"Forced" to be an antivaccinationist?

"Vaccines create artificial immunity, which damages the natural immune system and leaves children more susceptible to diseases of all kinds. Diseases strengthen the immune system and leads to natural immunity."

Those 2 linked tropes right there are what have caused me to lose my temper with people buying the anti-vaccine hoax.

If diseases strengthen the immune system, how come I have the lung capacity of and old woman and am severely prone to getting bronchitis whenever I suffer a bout of cold or the flu (which thankfully doesn't happen often)? Yes, that pertussis I had at 17 did wonders for me. Permanent damage to my lungs, asthma like symptoms and lost my dream of being an Olympic swimmer. Why didn't I do that years before? I'm actually quite surprised I was as healthy as I was growing up, considering my mom didn't have me or my siblings vaccinated but one time and there were many outbreaks of measles in our county during my school years (as evidenced by the number of times we were removed from school.) If that article didn't make me so angry, just reading the first few paragraphs, I might have finished reading it, and then felt obliged to comment. As it is, just left me feeling disgusted, because they have no clue and don't want one either. Everybody loves a victim... said no one, ever.

I particularly loathe the "natural infections give better immunity" trope.

WTF do people think the idea of having the immunity is, anyway? If it is so important to have strong, natural immunity to avoid a potentially serious infection, why go through the risk of having the infection first, just so you can...... develop the immunity, so as not to catch it????
Total schizoid thinking.

Oh, and natural immunity isn't necessarily better than vaccine, or "lifelong", two more misleading antivax myths.

Take tetanus as the most extreme example -
Natural immunity = 0 years, Vaccine immunity = 10 years+ (or typhoid which gives the same numbers, but isn't a scheduled infant vaccine)

@dingo - rabies does a good job with "natural" immunity, since if you get it once, I can guarantee you that you won't get it again......

What the hell is wrong with these people? So much burning stupid about a single topic.....

We didn't vaccinate either of our high school aged children with the latest round of 'mandatory' pertussis vaccinations, simply because there was no empirical evidence that the vaccine actually worked, and for no other reason. They received all the rest of their state required vaccines growing up.

You are correct in that in CA, all we had to do was sign a piece of paper to personally exempt our children.

I don't understand why the fact that vaccines generate Xbillions should be wrong or bad.
There is nothing wrong in making money in a lawful and ethical manner. In fact, I would call it commendable. I would be happy to work making vaccines and thus earning my wage.

The idea that something that generates an income is automatically unethical is perplexing, to say the least.

I really don't understand why it is so terrible that vaccines are profitable. Who the hell would make them if they weren't?

From a slightly different perspective, how profitable are vaccines? Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent on R&D for drugs and treatments that never pass muster, are dropped before trials start, don't make it through trials, and never received FDA approval.....if you take a look at total expenses vs. what vaccines cost, they are way down the list as far as being "profitable."

It takes one drug like Viagra to make enough money to fund the R&D for the hundreds of other drugs that are more vital, but cover a much smaller population (like Orphan drugs for example).

Anti-vaccine cranks seem to think that disease treatment isn't more profitable than disease prevention - which flies in the face of logic.

In particular cases, it may be true that the immunity of "natural" infection is stronger than the immunity of vaccines. Immunity from varicella vaccine fades over time, as does that of acellular pertusis vaccine. However, the risk of serious or fatal complications of the natural infections is substantial, and unvaccinated populations are prone to epidemics, while these risks from vaccines is non-zero but negligible.

I dare her - even double dog dare her - to go ask a kid who lost their limbs to meningitis if they are stronger/healthier/better now than before they were infected.

I triple dog dare her.

Regarding measles outbreaks, at least in the U.S., recent outbreaks have been almost exclusively among the unvaccinated. The cases of vaccinated individuals getting measles have been, in both raw numbers and relative percentages, significantly lower than the cases of unvaccinated.

