making them less likely to cough and spread the disease, even if the unvaccinated are really good about “toughing it out.”
Personally I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the opposite were true and if people who were properly vaccinated were more likely to stay home (or be kept home) if they got sick (being more likely to have responsible parents and all that).
Though those who have been vaccinated even when they do get the disease often have milder symptoms so it’s possible that the vaccinated who get the disease would be less likely to be kept at home but I doubt it’d be a significant effect (nor do I see anything wrong with schools making those known to have a contagious disease stay home if that were a problem).
I think that’s a good bet.
Allowing people not to vaccinate basically is making a healthcare choice for others since it forces the rest of us to have contact with disease spreaders.
Others have already gone over the fact that vaccines aren’t completely effective, that some people are just too young to have been vaccinated and that some people have medical conditions which make vaccination unwise at least as well as I can.
Wow what a bunch of bs.. How is a nonvaccinated child spreading diseases they don’t have. How about the vaccinate kids who immediately become sick after vaccines. For example the whooping cough outbreak in california all 10 of those babies where all vaccinated. And when was the last time you as an adult got vaccinated most vaccines wear off so your argument of non vaccinated kids putting everyone else at risk, then so are all adults walking around us. Bcuz if you compare the vaccine requirement of 1982 it wasn’t as merely many vaccines, we adults are not immune nor protected so we are a bigger risk if your argument is true. I make the choice I need to make for my child and I don’t try to force my believes nor decesions upon anyone else. Everything has risk in life, the same way you tell parents to take the risk of vaccinating for the good of all. Well you live with the risk that we are free to choose what we want for our children as parents not the state.
A non-vaccinated child is much more likely to have the diseases than a vaccinated one, is that so hard for you to comprehend?
Oh and if you decided to give your child cyanide would you expect us not try and force our belief that your child shouldn’t be given cyanide?
That’s nonsense. A non vaccinated child is more likely to be tested for those diseases once you tell a doctor their vaccination status. Look at the latest measles outbreak in Canada. They’re trying to blame foreigners when the majority of cases were in fully vaccinated kids! How much more proof do you need that it is you who are spreading the disease? You with your vaccine-weakened immune systems. Stop making excuses. Vaccines will not save you.
[citation required]
From http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/im/vpd-mev/measles-eng.php :
If you have evidence for your statements, please present it. It should be in the from an official Canadian Public Health site that explains how many were vaccinated (including number of doses, and were unvaccinated. Something similar to this, which says for the 13 cases:
Liz:
Where did you get that false bit of information? You should disregard that source. From the California Dept. of Public Health (emphasis added):
By the way, one infant needs at least four DTaP to build up immunity. Also, since the MMR vaccine is given only after a child is over a year old, therefore all babies are vulnerable.
It was an unvaccinated child who returned to San Diego, CA from a trip to Switzerland that infected several children with measles, including some babies too young to be vaccinated (one who ended up in the hospital). Are you now going to tell us that child did not have measles?
I got the Tdap in July, when did you get yours?
Vaccine manufacturers have paid out nearly $2B in damages to parents in America whose children were harmed by one of the childhood jabs such as the MMR (measles-mumps-rubella) or DPT (diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus). In all, around 2,000 families have received compensation payments that have averaged $850,000 each. There are a further 700 claims that are going through the pipeline. None of the claims is for autism as medical researchers say they have failed to find a link between the disease and the MMR vaccine, despite the initial findings made by Dr Andrew Wakefield. Instead they are for a wide spectrum of physical and mental conditions that are likely to have been caused by one of the vaccinations. Around 7,000 parents have filed a claim of an adverse reaction with America’s Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). To win an award, the claimant must prove a causal link to a vaccine. As the medical establishment has refused to recognise any link to autism, the VICP has so far rejected 300 claims for this outright. (Source: New England Journal of Medicine)Medicine, 2007; 357: 1275-9).
liz, your data is a bit out of date.
The DTP was replaced by the DTaP several years ago.
Wakefield was found to have committed fraud. He was wiped from the medical registry in the UK, and his “research” has been retracted by the Lancet.
The Autism Omnibus trials ended two years ago, and the plaintiffs were not awarded compensation. The most recent page on that has instructions for the petitioners to leave:
http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/omnibus-autism-proceeding
Where do you get your information? It is either wrong or outdated. For now one you will need to post proper cites (at least get the full date, and title).
I found the cite! I had to find my old account to the NEJM, but here it is:
N Engl J Med. 2007 Sep 27;357(13):1275-7.
