Tag: vaccines

As I keep pointing out to little avail, to claim that vaccines are either intrinsically safe or intrinsically unsafe is to miss the point entirely:

Mexico’s public health system has suspended infant vaccines after two babies died and 29 were sickened in an impoverished community.

Six of the 29 babies are in grave condition after receiving vaccinations for tuberculosis, rotovirus and Hepatitis B, which are generally administered between 0 and 6 months, according to a national schedule. The cause of the adverse reactions is not known, the Mexican Institute for Social Security said Sunday.

The institute said it stopped vaccines nationwide on Saturday as a precaution.

To even attempt to discuss “vaccine safety” as a single, uniform subject is blitheringly stupid. I am neither an “anti-vaxxer” nor a “pro-vaxxer”, I simply believe that each vaccine, each combination of vaccines, and each vaccine schedule need to be considered separately, and to take the age, size, and risk profile of the recipient into account. People seem to understand that holistic “car safety” is a not a meaningful subject when contemplating the difference between the crash tests of an old Pinto and a modern Humvee, so it’s bizarre that they insist on lumping a single tetanus vaccine for a 200-pound adult in with a series of shots given to a 12-pound infant under the single topic of “vaccine safety”.

Tetyana Obukhanych, PhD, writes an open letter to the California legislature that is foolishly, and unconstitutionally, considering putting an end to all legal vaccine exemptions:

Dear Legislator:

My name is Tetyana Obukhanych. I hold a PhD in Immunology. I am writing this letter in the hope that it will correct several common misperceptions about vaccines in order to help you formulate a fair and balanced understanding that is supported by accepted vaccine theory and new scientific findings.

Do unvaccinated children pose a higher threat to the public than the vaccinated?

It is often stated that those who choose not to vaccinate their children for reasons of conscience endanger the rest of the public, and this is the rationale behind most of the legislation to end vaccine exemptions currently being considered by federal and state legislators country-wide. You should be aware that the nature of protection afforded by many modern vaccines – and that includes most of the vaccines recommended by the CDC for children – is not consistent with such a statement. I have outlined below the recommended vaccines that cannot prevent transmission of disease either because they are not designed to prevent the transmission of infection (rather, they are intended to prevent disease symptoms), or because they are for non-communicable diseases. People who have not received the vaccines mentioned below pose no higher threat to the general public than those who have, implying that discrimination against non-immunized children in a public school setting may not be warranted.

How often do serious vaccine adverse events happen?

It is often stated that vaccination rarely leads to serious adverse
events. Unfortunately, this statement is not supported by science. A
recent study done in Ontario, Canada, established that vaccination
actually leads to an emergency room visit for 1 in 168 children
following their 12-month vaccination appointment and for 1 in 730
children following their 18-month vaccination appointment (see appendix
for a scientific study, Item #5).

When the risk of an adverse event requiring an ER visit after
well-baby vaccinations is demonstrably so high, vaccination must remain a
choice for parents, who may understandably be unwilling to assume this
immediate risk in order to protect their children from diseases that are
generally considered mild or that their children may never be exposed
to.

In summary: 1) due to the properties of modern vaccines,
non-vaccinated individuals pose no greater risk of transmission of
polio, diphtheria, pertussis, and numerous non-type b H. influenzae
strains than vaccinated individuals do, non-vaccinated individuals pose
virtually no danger of transmission of hepatitis B in a school setting,
and tetanus is not transmissible at all; 2) there is a significantly
elevated risk of emergency room visits after childhood vaccination
appointments attesting that vaccination is not risk-free; 3) outbreaks
of measles cannot be entirely prevented even if we had nearly perfect
vaccination compliance; and 4) an effective method of preventing measles
and other viral diseases in vaccine-ineligible infants and the
immunocompromised, immunoglobulin, is available for those who may be
exposed to these diseases.

Taken together, these four facts make it clear that discrimination in
a public school setting against children who are not vaccinated for
reasons of conscience is completely unwarranted as the vaccine status of
conscientious objectors poses no undue public health risk. 

Unlike most vaccine advocates, who invariably point to irrelevant historical statistics that a) preceded the introduction of vaccines and b) involve vaccines that are very different than the vaccines now administered today, most vaccine skeptics pay close attention to the actual vaccines and vaccine schedules that are presently relevant today. If you’re not reasonably up to date on either when the various vaccines were first introduced or the historical and current death rates, I would advise that you get yourself up to speed before leaping in and saying something both stupid and easily disproved.

And it is important to be up to speed before trying to discuss the subject, because as Dr. Obukhanych observes, the vaccines that are being given today are not the same vaccines that helped wipe out the last vestiges of the various communicable diseases that had already declined dramatically as a result of improved sewage and health care systems.

Furthermore, there is very good reason to doubt the linear efficacy of vaccines that is commonly assumed due to the presence of the 5 percent of the population who are low-vaccine responders. If one factors in the additional percent of the population that is vaccine-sensitive, which is presently unknown but is unlikely to be any smaller than the low-vaccine responder population, somewhere between 5 and 15 percent of the population are simply never going to fit the “one size fits all approach”, which means that any law that would impose such a draconian vaccine regime on the general population is unconscionable, guaranteed to cause more harm than it prevents, and certain to fail in its stated objectives.

But even if one sets aside the science and the history of vaccines, one doesn’t need to be against vaccines or even to question the idea of their unmitigated beneficence in order to strongly oppose the idea of the government universally and forcibly dictating the injection of substances for which there is no legal liability by people for whom there is no legal accountability, without consent or even parental consent, into every single infant in the nation.

And the fact is that vaccines are not an unmitigated good. Like most things, they come with costs and benefits. It is foolish, even criminal, to attempt to set public policy without taking the downside aspects into account as well as the upside ones.

Furthermore, the scare tactics of vaccine advocates are based on absolute and utter absurdities that require complete ignorance of the historical facts to take seriously. Even in a completely
unvaccinated scenario with 90 percent infection rates that assumes
absolutely no improvement in health care in 55 years, we’re talking
about 450 deaths per year.  Realistically, we’re probably talking around
200, given the advancements in medical technology. THAT is what all the
pro-vaccine scaremongers are going on about. Americans would do far better
to ban bicycles, as they would save three times more lives per year.

383,542: Automobile deaths in last 10 years
6,770: Bicycle deaths in last 10 years
0: Measles deaths in last 10 years

As it happens, since 2003, 108 more Americans have died from reactions to the measles vaccine than have died from measles. Vaccine apologists like to claim that anti-vaxxers “have blood on their hands” due to hypothetical deaths that could theoretically occur as a result of imagined transmissions of communicable diseases that haven’t actually taken place, but the fact is that they have real blood from actual deaths on their own.

Because they are totally “tested”. By scientists doing science:

Merck, the pharmaceutical giant, is facing a slew of controversies over its Measles-Mumps-Rubella (MMR) vaccine following numerous allegations of wrongdoing from different parties in the medical field, including two former Merck scientists-turned-whistleblowers. A third whistleblower, this one a scientist at the Centers for Disease Control, also promises to bring Merck grief following his confession of misconduct involving the same MMR vaccine.

The controversies will find Merck defending itself and its vaccine in at least two federal court cases after a U.S. District judge earlier this month threw out Merck’s attempts at dismissal. Merck now faces federal charges of fraud from the whistleblowers, a vaccine competitor and doctors in New Jersey and New York. Merck could also need to defend itself in Congress: The staff of representative Bill Posey (R-Fla) — a longstanding critic of the CDC interested in an alleged link between vaccines and autism — is now reviewing some 1,000 documents that the CDC whistleblower turned over to them.

The first court case, United States v. Merck & Co., stems from claims by two former Merck scientists that Merck “fraudulently misled the government and omitted, concealed, and adulterated material information regarding the efficacy of its mumps vaccine in violation of the FCA [False Claims Act].”

According to the whistleblowers’ court documents, Merck’s misconduct was far-ranging: It “failed to disclose that its mumps vaccine was not as effective as Merck represented, (ii) used improper testing techniques, (iii) manipulated testing methodology, (iv) abandoned undesirable test results, (v) falsified test data, (vi) failed to adequately investigate and report the diminished efficacy of its mumps vaccine, (vii) falsely verified that each manufacturing lot of mumps vaccine would be as effective as identified in the labeling, (viii) falsely certified the accuracy of applications filed with the FDA, (ix) falsely certified compliance with the terms of the CDC purchase contract, (x) engaged in the fraud and concealment describe herein for the purpose of illegally monopolizing the U.S. market for mumps vaccine, (xi) mislabeled, misbranded, and falsely certified its mumps vaccine, and (xii) engaged in the other acts described herein to conceal the diminished efficacy of the vaccine the government was purchasing.”

These fraudulent activities, say the whistleblowers, were designed to produce test results that would meet the FDA’s requirement that the mumps vaccine was 95 per cent effective. To the whistleblowers’ delight, the judge dismissed Merck’s objections to the case proceeding, finding the whistleblowers had plausible grounds on all of the claims lodged against Merck.

Vaccine advocates, are you starting to find even a glimmering of understanding why some intelligent and well-informed people just might harbor the occasional doubt about the safety and efficacity of vaccines? If not yet, what more will it take? And do you not understand that once this level of fraud is established, it casts at least a modicum of doubt on EVERY SINGLE CLAIM that has been made about vaccine safety in the past?

Perhaps you’ll even be able to understand why doctors have been hesitant to come forward with their doubts about vaccines if you consider the sort of response they can be expected to encounter from the vaccine manufacturers, who are legally protected against being held liable for the deficiencies of their products:

Merck made a “hit list” of doctors who criticized Vioxx, according to testimony in a Vioxx class action case in Australia. The list, emailed between Merck employees, contained doctors’ names with the labels “neutralise,” “neutralised” or “discredit” next to them. 

Do you find that confidence-inspiring?

The US goverment reports more killed by measles vaccinations than by measles in the USA:

While those opposing mandatory vaccination for measles are widely portrayed as ignorant and even dangerous by some officials, pundits and even news media accounts, Centers for Disease Control records reveal a startling truth – while no one has died of measles in the U.S. in the last 12 years, 108 have died as a result of the adverse effects of the vaccine in that same time period.

The death statistics are recorded by Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, or VAERS, which captures only a small percentage of the actual number of deaths and other adverse reactions to the vaccine. In addition, 96 of the 108 deaths in that 12-year time period were a result of the MMR vaccine, now the preferred shot for measles immunization.

Now, it’s important not to exaggerate the relative risks involved. Nine deaths per year is still considerably less than the 248 per year I estimate would result from a completely unvaccinated situation. However, given the fact that some countries, such as the UK, have historically seen LOWER rates of measles incidence at moderate levels of vaccine coverage, it is entirely possible that the optimal risk-minimization level of vaccination for measles is considerably below 100 percent.

This may sound counter-intuitive, but a vaccination regime that prioritized testing for vaccine susceptibility and excluded those children deemed likely to experience an adverse reaction would almost certainly meet considerably less virulent opposition than the present one, let alone the more oppressive regime envisioned by some of the more rabid pro-vaxxers. Providing an alternative delayed schedule and stretching it out would almost surely help in this regard as well. The fact is that if you’re genuinely concerned about the falling vaccine uptake, the very last thing you should support is doubling-down on the public pressure and propaganda approach. It not only isn’t working, it is observably backfiring.

No amount of propaganda is going to convince anyone who has seen, with their own eyes, an adverse reaction, or had one described to them. And adverse reactions most certainly do happen. That’s a fact, and the sooner the pro-vaccine community accepts it and stops trying to hide it, the sooner a more effective solution can be found.

Nothing creates more fear, uncertainty, and doubt than shaded truths and a blanket refusal to answer obvious questions. Rhetoric is no answer for serious doubts, be they reasonable or unreasonable. And as for increasing the pressure via legal means, it shouldn’t take a vast amount of foresight to anticipate what sort of adverse reactions are going to occur if doctors begin forcibly administering vaccines to children without parental consent and a child subsequently experiences a fatal adverse reaction.

One unanticipated outcome of forced vaccinations could well be the complete refusal of medical professionals to administer them.

It is increasingly obvious that the hysterical scaremongers among the pro-vaccinists are either pharma propagandists or probability-challenged:

Inquisitive Mind ‏@livebeef
Your decision to not vaccinate your children puts my children’s health at risk. You are the worst kind of person.

Vox Day ‏@voxday
Your decision to drive your children in your car puts their health at much greater risk. You are an even worse person.

Vox Day @voxday
Deaths from measles in last 10 years = 0. Automobile deaths in last 10 years = 383,542

Vox Day @voxday
Deaths from measles in last 10 years = 0. Deaths from bicycles = 6,770. ONLY A MONSTER WOULD LET KIDS RIDE BIKES!

Inquisitive Mind ‏@livebeef
What the hell is WRONG with you people? (Posts scary propaganda cartoon.)

Vox Day ‏@voxday
We’re just not idiots like you who embrace totalitarian government because someone said BOO! Measles deaths in 2014 = 0

Inquisitive Mind ‏@livebeef
Do you not understand what the concept of “almost eradicated” means? Look up the death count it used to have.

Vox Day ‏@voxday
I have. And most of the deaths stopped long BEFORE widespread vaccine availability. You are misinformed.

Inquisitive Mind ‏@livebeef
Prove it.

Vox Day ‏@voxday now
Measles deaths dropped 91.5 percent by 1960, 2 years BEFORE vaccinations. You are misinformed.

 In the unlikely event that anyone is interested in the actual historical facts of the matter:

In 1962, immediately preceding the licensure of the first measles vaccines in the United States, when measles was a nearly universal disease, Alexander Langmuir described the medical importance of measles to the country and put forth the challenge of measles eradication. Although most patients recovered without permanent sequelae, the high number of cases each year made measles a significant cause of serious morbidity and mortality Langmuir showed that >90% of Americans were infected with the measles virus by age 15 years. This equated to roughly 1 birth cohort (4 million people) infected with measles each year. Not all cases were reported to the public health system; from 1956 to 1960, an average of 542,000 cases were reported annually. By the late 1950s, even before the introduction of measles vaccine, measles-related deaths and case fatality rates in the United States had decreased markedly, presumably as a result of improvement in health care and nutrition. From 1956 to 1960, an average of 450 measles-related deaths were reported each year (∼1 death/ 1000 reported cases), compared with an average of 5300 measles-related deaths during 1912–1916 (26 deaths/ 1000 reported cases).

Note that even in the ABSOLUTE WORST CASE, which is a completely unvaccinated scenario with 90 percent infection rates that assumes absolutely no improvement in health care in 55 years, we’re talking about 450 deaths per year.  Realistically, we’re probably talking around 200, given the advancements in medical technology. THAT is what all the pro-vaccine scaremongers are going on about. Americans would do better to ban bicycles, as they would save three times more lives per year.

The pro-vaccine propaganda is just more creeping totalitarianism, albeit one of bizarre appeal to the supposedly conservative and libertarian right. But it cannot be rationally defended on any material grounds, nor balanced against its infringements on personal liberties and human rights.

UPDATE: Sweet Salk, but the pro-vaxxers are stupid.

Utes Byfive ‏@Utesbyfive
Natural immunity produces carriers: Typhoid Mary, Someone vaxxed can’t be infected. CANT FUCKING CARRY

Dr. Bernard Dalbergue, a former pharmaceutical industry physician with Gardasil manufacturer Merck, declares that Gardasil has “has absolutely no effect on cervical cancer”:

The full extent of the Gardasil scandal needs to be assessed: everyone knew when this vaccine was released on the American market that it would prove to be worthless!  Diane Harper, a major opinion leader in the United States, was one of the first to blow the whistle, pointing out the fraud and scam of it all.

Gardasil is useless and costs a fortune!  In addition, decision-makers at all levels are aware of it!

Cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome, paralysis of the lower limbs, vaccine-induced MS and vaccine-induced encephalitis can be found, whatever the vaccine.

I predict that Gardasil will become the greatest medical scandal of all times because at some point in time, the evidence will add up to prove that this vaccine, technical and scientific feat that it may be, has absolutely no effect on cervical cancer and that all the very many adverse effects which destroy lives and even kill, serve no other purpose than to generate profit for the manufacturers.

Gardasil appears to be literally worse than useless, because it has demonstrably harmed many girls and young women without any reduction of cervical cancer rates. Gardasil was introduced in 2006. As of 8 September 2013 there have been
more than 57 million doses distributed in the United States. The result with the latest available data from the CDC:

2003: 11,745 women in the United States were diagnosed with cervical cancer
2011: 12,109 women in the United States were diagnosed with cervical cancer

Needless to say, the pro-vaxxers are already attempting to destroy Dr. Dalbergue’s reputation.