Report: Rich Hollywood Anti-Vaxxers are DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE for Deadly Whooping Cough Epidemic

[HuckleB]

http://aattp.org/report-rich-hollywood-anti-vaxxers-are-directly-responsible-for-deadly-whooping-cough-epidemic/

Yeah, the story is complex, but the reality remains: If not for the anti-vaccine movement, much of the resurgence of vaccine preventable diseases would not have occurred.

Anit-vaxers love to pretend otherwise, which is rather odd, in and of itself, since a resurgence appears to be their goal.

[Louisiana1976]

1. The rich Hollywood anti-vaxxers are on my list of Extremely Annoying People Who Should

Just Shut Up. If it weren't for them, more kids would be getting immunized against whooping cough, etc.

[Wait Wut]

2. Yep.

Too many people equate fame and fortune with intelligence and believe any damned thing they say.

[HuckleB]

6. Indeed!

"I wrote some great books, or some fantastic songs, or acted very well in a few movies, thus, I also understand the science of everything," uh, yeah.

[Archae]

52. Sometimes all they have to do...

Is be related to the Kennedys or a be a Playboy centerfold.

[HuckleB]

3. Yup.

And we wouldn't be facing the backlash against "liberals who ignore science." (Well, we would have to have more liberals call BS on the anti-GMO movement, as well, but still...)

[Archae]

40. I found a disturbing example of the anti-GMO movement.

Jane Goodall.

Yes. Same woman who made such a name for herself studying chimpanzees, is anti-GMO, supports a TM "graduate" and is a plagiarist.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/03/26/jane-goodall-s-troubling-error-filled-new-book-seeds-of-hope.html

[HuckleB]

44. Yup. I know. Too many scientists forget how little they know.

Thus, we have Goodall against science, in this case.

Ugh.

[Archae]

51. Of course.

Linus Pauling went into a field he had no clue about, nutrition, and claimed that megadoses of vitamin C could cure everything, even a cold.

It didn't work, Pauling himself died of prostate cancer.

He isn't the only one.
There are actual biologists who are creationists.
Astronomers too.

When Jane Goodall gave a glowing review of a Maharishi Yogi graduate's book on GMO's, she lost all credibility.

[Tumbulu]

99. All true (not bought off by industry) scientists are against gmo's

until properly tested. It is called the Precautionary Principle.

You can just keep repeating your propaganda, and I will do my best to correct you.

Sort of silly.

[Archae]

104. I don't "repeat propaganda."

I realize that being for actual SCIENCE as opposed to hysterics makes me a "Monsanto shill" in some views, but the fact is the anti-GMO movement is just like the creationist movement and the anti-vaxxers.

[Tumbulu]

135. Sorry pal, you guys here on DU

keep repeating this, but it is far from the case. No trained scientist can say that something is safe unless tested properly by parties not associated with the success of the product being launched.

[HuckleB]

146. And... even when things are tested properly by people not associated with the success...

... you still ignore those studies.

End of your participation in any discussion.

[alp227]

158. Did you click that user's profile?

The user hosts the "Astrology, Spirituality & Alternative Healing" board. That's so you have an idea why you're seeing what you're seeing. There's this disconnect on DU between those who accept science vs. those who feign skepticism to justify their anti-GMO biases.

[HuckleB]

162. Well, the name says it all, already.

Still, WOW!

[Archae]

167. I agree with both what you've said and with this article...

It labels the anti-GMO people as a cult.
Just like the anti-vaxxers.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/07/08/the-cult-of-anti-gmo-a-lot-like-the-cult-of-antivaccine/

I had a run-in years ago with an astrology buff here on DU.
I asked for some actual evidence (OHMERGAWD!) that astrology is valid.

I got insulted, said I was "closed-minded," the works.

[Tumbulu]

217. Oh the mighty insults!

Generally one insults and bullies when one feels insecure and lost.

[Tumbulu]

100. Oh yes, some anonymous poster on DU

thinks that they have the right to ridicule a real scientist who is of course against gmo's (as we all are) until proven safe by disinterested parties.

It is called the Precautionary Principle and is held by most all scientists worldwide.

Your attempt here is silly and pretty obvious.

[HuckleB]

116. The "precautionary principle" as you choose to pretend it exists...

... is not utilized by any noticeable percentage of scientists anywhere.

[Tumbulu]

134. It is the dominant principle worldwide

Check your facts, google it.

Posting 1+1 = 11 enough times does not make it come true.

[HuckleB]

144. As you define it, it is not.

We would be in the dark ages still, if it was.

You are not being honest, as usual.

[Tumbulu]

101. Science requires testing and until they are tested by disinterested parties

gmo's cannot be considered safe.

It is called the Precautionary Principle.

[Archae]

106. Then use actual science.

Not hysterical accusations from a graduate of the Trancendental Meditiation "college."

http://americanloons.blogspot.ca/2014/09/1157-jeffery-smith.html

[Tumbulu]

133. All the scientists from around the world

Agree on this, just the one bought off by US industry are for it.

Check your facts.

[Archae]

139. "Scientists who don't agree with me have been bought off..."

Creationists use this attack.

So do climate change deniers.

Big Organic (oh, they exist, whether you like it or not,) saw you coming a mile away.

[laundry_queen]

151. I love how you link to a blog as 'proof'. So science-y. nt

[HuckleB]

154. In that case, a blog is all that is needed.

Or are you going to claim that Jeffery Smith is a legitimate scientist?

[laundry_queen]

174. LOL yes, that's exactly what I'm trying to say

And I think I see a pink elephant flying outside my window!



I think you lose the argument when you jump to statements like that. I don't even know who the fuck that idiot is. I'm just saying you undermine your "I'm all about science" when all you do is link to blogs.

[HuckleB]

175. The post is about Jeffery Smith.

Thus, none of your responses have any validity.

Please try harder.

Thank you.

[Tumbulu]

184. It is pathetic

If he is not going nuts about vaccines he is picking on organic farmers and defending gmo's as wonder foods. Sad, really. But dangerous, as he is persistent as well as misguided. And gives scientists a bad name.

[HuckleB]

186. Your anti-vaccine responses appear to be meaningless, and, thus, pathetic. Yes.

That is acknowledged.

[laundry_queen]

190. I don't think that he can give them a bad name

since I don't think he is one.

As I've said, I know many scientists and none are that closed minded. Most hold opinions far removed from what you see here. I'll trust them over some internet personality who post links to blogs as proof.

[HuckleB]

197. Your baseless claims are meaningless.

And typical of the anti-vaccine crowd.

[laundry_queen]

198. Except I'm not anti-vaccine, so your insults are also meaningless. nt

[HuckleB]

209. Your posts are anti-vaccine, and that's what matters.

[laundry_queen]

214. Never once have they been, that's only in your mind. nt

[HuckleB]

216. LOL!!!!!!

Thanks for the giggles!

[laundry_queen]

226. Anytime.

I've had a few laughs myself tonight.

[HuckleB]

227. I'm sure you have!

At least mine haven't been promoting people to avoid vaccines.

[laundry_queen]

230. Never did that. But you know that. Thanks for another chuckle. nt

[HuckleB]

233. I'm sorry that reality is not your friend.

But thanks for the kicks!!!!

[laundry_queen]

237. Yeah, I'm kind of thinking that's a heap load of projection right there.

Can't get much more real than a single parent of 4 (fully vaccinated children), newly graduated and now working full time but still under the poverty line. But thanks for feeling sorry for me. Right back atcha!

