Vaccination Council: Misleading

July 30, 2012 at 11:47 am (Anti-Vaccination) (, , , , )

Vaccination is one of medicine’s great success stories, preventing deaths and serious ill health caused by infectious diseases – and almost always doing so without causing serious harm in the process. I will be discussing the lives saved and harm prevented by vaccination against diseases such as pertussis and measles in this post, but first a note on safety. As Rümke and Visser wrote: “During recent years a scala of diseases or symptoms have been associated with vaccination (presumed side effects). Careful and extensive investigations have shown that such hypotheses could not be supported. […] The total number of cases where at least a possible relation between side effects and vaccination is observed–apart from local reactions and moderate general symptoms–is very rare (about 0.25 per 1000 vaccinations) and does not balance the benefits from vaccination.” Not everyone accepts that vaccination is safe and effective. Sadly, some of these people mislead others into thinking that vaccination is less effective or more dangerous than it actually is.

Here, the Vaccination Council has an article about herd immunity. It’s written by Suzanne Humphries MD. It’s pretty awful. This is the concluding paragraph:

I believe that when diseases disappear from sight, the disappearance is never solely by virtue of the vaccine. Yet the vaccine always gets the credit, because the blind faith in vaccines is prioritized over the scientific evidence. Evidence to the contrary of the value of vaccination is consistently snuffed out and kept away from the mainstream media, so that the herd never hears a peep of the truth. Instead, they get the “herd immunity” sound bite, which gives undeserved credit to the risk-benefit ratio of vaccination. Inside the web of half-truths and misinformation, the vaccine religion somehow justifies the public display of resentment and fear of the unvaccinated.

It is ironic that the author complains of half-truths and misinformation, and the prioritisation of blind faith over scientific evidence. The line about “evidence to the contrary of the value of vaccination” being kept away from the mainstream media isn’t even a half-truth – it’s simply untrue. Any suggestion of harm caused by vaccination or ineffectiveness of a vaccine, no matter how weak or unreliable, is likely to make headlines. It is the evidence of efficacy and safety that is ignored by the mainstream media.

Let’s look at the parts of the article that deal with pertussis and measles.

Pertussis is now hot news and the unvaccinated interrupting herd immunity is raised over and over, despite the science that shows the vaccinated are by far and away the most affected by whooping cough.

“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.” [28]

This is the most recent, but not the first study to demonstrate 86% of cases of proven whooping cough are in the vaccinated. How can getting even 100% vaccination uptake create an immune herd with such vaccines?

Now, it’s true that the unvaccinated aren’t entirely to blame for outbreaks of pertussis (although they’re certainly a factor). Immunity from vaccination (or infection with pertussis) fades over time and those who have been vaccinated against the disease might no longer be protected 5 or 10 years later.

It’s also true that some research has shown that 86% of cases were in those vaccinated against pertussis. But does that prove that “the vaccinated are by far and away the most affected by whooping cough”? No. That single statistic does not tell us whether those who are unvaccinated suffer milder or more severe symptoms than the vaccinated. Nor does it tell us whether the unvaccinated are more or less likely to be infected with pertussis (without knowing the figures for vaccine coverage as well as the figure for the proportions of those with whooping cough who are vaccinated or unvaccinated, we can’t tell).

Let’s take a look at some numbers. Vaccine coverage in England & Wales is 96%. Say there were roughly 60 million people in England and Wales. That would leave us with 57.6m vaccinated and 2.4m unvaccinated. Say there’s 10000 cases of pertussis and 86% are in the vaccinated (8600) and 14% in the unvaccinated (1400). That’s 1400/2.4m in the unvaccinated population and 8600/57.6m in the vaccinated population. That’s 0.000149 cases per vaccinated person and 0.000583 cases per unvaccinated person. (15 per 100,000 versus 58 per 100,000.)

I reckon that means you’re about 4 times more likely to have whooping cough if you’re unvaccinated. You can change the figures for population and number of cases and the figures for risk will be unchanged. Only changing the figures for vaccine coverage or cases of pertussis will affect the figures – in America the population is over 300 million and the figure for vaccine coverage is slightly higher at around 98%, which would (if 86% of cases were in those vaccinated) mean you would be 8 times more likely to get whooping cough if you’re unvaccinated.

That pertussis vaccination isn’t perfect (because of waning immunity) doesn’t mean you’re better off unvaccinated. Quite the contrary. If 86% of cases are in the vaccinated and vaccine coverage is >86% (as it has been in this country since 1990/91 – HPA) then that just shows that you’re less likely to get whooping cough if you’re vaccinated against it. So, if you’re less likely to get pertussis if you’ve been vaccinated against it then having the vaccine would seem to be a good idea. I’m not sure that’s the conclusion the author would like us to reach.

…and that’s just covering the issue of whether or not you get whooping cough. I’ve not even addressed the question of whether your symptoms (if you had the vaccine) will be more or less severe than the unvaccinated. Neither did the author of that article on the Vaccination Council website.

So how can they claim that “the vaccinated are by far and away the most affected by whooping cough”? What’s the basis for that claim? A single percentage figure with no context? Apparently so.

That most cases of pertussis are in those who have been vaccinated does raise an important issue – that of waning immunity. The answer to the problem of waning immunity in those vaccinated against pertussis isn’t to throw your hands up and say “well, vaccination’s useless then and herd immunity is a pipe dream” (apart from anything else, not all vaccines have this problem of fading immunity). Some sensible solutions have been proposed. In California, 7th grade students are required to have a booster. See also the BBC report here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18747527

So far in 2012 there’ve been 2,398 cases of the bacterial infection in the UK, compared with just 272 in the same period last year.

Why have cases of whooping cough shot up? No-one is sure why; better testing and increased surveillance explain part but not all of the rise.

The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation – whose recommendations apply across the UK – has been considering how to deal with the resurgence of whooping cough.

One option is a booster dose in adolescence. Adam Finn, a professor of paediatrics at the University of Bristol, agrees that a new strategy is required.

He told me: “Giving a booster to adolescents is one thing that might help, but other things being considered are immunising parents of newborn babies, pregnant women or health care workers.”

There are basically three options – not to vaccinate against pertussis, to continue the current vaccination programme, or to add a booster. Personally, I don’t think much of the first option. We tried it once before in this country.

Here is what happened when there was an ill-founded scare surrounding the pertussis vaccine: “…immunisation coverage [dropped] to 30% in 1975 resulting in major epidemics in 1977/79 and 1981/83. As a result, there were more than 200,000 extra notifications and 100 deaths in 1970s and 1980s.”

