Every so often, something happens that rekindles the need in me to discuss what, exactly, it means to be "antivaccine." As many of my readers know, if there's one thing about antivaccinationists, it's that they assiduously avoid ever admitting that they are antivaccinationists. In order to avoid having to make that admission, they'll go through all sorts of transparent rhetorical contortions to try to convince people that they are not antivaccine. The most common (and transparent) of these is a gambit I like to call "I'm not 'antivaccine'; I'm pro-safe vaccine" or "I'm a vaccine safety advocate." This is all, of course, utter nonsense that fools only other antivaccinationists who manage to delude themselves into thinking that they are not antivaccinationists.
What's rather amusing about this (and it's something I've written about before an numerous occasions) is that there is a profound tension between antivaccinationists between those who cling to the "vaccine safety" schtick and those who are more--shall we say?--honest. It never ceases to bring a chuckle to my lips when I see the tension between these two groups of vaccine rejectionists erupt again, which is what I'm seeing now down under in the form of a post by reasonablehank entitled Fran Sheffield declares the Australian Vaccination Network "anti-vaccine."
In this post, reasonablehank describes how Fran Sheffield, owner of Homeopathy Plus called upon Meryl Dorey, founder of the Australian Vaccination Network, to come clean and be honest for a change. You see, Dorey, like so many antivaccinationists, including, for example, J.B. Handley, liberally uses the "pro-vaccine safety" smokescreen to hide her true intent. Fran calls her out on it:
I think almost everyone, supporters and non-supporters, believe the AVN is antivaccine in spite of its protests to the contrary.
How can they do otherwise when 99.9% of information about vaccines released by the AVN is anti or reveals their problems? When there is not explanation why this imbalance exists?
Fran is too generous. It's more like 100% of the information about vaccines released by the AVN is designed to cast doubt on the safety and efficacy of vaccines. The same is true of Generation Rescue and its antivaccine propaganda crank blog Age of Autism, our equivalent to the AVN, namely the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), SafeMinds, and pretty much every other antivaccine group I can think of. I've perused all of their websites numerous times, and I can't recall seeing a single positive thing said about vaccines of any kind.
Fran apparently agrees, which is why she goes on:
It is possible to be BOTH anti-vaccine and pro-choice but when the anti-vaccine label is denied in the face of evidence to the contrary, it makes us look dishonest - something the judge hinted at with her 'coy' statement? It also places our pro-choice position in the back seat, out of people's minds.
As far as public opinion goes, I don't think the anti-vaccine position is the problem - they can cope with that.
The problem is that most people, even supporters in secret, now believe the AVN is dishonest and this has caused the AVN more harm than anything else. This is what will take a long time to get over, not any perceived anti-vaccine stance which they can respect even it they don't agree.
Fran nailed it. It's not just Australia. Antivaccine groups right here in the U.S. try their hardest to deny that they are, in fact, antivaccine in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. In fact, they are fundamentally either (1) dishonest or (2) self-deceiving or (3) both. Which is why Fran Sheffield's admonishment is so refreshing:
If the AVN wants to be perceived as being a truthful organisation then it has to proudly accept the anti-vaccine label or do something that explains (repeatedly) why most of the information it provides about vaccines and vaccine promoters is negative.
I agree, of course. There's a reason I call antivaccine groups "anti-vaccine," and it has nothing to do with smearing them, although that is what they claim. It has to do with linguistic precision. "Antivaccine" is what they are. I was reminded by this yesterday while perusing the usual collection of crank sites that I check out periodically in search of blog fodder. This time around, I came across a post by Cathy Jameson on the antivaccine crank blog Age of Autism entitled The Mother Load. If you want evidence that we're talking about antivaccine, not pro-safe-vaccine. Basically, Jameson is unhappy at how a story was portrayed. The story, out of Detroit, was about how a mother was angry after daughter vaccinated without her permission.
Now, I'm about to say something right here that might surprise you. I can actually understand where that mother is coming from. I might think that she is misguided and completely wrong about refusing vaccines for her child. Scratch that. There's no "might" about it. The mother in question, Sighle Kinney, is misguided and wrong. However, the law is the law, and the law says that she is allowed to refuse to let her daughter be vaccinated. As a reault, as much as I disagree with her, I can understand why she's upset.
So can Jameson, except that she takes it beyond reason:
We start reading about this horrid event with the following emotional sentence: "Sighle Kinney is fuming after her 14-year-old daughter was given four shots by the school nurse at Marcus Garvey Academy without her permission." Really? That's the opening sentence? Of course it's warranted and depicts some of the truth--a teenager was just assaulted--but, why isn't the nurse strung up the proverbial flag pole in the opening sentence? She's the one who made the mistake. Why isn't the school also part of the main focus of this story? They're the ones who opened the doors to the nurse who made the mistake. Why is it that the child and her "fuming" mother make the headlines instead the actual people who caused the problem?
