Yeah, what a bunch of fascists! How dare they want to... make kids safe from disease... Umm, boo? I guess?

here is an opposing opinion to forced vaccination

Mandatory Vaccination in Maryland REALLY IS about Money

According to this government website, in the 2006-2007 school year, Prince George’s County Public Schools received $11,325 per student per year! That is more than I pay for my kid’s private school tuition! The breakdown was 7% from federal money or $780, 46% from the state at $5246, and 47% from local revenue at $5298. Assuming a typical 180 day school year, that comes out to $63 per child per day of school attended.

Why is this important information? If the Washington Post article is correct when they said that 2300 kids are being barred from school, all of a sudden $63 per student per day turns into a astronomical loss of $144,900 PER DAY for the school district. That would light a fire under anyone’s backside to stop that hemorrhaging of loss of income, but it does not justify the way these families are being treated.

for the full article, go here

http://sayingnotovaccines.blogspot.com/2007/11/mandatory-vaccines-in-maryland-really.html

You know, I was thinking about this last week when I was recovering from that bout of smallpox. Oh wait, that never happened, because smallpox was eradicated by a vaccine.

I've always thought that vaccines were a bizarre thing to be opposed to, and that website doesn't do much to change my mind. The main argument seems to be that sometimes a vaccine will give you the disease you're trying to protect yourself against, but that's only in rare cases. And certainly, the good seems to outweigh the bad. In the case of the kids who are refusing to get vaccinated, I think the school is absolutely right to suspend them, as they're putting themselves and others at a completely unnecessary risk.

"because smallpox was eradicated by a vaccine."

If you think smallpox has been completely eradicated, think again...

"In Joe Esposito's lab, at the Centers for Disease Control, there was a test going of a biosensor device for detecting smallpox. It was a machine in a black suitcase. It could detect a bioweapon using; the process called the polymerase chain reaction, or P.C.R. -- the same kind of molecular fingerprinting that police use to identify the DNA of a crime suspect. The suitcase thing was called a Cepheid Briefcase Smart Cycler, and it had been co-invented by M. Allen Northrup, a biomedical engineer who founded a company to make and sell biosensors. He was there, along with a cluster of other scientists.

Esposito, the official guardian of one half of the world's official supply of smallpox, handed a box of tubes to a scientist in the room. Two of the tubes contained the whole DNA of smallpox virus but not live smallpox. The DNA drifted in a drop of water; it was the Rahima strain. Two other tubes contained anthrax. The samples were snapped into slots in the machine.

Northrup turned his attention to a laptop computer that nestled in the machine. Northrup is a chunky man with a mustache and reddish-brown hair. He tapped on the keys.

We waited around, chatting. Meanwhile, the Cepheid was working silently. It showed colored lines on its screen. In fifteen minutes, the anthrax lines started going straight up, and someone said, "The anthrax is screaming." Finally, one of the smallpox lines crept upward, slowly. "That's a positive for smallpox, not so bad," a scientist said. Emergency-response teams could carry a Cepheid suitcase to the scene of a bioterror event and begin testing people immediately for anthrax or smallpox. The machine is priced at sixty thousand dollars.

Afterward, Joe Esposito went around collecting the used tubes. The smallpox-sample holder -- a plastic thing the size of a thumbnail-had been left on a counter. I picked it up.

Esposito wasn't about to let anyone walk off with smallpox. "Leave me that tube," he said. "You are not allowed to have more than twenty per cent of the DNA."

Before I handed it to him, I glanced at a little window in the tube. When I held it up to the light, the liquid looked like clear water. The water contained the whole molecules of life from variola, a parasite that had colonized us thousands of years ago. We had almost freed ourselves of it, but we found we had developed a strong affinity for smallpox. Some of us had made it into a weapon, and now we couldn't get rid of it. I wondered if we ever would, for the story of our entanglement with smallpox is not yet ended."

It might return sooner than you think thanks to bio-weaponized technology... also a few cases have popped up since 1977.

Read this full article at: http://cryptome.org/smallpox-wmd.htm

I found this from a link on the CDC.gov website while searching smallpox.

Source: Hardcopy The New Yorker, July 12, 1999, pp. 44-61. Thanks to Richard Preston

^that was very interesting. my specific question to you Sarzy was this.

do you really think forcing people and threatening with jailtime is the appropriate way to achieve their objective in america ?

And isn't the very subtle implication that only death or harm from disease is "bad"; that death or harm from a vaccine is somehow okay or "good", because it is in support of the "cause" of "public health"?

Also implied in the argument that it is okay to force vaccination is the notion that "you", an unwilling vaccine participant, should be forced to vaccinate your child(ren) to protect "my" (the one who seeks protection) child(ren) from disease. There are two major problems with this argument, First, why should someone be required to risk their child for another? What makes the child being "protected" more important than the "protector"?

Second, if the vaccines work, anyone choosing them will be protected. If they don’t prevent the spread of the disease to the vaccinated, why are we vaccinating? It hardly seems right that those who don’t want to be vaccinated should have vaccination forced on them because vaccines don’t always work.

And to whatever extent vaccines are being required because the 'immune suppressed' cannot be vaccinated, and are more vulnerable to the adverse effects of disease, while my heart goes out to such people, they are not more important than children who are harmed by vaccines. Nor should the notion that vaccination may in itself be creating immune suppression be left out of this equation.

Besides there is documented proof of outbreaks in 100% vaccinated populations. The irony is, of course, that even if they don't recognize it, those who support forcing vaccination are doing so precisely because they don't believe in the effectiveness of vaccines. Besides, where is the sense of history, the recognition that medicine as practiced and promoted has often been found to be lacking or even just plain, dead wrong?

unfortunate that you did not look at the site further. http://sayingnotovaccines.blogspot.com/

Well, like I said, I don't know all that much about this issue, so if I continued to press the point, I'd just be arguing for the sake of arguing. It still seems to me that the benefits of vaccines outweigh the risks (and that calling this "fascism" is some pretty wicked hyperbole), but I guess you win this round, qruel.

^ no winning involved, just opinions. why can't we have a conversation?

I'm trying to provide a forum for the other side to be heard for those who don't know much about the issue. This video seemed to provide a good jumping off point at it represented an extreme view (forcing vaccinations by fines and jailtime)

I'd agree that the term fascism is probably an extreme term to use in light of its true definition. I could have choose to rename the video clip but decided to leave the original title from youtube.

I'd also say that a lot of people feel/think the way you do about the subject. But I don't think that is the only valid viewpoint. Is it so wrong to try and understand why people might be opposed to it ?

I guess I don't understand how you would come to the conclusion that the unvaccinated kids are putting others at risk ? (if those other kids are vaccinated). I think some of the commentary above provided some intelligent counterpoints.

I have changed the title from "Fascism in America" to "Totalitarianism in America" to be more accurate. Thanks to Sarzy for bringing it to my attention.

After doing a bit of research on this subject, I've had a bit of a change of heart. I still don't think that this even remotely qualifies as fascism or totalitarianism (!) but I agree enough with the video now to upvote it.