From 1978 to 1982 there were 44 deaths from pertussis. By comparison, there were 11 deaths in the first five years of the 1990s and 15 deaths in the years 2000-2004. Because, despite the problem of fading immunity, pertussis vaccination still saves lives. [Source: HPA PDF.] The complications of pertussis include pneumonia (5.2% of cases), and seizures (0.8% of cases). 20% of cases are serious enough to require hospitalisation. There is a 1 in 500 chance of dying from the infection. [Source: CDC PDF.]

And onto measles…

“Measles is mildest when the infected person is replete with vitamins C and A. The devastation and mortality you hear about with measles comes from starving populations. “

Measles has a mortality rate of 1 in 2,500-5000 in developed countries. There were 87,000 notifications of measles between 1992 and 2008 in England & Wales, and 24 deaths (PDF: HPA – Measles notifications and deaths in England and Wales, 1940-2008). That’s one death for every ~3600 notifications. According to the CDC, approximately 30% of reported measles cases have one or more complications. Complications include diarrhea (8% of cases), otitis media (7%), pneumonia (6%), seizures (0.6-0.7%) and encephalitis (0.1%). [Source: CDC PDF.] Not all the devastation and mortality you hear about with measles comes from starving populations.

“Talk to your grandmother about measles. Ask her if she saw death and destruction from the disease. It was not a disease that needed eradication. The high death rates were in countries where children were undernourished and lacked vitamins necessary to process the virus.”

Never mind talking to your grandmother. She might or might not have seen deaths from measles. Her personal experience might not be representative. Look at the figures on deaths from measles in the HPA PDF I link to above. In 1968, we got the first measles vaccine in this country. Oh, look at that. Prior to 1968 there were hundreds (even thousands) of deaths from measles in every decade. 85 deaths per year in the 60s (up to 1968 when the vaccine was introduced). 140 per year in the 50s (almost exactly a hundred times as many deaths per year as there were in the period 1992-2008, I might add) and 570 per year in the 40s. Other countries, with “starving populations”, might have had higher death rates but people were still dying and getting seriously ill from measles infection in this country when vaccination was introduced (and elsewhere – in the United States, measles caused 450 reported deaths and 4,000 cases of encephalitis annually before measles vaccine became available in the mid-1960s).

The number of deaths from measles decreased before the introduction of the vaccine (as anti-vaccinationists will never tire of telling us) but there were still 85 deaths per year at the time it was introduced. There were only 32 deaths per year from 1968-75 with vaccine coverage around 45% and 16 a year from 1976-85 with vaccine coverage around 60%. From 1992-2008 vaccine coverage was around 90% and there were on average just 1.4 deaths per year from measles. In this country, thousands of lives have been saved since the introduction of the measles vaccine. In America, it’s probably tens of thousands of lives saved.

If you don’t think that those were lives worth saving, then perhaps it wasn’t a disease that needed eradication. If you don’t think that protecting people from the non-fatal (but still serious) consequences was worthwhile then perhaps it wasn’t a disease that needed eradication. If you aren’t bothered by people suffering ill health or dying from a preventable disease then, sure, that’s a perfectly valid point of view. It seems a little callous to me, though. How much misery and death need a disease cause before it can be said to need to be eradicated?

“The vaccine was created because it could be done, not because we needed it. Measles is not eradicated. Outbreaks happen all over the world, and will continue. And now infants will be unprotected because of the absence of maternal antibodies in their vaccinated mother’s milk. So much for protecting the most vulnerable in the herd. “

No, the vaccine was created because people were still getting sick and dying due to measles infection. And measles immunity in babies due to transfer of maternal antibodies wanes rapidly whether the mother is naturally immune or vaccinated. (See also this in the BMJ.) So children still need to be vaccinated, because protection from maternal antibodies wears off within 6 months. And whether they’re protected by maternal antibodies from a naturally immune or vaccinated mother they will still be relying on herd immunity during the period between the protection from maternal antibodies wearing off and being vaccinated. (For children who receive the MMR vaccine at around 12 months of age and whose mothers are naturally immune, that’s from 2-4 months of age up until vaccination – or 8 to 10 months; for children whose mothers are immune from vaccination, that’s from 1 month to vaccination – 11 months.) So, contrary to the article by Suzanne Humphries MD, childhood vaccination and herd immunity are both important for infants whether their mother was vaccinated or had natural immunity. That immunity from maternal antibodies fades is no more than an argument in favour of timely immunisation. It’s also worth remembering that in obtaining natural immunity you run the risk of dying from the complications of measles.

Infants today (like those in Duisburg) are unprotected not because of vaccinated mothers but because we don’t have rates of vaccine coverage high enough for herd immunity. Because anti-vaccinationists bullshit about measles not being a dangerous disease, about immunity conferred by maternal antibodies, and about the effectiveness of vaccination.

Update, 11th August 2012

Homeopath Steve Scrutton has written a blog post that has some discussion of pertussis and vaccination. It includes this:

“Following several Tweets that have arisen from the recent Whooping Cough epidemics in the USA, it has become clear that the Pertussin vaccine is just not working. Worse still, for denialists, is the growing evidence that vaccinated children fare worse than the unvaccinated, and that the vaccinated who get the disease get it far worse.”

Scrutton does not provide any evidence for his assertions that vaccinated children fare worse than the unvaccinated and suffer worse symptoms. This is ironic, given his complaints in the same blog post that skeptics do not provide evidence.

I’ve noted in the above blog post about the Vaccination Council article that those who are vaccinated are less likely to contract pertussis than those who are unvaccinated. (And Scrutton might find the attack rates given in this paper interesting: link. Or those given here.) Let’s have a look at Scrutton’s unsubstantiated claim that “the vaccinated who get the disease get it far worse”.

http://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/about/signs-symptoms.html

“The illness can be milder (less severe) and the typical “whoop” absent in children, teens, and adults who have been vaccinated with a pertussis vaccine.”

The CDC page links to this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1177947/

“Clinical picture of pertussis in previously immunized children is usually characterized by such classical symptoms as prolonged and paroxysmal cough, rarely by whopping and post-tussive vomiting, and very rarely by apnea. […]

Tozzi et al. [8] in a study of 788 laboratory confirmed cases of pertussis had demonstrated that the duration of cough in vaccinated children was about one month, while in unvaccinated was two times longer.

Unvaccinated children more frequently presented the full spectrum of classical pertussis symptoms than vaccinated children. German study [9] has shown that 90.2% of unvaccinated patients (mean age 4.3 years) had paroxysmal cough, 78.9% whooping and 53.3% post-tussive vomiting. The frequency of paroxysmal cough in fully vaccinated children (median age 11 years) in our study was similar (84.4%), but post-tussive vomiting and whooping was more rare (accordingly 31.3% and 28.2%). Only one 11 years old patient had apnea.”

