The article your cite stated that the results were inconclusive and that more study would be necessary. Quite apart from that, it used a very small sample size (not enough power for statistical significance) and had no controls to compare against.

In short, it does nothing to support a criticism of vaccines.

As to transmitting Hep B, it’s not just transmitted through sexual contact. It can also be transmitted via blood (open cuts, transfusion, sharing needles, etc.) as well as other bodily fluids. Infants can also be infected by their mothers through breast milk. Hep B is not as easily transmitted as something like measles, but it can still affect people other than your girlfriend if you become infected.

http://rheumatology.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/38/10/978

There are other studies out there, and there are studies showing that the vaccine is safe.

In case of Hepatitis B, IIRC, you’re usually virulent for 1-6 months. So it’s (technically) not only your girlfriend who’s at risk, but pretty much every other human that you encounter in that timespan as well.

Regarding your concern for autoimmune diseases.. where does that come from? Just curious, because in Austria I have yet to notice a significant rise in the number of autoimmune diseases.. and considering the vaccination programs started in the 50′s and 60′s, a lot of people born in that area are now of an age where breakout of such would be likely. Plus, you’d think I’d have come down with one as well, considering the number of shots I have received so far (especially considering that I got a TBE-shot every 4-5 years). The only thing ‘wrong’ with me is a case of Aspergers syndrome.. which runs on the paternal line of my family since a couple of generations, which is highly indicative of a genetic cause rather than a vaccinated one. And I for one like the unique perspective this gives me upon this world.

I’m not sure what you mean about merck not knowing about Vioxx before marketing, but this site reported the dangers in 1999 http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/01/02/painkiller.aspx
It’s been reposted last year, but if you look around the site you will find other references around year 2000 and 2002.

Mathias,

My understanding of Hep B, was if I contract it, my body makes antibodies and I have immunity. This is in most cases. Am I then able to infect others? I guess my girlfriend is the only one at risk, so whats the real risk to both of us? So I weigh that up with the possibility of getting an auto immune disease as a result of the vaccine. It’s not proven, so do I wait for them to prove it(or otherwise) causes autoimmunity or go with my gut?

I traveled in SE Asia for 4 months a few years ago and I plan on going to India very soon. All free of vaccines. I guess I’ll have to avoid the hookers and needles.

Now I’ll have a look into the other vaccines recommended for travel to India and weigh it up.

Plus, I think I’ve read studies (they’re in German though, so probably not terribly useful to you) where the cost of preventative measures (vaccinations, regular examinations of healthy people) was compared to the costs incurred by sick people onto the health system – and if I’m not mistaken the study which compared vaccination costs vs. an epidemic that could have been prevented, the vaccinations were at least an order of a magnitude cheaper than riding out the epidemic.

Perhaps you are thinking of the WHO study that looked at the health costs of a measles outbreak in Duisburg, Germany in 2006: http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/87/2/07-050187/en/index.html

“Nothing is free, your taxes pay for your free vaccines. I say that just to stress the point that about big pharma is making billions regardless of weather we pay directly or not. And where there is big dollars there is always corruption. Thus, I have to be skeptical.”

Of course companies are out to make a profit. But to declare them to be the ultimate evil and enemy of mankind just because they intend to earn money isn’t the way to go either.
Yes the money comes out of the taxpayers pocket, but what’s the big deal? It’s a service to the general populace, much like the health care system in place here which offers standard and neccessary treatments free of charge – at most there’s a co-pay which is usually not terribly high.
A healthy population is in the best interest of the State – a healthy population works, a healthy population pays taxes which keeps the state going. Plus, I think I’ve read studies (they’re in German though, so probably not terribly useful to you) where the cost of preventative measures (vaccinations, regular examinations of healthy people) was compared to the costs incurred by sick people onto the health system – and if I’m not mistaken the study which compared vaccination costs vs. an epidemic that could have been prevented, the vaccinations were at least an order of a magnitude cheaper than riding out the epidemic..

