What do you do in this case…Have a healthy body and immune system so you best able to fight it off!

What is the difference if people die with our without the vaccine? (how is that cold?) Being vaccinated doesn’t always protect you from the disease.

A healthy body will protect you from the vaccine or from a “natural” case of a disease.

It is only unethical or reprehensible if you start out with the basic assumption that the vaccine is effective. (In the case of the Tuskegee experiments, the doctors knew that penicillin was a scientifically-proven remedy and they withheld it – not the same thing at all.) Starting out with unproven assumptions has no place in the scientific method.

That’s not quite true. Imagine, for a moment, that it turned out that, somehow, a large-scale evaluation had never been done to determine whether the MMR vaccine did a lick of good—it had never been proven to work, as you say it hasn’t. Would it be ethical to withhold that vaccine from a group of children? I guarantee you that the great majority of physicians would agree that it would not be ethical to do so. An ethics board would never clear such a study. It’s only when a treatment is new and unproven that such a study would be permissible. But we’re talking about long-standing, long-proven treatments here.

In any case, there appears still to be no scientifically-proven evidence that at least the polio, DTaP, and MMR vaccines are effective in reducing morbidity or mortality rates.

Just to be clear, it’s your belief that, although recipients of these vaccines get these infections at staggeringly lower rates (92-99%) than the general population, that somehow the mortality rate might have been unaffected? For instance, WHO reports that eighteen people die of the measles every hour. But somehow, mystically, the groups that have received this vaccine contract the measles at much lower rates. It’s your belief that, even if everybody in the world received the requisite two vaccines, this rate would remain constant—eighteen people every hour?

(I don’t think it is scientifically justifiable to assume that if one vaccine works all of the others will.)

Certainly not. But Brian’s assertion is that vaccines are inherently impossible, or something like that, and my point is that if a single vaccine works, his thesis is wrong.

There is a plethora of anecdotal evidence that the illnesses subsided upon introduction of the vaccines. Scientifically, this does not work because you cannot isolate the effects of other variables such as the improvements experienced during those times in sanitation, habitation, and nutrition.

You can isolate them statistically, which is just as good. Because the alternative is that one could never study anything about human health. Sure, people who awful food all of the time die younger, but you can’t isolate the effects of other variables such as exercise, sanitation, and habitation. Except that you can. :)

Vaccines have many ingredients that are toxic to humans, particularly babies and children.

All kinds of things are toxic. The carpet in my house is toxic. The curtains on my walls are toxic. Salt is toxic. Water is toxic in sufficient quantities. I guarantee you that I’ve eaten a bunch of toxic stuff this week. Toxicity is only meaningful when gauging the quantity of the material in question relative to the body’s ability to handle it. And the materials in question in vaccine are present in such very low quantities that we wind up with that stuff in our bodies in far great quantities from other sources on a regular basis, but nobody gets too fired up about that.

Evolution is one of the most valuable arguments against vaccination. Viruses and Bacteria evolve, and picking a point in time to create a vaccine doesn’t protect against future evolution of said virus or bacteria.

It’s not that simple, Brian. They evolve, but only in response to environmental pressures, and often at relatively slow rates. And it’s not that those vaccines don’t protect against future evolution, but that they might not, or that the protection might be more limited than against the current incarnation. That’s precisely why new flu shots are created annually.

Also, our immune systems must be able to evolve to protect against future viruses and bacteria. So the question we should ask is, how do we have a healthy body and fully functioning immune system?

You’re invoking evolution, which we’ve discussed. As I said, your thinking about this is dependent on many people dying, leaving the fittest surviving. Which is scientifically accurate, but incredibly cold.

Evolution is one of the most valuable arguments against vaccination. Viruses and Bacteria evolve, and picking a point in time to create a vaccine doesn’t protect against future evolution of said virus or bacteria.

Also, our immune systems must be able to evolve to protect against future viruses and bacteria. So the question we should ask is, how do we have a healthy body and fully functioning immune system?

In any case, there appears still to be no scientifically-proven evidence that at least the polio, DTaP, and MMR vaccines are effective in reducing morbidity or mortality rates. (I don’t think it is scientifically justifiable to assume that if one vaccine works all of the others will.) There is a plethora of anecdotal evidence that the illnesses subsided upon introduction of the vaccines. Scientifically, this does not work because you cannot isolate the effects of other variables such as the improvements experienced during those times in sanitation, habitation, and nutrition.

Vaccines have many ingredients that are toxic to humans, particularly babies and children. Formaldehyde, aluminum, thimerosol, MSG, cells from monkeys, chickens, lambs, cows, and aborted fetuses are not the kind of things most folks would ordinarily feel comfortable about injecting into their bodies, no matter how small the amount. (http://www.informedchoice.info/cocktail.html) In addition, to my knowledge, there are no studies demonstrating the long-term effects of injecting these toxins into the human body.

And the fact is, the don’t always work. My son contracted whooping cough even though he was vaccinated against it.

I think the most crucial thing that folks should take away from this discussion is the importance of informed decision making. There are pros and cons to vaccines of which everyone should be made aware before they go under the needle.