I don’t know what evidence Steve Scrutton has, as he fails to cite it. I do know that the evidence I have seen, which I have linked to above, contradicts Scrutton’s statements on vaccination and pertussis.

49 Comments

  1. pipsqueak said,

    A nice and thorough takedown.

  2. jdc325 said,

    Thanks Pip.

  3. Chris said,

    The number of deaths from measles decreased before the introduction of the vaccine (as anti-vaccinationists will never tire of telling us) but there were still 85 deaths per year at the time it was introduced.

    The problem is that while deaths decreased, incidence did not. I have actually seen anti-vaxers say that deaths were the same as incidence. If that was true, then measles would have had been 100% fatal.

    This is one reason when I see someone go on about deaths from measles was down 90% before vaccination, I provide some US Census data on measles that spans most of the twentieth century, and ask why the rate of measles incidence dropped 90% in one decade. The answers I get are very interesting. Check out how an anti-vaxer cherry picks the data a here.

  4. Cybertiger said,

    More cobblers!

  5. jdc325 said,

    The problem is that while deaths decreased, incidence did not.

    Indeed. I’m not sure if the table I want to paste will show properly in a comment but here’s some averages for vaccine coverage, notifications and deaths in England and Wales. (There was actually an increase in notifications in the 50s. There was a downwards trend for deaths but not for notifications.)

    Averages per year:
    Years — Coverage — Notifications — Deaths
    1992-08 — 0.87 — 5100 — 1.41
    1976-85 — 0.6 — 98014 — 16.50
    1968-75 — 0.47 — 171515 — 31.88
    1960-67 — 0 — 369123 — 85.22
    1950-59 — 0 — 435232 — 140.90
    1940-49 — 0 — 342669 — 568.70

  6. Silent No More! said,

    And let’s not forget that Bill Gates emphatically stated that vaccinations, along with health care and planned parenthood services, are his greatest hope for world population reduction. Get a clue people!!!
    (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WQtRI7A064)

    You can read all of the statistics to prove whatever you want over and over again with all of your blind faith in the FDA, giant corporations, Big Pharma, the medical industry, lawyers and whoever else you think is wrongfully labeled a lying, thieving, cheating snake… as they lobby the government to make every manner of atrocity legal and erode our liberties away every day a little more so that we can no longer even choose whether or not we want to drink and eat natural things or chemical alternatives.
    (http://www.naturalnews.com/036626_cooking_chemicals_ingredients.html)
    For goodness sake, the government won’t even let us collect our own rainwater in Oregon any longer. (http://www.naturalnews.com/036615_Oregon_rainwater_permaculture.html)
    You’re going to honestly sit back on your ass and argue these silly childish points when it’s so totally clear that we are in the middle of a government takeover of our basic human rights to eat and drink how we choose for our own health? You honestly WANT them to ban herbs and vitamins as Obama has now proposed? Are you honestly happy that it’s a federal offense to grow your own natural garden on your own land? Are you going to honestly try to sell to the people on this forum that the FDA has our best interests at heart even though the former CEO of Monsanto Corp sits on the board and makes decisions about what is going to pass inspections and what isn’t? (Watch the movie Food, Inc. for details about this.)

    Are we supposed to believe that the moderator of this forum is not in some way financially benefiting by promoting these unconstitutionally mandated vaccinations (MMRs) which have been proven to increase the number of occurrences of Shingles in the elderly? (Do a search on Dr. Mercola’s website for this information) We don’t need statistics to look around and see these things occurring in real time, though, do we? Do you seriously expect us to ignore the extremely sharp climb in numbers of children developing autism since vaccinations were introduced? Do you expect me to ignore the fact that my wife got the mumps last year even AFTER getting the vaccination as a child because it was SUPPOSED TO PROTECT HER for life or that the number of mumps and measles cases in the USA is climbing astronomically in drug-resistant strains after building tolerances to the vaccines and drugs over the years? And by the way, many expert neurologists held with the highest regard in the medical community around the world have declared with absolution that the mercury present in vaccinations is responsible for massive neurological damage occurring in autistic individuals. They have declared with confidence and total assurances that the highly toxic heavy metal is responsible for the condition and have even gone as far as to show videos of the neurological damage as it’s being caused in the brains of animals by mercury.

    And let’s not forget about the fraudulent court cases against Merck for covering up its vaccine test results: http://www.naturalnews.com/036328_Merck_mumps_vaccine_False_Claims_Act.html
    Give me a break guys! Do you really expect us to buy this sh*t? Vaccines are a sham…a fraud…a corporate cash cow! Anyone who can’t see it is blinding themselves by choice at this point.

    Furthermore, I can’t ignore the fact that the swine-flu vaccination killed and paralyzed so many people while the actual numbers of tested (not merely assumed) swine-flu viral fatalities was next to zero around the world. (Look up Swine Flu on Dr. Mercola’s website to find the real statistics on this.) Especially with regards to young children in China, the government had to recall ALL SWINE-FLU VACCINES and send them back to America after 1000s had been paralyzed or killed. I know because I was teaching in a University in Wuhan, China at the time. This was very big news when it happened, but I’m sure it wouldn’t have made it into the news in America. I was warning my students not to get the shot, as were many of the students’ parents, when the recall occurred. I knew it was very dangerous to get the shot already because the same thing had happened in the not-so-distant past (about a generation ago…look it up…the government admits to intentionally infecting people to see how the virus would spread and kill its victims) with another strain of swine flu vaccinations paralyzing and maiming people in large numbers.

    I get angry often about some of the completely biased and self-glorifying attitudes of the people on this forum trying to show others how intelligent and clever they are instead of thinking about the well-being of countless individuals reading these blogs. I’m sure many people are reading this because they are looking for answers about health conditions they may be suffering from in themselves or a loved one and they would like a second opinion before deciding which therapy to pursue. Many natural or alternative ways of helping ourselves may work for one person but not another simply because we all have different health conditions (good or bad and at various levels of impairment) which may or may not enable certain treatments to work. By discouraging EVERYONE and EVERYTHING natural you may be causing some to not get the healthy treatment with fewer or zero negative side effects that would work for them even while those same treatments would not work for you or others due to some unknown factor. That’s just plain irresponsible and selfish. Just because some treatments may not be universal, you think you must throw the baby out with the bathwater? No treatment, whether Western or Eastern, is 100% effective 100% of the time, my friends. I don’t see any hospitals abandoning cancer treatments, even though the success rate is typically below 4%. Talk about quackery….OMG!!! Statistically speaking, you have a higher percentage chance of recovering from cancer by doing NOTHING! With odds of losing that bad, I don’t see the problem with offering a placebo effect, even if you were right and that’s all a person’s going to get. The bottom line here is to not shoot down people’s hopes, especially since that might be all they have left in some cases. I know I’m throwing a lot of different topics around and it seems incoherent, but this is how I see this forum. Nothing ever really gets discussed to conclusion because nobody is willing to consider the opposing side with an open mind as a true and honest scientist is required to do.