Cases in vaccine court–legal battles over vaccines and autism.
Sugarman SD.
Here is the full article, free with registration:
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp078168
It is dated in 2007, so it does not have the resolution that I posted. I suggest you sign into the NEJM and actually read the entire article.
I also see you changed the phrase “More than 5000 such families have filed claims with the federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) ” to “Around 7,000 parents have filed a claim of an adverse reaction with America’s Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP).”
That is very naughty of you to increase those numbers by almost half. This is almost as bad as claiming the under two month old babies who died from pertussis had had the DTaP!
This why in the future, you really need to post proper cites, and find a better source of vaccine information. Because the one you are cutting and pasting from is not very good.
If you are the same Liz posting today, could you explain why you did not provide the cite and changed the wording in the quotes?
If you’re really so worried about getting sick, then either be a hermit or wear a mask. We don’t ask you to vaccinate. That’s your choice, and we don’t care whether you do or you don’t. Mankind has survived for many thousands of years without vaccines. Look at us now. More diseases than ever – sicker than ever. Contagious disease is mother nature. Vaccines are not. Your vaccines and antibiotics are messing with the natural Eco system of germs which is contributing to more virulent and resistant strains. You did this to yourselves and mother nature is biting back. Health does not come in a needle.
Please tell us the child mortality and average length of life of the year 1000 versus 2011. Provide proper citations.
[citation required]
Hard to do a citation from my iPhone but I will later when I’m at my desk. As for the mortality rate vs many years ago – so what? Is quality of life really any better just because we now have chemo, morphine patches and Zoloft? Who the heck wants to live to 100 in that state? Besides which, with improved sanitation and living standards and the industrial revolution, we are naturally living longer anyway. You can’t very well credit vaccines for that.
You should read the book Polio, an American Story by David M. Oshinsky. Improved sanitation actually caused an increase of paralytic polio. Also, read up on the life of Roald Dahl, ask yourself if you want to live in a world where one in a thousand children dies or becomes permanently disabled from measles.
You should also really tell us exactly how air borne microbes like measles are affected by sanitation. Measles became endemic in both Japan and the UK in the last twenty years, what changes of sanitation occurred?
So really come up with those citations. Something like:
Childhood vaccinations, vaccination timing, and risk of type 1 diabetes mellitus.
DeStefano F, Mullooly JP, Okoro CA, Chen RT, Marcy SM, Ward JI, Vadheim CM, Black SB, Shinefield HR, Davis RL, Bohlke K; Vaccine Safety Datalink Team.
Pediatrics. 2001 Dec;108(6):E112.
Do vaccines modify the prevalence of asthma and allergies?
Sánchez-Solis M, García-Marcos L.
Expert Rev Vaccines. 2006 Oct;5(5):631-40.
Pediatrics. 2010 Jun;125(6):1134-41. Epub 2010 May 24.
On-time vaccine receipt in the first year does not adversely affect neuropsychological outcomes.
Smith MJ, Woods CR.
and
Vaccination status and health in children and adolescents—findings of the German health interview and examination survey for children and adolescents
At last! Soeonme with real expertise gives us the answer. Thanks!
PlWO28 mugdrfpmklmj
Oh yes, the average life expectancy before vaccines was ~80 years and most children reached adulthood.
While there is evidence that we may be having problems due to not enough disease I’d take higher asthma rates over measles, smallpox, etc (and if it turns out that our immune systems need something to fight we should be able to give them something harmless, like maybe a vaccine).
Overuse of antibiotics is a problem, but it isn’t the same problem as underuse of vaccines (and nature isn’t there to support us, the natural world is cruel and callous and not something we should particularly want to emulate (though evolution can be produce some very effective designs)).
The way things were in your golden age was that parents would have multiple children and wouldn’t get too attached to any particular kid (unless an only child) because they expected that they’d lose some to disease.
Oh and if being kept alive through the use of machines is so terrible for you there is the right to refuse medical treatment adults get and we probably should legalise euthanasia (with appropriate safeguards of course).
Chris:
Wouldn’t surprise me if she thinks it’s a small price to pay to enact the genocide of autistics (never mind that it won’t actually hurt autistics any more than normal people, but her kind isn’t the type for rational thought).
How’s that 2-month search for references working out for you, Liz?
Ummm….you’re reviewing a movie you haven’t even seen. That’s not making assumptions.
Actually what is being reviewed is the trailer, maybe you should work on your reading comprehension a bit.