What surprises me is that there are many misconceptions about vaccines and how they work. I find it also surprising that while I think you are in earnest trying to present an opposing viewpoint, the reality is that the majority of video content presented on the internet and discussion forums by a vast majority oppose vaccines.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/04/health/webmd/main3575660.shtml

Perhaps, a more fair handed video would be to post something debunking vaccination opposition's claims?

To me, it's really about having the choice of what to put into your body - having that personal choice. Giving jail time to someone because they choose to NOT vaccinate is the government choosing for you, instead. That's just fundamentally wrong any way you slice it.

^the misconceptions about vaccines goes both ways. I'd say that a much smaller minority hear the oppossing viewpoint of vaccines as our MSM covers it in such a way that only the provaccination side gets positive attention.

the point of me posting this video is to hopefully open peoples eyes that vaccine saftey and effectiveness is not a black/white issue and expose them to another very valid viewpoint (like Sarzy above)

____________________________

Vaccination is built around a "belief system." We believe vaccines are safe; we believe vaccines are important to health; we believe the stories we've been told about vaccines being responsible for the elimination of smallpox and polio. And we really want to believe our doctor has read all the available information on vaccines--pro and con--and is telling us the complete truth about vaccines.

However, belief is based on faith, not necessarily on fact. For example, we want to believe that vaccinating our children will keep them from getting sick. However, there is a plethora of information documenting this is not necessarily so.

Vaccine Failures: http://www.nmaseminars.com/VaccineFailureList.html

If anyone would like more information on the oppossing view, there is a video called Vaccines: The Risks, Benefits and Choices. What I like about the info the Dr. presents is that it is very thorough and well documented from government sources and studies. you can download it below (it is about 700 megs)

http://www.archetype-productions.com/nfo/vaccines/Vaccines-The_Risks_The_Benefits_The_Choices.avi

(synopsis)
At a time when many more adults are questioning the problems that may be associated with vaccines, Dr. Tenpenny presents information and facts that are not readily heard at the doctor's office. This 3-hour, highly-informative presentation offers a comprehensive overview of the most common childhood vaccines. A short overview of vaccination history, conflicts of interest and the lack of scientific data to support the current "one-size fits all" vaccine protocol is also discussed. Dr. Tenpenny presents a very clear picture of the immune system and offers compelling information regarding the "real" risks of choosing to not vaccinate.

Topics Discussed:
Smallpox and the potential for bioterroism
Polio eradication: Then and Now
The increased number of vaccines...part of the problem
The problem of molecular mimicry
The problem with aluminum: It's Not Just The Mercury
Hepatitis B vaccine...is it necessary?
Diptheria, Tetanus, and Pertussis (DTaP)
H. influenza vaccine (the HiB)
Pneumococcal vaccine (Prevnar)
Chickenpox vaccine (Varivax)
Measles, Mumps and Rubella (MMR)
The IOM report about thimerosal (mercury)
The Swedish Study about thimerosal (mercury)
Short overview: flu shot, college menigitis vaccine, and RSV

The sift calling a mormon a great man? Im shocked, shocked! Well not that shocked.

^thanks for pointing that out. I think I'll retract that description:-)

Government does NOT belong in your body or in your home.

Well, I stopped reading when scarzy admitted his ignorance.

I don't let the government inject diseases into me. Nor should anyone else be forced to.

Agreed Irishman, but the Social Contract that we make by being a part of a society dictates that our decisions not impact the public health of those in our society. Hence, if by making the choice to not receive a vaccine I put a large percentage of the public at risk for a pandemic, then I would argue that this is a violation of my social contract and I should not be allowed that choice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osteopathic_medicine

I do not consider Osteopathic Medical professionals experts on Vaccines.

Moreover, there are no scientifically peer reviewed articles on ISI (Web of Knowledge) linking any current vaccines to adverse health effects, which have not later been found faulty.

"In the late 1990s...Dr. Andrew Wakefield suggested a possible link between bowel disorders, autism and the MMR vaccine, and urged further research. ...a number of studies with larger sample sizes were conducted, and failed to confirm the findings...Wakefield was later found to have received £435,000 in fees from trial lawyers attempting to show the vaccine was dangerous"

"Parents wishing to avoid this preservative(thiomersal), most common in multi-dose containers of influenza vaccine, may specifically ask for thimerosal-free alternatives that contain only trace amounts."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine

^ that's assuming that they are 100% safe & 100% effective. which has been shown NOT to be the case.

LOL. heaven forbid you disagree with her specific arguements based on evidence.

perhaps you should watch the video and tell me what it is exactly that you disagree with. It sounds like you are quite close minded to the topic. I've heard all the "pro" arguements before. I think "pro vaccine" advocates do themselves and their mission a diservice when they don't acknowledge any of the documented evidence that is contrary to their opinion.

I will watch your video, but before I do, personally, I like to make sure the source I am getting my information has some form of ethos.

Jeff King is a good example of someone who went around on the internet claiming to be something he was not.

It is important to know who you are listening to and who is talking. In this case, this is not a credible source because she has no formal training medical or otherwise in this field. If she bases her arguments on other sources which are credible, then she may have something.

As it stands, the literature and her training do not help me believe her out of hand.

I am open minded to anything so long as you prove it with experiments and provide data to support your claim, as I have said half a dozen times.

In my defense to this:

"LOL. heaven forbid you disagree with her specific arguements based on evidence."

I said there is no evidence to support your claim in peer reviewed journals that I can find.

MycroftHomlz

So, it doesn't matter the validity of her arguement because she is not qualified to have a valid arguement? hmmm.

here is a great article called
Deadly Immunity
by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. it investigates the government cover-up of a mercury/autism scandal

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/7395411/deadly_immunity/

Robert demonstrates a collusion (at best) and cover up (at worst) between the vaccine industry and government.

I'm sure you can find some good videos to post that represent what you were talking about above. Let me know when you post one and I'll be happy to check it out. I'm off to google the Jeff King you mentioned as I have no idea who he is.

I thought this follow up on that Rollingstone story was pertinent as it talks about the reaction to the article.

Kennedy Report Sparks Controversy (from the editors of Rollingstone)
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/7483530/kennedy_report_sparks_controversy

"Deadly Immunity," our story about the link between mercury in vaccines and the dramatic rise in autism among children [RS 977/978], sparked intense reaction from the medical establishment and several leading news organizations. The story, by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. -- part of an ongoing collaboration with Salon.com -- documented the government's efforts to conceal alarming data about the dangers of vaccines.

What is most striking is the lengths to which major media outlets have gone to disparage the story and to calm public fears -- even in the face of the questionable science on the subject. In a segment on World News Tonight titled "A Closer Look," ABC pointed out that Kennedy is "not a scientist or a doctor" and dismissed his extensive evidence as nothing more than "a few scientific studies." The network also trotted out its medical editor, Dr. Timothy Johnson, to praise the "impeccably impartial Institute of Medicine" and to again state that Kennedy is not a scientist.