“You think it’s a gamble to not take the vaccines, but if you look at the statistics on hep b you will see the risk of cancer 10-30 years later is very, very low (somewhere around 1.25%). Most people don’t know they got it, many have some flu symptoms and get over it in a few days. And thats if you even contract it. Unless you’re a drug user, prostitute or homeless person you’re probably safe anyway. So the risk is nearly nothing.”

Technically you’re right, that the contraction rate is not all that high – if you’re staying in your general area. I’m assuming, you’re from the continental United States here – and there, much like here in Central Europe, it’s not terribly common, though not unheard of. But then there are more areas on this planet than just the ConUS or Central Europe. A Hepatitis vaccination may be prudent though, if one -like me – visits India, South East Asia or Africa, where our ‘western’ hygiene standards are not as common. And all the while you might luck out and contract it with no ill effects, you still act as a carrier when you return, and can infect others who might not be so lucky. So I’m getting this (or rather: got this by now) to protect others, if not myself.

Most of what you posit here we’re talking about multiple elsewheres, and I get the feeling the longer this discussion goes on the closer we’re getting to agreement so the delta is becoming less significant compared to the magnitude of verbiag

Agreed – I at the very least have a far better understanding of the expense and difficulty of what I would like to happen than before speaking to you.

I think the associated costs from cancer on a yearly average, compared for the last thirty years, is likely to skew well in the favor of cancer having a much higher cost aspect than communicable diseases.

I would tend to agree, my point was that since cancer research is already being funded though perhaps there is more gain to funding other health programs. I’d also ask (and I honestly don’t know the answer) – how does the amount of money going into research contribute to progress, does research progress increase directly in line with the money coming in, or does progress need increasingly more money the further along it gets (in the same way that it takes more energy to get from 450mph to 500mph than from 50mph to 100mph) – so you’re spending a lot more to only get a little further.

Which upon reflection, is your argument for compulsory vaccinations. Good point.

I don’t think there’s sufficient evidence to support this hypothesis (yet), but you have a point, this is a serious danger.

Here I disagree with there not being enough evidence – check MMR uptake rates in the UK since Wakefield’s “research” was published. Vaccination rates have dropped (in somce cases not even significantly) in the UK and measles is now considered endemic, as one example. Some of the research from the CDC that I linked above also shows that measles is returning in the US, and primarily in the states which allow philosophical objections to vaccination. Add that to the figures which show that in age groups where vaccination is not mandatory vaccination levels can drop as low as almost 50%, and I think the evidence is convincing that the anti-vax movement coupled with laziness, ignorance and cost are driving down vaccinations levels where there is no level of compulsion.

I propose we try information warfare

Absolutely agreed – and if we could see evidence of this actually working then I would probably have to concede the point that mandatory vaccination at all ages would be too expensive to implement for its level of success. Unfortunately, you seem far more optimistic than I about the effect this could have!

which will never happen if they keep on treating the symptoms.

There are many disease for which we know the causes and are working at treating the cause, not the symptoms. Cancer is a big one, there.

The FDA approved the anthrax vaccine that may have been the cause of Gulf War Syndrome.

The theory is that the anthrax vaccines contained squalene, which appears to have been an experimental adjuvant, and that the squalene caused GWS. The study that raised the question is from 2002 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12127050). Subsequent studies would seem to rule out squalene as a cause of GWS:

* http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16762524 (“Enhancement of an analytical method for the determination of squalene in anthrax vaccine adsorbed formulations.”)
* http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19379786 (“Antibodies to squalene in US Navy Persian Gulf War veterans with chronic multisymptom illness.”)
* http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15087221 (“Detection of antibodies to squalene: III. Naturally occurring antibodies to squalene in humans and mice.”)

It would appear that the anthrax vaccine, therefore, is not the culprit.

I have personal reservations about how military personnel are treated, when it comes to medical products, but that is a whole ethical debate for another time.