Besides, unless they didn’t include anything from the trailer in the documentary it still provides some material (carefully selected by the producers of the movie to make them look good, so reviewing the trailer is actually likely to understate the crappiness of the documentary).
Your making unfounded assumptions based on your pre existing bias. that’s the equivalent of reading a book cover and then claiming the entire book is crap.
I’ve already addressed this argument as have several others. I’m reviewing THE TRAILER, which REGARDLESS OF FINAL PRODUCT, is at best being dishonest by representing the film as an assault on vaccines when it isn’t and at worst is accurately depicting the film as the sensationalistic fear-mongering that it is. Neither paints those behind the film in a positive light. Regardless of the treatment in the feature length film, the TRAILER presents Barbara Loe Fisher as a legitimate scientific authority when she’s really nothing but a notorious extremist crank willing to say anything to discredit vaccines in the minds of the public.
But again, you’re trying to have it both ways. If the film does indeed support your ideology as the trailer suggests, then my criticisms are all valid. But if I am mistaken, then you’re defending a film that exposes the position you clearly hold for the pseudo-scientific crap that it’s been demonstrated to be.
Just a reminder that Barbara Loe Arthur (Fisher) is trained in public relations, and not in any medical or biology field.
There are several issues with her website, NVIC, including those I outlined in this <a href="http://www.vaccinetimes.com/april-is-autism-awareness-month/#comment-3201"comment. I would suggest that Liz cite some actual peer reviewed literature if she wishes to be taken seriously. Because, Ms. Fisher/Arthur is not a legitimate source.
Arrgh.. html fail.. the comment is at:
http://www.vaccinetimes.com/april-is-autism-awareness-month/#comment-3201
While it’s unlikely that’s the case that did just give the me the idea that a potential way to reach those who don’t want to be confused by the truth might be to run such a bait and switch.
I suspect that it wouldn’t actually work very well though.
I agree.
Here is a review from someone who watched the whole thing:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/the-greater-good-pure-unadulterated-anti-vaccine-propagand/
Enjoy.
There most definitely is an undeniable link between vaccines and autism. Hannah Poling developed Full blown autism after nine vaccines. This was recognized in a court of law and her family received a multi million dollar payout. Pro-vaxers claim her ‘rare’ mitochondrial illness is what left her susceptible. A few facts here. Mitochondrial illness has since been proven to be not only common and not easy to detect but also prevalent among many kids with autism. Between one in fifty to one in two-hundred carry the gene, so this is a huge risk factor for vaccination, particularly in families where autism is prevalent. The CDC deliberately misled the public in order to save their own backsides. Please, do the research for yourself folks.
Then how come we can’t detect the correlation?
There are times I wish that vaccines did cause autism because we could use less of people like you Liz.
Hannah Poling case. Read it. And your comment is very rude and insensitive to all those affected by autism, including my three year old boy. The world could well do without such cold hearted rude individuals such as yourself who clearly have no debating skills, save for personal insults.
So wanting me to be someone I’m not and don’t want to be is somehow caring?
Did you ever consider that I might have a better idea of what I actually wished than you did?
Why don’t you go and read up on Plessy and Ferguson?
Now since you obviously see courts as completely infallible it’s clear that you must be in favour of segregation.
Have you considered that it might be those of us with some variant of autism who are the ones who have the right to determine what is rude and what isn’t? Not a bigot like you.
Given that he clearly has an anti-autistic bigot for a mother I feel sorry for him and hope that he manages to avoid as much of the kind of quackery that deluded parents often subject them to as he can.
And cause and correlation were clearly detected in Hannah Polings autism, so you can walk around with wool over your eyes all you like, but her case won in court, as did nine others just like it. All Ten children were found to have vaccine induced autism. Yes, autism. And I pray that you yourself are not a parent. Wishing autism on anyone shows just how uneducated, emotionally removed and uncaring an individual you actually are.
And if the vaccine schedule were as heavy back in 1979 as it is today, I may well have developed autism just like my younger sister, two nephews and son did shortly after being vaccinated. So feel free to froth at the mouth over that, you insensitive troll.
My son contracted a now vaccine preventable disease in 1989, and suffered seizures. He was a toddler and became disabled. He is still disabled.
Unless you can cite actual evidence that the vaccines are more dangerous than the vaccines, I suggest you not talk about disability issues. And by evidence I mean actual scientific studies, not legal court cases. Here are some examples:
Pediatrics. 2010 Jun;125(6):1134-41. Epub 2010 May 24.
On-time vaccine receipt in the first year does not adversely affect neuropsychological outcomes.