Now I have to go get my beauty rest as I have to get up for work tomorrow. Hope you can hold up your end here. Toodles.

[Tumbulu]

207. I am a scientist and it outrages me that this narrow

point of view and actual distortions are being presented as science.

[Tumbulu]

223. Oh, what is your degree in then?

And you are pretty outrageous in your attacks, which are personal. Keep it up, and you will get banned.

[HuckleB]

225. Name that logical fallacy!!!!

[U4ikLefty]

258. You haven't answered...what degree in the science field do you hold?

Last edited Fri Sep 19, 2014, 02:55 AM - Edit history (1)

Easy question to answer.

[HuckleB]

150. Umm. Really?

The vast majority of actual scientists from around the world know GMOs are safe.

You can pretend otherwise all you want, but it won't change reality on that, or on vaccines.

[alp227]

252. And the precautionary principle is illogical.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle

Because it throws the burden of proof on those who do not make an argument about X rather than actively making an argument about why X is bad.

[proverbialwisdom]

257. Hollywood is passé. Isn't the LA Times familiar with the latest scapegoats cited by Dr. Paul Offit?

http://www.ageofautism.com/2014/06/dr-paul-offit-tells-jon-stewart-that-caucasion-upper-middle-class-educated-are-.html

Dr. Paul Offit Tells Jon Stewart That Caucasian Upper Middle Class Educated are....

By Anne Dachel
June 06, 2014

IMAGE: http://www.rescuepost.com/.a/6a00d8357f3f2969e201a511c7e697970c-pi

<>

So just who isn't vaccinating?

Offit: "They're communities that have large populations of Caucasian, upper middle class residents who are college educated, often graduate school educated, and believe simply by Googling the term 'vaccine' on the Internet, they can know as much, if not more than anyone who's giving them advice."

Bee feigned shock that her neighborhood might contain non-vaccinating parents.

Does this make any sense in the real world? If white, upper middle class, college educated parents are MORE LIKELY not to follow the recommended schedule, then the reverse must be true: lower class, uneducated parents willingly vaccinate their children according to the recommended schedule. This disconnect from reality should raise lots of questions.

MORE: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/06/04/the-daily-show-hilarious-segment-about-vaccines-not-so-hilariously-wrong-about-the-politics-of-vaccine-denialism/

Again, terms here aren't defined and the framing is inane. It's advertising, not science.

[upaloopa]

4. Looking over your posts you are pretty much pro science

I take it. You are pro GMO food also right?

[HuckleB]

7. I see GE technology as a valid tool.

Yes.

[upaloopa]

10. I guess you have no room for the possibility

that you could be wrong.

[HuckleB]

11. Of course I do.

I once bought into the anti-GMO arguments. Then I challenged myself by looking at the available evidence.

[upaloopa]

13. Ok I appreciate that

[Puzzledtraveller]

16. They are beginning to be that way

it's odd really, even the vehemence directed toward people who have never said they were anti anything but only want to do their own research is sharp and quick. It is odd because this is not liberal in my opinion yet is so widely accepted as the norm on the left in so much that to not accept the claims of pharmaceutical companies and soon, giant food corporations as gospel you are not one of us.

[upaloopa]

22. I find burning incense to the alter of science

akin to fundamentalist religion believers.

[Tumbulu]

103. me too, very limiting

and boring.

[HuckleB]

114. It does limit your preconceived notions.

And that's why you don't want to know about science.

We all get that.

[alp227]

253. So understanding that logic has limits = "altar of science"?

Not every authority can be compared to religion.

[HuckleB]

34. "Do their own research."

That has become a classic rant when one is shown the actual reality of the actual research.

Thus, if one says, "Do your own research," it actually means, "I'm right. I have chosen to ignore the actual research, the actual science of the matter."

I'm too old for decades old mantras. Stop. Please.

[upaloopa]

107. You don't get to define other people.

You have your opinion but that is all it is.

[HuckleB]

113. You don't get to have your own "research."

The evidence base is not an opinion.

[laundry_queen]

153. Yep. And it may be louder, but it's not more valid. nt

[HuckleB]

160. Actual peer-review and consensus is more valid than conspiracy silliness.

Pretending otherwise is harmful.

[laundry_queen]

178. Well thankfully I know the difference,

and I also talk to scientists (am related to a couple) and none of them are quite as closed minded as you are. You continuously undermine your argument by being combative. We've had this conversation before. You are capable of not being condescending, I don't know why you still feel the need to be like that. No one is denying any peer reviewed studies. Show me where they are. And it's not a conspiracy to question some scientists ties to the pharmaceutical industry. Here in Canada there was a very huge news story/documentary on the CBC (a very reputable source) that showed many direct and indirect financial ties of large pharmaceutical companies to the biggest names in science in Canada. I wouldn't say that is a conspiracy because it is based in facts, the scientists themselves who were interviewed admitted it. It's always good to be cautious and push those companies to make their products even safer and more effective than they already are. And it's always good to push scientists to disclose where their financial ties are. There have been, in the past, some issues with some vaccines (like with the adjuvant used in some H1N1 vaccines in Europe). Denying those issues ever existed doesn't make it better, it makes it worse (And strengthens the anti-vaxxers). Acknowledging the issues and showing some compassion for those affected (imagined or real) and pushing for better testing and monitoring doesn't hurt anyone, it helps them and it increases vaccination rates.

Both sides have their pretenders. I'm not one of them. Are you?

[HuckleB]

248. Your posts indicate that science is not your friend.

And you seem to be fine with pretenders. Heck, it appears that you don't know what a logical fallacy is...

Why is that?

[alp227]

159. LOL. exactly right.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Do_your_own_research

"This phrase is a form of the escape hatch used by a charlatan who wants to win the argument but does not want to bear the burden of proof."

[HuckleB]

112. If you've "done your own research," then support your arguments.

Of course, you can't, so you go ad hominem instead.

Lame stuff.

[CentralMass]

202. It is strange, and at least IMO, seems a bit organized.

[still_one]

85. that is a different subject. do you not believe in vaccines?

[chrisa]

145. It's hilarious when "Pro-Science" is used by an insult. It's like the climate change deniers.

Why believe in science when you can just make things up and pretend that it's real? That's worked so well before!

[xchrom]

5. du rec.

[Spider Jerusalem]

8. I blame it on Andrew Wakefield and his irresponsible and fraudulent study on MMR and autism.

Irresponsible and fraudulent and since withdrawn by the journal that published it (and Wakefield himself struck off the medical register for his research fraud).

[HuckleB]

9. Absolutely. Wakefield (and others) have caused far too much suffering and deaths.

There is simply no justification for the horrors they have caused.

[HuckleB]

110. Since they didn't do any such thing, that might be a reason.

Finding BS on the Internet is not hard. That's not how science works, however.

Stop being conned so easily.

[cureautismnow]

119. Are you calling Dr. Thompson (of the CDC) a liar?

"My name is William Thompson. I am a Senior Scientist with the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, where I have worked since 1998.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE-AUGUST 27,2014

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM W. THOMPSON, Ph.D., REGARDING THE 2004 ARTICLE EXAMINING THE POSSIBILITY OF A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MMR VACCINE AND AUTISM

My name is William Thompson. I am a Senior Scientist with the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, where I have worked since 1998.

