Letters to the Editor

Vaccination debate

March 12, 2011

Advertisement

To the editor:

As one of the families suffering from whooping cough in the Lawrence area this winter, I take issue with your article that definitively states that vaccination is the best protection against the disease. Your reporter fails to report that even people vaccinated for pertussis can contract the disease, though they carry and transmit it without recognizable symptoms, thusly spreading the disease unknowingly.

Though my family was misdiagnosed the first eight weeks we had it, I feel thankful that our symptoms presented so conspicuously that we could be diagnosed accurately and could then stay home and do our part to stop the spread of this difficult illness. Additionally, I’d like to respond to the considerable flak I’ve been receiving, as a representative of the unvaccinated population, on the Journal-World’s wellcommons.com forum in response to this article.

The reasons so many of us nationwide, and undeniably here in Lawrence, choose not to vaccinate are largely misunderstood. Rather than dismissing us as crazy, please listen to our concerns; our questions are quite relevant in this great health care debate.

Though we have yet to see convincing, unbiased evidence of either the long-term efficacy of the herd-immunity approach to disease prevention, or the safety of the vaccinations themselves, we are eager to engage in real scientific debate with individuals, and especially researchers, willing to face fear of disease, look closely at the manipulation of our fears by the profit-driven health care industry, and find effective solutions to the ever-evolving maladies of our human existence.

Comments

Richard Heckler 4 years, 5 months ago

There are tests that can determine whether or not Whooping Cough is in fact present.

Why doctors do not perform this first makes me ask why? I say Whooping Cough is a serious enough concern to determine the first visit.... the first test. No matter the cost.

In 1986 it took this family 3 visits and a 3rd test to get the one test that would determine definitely whether or not Whooping Cough was present. Fortunately for all of us the test was negative in spite of quite similar symptoms. Still the medical doctors could not provide an accurate diagnosis as to what exactly our son what was experiencing.

After visiting a naturalist and describing symptoms pineapple juice and grapefruit juice treated the situation. These two have certain properties about them that break up substantial congestion.

BUTTTTT we had to rule out whooping cough before seeking other advice.

appleaday 4 years, 5 months ago

One way herd immunity works is by protecting the people who are the most vulnerable to these devastating diseases. Infants under the age of 6-8 weeks who are too young to get the vaccine are the most likely to die from or have serious long-term complications from pertussis. Keeping the older kids vaccinated reduces their risk. Herd immunity is most likely to occur when about 80% of the population is vaccinated. Children in schools are the biggest pools of communicable and contagious diseases, which is why school-aged children who are not vaccinated are more likely to get disease even when a large portion of the population is vaccinated. (And remember, if you're relying on the "herd" to protect your children because you think vaccines are so unsafe, you're depending on other parents to put their kids at the risk you think exists. And, Maggie, there are plenty of studies showing the efficacy of vaccines. Look at the stories of the polio epidemic in the 40s and 50s. See much polio any more? No children in "iron lungs" or with crippling disease from this organism. Birth defects from maternal exposure to rubella? Gone. Haemophilus influenza meningitis? Gone. Read about tetanus, where the spores hide out, how you can contract it, how you die from it. Gone.

gr 4 years, 5 months ago

Herd immunity is a fascinating hypothesis. Any supporting evidence? I know of none, so please share it.

There is supporting evidence AGAINST herd immunity. Any intelligent argument for herd immunity would need to include why the EPA demands that refuge areas are necessary and that there is strong concern that people aren't following the requirements. http://www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/biopesticides/pips/bt_corn_refuge_2006.htm

All this talk about 80% or 90% injection being necessary also needs to look at this year's Pork Flu. How was it? What percentage was vaccinated?

gr 4 years, 5 months ago

At the end of chapter 18 in the last book of the Bible it says:

And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy pharmakeia were all nations deceived.

pharmakeia means medication, pharmacy, magic, sorcery, witchcraft.

If you look at previous verses, this is in regards to the one requiring everyone to worship. Do you think there is any relevance here?

appleaday 4 years, 5 months ago

Also, the pertussis vaccine doesn't confer lifetime immunity. You need to get boosters periodically to maintain your immunity, which probably explains why members of your family would get the disease.

Janet FitzGerald 4 years, 5 months ago

See this video which shows how the decline of various diseases, including pertussis, happens well before the vaccinations are introduced.

http://www.whale.to/vaccines/scheibner.html

Janet FitzGerald 4 years, 5 months ago

See this video which shows how the decline of various diseases, including pertussis, happens well before the vaccinations are introduced.

http://www.whale.to/vaccines/scheibner.html

notanota 4 years, 5 months ago

Is that before or after the lizard people mind control, which is also documented on that site?

sourpuss 4 years, 5 months ago

Maggie, if you don't want to receive "flak" for -believing- something with no logical basis, then either do some real research into the facts about immunization and stop -believing- things or stop talking about it and keep your meritless ideas to yourself.

The movement against vaccinations is founded on superstition and fear of a fictional bogeyman. Vaccines can work in various ways, but their job is to train your immune system against a dangerous disease by presenting it with a non-dangerous version of something that will make it learn.

Personally, I do not believe childhood vaccinations should be a choice. Refusing preventative medicine for a baby should be considered abuse. Do we want people dying unnecessarily? How is that better than avoiding whatever these risks that immunization pose? Are the risks worse than death? I just don't understand how someone could let baseless beliefs take the life of their child. So sad.

Brent Garner 4 years, 5 months ago

So having serious, well founded doubts about the efficacy and safety of the highly compressed and untested vaccination schedule should be grounds for abuse? Spoken like a true totalitarian! Do it your way or you will bring the full fury and power of the state down on the heads of any doubters! All hail the wisdom and virtue of the all powerful government!

Sourpuss, if that is what you want, why don't you move someplace where that kind of dictatorial, totalitarianism is in power. Suggested locations are the PRC, North Korea, Cuba, Iran, just to name a few. I am sure your kind of thinking would be most welcome there!

STATIST!!!

Sharon Aikins 4 years, 5 months ago

You probably hate it too that the government requires you to wear a seat belt for your own safety. Or asks you to control your speed, stop at stop signs and lights etc. Afterall, those also protect the lives of yourself, your kids and others.

As for the untested schedule, a lot of these vaccines have been around since I was a kid, over 60 years ago, when my kids were infants, over 40 years ago. If they haven't done enough research in that time, when will they? There wasn't one for rubella when I was young and my mother kept taking me to homes where it was present to expose me so I would hopefully get it before I was old enough to become pregnant and put an unborn child at risk. Thank God they got a polio vaccine and she didn't expose me to that!

llama726 4 years, 5 months ago

Spill your serious and well founded doubts. I have a few thousand pages of scientific research, you have some conspiracy blogs.

Janet FitzGerald 4 years, 5 months ago

The information that would lead you to discover people are dying as a result of vaccination is largely suppressed. One really has to work hard to uncover this information, but it does exist.

See this video which shows how the decline of various diseases, including pertussis, happens well before the vaccinations are introduced.

http://www.whale.to/vaccines/scheibner.html

notanota 4 years, 5 months ago

Snerk. Brought to you by the same site that actually thinks Kennedy was assassinated by reptiles with holographic technology. http://www.whale.to/b/jfk1.html

hipgrrrrl 4 years, 5 months ago

Good for you, Maggie. I, for one, am tired of taking my kids to a shill (their former pediatrian) for the FDA, who is a shill for the pharmaceutical companies. We have one child who was fully vaxed up to the age of five who suffers from all sorts of intestinal problems, food allergies/sensativites as well as other issues. Guess who had had no idea what to do for her? Her pediatrician! Thankfully, our naturopath and other alternative practitioners have had several therapies that have helped her heal and gotten her on the road to wellness.

Do I know that vaccines caused her problems? Nope. In fact, I'm not convinced that is the case. What I do know is that the religion of immunization has little long-term scientific backing and that the agencies that disseminate all the information we are supposed to take as gospel present said info in a falseleading fashion. I also know that the statistics of disease occurrance are not necessarily backed up by the ratio of vaccinaction to actual infection.

Deciding to vaccinate or not vaccinate should be a very educated choice by each and every parent. It takes research and a choice to wade through conflicting information. However, the statement that "...refusing preventative medicine for a baby should be considered abuse" is not only inflammatory but also apallingly misinformed.

I hesitate to use the word "sheeple", but considering one poster's enthusiasm for "herd vaccination" it may be appropriate. Just because the AMA says something should be done doesn't mean it's true and just because our government tells us something doesn't mean it's true. History backs that up.

aa469285 4 years, 5 months ago

I have no doubt that the pediatrician is happy that you left the practice. Especially since you have again brought up the tried and true conspiracy theory argument that physicians have some sort of secret financial arrangement with "big pharma."

Are vaccines perfect? No. Are they foolproof? No. Does everyone tolerate them perfectly? No. But they have proven over and over as an effective barrier to widespread pandemics. Anybody remember the last polio outbreak? How about rubella? How many cases of rotavirus were there last year?

notajayhawk 4 years, 5 months ago

"I have no doubt that the pediatrician is happy that you left the practice."

Probably not. Pediatricians make a fortune treating children of parents who are too stupid to get their kids vaccinated.

aa469285 4 years, 5 months ago

Not sure where you get that. I go to the same pediatric office (the only one in town), and the rule is that if you don't vaccinate they don't treat your kids.

And if you google the average salaries for pediatrics, I'd hardly call it a fortune. It's better to be a radiologist. :)

notajayhawk 4 years, 5 months ago

It

was

a

joke.