The vioxx fiasco was intersting. I read a study 5 years before vioxx was pulled off the market showing it causes heart problems, or something of that nature. So to Merck, that was worth the risk.

Vioxx was an interesting case, because before marketing, Merck truly was not aware of the risk of arrhythmias. From what I understand, an investigator at one site failed to report it. How Merck handled it afterward was an abysmal failure of marketing and management strategy, almost as if they were in denial because pre-market studies didn’t show it. They ended up having to go back and open up all of the studies that were done, reexamine the data extraordinarily carefully to look for hints that may have suggested the problem and then respond accordingly. I will say that Vioxx has its uses, and that the labeling should have been changed, rather than pulling it from market altogether. Let me explain before anyone goes off. Vioxx was very effective at relieving pain. Used short-term, it did not elevate the risk of cardiovascular problems. Those only arose with chronic, daily use over an extended period. So, for situations where people suffered from flares of intense, acute pain, it was a good drug.

Bayer released HIV contaminated blood for thier clients

Yes, at a time before accurate screening measures even existed and before much was really known about HIV. Stop regurgitating what you read on anti-vax sites. At best, they leave out pertinent information or distort the truth. At worst, they make stuff up and lie. I will grant, however, that Bayer did act irresponsibly, by buying blood plasma from high-risk groups and failing to follow regulations to test for viral hepatitis. Had they done that, the likely level of contamination would have been lower, but the risk of HIV-contaminated blood products still would have been present. Bayer was justifiably sued for damages. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contaminated_haemophilia_blood_products)

baxter released avian flu contaminated vaccines(why mix it with human flu in the first place).

From what I’ve read thus far, investigation has revealed that a) it was not a vaccine that was contaminated, b) that the material was intended for lab use, not human use, c) that it was a Baxter-contracted lab, not a resaler or distributor that discovered the issue and d) that it was an accident, which has prompted looking at their quality control protocols. (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aTo3LbhcA75I)

But it’s ok, because is the pharmaceutical industry.

No. When pharmaceutical companies do something wrong, they should be held accountable for it. However, to take one thing that they do wrong and use that to condemn everything the company does, let alone the entire industry, is poor thinking. It would be like saying that because Pontiac made a car that had issues with engine fires (Fiero) in the 1984 models with 2.5L engines, therefore every car Pontiac makes is bad, and not only that, but all auto manufacturers are corrupt and don’t care at all about the safety of their consumers; they’re just in it for the money. It’s an absurd premise.

It would be different if the companies in question consistently made the same mistakes and regularly flaunted the law. Then that company should be shut down, and that does happen. If a company regularly fails to meet regulation, FDA will order them to close shop. The points that you brought up, though serious, are isolated incidents that were resolved with corrective action and subsequent scrutiny. Bear in mind, that when a company messes up, even a a reputable, FDA takes notice and takes a closer look at them.

The problem is, no one is going to study healthy vs unhealthy kids as in isn’t in the best interest of the ones making the money. Someone has to fund it correct?

Funding does not come solely from companies. In fact, except for clinical trials, very little money comes from industry, compared to other sources of funding. Lots of research is funded by the National Institutes of Health. There are also private foundations that provide money for research. In fact, the NIH grants would be the perfect source to fund trials like you want, comparing “health” between vaccinated and unvaccinated kids, since NIH-funded research must contribute to the public at large. Your protestations that “no one is going to study healthy vs. unhealthy kids, as in isn’t in the best interest of the ones making the money” is a hollow argument with no basis in fact. All you are left with, then, is your faith (belief without [or even despite] evidence) that “vaccines are just bad”.

I felt you were in this on a personal level based on your comments. Perhaps I was wrong. I’m not trying to avoid or muddy or play another games. Sometimes I jump on here with 5minutes before work and say what I can.