    It seems obvious to me that we’re not talking merely about ACV or vaccinations, etc. This is more likely about science versus faith. This is proof versus experience. But people always forget that both can be true at the same time. They actually complement each other and comprise a perfect whole. One without the other is incomplete. Often there is evidence of one side being true even in the absence of the other providing backup support.

    Damn the so-called evidence and statistical analysis. Damn the unruly, unmerited skepticism. Damn anyone who would come between someone seeking help and the potentiality of the desperate person getting it. For example: All we must do is simply connect the dots here…It’s a fact that if you seek out alternative medicine instead of conventional medicine to cure your child of cancer in the USA, even if your child lives and the treatment was successful at completely eliminating the cancer, the government can come take your child away for child abuse because they say you are neglecting your child by not seeking the proper and accepted way of treatment for him/her. Of course in the US, neglect constitutes abuse according to the law these days. How sick is that? This is due to a portion of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act. You can find an actually story about this situation occurring by Googling “dustin-kunnari”.

    The fact is…YOU DON’T KNOW! Instead of pretending you have all the answers under this mask of intellectual self-righteousness and pile of heavily biased information coming from usually-government or corporation-funded clinical trials (which prove nothing most of the time except that a lot of money was thrown at the scientists), even though you may admit from time to time that you don’t know…why don’t you just simply say…”Hey, if it works for you…then I won’t try to discourage it. Perhaps there is something to these claims, but the fact is I don’t know much about it and I’m too stubborn to try it myself for the possibility of looking stupid and wrong in front of all of the people I’ve been pushing this propaganda on for all these years.” I’m sure that was probably a run-on sentence. For that, I’m sorry.

    At some point, people on all sides of the argument become so entrenched into their own views and prejudices that they lose sight of objectivity and just want to bash the other side(s) over the head with numbers and statistics. But the truth is usually somewhere between the numbers/skepticism/intellectual absolutism and the blind faith/emotional hype/placebo effect. There must be balance in everything. Seldom is any extreme an absolute and in most cases EVERYONE is wrong as well as right to some degree. Let’s all say “Yin Yang” together as a group. 1, 2, 3…ready?….Yiiiiiin Yaaaaaang!

    We may never have a lot of absolute answers about the mysteries of proper health and nutrition or diet, but all we do know is that the people in power over us will stop at nothing to prove whatever they have to in order to get us to do what they want. They have also made it abundantly clear that they intend to force us to do things that are unconstitutional. Things which our forefathers warned us would eventually happen if we allowed it. They told us we should fight for our rights to eat, drink and medicate how we individually want, otherwise our government will destroy us through tyrannical rule.
    Thomas Jefferson wrote, “If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny.”

    If more backup information to my claims is necessary or in case I missed supplying a link to some of the above information, please ask and I will look it up to provide for you.

  7. Chris said,

    Silent No More:

    And let’s not forget that Bill Gates emphatically stated that vaccinations, along with health care and planned parenthood services, are his greatest hope for world population reduction

    The reason for that is that when parents do not have to worry about some of their children not making it to adulthood, they will reduce the size of their families. So instead of having eight kids, hoping that a couple survive, though five survive.

    By providing health care, and preventing disease the families do not have to be as large. So they can have two to three kids, and be pretty sure they will grow to adulthood.

    It used to be that in the USA large families were very common. But now we rarely see families with seven kids like the one my kids’ grandmother grew up in. There are several reasons for that, like birth control, and certainty that your children will grow up.

    Damn the so-called evidence and statistical analysis. Damn the unruly, unmerited skepticism.

    It looks like you don’t care much for history either.

  8. jdc325 said,

    @Silent No More!

    Instead of questioning my motives and posting long, conspiracy theory-laden posts perhaps you’d like to address the content of the post you’re commenting on?

  9. Silent No More said,

    Watch this video from the University of Calgary about mercury destroying brain neurons:

    And this compilation video including an interview with Dr. Russell Blaylock as well as various clips taken directly from the mainstream media (very revealing reports about vaccinations giving our children autism at 3mins 24secs):

    Nice try Chris, but I think you didn’t actually WATCH the video of Bill Gates clearly indicating that he hopes these things will eliminate a portion of the world’s population. It has nothing to do with prevention of disease or anything else you just erroneously stated. In fact, I’m not sure exactly how anything you said is connected to anything he said. I guess some people just have to be anti-something. Good luck with your irrelevant viewpoint.

    And I think you missed the point of my quote:

    “Damn the so-called evidence and statistical analysis. Damn the unruly, unmerited skepticism.”

    I’m obviously NOT trying to ignore facts and it has nothing to do with history…where the hell did you get that from? If you would read what I said in context it’s obvious that I meant to say…for those of you who apparently lack interpretative skills…that too often we tend to spout off numbers and statistics and consider that to be the only admissible fact while the evidence to the contrary is staring at us so obviously and bluntly in the face. Do you still believe that the world is flat? I suppose that the Earth is the center of the universe as well, right? You know that, at one point, scientists had proven those things too. But not everyone bought into it and eventually the status quo was overturned by independent thinkers who used their brains to reason out what was all but obvious.

    Statistics are notoriously manipulated by people and businesses with an agenda. Most people are privy to that fact. Conspiracy theory you say? Is that all you’ve got? Are you really that intimidated by what I had to say? Come on. You can surely do better than that! It’s sad that when someone is backed into a corner by straight forward, revealing and unveiling truth about the facts which are backed by legitimate evidence and mainstream news reports, some will pull out the conspiracy theory trump card, as if that means anything. Nobody wants to be labeled a conspiracy theorist, so you think everyone is just going to back down and jump into your boat with you as you sink? Let’s get real here, buddy. People like you make me truly disgusted because you WANT people to take the poison while telling them it’s for their own good.

    And YES! I would question the motives of anyone who promotes a poison or drug-related injury imposed by federal law onto 100s of 1000s of babies across the country. Autism is very real and very connected to vaccines, as is cancer and other diseases. You know it, I know it, and most parents with children know it nowadays. It has made headline news so many times and is backed by good, sound science by well-known and highly renowned scientists as well as doctors that you’re just shooting yourself in the foot to say otherwise at this point. You’re losing credibility fast by trying to support the “vaccinate the world” campaign, jdc325. You may want to rethink your position.