Smith MJ, Woods CR.
Neuropsychological Performance 10 years after Immunization in Infancy with Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines
Tozzi AE, Bisiacchi P, Tarantino V, De Mei B, D’Elia L, Chiarotti F, Salmaso S.
Pediatrics, February 2009, Vol. 123(2):475-82
Impact of specific medical interventions on reducing the prevalence of mental retardation.
Brosco JP, Mattingly M, Sanders LM.
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2006 Mar;160(3):302-9. Review.
Encephalopathy after whole-cell pertussis or measles vaccination: lack of evidence for a causal association in a retrospective case-control study.
Ray P, Hayward J, Michelson D, Lewis E, Schwalbe J, Black S, Shinefield H, Marcy M, Huff K, Ward J, Mullooly J, Chen R, Davis R; Vaccine Safety Datalink Group.
Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2006 Sep;25(9):768-73.
You should also educate yourself on the shenanigans pulled by the Polings in their case, including her father authoring a paper and not declaring a conflict of interest:
http://neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/176/ :
What evidence do you have that every child affected by vaccines has a mitochondrial disorder?
[citation required]
Something like this:
http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/statisticsreports.html#Stats
Which says “**HHS has never concluded in any case that autism was caused by vaccination.”
Hannah Poling in fact does NOT support the hypothesis that vaccines cause autism, as has been stated directly in the case’s final decision. Much has already been written about this and it really should not be news to anyone presenting themselves as any kind of authority on the case.
Some fun reading:
“Has the Government Conceded Vaccines Cause Autism?”
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=203
“Sharyl Attkisson blogs the Hannah Poling settlement”
http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2010/09/sharyl-attkisson-blogs-the-hannah-poling-settlement
“The Appalling Poling Saga”
http://neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/176/
“CBS News’ resident anti-vaccine propagandist Sharyl Attkisson abuses the Hannah Poling case again”
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/09/cbs_news_resident_anti-vaccine_propagand.php
“Muddied waters: setting the record straight about MMR vaccinations and autism”
http://theconversation.edu.au/muddied-waters-setting-the-record-straight-about-mmr-vaccinations-and-autism-3391
“The revenge of the return of the resurrection of the “autism as mitochondrial disorder” notion”
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/12/the_revenge_of_the_return_of_the_resurre.php
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=341
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/358/20/2089
http://photoninthedarkness.com/?p=149
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/10/30/the-greater-good.aspx
This is the link to the entire video. (They claim it’s only up til November 5th.) I’m trying to watch it, because as a scientist (read as: pro-vaccine) I feel like I should be aware of all the dangerously bad information that abounds. However, it’s slow going, because I have to keep stopping the video to allow my blood pressure to return to normal. This isn’t science, it isn’t balanced, it’s just pushing an agenda. I don’t think the word documentary means anything anymore.
Trish and others, the entire documentary is available until the 9th for free (unless it is extended again). With something as polarized as vaccinations, this is about as balanced as it gets.
By media standards it sounds pretty balanced because it presents the two sides as evenly matched.
The thing is that it isn’t really very polarised, everyone with a brain accepts that vaccines are safe and effective and a few kooks disagree.
Sometimes one side has reality on their side, in that case it is irresponsible to show balance.
Actually it is not. Read this review of the whole documentary: The Greater Good: Pure, unadulterated anti-vaccine propaganda masquerading as a “balanced” documentary.
Also, Megan, did you actually read Trish’s reaction?
I have long ago arrived at the conclusion that vaccination is an organised criminal enterprise dressed up as disease prevention by means of junk science.
The time for this institutionalised child abuse and crime against humankind to be abolished is in my opinion about 200 years overdue.
The time for the abolition of the child abuse of letting kids suffer from easily preventable disease because Luddites (such as Erwin Alber) can’t understand basic science is long past due (there were anti-vaccination kooks back when vaccines first came out, because they lost smallpox and rinderpest are extinct and polio is on the way out (though idiots like you have delayed it and caused immense suffering)).
Mr. Alber seems to have trouble spotting when a graph has been faked, even if it done poorly:
http://www.mycolleaguesareidiots.com/archive/2011/02/13/Erin-Alber-and-VINE-Intellectually-Bankrupt.aspx
Erwin, I’m still waiting for that compelling evidence I asked you for on Facebook almost two years ago. Any time you’d like to present it, buddy.
“The Greater Good” was a pretty good documentary on the vaccine issue. Could have been better, but then again, I was not contacted and could have added so much to it. Nonetheless, much of the critique here is so petty I can’t believe it.