I sometimes criticize physicians, but I have nothing but the utmost respect for medical professionals who work with children. It takes a very special type of person who is able to handle working with sick little ones day in and day out. While I am not naive enough to believe they are all altruistic, I have yet to meet one who would want kids to be unnecessarily sick just so they could make a buck.

aa469285 4 years, 5 months ago

Got it. Sarcasm is hard to "read" on a post.

Janet FitzGerald 4 years, 5 months ago

See this video which shows how the decline of various diseases, including pertussis, happens well before the vaccinations are introduced.

http://www.whale.to/vaccines/scheibner.html

nepenthe 4 years, 5 months ago

I also found this on www.whale.to and I'm pretty convinced that site definitely caters to loonies.

http://www.whale.to/b/symbols_h.html

notanota 4 years, 5 months ago

If I were your pediatrician, I wouldn't want you at my practice. You'd risk exposing babies and children with weak immune systems to preventable diseases, and you're plainly not listening to sound medical advice on vaccines, so I'd assume you were ignoring other sound medical advice, too. The fact that you've switched to "alternative practitioners" (aka - people who sell stuff that has no sound evidence backing it's efficacy) just proves the point.

thelonious 4 years, 5 months ago

@notanota -

So agreed. If I were a doctor, I would (if allowed legally) not take patients with this kind of attitude, for excatly the reasons you state. It's so selfish to risk the public's health just to eliminate some extremely tiny risk to your own children from vaccination. I am a survivor of the smallpox, polio, DPT, etc. standard vaccinations from the '60's and '70's, and I have also had flu shots for the past 17 years and the pneumonia vaccination 10 years ago. No bad affects from the vaccines, but the one bout of flu I had during that stretch was milder due to being vaccinated, and I did not contract pneumonia. Vaccines aren't perfectly effective nor without some small risk, but the risks of going without are much greater, to both yourself and public health.

Janet FitzGerald 4 years, 5 months ago

Neither you or the person who replied seem to consider the Hippcratic Oath that all doctors are required to take. Here it is:

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given to me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.

Chelsea Kapfer 4 years, 5 months ago

Give me a break.....you wouldn't believe the things I have seen Doctors do, and us nurses are the ones that the blame falls on when things go wrong. This is the norm, not the exception.

dontsheep 4 years, 5 months ago

Well said Maggie.

It's so much easier to blindly follow the herd mentality and trust someone else smarter than you is making the best decision for you. To think we can just take a pill and everything will be OK...we can consume/absorb all the chemicals and unfoods we want.

There is an entirely different side of the vaccine story you'll never hear unless you stop moo-ing and start asking "why?".

http://thinktwice.com/ http://www.naturalnews.com/029641_vaccines_junk_science.html

Good luck Maggie. You will be made to feel stupid today on this forum. Don't.

notanota 4 years, 5 months ago

Ah yes, Natural News. It's so full of stupid that it deserves its own tag on Science Blogs. http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/altie_meds/mike_adams/

nepenthe 4 years, 5 months ago

Many of us have heard the 'other side' of the vaccine story, realized it's pretty bunk and dismissed it. I'm vaccinated, and strangely enough... never had any of the diseases I've been vaccinated for. Imagine that!

Janet FitzGerald 4 years, 5 months ago

Tell us, what IS that other side of the vaccine story? Should I just believe you because you've dismissed it?

If you've had a cold, the flu, and a host of common illnesses, then you have experienced dis-ease.

nepenthe 4 years, 5 months ago

I've never had whooping cough, rubella, polio or any disease I've been 'vaccinated' for. Of course I've still had the flu (when I didn't get a flu shot), common cold, chicken pox (no vaccine when I was little). Disease is something we live with, but the big ones have vaccines so we no longer have to live in fear of large chunks of our population coming down with it and either dying or being affected for the rest of their living years.

You can do your own research. I did mine, plus I've seen what a disease like Polio (which has a vaccine) can do to a person. If you want us to go back to the days when people lived in fear of something like Polio or smallpox, you go do it in your own commune separate from the rest of us.

Richard Heckler 4 years, 5 months ago

Doctors treat symptoms.

Doctors do cure anything necessarily.

Chiropractors are indulged in as much medical education as doctors.

In our case the medical clinic knew Whooping Cough was our concern so why didn't the clinic do the one test available that would make that determination? Not doing so could have been life threatening.

Vaccines are not a guarantee.

notanota 4 years, 5 months ago

Actually chiropractors are "indulged" in considerably less medical information than doctors, assuming that by that you meant they get as much training. They don't.

beatrice 4 years, 5 months ago

True, vaccines are not a guarantee. Neither is a seat belt a guarantee against injury or death in an accident. That doesn't mean I won't use one when traveling.

akt2 4 years, 5 months ago

At the office that I work we have patients with a diagnosis of Post Polio Syndrome. They were born in the 1940's. Now they are in their 60's and live in wheelchairs, or soon will be. The vaccine was developed in the 1950's. That generation and on has not lived with the disease. I'm not sure how you can argue with the fact that vaccinating saves lives, and can prevent a lifetime of disability.

Brent Garner 4 years, 5 months ago

SV40. Look it up. Salk cheated and used a simian virus. A simian virus now linked to numerous cancers. So did Salk do us a favor? I wonder!

notanota 4 years, 5 months ago

Not only will they argue about it, they might even let us just see Post Polio Syndrome again. Polio was nearly wiped out, but the anti-vaccine crowd won't let us get it done.

notanota 4 years, 5 months ago

Before or after the Maniacal Mind Control of the Jesuit Order? http://www.whale.to/b/phelps4.html

hipgrrrrl 4 years, 5 months ago

We have an argument of the lesser of two evils. There are volumes of evidence that a virus documented to be found in the initial polio vaccines is now being found in cancers in people that were vaccinated for polio (mesothemioma, for one). Our solution of treating cancer with chemo does not provide resolution for these types of cancers due to their mechanisms.

The problem here is that no one has a clue as to what exactly is being put in people's bodies. The manufacturers and government agencies that push vaccines (who are funded in large part by the pharma companies, btw) simply don't know...nor do they seem to be remotely driven to find out.

It is up to each person to decide if a known end result is preferrable to an unknown end result and what steps need to be taken to avoid both. Our media, our doctors nor our governement provides adequate answers to answer these sort of questions and the dogma of "vaccinate or die!" that is currently pushed on our society is simply not backed up by statistics - not even the ones found on the CDC website buried deep in their data tables.

Self-education here is key.

notanota 4 years, 5 months ago

Actually no. Mmm, self education. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1999/02/18/eveningnews/main19671.shtml

Like I said, we could have wiped polio out by now if anti-vaccine paranoia hadn't ruined it. Good job. My kids had to have polio vaccines, and that's only because of people like you.

gl0ck0wn3r 4 years, 5 months ago

In which area do you have your medical degree, hipgrrrrrrrrrl?

Kathy Getto 4 years, 5 months ago

"There are volumes of evidence that a virus documented to be found in the initial polio vaccines is now being found in cancers in people that were vaccinated for polio (mesothemioma(sic), for one). "

Really. grrrly? I would like to see some scientific research for your claim.

Richard Heckler 4 years, 5 months ago

Doctors do NOT cure anything necessarily.

Janet FitzGerald 4 years, 5 months ago

Yes, beware of anything that praises or promotes a "cure" for anything. For when the diagnosis describes the symptoms and not their cause(s), then the treatment can only address what the diagnosis conveys, and the result can only be, at best, a reshuffling of the symptoms or, if that fails, a retitling of the diagnosis.

Boston_Corbett 4 years, 5 months ago

Vaccines save lives. Those who chose to not vaccinate have merely chosen not to do their fare share to their fellow society member.

Those who want to re-hash the now-totally-discredited thimerisol debate, or accuse the government of another conspiracy, are just participating in an activity as useless as those who assert the President was not born in America.

And in so doing they are eliminating the herd immunity which keeps many immuno-compromised individuals, whom are unable to receive some vaccines, alive.

Read some history, and study some virology, and you can't come to any other conclusion. That is a suggestion for you, Ms. Beedles.

Janet FitzGerald 4 years, 5 months ago

Vaccines do not save lives and there is not one piece of hard evidence to prove it. Show it to me and I can show you why that evidence is false. And, to make matters worse, there has not been ONE study on the effects of multiple vaccinations. We all know that yellow and blue make green, but we have no idea what kind of toxic soup and the synergistic effects of vaccines have on the body. Vaccines, by definition, are toxic to our bodies, and to our environment. However, people are so far removed from Nature, and taught from birth, that symptoms, which are the bodies cleansing mechanism, are to be suppressed by toxic drugs.

jafs 4 years, 5 months ago

You're mixing up a couple of things there.

Symptoms are, in fact, often the evidence of the body's immune system fighting off infections, which is why it's a good idea to tough it out if you can, if you just have a low level viral infection, rather than suppressing the symptoms.

Vaccines are small doses of viruses, and other pathogens, which are designed to stimulate the immune system to produce antibodies, which help our system fight off those diseases.

notanota 4 years, 5 months ago

The reason you get flak for your decision is because your actions endanger us all, but they especially endanger the most vulnerable among us. Whether you secluded yourself once you found out you had pertussis or not, you exposed your family and countless others to a preventable disease.

You claim that you'd listen to a "convincing" argument. However, my experience says that's never the case. It's plain that you'll move the goalpost when anyone shows you evidence that your fear is unfounded. If that's not the case, I'll be happy to point to some great books on the subject.