As far as Big Alternative companies making billions and telling lies, etc I dont know. They just dont get as much attention as the Big Pharma co’s. I’m no more a fan of going to the naturapath for herbs, potions, etc to fix me, than I am of going to the doctor for a pill fix. Alot of the supplemsnts are a waste of money as far as I can tell. Ther are a few good ones, but I’m more about food and lifestyle than anythjing else. There are also a few must have drugs out there also, but it’s the going to the doctor for the quick fix that is destroying our health.

There is no way I could prove that Pharma’s would not go out of business for the sake of health. We would have to eliminate all disease first…which will never happen if they keep on treating the symptoms. Being truly ethical is almost impossible in business.

I think if our health was all that mattered Eli Lilly wouldnt have re badged Prosac and called it Sarafem to treat a disease that probably doesn’t even exist. That is Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder.

But back to the vaccines:
The FDA approved the anthrax vaccine that may have been the cause of Gulf War Syndrome. http://www.curehunter.com/public/pubmed10640454.do

This is probably just another rare mistake.

Most of what you posit here we’re talking about multiple elsewheres, and I get the feeling the longer this discussion goes on the closer we’re getting to agreement so the delta is becoming less significant compared to the magnitude of verbiage

Aside from what I’ve left elsewhere, just two points on your last:

> Actually I don’t grant this as being reasonable at all – cancer
> is not an infectious disease

All of your following points in that paragraph are true. However, what I’m saying is that the half-million deaths due to cancer yearly in the United States, with their business closures (the owner dies), lost time, care costs, etc. is comparable to the costs you mention *given the actual number of vaccine-preventable deaths/illnesses per year* (I can’t find a precise figure, but http://www.drugs.com/news/vaccine-preventable-deaths-reach-new-low-u-s-10011.html seems to indicate that the number is really small; the best note I’ve found is that about 600 people die from the flu every year, and that’s more than the rest combined. Maybe a couple of thousand, overall. All of those pandemic fears you’re talking about (business closure costs, other economic activities halted, etc.) are truly risks, but given the vast infrequency of them (at least the ones attributable to vaccine-preventable diseases!) I think the associated costs from cancer on a yearly average, compared for the last thirty years, is likely to skew well in the favor of cancer having a much higher cost aspect than communicable diseases.

> But people are becoming less likely to vaccinate –
> exemptions are growing and this is only likely to get
> worse as the anti-vaccine movement becomes
> more vocal and celebrity filled.

I don’t think there’s sufficient evidence to support this hypothesis (yet), but you have a point, this is a serious danger. Yes, the rate of voluntary opting-out has increased, but until… what, six months ago… the anti-anti-vax movement was largely nascent.

That is to say, hysterical anti-vaxxers gained ground among those that are swayed by their arguments, but it is not until recently that there has been a real attempt by people (like Phil, Orac, Amanda Peet, etc.) to counter the woo. Before we go around inflaming the woo folk by trying to impose “evil guvmnit forcing us to take vax!” (which might actually work out the opposite that either of us want), I propose we try information warfare

You take this personally I see. Like I’m attacking you personally. Interesting.

Where, exactly, do I seem to be taking this personally? Where, exactly, do I seem to demonstrate or state that I think you are making a personal attack on me? You wouldn’t be trying to muddy the waters by suggesting you shouldn’t have to consider my arguments properly because they are simply unwarranted emotional reactions, would you?

but I’m making decisions for myself based on my correct understanding.

Your correct understanding of what? The problem is you don’t have a correct understanding of medical systems elsewhere – the Big Pharma conspiracy largely falls on its arse once you consider medical systems outside of the USA.

If you think government, pharmacuticals and every other multinational corporation have the best interests of the people in mind then I wish you all the best in your TV fantasy world.

Where did I say that was the case? You like attributing words to people don’t you, in particular if it means you can then attack that stance and not their actual stance. There is a name for that you know.

Even if they were out to eradicate all disease the current model doesn’t allow for it. It just wont happen with all the money involved. Look a little deeper if you can’t yet see the corruption.

Your claim, prove it.

