Customer Discussions > Health forum

Unvaccinated children/adults health history


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 7226-7250 of 1000 posts in this discussion
Posted on Aug 8, 2012 4:57:57 AM PDT
Andrew King says:
lenardd, thanks so much for the Gish Gallop, but which of your links shows mutations among once common childhood viral diseases which have had any impact on vaccination success?

(crickets)

Influenza has been undergoing genetic drifts and shifts (mutating) for a long time - long before vaccines against it were used (for example, the Great Influenza of 1918).

"Of course you need to get sick."

That's a "need" we can do without.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 8, 2012 11:46:12 AM PDT
Andrew,

Here you go:

Temporal trends in the population structure of bordetella pertussis during 1949-1996 in a highly vaccinated population (Netherlands).
http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/7/7/pdfs/01-7708.pdf
Adaptation may have allowed B. pertussis to remain endemic despite widespread vaccination and may have contributed to the reemergence of pertussis in the Netherlands

Temporal Trends in Bordetella pertussis Populations, Denmark, 1949-2010
http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/18/5/pdfs/11-0812.pdf
"The observed genetic changes of B. pertussis could therefore be related to the introduction of vaccines"

Posted on Aug 8, 2012 12:23:15 PM PDT
Andrew King says:
lenardd, here's the relevant full text from that article (not just the one line you quoted):

"The observed genetic changes of B. pertussis could therefore
be related to the introduction of vaccines. However, there
is no evidence that the wP or aP vaccines used in Denmark
have selected for other dominant MT or sequence types
than those observed in other European countries. Also,
since the aP vaccine used in Denmark contains only B.
pertussis toxoid, changes in the prn alleles in period 3 must
have occurred independently of that vaccine. Travel within
Europe has increased substantially since the prevaccine era;
thus, B. pertussis imports from neighboring countries might
explain the shift in the B. pertussis populations in Denmark.
This explanation is supported by the appearance of similar
B. pertussis types around Europe and by the occurrence of
such types in Denmark before the introduction of change
in pertussis vaccines in Denmark. The true explanation for
the changes in genetic diversity among B. pertussis isolates
in Denmark is probably a combination of those 2 theories."

Also, your previous claim about mutations referred to vaccines against viral diseases. Whooping cough is caused by a bacterium (Bordetella pertussis), not a virus.

Posted on Aug 8, 2012 12:51:40 PM PDT
I know I read it. Did you also see:

"Our results show substantial shifts in the B. pertussis population over time
and a reduction in genetic diversity. These changes might
have resulted from the introduction of pertussis vaccines
in Denmark and other parts of Europe."

So how did I misrepresent the study? Also, take a look at the Netherlands study (the other link):

"The population structure of Bordetella pertussis in The Netherlands in 5 successive periods, encompassing 1949-1996, was analyzed by DNA typing ("fingerprinting"). In 10 years following the introduction of wide-scale vaccination in 1953, a decrease in genotypic diversity (GD) was observed, suggesting clonal expansion of strains that were adapted to vaccine-induced immunity."

Also, why would the PVC-7 vaccine be upgraded to PVC-13 if the virus wasn't changing?

http://www.medscape.org/viewarticle/717930

Lastly, it doesn't matter whether you are talking about bacteria or virus. They are both are living organisms and will adapt to whatever external pressures they are subjected to and changed as required. If I'm wrong about this, please enlightment me. :)

Posted on Aug 8, 2012 1:12:32 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 8, 2012 1:12:52 PM PDT
Andrew King says:
"So how did I misrepresent the study?"

See previous post.

"Lastly, it doesn't matter whether you are talking about bacteria or virus. They are both are living organisms and will adapt to whatever external pressures they are subjected to and changed as required. If I'm wrong about this, please enlightment me."

Happy to "enlightment" you.

It is possible for bacteria to mutate under selective pressure, either from natural causes, use of antibiotics or vaccines. This does not mean we should just throw up our hands and not treat or prevent serious bacterial infections, but recognize that as bacteria adapt to medical interventions, we need to adapt too - with wise use of drugs and vaccines to improve health.

"Also, why would the PVC-7 vaccine be upgraded to PVC-13 if the virus wasn't changing?"

You're referring to pneumococcal vaccine. Pneumococcal disease is not caused by a virus, but by a bacterium. And yes, it makes a difference.

" Q. Why didn't viruses like polio and other diseases mutate to become immune to vaccines?"

A. "Bacteria mutate very well, but vaccines don't give viruses much of a chance," said Dr. Paul A. Offit, chief of infectious diseases at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia.

The way it works with the measles vaccine, for example, is that a live, weakened form of the virus is given, so that the body develops antibodies directed against all 10 of the virus's proteins and all the sites where it might attach to the body's cells. "When the virus tries to infect you, it really doesn't have a chance," Dr. Offit said. "You attack it at all possible points."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/24/science/why-arent-certain-viruses-immune-to-vaccines.html

Posted on Aug 8, 2012 1:49:25 PM PDT
Andrew,

Well the WHO says otherwise:

" In 2007, health experts reported that amid Nigeria's ongoing outbreak of wild polio viruses, 69 children had also been paralyzed in a new outbreak caused by the mutation of a vaccine's virus. Back then, WHO said the vaccine-linked outbreak would be swiftly overcome - yet two years later, cases continue to mount. They have since identified polio cases linked to the vaccine dating back as far as 2005. It is a worrying development for officials who hope to end polio epidemics in India and Africa by the end of this year, after missing several earlier deadlines. "It's very disturbing," said Dr. Bruce Aylward, who heads the polio department at the World Health Organization."

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-204_162-5242168.html

Or how about this:

Oral polio vaccine (OPV) can mutate and cause outbreaks of paralytic poliomyelitis with prolonged replication.
https://idsa.confex.com/idsa/2011/webprogram/Paper30468.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8036823

So what am I missing?

--Lenard

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 8, 2012 2:02:29 PM PDT
Michael,

Well, so did this immunologist by her stance in the matter:

*** Doctor, will you please explain what you mean by natural immunity. ***

Immunity is an ancient concept that refers to the observation that many acute infectious diseases occur only once in a person's life, usually in childhood. The examples of such diseases would be measles, mumps, rubella, or whooping cough, to name a few.

Natural immunity is, in a way, a tautological expression because immunity can only be acquired naturally at this point, only through the exposure to an infected individual, although occasionally such exposure would go asymptomatic while still establishing immunity. Nevertheless, because there is a common misconception that vaccines also confer immunity, it is sometimes necessary to use a qualifier "natural," when referring to immunity, to distinguish it from vaccine-based protection.

We would expect that vaccinated individuals would not be involved (or very minimally involved) in any outbreak of an infectious disease for which they have been vaccinated. Yet, when outbreaks are analyzed, it becomes apparent that most often this is not the case. Vaccinated individuals are indeed very frequently involved and constitute a high proportion of disease cases.

I think this is happening because vaccination does not engage the genuine mechanism of immunity. Vaccination typically engages the immune response-that is, everything that immunologists would theoretically "want" to see being engaged in the immune system. But apparently this is not enough to confer robust protection that matches natural immunity. Our knowledge of the immune system is far from being complete.

*** What kind of protection can we expect from vaccines, if not life-long immunity? ***

For live attenuated viral vaccines against communicable diseases, we can expect a very short-term protection (3-5 years). This estimate is indirect and comes from the statistical analysis of vaccination timing relative to the disease occurrence in vaccinated individuals. This is the only empirical evidence we have for the average duration of protection for certain vaccines.

There are other vaccines (e.g. for non-contagious toxin-mediated diseases, such as tetanus or viral diseases spread through animal bites, such as rabies) or even vaccines like Hepatitis B and Gardasil®, where an empirical estimate of the protection duration cannot be made at all, because we simply lack scientifically meaningful data to make such an estimate.

*** What's the difference between the focus of the science of immunology and natural immunity? ***

Immunology does not study immunity. Immunology studies how the immune system responds to immunization-that is, to the injection of a "foreign" protein or particle (virus, bacteria). Immunologic research focuses mainly on the long-term changes that occur in immunologic organs and bodily fluids following immunization. Such changes are collectively referred to as "immunologic memory."

But the question is: what makes immunologists think, as they surely do, that immunologic memory is the basis of immunity? I see no evidence in immunologic research to allow me to conclude that this is the case. If anything, I see immunologic memory as being the basis for sensitization rather than for immunity. I am starting to doubt that immunologic memory is beneficial to us.

The full interview is available here:

PT1: http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2012/06/13/interview-with-phd-immunologist-dr-tetyana-obukhanych-by-catherine-frompovich/
PT2: http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2012/06/20/an-interview-with-research-immunologist-tetyana-obukhanych-phd-part-2/
PT3: http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2012/07/05/an-interview-with-research-immunologist-tetyana-obukhanych-phd-part-3-of-3-catherine-frompovich/

And here is a board certified neurosurgeon view on the matter:

http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2012/02/18/the-deadly-impossibility-of-herd-immunity-through-vaccination-by-dr-russell-blaylock/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.eurosurveillance.org/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleId=19109

"...Twenty-three cases of clinical mumps in young people have been reported in North Wales over a five-week period since late December 2008. All cases have social links, and most of them have received two doses of mumps-containing vaccine. An unusual feature of this outbreak is that 20 of the cases had received two doses of the measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccine and two cases had had one dose. The only unvaccinated case was a 37 year-old patient who was too old to have been offered MMR as a child. Uptake of MMR vaccination has historically been high in Anglesey, and the majority of cases in the outbreak had received two doses. The lack of cases among unvaccinated individuals may reflect the high uptake of vaccine, and an investigation is ongoing to determine coverage rates for the birth cohorts involved."

Notice: "The lack of cases among unvaccinated individuals may reflect the high uptake of vaccine."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Our unvaccinated and under-vaccinated population did not appear to contribute significantly to the increased rate of clinical pertussis. Surprisingly, the highest incidence of disease was among previously vaccinated children in the eight to twelve year age group."

(Witt M et al. 2012. Unexpectedly Limited Durability of Immunity Following Acellular Pertussis Vaccination in Pre-Adolescents in a North American Outbreak. Clin Infect Dis. Clin Infect Dis. 2012 Jun;54(12):1730-5. PMID:22423127)

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 8, 2012 2:20:12 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 8, 2012 2:25:47 PM PDT
I must be missing the part where they all said herd immunity (artifical or natural, passive or active)was ""Nonsense. Pure misinformation."

Lets examine the "vaccinated people get sick more" paradox.

"Let's say that an outbreak occurs among 1,000 people and that 950 of these 1,000 people have received 2 doses of the vaccine and 50 are unvaccinated (i.e., vaccine coverage = 95%). If there is a 30% attack rate among people who haven't been vaccinated, 15 unvaccinated people would get the disease. Among the 950 vaccinated people, the attack rate would be 3%, so 29 vaccinated people would get the disease. Therefore, of the 44 people who got sick during the outbreak, the majority (29, or 66%) would have been vaccinated. This doesn't mean that the vaccine didn't work"

Posted on Aug 8, 2012 2:57:57 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 8, 2012 3:01:17 PM PDT
Andrew King says:
lenardd: You've correctly identified an example of a virus (OPV vaccine strain) mutating. My bad for not knowing that one.

Now let's look at what you originally claimed:

""Today's Western societies are being over vaccinated all in the guise of "herd immunity". All it is doing is making the diseases harder to treat as the viruses are getting smart and mutating."

This is clearly incorrect. Vaccines have been tremendously successful against viral diseases. Polio has been _eradicated_ in Western societies due to immunization. It has been eradicated or its incidence vastly reduced elsewhere, thanks again to vaccination. Despite this success, there are small numbers of residual polio cases, some due to the use of oral live attentuated polio vaccine (OPV) which as your sources noted is capable of mutating into a strain sufficient to cause serious disease. What you are overlooking (selective quoting again) is 1) this problem is dwarfed by the success of vaccination in curbing polio (for example, Nigeria's total polio cases fell in the time period covered by the CBS report despite the OPV-associated outbreaks, and are much less than in the days before vaccination), 2) the OPV-associated outbreaks occurred because of spread among un-immunized people, and 3) poor compliance with vaccination increases danger of polio spreading to areas where it was previously eradicated:

"When Nigerian leaders suspended polio vaccination in 2003, believing the vaccine would sterilize their children and infect them with HIV, Nigeria exported polio to nearly two dozen countries worldwide, making it as far away as Indonesia."...

"The oral polio vaccine used in Nigeria and elsewhere contains a mild version of the live virus. Children who have been vaccinated pass the virus into the water supply through urine or feces. Other children who then play in or drink that water pick up the vaccine's virus, which gives them some protection against polio."

"But in rare instances, as the virus passes through unimmunized children, it can mutate into a strain dangerous enough to ignite new outbreaks, particularly if immunization rates in the rest of the population are low.....Though Nigeria's coverage rates have improved, up to 15 percent of children in the north still haven't been vaccinated against polio. To eradicate the disease, officials need to reach about 95 percent of the population...
Until a better vaccine is ready, WHO and U.S. CDC officials say the oral vaccine is the best available tool to eradicate polio and that when inoculation rates are nearly 100 percent it works fine."

"Nigeria is almost a case study in what happens when you don't follow the recommendations," Kew said."

So your own source makes it clear - attain virtual 100% immunization rates and we can defeat this disease once and for all. Until that happens, it behooves us here in the U.S. and other developed countries to maintain high immunization rates with the inactivated polio vaccine, which is incapable of causing polio infection. That way, if cases are imported here from African nations they won't be able to gain a foothold.

lenardd: "Notice: "The lack of cases among unvaccinated individuals may reflect the high uptake of vaccine."

Notice: that's a description of _herd immunity_, where the unvaccinated gain protection due to actions of others (who are smart and responsible enough to get vaccinated and make sure that their children do as well).

As for Tetyana Obukhanych, her mistaken ramblings were dissected here earlier. She has weird and unsubstantiated views on the nature of immunity, which may account for the fact that she apparently has no current connection to any university-based teaching or immunology research program, and makes her living giving high-priced private lectures to the gullible. As an example of her bogus claims, take the one about live attenuated virus vaccines only providing 3-5 years of immunity (the actual figure is decades to life-long immunity, especially in the case of measles vaccine).
Antivaxers love Tetyana, but she's an example of an unreliable crank whose views lack support among the vast majority of her peers in immunology.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 8, 2012 3:16:25 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 8, 2012 3:19:37 PM PDT
Likewise with Blaylock.

The kindest thing said about him is that he endorses ideas "inconsistent with scientific consensus"

It is okay though, he will sell you all the information you need to know about health!

Posted on Aug 9, 2012 1:02:35 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 9, 2012 1:15:55 AM PDT
Hi Andrew,

Regarding:

>> Notice: that's a description of _herd immunity_, where the unvaccinated gain protection due to actions of others (who
>> are smart and responsible enough to get vaccinated and make sure that their children do as well).

Actually that is a failed herd immunity example. If that were really true, then it should have been the unvaccinated that would have gotten the mumps, not the other way around. How can an infected herd (regardless of their immunization status) provide immunity to the unimmunized herd? That makes no sense at all.

I understand one possible scenario why the unvaccinated adult didn't get infected may have been due to the adult getting the mumps asymptomatically during childhood. At least that is what the author of this post says http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2009/06/02/mmrcompulsionwales (toward the end).

Anyways, I don't want to give you an impression that I'm totally against all vaccinations. I've been vaccinated against polio, cholera, diphtheria, meningococcal, smallpox as I lived in Africa during my childhood. It is just that today, they are pushing vaccinations for every virus out there (yes, I'm exaggerating a little). Back in the 50's and 60's and 70's vaccines were doled out a little more sensibly on a need to have risk basis and chickenpox parties were common. Now vaccines are being doled out like candy "just in case" regardless of risk factors (short or long term) under the guise of herd immunity. It looks like, more and more outbreaks are occurring among the highly vaccinated herd. The public is lead to believe that once immunized one can't be a carrier and spread the virus around. Nothing could be further from the truth.

--Lenard

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 9, 2012 5:01:06 AM PDT
Andrew King says:
"Back in the 50's and 60's and 70's vaccines were doled out a little more sensibly on a need to have risk basis"

Where on earth did you get that idea?

"How can an infected herd (regardless of their immunization status) provide immunity to the unimmunized herd? That makes no sense at all."

Herd immunity gives a strong measure of protection to everyone, including the un-immunized and the immunized who do not attain protective antibody titers (remembering that vaccines, like all medical interventions do not offer everyone 100% protection). Once a sufficient percentage of individuals are immunized, it becomes very difficult for isolated cases of disease to gain a foothold and institute widespread outbreaks of diseases. Here again is a detailed explanation of how herd immunity works:

"Herd immunity (or community immunity) describes a form of immunity that occurs when the vaccination of a significant portion of a population (or herd) provides a measure of protection for individuals who have not developed immunity. Herd immunity theory proposes that, in contagious diseases that are transmitted from individual to individual, chains of infection are likely to be disrupted when large numbers of a population are immune or less susceptible to the disease. The greater the proportion of individuals who are resistant, the smaller the probability that a susceptible individual will come into contact with an infectious individual."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity

Posted on Aug 9, 2012 8:41:05 AM PDT
Regarding "where on earth did you get that idea".....Not all of us are American you know. :)

In the mumps study we were talking about, ALL the children (except for the unvaccinated 37 year old adult) were infected. How can this herd provide any immunity against the mumps? Just because you are immunized doesn't mean you can't play host to the virus for a short period of time thus allowing you to spread it around. How else do you think the whole herd got infected in the first place?

Posted on Aug 9, 2012 10:25:21 AM PDT
Andrew King says:
Thank you for the non-sequitur "not all of us are American". Show me what countries had a selective vaccine program decades ago that (for example) picked only certain children to give the polio and MMR vaccines to based on supposed risk factors. This certainly was not the case in the U.S. but I've never heard of any immunization program that did this. Measles for instance is highly contagious and strikes people with "normal" immune systems. How would you pick and choose who gets the vaccine?

Sorry you remain uninterested in learning about herd immunity - a bit of reading would clear up your confusion.

Posted on Aug 9, 2012 6:51:40 PM PDT
Brian says:
Selective vaccination is nothing new. When I was a child, we would only get tetanus vaccine IF we got a cut or injury that would warrant such a vaccine, otherwise we were not routinely vaccinated against tetanus.
Same holds true for rabies vaccine - only those exposed to the virus would get vaccinated.
As for others, they should be administered only after their safety is proven beyond any doubt.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 10, 2012 5:05:16 AM PDT
"we would only get tetanus vaccine IF we got a cut or injury that would warrant such a vaccine"

That is a BOOSTER given after the original series.

"Same holds true for rabies vaccine"

Rabies are not given to anyone who is not at risk of exposure. It is not a regular for anyone. It is not like we give it to some people prophylactically, but not others.

"As for others, they should be administered only after their safety is proven beyond any doubt."

You will never get this from ANY medical treatment.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 10, 2012 5:16:51 AM PDT
Andrew King says:
Tetanus vaccination (as part of the DPT shot) has been routinely recommended since the late 1940s, so citing it does not support the claim that in the good old days, vaccines were only given to "at-risk" individuals.

http://www.chop.edu/service/vaccine-education-center/vaccine-schedule/history-of-vaccine-schedule.html

As has long been the case, we give tetanus shots for prophylaxis to people who are at particular risk for tetanus due to injury, and who have not had a booster recently.

Universal tetanus vaccination has been around for a very long time.

Posted on Aug 12, 2012 9:05:05 AM PDT
Brian says:
""we would only get tetanus vaccine IF we got a cut or injury that would warrant such a vaccine"

That is a BOOSTER given after the original series."

Are you claiming psychic abilities? I am only asking because you are making impossible claims.
Just to make it clear: you were NOT there, so you don't know despite your claims to the contrary. It was not a booster shot.

Posted on Aug 12, 2012 9:33:35 AM PDT
Andrew King says:
Regardless of your unsupported anecdotal claim, kids began receiving routine tetanus shots in the U.S. as far back as the mid-1940s - routine prophylaxis long before anyone suffered an injury.

Q. "In what year did tetanus toxoid first become available? At what age might most patients never have received a primary series?"
Tetanus toxoid became commercially available in 1938, but was not widely used until the military began routine vaccination in 1941. Routine administration of tetanus toxoid was recommended by the AAP(the American Academy of Pediatrics) in 1944. Most World War II military personnel received at least one dose of tetanus toxoid, but civilian use, particularly for adults, did not increase until after the war."

http://www.immunize.org/askexperts/experts_tet.asp

So, the claim that tetanus (and other immunizations) were only given on a perceived need basis prior to the 1980s (instead of routinely to everyone) is false (DTP and polio shots are examples of immunizations given on a routine basis in childhood back in the 1950s or even earlier).

Before antivaxers retort that things were different outside the U.S. - go ahead and document that if you can. Anecdotes won't cut it.

The shots-weren't-given-routinely argument is as bogus as the one about kids' immune systems being overwhelmed by the increased shots in newer vaccine schedules. Not only are children's immune systems well-adapted to handling immunizations (far greater immune challenges occur as part of daily life, from allergen to bacterial and viral exposure), but the number of antigens present in vaccines has decreased markedly from, say, the 1950s. Fewer antigens in vaccines means less, but more efficient immune stimulation to fight off diseases.

"Although we now give children more vaccines, the actual number of immunologic components in vaccines has declined. Whereas previously one vaccine, smallpox, contained about 200 proteins, now the 11 routinely recommended vaccines contain fewer than 130 immunologic components (i.e., proteins or polysaccharides)."

http://www.chop.edu/service/vaccine-education-center/vaccine-safety/

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/the-infection-schedule-vrs-the-vaccination-schedule/

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 13, 2012 3:56:12 AM PDT
"Are you claiming psychic abilities? I am only asking because you are making impossible claims."

Not claiming psychic abilities, just referring to the established medical procedure. Despite your own claims to the contrary.

Posted on Aug 24, 2012 7:25:38 PM PDT
Iliana says:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12145534

Posted on Aug 24, 2012 7:34:08 PM PDT
Andrew King says:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22521285
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21917556

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 24, 2012 7:50:21 PM PDT
Tasha David says:
Just a few problems with your Japanese study; the moderate size of the group, the selection criteria, the fact that the controls were volunteers and might therefore have some selection bias, the fact that not enough controls were recruited to include all the autistics, and the fact that most children who did not get the MMR received the measles, mumps and/or rubella vaccines as individual vaccines, the fact that vaccine uptake is high in Japan, the lack of a "vaccinated vs. unvaccinated" structure to the study and more.

Posted on Aug 24, 2012 8:56:33 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 24, 2012 8:57:10 PM PDT
Andrew King says:
Your objections are largely irrelevant and/or do not make sense. You don't like the control cases being volunteers? Would you prefer they were forced to take part in the study?
You have not demonstrated any statistical requirement for there to be _exactly_ the same number of autistic children as controls. Whether or not children not receiving the MMR got any individual shots (not mentioned in the abstract) is not relevant to the conclusion of the study - that increasing numbers of injections did not correlate with autism risk. "The fact that vaccine uptake is high in Japan" is of no relevancy. The problems with conducting a "vaccinated vs. unvaccinated" study have been repeatedly explained to you, notably that it is unethical to deny children a proven lifesaving medical intervention so they can be followed over many years (which would be akin to the Tuskeegee Experiment, in which syphilis patients were denied treatment).

Props though for actually addressing the substance of the paper, rather than your usual tactics of personal attack and labeling any source you don't like as a "blog".

Here are some more journal articles for you. Have fun.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22350041
"CONCLUSION: There wasn't correlation between autism and heavy metal concentration."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20837594
CONCLUSIONS: "...prenatal and early-life exposure to ethylmercury from thimerosal-containing vaccines and immunoglobulin preparations was not related to increased risk of (autism spectrum disorders)."

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 24, 2012 9:04:42 PM PDT
Tasha David says:
"Your objections are largely irrelevant and/or do not make sense."

I tried to explain it as simply as I could to you, is it my fault you can't understand it?

"The problems with conducting a "vaccinated vs. unvaccinated" study have been repeatedly explained to you, notably that it is unethical to deny children a proven lifesaving medical intervention so they can be followed over many years (which would be akin to the Tuskeegee Experiment, in which syphilis patients were denied treatment)."

Right, so we can't prove that vaccinated children are healthier than unvaccinated children so you should just take our word for it? and here I was thinking that you believe in evidence based medicine, my mistake.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Health forum
Participants:  819
Total posts:  7261
Initial post:  Nov 16, 2008
Latest post:  Dec 6, 2014

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 44 customers

Search Customer Discussions