The entire tone of the article is near-apocalyptic. Vaccination is described as a "medical assault." the mothers who wanted to prevent their children from being vaccinated are portrayed as "having done everything right" but in the end being thwarted by an evil and uncaring bureaucracy that vaccinated their children anyway. To her it's beyond a mistake; it's a "criminal act." It's "injecting known toxic substances into minors with no consent." Meanwhile, in the comments, we see statements like, "'School Nurse assaulted in retribution for vaccinating child against parents' wishes; nurse also loses job and house' - that would be the headline in my local paper should anyone dare vaccinate my child against my wishes." Yes, threats of violence.
Yes, as much as I might have some understanding of parental rights, even when exercised by parents who are misguided to the point of endangering their children by refusing to let them be vaccinated, I can't help but notice that "antivaccine" is the correct term to describe the beliefs of these parents. If it weren't, they overblown rhetoric in stories like this wouldn't come to the fore as they do. One only wishes that parents like Jameson would drop the pretense as well and just admit that they are antivaccine.
- Log in to post comments
The danger of excessive vaccination during brain development:
the case for a link to Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD)
http://web.mac.com/rblaylock/Russell_Blaylock_M.D./Published_Papers_fil…
Polaris @102:
You do realise that Blaylock is a well documented antivax crank, right? Please bring some credible evidence instead of useless fraudulent ignorance.
@T.O.M.
useless fraudulent ignorance
Can you elaborate please, and make your point, thanks
@Polaris:
Just put Blaylock's name into the search box at the top left of this page. He has been discussed here before, and merits no credence.
from the abstract of that pile of nonsense:
There's a steaming load of useless fraudulent ignorance for you...none of these assertions are supported by experimental data.
From the body of the 'paper':
Here's some more useless fraudulent ignorance. Do you see what he does in the above quote? Immediately after claiming "this may be an underascertainment artifact" he does a 180 and suddenly claims "No other explanation has been forthcoming from the medical establishment." Not only is he ignoring the large amount of explanations and hypothese regarding this increase in ASD rates, he's contradicted his own words in the sentence immediately before this claim. This is not a person conducting an unbiased review of the literature...this is an individual with a specific agenda to push. That's why this article is 'published' in a 'journal' with absolutely no credibility whatsoever (discredited charlatan Andy Wakefield is on the editorial board). Once again:
Useless. Fraudulent. Ignorance.
The New Zealand equivalent to AVN and NVIC is probably IAS, who offer themselves as being for âinformed choiceâ - except that their site neither provides accurate information, nor offers open choice; they push one particular choice, opposing vaccine use. (I recently took IAS to task over this on my blog; no response, so far.)
I agree - their lack of open acknowledgement of their stance helps no-one. Like you, I havenât seen "a single positive thing said about vaccines of any kind" on the IAS website (or for that matter by the "resident" troll who similarly claims not to be anti-vaccine).
In âtheir lack ofâ, by âtheirâ I mean all of these organisations and people.
(PS: I have to admit I was hoping I would *not* be the first to comment. I feel a little bit vulnerable here!)
That's our curse for being in the antipodes!
Me: âI have to admit I was hoping I would *not* be the first to comment. I feel a little bit vulnerable here!â
Darren: âThat's our curse for being in the antipodes!â
And being night-owls! (Australians will be reading this at a more sensible hour than Kiwis, mind you.)
Being first Grant is no problem as long as what you post is sane. Well done in trying to keep your local loons honest.
Medical assault aside, the article doesn't say if the daughter objected or if the claimed parental documentation was in evidence at the time of the 'assault'. HIPAA prevents any such disclosure. While that is a good thing it does lead to very one-sided reporting.
Over at the Hive, Bill Moyers has a piece about vaccination, inspired by the movie Contagion. He's actually sane.
While I am an adamant supporter of non-proliferation, I do believe I am seeing signs of new efforts to *reach out and touch someone* by anti-vaxxers. There's an Autism Channel advertised at AoA ( is that where Mme Dr Carmel Wakefield does her radio shows ? see her LinkedIn). I've talked about the Alison MacNeil effort ( the so-called "thinking moms") and we've all seen the new magazine being shilled.
On the alt med front, Mikey is looking for *assistance* in developing " a peer-to-peer alternative news distribution app" ( NaturalNews, today- a great deal about vaxx there lately), and as if this isn't enough to ruin any sane person's day ... there's even *more* ( I'm setting you up for the payoff)...
( last week at that fetid swamp of festering un-reason) the "acclaimed" host dramatically presented his plan by modelling himself himself on Hugo Weaving's character in 'V for Vendetta' ( the fellow in the Guy Fawkes' mask): one man who will inform the public about the great corruption foisted upon them by the repressive government and evil corporations and they will all RISE UP ot overthrow the tyranny! ( I wonder who's gonna be Natalie Portman?)
( note to Grant: you can learn to operate on more than one time zone simultaneously- it's not really hard and actually, it's kind of fun. Please don't ask how I learned that this is possible: long complicated story)
@Denice: After Wakefield's followers started comparing him to Jesus, I found myself able to do no more than giggle at hyperbolic comparisons of the anti-vax leadership. I just imagine them running around saying, "I'm Brian! And my wife is Brian, too!"
@ Denice Walter:
"While I am an adamant supporter of non-proliferation, I do believe I am seeing signs of new efforts to *reach out and touch someone* by anti-vaxxers. There's an Autism Channel advertised at AoA ( is that where Mme Dr Carmel Wakefield does her radio shows ? see her LinkedIn)."