Folk need to do this for themselves. I mean… how many doctors do you think are willing to tell parents they are about to inject monkey kidney cells into the baby before they push the plunger of polio vaccine in?

I took a look at those sites, Waldo, but I didn’t see any that demonstrated the double-blind placebo-controlled approach. I thought that meant that you started with two identical populations, gave some the vaccine and gave the others a placebo and then followed both populations to record the incidence of morbidity. Am I misunderstanding?

Well, the very pneumonia study that I cited was randomized, placebo-controlled, and double-blind.

But there’s a reason why these are relatively uncommon for severe illnesses. See, you can’t tell people that you’re giving them something that could save their life that won’t. Not only is it highly unethical, but if you tell somebody that they’re getting a vaccine, but they’re not, then their behavior will change. They might not bother to put up that mosquito netting. They might not bother with that condom. To see why such a study would be so reprehensible, look no further than the Tuskegee syphilis experiment.

For diseases that have a low morbidity rate, you can get closer. For instance, the oral cholera vaccine, in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study:

About 3 months after immunization, 51 of these volunteers were orally challenged with 105 CFU of virulent V. cholerae O1 El Tor Inaba strain N16961, prepared from a standardized frozen inoculum. Ninety-one percent of the vaccinees had a 4-fold rise in serum vibriocidal antibodies after vaccination. After challenge, 9 (39%) of the 23 placebo recipients and 1 (4%) of the 28 vaccinees had moderate or severe diarrhea (≥3-liter diarrheal stool) (P < 0.01; protective efficacy, 91%). A total of 21 (91%) of 23 placebo recipients and 5 (18%) of 28 vaccinees had any diarrhea (P < 0.001; protective efficacy, 80%). Peak stool V. cholerae excretion among placebo recipients was 1.1 × 107 CFU/g and among vaccinees was 4.9 × 102 CFU/g (P < 0.001).

And here’s a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study on how much the flu vaccine reduces absenteeism among health care workers:

[D]ays of work lost because of respiratory infections (1.0 days vs. 1.4 days, respectively, P = 0.02) and especially total numbers of days the study persons felt themselves unable to work when either on or off duty (2.5 days vs. 3.5 days, P 0.02) were significantly decreased. Conclusion. Influenza vaccination reduced absenteeism related to respiratory infections by 28%.

Oh, and a seminal 2005 study on the HPV vaccine basically eliminating cervical cancer, likewise randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled:

Combined incidence of persistent infection or disease with HPV 6, 11, 16, or 18 fell by 90% (95% CI 71–97, p<0·0001) in those assigned vaccine compared with those assigned placebo.

Wow!

Here are 1.8 million scholarly papers on the topic—have at it. :)

Also, you didn’t mention any of the major vaccines: polio, smallpox, DTaP, MMR,or the three HEPs.

We’re talking about whether vaccines, as a concept, work. It shouldn’t matter which vaccines that I mention.

This stuff is easy: If you get the vaccine, you don’t get the disease; if you don’t get the vaccine, you might.

Another example of oddness was the MRI Radiologist who told me that the element they use to create a contrast during the MRI procedure, Galantine, is perfectly safe. I asked him for the studies too, and he told me that he didn’t need any since he has been doing this for a long time and has never had a problem.

Well, that’s just one radiologist saying something dumb. :) I once had a radiologist try to give me an x-ray without covering my midsection with lead shielding. When I complained, she said of the x-ray machine: “it’ll only be on for a minute.”

Also, you didn’t mention any of the major vaccines: polio, smallpox, DTaP, MMR,or the three HEPs.

I have always asked doctors for studies showing the efficacy of vaccines and they’ve always told me there were none. Given that western medicine is based on the idea of “demonstrably, testibly, repeatably true” science (this is a great term, which is why I keep using it :-) that always seemed odd to me.

Another example of oddness was the MRI Radiologist who told me that the element they use to create a contrast during the MRI procedure, Galantine, is perfectly safe. I asked him for the studies too, and he told me that he didn’t need any since he has been doing this for a long time and has never had a problem. What about for children? Same answer. I’d be willing to be that this is the case more often than not (that folks are given medications and vaccines that have not been scientifically tested for those situations), particularly in the case of children being given substances that have only been tested on adults (as if a child is only a miniature adult!).

So… sometimes it seems to me that western medicine only demands a strict application to the scientific method for other approaches to medicine and not its own.

As I understand it, the scientific method requires documented testing; for example, a double-blind placebo-controlled study to show that a hypothesis is “demonstrably, testibly, repeatably true.”

I haven’t found any studies like that which show that vaccines are effective in reducing morbidity or mortality rates. Do you know of any?

Sure. Hundreds and hundreds of them. Thousands of people die from a given strain of flu every year, but not if they get a flu shot. For instance:

During 10 seasons, influenza vaccination was associated with significant reductions in the risk of hospitalization for pneumonia or influenza and in the risk of death among community-dwelling elderly persons. Vaccine delivery to this high-priority group should be improved.