    As far as my “long” post…it’s all related. Avarice, the LOVE of money and power, is the root of all evil. As long as we have a bloated health care system and government intervention in the way we eat, drink and medicate, we will have corruption at a totalitarian level where all of these things are interrelated. They’ve got their hands deep into the tax-payers’ pockets. With the recently passed and currently proposed Obama bills/laws, it’s becoming more and more self-evident than ever before. It’s hard to imagine that the greatest country in the world could come to ruin like this, but it’s happening a little more every day. It’s so sad. 1/3 of my family has already had cancer, including both of my parents, and the numbers increase every year. America is the country with the most illness and highest cancer rates. The numbers keep climbing every year as the corporations put more and more chemicals in our foods and the so-called health care system seeks to medicate us with more drugs. Let’s open our eyes and see the obvious truth.

    Just like what was shown in the movie “The Matrix”, humans have been reduced to mere batteries, supplying the fuel to keep the control machine operational. As long as we are kept sick without the natural means of staying healthy on our own, the hospitals, pharmacies, FDA and government all will continue to make trillions of dollars from illness. Do you enjoy going to an auto mechanic to have your car tuned up and then a week later you have to go back in because he loosened a hose? This is our current health care system. Drugs make you sick without exception. They keep you going back to the hospital. How are vaccines any different? And since when are vaccines even tested like other drugs are? Why is it that they get to circumvent the system of testing and trials while other pharmaceuticals must undergo years of expensive testing? Someone got lobbied by a pocketful of cash.

    Just use your brains people. For all of you reading this forum with a silent voice, just connect the dots. Don’t be sheep. Think for yourselves. It’s too obvious to see that we are being duped. No matter how stupid they try to make reasonable people look when we write into these forums, they can’t excuse the obvious truths that thoroughly surround us. Don’t go to opinionated people with biases for your answers. Seek out a variety of evidence and news stories which reveal these things in abundance. They are everywhere, just Google it or YouTube it but use common sense and intuition to weed out the good information from the bad. It’s not hard to do. Find herbal and naturopathic website and compare what different experts have to say about treating and healing whatever health condition you may have. You will find so many news articles and scientific studies to provide the facts to you for the answers you seek to help your families. There are many people out there who care about your health and will tell you the truth about natural things that will benefit your health in an inexpensive way. Don’t cheat yourselves by listening to these naysayers who only have an ax to grind.

    To the community at large, take care and God Bless!

    (I probably will not have time to respond to this forum again. It’s pretty much a bunch of useless nonsense anyway. Be careful to listen to skeptics. They are usually selling something.)

  10. colmcq said,

    “I know I’m throwing a lot of different topics around and it seems incoherent,” That was the only grain of truth in anything you’ve posted

  11. vertigowooyay said,

    “Nice try Chris, but I think you didn’t actually WATCH the video of Bill Gates clearly indicating that he hopes these things will eliminate a portion of the world’s population.”

    Really? Bill Gates really went in front of a camera and expressed his desire that his policy would kill a significant portion of the world’s population rather than, as stated above a desire to reduce family size through better health care and reduced mortality rates in children?

    Gosh, I can’t believe that wasn’t more widely reported at the time.

    Oh, wait. That’s because your argument is specious bollocks with not even the slenderest grasp of reality. Off to David Icke’s corner of the internet with you.

  12. jdc325 said,

    @Silent No More

    Re Bill Gates: http://www.gatesfoundation.org/annual-letter/2009/Pages/2009-preventing-childhood-deaths.aspx “A surprising but critical fact we learned was that reducing the number of deaths actually reduces population growth. Chart 3 shows the strong connection between infant mortality rates and fertility rates. Contrary to the Malthusian view that population will grow to the limit of however many kids can be fed, in fact parents choose to have enough kids to give them a high chance that several will survive to support them as they grow old. As the number of kids who survive to adulthood goes up, parents can achieve this goal without having as many children.”

    Now you know what Bill Gates’ views are on vaccination, infant mortality rates and fertility rates you can stop spreading misinformation about them.

    Statistics are notoriously manipulated by people and businesses with an agenda. Most people are privy to that fact.

    Which of the statistics I’ve referred to have been manipulated, how have they been manipulated and how do you know they’ve been manipulated?

    Be careful to listen to skeptics. They are usually selling something.

    Absolute nonsense. This is nothing more than a pathetic bit of mud-slinging. I’d ask you to provide evidence to support your claim, but I’m pretty sure you don’t have any. Feel free to prove me wrong…

    Don’t go to opinionated people with biases for your answers.

    So… we should avoid taking advice from you then?

    Conspiracy theory you say?

    Yes.

    Just like what was shown in the movie “The Matrix”, humans have been reduced to mere batteries, supplying the fuel to keep the control machine operational.

    You’re not helping yourself here…

  13. Chris said,

    Silent no more:

    Do you still believe that the world is flat? I suppose that the Earth is the center of the universe as well, right? You know that, at one point, scientists had proven those things too. But not everyone bought into it and eventually the status quo was overturned by independent thinkers who used their brains to reason out what was all but obvious.

    Nothing reveals the utter lack of education in both history and science than that statement. The circumference of this planet was calculated quite accurately by Eratosthenes of of Cyrene over two thousand years ago. And it was leaders of a religion that claimed this planet was the center of the universe, and they also killed and jailed those who took the observations and made the calculations.

    Why should we care about what you say, when you get such commonly known and simple facts completely wrong? You may not have noticed one simple thing that has happened in countries like the USA and UK: the average family size has become smaller in the last century, and even in the last fifty years.

    What is it about mercury? Do tell us which vaccine on the American pediatric schedule is only available with thimerosal. Try to tell us in less a hundred words.

  14. murmur said,

    silentnomore –

    Oh, can we have some evidence, rather than assertion, that autism is lined to vaccination, please?

    And doing it without mentioning mercury would be helpful.

    And recognising that many things about UK (where JDC lives) healthcare is rather different from US healthcare might be helpful.

    But I work in healthcare, so I am clearly a shill for Pig Farmer or something of that sort…

  15. Claims Of Unethical Skeptics: A Mirror Image Of The Truth « Stuff And Nonsense said,

    […] makes dodgy claims about vaccination, an important public health initiative. See the update at the end of this post for discussion of Scrutton’s unsubstantiated claims about pertussis and […]

  16. Juno Magazine On The Vaccine Debate | Stuff And Nonsense said,

    […] group JABS (penned by Richard Halvorsen), one from the Vaccination Council website (which is a site I’ve written about before) and one from the notorious Natural News site. There was one single reference to an actual academic […]

  17. mythbuster said,

    Hey Chris instead of trying to make up crap about Sarah Myhill, why aren’t we featuring all those pathetic regular doctors who prescribed Vioxx to the 160,000 people who then went on to die from heart attacks.