Yes, I did discuss Mme Dr. Carmel Wakefield's radio program...and its connections both here and in the U.K:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/01/legal_thuggery_antivaccine_ed…
"....Founder of the "Autism File" Polly Toomey is a very controversial figure in the U.K. for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is her unabated support of "Team Wakefield".
So...I keyed in "Andrew Wakefield" at the "Autism File" and came up with a rather newsy holiday missive written last year by Carmel Wakefield. Carmel fills us in on the Wakefield soap opera as it played out in Texas last year ala the "Dynasty" soap opera, complete with family pictures and the story of the writing of Andy's book and the road/book tour to hawk the book.
Carmel also tells the story of meeting Polly Toomey and is grateful for her support. She speaks about her upcoming radio show "Prairie Nights-Autism Media Channel" where she now is ensconced under her "other name" Carmel O'Donnell.
Chris, you've got to Google this radio broadcast...it is full of interviews with all the luminaries and glitterati from the crank autism websites.
Posted by: lilady | January 5, 2012 6:41 PM"
@ Roaderstergal:
Ha! Altho' I don't forecast that they would enjoy using *that* particular Gaelic-derived name...
@ Denice Walter: Have you seen this:
http://www.theautismtrustusa.org/images/stories/kengrub_for_website.pdf
This is the same charity where Mme Wakefield nee O'Donnell sits on the Board of Directors and the Executive Board and where the daughters of Wakefield and Toomey are on the "Junior Advisory Board".
Now I am aware of charitable gifts made during the donor's lifetime and charitable gift trusts to benefit a charity after the donor's death...but I never heard of what seems to be an annuity.
The little I know about annuities, is to stay away from them...because they generate huge brokerage fees for the sponsor of the annuity, sponsors have been known to "churn" or generate additional huge fees from the annuity account by buying and selling financial instruments constantly...and by charging high yearly "maintenance fees".
@ lilady:
I've seen it. I wouldn't be surprised if other financial *projects* by AJW *et Cie* turn up: he seems to like having his grubby fingers in several pies at once- it's insurance in case one doesn't pan out. What's next: offering shares?
Peace out, I have to go.
@ lilady:
The annuities which also act like investment accounts ("variable annuities") are good to stay away from, and are often oversold by those who receive commissions for doing so, yes. Those where you pay a lump sum now, in exchange for monthly payments for the rest of your life ("immediate annuities"), can be a good way to ensure you don't outlive your retirement savings.
Mercola's running dog Gaia Health: Nice takedown of Gaia-Health.com, Heidi Stevenson, and â24Autismâ blog (all part of Stevenson's "health" empire by autism expert Travis Thompson:
One of the gambits the National Vaccine (mis)Information Center uses is to exploit raw data from the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt about vaccine safety.
Frequent RI commenter Reuben has written a blog post, VAERS reports as "evidence" of vaccine harm
In the post he walks the reader through how to use the system and illustrates that death reports may not be from vaccines at all.
Steven Novella MD has also written a post at the JREF Swift Blog: VAERS Pseudoscience, illustrating how the NVIC's VAERS "analyst" misused the VAERS system:
@Denice #10 - Oh deer, I didn't think of that.
Thank goodness my whole family is very PRO-vaccine. No questions here.
That being said, I, like Orac, am a bit befuddled by the Detroit occurrence. I would be pretty livid if my child was given medical treatment against my expressed specific wishes. So I really have to think there is a lot more to the story than we are getting. HIPAA, of course, is part of that but I can't help think something is really off here. Didn't the daughter protest? Did everyone just ignore her? Why was she sent to the clinic in the first place? Too many questions, too few answers in that article.
The VERY first thing David Kirby says in any public forum "You see, I'm NOT anti-vaccine" Orwellian, if you ask me.
The Detroit girl Cathy Jameson has become bent out of shape over is fourteen. Sheâs not an infant, and not in elementary school. She'll be eligible to vote only four years from now.
Is anyone else wondering if she formed her own opinion about the HPV vaccine, which differed from her motherâs?
nice dodge, Chemmomo, she was vaccinated without parental consent. Period.
Certainly she is old enough that, back in the '90s when I worked records room in the military healthcare system, we would have been required to have her written permission to release her records to her parents (and boy, didn't that drive Mom and Dad nuts at PCS time!). I haven't worked with juveniles since becoming a practitioner, so don't know if that was the law under what's now HIPPA or just local policy.
It certainly makes me wonder if there is more to the story, though. Did the daughter do her own research and decide that vaccination was in her own interest and went ahead with it? At 14 I was certainly big enough to raise hell if someone had tried to give me a shot I didn't want!
Well, if vaccines don't pan out as causative, they can always blame autism on pharma via pain meds:
@ the Thinking Moms' Revolution: "Poppy" writes about "Voodoo Magic Sugar Pills" (yesterday)- she gives a homeopathic prep of opium to her son with ASD because she was given Stadol ( an opiate) and 'like cures like'.
See if I can get this straight: Coleridge and de Quincey used *big* doses to facilitate verbal artistry** and supposedly "stronger" infintessimally small doses 'fix' autism but moderate ( rx) doses 'cause' it? Looks like a "U".