Point of trivia - did you know that when the original smallpox vaccine was developed, there were actually people who claimed you should avoid it because it would turn you into a cow? There were. I'd wager a guess that your arguments will sound like "it turns you into a cow" in just a few years, too.

Want to see evidence of long term efficacy of vaccines? Check your arm. Do you have a smallpox scar? Now check your kid's arm. I guarantee that one or both of you doesn't have one. That's because we wiped it out, and now we no longer have to have the vaccine. Hooray for science.

thelonious 4 years, 5 months ago

You're right - doubt she'd actually listen to a "convincing" argument. If she would, there has been enough factual data posted on this blog to convince most reasonable people, which then should have convinced her. People with an anti-science dogma will likely never be convinced.

Janet FitzGerald 4 years, 5 months ago

"The reason you get flak for your decision is because your actions endanger us all..." Honestly, if you're vaccinated, then how are the un-vaccinated going to threaten you? Or, are you worried about her own safety? Really, your argument doesn't hold water.

impska 4 years, 5 months ago

As others have pointed out before me, the primary reason for mass-vaccination in this day and age isn't to protect the strong and healthy - it's to protect those who are most vulnerable: babies who are too young to be vaccinated and most likely to develop fatal complications, the old, the sick.

So, when someone who refused to get vaccinated gets whooping cough, but still needs to run to the grocery store to get food for her whooping-coughing family, she may pass her disease on to an infant who dies from complications. That infant dies whether or not her own family is vaccinated.

There is, of course, also the problem that vaccinations are not necessarily 100 percent effective. So, indeed, even the healthy portion of the population is put at risk.

Perhaps you'd like to offer up a video to refute my points, though. I didn't click on it the first five times, but maybe this time will be the game changer.

notanota 4 years, 5 months ago

Ooh, click on this one. It's from the same site and will convince you that the lizard people are taking over the government! http://www.whale.to/b/reptilian_hosting.html

I have doubts about the sanity of anyone who thinks whale.to has any useful information at all.

nepenthe 4 years, 5 months ago

Here's more... interesting stuff off that site.

http://www.whale.to/b/symbols_h.html

I mean really? REALLY?

notanota 4 years, 5 months ago

Because not everyone can be vaccinated, for one. Babies and children with weakened immune systems rely on herd immunity to protect them. At some point, we're all babies.

There's also a small number of people who are immunized but will not gain immunity. The more people who are vaccinated, the less the disease will spread, and the more your individual choice to vaccinate will protect you.

My argument holds a lot more water than holographic lizard people and illuminati plots for a mind controlled shadow government, but keep on linking to whale.to. It's fun.

Chelsea Kapfer 4 years, 5 months ago

it is your choice not to vaccinate- but stay away from me and my kid. and the rest of society. thank you.

thelonious 4 years, 5 months ago

I so much agree - I have respiratory health issues, I get a flu show every year, and I wish people who were sick with respiratory illnesses like flu (or whooping cough!) would stay home. I certainly don't appreciate getting coughed on by sick people all winter who either won't take proper care of themselves, or if they do get sick, insist on taking as many others as they can along on their ride.

llama726 4 years, 5 months ago

Some of it is corporate policies. I've had to work with a 101.7 degree fever, chills, cough, etc., before because if I didn't, it was strongly implied I'd be disciplined. Kansas is an at-will state, so no recourse but to go in.

Centerville 4 years, 5 months ago

Do I understand that the author is proud that 1. her family had done nothing to avoid catching whooping cough, then 2. continued to inflict themselves on the rest of us, even as they were obviously ill, then 3. is shameless enough to make a public fool of herself?

thelonious 4 years, 5 months ago

@Centerville -

I think you pretty much summed it up correctly. Anti-science, anti-logic, anti-reason, no care about endangering the health of others, and worst of all, proud of all that.

impska 4 years, 5 months ago

You forgot the part where she insinuates that she was rudely infected by someone who got vaccinated for it.

devobrun 4 years, 5 months ago

From the LTE:

"Though we have yet to see convincing, unbiased evidence of either the long-term efficacy of the herd-immunity approach to disease prevention, or the safety of the vaccinations themselves, we are eager to engage in real scientific debate with individuals, and especially researchers....."

You attribute the great reduction of cases of polio, smallpox, measles, mumps and the others to what? After laboratory testing, these diseases were treated in the public sector. There is no better test than to actually do the thing that you say. In this case, disease attributed to virus was treated by a technique which causes the human immune system to create antibodies toward the disease.

And the number of infections dropped precipitously.


What the heck is "real scientific debate"? Real science concludes with the experiment, not a debate. Real science is forming an hypothesis and testing testing testing. That is precisely what has been going on for decades, and the data is in. Childhood infectious disease is much less of a problem than it was 60 years ago.

And you attribute the decrease in instances of these diseases to what?

LoveThsLife 4 years, 5 months ago

To rainbows, sunflowers and organic cotton hats (because tin foil isn't environmentally responsible).

:)

funkdog1 4 years, 5 months ago

The growth of the non-vaccination crowd in the last few years has the luxury of being young enough to not remember the horrors of when polio, measels, small pox, influenza, tuberculousis etc., etc., maimed and killed thousands upon thousands of people. Unbelievable arrogance.

devobrun 4 years, 5 months ago

From Wiki: "Quarantine law began in Colonial America in 1663, when in an attempt to curb an outbreak of smallpox, the city of New York established a quarantine. In the 1730s, the city built a quarantine station on the Bedloe's Island"

Or you can take a vaccine.

Thunderdome 4 years, 5 months ago

Equating vaccines with fluoridation and pesticides is extraordinarily academically dishonest. Have big pharma and the chemical sector run ammock periodically? Of course they have, but there isn't much to debate about the efficacy of vaccines in preventing wide-spread illness. It is your right not to vaccinate your child...just plan on keeping them home so you don't endanger his or her classmates.

Olympics 4 years, 5 months ago

Maggie and Brent....you are part of the problem. Shame on you both. Being willfully ignorant is not virtue.

kugrad 4 years, 5 months ago

Dismissing all scientific evidence, not to mention prevalence data, as "biased" is a simplistic argument that is inherently unscientific. You are endangering the lives of your own children and the children of others by not vaccinating your children. Prevalence data, which clearly demonstrates the positive effects of immunization in minimizing disease, is not "biased." Perhaps people who are not vaccinated can still carry whooping cough, but certainly the chances of that happening are miniscule when compared to the likelihood of a non-vaccinated child carrying the disease. That is just a fact.

Flap Doodle 4 years, 5 months ago

"merrill (anonymous) says… Doctors do NOT cure anything necessarily." So, in addition to canceling the medical insurance on yourself and your family, you refuse to see a doctor?

gl0ck0wn3r 4 years, 5 months ago

Does lawn mowing provide a good health insurance plan?

notajayhawk 4 years, 5 months ago

Lordie, I thought this argument was dead. Thankfully, those who keep perpetuating it will be soon enough.

beatrice 4 years, 5 months ago

So the letter writer didn't get vaccinated and ended up getting sick.

um ... okay.

This letter is a little like reading of a motorcycle rider who crashes while not wearing a helmet who then blames their head injuries on the hardness of the pavement.

LoveThsLife 4 years, 5 months ago

lol thanks bea..that is a very good point.

devobrun 4 years, 5 months ago

Primary care physicians must deal with illogical, arrogant, and silly people all day long. The above discussion shows how paranoid and irrational people gum up the works. It is the price we all pay for freedom and I don't want that to change, but.....

At what point does a 99% reduction in disease become an untested and biased scientific assertion? I just don't get how a person could reject the efficacy of vaccines.

It's crazy to be so paranoid of other people's profit motive that you would not avail yourself of the benefits of the service. Vaccines work, ya doober. Get them for yourself and your kids. You'll all live longer. And so will we.

notanota 4 years, 5 months ago

I find the profit-motive particularly ironic, considering how many anti-vaxxers flock to alternative medicine clinics and websites that directly profit from selling customers vitamins, books, and other home remedies. They leap to defend people like Andrew Wakefield who got caught faking data and giving children unnecessary colonoscopies in order to profit from a lawsuit, yet they think someone with notable expertise on vaccines must just be a pharma shill and any peer-reviewed study (in any country) must have just been done for the money.

I can follow the money pretty well, thanks, and it doesn't take six degrees of separation or Kevin Bacon to see where there's money to be had in promoting anti-vaccine paranoia.

llama726 4 years, 5 months ago

Let's use you as an example. Why are you going to the doctor when you have a mild to moderate case of the flu? I've never seen my physician when I've gotten the flu, and unless you're in an at-risk group, you shouldn't be going, either. Additionally, I got my flu shot the last three years - and haven't gotten the flu, despite a history of respiratory illness. Flu shot was like $10, and many communities do free flu shots.

I fail to see how "alternative" medicine is any less profit-motivated than regular medicine, so that argument is pretty much wasted on me. Sorry.

devobrun 4 years, 5 months ago

Alternative medicine insurance premiums are....what, $20,000, $60,000 a year? Oh, they don't pay that much do they?

Follow the money, Liberal, and you get to whom? Come on Liberal, I didn't make this up. You know who makes the money don't you. Trial lawyers and Democratic politicians make the money, Liberal. Laws favor litigation and lawyers back Democrats.

It is precisely the same as businessmen and Republicans. Except the businessmen and Republicans are on the side of logical administration of medicine this time.

It is a dirty fix both ways, yet boobs are caught in the battle and choose to not vaccinate. And kids die. Be ashamed.