    Sort of put your smear campaign into perspective doesn’t it. Same with the vaccine scam. It is only people like you that allow mass killing to continue in the name of ‘medicine’.

  18. mythbuster said,

    “Oh, can we have some evidence, rather than assertion, that autism is lined to vaccination, please? And doing it without mentioning mercury would be helpful.” manoot

    That is interesting science, if the symptoms of mercury poisoning and autism are the same nice idea.

    Oh and why is it the so called placebo used in MMR ‘studies’ is often the adjunct in the vaccine which contains Phenol red and aluminum salts and there we are too told that no one can report GIT disturbance as a finding.

    that means when both groups fit or get bowel ulceration, meningitis or die you can say that there was just as much morbidity in the placebo as the vaccine therefore it must be safe?

    I suppose this is what they call Noddy medical science Murrmoo

    “But I work in healthcare, so I am clearly a shill for Pig Farmer or something of that sort…” Murmoo

    So were you one of those arsehole regular doctors that kept on prescribing Vioxx to those 160,000 people who went on to die from heart attacks……………….

    And do you believe in swine flu or is that just a distraction being a pig shill?

    Let’s test gunshots against stabbing, now don’t go mentioning death marrboo, the research guidelines are clear here, we are looking at relative morbidity and the control group have all declared their interest. Naughty

  19. mythbuster said,

    .”….and they also killed and jailed those who took the observations and made the calculations.” Chris on those who oppose vaccination

    Well even when the studies show us vaccination is bullshit they kept on injecting. When there is no European data set for vaccine adverse events and we can’t even tell who has been vaccinated in a supposed measles epidemic because they don’t record these basic facts, how on earth can you claim that vaccinations work!

    Well you can if you are a vaccine believer, which Chris obviously is.

    Thank the poops more people are waking up to vaccine fraud, one day there will be a truth and reconciliation hearing where all the vaccine abusers can tell their story and be forgiven. We can then leave the practice way back in the dark ages and move on.

    I look forward to that day Chris because at last this heinous practice will stop and we will all know why.

  20. Chris said,

    Poor lonely troll. Dredging up over year old posts for entertainment. One of the side effects of taking one’s coffee up the backside.

  21. mythbuster said,

    Poor lonely Chris, taken to adopting classic traditional septic tactics of ignoring facts and trotting out anecdotal tosh – ‘vaccines save lives’, the usual churchy stuff, only proper doctors know best.

    So did you carry on handing out Vioxx like all those other proper doctors even though it was known to kill 160,000 according to coroner’s reports.

    I note your silence on this, it is not acceptable.

    Looks like it’s me and you Chris, I would choose a coffee enema over cytotoxic voodoo any day especially as I have seen the former work on many occasions and attended the funerals of many who followed your kind of crank advice with the latter chemo madness.

  22. mythbuster said,

    As often happens when discussing the validity of the Turin shroud with Catholics is that they glaze over rather than face the raw facts.

    Some weeks ago I posted a link to a similar kind of vaccine EBM ‘Turin Shroud’ and Chris was unable to engage in any debate at all.

    So for those of you watching who find all this pseudo septic science rather amusing, here is the link to the MMR paper that claims ‘shrouds’ at every corner.

    http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/106/5/e62.full

    For a start the twins in the study had either already had the MMR or wild measles! Next the placebo was not something that most of the planet would consider ‘with no pharmaceutical action’, it was the same vaccine adjunct as used in the vaccine it was tested against. Apart from the usual aluminum salts, known to provoke strong immune reactions, it also contained Phenol red.

    More ‘weasel fudge’ in this ‘shroud’ paper is revealing lower down the papyrus – a list of things that were ‘deducted’ from the ‘allowable evidence’.

    So not only are we using test groups that are flawed, the placebo is almost the same as the vaccine it is tested against. This means if both groups have for example meningitis or fatality they could report that there was no more of these adverse events in the placebo group and therefore ‘shroud over’ the disaster.

    Here is a direct quote from the paper pointing out ‘allowable evidence’.

    “A summary variable, any MMR-related event, comprising all symptoms and signs except mild fever (≤101.3°F/38.5°C) and those affecting the respiratory or gastrointestinal tracts—which have innumerable causes other than vaccination—was deduced from the aforementioned analysis.” quote from the ‘healthy vaccine shroud papyrus’

    Even worse they then tell us that ‘certain pathologies’ likely to happen have been ‘deducted’ from the aforementioned analysis’. This is weasel words for ‘lets make sure nothing adverse can be reported’.

    When we all know that GIT disaster is one thing they certainly don’t want highlighted, it is amazing that some medical ‘ethics’ committee allowed this fudge to get past the starting block, unless that is you are a vaccine believer!

    So Chris, let’s include in your blog on misleading vaccine articles this piece of pro vaccine straw man, just to keep it balanced. It would be a revelation of sorts to hear how you view this paper or anyone else who wants to spring to its defense.

    You are not allowed to quote PubMed or any other medical bible, I have only highlighted a few of the glaring elephants here, there are plenty more to pick out.

    Happy Winterfest

  23. Chris said,

    Also a random control trial:
    Efficacy of measles vaccine

    And look at the table of why they are not done anymore, despite some less than ethical folks in Finland.

  24. mythbuster said,

    Efficacy of measles vaccine

    Thanks for highlighting another bullshit measles efficacy study Chris. The ‘placebo’ group were given the highly toxic pertussis vaccine! How on earth do any of us know that the deaths in that group were not the result of the ‘placebo’!

    The study is also 1962, well out of date by any standards. Is that the best you can do. Also you still haven’t told me your thoughts on the previous MMR paper where the ‘placebo’ was effectively the vaccine itself.

    Bring it on baby

  25. mythbuster said,

    Weasel words indeed from the chosen people. Amidst the screaming from the Jehovah two we have quite a few smoke bombs hiding the facts and some very creative writing too.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2134550/

    In this 1962 paper on measles vaccine it states the first trial was not a blind trial because the investigators knew who had received the vaccine!

    Historically medical trials have suffered from bias on reporting, this first measles vaccine trial was with only with 26 children. The ‘placebo’ was the Pertussis/tetanus vaccine, hardly a placebo. This first trial was reported that no deaths from measles occurred in the measles vaccinated group but 19 deaths from measles occurred in those given the Pertussis vaccine.

    So the researchers knew who got the ‘proper vaccine’ do you not think this was unethical with regard to reporting? Well later on when they test bigger groups and blind the trial, the results get ‘harder to interpret’ with all sorts of weasel excuses for the failure of the vaccine to follow the remarkable 100% success of the preliminary bias.