I’m not challenging the alternative medicine field because this was originally about compulsory vaccination.

Talk about a half-arsed dodge. I’ll just take it as read that you aren’t actually going to address the substance of my points and ignore you from now on.

Pat Cahalan:

I’ve responded to the points you made on my blog over there – but will respond to the points you made here on here!

With regards to figures – it appears that actually we have both been a little off the ball. Check out this link :

Vaccination coverage amongst children in kindergarten

In 75% of states coverage is at or above 95% for young children. The reason? Mandatory vaccination for children entering kindergarten. We’ve actually been arguing about the usefulness of something and whether it should happen when that something is already happening and working in at least one instance. Where we have a problem, and this is actually what the figures show, is that vaccination rates are often far too low for pre-kindergarten age children and teens. This is apparently where the work needs to be put in.

As I point out over at my place, if you then remove non-medical exemptions (figures for which you can find here) then you will get pretty darn close to 100% coverage at kindergarten age in some states. You still have a significant problem before and after that though.

how do you propose we audit adult vaccination rates?

Actually I am undecided on whether or not we should ensure adult vaccination rates once childhood-teen vaccination is mandatory (and I am not entirely sure how I would propose auditing that) – I included that merely to highlight that you were oversimplifiying the vaccination coverage rates.

An argument from authority is only a fallacy if in fact the authority claimed is claimed improperly.

It was in response to a completely unwarranted and unnecessary reference to your career and degree, not to mention the pompous way it was phrased – why else did you throw that in if not to establish a degree of authority on the matter? I say “If we accept your inaccurate figures” and you respond with – “I’ve been a programmer for 15 years and have a degree in IS.” How does your career and degree make your argument about the cost/benefit of compulsory vaccination any more solid?

If you want to put forth some sort of claim to expertise, go right ahead. Odds are pretty good that I’ll grant you expertise you *do* have

Actually, my experience in this area is limited so I wouldn’t claim it, nor would I drop my irrelevant experience in just randomly in response to a non-related statement.

The benefit in this case is *NOT* “not vaccinating”, because we’re not comparing “mandatory vaccinations costs and benefits” to “not vaccinating”. We’re comparing “mandatory vaccinations costs and benefits” to “voluntary vaccinations costs and benefits”,

My point is that you do not include the cost of not vaccinating in the costs of “voluntary vaccinations costs and benefits” – so your costs analysis is woefully incomplete. The cost of not vaccinating has to be included since part of voluntary vaccinations is volunteering not to have them – and you do not include that cost. I am not comparing “mandatory vaccination” to “not vaccinating”. I am saying you are not fairly comparing “mandatory vaccination” to “voluntary vaccination”.

I’m talking about the effectiveness of the process Phil is proposing.

A process that is already largely in place and can be adapted – and yes I understand it would cost, and no I don’t have a proposal for an audit mechanism. Yes I do understand it may be both costly and difficult – that is not an excuse.

I am also not advocating that we blindly rush into it – my point is that if we see the benefit at kindergarten age then we should not simply ignore that because extending the program will be difficult and expensive.

You raise plenty of significant issues in regards to auditing the system and I don’t have answers for you because this is not my area of expertise – but the fact that there is a system in place that works also suggests that a process has been found and that there are answers to your questions. What they are, I don’t know. How much it would cost to expand it to cover pre and post kindergarten age I do not know.

To answer a few that I can:

It would be enforcing the full vaccination schedule; the CDC would revisit the schedule at least once every two years (unless new and more effective vaccines are released in the interim); we’re covering newborn infants to 19 year olds (high school graduates) – I am undecided on adults; pre and post kindergarten ages have poor vaccination coverage compared to the desired level >95% and so do some vaccines in adults; vaccination should be required to enter daycare, public and private school and university/college (home schoolers I confess to not having an immediate answer for) and actually requiring vaccination to register to vote is a good one if you ask me; I would require doctors or nurse practitioners for the sign off; doctors/nurse practitioners would lose their license/position if knowingly signing off on vaccinations that had not happened; children would either have to be taught seperately or graduation could be witheld until they can prove vaccination levels; depending on the professional it may be necessary to revoke their license; no non-medical exemptions.