I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism. Decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the final study protocol was not followed."

http://www.morganverkamp.com/august-27-2014-press-release-statement-of-william-w-thompson-ph-d-regarding-the-2004-article-examining-the-possibility-of-a-relationship-between-mmr-vaccine-and-autism/

The only BS on the internet I see is your response.

[HuckleB]

122. You just offered a single "scientist," presented via a rather bizarre website.

Do you have any peer reviewed evidence on a consensus basis to offer?

If not, well, my point stands quite vehemently.

[cureautismnow]

125. It was HIS study at the CDC.

He released that statement through his attorney. Again, are you calling him a liar?

You really are behind the times, aren't you? Or are you just feigning ignorance?

""I regret that my co-authors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article," Thompson said in a statement sent to CNN by his lawyer. "I have had many discussions with Dr. Brian Hooker over the last 10 months regarding studies the CDC has carried out regarding vaccines and neurodevelopmental outcomes, including autism spectrum disorders. I share his belief that CDC decision-making and analyses should be transparent."

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/27/health/irpt-cdc-autism-vaccine-study/

[HuckleB]

127. His "study" was not published in a peer reviewed journal.

And it wasn't a study.

And single studies do not change the evidence base all of a sudden. I get that you want to pretend that vaccines cause autism. Alas, it's just not true. The number of studies showing otherwise is overwhelming. Single studies, even when published in peer-reviewed journals do not turn life on its end. It's time to get away from the bad propaganda. You can do it!

[cureautismnow]

131. Are you saying that CDC studies are not peer-reviewed? Really?

Here's the study:

"Age at first measles-mumps-rubella vaccination in children with autism and school-matched control subjects: a population-based study in metropolitan atlanta."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14754936

It is peer-reviewed and IT IS A FRAUD put forth by the CDC.

Oh, let me help you with the authors of the report.

DeStefano F1, Bhasin TK, Thompson WW, Yeargin-Allsopp M, Boyle C.

Now tell me, do you see Mr. Thompson's name on the study? Yes? T-H-O-M-P-S-O-N. Does that help?

[HuckleB]

132. You keep missing reality.

You have to repeat studies. Thousands of studies show vaccines do not cause autism.

Nor does this one, despite your false pretenses about it.

I gave you time to come to your senses. You did not.

I'm too old to play the games you want to play. Vaccines do not cause autism. Studies have made that abundantly clear.

Why do you pretend otherwise?

[cureautismnow]

137. You lied and you were caught in your lie, so you deflected.

You said Thompson's study was not in a peer reviewed journal and you said it wasn't a study. It was in Pediatrics, which is a peer-reviewed journal.

Why should I believe anything you say when you don't tell the truth?

You know damned well that this study was used to support the administration of the mmr and now it has been exposed for the fraud that it was.

Show me "thousands" of studies that vaccines don't contribute to autism.

Here's 28 that support the opposite:

The Journal of Pediatrics November 1999; 135(5):559-63
The Journal of Pediatrics 2000; 138(3): 366-372
Journal of Clinical Immunology November 2003; 23(6): 504-517
Journal of Neuroimmunology 2005
Brain, Behavior and Immunity 1993; 7: 97-103
Pediatric Neurology 2003; 28(4): 1-3
Neuropsychobiology 2005; 51 7-85
The Journal of Pediatrics May 2005;146(5):605-10
Autism Insights 2009; 1: 1-11
Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology February 2009; 23(2): 95-98
Annals of Clinical Psychiatry 2009:21(3): 148-161
Journal of Child Neurology June 29, 2009; 000:1-6
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders March 2009;39(3):405-13
Medical Hypotheses August 1998;51:133-144.
Journal of Child Neurology July 2000; ;15(7):429-35
Lancet. 1972;2:883–884.
Journal of Autism and Childhood Schizophrenia January-March 1971;1:48-62
Journal of Pediatrics March 2001;138:366-372.
Molecular Psychiatry 2002;7:375-382.
American Journal of Gastroenterolgy April 2004;598-605.
Journal of Clinical Immunology November 2003;23:504-517.
Neuroimmunology April 2006;173(1-2):126-34.
Prog. Neuropsychopharmacol Biol. Psychiatry December 30 2006;30:1472-1477.
Clinical Infectious Diseases September 1 2002;35(Suppl 1):S6-S16
Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 2004;70(11):6459-6465
Journal of Medical Microbiology October 2005;54 87-991
Archivos venezolanos de puericultura y pediatría 2006; Vol 69 (1): 19-25.
Gastroenterology. 2005:128 (Suppl 2);Abstract-303

[HuckleB]

140. No, I didn't.

You pretended that a study showed what it did not show.

You were caught, and you're doubling down.

And you fail to acknowledge that even if a single study did show that, it is overwhelmed by thousands of studies that don't show that.

Why can't you be honest?

[cureautismnow]

149. You really are divorced from reality. You did lie.

You said, "His "study" was not published in a peer reviewed journal. And it wasn't a study."

This was his study.

"Pediatrics. 2004 Feb;113(2):259-66.
Age at first measles-mumps-rubella vaccination in children with autism and school-matched control subjects: a population-based study in metropolitan atlanta.
DeStefano F1, Bhasin TK, Thompson WW, Yeargin-Allsopp M, Boyle C.
Author information

Abstract
OBJECTIVE:
To compare ages at first measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccination between children with autism and children who did not have autism in the total population and in selected subgroups, including children with regression in development.
METHODS:
A case-control study was conducted in metropolitan Atlanta. Case children (N = 624) were identified from multiple sources and matched to control children (N = 1824) on age, gender, and school. Vaccination data were abstracted from immunization forms required for school entry. Records of children who were born in Georgia were linked to Georgia birth certificates for information on maternal and birth factors. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (ORs).
RESULTS:
The overall distribution of ages at MMR vaccination among children with autism was similar to that of matched control children; most case (70.5%) and control children (67.5%) were vaccinated between 12 and 17 months of age. Similar proportions of case and control children had been vaccinated before 18 or before 24 months. No significant associations for either of these age cutoffs were found for specific case subgroups, including those with evidence of developmental regression. More case (93.4%) than control children (90.6%) were vaccinated before 36 months (OR: 1.49; 95% confidence interval: 1.04-2.14 in the total sample; OR: 1.23; 95% confidence interval: 0.64-2.36 in the birth certificate sample). This association was strongest in the 3- to 5-year age group.
CONCLUSIONS:
Similar proportions of case and control children were vaccinated by the recommended age or shortly after (ie, before 18 months) and before the age by which atypical development is usually recognized in children with autism (ie, 24 months). Vaccination before 36 months was more common among case children than control children, especially among children 3 to 5 years of age, likely reflecting immunization requirements for enrollment in early intervention programs."

He now says "I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics."

So, this wasn't a study and Pediatrics isn't a peer-reviewed journal? Seriously, you are standing on that? If so, I just want to know what time are visiting hours over in your psychiatric ward?

[HuckleB]

152. Thank you for proving me even more right.

You acknowledged that the claim that you made was not a part of any study!!!!

And you have no legitimate source for your claim.

Thank YOU!!!!

[cheapdate]

181. In a research area where more than 1,000 papers are published every year,

going back over a decade to find 28 papers that support a contrary position is hardly compelling.

[Tumbulu]

138. Why don't you answer his direct question?

Why won't you?

[HuckleB]

141. I've answered all his questions directly.

Why would you pretend otherwise?

Do you have an honest bone in your body?

[Tumbulu]

220. I guess you have a serious reading comprehension problem

or perhaps you are a bot.

[HuckleB]

222. Explain your claim and support it with a consensus of peer-reviewed evidence.

[laundry_queen]

234. There's peer reviewed evidence

that you are a bot? ?? Where? Or do you mean I should hold a poll to create a review of your peers?

Sorry, I couldn't resist joking. That's exactly how the thread reads.

[HuckleB]

236. But you're not an anti-vaccine parrot?

[laundry_queen]

238. If you think that's anti-vaccine, I guess all my scientist friends are all

crazy antivaxxer frauds that belong in your blogs too.

[HuckleB]

239. "All my scientist friends."

You are an old-school Internet crack up.

[laundry_queen]

244. Relatives too. I have those.

Come from a family of smart people. My brother's an engineer. I'm an accountant but did take some science in university when I was going for my genetics degree the first time around. My best friend from school now does research and teaches for that same place. I never did finish my genetics degree, but my cousin went ahead and got a PhD in it. She does research for fun while raising her kids. My oldest child will start her Chemistry degree next fall.

Yep, I'm glad I'm surrounded by smart people. It used to be why I came to DU.

No, really, now I'm going to bed because I am feeling my brain atrophy and I have to be sharp for all my investigations at work tomorrow aka the real world.

[HuckleB]

246. That's really, really COOOLLLL!

Oddly, all that intelligence doesn't help you support your arguments in real life.

[WilliamPitt]

263. Jury results

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Not hideworthy. Sort it out among yourselves...
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Earlier in your argument, you said this: "Why can't you be honest?" to the person you are alerting on. Unfortunately, you brought the comment you alerted on upon yourself. Play nice and stop being confrontational. Thanks.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[truedelphi]

249. cureautismnow - you might really lower your blood pressure and

Save yr sanity by using the "ignore" function when hamstrung by the likes of the guy who is engaging you in his falacious arguments.

He is not going to listen to reason. He is of the "all vaccines, all the time" crowd. He doesn't know a thing about what he rambles on about. If he had been alive seventy years ago, he would quite likely have been on TV talking about his number one favorite health product - cigarettes.

But he can cause some of the more aware on this discussion board pointless hours of spinning our wheels.

[HuckleB]

250. Yeah, man! Ignore the science!!!

Keep promoting the harmful nonsense about vaccines, but only talk to others who promote the same silliness!!!

Where have you have such a plan before?

[truedelphi]

261. You wouldn't know science if it came up to you and bit you

On your hind end.

Even the premise for your OP is flawed.

Here is some truth:


"Vaccinated children may be asymptomatic reservoirs for infection." as well as "Our results indicate that children ages 5-6 years and possibly younger, ages 2-3 years, play a role as silent reservoirs in the transmission of pertussis in the community. More studies are needed to find the immunologic basis of protection against infection and colonization and thus an effective way to eradicate pertussis."- CDC



http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/6/5/00-0512_article.htm

Now, granted that was 12 years ago with the whole-cell pertussis vaccine. So what do they say about the new acellular pertussis vaccine that replaced the whole-cell vaccine?

“Baboons vaccinated with aP (acellular pertussis vaccine) were protected from severe pertussis-associated symptoms (NOT TRUE) but not from colonization (infection), and DID NOT clear the infection faster than naïve (unvaccinated) animals, and READILY transmitted B. pertussis to unvaccinated contacts.” 2013 NOV 25

MEANING THEY STILL ARE RESERVOIRS OF INFECTION!!! 12 years later! They STILL don't have it right??!?!?


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24277828

or

http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/publications/search_result_record.cfm?id=48636


Which goes back to my main question. How many times are you as a parent , going to ALLOW them to experiment {on your children!!!!!} and BE WRONG?

[oneshooter]

205. Jury results

On Thu Sep 18, 2014, 10:11 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

And what justification does the CDC have for omitting significant data from their 2004 mmr study?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5556631

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Wait...linking to questionable science published by a website whose slogan is "the conservative voice of Arizona"? Problematic enough linking to a right wing site (same as linking to The Blaze, MichelleMalkin.com, Daily Caller, etc.) But even worse posting quackery.

Furthermore, to see how shady "Sonoran News" is see:

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2011-06-30/news/russell-pearce-s-allies-at-cave-creek-s-sonoran-news-slime-an-innocent-woman-in-an-attempt-to-besmirch-the-effort-seeking-his-recall/

http://www.azcentral.com/community/scottsdale/articles/20130731cave-creeks-sonoran-news-facing-lawsuit-by-couple.html

JURY RESULTS

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Sep 18, 2014, 10:48 PM, and the Jury voted 4-3 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Complaining about the source, instead of the information given, is a sure sign that you can not argue the information. Thus you have to find another way of winning.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Hide. Hide. Hide. Poster should go to Discussionist with that crap.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

[HuckleB]

215. Dang.

I've given up on sending anything to jury, but only 4-3 for that nonsense is scary at DU.

[Dont call me Shirley]

14. Science is great, unless it is conducted by VESTED INTERESTS

[HuckleB]

15. So you see science as propaganda?

You think that scientists the world over are in on a major conspiracy?

[Puzzledtraveller]

17. everyone serves themselves, first.

[HuckleB]

23. So, you're a libertarian, then?

Why are you at DU?

[HERVEPA]

53. Bull. Not everyone is that jaded. Most scientists are not.

[Dont call me Shirley]

18. Good try, HuckleBerry Finn. Science becomes propaganda when the science is created to

match the outcome desired. Then disseminated as real unbiased science.

[HuckleB]

24. That's always a possibility.

Of course, you have yet to prove that vaccines, GMOs etc... fit the bill....

[geek tragedy]

32. Isn't that what the climate change deniers say? nt

[bhikkhu]

118. Its definiteley what the creationists say

Ironically, carefully selecting and interpreting a small bit of evidence and pretending the rest doesn't exist is their main tactic.

Anti-vaxxers ignore all the recent research that supports the genetic origin of autism, beginning in the womb. They also then ignore the studies developed from that showing that behavioral therapies can mitigate most problems, if begun early enough.

[upaloopa]

19. If a scientist works for a corporation to develop

a product could that scientist have a motive other than contributing to the welfare of the human race?

[HuckleB]

29. Sure.

Thus, one must wonder why people invested in "organic" foods are being dishonest about "conventional" foods.

What do they have to gain?

Hmmmmmmm....

[upaloopa]

102. I don't understand why you say what you do

What do you care who eats organic foods ?
I think I said this before maybe to you I don't know but many of us do our investigation and make what we feel are the right choices for ourselves. We may disagree with the choices you make for you and that is ok.
But we are free to make those choices and I feel you do no one any good by criticizing their choices.

[HuckleB]

126. I don't care.

People who have the money to spend on worthless products, can spend their money on worthless products.

The problem is that they're now trying to use the government to market those worthless products, at their premium prices.

Some families are cutting out other necessities to purchase those products, despite the lack of necessity. This make the "organic" crowd an unethical entity, aimed at its own profits, and not giving a crap about ethics.

[Dont call me Shirley]

39. No, corporations of today sole exisistence is to increase profits.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

21. "Science" conducted by vested interests is NOT science. Period. n/t

[HuckleB]

25. "Vested interests" is propaganda and not science.

Next.

[Duppers]

28. +100

Thanks, Peggy!

You always hit the nail....

[HuckleB]

31. In this case, she missed the nail completely.

Why do you think she touched on anything?

[NYC Liberal]

36. Of course it is.

Having a motivation for your work doesn't mean your work is not legitimate, or flawed.

[bvf]

78. Well said, Peggy! n/t.

[HuckleB]

115. She said nothing of value.

How was that "well said?"

[bvf]

187. This sounds like bait.

Not much of value there. Care to explain?

[HuckleB]

251. You would have to explain what Peggy said.

If you can do that, and support it with a consensus of science based evidence, let us know! Thanks!

[bvf]

259. Just as I thought.

Troll elsewhere, will you?

[Hissyspit]

62. And anti-vax propagandists don't have vested interests?

Please.

[Dont call me Shirley]

64. Such as?

[Spider Jerusalem]

97. Such as Andrew Wakefield holding a patent on a single measles vaccine? For instance.

Which means he may have had some financial incentive behind his research fraud. Not to mention that he was being paid by a group seeking to bring a lawsuit claiming vaccine injury and thus had a clear conflict of interest.

[Dont call me Shirley]

98. Then he truly wasn't ant-vax.

[Tumbulu]

142. He was not, just wanted them to be given separately

But these clowns cannot see anything but black and white, they are just like the republicans the way they post is outrageously rude.

[HuckleB]

147. So, he could make millions off of it!

Nevermind that the evidence didn't support his claims.

[Tumbulu]

180. No one makes money off of vaccines

They are a super low profit product which is why governments all need to get involved and commit to large scale production and use, and provide liability insurance. They are a loss leader at best, and a public service for the pharmaceutical industry. They would all dump them if they could, I am sure. But are kind of stuck producing them.

[HuckleB]

183. LOL!

You started off making sense, and then you went into bizarro world BS, as usual.

You would love to see diseases return, and they are, so you should be very happy about now!

[Tumbulu]

193. Where did you get that idea?

Didn't you read my op about how this topic should be approached? Oh no, you never read, just argue and name call.

But here is a link should you care to read what I have to suggest, except on my ipad it does not link, just copies., so here it actually is:

If you think that issues regarding vaccination should be part of the Democratic Party Platform

then I want to suggest that you discuss the issue in educated and insightful ways.

I recommend that you focus on the many benefits that they give to a civilized society. Such as allowing people to bring infants out into public (a very new concept, actually). Which then allows parents to leave children with caregivers without fear of the deadly childhood diseases that wracked our ancestors, and thinned the ranks of our species, as all pathogens do. Point out how the current lowering of overall herd immunity puts at risk our youngest, weakest and our oldest. Encourage, educate and discuss.

Refrain from ridiculing, bullying, name calling and pretending that you know more about the issue than others who have actually studied it (unless of course you actually do, but then be humble about it at least).

The general discussions on DU regarding this matter are appalling and a complete turn off to most anyone who comes here. The discussions come off as dictatorial and mean spirited. And not intelligent, or interesting. Plus the typical screaming posters appear just as crazed as the conservatives that so many of us on DU enjoy poking fun at. There are an abundance of liberal reasons to support universal and free vaccination of children. The most powerful political way that we as a community have helped increase the childhood vaccination rate has been through the expansion of the healthcare system through the Affordable Care Act. How about patting ourselves on the back a bit about making it FREE to get the vaccines (note each shot that my daughter got as an babe cost me $125 out of pocket- each shot- not each time I took her to the doctor!) So, making it free is a very very big deal.

Focus on what is good, what is important and how we have come to depend upon these conveniences of the day.

You will lose any chance of inclusiveness by ridiculing and accusing people of all the horrid things that you banter about. Your absolute need to vilify people is quite troubling.
8

[HuckleB]

194. Your anti-vaccine nonsense is noted.

It's not about inclusiveness. It's about people who care. You don't care.

[HuckleB]

206. Why would I be in need of medical help?

You are just pushing the same old fictions you always push.

[Tumbulu]

211. Did you actually read my post?

How could you not need some help if you concluded that after reading what I had to say? Do you actually think being rude is a way to win an election, or get people on board?

[HuckleB]

219. How could I conclude that the fictions you present are fiction?

LOL!

[Tumbulu]

224. You consider it fiction that vaccines are central to a civilized society?

That the Affordable HealthCare Act has helped us?

I seriously think you have a reading comprehension problem.

[Tumbulu]

200. In addition, I worked in a biological division of a pharmaceutical company

and was treated to regular tirades by the CEO's CFO's etc about how biologicals only make 8-10% profit compared to 90% on the chemical products.

How is it that you don't know about how expensive biologicals are to produce and what low margins they command?

Why do you think governments have to get involved. The profit margins are too low on vaccines. But they are crucial to a civilized modern society.

[HuckleB]

221. Name that logical fallacy!!!!

[alp227]

254. Ha! Funny how the same loons who complain about real scientists "being bought"

have no problem with Andy W. being "bought and paid for".

[Initech]

20. Thanks and a big fuck you to anti vaccination crusaders.

I personally have zero interest in contacting deadly diseases that were supposed to be eradicated 50 years ago.

[HuckleB]

26. E-X-A-C-T-L-Y!!!!!!!

[Dont call me Shirley]

27. We need to develop a vaccine for people who can only attack instead of reason

[HuckleB]

30. Wouldn't that be nice.

[geek tragedy]

33. Reason is wasted on anti-vaxxers as they

are immune to it.

[FourScore]

42. DUzy! Well done, geek tragedy! n/t

[Tumbulu]

105. we sure need that on DU

they are pretty pathetic this group.

[yeoman6987]

35. But if you are vaccinated, you won't.

The only ones in jeopardy are those who made the CHOICE not to. Choice should matter in all things especially when dealing with their own bodies and what goes into said bodies. We must be on the side of choice more then when in agreement of a topic. My children would vaccinated. However if my neighbor decided to make the choice not to, why should I get all upset over it?

[NYC Liberal]

37. Herd immunity is why.

It's not a choice. Your "choice" not to vaccinate affects society at large.

There are people who cannot, for various medical reasons, receive one vaccine or another. But if the other 99% of the population is vaccinated, they are protected because the virus won't spread in the community. Herd immunity. Then we have assholes who refuse, by choice, to vaccinate, and it destroys that herd immunity. They bring these viruses back into the population and it spreads to those who couldn't get vaccinated.

[yeoman6987]

38. Well still their choice

Sorry but it is and I will never go against choice in any way shape or form. Very slippery slope going on there.

[NYC Liberal]

41. Not when your "choice" harms everyone else.

If you will "never go against choice in any way shape or form", then you'll want to abolish almost all laws.

[FourScore]

48. I would agree with you if it were true. Take the example of my kids...

I live in a town where many people do not vaccinate. Four years ago, whooping cough came through here with a vengeance. It had mutated, so even the kids who got vaccinated got sick. My kids were among them.

If the majority is vaccinated the virus can't survive and mutate like that. It's just a fact. So your decision not to vaccinate is like smoking. It's doesn't just affecting you.

[HERVEPA]

55. Ridiculous argument

If I choose to murder someone (which the anti-vaxers are facilitating), that's my choice and no problem for you?

[yeoman6987]

65. You asked me already.

[geek tragedy]

58. How very Ayn Rand. nt

[yeoman6987]

61. Your gone!

I can't stand bullying. Notice the others were respectful even though they don't agree with me. I have no time for bullies.