    So the study got bigger, researchers warned the parents ‘it would only work in half the children’, how is that ‘pre-empt ethical? Who decides whether the vaccine has failed or its just one of the 50%? What research told them that the measles vaccine failed 50% of the time?

    The interesting point is that in this bigger trial the ‘control group’ got gamma globulin and ‘inert material identical to that used in the cultural of the ‘measles’ virus! They don’t list this inert material Chris, do you not think we should be told?

    Should they not at test this inert material against a real placebo to see if it is making one more susceptible to measles?

    Then they tell us in the larger blind trial that measles was frequently seen, diagnosis was difficult with no serological testing available, how convenient Chris. The trial went tits up and no one could confirm failure, it actually says ‘no reason to believe that that vaccine was a failure! Unless you are a vaccine believer of course.

    Love the conclusion on this “It seems probable that the occurrence of so much measles like illness in the vaccinated group was a reflection of the difficulty of making a firm diagnosis in the African child at one visit”!!!!!!

    So in the first study the diagnosis of total success was firm, but in the larger one suddenly the plethora of measles in the measles vaccinated group was put down to ‘diagnosis failure’, because it was run by vaccine believers! I suppose that was easy in the first trial because it wasn’t blind – you can just see the junior doctors telling the professor ‘but sir look at the measles in the measles vaccinated group’ reply from boss ‘shut the fuck up if you want promotion’.

    This is currently going on with Merck in court in the US for telling its scientists to fiddle MMR efficacy and nothing new is going on really.

    So to conclude, there is no evidence that the kids in the first non blind trial were not killed by the Pertussis/tetanus vaccine either directly on indirectly, or weakened so that they were more susceptible to measles, there is no evidence that the first result of 100% efficacy is true because it would seem the results were based on anecdotal obs rather than serological testing to prove the groups were either with measles or not.

    Certainly obs of measles was good enough in the first trial which was non blind but mysteriously the obs were not good enough when the vaccine failed to work in the larger and statistically more significant blind trial!

    How did the doctors ‘know’ the measles vaccine would not work in 50% of the kids, they told the mothers this ‘fact’, was that the bullshit get out of jail card they could play if the kids died from the vaccine? Hi mum here is an anecdotal stat on success, would you like to put your kids at risk in this guinea pig trial that we can only do on black Africans because back home we would not be allowed to do it!

    This paper is so full of anecdotal British empire doctor tosh its tiresome to catalogue, when they decide to look at weight gain/loss as a factor in the vaccinated an unvaccinated they state ‘……….145….as compared to the vaccinated group that were presumably protected against measles!’

    For fuck’s sake Chris, they are now extrapolating on a presumption – are you really serious that this is the acceptable face of vaccine research! It says on the weight gain ‘not statistically significant’, so why report it!

    Well well boys, what a waste of my time

  26. Brad Sherwood said,

    You said that, according to the HPA pdf, there were “hundreds”, even “thousands”, of deaths per DECADE and then mix that in immediately after with numbers by the year. I find that completely disingenuous, if not outright deceptive. Someone might read that and think, oh my goodness! There have been hundreds, maybe thousands of deaths per year! We have to do something! I know that’s not what you’re saying. But are you actually going to argue that deaths per year had not been in decline prior to the introduction of the measles vaccine?

    And yeah, those of us who believe in real medicine and immunity love to point out those statistics because they blow YOUR vaccines [YOU own it] where they ultimately belong: into the dust heap of history along with the arrogant, foul-mouthed, unwashed obstetrical doctors of the 19th century, blood-letting meat-head “doctors”, amalgam, leeching, and all of the other failed “medical marvels”.

    Listen, and I will tell you what will happen to vaccines and the idea of vaccination, if you have ears to hear it. My parents recently paid close to 20,000 dollars between the two of them to have dental amalgam removed from their teeth after their dentist of 30 plus years failed to find two glaring cavities in my Dad’s top front teeth, and they were spurred to find an alternative dentist. Their new dentist was honest and open and intelligent enough (but I’m sure with the backing of public demand and the caving to that by professional dentistry) to finally implement the ideas of “us” lunatic natural health bloggers decrying the dangers of mercury fillings.

    You can take this to the bank: The same thing is GOING to happen with vaccines. You can bet your life on it. Maybe not in our lifetime, it won’t. But it will happen.

  27. Chris said,

    So, Mr. Sherwood are you denying that medicine in the twentieth century advanced enough to keep someone with pneumonia alive? Even in this century about one in ten in Wales who caught measles needed hospital care, mostly to be able to breathe because the most common measles complication is pneumonia.

    Do you think it is actually easier and cheaper to treat a disease instead of preventing the disease in the first place? Do you think hooking a kid up to ventilator is fun and exciting for that child? Do please tell us exactly how much more cost effective it is to let every child in the country get measles, and making sure the one in five who get pneumonia and the one in a thousand who get encephalitis (like Roald Dahl’s oldest child) survive.

    By the way, your archived chart is of American measles numbers. Funny how the incidence rate stopped after 1968. The data does exist, and is readily available:
    http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/6mishome.htm#Diseaseshadalready

    You can find the actual numbers in the CDC Pink Book Appendix G.

  28. jdc325 said,

    You said that, according to the HPA pdf, there were “hundreds”, even “thousands”, of deaths per DECADE and then mix that in immediately after with numbers by the year. I find that completely disingenuous, if not outright deceptive.

    You think it’s misleading to provide information on the number of deaths per decade and then to follow that up by pointing out how many deaths per year there were in specified decades? Really? Even though it was clearly stated in each case whether I was referring to deaths per decade or deaths per year?

    I’m sorry, but if you genuinely think it is misleading to provide clearly labelled figures for different time periods then you’re an idiot.

  29. jdc325 said,

    …are you actually going to argue that deaths per year had not been in decline prior to the introduction of the measles vaccine?

    No. As I pointed out in my post: “The number of deaths from measles decreased before the introduction of the vaccine (as anti-vaccinationists will never tire of telling us) but there were still 85 deaths per year at the time it was introduced.” (From 1992-2008 vaccine coverage was around 90% and there were on average just 1.4 deaths per year from measles.)

    The improvements prior to vaccination saved lives, yes. Vaccination has also saved lives though. You can reduce crowding, improve nutrition and introduce antibiotics and see a reduction in the case-fatality rate. But none of these things will eliminate measles or deaths from measles. You can see that from the deaths in the 50s and 60s. You can also see what would happen without vaccination against measles when you look at outbreaks in under-vaccinated populations: http://www.who.int/csr/don/2000_08_09/en/index.html & http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/87/2/07-050187.pdf for example. See also Japan, Italy, the Netherlands, California…

  30. mythbuster said,

    “Even in this century about one in ten in Wales who caught measles needed hospital care, mostly to be able to breathe because the most common measles complication is pneumonia.” Chris the soothsayer

    You have to stop this anecdote crap Chris. The people who went to hospital were those who were medicated there by taking Calpol and antipyretics, first line medical assault.