MycroftHomlz: "...the Social Contract that we make by being a part of a society dictates that our decisions not impact the public health of those in our society. Hence, if by making the choice to not receive a vaccine I put a large percentage of the public at risk for a pandemic, then I would argue that this is a violation of my social contract and I should not be allowed that choice."

Seriously? You're convinced skipping vaccines will incite a health pandemic? That sounds dire. A pandemic. As if by skipping vaccinations a deadly outbreak is imminent. Come on, this sounds like political posturing. You're putting it in the most dire of circumstances to convince the rest of us that compulsory vaccination is a good thing. No way, MycroftHomlz. Our species has existed and survived without vaccines for thousands of years with just our immune system alone. The government cannot and should not dictate what goes into our bodies. That's just wrong.

while i disagree with jailing and oppose police-state imposition of anything, doesn't this fall under the principle of "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose" - your right to refuse immunization ends when you endanger my health.

as with all other public/private debates, in a public setting your rights to personal privacy are secondary to the public safety.

Instead of smallpox maybe the example should be Polio, something this country had tragic experience with a few decades ago. Arguments that compulsory polio vaccinations are a bad thing could then be addressed directly to people who are still sitting in wheelchairs.

^please explain how not vaccinating a child will endanger your health

If the vaccines work, anyone choosing them will be protected. If they don’t prevent the spread of the disease to the vaccinated, why are we vaccinating? It hardly seems right that those who don’t want to be vaccinated should have vaccination forced on them because vaccines don’t always work.

"as with all other public/private debates, in a public setting your rights to personal privacy are secondary to the public safety."

I'm confused. I need a handful of aspirin.

Rhetorical(or persuasive) arguments are generally framed using ethos, pathos, or logos. In other words, credibility of the author, an appeal to emotions, or an appeal to the facts. In a scientific debate, pathos is not essential.

My point was this: In my opinion, your source does not a have a background which makes her an expert in the topic she is talking about. She does not do research in the field, and she is not a specialist in virology. Therefore, my next attempt to establish whether or not a good argument could be framed was to do a literature search. I could not find anything to support your claim on ISI, or PubMed, but that is not to say there isn't any.

I think the burden of proof is on the believer and in this case the popular view is that vaccines are good, you have to prove to me otherwise. I think any scientist would tell you "Show me a scientifically peer reviewed experimental paper that confirms your beliefs."

I am not saying you are wrong, I am saying the elements to sway my opinion are lacking.

I see your point blankfist, and in some cases I would agree with you. But even if a percentage of the populus stopped inoculating their children, that would represent a significant number. There are two reasons why I hold my social contract argument:

1. If that part of the populus was suddenly eliminated from the work force because of an outbreak of some disease that could drastically effect an economy.

2. My impression, is that this percentage is providing an opportunity for viruses to mutate, and nullify the efficacy of the vaccine. But I am not an expert, Doc is however, and I hope he joins this discussion. My fear is that their decisions are inherently putting others at risk.

Moreover, if a parents fear is the preservative then that is a moot point because vaccines can be obtained without them. In my opinion, you have to base your arguments on something other than the preservative.

PS. I disagree with jailing them too, but I think vaccines are a good idea. It should also be noted that Australia and some parts of Canada have similar practices.

Hviid A, Stellfeld M, Wohlfahrt J, Melbye M.

Danish Epidemiology Science Centre, Department of Epidemiology Research, Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, Denmark. aii@ssi.dk

CONTEXT: Mercuric compounds are nephrotoxic and neurotoxic at high doses. Thimerosal, a preservative used widely in vaccine formulations, contains ethylmercury. Thus it has been suggested that childhood vaccination with thimerosal-containing vaccine could be causally related to neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether vaccination with a thimerosal-containing vaccine is associated with development of autism. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Population-based cohort study of all children born in Denmark from January 1, 1990, until December 31, 1996 (N = 467 450) comparing children vaccinated with a thimerosal-containing vaccine with children vaccinated with a thimerosal-free formulation of the same vaccine. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rate ratio (RR) for autism and other autistic-spectrum disorders, including trend with dose of ethylmercury. RESULTS: During 2 986 654 person-years, we identified 440 autism cases and 787 cases of other autistic-spectrum disorders. The risk of autism and other autistic-spectrum disorders did not differ significantly between children vaccinated with thimerosal-containing vaccine and children vaccinated with thimerosal-free vaccine (RR, 0.85 [95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60-1.20] for autism; RR, 1.12 [95% CI, 0.88-1.43] for other autistic-spectrum disorders). Furthermore, we found no evidence of a dose-response association (increase in RR per 25 microg of ethylmercury, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.90-1.06] for autism and 1.03 [95% CI, 0.98-1.09] for other autistic-spectrum disorders). CONCLUSION: The results do not support a causal relationship between childhood vaccination with thimerosal-containing vaccines and development of autistic-spectrum disorders.

Your two arguments are, and I'll paraphrase here, A) without vaccines the economy could be affected by disease outbreaks and B) in your opinion those who choose not to inoculate themselves could be allowing viruses to mutate. Sounds like a preemptive strategy to me, MycroftHolmz, and a fear borne one at that.

It's fine to rally behind the notion that vaccines could be good for you, but to create absolutes in an area where there are not any, (because science is a work-in-progress always) is simply wrong. We shouldn't be basing our laws on fear, and preemption is a stepchild of fear. Laws should come from reason, and being that we still have our personal liberties in this country, you cannot (or at the very least should not) force people to put anything into their bodies they do not want UNLESS our public safety absolutely relied on it. And, it does not.

Preventing disease for the good of a society is preemptive by definition. That is the nature of preventative medicine.

Do you think history supports A)?

B) is simply true. I asked a biologist and she said that active virus mutate. AIDS is a good example(and the one she used), and mutation is the reason why there are actually multiple forms of AIDS. For more virulent diseases, like polio, measles, mumps, and rubella, widespread lack of vaccines would increase the likelyhood a number of people being infected. If they were infected the mere fact that they have an active virus means that the virus will mutate. In effect, negating the existing vaccine.

Africa has had outbreaks of Polio for this very reason.

http://microbiology.columbia.edu/PICO/Chapters/NewsAfrica.html

I prefer to use conditional language most of the time simply, because I could always be wrong. I do not think you should use it to infer that I am misleading people or simply stating things willy nilly. But I could have misinterpreted your comment. Text is always hard to read that way.

Furthermore, you have not proven that vaccines are not good for you. Please provide a citation for this.

I never said one way or the other vaccinations are good for you or not. My point is simple: the government should NOT enforce compulsory vaccinations unless there's a provable, true jeopardy to the public health - which there is NOT currently. Just because you say it is good for the social contract we all have written in our combined blood, does not mean it is good. Nor just. You seem to be more preoccupied with the notion that possibly some of us are refusing inoculation because we may see it as harmful. True or not, that's petty.

Do you believe vaccines should be compulsory, MycroftHolmz?

It depends what you mean by compulsory. A citizen has a right to not get vaccinated. The public school systems also have the authority to require up to date vaccinations for their students and staff, because of the social contract.

This is where the social contract argument comes from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract

I do not think a parent should be sentenced to jail time for not getting their children inoculated, but this is consistent with my opinion from the beginning.

Furthermore, vaccines have proven to be a valuable tool in control infectious disease.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubella
etc.

There is a proven health risk to viruses on the international stage.

http://www.unicef.org/immunization/index_25953.html

Vaccines have helped eliminate diseases from the public sphere, too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox

While vaccines may not be 100% perfect, nothing is and that is a ridiculous requirement to put on anything. Vaccines are our best tool at fighting diseases and we should not rush to conclusions without having good science to support our opinions.

On a separate topic:

My other arguments were aimed at people(not necessarily you) who believe vaccines cause disease, or genetic disorders. To which, I personally did a literature search. There are no scientifically peer reviewed papers, which not been retracted that prove this. All the current studies, that I could find, indicate that this is not true. Moreover, if you simply ask to have thiomersal free vaccines.

I should preface that I'm a virologist and I get my flu vaccine every year. I'm glad I was vaccinated as a child and I intend to vaccinate my children when that day comes. I've so far been "forced" to receive one vaccination, and I wasn't bitter. Heck, I'm now immune to one more virus.

First off, this is very important: when you are vaccinated, you are not being injected with a "disease." It's a misconception. You will likely be injected with proteins from a virus, a deactivated (non-reactivatable) form of the virus, or "virus like particles" which have many viral proteins, but not all those required for an active infection (there are other methods as well, like the gene gun and such...). You'll also likely get a little bit of an adjuvent (or essentially and irritant) to induce a bigger immune reaction. So far, I haven't seen any good reason to think that vaccination will have any ill effect on your immune system. In fact, the opposite is more likely true IMO. Vaccination is not a "belief" system. These vaccines are the product of biomedical science. Though I'll admit, the concept of vaccination was discovered and found to be affective before we know exactly what was going on molecularly, we have since advanced to the point in our science that we design vaccines to work how we want, when we want, and better than the older methods.

Next, due to our current level of scientific "openness" (so to speak), no virus that has been sequenced will ever be "gone for good." I personally know how to remake them in the lab and so do thousands of biologists world-wide. This is obviously worrisome in terms of the bio-terrorism threat. For example, if HIV died out, reviving it in the lab would cost about $20,000 in supplies and maybe 6 months to a year for one skilled lab worker. However, that does not change the fact that vaccination has been responsible for the [near] eradication of several viruses, the best example being polio. The same could potentially be done to HIV in the future... or HSV, or HPV, or HBV, etc. We are in fact set on a decent course to eradicate HBV (Hepatitis B) in the next generation or so, iow, your kids won't get HBV, unless you don't have them vaccinated! If you don't, insure their livers today.

We should also be aware that vaccine development is typically done on gov't money. Some companies are getting in on it, but it comes down to large amounts of academic research leading to the discoveries. That's where the gov't ends and drug companies pick up. They produce the stuff, and begrudgingly most of the time. They just don't make that much profit from them. It has in the past taken significant gov't interjection to get enough of the vaccines produced for the population that wants them. The companies just don't want to waste their time and resources making something so lame in terms of profit. They make 1000% more on drug treatments than vaccines, so vaccination is NOT all about money. The exception to this rule is the new HPV vaccine. It's a money maker because they were able to put their own price on it since it is not really an essential vaccine. It is purely optional. The gov't has no business forcing lower pricing on that one.

As for requiring it of every citizen, I'm still on the fence. I don't like the gov't forcing anything that "close-to-home", but every person who chooses not to be vaccinated certainly puts others at risk (and yes, they do offer one more host to potentially allow for mutations that could render the working vaccine ineffective...which could be devastating). Every person needs to be educated on the benefits/risks and encouraged to receive them. Vaccination of children should be considered the automatic pathway of medical treatment unless the parents protest.

So, yeah, we need an option, but people need to know that vaccination is the better choice, for them, and for those around them. Public safety absolutely IS affected by people choosing not to be vaccinated. Jailing is not a useful deterrent of not getting vaccinated.

[edit:] Crap, that was way long. Sorry for the wall of text.

One more thing, the gov't should have the right to initiate emergency mandatory vaccination in the event of a pandemic be it due to a biological attack or a coincidental outbreak. In those cases, those who reject vaccination could still be quarantined to protect their lives and prevent their getting/spreading the disease.

Finally... Science speaks... Bout time Doc.

I do biology no justice... Forgive me for my ignorance about the details of virology.

Don't give me too much credit. I'm not an authority. It's still opinion. I happen to know a few people who are authorities, but I won't speak for them other than to say they share similar views.

"One more thing, the gov't should have the right to initiate emergency mandatory vaccination in the event of a pandemic be it due to a biological attack or a coincidental outbreak."

Right! Exactly my point. Thanks, Doc_M. As I said, the "government should NOT enforce compulsory vaccinations unless there's a provable, true jeopardy to the public health." Otherwise, they have no right inside your body. For some reason, that seemed to be communicated better when you said it then when I did.

And, thanks for the history lesson on social contracts, Mycroft, but I don't think I needed it. I understand that a lot better than you may think. But, thanks.

Blankfist. I am not sure how much we ever really disagreed. You make it seem very different from my interpretation of what I said. I think if you reread my comments you'll find that more frequently than not I agreed with what you just said (I count 3 times specifically). However, I do believe that schools have the right to require vaccinations. And there we may disagree. The majority of my comments were directed at qruel, who apparently believes that vaccines cause disease and genetic disorders, which I found no evidence to support that claim.


I think

"government should NOT enforce compulsory vaccinations unless there's a provable, true jeopardy to the public health."

is the same as

"if by making the choice to not receive a vaccine I put a large percentage of the public at risk for a pandemic, then I would argue that this is a violation of my social contract and I should not be allowed that choice."

Well, to be completely fair, I'll give Qruel one bit of backup on his claim, though it is old data and the problem is long gone. A rather large portion of the life-saving polio virus vaccine was found later to have been contaminated with the SV40 virus, a monkey virus. Though there is basically little to no evidence [that is considered truly valid] that indicates this has caused any pathogenesis in any of those infected with the monkey virus (it can't replicate in humans), it was still the subject of millions of dollars of research after the incident was discovered. It caused great distress in many people and generally resulted in a MASSIVE revamp of our vaccine quality control methods and such. So, yeah, there have been minor dangers in some of the stocks. Those dangers are what have lead to our high quality vaccines we have today. That's just the way medicine works. You make it better and better over time as the science gets better and better. IMO, we have some very high quality, very highly safe, low risk vaccines today.

upvote for quality discussion.

^Yes... If.

And that's a low if of probability. We will agree to disagree on the schools having a right to require vaccinations. A private school, I would agree. A public? No.

I don't think that is what he is talking about Doc.

I don't think that is what he is talking about Doc.

^thanks doc_m for the insight and info. very interesting.

I also appreaciate both you and Mycrofthomlz for acknowledging and stating that vaccines should "not" be mandatory (even if it was with caveats)

I appreciate the both of you taking the time to look into this and commenting. Since both doc_m and mycrofthomlz seem genuinely interested in understanding that there is another other side to the issue, here are some topics in which the info is referenced from scientific literature.(as per mycrofthomlz request)

Vaccine Ineffectiveness(please click on the link that says "scientific literature" to the right of "documentation")
http://www.novaccine.com/vaccine-ineffectiveness/index.asp?p=1&s=2&sv_id=&scientific=-

Risks of Specific Vaccines
Choose a specific vaccine from the list below to evaluate documentation of their risks and ineffectiveness. Brand names and each vaccine's details, including ingredients, are listed for your review.
http://www.novaccine.com/specific-vaccines/index.asp
http://www.novaccine.com/vaccine-risks/
(as an example doc_m, here is what they have compiled on the flu vaccine
http://www.novaccine.com/specific-vaccines/vaccine.asp?v_id=16


Authorities Speak Out
While the medical profession appears to be unified in praise of vaccination, there are thousands of doctors, historians, researchers and government authorities who have not hesitated to voice the truth. (Q - I would say their opinion)
http://www.novaccine.com/authorities-speakout/

How & Why ?
Inevitably, after studying this issue, the seeker of truth asks… How could this be? Why does vaccination seem so popular? Why do doctors, scientists or public officials speak so favorably toward them? In order to full comprehend these questions and arrive at satisfactory, independent answers, one must consider certain psychological dynamics, societal tendencies, and historical facts.
http://www.novaccine.com/how-why/

I'm not trying to make this a "pissing match" of scientific wits, skillz and knowledge. I acknowledge that the both of you bring much experience and knowledge to the conversation. My intent is to show that there are valid concerns about vaccines based on scientific literature. In addition I would urge anyone who is open minded to view the video I provided a link to above and to read the article in RollingStone (Deadly Immunity) that outlines the collusion between the government and vaccine industry.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/7395411/deadly_immunity/

- sorry for the long post.

I read that paper. I think it is based on Wakefeild's work, which was retracted. Also, as I said thoimersal is not in most vaccines these days. And the paper, which I cited is just one example on PubMed which showed no correlation to disease or genetic defects. I will look into your link, but I couldn't find anything when I looked.

I appreciate that you understand I am not trying to be provocative. I just disagree with you and I think we should discuss it. I am glad you think so too...

I would give you a *quaility if I could.

....

...stupid safari.

I am really sorry everyone for that

Is there an echo in here?! or did Qruel just get 4 hypothetical stars?

a small addition. I know mycrofthomlz has expressed concern about "who" the information is coming from. My above post links to http://www.novaccine.com/
the site contains many articles and references to scientific journals and while i realize H. H. Fudengerg, M.D., DDG.IOM is just one person on the board of directors, i was wondering if you find his credentials acceptable?
http://www.novaccine.com/h_h_fudenberg.asp

http://www.quackwatch.org/03HealthPromotion/immu/immu00.html

First on novaccine.com itself. Having looked through the list of references and their summaries, I would say that 1 in maybe 80 to 100 is from a reliable scientific source. The vast majority are poorly reported from simple newspapers and such. Most look like BS, sorry to say. I hate to get into another argument about your chosen sources of information. We've had that argument already in the past. We'll have to disagree on its reliability again.

As for Dr. Fudenberg:
His credentials look fine until I googled him to find his medial license was revoked in 1995:
http://www.casewatch.org/board/med/fudenberg/1995order.shtml
He was later encouraged to remain retired in 2004 siting a neurological evaluation from the year before:
http://briandeer.com/wakefield/hugh-fudenberg.htm

Moreover, co-authors removed their names from his autism Lancet paper:
http://briandeer.com/mmr/lancet-retraction.htm

More criticism and evidence that Fudenberg is at best a poor source of information, and at worst a quack:
http://oracknows.blogspot.com/2005/12/bill-maher-anti-vax-wingnut.html
(this one is actually entertaining and really reveals Fudengerg's major scientific foibles and faults. it's more about him than Maher, Maher just bought his wares.)

Google has countless major criticisms of his claims and their poor quality.

Just because his own personal website says he's a saint, doesn't mean it's true. In general, I'm skeptical of these activist websites that are so blatantly one-sided and full of very poor information. If this group were so determined to share the "truth," they wouldn't allow this much misinformation and poor science. I'm sorry, but it just has too much misinformation. I strongly urge skepticism.

Also, in specific response to your flu vaccine list, I'm pretty comfortable with all those ingredients sans mercury, especially in their small quantities. To give perspective, I read an op ed that was geared toward arguing the anti-vaccine position. It said things like, "do you want chemicals like triton X-100 in your body?!" to which I responded, "sure, triton is basically harmless. I work with it in the lab all the time, it's a mild non-ionic detergent. Heck, it might even make the vaccine work better since it might help irritate the site of injection and boost the immune response." Scare tactics. Anyway, I don't want to get into a prolonged argument about this, I just, as a scientist urge extreme skepticism with this and similar sites. They are packed with false information and bad science.

Here's a counter argument for example:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=11762573&query_hl=3
"After adjustment for age, sex and education, past exposure to vaccines against diphtheria or tetanus, poliomyelitis and influenza was associated with lower risk for Alzheimer's disease (odds ratio [OR] 0.41, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.27-0.62; OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.37-0.99; and OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.54-1.04 respectively) than no exposure to these vaccines. INTERPRETATION: Past exposure to vaccines against diphtheria or tetanus, poliomyelitis and influenza may protect against subsequent development of Alzheimer's disease."


[edit:] wow, I don't wanna sound harsh but this website has MAJOR problems. Everything from factual to not citing sources to quoting half sentences and not providing the whole document. The "authorities" aren't authorities... one is even from Newswithviews.com!!

[edit:] fixed typoes.

v v v
http://www.quackwatch.org/03HealthPromotion/immu/immu00.html
^ ^ ^

This is about to get interesting. You talk about me not using proper sources. Yet you use Quackwatch as a source ? Are you serious?
Quackwatch, which is run by Stephen Barrett, M.D. a retired psychiatrist who runs the site out of the basement of his home (please read more about him below, it is not much to be kind or flattering about). Lets also mention that he’s been ruled against in several court cases.
http://www.quackpotwatch.org/quackpots/quackpots/barrett.htm

Quackbusters CRUSHED by California Supreme Court...
http://www.bolenreport.net/feature_articles/feature_article038.htm

Courts Seize "Quackbuster" Bank Accounts, Property...
http://www.bolenreport.net/feature_articles/feature_article050.htm

Court Orders Quackbusters Barrett and Polevoy to Post $433,715.93 Bond...
http://www.bolenreport.net/feature_articles/feature_article060.htm

US Supreme Court Upholds "Ongom;" Quackbuster "Plan of '96" Foiled...
http://www.bolenreport.net/feature_articles/feature_article059.htm
As of April 23, 2007, the date of the US Supreme Court decision in "Ongom," anything, and everything, on quackwatch.com is not usable in a State Administrative Hearing - nor can it be used even to bring charges, or an accusation against a health professional. A prosecutor, a Board, or State employee, knowingly using such unacceptable evidence is risking their personal assets, for such an action can, and should, be used to breach their "immunity."

If you can’t be bothered to follow these links. I’ll sum it up best I can

Three California Judges, in a PUBLISHED Appeals Court decision, took a HARD look at Barrett's activities, and declared him "biased, and unworthy of credibility."
http://www.quackpotwatch.org/quackpots/california_superior_court_judge_.htm

That was in 2003 and you’re still quoting this guy. More comments to come on the rest of your post. But it is LATE !

MycroftHomlz. You mentioned "you read that paper" which were you refering to ?
certaintly not the Robert Kennedy piece in Rollingstone because it had nothing to do with Wakefield.
Deadly Immunity
by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. it investigates the government cover-up of a mercury/autism scandal
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/7395411/deadly_immunity/

and it most certainly was "not" retracted.
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/7483530/kennedy_report_sparks_controversy

it seems a tad hypocrtical that you both don't apply the same level of scrutiny to the agencies who have advanced the "perfectness" of vacines that you are repeating.

MycroftHomlz you mentioned you'd watch the video and tell me what you disagreed with. I'm looking forward to your comments.

^Doc_M bear with me as I address your assertions one by one.
you stated
"First on novaccine.com itself. Having looked through the list of references and their summaries, I would say that 1 in maybe 80 to 100 is from a reliable scientific source. The vast majority are poorly reported from simple newspapers and such. Most look like BS, sorry to say."

Maybe you didn’t follow my directions to click the link that said “scientific literature” or perhaps I was wrong about you wanting to understand the “other side of the issue”. Considering your rushed perusal of the site and that you somehow overlooked the multitude of “scientific literature” here is a small sampling of 220 sources taken from scientific literature for you.(only under the section of Vaccine Ineffectiveness) more can be found by following my directions under the Vaccine Risks section (about 1500 references)

Since you couldn't find any (except 1) of these, i cut and pasted them into a webpage for you.

http://www.archetype-productions.com/nfo/vaccines/scientific_literature.htm

Let me know if you don’t consider the sources below as scientific literature.

The New England Journal of Medicine
The Journal of the American Medical Association
The American journal of medicine
The British Medical Journal, a wholly owned subsidiary of the British Medical Association.
The Journal of pediatric gastroenterology and nutrition
The Journal of hospital infection
CMAJ, Canada’s leading medical journal
Cleveland Clinic journal of medicine
Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America
Scandinavian Journal of Infectious Diseases

the sources listed above were culled from the first three pages, so there are still more "scientific literature" to list. Keep in mind the total list reflects studies done worldwide.

Keep in mind. I don't have to prove that vaccines are harmful. I only have to prove that there is real research being done by real scientist who have evidence contrary to what you say does not exist (or is fringe, conspiracy). Let's also remember MycroftHomlz said he couldn't find any. I have now presented to you over 200 sources and pointed you in the direction of another 1500.

::face hand:: I'm sorry, I don't have time for this. Quackwatch was a bad reference I guess, but I read their report on vaccination in brief and don't see too many problems. Their lawsuit was over a different story. I also guess all the immunologists and virologists I know should turn in their Ph.D.s. We should also fire the entire CDC, NIH, FDA, WHO, and NAID for supporting vaccination all these years.

To respond in extreme brevity, I read through much of your list of literature and I'm glad it's being studied, but I'll still say that I interpret the literature as a whole (and so do most biologists) differently than the novaccine people. The benefits outway the risks. But novaccine.com is still an extraordinarily biased source of convenient copy paste waves of text. I don't have a convenient source as such (or don't have the will to look anymore anyway) against your argument, so I'll always lose or look to lose the argument. This just gets me annoyed and angry, so I'm done arguing and concede. Fine, don't get vaccinated. And stop taking all the medications your doctors prescribe while your at it. I can find a website bashing each of those. The consensus in science is that vaccines are a good idea. If you disagree, fine.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol4no2/bisgard.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/default.htm
http://www.simcoehealth.org/Facts/immunization/effectiveness.asp
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7666874
http://infectious-diseases.jwatch.org/cgi/content/full/2007/1003/1
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/extract/103/5/1064
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/child-vpd.htm#Haemophilus%20influenzae%20type%20b%20(Hib)
http://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/STDFact-HPV-vaccine.htm
http://www.pidj.com/pt/re/pidj/abstract.00006454-199907000-00010.htm;jsessionid=Hn2JtyMthBTbntdbK0MKx07PnVTvJmdyyb2gtFyc6Cj8JTZj9R8z!1219373867!181195
629!8091!-1
and I'm out of time for now.

^You obviously side with the medical establishment. I get it and your certainly entitled to your opinion. I've also heard all their rhetoric before, but it was when they disavowed, denigrated and ignored there was even another side to the issue, that I started looking into it. (your reaction and comments seems to mirror that) Hmm, low and behold there are valid concerns derived from real scientific literature.(which was the point) in light of your assertions. So now the issue you painted as black and white has a lot of grey areas and caveats.

If vaccines are going to be forced (jailtime and fines), one must look at the grey areas to have a true assesmeent of the issue at hand (and to understand both sides). Personally, you do your arguements no favor by reffering to those with opposing opinions as quacks.(specially in light of the numerous research that I've pointed out)

So again. My intent is to show that there are valid concerns about vaccines based on scientific literature. Which is something the both of you have not acknowledged. Kinda hard to have a rational conversation when the other side won't recognize scientists work on the subject. Whether you agree with them or not is besides the point.

I find it a tad hyprocritical that you would not subject your sources to the same level of scrutiny that you do for those with differing opinons (refering to the Deadly Immunity article.) After reading it i think you would find the playing field as stacked against those who have differing opinions that the people/agencies you've linked to above.

I appreciate you pointing out the unethical actions of Dr. Fudenberg and I'm currently reading the NON quackwatch articles you linked to. So far I've found them very informative, thoroughly researched, shocking and disappointing. It's certainly a cause for concern when his unethical actions throw into question any legitimate research he may have done. I hope you would note I did NOT quote any of the scientific articles/data/studies that man has produced, but pointed out that he was on the board of directors.

Which is something the both of you have not acknowledged
oops. I'll be more clear.

There are most certainly dangers and side-effects to vaccines.

But, they are worth the risk in my opinion and in the opinion of most biomedical scientist and medical doctors. MOST vaccines are effective if administered and boosted properly.
I just think that sites like novaccine.com are determined to stop vaccination in a strikingly similar way to most other activism websites, be them poopooing global warming, 9/11, evolution, or whatever. Heck, I found a site that said HIV doesn't cause AIDS and it argued it with equal passion. Don't get me started on that.
and kindly forgive my temper tantrum if you would be so kind.