** get that old "majestic sweep" going- I know all about this- only not in the way you're thinking.
High school health centers do not always have to contact the parents if a student requests that they don't. From the local high school health center consent form:
I was sixteen years old when I took the bus from my high school to the medical clinic at the local Army base to get boosters for smallpox, typhoid, and diptheria/tetanus (lived in the Panama Canal Zone).
@ Chemmomo #18
Been thinking the same thing. All it would take is one member of her class or friendship group to know someone who's been affected by cervical cancer, and they could very well convince someone of its importance.
I suggest this as I recently heard a 13yr old go off at her school mates when they whinged about 'ohh, needles!'. She was newly arrived from China, and though the family is well off, she had seen first hand diseases that are rare here in Oz. She told her friends to grow up - a 5 second needle was better than a week of diarrhoea. Amazing how quickly she was able to shut them up when mentioning how unattractive serious diseases can be.
I recall ~ 30 years ago, when I took my daughter to her pediatrician, I got "ousted" from the examination room. Daughter who was about 11 years old at the time, later "volunteered" that her doctor questioned her about sexual activity and he reassured her that he was her doctor and would counsel her, if need be, about pregnancy and disease prevention. We had already had those "talks" and I reassured her that her relationship with her doctor was inviolate.
It does make me wonder, why a 14-year-old didn't speak up about immunizations and I suspect that we are hearing a partial story.
@Jen #19
Sorry, you saying all 14 year olds go along with their parents wishes?
Having taught in high schools, that's news to me. . . .
Chemmomo is suggesting we don't have the full story. Which I have to agree with - if the teenager knew mum didn't want the vaccine given (and again, she's 14, I think there's a strong possibility she knew) why didn't she kick up a stink? Cause trust me, 14 year olds can. . . .
Note that in Michigan, 14-year-olds don't require parental consent to receive reproductive health care. An HPV vaccine would seem to qualify for this rule.
@jen,
At 14, I think forgetting to turn in a form my mom gave me is a high probability. Things that are important to parents are seldom of the same importance to teenagers.
I'm thinking about another variation of "I'm not anti-vaccine, but...", which we have seen on RI:
"I used to be 'on the fence', until I came here. Your discussions on this blog, have turned me off to vaccines" (Tone-Troll, RI variant)
Here's an interesting blog from The Refusers website, about being "on the fence"...note Norma Erickson/SaneVax comment:
http://therefusers.com/refusers-newsroom/when-it-comes-to-vaccines-dont…
I started reading Jameson's piece at AoA yesterday, but all the wailing and gnashing of teeth got too much for me.
My thoughts were that it's usually quite a big deal at 14 yrs to stay in step with one's peers. My guess is that all of her friends were getting the shot and Sighle Kinney would have no doubt known she would have been in for some ongoing derision from her peers for refusing it on the basis of her parents antivaxx views.
Is it possible Sighle intended to somehow hide from her parents the fact she got the shot, then freaked out and tried to shift the blame onto the school?
Ahh, Jen, being a Canadian, and possibly in Ontario (based solely on the population) you must know that here a girl of the age of the one in the story can have an abortion without parental consent. I think the vaccine is better than an abortion, although I certainly wouldn't refuse a teenager (or adult for that matter) access to an abortion.
Further more..
It would help to have knowledge as to when it was that Sighle's mother first became aware that Sighle had been vaccinated.
Grant was first now I feel I'm late!
For all talking about Polly Tommey here's my ever so flattering profile of the woman - she's not anti-vax either!
http://autismum.com/warrior-moms/polly-tommey/
Note that in Michigan, 14-year-olds don't require parental consent to receive reproductive health care. An HPV vaccine would seem to qualify for this rule.
If you mean MCL 333.9132, it's only pregnancy-related.
My bad...I identified Sighle's daughter as "Sighle" in my previous posts.
Please replace "Sighle" in posts above with "Sighle's daughter"
Here's an updated list of States' policies regarding "Minors' Consent Laws":
http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_OMCL.pdf
Then what do you call those who promote vaccines? Infection promoters.
Enough said.
Someone let the Thingdong out of the home again.....sigh
Enough said.
Oh, good, then you can crawl back into your hole now that that's said.
Promise?
I'm wondering what Jen knows that nobody else is telling, since she seems to be so sure that she knows the whole story. Jen, why don't you share your information?
I think Fran misses something: the AVN had their charity status revoked for being dishonest in their business/fundraising affairs. If Dorey isn't going to own up to charity fraud, there's no way she'd own up to being anti-vaccine. Especially since she goes out of her way to make it sound like the charity status was all about free speech and the decision by a totally separate government entity to make her put warnings on her website. She's clearly lying all around.
I also love the irony of a homeopath calling someone else a liar.
@Flip. Meryl Dorey is trying her hardest to make it appear as though the AVN will get their Charitable Fundraising Authority reinstated due to the Supreme Court win. Unfortunately for Dorey, the judge specifically stated that the CFA revocation was nothing to do with the HCCC investigation and subsequent Public Warning; and everything to do with the investigation of the AVN's 'charitable' activities. This post explains it very well:
http://luckylosing.com/2012/02/27/the-significance-of-meryl-doreys-insi…
Also, the "medical assault" screed by Jameson still has a ways to go if she wants to catch up with Meryl Dorey: you will remember Dorey likening vaccination to the "rape of a child with full penetration". Nice.