That's right, there actually is a proper thing to do. Not political, not who is in power, not who makes money........take the vaccination, you servile anti-profit nut-cases.

notanota 4 years, 5 months ago

Or you get the (completely covered by insurance, free through KU's flu shot drive, or $25 at most pharmacies) flu shot without even needing a copay. That makes it pretty likely you won't need to call about anything.

I suppose you could go to the local alternative place ($60-$75) to get some expensive water (What $10-$30?) that does absolutely nothing since there's not a single molecule of medicine left in the thing after the repeated dilutions. Extra bonus if you have someone that doesn't even believe in germ theory. It's the terrain! Follow my elaborate protocol! I'm sure they'll set up a schedule for your next several visits and find something new you should get all neurotic about. It must be yeast overgrowth. It must be metal toxins. Have you tried goji berry for that?

If you should happen to get sick with the flu and visit an actual medical doctor, you can get Tamiflu, but only if you catch it within 48 hours, and a lot of doctors still restrict that to high risk groups. They run a flu test, since it only works on the flu. If money were the motive, they'd just write the 'scrip. Heck, if money were the motive, they'd stop you from getting the vaccine and just charge you for all the treatment.

Now wait a minute. Which group was it that was discouraging the shot and charging for all the treatment again?

beatrice 4 years, 5 months ago

Liberal, you described a cold, not the flu. The flu is much more severe than most people recognize, and people often die from the flu, sometimes in large numbers. Going to the doctor when you have the flu is advisable, but not so when you just have a cold. Get a flu shot and you can avoid the whole mess.

notanota 4 years, 5 months ago

BTW, I went to your website, and the polio vaccine still doesn't cause monkey cancer, no matter how many lawyers write websites.

Besides, we don't give the oral polio vaccine in this country anymore, so concerns over Sabin's oral vaccine (and there are a few legit concerns that don't involve monkey cancer) shouldn't be a factor for parents choosing to vaccinate their kids today.

webmocker 4 years, 5 months ago

To the writer of the LTE:

As others have suggested, please share the scientific evidence that proves the polio vaccine and smallpox vaccines did not work, or that they did more damage than the diseases themselves.

Until you do that, many will find it hard to accept your statement:

"Though we have yet to see convincing, unbiased evidence of either the long-term efficacy of the herd-immunity approach to disease prevention, or the safety of the vaccinations themselves, we are eager to engage in real scientific debate with individuals, . . . ."

staff04 4 years, 5 months ago

Hmmm...so let me make sure I got this straight:

You and your family choose not to be vaccinated and you got whooping cough.

Your neighbors (most of them at least) DID get vaccinated and did not get whooping cough.

Makes pretty good sense to me.

gl0ck0wn3r 4 years, 5 months ago

Maggie, in which area of medicine do you have your degree? I assume you are also good at reading statistical studies?

I'm glad to know, though, that prophylactics are just a big pharma scam. I, for one, will remember your sage medical advice the next time I vacation in Haiti and skip the condom. A condom, much like vaccinations, are not perfect! They can cause serious side-effects and are obviously just a part of the huge scam. I'll just have unprotected sex instead of being a "sheepie" and rely on the vinegar and morning dew shower a homeopath on the interwebs suggested. Thanks again!

William McCauley 4 years, 5 months ago

As a scientist, the accusations against researchers and the medical field presented by this author are completely unfounded and rather upsetting. I would assume the non-vaccinators do not have professional training but instead rely on fringe websites for their information. My vaccinated child goes to one of the preschools where two children were diagnosed with whooping cough. He was sick with a nasty cold when I heard about the cases. I promptly called our pediatrician to have him checked for pertussis, knowing that he has a slight chance of contracting it or harboring it. The test came back negative. Maybe I should expect the family of the sick children to pay for my doctor bill. Don't want to follow the health code....home school!!!

Janet FitzGerald 4 years, 5 months ago

I guess if we don't agree with you, MR. SCIENTIST, we're not allowed to go to public school. Interesting.

jafs 4 years, 5 months ago

What if your decision to not vaccinate your child results in another child becoming sick?

Are you willing to pay for the cost of their treatment?

William McCauley 4 years, 5 months ago

Like I said if you choose to not follow the health codes keep yourself and your kids on your own private property and out of the public school system, where your free to teach your warped point of view.

Janet FitzGerald 4 years, 5 months ago

Mr. Scientist, we are everywhere. And, your child gets sick, too.

notanota 4 years, 5 months ago

Our kids do get sick with preventable diseases more often when you're around, which is why your kids don't belong in public schools until you get them vaccinated.

Janet FitzGerald 4 years, 5 months ago

Then, your vaccines aren't working, notanota.

notanota 4 years, 5 months ago

Math and science really aren't strong subjects for you, are they? Let's go over this again. Vaccines work, but they are their most effective when everyone else around you is also vaccinated. This is called herd immunity, and by sending your potential disease vectors into my school, you're endangering us all.

notanota 4 years, 5 months ago

How about the Corvair? That was a huge success. Don't drive cars! They're all unsafe!

Janet FitzGerald 4 years, 5 months ago

My mother landed herself in the hospital and nearly died after taking a flu shot for the first time in her life. That Christmas was no fun. :(

notanota 4 years, 5 months ago

I got a hangnail after getting a flu shot. The two events may not be related.

gl0ck0wn3r 4 years, 5 months ago

Did you stop flying because of problems with the de Havilland Comet? Do you go on repeating your "scientists know everything" mantra in a mouth breathing, ignorant voice while you use your outdoor plumbing to avoid dangerous indoor plumbing? You Luddite...

devobrun 4 years, 5 months ago

The reason that we (who got the vaccines) are at greater risk for certain types of cancer is because we lived longer. The single most important reason for cancer is old age. The rate of cancer is exponentially linked to age.

We live longer and therefore we die of cancer more often.

Duh.

Katara 4 years, 5 months ago

Please disclose what business you own. I would like to have my family avoid it.

Janet FitzGerald 4 years, 5 months ago

Liberal here, and proud of it. Thanks for speaking up!!!

gl0ck0wn3r 4 years, 5 months ago

So 12,000 "adverse" reactions within a pool of 23 million is a low enough threshold for you to cease a behavior? I assume you don't drive.

Janet FitzGerald 4 years, 5 months ago

People are expendable to you, Mr. No Chez.

notanota 4 years, 5 months ago

Which people? The ones who don't die of measles, pertussis, diphtheria, or polio every year?

notanota 4 years, 5 months ago

Don't forget that of those people who died, "The 32 death reports were reviewed and there as no common pattern to the deaths that would suggest they were caused by the vaccine."

Janet FitzGerald 4 years, 5 months ago

And, how many cases of whooping cough were there? "Of the 20 cases reported in the two counties, at least eight had not completed the full vaccine series." In other words, twelve DID complete the full vaccine series. That suggests that some of the other eight has some of the vaccines. Now, WHY DID THEY GET WHOOPING COUGH IF VACCINATIONS ARE EFFECTIVE????

notanota 4 years, 5 months ago

I've been hoping the username is after the city.

devobrun 4 years, 5 months ago

Let's see, Liberal: Vaccines aren't 100% effective. Vaccines have been tested in unethical ways back in the 1940s. People make a profit from vaccines. And there are side effects from the vaccines.

But they work, Liberal. Childhood viruses are down 99%.

So, regardless of the down side of vaccines, they are worth it. People live longer because of them. The decision to not take them is dangerous and ill-advised.

So far your defense is spurious and not convincing. Try to counter the argument that they work. They reduce the incidence of viral infection. Find the web site that shows that they aren't effective.

Where is that one?

nepenthe 4 years, 5 months ago

To the OP:

Your arrogance is astounding! I have a mother who is suffering from post-polio syndrome. I've talked to her about the days when children did not go out to play during the summer. As she told me, you stayed in the house. The town she grew up in didn't even have a swimming pool then, because kids were not encouraged to gather for fear they would spread 'infantile paralysis'.

Despite these precautions, she came down with polio anyway and couldn't walk for years. Her legs never developed correctly and her life has been very difficult because of it.

And here you sit on your high horse, denouncing vaccines and declaring you won't vaccinate your children? You have no idea what it's like to live in a world where you live in utter fear of coming down with a disease you cannot treat, or that may affect you or your children for the rest of theirs.

If you choose not to, then kindly find a nice cabin in the woods and never EVER show your face in public. The idea that you and your walking disease factories are among us even now is frightening.

LoveThsLife 4 years, 5 months ago

I think the scary thing is for parents of children too young to immunize...get on youtube and look at some of those videos of infants with whooping cough..very scary and sad to watch. I don't know why parents would want to knowingly put their child at risk.

Maggie-I'm glad thing turned okay for your family, but it upsets me that you could have exposed others, specifically those who might have immature or compromised immune systems and have no choice.

notanota 4 years, 5 months ago

Parents put other people's children at risk. It's the babies that are too young to get vaccinated that they really endanger, and in California's recent outbreak, several of them died.

Janet FitzGerald 4 years, 5 months ago

It would be interesting to see the other variables in play with those infants. What kind of health the mothers were in, what kind of nutrition, was there fresh air, pollution, vaccines, etc.

My unvaccinated daughter has not been seriously ill once in all her seven years. She's had about two colds, and has vomited only twice after eating something unsuitable. That's it. Can the vaccine kids say that?

notanota 4 years, 5 months ago

The variable that counts is that they were exposed to a disease that could have been prevented. The babies were too young for the vaccine, so they relied on the people around them to be vaccinated.