I read the Kennedy article. And I thought I said so, but I said I believe it is based on Wakefield's paper although it doesn't say so specifically. Much of the article is based on the argument that thiomersal is bad for you, no scientific papers that haven't been retracted have found that to be true.

Regardless, this is a moot point because most vaccines don't contain it, and all can be procured without it.

So if you do like vaccines, but think that will poison you with mercury. Then a) you are being foolish cause there is no science to back it up and b) it doesn't matter cause you can get vaccines without it.

Now, if you still don't like vaccines for some other reason, then we can talk about it. But the RollingStone article really has to do with the supposed link to genetic diseases like autism, which there aren't.

This post has been removed from the Lies channel by channel owner Fjnbk. Please review the FAQ to learn about appropriate channel assignments.

I'm going to go with George Carlin on this one and say survivial of the fittest, maybe some smallpox can filter out the weaker students and then a race of super students will rise. On a more serious note I never got the chicken pox shot (though i was around the infected a lot) and now its to late to do it so if it kills me someday oh well. I agree that is my body, if you dont want me in your schools then kick me out but jail time is completley ridiculous

We all agree jail time is excessive.

^ MycroftHomlz, you have asserted again that you think his article was based on Wakefields paper, but again you've provided NO specifics or details, just a very genrealized claim that is so far unsupported. If I'm wrong, please provide the specifics as to which I can either acknowledge or address.

Also, your statement is not complete (or as forth coming as one would expect) as much of the evidence in the article is that the government and the vaccine industry have suppressed information, closed databases to research and have done lots of other behind closed door deals that look quite unethical. (where's your outrage at that?) The amount of collusion is sickening and shows that they have not been forthcoming or honest.

I fervently disagree with you. I have asserted that "the article is based on the argument that thiomersal is bad for you" or more specifically that it causes autism or neurological disorders.

"a mercury-based preservative in the vaccines -- thimerosal -- appeared to be responsible for a dramatic increase in autism and a host of other neurological disorders among children."

I assert that thimerosal is main topic of this article(Published Jun 2005).

I never said that article was based on Wakefield's work.

I said, 'I believe' and 'I think' the article is based on Wakefield's work, there is a difference. And I still think that this could be true. It is the only article I could find on PubMed and ISI that discussed links between autism and thimerosal.

There are a couple other peer reviewed papers, which showed inconclusive results, but this is the main one and it is the most frequently cited. Wakefield is one of the only scientist who has published data that says this is true. A myriad of other work, most conclusively done by that Danish researcher I cited earlier, say that there is no evidence to link the two.

Without any other research to base their facts on, the most likely source in my opinion is Wakefield's paper from 1998. If this is the case, then the claims made the paper are not as strong as they would be otherwise because,

"In 2004, 10 of the 13 authors of the original Wakefield study retracted the paper's "interpretation", or conclusion, section, which had claimed: "Interpretation. We identified associated gastrointestinal disease and developmental regression in a group of previously normal children, which was generally associated in time with possible environmental triggers." The retraction of this claim stated that the data were insufficient to establish a causal link between MMR vaccine and autism.[8] Wakefield was later found to have received £435,000 in fees from trial lawyers attempting to show the vaccine was dangerous [9] [10]. Also in 2004, the United States' Institute of Medicine reported that evidence "favors rejection" of any link between vaccines containing thimerosal, or MMR, and the development of autism [11]."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine

The most important comment I think I have made is that this is A NONISSUE BECAUSE MOST IF NOT ALL VACCINES CAN BE OBTAINED WITHOUT THIMEROSAL.

I contend that the main arguement of the article is that because of the collusion between government and the vaccine industry we do not know the true (fully disclosed) effects of thimerisol on our population.

I thank you for finally explaining your comment. But I find it hard to see how you could say 'I believe' or 'I think' his paper was based on wakefields when the article explicitly states that the sevretive meetings were a result of a study done by a CDC epidemiologist named Tom Verstraeten.

"The federal officials and industry representatives had assembled to discuss a disturbing new study that raised alarming questions about the safety of a host of common childhood vaccines administered to infants and young children. According to a CDC epidemiologist named Tom Verstraeten, who had analyzed the agency's massive database containing the medical records of 100,000 children, a mercury-based preservative in the vaccines -- thimerosal -- appeared to be responsible for a dramatic increase in autism and a host of other neurological disorders among children. "I was actually stunned by what I saw," Verstraeten told those assembled at Simpsonwood, citing the staggering number of earlier studies that indicate a link between thimerosal and speech delays, attention-deficit disorder, hyperactivity and autism.

Since 1991, when the CDC and the FDA had recommended that three additional vaccines laced with the preservative be given to extremely young infants -- in one case, within hours of birth -- the estimated number of cases of autism had increased fifteenfold, from one in every 2,500 children to one in 166 children"

"The CDC paid the Institute of Medicine to conduct a new study to whitewash the risks of thimerosal, ordering researchers to "rule out" the chemical's link to autism. It withheld Verstraeten's findings, even though they had been slated for immediate publication, and told other scientists that his original data had been "lost" and could not be replicated. And to thwart the Freedom of Information Act, it handed its giant database of vaccine records over to a private company, declaring it off-limits to researchers. By the time Verstraeten finally published his study in 2003, he had gone to work for GlaxoSmithKline and reworked his data to bury the link between thimerosal and autism.?

Does the information above bother you ? In addition, while this hasn't been explicitly asked of you yet. What are your thoughts on the cumulative level of thimerisol in the previous vaccine schedule as highlighted below?

Before 1989, American preschoolers received eleven vaccinations -- for polio, diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis and measles-mumps-rubella. A decade later, thanks to federal recommendations, children were receiving a total of twenty-two immunizations by the time they reached first grade.

At two months, when the infant brain is still at a critical stage of development, infants routinely received three inoculations that contained a total of 62.5 micrograms of ethylmercury -- a level 99 times greater than the EPA's limit for daily exposure to methylmercury, a related neurotoxin. Although the vaccine industry insists that ethylmercury poses little danger because it breaks down rapidly and is removed by the body, several studies -- including one published in April by the National Institutes of Health -- suggest that ethylmercury is actually more toxic to developing brains and stays in the brain longer than methylmercury.

The House Government Reform Committee discovered that four of the eight CDC advisers who approved guidelines for a rotavirus vaccine "had financial ties to the pharmaceutical companies that were developing different versions of the vaccine."

And of course you are correct, "most" vaccines can now be found without thimerisol. Here is the current rundown of which vaccines actually still contaiin thimerisol (DTwP & Tetanus do not have a non-thimerisol choice)
http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/thi-table.htm (as of December 14, 2007)
I'm glad that we all seem to generally agree here that people have every right to deny being vaccinated (although the devil is in the details). As I posted above there are lots of scientific studies that when looked at as a whole, show that vaccines are neither 100% safe nor 100% efffective as "pro-vaccination" advocates would like people to believe.(which i think jsutifies a persons right to choose).