As to the questions I missed out – I don’t want that to be taken as an admission that they are an insurmountable obstacle, just that I don’t think I have the expertise or knowledge to propose a satisfactory answer.

I could go on.

I don’t doubt it – but then I never said that it would be easy or cheap.

Okay, now we have how many deaths directly attributable to those preventable diseases this year?

Bear in mind that this may be the case now (whatever figures you choose), but that the number of people choosing philosophical exemptions is growing, 2008 saw double the number of cases of measles than the average level for 2000-2007 (131 compared to 63). The potential is there for the number of unvaccinated to grow and for the number of deaths to therefore increase. Part of my reasoning for making vaccines mandatory is that people are starting to choose not to because of their ignorance, and that number is increasing (see this report).

While you don’t have pandemic fears with cancer, I will state that I think it’s reasonable (given the actual, real frequency of cancer deaths to communicable disease deaths in the U.S.) to guess that the attendant indirect costs (lost wages, business closures, etc.) are comparable.

Actually I don’t grant this as being reasonable at all – cancer is not an infectious disease – people are afraid of cancer but not because they think they can catch it by being in a public place. Cancer is a terrible analogy to use here. People do not stay at home because of fear of catching cancer. Stock Markets do not close because people are afraid of catching cancer. International travel is not suspended because people are afraid of catching cancer. Health care facilities are not overwhelmed by people who think they have cancer because they suddenly have one or two symptoms that could be associated with cancer. Businesses are not closed because people are afraid of catching cancer. Cities are not shut down because people are afraid of catching cancer. Cancer does not spread amongst unvaccinated populations. Cancer cannot be prevented by herd immunity. With respect, cancer does not even come close to resembling the costs of an infectious disease pandemic – very poor choice of comparison.

Even if they’re not… why do you not think it would be a better idea to take this $306 million dollars and give it to the NCI? Or the American Heart Institute? Or even give the $306 million dollars to drug companies to develop newer vaccines for diseases we don’t currently have covered? Any one of those things seems more worthwhile, to me.

Healthcare is not a case of fighting one battle at a time, you have to invest in all avenues. And to reverse the question – Why do you think giving money to organisations that already recieve funding is better than giving money to an effort to prevent potentially lethal pandemics? Incidentally, vaccinating against measles, as one example, costs less than $1 according to the Measles Initiative.

Whenever you’re auditing something that people are likely to do anyway, you’re probably doing something extremely wasteful.

But people are becoming less likely to vaccinate – exemptions are growing and this is only likely to get worse as the anti-vaccine movement becomes more vocal and celebrity filled. On top of this – people are only likely to do it because it is already mandatory for kindergarten entrants. As the CDC report suggests – where philosophical exemption is allowed the number of unvaccinated children is increasing. Look at figures from Europe to see how quickly disease returns and can become endemic from small drops in vaccination rates. Even herd immunity is not a concrete guarantee of protection for the unvaccinated.

People are only likely to vaccinate now because it is mandatory – when it isn’t (pre-kindergarten, post kindergarten) vaccination rates clearly drop to well below herd immunity levels (remember, we are talking down to 50% in some cases), and what of home schooling and private schooling where vaccination may not be mandatory?

Look at what figures are presented by the CDC – vaccination is 95% or less where it is mandatory for kindergarten entrance. Whilst 44 states included private schools in their figures, only 6 included home schooled children for the 2006-2007 figures. Are the home schooled likely to be vaccinated if it is not mandatory? Again, the figures for pre and post kindergarten suggest no. Note that this report also says:

State laws requiring proof of vaccination at early school entry are key to the U.S. vaccination program and help ensure that no child is unvaccinated. The effectiveness of these laws depends on school nurses, teachers, health department staff members, and others identifying children whose vaccinations are not up to date.

I’m going to say that I don’t think it’s credible to assume that we can do that without cutting something else.

I didn’t say we had to do it right now or that reforms wouldn’t be needed first. In fact, I had assumed that would be the case and didn’t need stating. My mistake. This could not be an overnight solution, it would take time and money. Conditions are not perfect for it now.

I still do not see a compelling reason for not doing it.

Todd,

The vioxx fiasco was intersting. I read a study 5 years before vioxx was pulled off the market showing it causes heart problems, or something of that nature. So to Merck, that was worth the risk. Bayer released HIV contaminated blood for thier clients and baxter released avian flu contaminated vaccines(why mix it with human flu in the first place). And thats just the recent cases, I’m sure I could dig up a bunch more.

But it’s ok, because is the pharmaceutical industry.

It’s nice you would put you’re own health at risk to protect your friend, but if its’ a shot in the dark flu vaccine then your efforts are worthless. And mercury isn’t good for you.

It’s not a shot in the dark. More like a shot in the late afternoon. Oh, and regarding mercury, assuming that your general statement applies to the amounts of ethylmercury found in the thimerosal in vaccines (provide some facts to support your claim), then it’s good that they have thimerosal-free versions available, though at a somewhat higher cost.

Show me the study that vaccinated kids are healthier than vaccinated kids. As far as I know there isn’t one. Thats group one vaccinated, group two unvaccinated.

Nope. You were the one to make the claim that vaccination = less healthy kids. The burden is on you to provide studies such as you request.

Not all, and not everyone within. Be we have more than one Monsanto out there.

While the overall governance of any given corporation can be prone to corruption, the actual nuts and bolts workers generally aren’t. Keep this in mind: the people that are running the clinical trials, looking for the endpoints to be measured, analyzing the data, and so on, they’re all regular people. They might need the drug they’re working on some day. Their family (husbands, wives, children, parents, grandparents, grandkids) might need those drugs. Their friends might need those drugs. They have a vested interest in ensuring that the data is accurate and clean, that the drug is safe (as compared to the risks of the drug and the risks of not using the drug) and that it has a meaningful effect. There may be some people involved in the process who get corrupted or let something slide when they shouldn’t, but when the hits the fan, their career is history. So, even if they don’t have the health of others in mind, it is still in their best interests to ensure that the product is a good one.

That idea can be expanded to companies, too. It is in the company’s best interest to produce a product that works and that is safe (again, as compared to the risks). Companies can be ruined by just one bad product. Take a look at Vioxx. That fiasco very nearly caused Merck to go kaput. And if a product is bad, it will come out as independent investigators take a look at it once it’s on the market.

I guess what concerns me the most is the huge amount of vaccines for all the other childhood diseases. I’m of the belief that it puts a massive strain on their developing immunesystems thus causing more ear infections, etc.

Do you have any science to back up your belief that vaccines place a “massive strain” on their immune systems? Bear in mind that children are exposed to thousands, if not millions, of antigens and assaults on their immune systems every day. The amount of antigen in a vaccine is orders of magnitude less. The CDC addresses this concern in their vaccine misconceptions page (http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/6mishome.htm#Givingachildmultiple)

They sure as hell don’t need the amount of antibiotics as most kids these days.

Just how much do kids today need? And how many is “most”? The only time antibiotics are needed is when a kid has a bacterial infection. If they have a cold, they do not need it, since colds are cause by viruses, which are not affected by antibiotics. Certainly parents (as well as some doctors) are partially to blame for the rampant use of antibiotics, demanding them for just about anything. At any rate, rather than make vague comments like this, please try to be specific and support what you are saying with valid evidence.

Oh yeah, I am against mandatory vaccines and I hate McDonalds. But my personal preferences should not be forced on others.

>If you are trying to force vaccinations on the herd then show me that they are producing >healthier kids. Otherwise, why bother.

That’s not how the burden of proof works, you’re the one challenging the staus quo and saying that practically the entire medical community is lying through their teeth about vaccinations, you’re the one who has to find the studies that prove your point.

We could sit here all day tossing studies showing that vaccines are good for you and should be administered to children whenever possible, but if you’re just going to shoot them down as being produced by Big Pharma without producing any real evidence to back that claim up, then what’s the point?

> If you believe it’s all fine and everyone is good you are in need
> of some therapy yourself.

I don’t believe that I said that, anywhere. That said, I know a *lot* of scientists and I have yet to meet one that wouldn’t sneer at a bureaucrat and tell him to go to hell if said bureaucrat showed up at the CDC or the NIH saying, “Senator Foo sent me and he’s getting a lot of money from Big Pharma so you need to adjust your science”. Sure, there are some… google the Bush Administration’s attack on science and you’ll hear plenty of horror stories, many of which are fairly well substantiated. On the other hand, try and find cases supporting your proposition that the CDC and the NIH are in the pocket of Big Pharma and you’re not going to find much. That in itself is pretty telling.

See, it’s sort of hard to keep a conspiracy going when you have to involve lots of scientists. The ability to argue against the facts in your own field is something you have to *learn* after a decade of hard training in the opposite behavior. Sure it happens, but pretty irregularly.

> And we only need to look at history to see what our governments
> are capable of. But thats right, we live in a democracy and we
> are in good hands with our elected government who has never
> once told a lie.

Sarcasm: your use is not compelling.

I’m hardly so naive as to take political claims on face value (scoot over to my blog and search for the screeds I’ve written on warrantless wiretapping for evidence on that score).

There is, however, a big difference between some members of the government covering up a toxic waste spill because a corporation lined a particular politico’s pocket and a completely separate science based organization that is loosely coupled to the political process rolling over and playing ball with someone’s political agenda in direct opposition to their training and calling.

Not all, and not everyone within. Be we have more than one Monsanto out there. If you believe it’s all fine and everyone is good you are in need of some therapy yourself. And we only need to look at history to see what our governments are capable of. But thats right, we live in a democracy and we are in good hands with our elected government who has never once told a lie.

G Williams

I just stated what I’ve been told by parents of clients and friends (there aren’t too many of them) and it would be good to se a study.

If you are trying to force vaccinations on the herd then show me that they are producing healthier kids. Otherwise, why bother.
Lets assume polio and small pox has been controlled by vaccines. It’s quite possible that those vaccines have been legitimate. I guess what concerns me the most is the huge amount of vaccines for all the other childhood diseases. I’m of the belief that it puts a massive strain on their developing immunesystems thus causing more ear infections, etc.

So maybe ‘healthier’ is less need for medical intervention. Maybe less days absent due to sickness. Do you have any clue what a healthy child is? They sure as hell don’t need the amount of antibiotics as most kids these days.

Too me, this discussion is making me recheck my data and I’m learning more as I go. I dont claim to have all the answers, but I wont ever stop questioning these things.

It’s been educational, thanks.

> Show me the study that vaccinated kids are healthier
> than vaccinated kids.

Don’t shift the burden of proof, you first brought up unvaccinated kids being healthier than vaccinated kids, it’s up to you to either prove your statement, modify it or retract it.

> Show me the study that vaccinated kids are healthier
> than vaccinated kids.

Please define what you mean by “healthier”. If someone’s going to go looking for a medical reference, we want to make sure they find evidence that you’ll accept. Otherwise we’ll go find some study and you’ll say, “I disagree with what they mean by ‘healthier’.”

> If you think government, pharmacuticals and every other
> multinational corporation have the best interests of the
> people in mind then I wish you all the best in your TV
> fantasy world.

The converse of this is likewise fantasy. If you think government, pharmaceuticals, and every other multinational corporation are fully and completely driven by a massive conspiracy to milk everyone of every ounce of profit without regard to their health and well-being, you’re likely in need of professional therapy.