    Most of those who went were vaccinated anyway – the only death was again someone with underlying health issues.

    Considering the last measles in Wales provoked a mass vaccination campaign we are now seeing the result of that, more measles.

    “You can reduce crowding, improve nutrition and introduce antibiotics and see a reduction in the case-fatality rate. But none of these things will eliminate measles or deaths from measles.” j20

    Wrong, it reduces mortality to virtually zero, vaccination doesn’t the third world is vaccinated to death literally and there the mortality is at it highest.

  31. mthybuster said,

    “are you actually going to argue that deaths per year had not been in decline prior to the introduction of the measles vaccine?”

    98% in decline needs pointing out. So why are parents duped into thinking vaccination works with the little NHS book with graphs showing GP notifications and not mortality? taking and amplifying bits of graphs in the NHS book is a dishonest marketing tool and because almost all the pro vaccine EBM is based on medical anecdotes, non placebo trials and desktop stats. If you really think that good hygiene, food and water, sanitation and housing are not the real answer please can you tell me why virtually all the mortality stats for measles are third world demographic.

    In modern times GPs in the UK are not allowed to report a measles case without a serological test. But funnily enough they can report them for research papers when it is in the interests of the vaccine efficacy stats.

    See this paper Chris posted and look at the bend in the line of evidence gathering criteria – awesome and very naughty.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2134550/

    Small study ‘shows’ huge result for MMR but uses doctors obs to measure.
    Trial is also not blind and that helps the doctors ‘report’ accurately!

    Later much bigger trial is blind and ‘serious difficulty’ occurs because lots of people get measles in the vaccinated group! This is discounted due to lack of serological testing – but wait, that was ok in the non blind trial!

    I think mines a double Chris, can you make it stack up?

    I bet your response is some nebulous spelling mistake obs!

  32. alexandraoldandnew said,

    Im slightly more inclined to believe a group full of MDs and PhDs, than a blog with no primary sources. Im not even anti vac.
    Thanks

  33. Chris said,

    Well, then here you go, written by an infectious disease doctor:
    http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/medical-voices-always-in-error-never-in-doubt/

    By the way, that is the same group as the Vaccination Council. Especially Suzanne Humphries..

  34. jdc325 said,

    Im slightly more inclined to believe a group full of MDs and PhDs, than a blog with no primary sources. Im not even anti vac.
    Thanks

    The blue underlined text in the post you’re commenting on indicates a link. Are there any claims in this post that don’t have appropriate references?

  35. jennifer said,

    The more I study this, the more I lean toward the anti-vaxers position.

  36. James Whittaker said,

    Good work mythbuster, Brad Sherwood, Silent No More – those who blind themselves to the facts here, which indicate not that the principles behind vaccines are scientifically unsound nor that those who raise skeptical caution about vaccines are ‘anti-vaxxers’ incapable of reasoned thought… No, those who ignore fact and guard themselves against a complex world with a shield called ‘science’ are a joke – a laughing stock who deserve perhaps the title of priest, but certainly not scientist.

  37. Measles Multi-Post: Vax or Not to Vax? - VIBRANT HEALTH NEWS said,

    […] the geeks who can’t get enough on this subject, an scientific blog named “Stuff and Nonsense” takes issue with the International Medical Council on Vaccination&#… on herd immunity, etc. The comment section is full of debate and articles for […]

  38. jdc325 said,

    @jennifer, please feel free to expand on that. I’d be interested to know what you’ve been studying and why it makes you more inclined to believe the anti-vaccine view.

    @James Whittaker, I’d like to hear about these facts that indicate the principles behind vaccines are unsound.

  39. Chris said,

    One of the folks on the Vaccination Council is Leo Rebello. He was recently interviewed, and it is brilliant:
    http://www.merseysideskeptics.org.uk/2015/01/be-reasonable-episode-025-leo-rebello/

    Especially the comments. :-)

  40. jdc325 said,

    Slightly stunned by that comment thread.

  41. Chris said,

    Apparently most of them come from the same IP address.

  42. EddieUnwind said,

    With respect, Chris, this type of exercise is always cowardly. It’s far too easy. For example, I’ve read many articles by those debunking Noam Chomsky’s arguments, but am fairly certain that none of their authors would survive a single minute in a debate with him. Which brings me to my point. So far as any discerning individual might be concerned, if you really want to lend support to the veracity of your viewpoint I suggest you contact Dr.Humphries and set up a forty-five minute fully-fledged debate, which you can then put on social media. I’m sure she’d be more than happy to oblige. See how you go.

  43. EddieUnwind said,

    Oh, and that goes for jdc325 also…

  44. Chris said,

    Humphries is neither qualified (nephrologist not immunologist) nor reputable:
    http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2013/11/783-suzanne-humphries.html

    There is no reason to debate someone who embraces idiocy like homeopathy.

  45. jdc325 said,

    If you’re keen on a debate Eddie, I suggest you set one up. You can email the details (format, venue etc) to 325jdc325@gmail.com and I’ll take a look at your proposal.

    By the way, I’m not familiar with Chomsky or those who’ve debunked his arguments. Can you tell me why you think they wouldn’t last a minute in a debate with him?

  46. Chris said,

    Chomsky is primarily a linguist. He is as qualified a epidemiologist as Humphries.

  47. David Edgar said,

    jdc325, don’t you know that the premise that a pertussis vaccine can prevent the transmission/spreading of the disease is totally FALSE? Pertussis vaccine is a toxoid (starting 1990), even if it does work as intended it is designed to protect the vaccinated individual from the pertussis toxin only. There is absolutely no mechanism of which it could prevent the spread of pertussis to another individual. In fact it makes matter worse – vaccinated people will become silent carriers spreading it to the unsuspecting.

    I challenge you to post here evidence that the pertussis vaccine could prevent transmission/spreading of pertussis.

  48. David Edgar said,

    And certainly if you can’t find any evidence, then Suzanne Humphries is right that herd immunity by vaccination is a hogwash.

  49. jdc325 said,

    David, I’ve just re-read my post to see which of my arguments relied on acellular pertussis vaccine preventing transmission. Turns out, none of them do. You’re free to challenge me to post evidence to back up claims I haven’t made but I’m afraid you’re going to be disappointed.

    And if you think that something that is relevant only to acellular pertussis vaccine means anything Humphries says is true of vaccines generally then I’m afraid you’re wrong.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: