Automotive Holiday Deals Books Gift Guide Books Gift Guide Shop Men's Athletic Shoes Learn more nav_sap_SWP_6M_fly_beacon Prime Music Sweepstakes egg_2015 All-New Amazon Fire TV Luxury Beauty Gifts Under $50 Amazon Gift Card Offer cm15 cm15 cm15 $30 Off Amazon Echo $15 Off All-New Fire Kindle Voyage Cyber Monday Sweepstakes in Prime Music Outdoor Deals on HTL
Customer Discussions > Health forum

Anti Vaccines - Disease by Injection?

This discussion has reached the maximum length permitted, and cannot accept new replies. Start a new discussion

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 201-225 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jul 15, 2011 2:15:03 PM PDT
Darks says:
Actually, we said that it was a belief of many PRO-vaxers, and so argued against it.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 15, 2011 2:28:38 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 15, 2011 2:33:22 PM PDT
ParrotSlave says:
Darks, I guess you don't keep up with the news. For instance, in 2008 one unvaccinated boy contracted measles while vacationing with his family in Switzerland, and upon his return to San Diego, he started a mini-epidemic of 11 cases, one of which required hospitalization. Other than the resources used by society to treat the disease, such outbreaks are is no skin off our backs except when they affect those who are too young to be vaccinated. But in the case in question, three of the victims had merely been in a pediatrician's office and were too young to have been vaccinated anyway, so this assault, this unintentional act of bio-terrorism, this spread of an infectious disease to other individuals, was an incident that was preventable: it would not have occurred had the individual been vaccinated, and it did cause injury to others, including others who were not part of the anti-vaccine lobby. This is just one example. (See For an epidemiological study of the relationship between disease incidence and non-vaccination--which is a no-brainer, actually--see, for example,

In addition to not keeping up with the news, apparently you have never heard about the fact that people who are immune compromised live among us. Such individuals are at extremely high risk for contracting infectious diseases, and cannot be around, not only people who have contracted an infectgious disease, but those who have recently been vaccinated, to avoid contact with viral shedding. That category of immunocompromised individuals includes people with diseases such as HIV, as well as people undergoing various drug treatments, such as cytotoxic chemotherapy, or even steroid treatments, and persons who have received organ transplants. There also exist a number of uncommon disorders characterized by immune suppression, such as Wiscott-Aldrich syndrome, DiGeorge syndrome, Combined immunodeficiency disease, and others. Perhaps I should not mention the danger to unborn children, as in the case of exposure to measles. In the case of individuals receiving chemotherapy, you would think that a cytotoxic chemotherapy drug would kill a bacterium directly and keep virally infected cells from reproducing, but the extent to which the chemotherapy is targeted means that such an effect is not normally observed.

Find a good make-up artist and get yourself made up to look as though you have a severe case of measles, then walk into a cancer treatment center, or any hospital actually, and see how they treat you. Try to visit someone there who is seriously ill: see how they react. Having had cancer treatment myself during 2004, I can assure you that many of us don't want to be anywhere near the unvaccinated--the lepers of today.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 15, 2011 2:51:03 PM PDT
Darks says:
Lol! I asked for evidence that an unvaccinated individual was more likely to cause harm to another than a vaccinated individual, and you provided me a story in which a single unvaccinated child gave measles to 11 others.

Unless you are suggesting that a vaccinated child would not have contracted measles, your story has no relevance to the question I asked. And even if you did, I'd bet good money that some of those 11 were vaccinated against measles too. Weren't you the one saying that a study comparing disease levels between vax and unvax people needed to be done?

Posted on Jul 15, 2011 2:57:46 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 15, 2011 2:58:53 PM PDT
Brian says:
"Darks, I guess you don't keep up with the news. For instance, in 2008 one unvaccinated boy contracted measles while vacationing with his family in Switzerland, and upon his return to San Diego, he started a mini-epidemic of 11 cases, one of which required hospitalization."

Are you absolutely, positively certain that those 11 individuals were also not vaccinated?
If they were, and they still got measels, how did they get it?
If they were, and they took the same trip, any one of them would also bring back the same disease with him/her. Would we hear about it then? No. We only hear about "news" when an unvaccinated child is involved, to hell with all those vaccinated ones who are just as much danger to everyone, if not more so.

BTW, at least those 11 children now have true, natural immunity to measles, as opposed to vaccinated children who do not. One day, when they all grow up, who is in more danger of dying? Those who do not have the natural, good-for-the-rest-of-their-life, immunity to measles.

Posted on Jul 15, 2011 3:08:32 PM PDT
Brian says:
Never mind, just found out about the case of the sick boy from San Diego on the net. True, he was not vaccinated, and it seems that other kids were not either (or so "they" say).
The problem was not that he was not vaccinated but rather that his parents sent him to school AFTER he already showed clear signs of a disease - rash and high fever. I don't know if I would even blame them, considering that doctors were not concerned either, even with his high fever and rash. As per CDC web site:
" No isolation precautions were instituted at the doctors' offices or hospital facilities. "

Common sense dictates that when one is sick, that one stays in bed, at home. If there is a clear rash present, one has to assume the WORST first. What if the disease was smallpox?

We have a rule in our company that if you have a fever or flu or anything like that, you do NOT come to work, for obvious reasons.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 15, 2011 3:15:02 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 15, 2011 3:18:29 PM PDT
ParrotSlave says:
Brian, I will trust the statements of the CDC regarding its investigation of the incident, at the link I posted. Obviously, you did not check out the facts. That is just one instance. Darks, as far as vaccinated individuals contracting a disease, true, no vaccine provides 100% protection, but it does protect most people who receive it, and reduce the severity of the disease in those who contract it anyway. Why else do you think we vaccinate people--just for the heck of it? Duh. Get thee hence.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 15, 2011 3:21:39 PM PDT
NicoBella says:
Vaccinations did not eradicate polio

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 15, 2011 3:29:48 PM PDT
NicoBella says:
George..."we" vaccinate people because the money is gravy for the pharmaceuticals...estimated to top $34 billion in 2012..."duh".

What part did vaccines play in the eradication of Polio? none & worse - it created disease. Read what the inventors of the polio vaccine had to say:

"Jonas Salk, inventor of the IPV, testified before a Senate subcommittee that nearly all polio outbreaks since 1961 were caused by the oral polio vaccine."

"Official data shows that large scale vaccination has failed to obtain any significant improvement of the diseases against which they were supposed to provide protection" - Dr. Sabin, developer of Polio vaccine.

Vaccines do not "protect most people who receive it"

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 15, 2011 3:31:22 PM PDT
Darks says:
You're not hearing me, mate. I have asked for evidence that unvaccinated individuals are sicker and more contagious than their vaccinated peers. You can ramble on and on but without it your anti-anti-vax rant was meaningless.

And to further muddy the waters you're wading through, I should remind you that significantly more vaccinated individuals contracted pertussis than unvaccinated during last years whooping cough epidemic in California.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 15, 2011 3:39:29 PM PDT
Brian says:
"Why else do you think we vaccinate people--just for the heck of it? Duh. Get thee hence. "

Wow, you got us all stumped with that one... let's see - really why do "we" vaccinate people... Here are some ideas:

- "For the heck of it?" - maybe. Or, rather, to keep our jobs. See, what would nurses who give vaccines do, if they had no vaccines to give? How about doctors? What about manufacturers? So, yes, partially, it may be just for the "heck" of it, if "heck" is "job".

- To make them healthier? Hmm, no, because those who are not vaccinated are more healthy than those who are not. And I do not mean just among us, vaccinated people, but I mean, when we compare people in less vaccinated countries with those in more vaccinated ones, we see that less vaccinated have an advantage. (the data is easy to find)

- How about money? Let's see: GlaxoSmithKline, one of the largest vaccine makers in the world, currently, with its stock actually quite low, has a total market cap of 110 billion dollars. Merck, as coincidence would have it, also has market cap of $110 billion dollars. Sanofy-Aventis is slightly smaller: market cap of only $102 billion dollars. That's just three of them, there are more.

If hundreds of billions of dollars is not a really good reason, I do not know what is. (just to put things in perspective: the value of these three, is more then total domestic product of Greece). I've seen wars started for a lot less then just a few hundred billion dollars and corporations sacrificing human life for even less (Legendary "Ford Pinto Memo" comes to mind here)...

There, I think we got to the bottom of that one.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 15, 2011 3:51:44 PM PDT
"Actually, we said that it was a belief of many PRO-vaxers, and so argued against it."

Yeah, but you argued it with me when you clearly knew that, unlike PRO-vaxers, it wasn't my stance on their usefulness.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 15, 2011 3:55:01 PM PDT
There have been recent case-control studies on SV40 and so far, there is no evidence it causes cancer in humans. Besides, that was back when PCR technology wasn't sensitive enough to amplify and detect SV40 DNA present in the end vaccine product......granted I think they shouldn't have used such tissue if they weren't going to be sure to detect it sufficiently.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 15, 2011 3:56:25 PM PDT
Darks says:
But it's not really about you now, is it?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 15, 2011 4:04:35 PM PDT
"But it's not really about you now, is it?"

Never said it was now. That's why I used key words and phrases like "in the other thread" and "arguED". Keep up Darks.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 15, 2011 4:05:28 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 15, 2011 9:42:33 PM PDT
ParrotSlave says:
The first point to argue regarding the contention that getting a particular disease is better than not getting that disease (because that disease was prevented by vaccination) is how much injury, how many complications, and how many deaths would result from the disease itself, a factor you fail to consider.

Despite your contention that "natural immunity" confers lifetime protection, that is not always the case. You would think that you have natural immunity to chickenpox if you had the disease as a child, but, just a year or so ago, I obtained a varicella-zoster vaccination because the fact is that the same virus that I thought I was protected against--for a lifetime--causes shingles in older adults. As a matter of fact, the reason I was at risk for shingles is the fact that I HAD the disease as a child. "You cannot develop shingles unless you have had an earlier exposure to chickenpox, and most people who get chickenpox are at risk for shingles." (

One of the reasons for the re-emergence of pertussis (whooping cough) as a disease of interest is that fact that we now know that the immunity conferred by vaccination does wear off--as does that conferred by having had the disease: "loss of immunity to known to occur after both natural infection and vaccination." (

The medical community is now scrambling to try and get people to maintain their immunity by getting revaccinated. In addition to the threat caused by those who are unvaccinated, we now have to worry about those who are effectively unvaccinated in the sense that they are no longer immune, in which group I must admit that I belong, since I had never thought about the issue, having assumed, until just now, that my having had pertussis as an infant and having been given the vaccine for it as a treatment made me immune to this day--NOT! In other words, I, too, was a victim of the delusion that I had a lifetime of immunity to it. I appreciate you having drawn me into this because I now know that I need to rectify the situation.

"Compared with other vaccine-preventable diseases, HCPs [health care professionals] did not perceive pertussis as a serious disease in adults and there was a low perceived need for adult vaccination; only 17% mentioned pertussis as a disease they would usually vaccinate adults against. Pertussis incidence was considered to be low. Although the majority of HCPs agreed that vaccination is useful to prevent pertussis transmission from adults to susceptible infants, respondents discussed pertussis vaccination with ≤5% of patients; 58% respondents had never prescribed a pertussis vaccine to adults. The perceived low incidence of pertussis in adults and the lack of official guidelines/recommendations were cited as key reasons for not administering pertussis boosters....Awareness of adult pertussis, its diagnosis and guidance on pertussis boosters should be raised to protect adults and vulnerable infants and to manage the consequences of waning pertussis immunity." (

So much for your lifetime protection. I understand that, like most people, you want the issues to be simple, and to be able to make vague generalities that are always true, but the issue of the efficacy of, and the degree of protection conferred by, vaccination varies with the vaccine (and, obviously, with the individual). Polio vaccination appears to confer lifetime immunity. Tetanus vaccination confers very short-lived immunity. Hepatitis A vaccination confers lifetime immunity. Rubella vaccination appears to confer lifetime immunity. If you have dogs, you may have noticed changes in rabies vaccination schedules: it now appears that two vaccinations confers lifetime immunity to rabies in dogs and horses.

Vaccinations vary in the amount of protection they provide. Obviously, a vaccination is not as much an insult to the body as the disease itself, and the body is not going to react identically. NPR discusses the issue this way: "It turns out that there are no simple answers to the question of whether natural immunity caused by exposure to a germ is better than the industrial version. 'It varies from vaccine to vaccine,' says Samuel Katz, an inventor of the measles vaccine and a chairman emeritus of pediatrics at Duke Medical School." (

Whether or not the immunity conferred by the vaccine is better or worse than the natural immunity has no bearing on the question of how much danger the disease is to those who contract it. You may have heard of "booster" vaccines to strengthen vaccine-acquired immunity as a solution to the problem in the case of those vaccines in which it is an issue.

In the case of pertussis, Flemish researchers Hoffait, et al, hypothesize that, "during the prevaccine era teenagers' and adults' primed immunity was frequently boosted by reexposure, so maintaining herd immunity in the face of potentially eroding individual immunity. In contrast, low pathogen circulation in the current era, except during epidemic outbreaks, allows immunity to be lost before reexposure occurs." (

Their explanation is the most reasonable one for the complex epidemiological evidence. In other words, vaccination in this case dictates a necessity for continuous re-vaccination because the vaccine is so successful. In the past, those who were immune--whether naturally or by vaccination--kept getting natural "boosters" in the form of regular re-exposure, those re-exposures not occurring anymore due to the simple fact that the vaccine is successful.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 15, 2011 4:07:47 PM PDT
Darks says:
I'm just glad we're both on the same page for once. Hope I didn't just jinx it...

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 16, 2011 6:32:58 AM PDT
Darks says:
Oh, how did I miss this post?

"But it sounds almost like you are preaching predestination to me: it sounds like you are saying that there is no point in eliminating a particular cause--as by vaccination--because those people who would have contracted the disease from the pathogen you have eliminated will now miraculously contract it from a different pathogen."

Lol. What I'm saying is that with the Hib vaccine, we hit our target but failed to bring the beast to it's knees. Really, the main reason the Hib vaccine was created and introduced was to combat several diseases we thought was mainly caused by haemophilus influenzae type B. The thinking was that if we removed Hib as a factor, disease rates for which Hib contributes would drastically fall. According to available data, the vaccine was hugely successful in eradicating incidence of Hib. Yet, for some unfathomable reason, total death rates for diseases associated with Hib were unaffected by the vaccine's introduction. Meningitis, pneumonia, no discernible effect.

I am not putting forward suggestions as to why it failed. I merely point out that it did. I don't believe that there is a set number of people predestined to die from a specific disease regardless of what steps you take to eradicate it. I just think--as I have always thought--that reliance on the elimination of dangerous pathogens will get us nowhere. Proper nutrition, sanitation, exercise, organic food and freakin' grass-fed beef (LOL) will do far more for your overall health than vaccines ever will.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 16, 2011 1:01:37 PM PDT
clb says:
you mention smoking, big tobacco companies lied for years about the dangers of their products.

the makers of vaccine companies lie, by keeping secrets about contaminated vaccines. one example, Hep B virus turned up in some yellow fever vaccines, and I didn't hear about this on the nightly news. I am way more concerned about what is actually in a shot, then the actual disease, shots are designed to prevent.

I supposed, most believe everything the number crunchers in public health put forth. I don't.

vaccines are not designed to prevent death, however that is a commonly held belief.

do you realize influenza shots are a crap shoot, nobody knows which strains of influenza will circulate in a coming flu season.

however ,they are guessing , making decisions on strains which to include in the shot.

I don't bother getting flu shots and have yet to get the flu.

I don't understand all the worry over these diseases we currently shoot up our kids for.

maybe read the CDC's pink book!

the next big killer disease will not have a vaccine, takes time to develop, no crystal balls yet.

killer diseases start in dirty environments, deadly flu strains for example ,usually start on the farm.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 16, 2011 10:59:27 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 18, 2011 10:29:16 PM PDT
ParrotSlave says:
I get the shots and hope they guessed correctly. I don't blame them for not being omniscient if their guess is wrong. The only time I ever had the flu as a adult was the year that I skipped the shot.

Speaking about the farm--and preventable diseases--yes, killer diseases do start in deadly environments, such as that which led to 4 deaths from e. coli in 1993 from eating Jack-in-the-Box hamburgers, or that which led to 49 deaths from e. coli in Europe this year, the origin of which is still unknown. The majority of such deadly infections are of food origin, but waterborne, animal and person-to-person infections also contribute. One outbreak of e. coli in 1998 originated from an infant wearing diapers playing in a pool that was not chlorinated enough.

The CDC estimates that 5000 people die each year from food-borne disease--food poisoning: 5000 preventable yearly deaths. Of course, many of our politicians don't like the idea that one of the purposes of government might be to regulate things like that, especially when following sanitation rules, keeping records, etc., costs money to the businesses involved. You can probably turn on a news channel right now and find some politician railing on about how terrible these regulations are and how bad it is for our economy that business are straddled with such back-breaking rules as the necessity of serving contaminant-free food and drugs.

I think that most of us know that, when it comes to pharmaceuticals and vaccines, some political forces would rather not see any regulation at all, and most of us would admit that, when it comes to the enforcement of what regulations do exist, we would rather have this done by parties are that completely independent of financial pressure from the drug industry--and from political pressure--so very few of us approve of the status quo.

When it comes to vaccines, we all admit that there is going to be an occasional idiosyncratic reation, sad though it may be. The smallpox vaccine caused one to two deaths per million doses. Although the risk/benefit numbers vary from one vaccine to another, I continue to be shocked that there actually exist people who do not recognize that vaccines have saved many lives. Even if pharmaceutical companies have fudged their figures in a few cases, which I don't know but would not be surprised at, and even taking into account their occasional mix-ups, like one lot of the first batch of polio vaccines that contained live polio viruses, when you look at the totality of vaccinations in the history of medicine, there is absolutely no question that the benefits have outweighed the risks a thousand-fold.

Anti-vaccinators exaggerate the risk and minimize the benefit: in fact, I see precious few of them admitting that there could be any benefit, which should show you right there that they are not running on all cylinders. You could use their "argument" to claim that we should eliminate all surgery, because some people die on the operating table, or from complications, and they would argue--I should use the word contend instead of argue, since the word argue usually implies the use of logic--that we don't know for sure that the patients who got well after the surgery did so as a result of the surgery. Then they would use the fact that some surgeries are performed unnecessarily--presumably economically motivated--as "proof" that "All" surgeries are "evil." But the "system" does seem to work--although it takes too long--as witness the fact that famous heart surgeon Dr. Midei had his license to practice medicine revoked recently for performing unnecessary surgeries. Does that mean that we should outlaw all heart surgeries?

I am surprised that the anti-vaccine lobby is not opposing the practice of medicine in its entirety. Using the same kind of "argument" they advance against vaccination when it comes to the question of risk/benefit, they would no doubt contend that doctors are "playing God" when they treat us at all for diseases, or especially when doctors have to choose who to treat first.

Posted on Jul 16, 2011 11:42:40 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 17, 2011 12:46:12 AM PDT
ParrotSlave says:
I will have to take into consideration the possibility of becoming publicly anti-vaccine in order to try and influence people to stop taking vaccines, thereby increasing deaths and helping reduce global overpopulation; that is one rational (although, to me, unethical) reason to oppose vaccinations.

Another reason that would explain opposition to vaccination is eugenics: opponents would not dare state their beliefs publicly in that case because the idea of eugenics is associated with figures like Adolf Hitler.

This would be the argument they would not dare advance to oppose vaccinations: allowing those who otherwise would have died to survive, to live and reproduce, is changing the evolutionary course of the human race. Instead of the weak dying, the weak survive and reproduce, so that, in the very long run, the human race might lose its ability to react to environmental change. You cannot stop evolution, but medicine has certainly slowed down a significant contributor to it. The biologically (or evolutionarily) fit are no longer the only survivors: almost everyone survives to reproduce. So anyone who believes that--and there would have to be some--might logically espouse eliminating vaccinations in order to help "purify" the human race, to eliminate the "weak."

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 16, 2011 11:49:54 PM PDT
Darks says:
LMAO. For someone who hates nutty conspiracy theories and unscientific arguments, you sure put forward your fair share of both.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 17, 2011 12:27:15 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 17, 2011 11:30:40 PM PDT
ParrotSlave says:
I can understand how people low on critical thinking skills or who never paid attention in junior high school science classes might fall for the anti-vaccine propaganda--the Google university type of people. Remember the original post in this particular forum: the lady suspects that doctors are injecting people with cancer cells in order to drum up business. I am not saying that there might not exist such a psychopathic doctor somewhere, but to assert that such a thing could be a standard practice of "doctors" strikes me as psychotic (or else just "bait" to get a forum started.)

Yet not all the "anti" posts seem to be from loonys. I have searched my brain to try and figure out what could possibly motivate someone with a mind to oppose vaccination. I could see how one might oppose certain vaccinations. But to oppose vaccinations in general, as an allowable medical procedure--that does not seem to be within the realm of possibility for a thinking person. Yet not all of those opposed to vaccination are uneducated, psychotic, and/or merely dimwits. They are obviously well-intentioned: they are on a bandwagon to stop what they imagine is a great evil, one even, perhaps jokingly (?), referring to vaccines as having been invented by Satan.

I continued to wonder: how could someone possibly oppose all vaccinations? Just thinking of the elimination of smallpox would give the procedure some validity, even if it were the only vaccine that had ever had any success. I concluded that the only possible reason for someone with a functional, knowledgeable mind to oppose ALL vaccinations would be some kind of hidden agenda.

So I wondered, what would that agenda be? Then I thought about the success of the smallpox vaccine, and I remembered the loonies who think that vaccines are designed to cause sterility, and it dawned on me: the smallpox vaccination was so successful that its success alone is responsible for a significant amount of human overpopulation. Those hundreds of millions of people who had been dying from it no longer die; not only do they live, worse, they have been propagating, having children, who then have children. You cannot possibly claim that, without the vaccine, 20th century medicine would have been able to cure the disease: while the disease was extant, there was never a cure, and even with the best medical care on earth a few years ago, one of the two who contracted the disease still died. Consider what the world population would be today if you could go back in time and increase the death rates throughout the entire 19th century through today; you would have to realize that the effect would be exponential due to the elimination of subsequent generations. The historical success of the smallpox vaccine is probably the single most important direct contributor to today's global overpopulation.

For someone to oppose that particular success could only have one reason, other than sociopathy: I am not claiming that my particular hypotheses is true or that it is the only explanation. Perhaps I will think of other reasons later. I have no idea whether it's just one person or many who might hold such ideas. Simple logic would dictate that there must be some. The only other explanation I can think of at this moment is that some of it might well be satire or just writing practice.

**I doubt that the original post was satire, but my favorite post in the forum is the one on page 3 by Mr. Jumps: he has their mindset down perfectly--excellent satire.**

I get especially puzzled when I see something that makes sense amidst the confusion, when there's a glimmer of light on the darkling plain. I would agree, for example, that "reliance on the elimination of dangerous pathogens" is not the only thing we should practice. But how illogical it is not to want to try to eliminate them, even though we know that such a practice would only rarely be completely successful, regardless of whatever else we might do? I am well-known for advocating a healthy diet, including the good kind of beef or buffalo, as well as whatever will maintain one's immune system in the best working order. I advocate the best of both worlds: you don't fight a war with just the army, you fight with everything you've got, which may include medicinal mushrooms as well as vaccinations, or curcuminoids as well as antibiotics. I oppose medical extremism--the denial of medicine is at one end of the spectrum, while at the other end is the idea that TWM [traditional western medicine] is all-knowing. If I am ill, I want everything that works to fix it. But I am going to apply reason to everything: no orgone boxes or homeopathic nothingness for me. I'll take the medicinal mushrooms of TCM, but, sorry, I am not going to go for their cinnabar.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 17, 2011 12:40:21 AM PDT
The difference between all these scenarios you put forward and vaccination is free choice, we have no problem with other people vaccinating if that is their wish, but what we have a huge problem with is mandating vaccines for all children, and not providing all of the information (risks and benefits) available for parents to make an informed decision.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 17, 2011 1:10:21 AM PDT
Darks says:
"But I have searched my brain to try and figure out what could possibly motivate someone with a mind to oppose any kind of vaccination, and that's the only thing I could come up with."

This tells me one of two things:

a) You didn't search very hard, or
b) There wasn't much to search through.

Posted on Jul 17, 2011 2:17:18 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 18, 2011 11:38:22 PM PDT
ParrotSlave says:
Millions were infected with a simian virus that contaminated the original polio vaccines. We know that that virus causes cancer in lab animals, and it has been detected in human tumors. That alone would cause a prudent person to be concerned. But its effect in humans has been highly controversial, because epidemiological studies have not found a link, and because not all laboratories are able to find traces of the virus in tumor samples, and there has not been shown to be any unusual correlation between the presence of antibodies to SV40 and the presence of certain cancers. Is there a basic difference between humans and the animals studied that would keep SV40 from causing cancer in us also? We are not hamsters or rats, which are especially susceptible to SV40, and various primates do not seem to be especially susceptible, except in cases of immunodeficiency. Someone could advance the argument that the reason that the virus is less harmful to those primates could well be the result of them having been exposed to it over evolutionarily long periods of time, and that the primate populations we see today are resistant to its effects--but not us, since we have not been historically exposed. The fact that SV40 has been used as a MODEL for a type of brain tumor development--a protein from SV40 interferes with certain proteins that normally keep tumors from forming, among other effects--would, I think, make any thinking person not wish to have it in his or her body, especially when one considers that it causes other diseases, including solid tumors, in a number of species. And the fact that some laboratories cannot find it in tumor cells does not necessarily mean that it is not there.

It may be that we are merely lucky that the effects are not obvious epidemiologically. I would put my money on an eventual cause/effect relationship being found, although, due to confounding factors, the effect will be described as being so tenuous that it falls within the limits of statistical uncertainty.

Regardless of the connection between SV40 and cancers, should we use that contamination incident as an excuse never to use vaccines again? The risk of contamination--any contamination, even prion contamination--can easily be mitigated with proper regulation. If these people who are ranting about vaccines would spend half the energy on political methods to fix the system that allows defective products to hit the market instead of marching around trying to scare people, they might be able to accomplish something worthwhile. I am all in favor of trying to make sure that those who do make regulatory decisions are intelligent, expert--and totally free of financial ties to the drug industry. I would be equally skeptical if a regulator had ties to any in the other camp, such as or any of the others.

My first vaccination was during the initial time frame, so I had to have been infected by it, but I have no fear of vaccination. I can accept fear of such a thing happening again as a reason for not wanting to accept a vaccination, particularly a polio vaccine, although the vaccine is different. But to fear all vaccines? About 20 years ago, Perrier had to recall some of its bottled water because of benzene contamination. Do any of us fear all bottled water and refuse to drink it now? It would seem that someone who thinks that way--someone who refuses to accept risk--would necessarily also refuse to drive anywhere, because defective tires have been known to cause death, and defective cars have been known to cause death. Such a person would refuse to buy any food at any grocery store or restaurant, because contaminated food has been known to cause death. I would think that such people would have to be hermits somewhere outside society, because that's the only way they could avoid such risks. They could not walk down a street out of fear that a tire might come off of a car and strike them, or a hubcap might come off, spin in the air, and cut their jugular veins: it has happened.

I forgot to mention fear as one of the reasons people have for not getting vaccinated because I considered it, when exaggerated, to be a subcategory of loony. Sane people do try to minimize whatever risks there are in their environments, but you cannot eliminate them all. I think it deserves its own category: vaccine phobia, referred to as "The New Pandemic" by writer David Schenk, of the Atlantic. (See

Vaccinophobia is "an exaggerated or irrational fear of vaccines or vaccination." ( Help is available for sufferers of vaccinophobia. I note one internet site selling a downloadable help guide for $137, and a "VIP" customized program for $2,497 that includes "Private Sessions with Board-Certified Specialist" using "Advanced Techniques to Eliminate Underlying Fear" to treat the condition. I apologize; I had been using terms like loony more as a joke, in the sense of eccentricity. Eccentricity is not insanity nor is it a personality disorder, but vaccine phobia is real. We're not talking about a little kid who is afraid of a needle, which is what you think of with vaccinophobia. I suggest that the exaggerated negative response of some thinking adults to vaccination, not necessarily just to vaccination of their own person, as we normally think of when we use the word vaccinophobia, but an exaggerated reaction to anything that has to do with vaccinations, constitutes an anxiety disorder at the least, and in other cases constitutes a delusional disorder. It is quite clearly a delusional disorder when someone actually believes that vaccines are being intentionally used as a covert method to induce cancer in the general population or as a covert method to sterilize large masses of people.

I did not realize that the anti-vaccine ranting could seriously indicate a real mental disorder except in rare cases (and I am not quantifying the intelligence issues that may exist as mental disorders per se) until I thought about the question of why it is that one's intelligence could be apparently so functional most of the time but would break down when it comes to an issue like vaccination. What made me realize it was observing some posts that had individual snippets of perfectly logical observations, but which didn't make a coherent whole, and which were part of an alogical framework, usually as part of an attempted response to another post, but which would miss the entire point, the entire argument, of the other post. Reading some of these posts is like reading the words of someone who can read and understand individual sentences, but who cannot understand the paragraphs of which they are a part, let alone any larger context. Trying to communicate with such people is like trying to teach someone who can add, multiply, and even solve differential equations, but who cannot subtract, which to me would indicate a problem, not with logic, but with something emotional that keeps the logic from manifesting itself. Unfortunately, I have no knowledge of psychiatry so I do not know what terms ought to properly be used to describe what I refer to, but I can see now that no amount of argument would be effective, and that this forum may well be feeding a mental disorder.

I wonder if they can come up with a vaccine to cure vaccine phobia?
Discussion locked

Recent discussions in the Health forum


This discussion

Discussion in:  Health forum
Participants:  227
Total posts:  10000
Initial post:  Jun 17, 2011
Latest post:  Oct 22, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 17 customers

Search Customer Discussions