It's like when you find out that children died from being left unattended with matches, and you want to argue that the real problem is that they shouldn't have been wearing flammable clothing.

Let me guess. You don't believe in germ theory, do you?

LoveThsLife 4 years, 5 months ago

Maybe I should clarify, in saying "I don't know why parents would want to knowingly put their child at risk."

I was referring to the anti-vaccine crowd. Not parents of small children who aren't able to be fully vaccinated yet.

I am aware of what happened in California, it is very sad.

William McCauley 4 years, 5 months ago

Me wife & I sleep just fine knowing our vaccinated child is the best protected as one can be from the ignorant non-vaccinating morons of society, many of whom it seems reside in Lawrence Ks. and protect their kids health via nothing but organic raw foods and soy products and bad advice from some "alternative practitioners" who get their license from a cracker jacks box.....

Maybe if Ms. Maggie went to a real doctor her kids wouldn't have been misdiagnosed for eight weeks and allowed to expose not only the community as a whole, but all the other kids, while contaminating the the "little red school house" grounds for eight weeks, due to some wacko ideologies based mostly on fiction, a few half truths, and fellow nutcase "liberal" friends who spend way to much time pasting and copying crap off the internet as proof to back up their wacko claims and ignorant beliefs & ideologies.

Then to top it all off she makes not only one public comment that makes clear that her non vaccinating of her kids just because she dose not believe in it and is in direct violation of the state statutes... yet she has to chime in again and bang that drum louder for all to hear, like that's going to help win over the community to her warped ignorant beliefs .....

IMHO Maggie you should be prosecuted for child endangerment for not only your own kids health abuse, but also those who you willfully exposed at your kids preschool because of your asinine mentality, lucky for you the state statutes have no enforcement or penalty at this time.

Maggie maybe you & others who are like you should home school!

P.S. Remember, don't drink the water or kool aid.

devobrun 4 years, 5 months ago

The anti-science debate regards science as politics and science tested in computers and science engaging in grand narratives. Big Bang, evolution, etc are untestable challenges to other untestable assertions like creation.

No Paul, this discussion is about a real world experiment. An hypothesis is posed and it is being tested.....science is being done. Vaccines are deployed into the world and disease and side-effects are monitored. Cause and effect are clear and sample size is in the millions. Real applied science, Paul.

This is quite different from science based upon observation, speculation and computer modeling. While vaccines are used and their effects are judged, climate science pontificates about computer projections of the climate 30 years from now.

Big difference.

Janet FitzGerald 4 years, 5 months ago

Tell us, what IS that other side of the vaccine story? Should I just believe you because you've dismissed it?

If you've had a cold, the flu, and a host of common illnesses, then you have experienced dis-ease.

nepenthe 4 years, 5 months ago

I suggest a little reading comprehension. No one is talking about common ailments, we're discussing diseases that now have vaccines that once killed or maimed entire populations of people.

devobrun 4 years, 5 months ago

Yes Paul. science is supposed to slay the boogie-man, not create him.

Janet FitzGerald 4 years, 5 months ago

"The reason you get flak for your decision is because your actions endanger us all..." Honestly, if you're vaccinated, then how are the un-vaccinated going to threaten you?

devobrun 4 years, 5 months ago

Because pertussis is a bacteria and the immunity wears off. If you aren't current on your "tetanus" shot, you might pick up the bug. BTW, your "tetanus" booster is really a combo shot that includes whooping cough.
So everybody, keep current with your shots....even adults. Also, babies can't be given the shot immediately. 2 month-old kids with pertussis is a bad scene. So while you and I may be protected, the most vulnerable among us are not. Give them some help in this world by not infecting them with pertussis.

notanota 4 years, 5 months ago

You should also keep current with your tetanus shot because herd immunity is no good against it. Lockjaw is some nasty stuff.

Janet FitzGerald 4 years, 5 months ago

Did it ever occur to you and others that bacteria exist in the body because there is food to be had? That once the food is gone, the "bug" is gone? Did it ever occur to you that people are generally in such a bad state of health that their bodies provide food for such micro-organisms? Did it occur to you that these bacteria may have a symbiotic relationship with the host; that they are cleaning up the acidic toxins left over from a constant input of junk food and other environmental toxins?

Here is some more food for thought from science of health known by the descriptive term "Life Science." It is also known as health science, Natural Hygiene, Hygiene, and other terms.

  1. Purposes of Disease

Disease affects the whole body, not just a part. Disease serves an important body purpose. The body initiates remedial diseases to accomplish a goal. The goal serves the whole body, not just an organ, area, or part. For instance, we can know we have diseased kidneys. But, in actuality, the whole body is diseased. The fact that the symptoms are noticeable only in the kidneys does not mean that the rest of the body is unaffected—it means that the kidneys are the focal point for the eliminative effort, the point at which toxic matters are put out of the body.

Everything that affects any part of the body affects the whole organism. If we have a bad back, the whole body is affected. We are concerned about the welfare of our toes, fingers, ears, legs, eyes, arms—we defend our whole being because our whole body is a single unit. There are no isolated parts about which we are unconcerned, either at the conscious or unconscious level of intelligence. We defend it all at all levels because it is all of us.

We don't have a disease here or a disease there. It's suffered all over. An inflamed appendix has been over­loaded with toxic materials because the body is over­loaded. Body intelligence puts the overload out through all channels of elimination, but despite this the load is so great the appendix is burdened with more than it can handle. This condition is the same in all remedial diseases where a local organ seems to be the only thing affected.

Janet FitzGerald 4 years, 5 months ago

continued...

2.1 Disease Is Started by the Body

The body itself institutes the crisis known as disease. Life Scientists call this process a "housecleaning" or healing crisis. Such a procedure by the body is instituted when bodily integrity is compromised or threatened by an accumulation of uneliminated toxic materials. The level of vitality and the extent of the overload determine the type of crisis. Given high vitality as in an infant, a very low level of toxicity is tolerated. In infants, colds are frequent. Given low vitality as in most older people in our society, colds are a rarity. Because so few older people maintain vital bodies, the toxic overload drags them down into chronic diseases, degenerative diseases, and unsuspected pathology that leads to unexpected death or a "sudden onset" of cancer.

The body must be in a toxic state before it will institute a crisis. Neither bacteria nor anything else starts and sustains a crisis. Microorganisms are incapable of unified action; in fact they cannot exist where there is no food (soil) for them, and living cells are not soil for bacteria.

Bacteria are helpless against living cells. An "invasion" by bacteria such as we imagine in contagion never takes place. The bacteria that proliferate in a crisis are with us all the time. We harbor uncounted billions of microorgan­isms in our intestinal tract, on our skin, in our mouth and nose and other body cavities. Thus, the body is the ONLY, actor in the crisis of elimination or cleansing called a disease.

Bacteria and viruses cannot be blamed for disease.

Blaming disease on viruses or bacteria is an easy cop out. It's not good business to tell a client that they have caused their own miseries, so the medical profession has blamed suffering on everything but the individual's own failure in the game of living.

2.2 Disease Is an Eliminative Process

The body creates a crisis in response to a body need to free itself of toxic matters and repair damages. Conse­quently, the body withdraws energy from normal body activities and redirects them to the healing crisis.

I could tell you that I am suffering a disease at this moment. I'm not at ease with my larynx as you've noticed in my trying to clear my voice. I ate some cabbage for my evening meal. It was very sharp as it had some mustard oil in it, without doubt. Typically any irritant in the throat, esophagus or windpipe will occasion the flow of mucus which encompasses the irritant for the purpose of ejecting it from the body. In my case now, the body has started a mucus flow to clear the passage of what was regarded as toxic or irritating substance. This is a minor disease or unease. But it is disease and the body reacted to maintain its functional integrity.

Janet FitzGerald 4 years, 5 months ago

continued...

The body will reject anything that's irritating. For example, if dust is put into your nose, the body will secrete mucus to surround and eject the dust irritant. Or you may sneeze. In both cases, the body is acting defensively. Thus, all remedial disease is body-defensive action.

Bacteria do not invade organisms for they're always within the organism. Even after we've lost our intestinal flora after fasting, bacteria are still there. Bacteria can in many cases do what bears and many other animals do—hibernate or become dormant. Pasteur was not the father of bacteriology as many people think. Antoine Bechamp was the father of this science. Bechamp was a scientist in the true sense of the word. He took what he called microzyma from the chalk cliffs of France. He found that, upon furnishing water, warmth and other nutrients, the microzyma proliferated. These microorganisms had been entombed for ten million years in a state of dormancy. So bacteria have certain qualities for survival that most are not aware of.

The celebrated Dr. Lewis Thomas who heads the Sloan-Kettering Cancer Institute said, "pity not the man who has caught bacteria; pity the bacteria that was caught by the man." This is to say that humans furnish a very rough environment for bacteria. The body keeps them restricted within certain bounds. The body controls bacteria at all times. The body is master of its domain.

Bacteria do not control the body as medical people have led us to believe.

Following are two paragraphs from a "bible" on Natural Hygiene, Dr. Shelton's first major work, Human Life: Its Philosophy and Laws.

"For ages the study of disease has progressed. One by one the various systems and system complexes that are presented by the diseased human body have been studied with painstaking care in both living and dead bodies. The study of pathology has reached a degree of perfection unknown to most of the collateral sciences that form what is called the science of medicine. Knowledge of pathology increased by leaps and bounds after the invention of the microscope, until today pathology is one of the most important studies for the medical student. Physiology, anatomy, histology and biology are all made subservient to pathology.

jafs 4 years, 5 months ago

There may be a point in there somewhere, but you're taking it to an extreme.

And, a well documented reason that children get sick more often is that they haven't built up their immunity.

Vaccines are a simple way to help them do that, without having to get sick each time first, which is undoubtedly a drain on their systems.

notanota 4 years, 5 months ago

I think the point to all that TL;DR was that sunflower doesn't believe in germ theory.

Kansans4VaccineRights 4 years, 5 months ago

Vaccines are not 100% Effective or 100% Safe. Both unvaccinated children and adults and fully vaccinated children and adults can potentially contract and spread a communicable disease and sadly even die as a result. However only those who are vaccinated have a real risk of suffering from a mild or serious vaccine injury, including death. Disease prevention is an individual and personal responsibility.

notanota 4 years, 5 months ago

Odds of serious complication from measles: 1 in 1000. Odds of serious complication from MMR: 1 in 1 million. Odds of catching measles from exposure if unvaccinated: 90%. Odds of catching measles from exposure if vaccinated: less than 5%, and the risk of a serious case with complications goes down significantly as well.

Hmm, but only vaccines produce "vaccine injuries," which means we shouldn't vaccinate. Thanks for clearing that up.

Chelsea Kapfer 4 years, 5 months ago

@notanota- you took the words right out of my mouth. I wonder if Kansasvaccinerights knows how ignorant she sounds. someone should tell them.

Alfred_W 4 years, 5 months ago

What incredibly simplistic logic, comparing possible outcomes and ignoring the PROBABILITIES of each outcome. Sure, based on some theoretical game logic you can come out ahead by not vaccinating...provided that the rest of the population IS vaccinated. However, if very many people actually employ this strategy then non-vaccination rapidly becomes the losing play rather than the winning one.

devobrun 4 years, 5 months ago

So Alfred and autie, does this mean I should stop shopping at the Merc? Little Moonbeam and her mother are probably not vaccinated because of the conspiracy to rob their essence, so Moonbeam's runny nose might very well be b.pertussis and they are spreading germs around the whole grain aisle.

Alfred_W 4 years, 5 months ago

If you choose not to vaccinate, avoidance of interaction with other people, including the Merc, will definitely improve your odds of good health.

clyde_never_barks 4 years, 5 months ago

I know several families like Maggie's who choose not to immunize. This issue is only part of a much larger dialogue that is ongoing. The same type (and I'm referencing the people I know personally - fwiw) of people also don't believe that they should have to put their children in booster seats after they are 3; don't typically carry health insurance; jump from doctor to doctor because they keep disagreeing with their prescriptive solutions; they do homeschool. It absolutely boggles my mind to watch this type of behavior. In an age of modern medicine, why wouldn't you take precaution? It's because the rest of us do that their kids do not become ill/dieased. Watch those numbers shift as the "anti" vaccination population increases.

Blueskies67 4 years, 5 months ago

Debating a scientific issues cannot be won citing articles, or by simply referring to a website where you have misunderstood the information. In order to clearly understand the subject, you really need to obtain all the primary papers published by peer-review process in a reputable journal. Reading one of these papers and understanding its content really requires training, typically given in a university at the graduate level. When I was 19, I had the attitude that corporate Amercia was "evil" and intentionally polluting our environment for their greed. I was going to become a regulator and go after the evil corporate giants and change the world. A wise collegue informed me politely that I had the wrong attitude. I should focus on working with the corporations to make a change. The light bulb went off over my head, and I have spent the last 20+ years trying to make a difference through my work rather than making viseral comments. I suggest that those who do not understand how scientific research is conducted, go back to school, join those have dedicated their careers to making a positive difference, and debate your beliefs on your science, not on articles or gut-reactions.

devobrun 4 years, 5 months ago

Blue, I have read your entry more than once and find it very interesting. I delayed responding until I could sort out my thoughts. Here they are.

Your are a person known in spy circles as a mole. Not a spy, but an operative who exists in the inner workings of the enemy. Moles can be used to sway decisions made within the organization of the enemy. Rather than pursuing a single large effort to destroy the enemy, the mole takes them down by pernicious mischief.


So you make a difference. That is a political endeavor. In what way do you make a difference? Do you know that you are a mole and do you consciously move the science toward a goal?

Is your goal to change science in the business where you work? That is, are you thoughtfully engaged in setting up a system of judgment that moves science from some old way of doing things to a more modern one?


As you can see, I have a lot of questions. I worked for 25 years as a contractor for NASA, ESA, Indian Institute for Remote Sensing, Canada Center for Remote Sensing, JPL, many Universities and other odd research outfits. After I retired from that work about 15 years ago, I went into teaching. I have many opinions about the direction of science and they have appeared on these LJW blogs.


Finally, have you been successful in swaying corporations (or just yours) toward a different science? In what regard? I have high school science students who look to the future. What should I tell them?

Blueskies67 4 years, 5 months ago

Hummm...your response seems rather esoteric and really does not make sense to me at all. Calling someone a mole seems rather Tom Clancy...maybe you have a future as a novelist. I make a difference as a political endeavor...what? I don't understand at all what you mean by swaying someone to a different science...this sounds like going from chemistry to biology which makes no sense in this discussion. What should you tell your students who look to the future...what do you mean? I'm sorry, you have me rather puzzled.

devobrun 4 years, 5 months ago

"When I was 19, I had the attitude that corporate Amercia was "evil" and intentionally polluting our environment for their greed. I was going to become a regulator and go after the evil corporate giants and change the world. A wise collegue informed me politely that I had the wrong attitude. I should focus on working with the corporations to make a change. The light bulb went off over my head, and I have spent the last 20+ years trying to make a difference through my work rather than making viseral comments."

So you are a scientist who makes a difference by working with corporations to make a change. Since you went into the endeavor with a chip on your shoulder regarding "evil" corporations, I take it that you wish to change corporate behavior away from "evil".
You probably advise corporations on the basis of scientific studies that you read and then think about how your corporation can modify its behavior to be better stewards of the environment. Sound about right?


You are a mole. An agent for change from within. And you answered my question regarding awareness. You aren't.


By different science I mean different ways of conducting science, not different disciplines within science. Biology, chemistry etc are all just branches of physics anyway. From quantum electrodynamics comes chemistry. From chemistry comes biology. I refer to a new criteria for what constitutes science. Today the experiment is less critical to the scientific endeavor. For example,a computer program run is termed "experiment". Preliminary statistical correlation is released to the public far too early in the process and "science" becomes a tool for corporations, government, and various interest groups to argue about.

It becomes political. Politics is involved far more than it was 40 years ago in the scientific endeavor.

The science that comes out of universities and government sponsored research groups is managed from NIH, or NASA, or other government institutions. It is managed science. It is what Eisenhower warned us about in his farewell address in January 1961. Just as he warned us about the military-industrial complex, he also warned of the research-government connection. Science today is changed. It is a new way of doing science. That is what I mean by changing science. Ask yourself this, are the papers that I read a result of independent thinking? Or are they a result of a large machine whose direction is guided by people who fund the research from D.C.?


Finally, do I tell my students that they look forward to a career in science that is managed? That their ideas should be "correct" ideas. Since you express bewilderment and ignorance of the change in science, I don't think you are the person to ask.

Janet FitzGerald 4 years, 5 months ago

Devobrun, I'm liking you more and more. You are a critical thinker!!!! Yeah!!!!

Janet FitzGerald 4 years, 5 months ago

Devobrun, I'm liking you more and more. You are a critical thinker!!!! Yeah!!!!

Janet FitzGerald 4 years, 5 months ago

Winning a debate is not what I'm after. I am seeking Truth.

jafs 4 years, 5 months ago

If you're seeking Truth with a capital T, then I suppose religion would be the place to look.

Janet FitzGerald 4 years, 5 months ago

I'm an atheist, so I'm not interested. The capital T is used to show how important Truth is to me. I never use a capital R for religion. Do you?

jafs 4 years, 5 months ago

Most people who use a capital like that with the word Truth mean it to refer to some sort of absolute truth.

Religions are generally the places advocating that they know some absolute truths

Majestic42 4 years, 5 months ago

Gee thanks, Maggie. The concept of Herd Immunity thanks you for screwing the rest of us over.

KansasPerson 4 years, 5 months ago

Maggie, I'm weighing in on this for the first time and I have a couple of questions.

First: In your other posts on WellCommons, you said: "I acknowledge that, by choosing not to vaccinate, I am taking advantage of living in a largely vaccinated population with many diseases under control thru vaccination."

I'm sorry if I'm removing your quote from some important context; if I did so, please feel free to fill in the blanks for me. What I'm seeing here is that you are actually agreeing that vaccinations are a good thing because they produce, on the whole, a population that is free from many diseases. If you do, in fact, believe that, then why do you choose not to vaccinate? It reads like you are taking advantage (your words) of a system that has been created by something that you don't agree with. So I'm confused.

Second: I get what you're saying about the vaccinated people showing fewer symptoms and thus spreading the disease (if they were to get it) more easily, but (a) do you have any proof that unvaccinated-yet-infected people are walking around with pertussis? If their symptoms are so light, they're not getting diagnosed, so isn't it just your belief (with no proof) that they have pertussis and not just a cold?

maggievi 4 years, 5 months ago

Dearest KansasPerson,

Thank you for enlivening this debate with some real questions, instead of just insults and repetition of mainstream medical perspective and fear mongering. By asking me these good questions, you do just as I suggested in the article, and engaging in a real conversation, inviting me to share more of my point of view. That said, I know I will just disappoint, as I don't have time to engage in proving my point of view to you or anyone else on this list-- in fact, I don't have the ability to prove it. In order to become convinced that I am at the least not crazy or perhaps even possibly right about some things, you'd have to be open to my point of view. I suppose your response to this may just get that answered, though your real questions certainly tend to betray you as a logical, thoughtful individual.

Firstly, I'd like to point you, and most everyone, to the website whoopingcough.net Though I'd referenced it in the previous WellCommons thread, it's not been brought up here, and it answers the question two, as well as many other important questions, and though it doesn't represent the way I have chosen to react, it is very informative.

Secondly, no prob, the quote is not dangerously out of context. It is true that many of the diseases our populations are largely vaccinated against are seen less frequently than they would be if people weren't vaccinated. Therefore, my family has to worry about them less, and I understand that vaccines have provided me with a modern convenience in that way. However, I believe that had the vaccines not been developed, we would have striven to find another solution to the diseases, that perhaps would not have the flaws of the herd-immunity system. As I illustrated in my letter, it is commonly understood that vaccinated people can carry and transmit the diseases they are vaccinated against, with lessened symptoms. Again I assert my belief that this is more dangerous than remaining unvaccinated in a way, because people who are vaccinated for it but carry it without knowing it often risk the most vulnerable populations without knowing it. The medical establishment would readily concede that there are people carrying pertussis who are vaccinated for it-- it was something the health department had to consider when making a plan to deal with our infection, and why they recommended that everyone exposed take antibiotics. Hope that covers it! Warmly, to greater health, Maggie VI

beatrice 4 years, 5 months ago

Exactly what other ways might we have of finding solutions to diseases?

Seriously. In what other ways do we control diseases? Vaccinations is a way to do so that works.

Further, you are claiming that those who do get vaccinated to protect themselves shouldn't do so because you believe they might endanger those who won't get vaccinated? There is some twisting of logic to come to your conclusion. Why not just get vaccinated, then you wouldn't have to worry about those already vaccinated in the first place.

This reminds me of the joke about the guy passing on the car ride, the boat, and later the helicopter when the flood was coming, claiming "God will take care of me." When he arrives at the Pearly Gates, they ask, "What are you doing here? We sent a car, boat and a helicopter to your rescue."

You are refusing to accept the safety net being provided.

I'm sorry, but you and your sick children are the ones endagering others, not the other way around. Get vaccinated already! Quit pretending you know more than medical doctors.

devobrun 4 years, 5 months ago

My reply down at the bottom (at 5:10) was intended to be here, not 15 entries away! Grrrr.

Glenn Reed 4 years, 5 months ago

From the website maggie posted:

"Adults in the USA can get a 10 yearly booster shot to help prevent it."

Here's a neat page from the same website: http://whoopingcough.net/prevention-immunization.htm

Maggie, please don't insult us by posting content you haven't actually read.

maggievi 4 years, 5 months ago

I've read it. I didn't say I agree with it. Just find it informative.

devobrun 4 years, 5 months ago

KansasPerson, since the LTE emerged over 50 hours ago, I doubt that Maggie has the stomach to have read down through 131 comments. I hope Maggie can answer your first question, especially, but I doubt we'll hear from her.

acg 4 years, 5 months ago

I vaccinated my kids because I had to, in order to get them into daycare. Was I worried about giving these shots to my children when they were babies? Absolutely! My aunt's baby died the day he was vaccinated. My daycare provider's baby died the day she was vaccinated. My sister's baby died the day he was vaccinated. My other sister's best friend's baby died the day he was vaccinated. Is there a correlation? I have no idea. Does it seem way too coincidental? You bet your ass!

nepenthe 4 years, 5 months ago

Probably because they are anecdotal and not verifiable.

somedude20 4 years, 5 months ago

First, I call BS on your story and second, to play along with your "story" here ya go: Munchausen by proxy syndrome (MBPS) or I could just go back to #1 which is you are full of #2.

Majestic42 4 years, 5 months ago

"My other sister's best friend's baby..." Yup. Credible source right there.

Flap Doodle 4 years, 5 months ago

"My aunt's baby died the day he was vaccinated. My daycare provider's baby died the day she was vaccinated. My sister's baby died the day he was vaccinated. My other sister's best friend's baby died the day he was vaccinated." Were all those babies on a plane that crashed?

Janet FitzGerald 4 years, 5 months ago

You do not have to vaccinate in order to get them into daycare. It is your constitutional right, and you are able to use a waiver in Kansas.

devobrun 4 years, 5 months ago

Wow acg, what were the autopsies on those kids? If these deaths were attributed to anaphylaxis, then stop the presses. Either your family and friends have a serious condition that should be reported, or you are the most unlucky person in the world.

The U.S. government maintains a clearinghouse for information on vaccine death and injury. HRSA has a program to pay money to victims of vaccine insult. Go to :

http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/

If any of these kids deaths were attributed to vaccine reaction, you should see about getting some money.

If the kids died from blunt trauma.....don't bother.

acg 4 years, 5 months ago

Blunt trauma? WTH is wrong with you? Each one of those deaths was called SIDS, which is a fancy way of saying "we don't know how these babies died". And what kind of person has a child die and then asks for money from someone? What an effed up way of thinking.

devobrun 4 years, 5 months ago

The kind who goes to the U.S. government web site that I offered. Don't you watch TV and all the lawyers who will file a lawsuit for just about any insult? If you get sick in this country, somebody is at fault and there is money to be made.

devobrun 4 years, 5 months ago

That's it, I'm packin' a pair of vinyl gloves for the next time I find myself being compelled to join hands and sing Kumbaya.

gr 4 years, 5 months ago

So many people in support of big business. Where is the bozo when you need him?

QuinnSutore 4 years, 5 months ago

See what liberal researchers do to the safety of our kids?

Now just imagine what they can do with an entire health care system to abuse.

Janet FitzGerald 4 years, 5 months ago

This liberal doesn't intend to use the medical insurance we are forced to pay into except for trauma.

jafs 4 years, 5 months ago

And, God forbid you need an operation, will you be ok if the doctors, nurses, medical equipment and operating room aren't a sterile environment?

If not, why not?

speak_up 4 years, 5 months ago

After lurking for months on this site, reading all of your comments but refusing to get involved in what so often devolves from congenial debate into name-calling and finger-pointing, I must respond to this thread. I take issue with the presumption that all liberals agree with pseudo-scientific conspiracy theories like that presented in Ms. Beedle's post. This is simply not true. It is entirely possible to lean left-- I mean FAR left-- of center and still understand that theories such as hers are ridiculous and dangerous. Please do not lump us all together. There are ignorant people on both the left and the right. I would not assume that just because Brownback does not believe in evolution that EVERY Republican is equally ignorant on the subject.

devobrun 4 years, 5 months ago

I believe that Maggie has made her decision on the basis of fear. I think her fear of the vaccination drove her to her decision and now she seeks rationalization.

So, while love may make fools of us all, fear can also lead us into bad decisions. I hope Maggie comes around and gets vaccinated. Maybe a trusted person who could help her with her fear would be effective. Oh well, I wish her the best.

Whenever I see defenders of left/right or liberal/conservative or any dichotomic system I wonder where the third or fourth or fifth arguments went? Might there be an alternative to liberal that isn't a tea party? Might scared people actually make poor decisions not because they are liberal or conservative, but just scared?


The political battle is fun though. Liberals fear success. Conservatives fear failure.
Liberals are scaredy-cats. Conservatives are old fuddy-duddies.

So what do you call a person who tries new things and behaves appropriately when the new thing succeeds or fails? No excuses, no dogma? Rational.

Is there a Rational Party? I want that one.

Tony Kisner 4 years, 5 months ago

"Though my family was misdiagnosed the first eight weeks we had it, I feel thankful that our symptoms presented so conspicuously that we could be diagnosed accurately"

-Conspicuous finally in the ninth week I guess?

Janet FitzGerald 4 years, 5 months ago

I could be wrong, but it sounds like there was never a diagnosis based on laboratory tests. It was a symptom of coughing, the "whoop" sound, that led to the diagnosis. This whole thing is really about Toxemia.

devobrun 4 years, 5 months ago

First rule of toxicology, Maggie, is that it is all in the dose. Yes, there are people walking around carrying the disease. It is a bacteria and can certainly live in humans without causing major symptoms. This means that the bacterial load in the person is small. It is clinging to its life. Otherwise the toxins produced by the bacteria would be debilitating.

Thus, your assertion that people carry it around is mitigated by the importance of the amount they carry around. And that amount is surely less than in the person with full blown pertussis.

Finally, since carriers have a small amount of bacteria in their system, the chance of them spreading the disease is smaller.


Furthermore, the site you referred us to is quite informative and quite mainstream medicine. The only thing unusual about it that Dr. Jenkinson believes that pertussis is more common than thought and under-diagnosed. That may well be the case.

So what?

What is treatment for pertussis? A Z-Pack. What do you give a person who has a cold that lingers and a cough that won't go away? A Z-Pack.


Finally Maggie, doctors make mistakes all the time. Your body is the most complicated thing on the planet. Missed diagnoses are common and I think Dr. Jenkinson is probably correct. But what makes you think that you won't make decisions that are worse than the doctors?

What qualifies you more in your dealings with disease than a person who reads about disease, tests methods and treatments and comes to opinions based on vastly more experience than you have?

I prefer to make my own mistakes too, Maggie. I don't call the plumber, electrician, carpenter every time I need a fuse changed, or a drain cleaned. I've made my share of mistakes and I now do pretty well. But if I've learned anything, it is knowing when to consult a person who knows better than I.

I hope your infectious disease experience is limited to less dangerous types, like pertussis. My mother contracted polio in 1953 and became quadriplegic. You don't want that.

gr 4 years, 5 months ago

Some speak of fear. Fear of what? Is it fear of catching a scary disease or fear of getting poisoned.

Fear sells.

And history and many of the above posters shows it sells well. Big business has sucked so many of you in and has done a very good job.

But, what is the null hypothesis here? I asked one and he said the null hypothesis was following what the popular majority believed. He did admit he did not understand the scientific method. What do you say the null hypothesis is with use of vaccinations and who has the burden of proof for disproving it?

Majestic42 4 years, 5 months ago

How are big companies to blame here again?

jafs 4 years, 5 months ago

My guess is that the idea is that they scare people into getting vaccinated, and make money on the vaccines.

gr 4 years, 5 months ago

42, are you suggesting that Big Pharma is not Big Business?

Majestic42 4 years, 5 months ago

Nothin like a good leading question to try to prove your (ridiculous) point. Great job.

llama726 4 years, 5 months ago

The null hypothesis in the vaccination debate is very simple, so I'm not sure why you need to ask. The vaccines for which people are immunized are unaffected by the vaccine. The null hypothesis is always simple. It is the hypothesis that the treatment does nothing.

We have to reject the null hypothesis to conclude that the treatment works. Who does? Well, to get a drug released, you have to go through quite a bit of regulations and testing before it even sees a human subject, and if you're that interested, I'm sure you could write a drug maker and find out the exact process. That's not what I do for a living and I don't have time to look it up for you, but, you're asking about immunizations. So, let's examine polio. Following numerous applications of the vaccine for polio, we see that instances of polio have drastically decreased. Therefore, we reject the null hypothesis and conclude that the vaccine, on a societal scale, drastically reduces the number of individuals affected by polio.

gr 4 years, 5 months ago

Your sentence sounded odd but sounds like you at least understand the null hypothesis. That's a start.

But, assuming that big business has to jump through hurdles therefore all must be ok, seems a little unscientific. Kind of like that pharmacists must have degrees, follow protocols, and obey the law so therefore.... they won't dilute your drugs.

"So, let's examine polio. Following numerous applications of the vaccine for polio, we see that instances of polio have drastically decreased. Therefore,'

So, let's examine polio. Following numerous increase of cell phone use, we see that instances of polio have drastically decreased. Therefore,....

Really, is that how you think science is done? Do you know what confounders are?

What you have actually said is that you personally do not have an intelligent understanding of whether vaccines work or not, but you have complete faith in others and they wouldn't say they worked if they didn't.

Well, as long as it works for you, just don't force me or others to believe the way you do.

llama726 4 years, 5 months ago

If you want to understand the mechanisms, I suggest you sign up for a series of biology, chemistry, and immunology courses. Of course the profit-based medical system is prone to corruption, but where is your proof? I have a number of significant statistical correlations. You have a snarky comment.

If you wish to act as though I am ignorant because I didn't sit at my computer and take the time to teach you something that takes years to learn, that's fine, but our discussion is simply over. It's not my responsibility to convince you of anything and I don't feel like playing a game of interpreting what the other person said. What I said, actually, is exactly what you see in the words above you. The beauty of the Internet is that you can read my exact words. What I said is that I do not manufacture drugs for a living. Not that I am an expert (yet), but I have studied some elements of immunology. I understand that the immune system produces antibodies, I understand that introducing an inactivated strain of a virus or bacteria into the body allows the immune system to develop antibodies for it. No. I don't have all the exact biochemical reactions to show you. You have the Internet and apparently copious amounts of time, I do not.

Why is polio found at a much higher rate among those who have not been immunized than among those who have? Significant correlation. I sense I'm wasting my time.

Did you know that you have no unique ideas of your own, as well? All of the information you consume was shared from someone else, and/or your understanding painted by those who taught you the basic information in the first place. Yet you learn an alphabet, thanks to someone else. You learn to read, you learn math, etc. Just as easily as you criticize me for accepting what dozens of independent science instructors from (so far) three separate continents, so, too, can you be criticized for saying that this is WRONG because of the discreditable sources from which you've gleaned your ideas.

Skepticism is fine. Tearing down community health because you refuse to believe anything... Not very good for the rest of us.

gr 4 years, 5 months ago

llama, what I've been trying to say is that science isn't only done by correlations. Do you know what confounders are?

You speak of not spending enough time to search it out. I suggest that you do spend the time as your health is at risk. Only you are responsible for your health and if you wish to rely on pills or other magic charms, you will be sorely disappointed.

devobrun 4 years, 5 months ago

llama, lemme help you.

Maggie is scared. She is a feeling and caring and emotional human. Every bit the artist, mother, life is grand, but terrifying human. She is to be loved, not lectured. She is to be led, but by swaying her feelings.

Do not attempt to sway her emotions by logic. This is not an excursion into thought for her. I believe that she has heard the rational arguments and agrees to them. But she is a person of feelings and the rational hasn't changed them.

So, find a way to sway her feelings. Mother Teresa says take your shots. The first Lady says take your shots. Your mother, Maggie, took her shots and would want your to take your shots. Maybe get in touch with one of her kids (secretly) and ask them to be brave for their mother.

Rational is not in this scenario, llama. Sway her feelings or forget it.

Kinda like a selling of......windmills and solar......electric cars......facebook.....what a bunch of emotional rubes we live with.

devobrun 4 years, 5 months ago

BTW, gr's question is "fear of what". gr clearly doesn't know anything about fear. It doesn't matter what the fear is of or about. It is an emotion and it might be irrational, but it's as real as it gets. Maggie is afraid, gr. Maggie needs no logical reason to take her shots, folks.

She needs a dad to be strong for her.

lawrencenerd 4 years, 5 months ago

I see a lot of comments where people say vaccines aren't 100 percent safe. While this is true, the risk that a vaccine will harm you is extremely low. The likelihood that it will prevent you from catching the disease it was designed for if you come into contact with it is extremely high.

Parachutes don't always open correctly and can be ineffective, and even kill a person if they become entangled with one in a bad way. I sure as hell wouldn't jump out of a plane without one though.

Fear science and shelter yourselves from factual information and modern medicine all you want. Better yet, go find a rabid animal to bite you than stalwartly refuse the vaccination that will prevent you from dying so you stop making the gene pool all muddy with stupidity. You aren't even keeping your money from "big pharma" either. The medicine you take when you get ill from something you could have gotten a cheap vaccination for surely puts far more money into their pockets.

http://www.jennymccarthybodycount.com/

gr 4 years, 5 months ago

Of those vaccinated last year and this year with the Flu and H1N1 vaccine, 747 people had serious events they reported.

And of those vaccinated last year and this year with Pertusses containing vaccines, 242 people reported serious events.

And these are the serious events, not the less serious ones or people who didn't report them. Is that worth the risk? Some may feel it justified to risk death if it helps them from getting a sore throat or runny nose provided there's some real science behind it. But that's the problem. Where is the science? Is it just a matter of correlating cell phone use to decline of disease? Or is there real testing going on using the scientific method?

When you look back into the history of the vaccines and you see Bechamp and Jenner and Pasteur going at it, but Pasteur had better publicity of marketing skills, it makes you question things. Then, when you read that some of the vaccine batches weren't found to be "effective", meaning causing a reaction in the people, but other batches did cause a reaction, you wonder, why? When you read that those batches which caused a reaction were accidentally contaminated, then new batches were intentionally contaminated, it makes you wonder what kind of "science" is behind the concept of vaccination. Contaminates are now called, adjuvants, without which the vaccine would not be "effective". Adjuvants containing such things as aluminum.

How do you make a GMO human?
Vaccinate them by inserting all kinds of different species' DNA into them. Who knows, maybe as a side benefit you can generate another disease, too.

gr 4 years, 5 months ago

Rabies and smallpox? Interesting topics. Might want to look into them.

The whole concept of smallpox seems rather flawed. Using one disease, cowpox, to inoculate against another! Yes, I know with what our brains were inoculated with in school, but isn't it strange that diseases, which have different characteristics, can protect against the other?

If smallpox vaccination, using the unrelated cowpox disease was so successful, why is pertussis vaccination seem to be failing as schools require more and more vaccinations? So-called Jenner science made up from the superstitions of dairy maids. Can anyone say syphilis?

Even Jenner saw the failure of his ideas and tried desperately to keep making up new stuff.

I read that less that 15% of those bitten by a rabid dog will get the disease if not treated. If treated, they will die sooner. Pasteur to the rescue! 19 Russian peasants were bitten by a rabid wolf. Pasteur gives them the potion and 3 of the 19 die. If only 15% would get the disease, his odds were not very good. Looking into it, there seems to be some unknown that it can even be detected in dogs.

Pasteur, the falsifier. He killed a 12 year old with his vaccine and then lied saying the rabbits they inoculated with the boy's cervical bulb were still alive and that the boy died of other causes. 8 days later. After 9 of 18 vaccinated people died from his vaccinations, he said he wouldn't accept any further discussion of his theories and methods. No one would be allowed to monitor his experiments. At least he had some brains and in an experiment to prove anthrax vaccinations, he wouldn't use his own vaccine but used someone else's which contained an antiseptic.

Nope. If there were even such a thing as a rabid dog, I sure wouldn't get vaccinated for it. I would have a higher chance of dying if I did. I believe in science. Not marketing by big business. Or frauds such as Pasteur.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.