And TB vaccines:

On average, BCG vaccine significantly reduces the risk of TB by 50%. Protection is observed across many populations, study designs, and forms of TB. Age at vaccination did not enhance predictiveness of BCG efficacy. Protection against tuberculous death, meningitis, and disseminated disease is higher than for total TB cases, although this result may reflect reduced error in disease classification rather than greater BCG efficacy.

And pneumonia:

This heptavalent pneumococcal conjugate appears to be highly effective in preventing invasive disease in young children and to have a significant impact on otitis media.

I could go on. :)

Seriously, the idea that vaccines don’t do anything is just nuts. It’s like believing that evolution is a conspiracy, only even more bizarre, what with the stunning coincidence that virtually everybody who receives a vaccine does not receive the disease against which they’ve been vaccinated, while those who have not received the vaccine continue to get said disease at the same rate. The fact that millions of people don’t die from smallpox every year has nothing to do with washing our hands and everything to do with the smallpox vaccination.

As I understand it, the scientific method requires documented testing; for example, a double-blind placebo-controlled study to show that a hypothesis is “demonstrably, testibly, repeatably true.”

I haven’t found any studies like that which show that vaccines are effective in reducing morbidity or mortality rates. Do you know of any?

I’m not trying to change anyone’s mind. All I’m saying is there is plenty of data that shows diseases were in decline due to sanitation and public health measures before mass vaccination was widespread, or disease declined in parts of the world with no access to vaccines. There is also plenty of data showing people inoculated from communicable disease end up getting it. And, finally there is data showing vaccines aren’t safe.

Robert Mendelsohn’s book, How to raise a healthy child in spite of your doctor came out in 1984! Jenny McCarthy and Andrew Wakefield aren’t pioneers.

So the NIH is headed by independent people with no ties to the drug industry? Does anyone watch Bill Moyers? He loves to show segments on how top donors get nominated to top government positions.

The anti vaccine movement is “fringe” but not a “cult”, there is no leader, and the “followers” tend to be more educated than those who blindly follow the pediatricians vaccination schedule.

Looking for the silver bullet in medicine or vaccines never works, there isn’t one cause to any illness or one solution. That is why “associated with” is important.

I just read “The Blue Zones”, and there are many lifestyle factors “associated with” living longer. Is it just almonds? Just aged cheese? Just sweet potatoes? Is it walking 9 miles a day with your flock of sheep? If we think that way we are missing the point.

What are the factors that allow people to be exposed to a “harmful” virus and not get sick. What factors protected those from the 1918 influenza epidemic?
What are the consequences of multiple vaccines 5, 10, 15 years later?

Most of the people I know who choose not to vaccinate follow a healthier lifestyle. I never suggested the phone interview showed vaccines cause brain injury because there are so many factors involved in disease. No scientific study can control all the factors (in living beings).

Getting back to the vaccine issue, if you decide to not vaccinate it is your responsibility to take care of your health and immune system.

If you start off in life with a less than functioning immune system or yours is damaged, then I would look into them as a way to prolong your life. And if your immune system isn’t functioning properly, then it is even more important to adopt a healthy lifestyle to improve what function you do have.

Don’t worry about being vegetarian and mercury consumption. Mercury will be in our produce soon enough from atmospheric release. So you can get your dose that way, regardless if your food is grown “organically” or not. the USGS already found mercury in every U.S. mainland river and stream.

How do we trust the industry that tells us Vioxx is safe, and fabricates their own studies?

First, don’t confuse one drug and it’s happenings with the FDA with another completely different scenario. Second, how do you trust a cult movement on vaccines based on the completely made-up data of one researcher? You can’t have it both ways.

And that phone survey? Please. It wasn’t looking to see what causes Autism et al. It was blatantly looking for a correlation between vaccines and illness, that may or may not be related. I bet I could conduct the same survey but instead of asking if a child had been vaccinated, ask if they had drank city supplied water and I would get similar results. It was a poor survey, but I’m sure it sounds great in your mind to say vaccines increase autism risk by 155%. That’s not what that survey proves one bit.

My take away point, there is so much shit out there that has been dumped into our water and food systems, that to try to peg something on vaccines is ludicrous (even if I thought there was something wrong with vaccines, which I don’t).

Um, most of my medical knowledge actually comes from my mom, in case you’re wondering. She’s been published in a number of medical journals since her post-doc at Stanford University in the early 1980s. She earned her MD and a PhD in immunology from George Washington University, which, since you mentioned it, is actually a private university, although to be fair she was on scholarship.

She’s also worked at the National Institute of Health and the Medical College of Virginia. All of her research at the NIH was funded by the federal government; all of her research at Stanford was funded by the NIH, meaning it was indirectly funded by the Federal Gov’t, because her primary focus was on HIV/AIDS in the San Francisco Bay Area. What I’m trying to impress upon you is that at no point did she ever make a buck from someone who wanted to market a new vaccine.

Also at no point during her medical career has she ever relied upon a telephone survey to derive conclusions, unlike the “study” from generationrescue.org which you so kindly linked.