For those who believe they or their chidren have been injured by vaccines they can use this government resource

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP)
http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/

The VICP is located in the HHS, Health Resources and Services Administration, Healthcare Systems Bureau, Division of Vaccine Injury Compensation.

Vaccine Injury Table
http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/table.htm

here are some items that you may have overlooked in the article about thimerisol.(that have nothing to do with wakefields paper)

1.) In 1977, a Russian study found that adults exposed to much lower concentrations of ethylmercury than those given to American children still suffered brain damage years later. Russia banned thimerosal from children's vaccines twenty years ago, and Denmark, Austria, Japan, Great Britain and all the Scandinavian countries have since followed suit.

2.) Internal documents reveal that Eli Lilly, which first developed thimerosal, knew from the start that its product could cause damage -- and even death -- in both animals and humans. In 1930, the company tested thimerosal by administering it to twenty-two patients with terminal meningitis, all of whom died within weeks of being injected -- a fact Lilly didn't bother to report in its study declaring thimerosal safe. In 1935, researchers at another vaccine manufacturer, Pittman-Moore, warned Lilly that its claims about thimerosal's safety "did not check with ours."

3.) During the Second World War, when the Department of Defense used the preservative in vaccines on soldiers, it required Lilly to label it "poison."

4.) In 1967, a study in Applied Microbiology found that thimerosal killed mice when added to injected vaccines. Four years later, Lilly's own studies discerned that thimerosal was "toxic to tissue cells" in concentrations as low as one part per million -- 100 times weaker than the concentration in a typical vaccine. Even so, the company continued to promote thimerosal as "nontoxic" and also incorporated it into topical disinfectants.

5.) The same year that the CDC approved the new vaccines, Dr. Maurice Hilleman, one of the fathers of Merck's vaccine programs, warned the company that six-month-olds who were administered the shots would suffer dangerous exposure to mercury. He recommended that thimerosal be discontinued, "especially when used on infants and children," noting that the industry knew of nontoxic alternatives. "The best way to go," he added, "is to switch to dispensing the actual vaccines without adding preservatives."

6.) Before 1989, American preschoolers received eleven vaccinations -- for polio, diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis and measles-mumps-rubella. A decade later, thanks to federal recommendations, children were receiving a total of twenty-two immunizations by the time they reached first grade.

At two months, when the infant brain is still at a critical stage of development, infants routinely received three inoculations that contained a total of 62.5 micrograms of ethylmercury -- a level 99 times greater than the EPA's limit for daily exposure to methylmercury, a related neurotoxin. Although the vaccine industry insists that ethylmercury poses little danger because it breaks down rapidly and is removed by the body, several studies -- including one published in April by the National Institutes of Health -- suggest that ethylmercury is actually more toxic to developing brains and stays in the brain longer than methylmercury.

The House Government Reform Committee discovered that four of the eight CDC advisers who approved guidelines for a rotavirus vaccine "had financial ties to the pharmaceutical companies that were developing different versions of the vaccine."

7.) Paul Patriarca of the FDA blasted federal regulators for failing to adequately scrutinize the danger posed by the added baby vaccines. "I'm not sure there will be an easy way out of the potential perception that the FDA, CDC and immunization-policy bodies may have been asleep at the switch re: thimerosal until now," Patriarca wrote. The close ties between regulatory officials and the pharmaceutical industry, he added, "will also raise questions about various advisory bodies regarding aggressive recommendations for use" of thimerosal in child vaccines.

But rather than conduct more studies to test the link to autism and other forms of brain damage, the CDC placed politics over science. The agency turned its database on childhood vaccines -- which had been developed largely at taxpayer expense -- over to a private agency, America's Health Insurance Plans, ensuring that it could not be used for additional research. It also instructed the Institute of Medicine, an advisory organization that is part of the National Academy of Sciences, to produce a study debunking the link between thimerosal and brain disorders. The CDC "wants us to declare, well, that these things are pretty safe," Dr. Marie McCormick, who chaired the IOM's Immunization Safety Review Committee, told her fellow researchers when they first met in January 2001. "We are not ever going to come down that [autism] is a true side effect" of thimerosal exposure. According to transcripts of the meeting, the committee's chief staffer, Kathleen Stratton, predicted that the IOM would conclude that the evidence was "inadequate to accept or reject a causal relation" between thimerosal and autism. That, she added, was the result "Walt wants" -- a reference to Dr. Walter Orenstein, director of the National Immunization Program for the CDC.

Even in public, federal officials made it clear that their primary goal in studying thimerosal was to dispel doubts about vaccines. "Four current studies are taking place to rule out the proposed link between autism and thimerosal," Dr. Gordon Douglas, then-director of strategic planning for vaccine research at the National Institutes of Health, assured a Princeton University gathering in May 2001. "In order to undo the harmful effects of research claiming to link the [measles] vaccine to an elevated risk of autism, we need to conduct and publicize additional studies to assure parents of safety." Douglas formerly served as president of vaccinations for Merck, where he ignored warnings about thimerosal's risks.

9.) In May of last year, the Institute of Medicine issued its final report. Its conclusion: There is no proven link between autism and thimerosal in vaccines. Rather than reviewing the large body of literature describing the toxicity of thimerosal, the report relied on four disastrously flawed epidemiological studies examining European countries, where children received much smaller doses of thimerosal than American kids. It also cited a new version of the Verstraeten study, published in the journal Pediatrics, that had been reworked to reduce the link between thimerosal and autism. The new study included children too young to have been diagnosed with autism and overlooked others who showed signs of the disease. The IOM declared the case closed and -- in a startling position for a scientific body -- recommended that no further research be conducted.

The report may have satisfied the CDC, but it convinced no one. Rep. David Weldon, a Republican physician from Florida who serves on the House Government Reform Committee, attacked the Institute of Medicine, saying it relied on a handful of studies that were "fatally flawed" by "poor design" and failed to represent "all the available scientific and medical research." CDC officials are not interested in an honest search for the truth, Weldon told me, because "an association between vaccines and autism would force them to admit that their policies irreparably damaged thousands of children. Who would want to make that conclusion about themselves?"

10.) the government continues to ship vaccines preserved with thimerosal to developing countries -- some of which are now experiencing a sudden explosion in autism rates. In China, where the disease was virtually unknown prior to the introduction of thimerosal by U.S. drug manufacturers in 1999, news reports indicate that there are now more than 1.8 million autistics. Although reliable numbers are hard to come by, autistic disorders also appear to be soaring in India, Argentina, Nicaragua and other developing countries that are now using thimerosal-laced vaccines.

^odd, no explanation of your downvote MycroftHomlz ?

You may want to check my play list for other videos, you may have, which are *dead.
http://www.videosift.com/playlists/eric3579/dead

This published video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by eric3579.