@jen
Exactly what am I dodging?
Jen, do you suppose this girl is going to get parental consent before she starts having sex?
So going by lilady's link @36, Sighle's daughter didn't need her mother's permission to to get a HPV vaccine. Jameson's hyped up piece of manufactroversy amounts to nothing more than blatantly dishonest, not to mention inflammatory, antivaxx propaganda.
I hope "the school, the school nurse, and health care system contracted by the school" have been made aware of Jameson's rant over at AoA.
I wonder how they'll feel about Jameson's alternate headlines:
Oh, and I'm sure the school, the school nurse, and health care system contracted by the school will be just thrilled to read ..
Best wishes to Sighle's daughter.
During the seventies, i took my children to the doctors to get their then single measles jab. The doctor would not vaccinate them as they both suffered from excema. I cannot help but wonder, would any doctor be allowed to show such discrimination today? I myself refused to allow them to have the whooping cough vaccine as it was shown that more children were harmed by the vaccine than were harmed by having whooping cough.
Lynne:
Which turned out to be more media hype than fact:
Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2006 Sep;25(9):768-73.
Encephalopathy after whole-cell pertussis or measles vaccination: lack of evidence for a causal association in a retrospective case-control study.
TH1Th2 @ 37
Do we really have to remind you every time the subject comes up that vaccination reduces the incidence of infection, rather than increases incidence of infection?
No matter how many times you repeat a falsehood it will not somehow, some way, magically become true.
JGC:
Yes. Thingy's manipulative lying delusional mind is welded shut, and she will not learn. Which is why we ignore her.
Lynne:
Absolutely; it's called a medical exemption, and they exist in all 50 states. I peeked at the CDC website, and while eczema is not listed as a contraindication, they did list that known severe immunodeficiency is a contraindication for the live virus vaccines, and one of the treatments for severe eczema is steroids, sometimes sufficient to suppress the immune system. The CDC's list is a guideline only; there may be other, rarer contraindications, but it's enough to confirm that yes, doctors are allowed to discriminate medically and withhold particular vaccines from particular patients on the basis of medical contraindications, and that yes, this could potentially include eczema.
* Animal vaccines do not have to be administered by a medical professional, as this would make things impractical at, for instance, chicken hatcheries.
@ Lynne: I don't know why you are labeling the proscribing of single antigen measles vaccine back in the 1970s as "discrimination". Once intensive studies were done on the vaccine and eczema, that proscribing turned out to be unnecessary. I've linked to a small article (2008) to explain it to you:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/123/3/771.abstract
Isn't this a good thing that researchers continue their research to understand immune responses?
JGC,
That is demonstrably false unless you have the evidence to suggest otherwise. Vaccines do and will promote primary infection akin to natural infection as this is the principle of having acquired immunity against secondary exposure or subsequent reinfection. You don't believe me? Try primary VZV infection caused by primary vaccination and the development of shingles.
Please, can we not descend into endless discussion about the ThingDong's definition of infection? It is pointless and meaningless. She will never change her mind, nor will she ever convince anyone here. She is BORING and RIDICULOUS.
Media hype? You couldn't even care less about it's conclusion? Now here's the original finding that has not been so far rejected up to now.
IOM, 1991. The committee concluded, âThe evidence is consistent with a causal relation between DPT vaccine and acute encephalopathy, defined in the controlled studies reviewed as encephalopathy, encephalitis, or encephalomyelitisâ (IOM, 1991, p. 118).
Take note, Th1Th2 used a report from fifteen years earlier to attempt to negate a later study. She doesn't even understand how time works.
As the lord almighty's grand design or probability** would have it, I chanced upon a new analogy @ AoA -* vaccination is falsely stimulating the immune system just like Keynesians falsely stimulate the economy*! There's a word for this and it rhymes with "screeching". ( Actually, I think that the whole essay *is* "screeching") Lisa Goes is responsible for this atrocity as well as a terrible pun on the economist's name that leads me to believe she doesn't know how to pronounce it correctly. Not a good thing.
I think I need to go lie down for a while now.
** I tend to go with probability
Actually Gray, the 2006 study Chris posted does not in any way negate the original 1991 findings by the IOM.
Does Th1Th2 think that none of us know how to read? That's pretty much what the 2006 study says! Here's another example of why nobody should bother with her: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/06/the_cost_of_the_anti-vaccine_…. Her entire evidence for her claims in that thread: Her burning hatred for doctors.
Here's your problem, TH1Th2: you're confusing "immune response" and "primary infection". While infection can and often will result in an immune response they're two entirely different entities, while vaccines result in the latter they do not represent the former.
Perhaps it would help to recall the relevant definitions?
infection: invasion and multiplication of microorganisms in body tissues.
primary infection: The original outbreak of an illness against which the body has had no opportunity to build antibodies; the originating infection
immune response: alteration in the reactivity of an organisms immune system in response to an antigen
If you continue to equate vaccination with promoting infection you are being one of two things; willfully ignorant or willfully dishonest.
Neither serves your cause.
Lazy. Here's what that study says:
"Not associated with an increased risk of encephalopathy" is NOT the same as "not associated with encephalopathy".
Like I said, try VZV.
I guess this is not a case of a failed reading comprehension but a clear lack of education.
This statement stands as definitive proof that Th1Th2 is unaware that words actually have meaning.
Final thoughts re: Th1Th2, from the esteemed medical professional Dr. Leondard McCoy: "Her words are unimportant, and we do not hear them."
Great. Now you want to tell me more about your superstitious belief that DTP vaccine does not cause encephalopathy?
So going by lilady's link @36, Sighle's daughter didn't need her mother's permission to to get a HPV vaccine.
I don't think it's guaranteed that one can come to this conclusion. Michigan minors can consent to STD testing and treatment; if one compares with California, which recently allowed minors to seek HPV vaccination without consent, they were separate matters.
So vaccination is an "assault" with "known toxic substances," etc. That's just obvious. But the problem here, supposedly, is the lack of "parental consent" to an act that anti-vaxxers seemingly view as a combination of reckless endangerment and child abuse. If vaccines are as bad as these folks say, they shouldn't be babbling piously about "consent"; they should be debating what kind of jail time parents who vaccinate should serve.
It's almost like one viewpoint doesn't really inform the other. It kinda reminds me of the anti-choice activists who have no answer when you ask them how much jail time women who abort should serve for "murder."
True, it could be associated with a reduced risk of encephalopathy. Since encephalopathy is a not uncommon complication of pertussis, in the medium to long term this is likely to be the case.
@Grey Falcon
It's enough to make me wonder if English isn't the Thing's first language. I mean, I'm not sure how else someone could interpret "Not associated with an increased risk of encephalopathy" as meaning "TOTALLY CAUSES ENCEPHALOPATHY U GUISE".
It's enough to make me wonder if English isn't the Thing's first language.
This has been pretty clear to me for some time based on certain editorial tells, but with this one I think it's just trying to play a dumb semantic game.
Orac - you are wrong on at least two accounts. For one, here's a self-confessed opponent of vaccines. Second, the parents refusing vaccination for their children are not "misguided." Vaccines have been proven ineffective. Here are two examples from the scientific literature.
According to a review of the medical literature conducted by the Cochrane collaboration, Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults, "reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin".
Moreover, of the studies found with a more favourable result, they were likely to have been industry funded.
See: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/o/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD001269/fr…
There have, of course, been earlier literature reviews by reputable scientific / medical journals, all coming to a similar conclusion that vaccines are ineffective.
The list goes on: The Gardasil vaccine, too, has been found to be ineffective: "No significant evidence of a vaccine therapeutic effect was observed..." and the vaccine often caused an increase in the presence of HPV strains while failing to clear the viruses in most women.
See: JAMA, August 15, 2007âVol 298, No. 7, available at: https://louisville.edu/medschool/med-peds/residents/journal-club/11-07%…
Witch, what you are doing is cherry picking.
First, the viruses for influenza mutate each year, and the strains are guessed at each year. So it is very silly to compare vaccines for something as stable as measles, mumps, rubella, hepatitis, etc to influenza.
Next, the fairly old paper on an HPV vaccine was for women who were already infected! Plus it was not the Gardisil vaccine. That is some seriously dishonest cherry picking.
Do tell us how ineffective the following vaccines are: measles, mumps, rubella, tetanus, rotavirus, HIB and IPV. I know they are not 100% effective, so you will have to show us exactly how they are ineffective. I will make it easy for you, show us they are ineffective by them only protecting less than 50% after the full series.
@Witch
Interesting choices. The first is highly dependent on the scientists being able to correctly guess which strains are going to be dominant. Its effect on public health is also highly dependent on people actually getting the flu vaccine, but year after year, not enough actually opt for it to build up herd immunity, even if the match is good.
The second vaccine hasn't quite been around long enough to determine how effective it will be or how long it will last. What's interesting is that the link you provided says nothing about preventing HPV infection. If you had actually read the paper (or even just the abstract), you may have noticed it was looking at whether or not the vaccine was effective in treating women who were already infected with HPV.
Perhaps you could comment on the efficacy of MMR? If you happened to get a significant cut while working outside (e.g., while gardening), would you eschew a tetanus shot? What about the rabies vaccine? Would you skip that if you happened to be bitten by a wild animal? I mean, vaccines have been "proven" ineffective.
Is there any vaccine that you think is okay?
@Witch,
To pile on, the Guardasil vaccine is given to young (hopefully pre-sexually active) women to minimize the chance for them to already have HPV.
@43 Reasonable Hank
Actually your site is what made me comment: I'd just spent a few hours browsing and reading it after discovering it via another blog :)
I agree with the overall impression that she won't get her status reinstated. I don't understand how anyone could be that deluded to seriously think fraudulent business practices = preventing free speech. I really am starting to think she's not just a crank but an outright fraud. She seems to be far more concerned about her charity status than about ensuring support is given to 'the other side of the argument'.
Whether it be a reduced or an increased risk, the case still remains-- âThe evidence is consistent with a causal relation between DPT vaccine and acute encephalopathy, defined in the controlled studies reviewed as encephalopathy, encephalitis, or encephalomyelitisâ (IOM, 1991, p. 118).
Heck, you're not actually arguing about causality anymore. And you do know that, don't you? No wonder these infection promoters will never last on a debate with me. They're so easy.
For those who are wondering, Th1Th2 has been asked repeatedly how one eliminates risk entirely, and has yet to produce a realistic answer.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha....ROFL..
Methinks someone's desperate for a little attention.
No wonder these infection promoters will never last on a mud-wrestling competition with me.
No. If the risk of encephalopathy is reduced, it is not consistent with a causal relationship. Rather, it is consistent with a preventative relationship, the opposite of a causal relationship.
All studies so far, including the 1991 IOM report, are consistent with the lack of a causal relationship.
A pertussis infection (either from natural infection or DPT vaccine ) is preventative against acute encephalopathy?? Oh geez, next please.
Citation needed for the 1991 IOM report. Well?
Th1Th2 has been asked repeatedly how one eliminates risk entirely, and has yet to produce a realistic answer.
Mutatis mutandis for an example of its having convinced anyone of anything, anywhere.
Oh, Witch might skip the rabies vaccine. We're not living in the bad old days when the choices for someone exposed to rabies was between vaccination and certain death: now, there's the Milwaukee Protocol, and only about an 88% chance of death.
Witch:
"The Gardasil vaccine, too, has been found to be ineffective: "No significant evidence of a vaccine therapeutic effect was observed..." "
Your cite proves that Gardisil is not effective if delayed until after the disease is already caught. You've provided a strong argument for providing the vaccine as early as possible. Good work.
Thomas, it is even worse. It was on the other HPV vaccine, Cervarix. It only covers two strains.
I never claimed that it did.
Well, yeah. That's the whole point of vaccination. It's an attempt to initiate adaptive immunity to a disease without getting the symptoms of the disease. This will then prevent natural infections in the future - thereby preventing the symptoms of the natural infections (such as acute encephalopathy).
Of course, that's the ideal. With some live attenuated vaccines, sometimes symptoms do occur, though less often and less severe.
You're demanding I provide a citation for something you cited?!
Could someone explain to me the purported connection between autism, and antibiotics, and treatment for Lyme disease? I have a friend who is trying to send me stuff about this and I don't even want to go there.
@86
Hurm. There's a lot of bollocks going around about those three things, so you're going to have to be more specific.
I don't know anything more than what I posted. What are the bollocks going around. I really don't want to wade through the stuff my friend wants me to look at. Too many links to lyme disease sites and natural news.
Kelly,
The best I can suggest is that you tell your friend that you are busy, and ask them for a three-sentence summary of what they say the problem is. Not the evidence, just the equivalent of "Richard Nixon is responsible for the secret bombing" or "There are fairies in my garden. They are digging up my spring bulbs and replacing them with changelings. That's why the birds are dying." Yes, you want to know what their evidence is, but first you want to know what it's evidence for and how relevant this is to your life and interests. (For an entirely arbitrary comparison, they could have an entirely valid set of evidence about Solutrean culture, which might not mean you wanted to study that period of prehistory.)
I made the mistake of looking into this briefly. I suspect Kelly's friend may be talking about 'Lyme-induced autism', and treating autism with long-term antibiotics. Apparently spirochetes in combination with EMF, GMOs and heavy metals form a biofilm that makes the spirochetes undetectable and they can then only be killed by using antibiotics, painting your whole home with EMF resistant pain, abandoning Wi-Fi, avoiding GMOs and subjecting your child to long-term antibiotics.
It all sounds bonkers to me, but of course this is all supported by PhDs and MDs and by testimonials and anecdotes from parents of recovered children. Of course.
Krebiozen, I was afraid of that. She has chronic Lyme disease. It has become her whole identity. Everything is now caused by Lyme disease in her eyes. Soon they will discover that it was Lyme disease on the grassy knoll. I love her but there is no talking to her. Challenge her for reliable sources to what she says and she sends you links to Youtube. She can't separate herself from her disease.
The point, really, is that accine technology is based on antibodies. Vaccines target adaptive immunity, by injecting antigens and causing an immune response (antibodies). But the human immune system is far more complex than the average doctor has been trained to believe.
This study states that another part of the immune system (innate immunity) eliminates viral infections using macrophages, not antibodies. The obsession with vaccine-induced antibodies by doctors and health officials betrays their misunderstanding of the complexity of the marvelous human immune system.
Antibodies Are Not Required for Immunity Against Some Viruses (except retroviruses)
ScienceDaily (Mar. 1, 2012) â A new study turns the well established theory that antibodies are required for antiviral immunity upside down and reveals that an unexpected partnership between the specific and non-specific divisions of the immune system is critical for fighting some types of viral infections. The research, published online on March 1st in the journal Immunity by Cell Press, may lead to a new understanding of the best way to help protect those exposed to potentially lethal viruses, such as the rabies virus.
http://therefusers.com/refusers-newsroom/antibodies-are-not-required-fo…
Witch, you posted this exact same comment in the "Contagion" post. I addressed it there. You are getting dangerously close to spamming.