No matter what you people say, I’ve researched the issue for 15 years now. My daughter would be 16 now, 17 in February. But her vaccines killed her at 5 and a half months old. Her now 15 year old brother is non-vaccinated and super healthy. He’s gone through pertussis and chickenpox. Though not fun and inconvenient, he managed through both just fine and now has immunity. My family has a long history of vaccine reactions and I know by now at this point in life that vaccines do nothing but ruin health.
Go ahead, say whatever you are going to say. I wont’ be back here. This seems pretty pointless here. I’ll just leave you with the fact that I enjoy a wonderful life with my healty unvaccinated son whose vaccinated peers are chronically ill and bouncing off the walls with their ADD and what not. It is so incredibly sad. But I am thankful that my daughter’s death lead me to the truth and I was smart enough not to allow my son to be killed or maimed by vaccines which in reality, are pretty ineffective. Open your minds and realize that vaccines are not unlike any other pharmaceutical drug. They carry risk and that risk is actually not rare like the powers that be would allow you to believe.
You have a choice, for now, about what you do with this issue. Please be informed and take the time to make a real decision rather than blindly follow the advice of an untrained physician. They spend almost no time on this issue in med school. I know this because my own father in law is a surgeon, mother in law, a nurse.
“No matter what you people say…”
Well, that’s the real trick, isn’t it. You believe because you believe and you have no interest in hearing any facts that might possibly change your mind. And so even trying to communicate with you is a waste of everyone’s time.
Those “untrained physicians” you speak of in fact have decades of training and first-hand experience with vaccines. Doctors with MSF, Unicef, and many other organizations working in third world nations see the benefits of vaccines every single day with their own eyes. Not through the kind of research of cherry-picking reinforcing ideological material you prefer but the kind that actually challenges assumptions and is meticulously vetted by others…the kind of research with a proven track record for arriving that real results and not just biased ones. But even those researchers with the most training don’t proclaim the kind of arrogant certainty as you. They’re quite cautious when stating their conclusions and humbly welcome conflicting findings. The only caveat is those findings must be legitimate.
George Santayana defined a fanatic as a person who doubles their efforts but loses sight of their goal. Last year, 10 infants in California alone died of Pertussis. They were too young to be vaccinated themselves but they’d all still be alive today if those around them had been properly vaccinated. And the most recent post on this site discusses five important reasons why children need to get the chickenpox vaccine (http://www.vaccinetimes.com/dr-mallikas-5-fast-facts-why-kids-need-the-chickenpox-vaccine/). Now I’m sorry you lost a child but prior to vaccines, losing a child was a common part of the American experience, particularly as a result of the deadly diseases vaccines now prevent.
Now these vaccines don’t just protect the vaccinated child but also protect the children who come in contact with that child. This is an undeniable fact. An anecdote doesn’t change that. Rather, one anecdote holds no greater weight than another anecdote. So here’s my anecdote: I’ve been vaccinated as a child and I’m still alive and healthy. And my niece and nephew are vaccinated, as are everyone in my family. We’re all still here. Where are all these other kids dropping dead from vaccines? Show me.
Arthur Allen writes about Ms. Winkler in his book Vaccine. She is also discussed in:
More on Dawn Winkler
and
Health Advocacy in the Public Interest.
Her work as resulted in:
Parental refusal of pertussis vaccination is associated with an increased risk of pertussis infection in children.
Glanz JM, McClure DL, Magid DJ, Daley MF, France EK, Salmon DA, Hambidge SJ.
Pediatrics. 2009 Jun;123(6):1446-51.
Ms. WInkler, I have doubts about your research when you say your son has immunity after having chicken pox and pertussis. He is not really immune to the varicella virus, it is still in his body and has a chance to erupt again as shingles.
And like many bacterial infections, pertussis does not confer permanent immunity. His immunity to pertussis can wear off as early has four years, “A review of the published data on duration of immunity reveals estimates that infection-acquired immunity against pertussis disease wanes after 4-20 years” is from:
Duration of immunity against pertussis after natural infection or vaccination.
Wendelboe AM, Van Rie A, Salmaso S, Englund JA.
Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2005 May;24(5 Suppl):S58-61.
Fortunately, Ms. Winkler’s influence is declining and Colorado is having to pay less money for hospitalization of children due to vaccine preventable diseases:
Vaccine-Preventable Diseases in Colorado’s Children – 2010:
And it even includes the effect of the chicken pox vaccine in the next paragraph:
all I can say being a natural health coach is there is still no proof of efficacy for vaccines,but if people believe there is then feel free to to get a psychological peace of mind.