[geek tragedy]

69. Nope, still here. nt

[HuckleB]

120. That's not bullying.

Your post was bullying. It actually advocated putting people at risk.

http://shotofprevention.com/2011/04/12/why-worry-about-the-unvaccinated/

[zappaman]

70. "Your gone!"

[geek tragedy]

71. Not mine. nt

[zappaman]

74. IT'S MY CHOICE TO ENDANGER OTHERS!!!

Freedom!!!!

[geek tragedy]

77. Disease vectors are people, my friend. nt

[MattBaggins]

163. You should put that on a shirt

[Rex]

84. Don't hate people for their freedumbs!

[Rex]

73. So IF you have a nuclear weapon strapped onto your body and go out in public

well gosh darn...that is your choice and who am I to say otherwise!?

[zappaman]

76. IT'S MY CHOICE TO HAVE RICIN AT MY HOUSE!!!!

AND IF I WANT LEAVE IT OUT ON THE PORCH ON HALLOWEEN....IT"S MY CHOICE!!!!!

[geek tragedy]

79. Your gone two! nt

[Rex]

82. Your gone three! nt

nt

[zappaman]

83. Know. I'm still hear! n/t

[Rex]

80. Yeah...all I can do is get sick from it and die...but HEY don't want to

step all up in your business! Umm...gonna go lay down, feel kinda sick.

[chrisa]

157. Kids are going to love my hanging Plutonium rods for Halloween. Perfect haunted house glow.

[HuckleB]

164. +1,000,000 ... 000

[chrisa]

166. Plutonium isn't really dangerous. Big pharma wants you to buy Potassium Iodide.

[HuckleB]

169. Red herring is still tasty, eh?

[Hissyspit]

63. Oh for fuck's sake...

I CHOOSE to kept lots of unsecured radioactive material on my front porch. It's MY choice.

[zappaman]

72. I CHOOSE to keep Venomous cobras

and I let them play in the neighborhood.
IT'S MY CHOICE!!!!

[yeoman6987]

128. Oh your gone too

Who has time for sarcasm? Especially the foul words.

[MattBaggins]

161. You know damn well that "your choice"

defense is mute when your idiotic choices endanger others.

You know this.

[NuclearDem]

185. That is such a flabbergastingly terrible argument I don't even know where to begin.

[treestar]

266. I doubt it

When it comes to communicable diseases. Also, when their kids get these diseases, health care workers are exposed and medical costs go up.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

49. You can be vaccinated for something and still end up with that illness...

It does happen, for whatever reason. The body may not develop the antibodies correctly. Kind of like people who get the chicken pox multiple times. It's rare, but it happens.

This is not a case of choice. If you are unable to vaccinate because of underlying health causes, fine. If you refuse to vaccinate because you're an asshat, you're now putting your life, your child's life, and my life at risk. Herd immunity only works when those able to be vaccinated are vaccinated. There is no choice in public health.

[Rex]

68. The choice to bring back deadly diseases that can wipe out millions?

You certainly out did yourself with that one!

[MattBaggins]

165. You are probably gone too

[Rex]

256. Gone long ago, no doubt.

Which makes it funnier imo, since he can't see what I am saying.

[Mariana]

89. That is false. Some vaccinated people are at risk.

Also, some people are unable to take the vaccines. What about them?

Vaccines immunize MOST people who get them, but no vaccine is 100% effective. They don't work for everyone. Someone who is spreading one of those diseases around is indeed endangering some people who've had vaccinations - as well as those who can't have them for medical reasons.

I was properly vaccinated for measles, and yet a few years later I got measles from an unvaccinated person. One of my classmates, also vaccinated, got it as well.

[HuckleB]

117. Please read this piece, and please don't repeat bad science.

http://shotofprevention.com/2011/04/12/why-worry-about-the-unvaccinated/

The unvaccinated are a danger to all.

[NuclearDem]

156. Learn2epidemiology

The more people in a population that are vaccinated, the less a virus can spread.

[Recursion]

231. Well, that's not entirely true. A vaccine does not offer 100% immunity to an individual

A given individual can get the flu vaccine and still get the flu, or even get the smallpox vaccine and still get smallpox (that's rarer but not unknown). Vaccines work at the level of the population more than at the level of the individual: if nearly everybody has the rubella vaccination, it's incredibly difficult for a rubella outbreak to start to begin with. But, even if I am vaccinated, I am more safe if my neighbors are too.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

57. some of the most selfish people on earth. deliberately putting the elderly, the newborn, immune

suppressed people at risk. disgusting.

[SheilaT]

90. Actually, the problem is that only one or two

diseases have been eradicated. Smallpox for sure, and I know that polio is more or less moving in that direction.

All the other diseases we have vaccinations for are still out there, easily spread, and eager to jump into available humans. It is possible the anti vaccination people don't quite understand the germ theory of disease, or how viruses move around.

[MattBaggins]

168. It's the educated idiots crowd

I have a masters in English literature so my years of college make me better qualified than actual doctors.

Entire families wiped out by diphtheria is such a distant memory, it has in effect been forgotten. Show anti vaxxers pictures of Iron Lung Wards of Yore and they don't know what to make of them.

[Dont call me Shirley]

43. Hey HuckleBerry Finn, why did you not blame the Fundy Christians who refuse to vaccinate?

[HuckleB]

46. Who said I didn't blame them?

[Dont call me Shirley]

60. The article you cited bears no reference to Fundy Christian groups, nor did you in post.

All children should be vaccinated.

The pharmaceutical companies bear the responsibility to provide vaccines which are SAFE and effective. A major concern of the anti-vaccine crowd is that the drug companies are adding too many unsafe additives and not effectively purifying the end product. This may cause serious illness or death in sensitive individuals, which is vehemently denied by the drug companies as they wish not to bear any liability.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

66. because the article is about a specific location, not particularly overrun my fundies.

[Dont call me Shirley]

75. The article states actress Jenny McCarthy and Actor Rob Schneider. Are they a place?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

81. actually the article specifically talks about LA. nt

[Dont call me Shirley]

86. But the healine says RICH HOLLYWOOD ANTI-VAXXERS, and the article cites the two above.

It is about the epidemic in LA, but the underlying point is blaming of the epidemic on the rich Hollywood anti-vax crowd.

Many kids who have had the vaccine are also getting the disease.

[zappaman]

87. Surely you are just nitpicking.

Do you think kids should be vaccinated?

[Dont call me Shirley]

91. And the nitpicking goes both ways. My kids are vaccinated.

Although, the pharmaceutical companies are for free-market, no regulation. They are not making a high quality vaccine, only that which just barely passes the mark. And the FDA will approve anything that has enough dollars attached to it. Clean up the vaccines and take out the Themerasil.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

95. its not in most vaccines

'Since 2001, with the exception of some influenza (flu) vaccines, thimerosal is not used as a preservative in routinely recommended childhood vaccines.'

[Dont call me Shirley]

96. Flu and pneumovax. The drug companies still need to clean up all the vaccines.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

108. yes, which means its not in any of these vaccines that people are not giving their kids.

[Dont call me Shirley]

111. The flu vaccine is given to kids and pregnant women. They're still getting mercury injections.

Mercury is toxic in any amount to humans and mammals.

[HuckleB]

124. The flu vaccine never contained enough mercury to be concerned.

Since you're paranoid, know that it's not in vaccines for kids or pregnant women.

Please stop pretending otherwise. Thank you.

[Dont call me Shirley]

264. Have a conversation with someone who knows a lot more about that than you

Robert Kennedt Jr and Mike Papantonio

[MattBaggins]

177. Not a true statement

[HuckleB]

188. It's a very true statement.

Are you really that out to lunch?

[MattBaggins]

191. Mercury is not toxic in "any amount"

It's form is very important to how it is metabolized and Thiomersal was never the boogey man it was made out to be.

[bhikkhu]

123. Thimerosal was removed from all children's vaccines in 2001

...its only currently still used in the flu shots. There's been an abundance of research on it, pretty conclusively showing it to be harmless in the quantities given. They took it out anyway.

Autism begins in the womb, not when a kid is vaccinated.

[HuckleB]

189. Exactly!!!!!!

[MattBaggins]

173. I worked on three clinical phase injectable drugs

We mopped the ceilings and walls in our work areas.
We ran our HVACS at higher turn over rates than required
We went beyond every regulation and test parameter the FDA set
We ran our equipment washers 20 minutes longer than needed
We had to run TOC checks on the rinse water for EVERY piece of equipment we cleaned
We steamed and autoclaved all items at higher pressures and lengths of time than the FDA stated.

We washed everything with Water for Injection. 5000 liter 316L SS vessels rinsed with thousands of liters of WFI to get a conductivity of less then 3 micro siemens (FDA only requires 30 yet we took it down a factor of 10)

WE TOOK EVERY REQUIRED PARAMETER AND INCREASED THEM

We had little plastic coated magnets for mixing solutions for post use testing of filters and even though they would never see product contact, we still soaked them for an hour in 20% 12N NaOH, submitted rinse samples and autoclaved them.

I am sorry to be so blunt but you have no idea what you are talking about. There is nothing to clean up.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

92. yes, because in places like LA (which is what the article is specifically referring to)

the biggest threats are not fundies who are antivaccine, but rich hollywood crazies.

[Dont call me Shirley]

93. Ok so this is what happens when two lionesses encounter one another

[La Lioness Priyanka]

94. or people talk in circles. nt

[HuckleB]

121. Ah, so you were being disingenuous from the start.

Vaccines are safe and effective.

If you want to believe in conspiracy BS, that's your choice.

The evidence against those theories is astounding.

[MattBaggins]

170. The anti vaxers keep moving the goal posts.

They are concerned that pharm companies are adding eye of newt and pixie dust.

I worked on a process development team for purification of clinical phase monoclonal antibodies. The products were safe and purified. Our standards were above ANY OTHER INDUSTRY. I will bet my left testicle that the ground up roots and berries from the local "All Natural" voodoo store are no where near as pure nor as rigorously tested.

The concern is manufactured and idiotic.

[ucrdem]

171. (oops, meant to respond to the OP, moved to #172)

[Blue_In_AK]

45. My grandson's school is in West LA

(Venice, to be precise), but it has a fairly good record according to that interactive chart. I know he has his shots, anyway, so he doesn't have much to worry about. I really don't understand the anti-vax mentality. I know I didn't get polio after being directly exposed to my very sick aunt because we were given the vaccine while it was still in its trial stages back in 1952 or '53.

[HuckleB]

47. +1

[Blue_In_AK]

50. I'm not sure how it was that my doctor had samples

since I was quite young at the time, but I remember him meeting us in his office at night, after we learned that my aunt (who we had been visiting in Florida) had polio instead of the flu, and shooting us up with the vaccine. As a kid, of course, I didn't care for the shot, but polio would have been ever so much worse. The sugar cubes were a great invention.

[Art_from_Ark]

88. I remember getting my sugar cube

just before I entered 1st grade.

[MattBaggins]

196. Without that vaccine you could have very well

been one of the people who spent a lifetime in an Iron Lung.

[Blue_In_AK]

212. Yes, I know.

It was very common when I was a kid. My mother always made me take a nap or at least a rest in the afternoon even when I was five and six years old because she thought it would make me stronger to resist the disease. My aunt almost died her first night in the hospital but made what her doctors called a "miraculous" recovery - so much so that her local newspaper in Bradenton, Florida, did a multi-page story on her.

[KamaAina]

54. "a resurgence appears to be their goal"

Not quite. They're convinced that VACCINES CAUSE AUTISM MONKEY BRAINS WHARGARBLE!!1!!!11!1!!

[La Lioness Priyanka]

59. ..

[nomorenomore08]

260. +2

[La Lioness Priyanka]

56. no shit. nt

[Douglas Carpenter]

129. unfortunatley - many vulnerable parents of autistic children have fallen for this hoax, perhaps in

their zeal to find an explanation as to why their child is autistic. It is true that in 1980 only about one in 10,000 children were diagnosed with autism - now about one in 88 children eight or younger are identified as having an Autism Spectrum Disorder. Even from 2009 there is 23% increase. On the surface one could think an epidemic is rapidly spreading. IN reality - few people knew anything about autism back in 1980. Most children that today would be diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorders back then where frequently diagnosed as retarded, childhood schizophrenic, or some other condition or they were thought to be either a behavior problem or just weird. This increased awareness about the Autism Spectrum has resulted in a dramatic increase in diagnosis which is being misinterpreted as an explosion of an epidemic.

[HuckleB]

130. Too true, and yet...

... it's mostly people who have bought into the fear that their kid might develop autism because of vaccines that has caused the resurgence in disease.

That fear is not necessarily derived from the majority of parents who have kids on the spectrum. Most of them are quite knowledgeable.

[Douglas Carpenter]

136. that's true most parents of autistic children and most adults with autims

are not buying into this. In fact many find the whole thing very offensive.

[HuckleB]

143. +1

[chrisa]

148. "Climate change was invented to make Al Gore / the climate change industry lots of money!"

^ The same logic that's used by anti-vaxxers. Everybody who doesn't buy into their nutty bullshit is a paid shill, and science itself is nothing more than corporate propaganda.

Note that these are the same people who are prone to believing in bull crap like healing crystals and homeopathy.

[Douglas Carpenter]

155. Vaccines are not associated with autism: An evidence-based meta-analysis of case-control and cohort

studies

Luke E. Taylor,
Amy L. Swerdfeger,
Guy D. Eslick,

The Whiteley-Martin Research Centre, Discipline of Surgery, The University of Sydney, Nepean Hospital, Level 3, Clinical Building, PO Box 63, Penrith 2751, NSW, Australia

Received 29 November 2013, Revised 16 April 2014, Accepted 23 April 2014, Available online 9 May 2014


Highlights

•
There was no relationship between vaccination and autism (OR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.92 to 1.06).
•
There was no relationship between vaccination and ASD (autism spectrum disorder) (OR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.68 to 1.20).
•
There was no relationship between [autism/ASD] and MMR (OR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.70 to 1.01).
•
There was no relationship between [autism/ASD] and thimerosal (OR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.77 to 1.31).
•
There was no relationship between [autism/ASD] and mercury (Hg) (OR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.93 to 1.07).
•
Findings of this meta-analysis suggest that vaccinations are not associated with the development of autism or autism spectrum disorder.


Abstract

There has been enormous debate regarding the possibility of a link between childhood vaccinations and the subsequent development of autism. This has in recent times become a major public health issue with vaccine preventable diseases increasing in the community due to the fear of a ‘link’ between vaccinations and autism. We performed a meta-analysis to summarise available evidence from case-control and cohort studies on this topic (MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar up to April, 2014). Eligible studies assessed the relationship between vaccine administration and the subsequent development of autism or autism spectrum disorders (ASD). Two reviewers extracted data on study characteristics, methods, and outcomes. Disagreement was resolved by consensus with another author. Five cohort studies involving 1,256,407 children, and five case-control studies involving 9,920 children were included in this analysis. The cohort data revealed no relationship between vaccination and autism (OR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.92 to 1.06) or ASD (OR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.68 to 1.20), nor was there a relationship between autism and MMR (OR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.70 to 1.01), or thimerosal (OR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.77 to 1.31), or mercury (Hg) (OR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.93 to 1.07). Similarly the case-control data found no evidence for increased risk of developing autism or ASD following MMR, Hg, or thimerosal exposure when grouped by condition (OR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.83 to 0.98; p = 0.02) or grouped by exposure type (OR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.76 to 0.95; p = 0.01). Findings of this meta-analysis suggest that vaccinations are not associated with the development of autism or autism spectrum disorder. Furthermore, the components of the vaccines (thimerosal or mercury) or multiple vaccines (MMR) are not associated with the development of autism or autism spectrum disorder

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X14006367?np=y

[ucrdem]

172. CDC: "no vaccine is 100% safe or effective.

"Differences in the way individual immune systems react to a vaccine account for rare occasions when people are not protected following immunization or when they experience side effects."

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaccine_monitoring/history.html

If the CDC is ready to admit that vaccines are not 100% safe and effective, and damage awards have been rolling out at a brisk clip since Congress passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) in 1986, which established the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program that "compensates individuals who have been injured by vaccines on a 'no-fault' basis," possibly DU can acknowledge the sad fact that some vaccines are dangerous to some children?

[HuckleB]

176. Can you admit that "a brisk clip" is a ridiculous verb to utilize?

The thing about the NCVIA, is that it gives awards with minimal evidence of cause. It exists because we live in a litigious society, and we know that vaccines prevent illness and death.

Can you admit that?

[ucrdem]

179. The verb is "pays," and the USG has been paying vax damages for 28 yrs.

Read all about it:

The program covers all routinely recommended childhood vaccinations. Settlements are based on the Vaccine Injury Table, which summarizes the adverse events caused by vaccines. This table was developed by a panel of experts who reviewed the medical literature and identified the serious adverse events that are reasonably certain to be caused by vaccines. Examples of table injuries include anaphylaxis (severe allergic reaction), paralytic polio, and encephalopathy (general brain disorder).

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaccine_monitoring/history.html

So it seems a US government panel is "reasonably certain" that vaccines can and do cause "general brain disorder."

That's from the CDC.

Can you admit that?

[HuckleB]

204. Can you admit that it has nothing to do with causation?

If not, you really need to get a better hobby. You're causing harm.

[ucrdem]

208. I'll admit your response has nothing to do with what I posted.

And I don't expect they'll get any better.

[HuckleB]

247. You've posted nothing that has anything to do the OP.

Or with anything that matters.

End of discussion.

[ucrdem]

182. National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program - link:

On October 1, 1988, the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-660) created the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). The VICP was established to ensure an adequate supply of vaccines, stabilize vaccine costs, and establish and maintain an accessible and efficient forum for individuals found to be injured by certain vaccines. The VICP is a no-fault alternative to the traditional tort system for resolving vaccine injury claims that provides compensation to people found to be injured by certain vaccines.

http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/index.html

Please let this sink in: the USG "provides compensation to people found to be injured by certain vaccines."

That's "people found to be injured by certain vaccines."

"people . . . injured by . . . vaccines."

Are you starting to get the picture?

[HuckleB]

192. Do you not understand that science is not represented well by juries?

That's why this system was created. It's there to ensure that diseases are held at bay.

Are you getting the REAl picture!?????

[ucrdem]

195. "The U. S. Court of Federal Claims decides who will be paid." nt

[HuckleB]

199. Which means what, exactly?

Are you that clueless about how science works?

[ucrdem]

201. It means people are injured by vaccines. nt

[HuckleB]

240. It means we've decided to give money for correlation, not causation...

... because vaccines save lives and prevent disability.

Try again.

[Tumbulu]

213. Are you deluded enough to believe that no one has a reaction to a vaccine?

Of course there will always be a susceptible individual, and this is why they have come up with this system.

If you actually studied biology, this would not be a foreign concept.

But bullying is much more fun, I take it.

[HuckleB]

229. Why can't you respond to the actual content of my posts?

You've never been able to do so.

Yes, anyone who wants to do so, can Google away, and note that reality!!!!

[Tumbulu]

242. Please seek medical help

Or reading help, or something.

[HuckleB]

245. Wow!

Just wow!

[Tumbulu]

210. The style of your rhetoric is a turn off and is counterproductive

If you think that issues regarding vaccination should be part of the Democratic Party Platform

then I want to suggest that you discuss the issue in educated and insightful ways.

I recommend that you focus on the many benefits that they give to a civilized society. Such as allowing people to bring infants out into public (a very new concept, actually). Which then allows parents to leave children with caregivers without fear of the deadly childhood diseases that wracked our ancestors, and thinned the ranks of our species, as all pathogens do. Point out how the current lowering of overall herd immunity puts at risk our youngest, weakest and our oldest. Encourage, educate and discuss.

Refrain from ridiculing, bullying, name calling and pretending that you know more about the issue than others who have actually studied it (unless of course you actually do, but then be humble about it at least).

The general discussions on DU regarding this matter are appalling and a complete turn off to most anyone who comes here. The discussions come off as dictatorial and mean spirited. And not intelligent, or interesting. Plus the typical screaming posters appear just as crazed as the conservatives that so many of us on DU enjoy poking fun at. There are an abundance of liberal reasons to support universal and free vaccination of children. The most powerful political way that we as a community have helped increase the childhood vaccination rate has been through the expansion of the healthcare system through the Affordable Care Act. How about patting ourselves on the back a bit about making it FREE to get the vaccines.

Focus on what is good, what is important and how we have come to depend upon these conveniences of the day.

You will lose any chance of inclusiveness by ridiculing and accusing people of all the horrid things that you banter about. Your absolute need to vilify people is quite troubling.

[HuckleB]

228. Take a look at your other posts on this particular topic.

Then get back to us. Hypocrisy is not cool.

[Tumbulu]

232. So you actually think that a politician would get votes

utilizing your crazed approach? Get real mister. Your bullying approach turns sensible people off.

But I suspect that you do not really care about getting people to see the value in vaccinations. Or having any political impact. This is a political board, you know, don't you?

[HuckleB]

235. Presenting the reality of the consensus of evidence is "bullying?"

Interesting.

[Tumbulu]

241. You bully non stop and you don't even read people's posts

This is not a way to discuss or educate.

Ridiculing people and belittling them engender resentment and do not open any minds.

If you actually cared about the subject matter you would consider your style of communicating.

But it just must be too fun to bully and demean.

You suffer from the very problem that you accuse the anti vac people of.

[HuckleB]

243. So, you make baseless accusations, repeatedly.

Got it.

[A Little Weird]

262. +1

[arikara]

255. Sometimes I really miss the unrec button

n/t

[SidDithers]

265. DU rec...

Fuck the anti-vax asshats, wherever they're from.

Sid