Julian, can you post a link to your answer? Thanks.
The "Refusers" are a joke:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/05/the_refusers_proving_oracs_co…
Quick response to the ScienceDaily article Witch spammed:
This virus is a mouse virus that attacks neurons. In certain mice that have inherited the ability to produce a certain type of B cell, the virus can also infect the B cell. Upon being infected, these B cells start releasing interferon type 1 (INF-1, which as the name implies, interferes with the ability to replicate of many viruses, as well as many other functions relating to the immune system). This triggers INF-1 production in other cells nearby, including neurons. The virus in question can be blocked by INF-1 and its pathway.
Items of interest: the INF-1 pathway is well known and can be initiated by many immune cells and even non-immune cells. The B cells in question grow in lymph nodes - the experiment involved subcutaneous injections to mimic the primary mode of infection (insect bites), and so the virus drains through the lymph nodes, putting these B cells right in the path of infection. Previous experiments used IV injections, which made antibodies the 'first responders' rather than the B cells. INF-1 is a type of cytokine.
tldr version: Ho-hum, we already knew about this type of thing. Special circumstance, doesn't apply for the viruses we vaccinate against.
Nice one W. Kevin Vicklund. Thank you.
So witch can tell us how antibody production with MMR has done what exactly? Does she know that cellular immunity is also provoked?
Up thread Witch posted a study that showed giving the Cervarix vaccine to women who already had HPV did not cure the infection. She claimed it was proof that Gardisil did not work.
It looks like she just blindly posts articles she sees elsewhere without even reading them. Blindly trusting people like Belkin, Handely, Mercola, etc, without even bothering to think for herself.
Sauceress: It's actually a pretty neat experiment, and its available free online. Good experimental design, well developed discussion and explanations, and they don't overhype the results. In fact, they point out that the B cells end up sacrificing themselves, leaving the mice vulnerable for at least a month to re-infection. Which, as they are quick to acknowledge, leaves room for adaptive immunity to play a role.
And as a bonus, it proves me right re: subcutaneous vaccines getting drained to the lymph nodes.
Hi Witch.
So, to summarise the article youâve posted (I just read it): immunity to subcutaneous VSV is not achieved through antibodies, though another B cell factor plays a role.
The first part of this summary (antibodies play no major role in VSV immunity after subcutaneous injection in naïve mice) is really not all that surprising. VSV is neurotropic (it replicates efficiently in nerve cells), whatâs more it is a virus: an obligate intracellular pathogen. What Iâm saying is that itâs not a big surprise that a microbe which replicates inside a cell and then can just infect the adjacent neuron, a microbe which would spend the shortest amount of time possible extracellularly and exposed to antibodies, is best eliminated by other defences. Any vaccine against VSV would have to be designed to include conserved peptide epitopes for CD4 and CD8 T cells to ensure a robust cell-mediated immunity response and subsequent memory cell formation, since it is apparently mainly spread subcutaneously, through bites.
What is surprising is that you seem to think that this somehow reflects on vaccines against other microbes which are not VSV. Microbes which are effectively neutralised by antibodies. The most blatant evidence of this would have to be the use of antisera to neutralise microbes or microbial products, such as anti-tetanus or anti-chicken pox IVIG.
Actually, scratch that, the most blatant evidence of this, in this context, would have to be the fact that antibody production is required to survive intravenous VSV infection. The reason this example is the most blatant is because it is actually said within the manuscript you cite: âConsistent with earlier findings [www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9418136], our experiments confirm that antibodies are critical to survive i.v. VSV infection; however, a humoral response is neither required nor sufficient to prevent fatal neuroinvasion when VSV is given subcutaneously.â
Since itâs clear you didnât actually read this paper Iâll summarise the sections relevant to what youâre saying, in laymanâs terms. Basically, when VSV in injected intravenously, antibody production is essential for viral clearance (this is further emphasised, they note, by the fact that anti-VSV IVIG is efficacious in protecting the host against i.v. injected VSV, ref: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7884863). However, when injected subcutaneously the virus effectively gets an express ride to the neurones, so by the time an anti-VSV antibody response has developed itâs too late. In light of this itâs no surprise there are effective antibody-independent immunological responses in place to combat such insidious neurotropic viruses.
Since the paper you cite to support your core thesis (being that the idea antibodies can mediate some kind of protective immune response is bunkum) actually directly contradicts your core thesis as strongly as you thought it supported it, will you stop posting this comment of yours everywhere?
Please, if you are going to cite a study to support you, at least have the decency to read it first (or even just the abstract, please) and ensure it actually supports what you are saying. Please do not just find a description of a study that sounds a little like it can be manipulated to fit some belief you hold which so far has not had any science to support it, and then plonk you own, incorrect, and even incoherent (in light of what the paper actually says) interpretation on it and drop that interpretation of the study all over the web. If I was a co-author on this study I would be insulted. If youâre going to cite someoneâs work, show them a little goddamn respect, even if it means spending a few extra minutes of work on your part putting in some effort and actually doing a bit of academic due diligence.