Okay, Mr. Bostic. I will give you some data from the US Census dating between 1912 and the late 1990s (the link goes to a very large pdf file). Now using your super awesome abilities as a natural health coach I want you to answer one simple question from that data:
Why was the USA rate of measles incidence (morbidity) in 1970 less than 10% of what it was in 1960?
Please do not use any other country, any other decade nor mention rate of deaths (mortality). Answer the question as it was asked, and provide supporting scientific documentation from peer reviewed journals. Thank you.
From http://www.census.gov/prod/99pubs/99statab/sec31.pdf
Year…. Rate per 100000 of measles
1912 . . . 310.0
1920 . . . 480.5
1925 . . . 194.3
1930 . . . 340.8
1935 . . . 584.6
1940 . . . 220.7
1945 . . . 110.2
1950 . . . 210.1
1955 . . . 337.9
1960 . . . 245.4
1965 . . . 135.1
1970 . . . . 23.2
1975 . . . . 11.3
1980 . . . . . 5.9
1985 . . . . . 1.2
1990 . . . . .11.2
1991 . . . . . .3.8
1992 . . . . . .0.9
1993 . . . . . .0.1
1994 . . . . . .0.4
1995 . . . . . .0.1
1996 . . . . . .0.2
1997 . . . . . . 0.1
No proof you’re willing to accept doesn’t mean it isn’t out there.
See http://www.quackwatch.org/03HealthPromotion/immu/immu01.html for a short summary.
I’d also like to how you think Smallpox and Rinderpest were sent into extinction if vaccines don’t work?
If one airliner crashed for every 500,000 passengers that airliner would be grounded and inspected until the cause was determined. Anyone who thinks vaccinations have not caused deaths & permanent disablilities has their head stuck in the ground. You go talk to the parents who have witnessed their own children suffer directly from a vaccination & tell them that what they saw was a hoax & was not real. Gardasil should be banned & the formula reworked & tested (by an outside source) until it can be proven safe. Vaccinations should never be forced.
What a horrible country we live in when the profit on these large companies determines the safety & use of a vaccination and the individuals are left to suffer the consequences. Shame on all of you refuse to care about the families who are affected by this. If you don’t understand what I’m saying just watch the film “Mercury Rising” with Bruce Willis. We are dealing with the same basic situation here.
Don’t be stupid!
“Anyone who thinks vaccinations have not caused deaths & permanent disablilities has their head stuck in the ground.”
Nobody thinks that. Just like nobody thinks cars have never caused deaths and permanent injuries. Or just like nobody thinks seat belts and airbags have never caused deaths or permanent injuries. So, are you suggesting that we ban all cars? Stop wearing seat belts or using airbags? Or is it that you accept that these devices all ultimately deliver a far greater benefit to society, and therefore we should merely do our best to minimize harm while continuing to use them?
It’s not physically possible to witness a vaccine cause an injury. You can witness a gun cause an injury, but not a vaccine. All you can do is observe a symptom occur within a short period of time after a vaccination. That is correlation, not necessarily proof of causation. And when, such as the infamous autism claims, the time frame for injuries after vaccination varies so dramatically, it’s hard to take such anecdotal evidence seriously. Even Jenny McCarthy has now admitted that her son’s autism symptoms didn’t start to appear until many months after he was vaccinated.
And contrary to your internet research, the fact is that Gardasil has resulted in very little harm, while it’s literally saved thousands of lives. And you think we should ban it? You must either be deluded or psychotic.
And for the record, nobody is forcing you to be a responsible grown-up by getting the HPV vaccination or any vaccine for that matter. Regardless of your level of maturity, you are an adult, and so nobody is forcing you to do a god-damned thing. So this is a non-argument.
Lastly, you are deeply misinformed about how the scientific process works and how we have determined the safety of vaccines. I suggest you stop using every piece of trash you happen to find on the internet or in Bruce Willis movies, for that matter, as the basis for your education.
Though Die Hard kicks ass.
Do you have some evidence that vaccines have actually harmed people? Even the worst vaccines (e.g. the smallpox one) are still pretty damn safe compared to getting whatever disease the vaccine is protecting against.
Didn’t think so (all I see are lawyers trying to get a bit of money out of companies with deep pockets).
Oh and airliners don’t get grounded after every crash (only if they actually have reason to believe there is a problem with the design and even then they may often just put restrictions on the use of the plane).