I don't quite understand. Is Jennifer Hutchinson saying that she regrets the rabies vaccine was given to her child? Is she saying that certain death would have been better? I hope someone knows the answer, because I'm certainly not going to read her book.

Forcing parents with religious beliefs against vaccines to vaccinate their children violates their First Amendment rights.

Really, perhaps Ms. Hutchinson legal eagle would like to explain how this is.

The lifetime cost to care for a person with autism is approximately $3 million.

Another load of bollocks that has the same blurry provenance and complete falsity that the meme, "parents of child autists have a divorce rate of 80%". Ms. Hutchinson, repeating lies doesn't make them true.

I must look up the name of that All Natural canine regimen sometime...

I can't imagine NOT vaccinating a dog against rabies for two reasons:

1) Rabies is a horrible way to die, and it's almost certainly fatal. I'd never want my pet to die that way.

2) A dog with rabies could infect other pets or people it comes into contact with. Why would I risk not just the health of my pet, but my family members too?

I grumbled a bit at the annual licensing fee when I had a dog, but I kept him current on his rabies vaxx without complaining.

Now imagine pertussis, or measles or other contagious diseases. Or tetanus, which isn't contagious, but is horrible.

(Side note: I was so proud of myself for being able to diagnose tetanus on Jeevan Kuruvilla's blog - from reading a fiction novel which described symptoms. Glad I haven't had the opportunity to do that IRL.)

@David

In particular cases, it may be true that the immunity of “natural” infection is stronger than the immunity of vaccines. Immunity from varicella vaccine fades over time, as does that of acellular pertusis vaccine. However, the risk of serious or fatal complications of the natural infections is substantial, and unvaccinated populations are prone to epidemics, while these risks from vaccines is non-zero but negligible.

I agree, but just to pick up one point: Varicella vaccine immunity "fades" because there are so few cases of naturally occuring chickenpox that a vaccinee would encounter nowadays that there is no natural immune boosting by exposure to the virus.

You will find that "natural" varicella immunity was only "long lived" because of this phenomenon, and now adays you see that "natural" immunity fades as quickly as vaccine immunity for the same reason - few natural exposures to act as boosters.

The lifetime cost to care for a person with autism is approximately $3 million.

I think there are data that say this is the cost of lifetime care for a dependent severely autistic child. Of course, antivaxers everywhere extrapolate this figure, and apply the formula to "one in 88" (or whatever the going prevalence rate for people on the spectrum is) and arrive at a humungously inflated figure of several trillion dollars, which they say will be the cost of caring for all these vaccine damaged kids.

The reality is that only a small minority of kids on the spectrum will need anything like this level and expense of care, and of course as we all know, autism is not caused by vaccines anyway.

Uh huh. Vaccines cost anywhere from 0 to 50.00 depending on what you want and where.
You know how much supportive care for a measles patient runs ? How about mumps or rubella ?
Have you looked at the negative outcomes of just those three ? of course you haven't.
How much to bury a five year old ?

Unborn babies can be legally murdered on the grounds that the mother has the right to have an abortion.

No, they can't, and no they aren't. While women have the legal right to choose to terminate an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy, that legal right isn't whollly without restriction and terminating a pregnancy at early stages of deveklpment does does not constitute an act of murder for the simple reason that an embryo/ or fetus does not share identity with a 'baby'.

Part of the problem is that from the anti-vaccine perspective, evidence isn't as important as something making sense to them. Natural immunity is better than artificial immunity, because that makes sense. Vaccines are just a way of making profit, because that makes sense. Here is what happens if you consider that philosophy: Think Logically

I don’t understand why the fact that vaccines generate Xbillions should be wrong or bad.
There is nothing wrong in making money in a lawful and ethical manner. In fact, I would call it commendable. I would be happy to work making vaccines and thus earning my wage.

The idea that something that generates an income is automatically unethical is perplexing, to say the least.

That's because you're looking at it from a critically-thinking perspective. Many of these antivaxxers would fail the Wason selection task; they have no idea that they should be looking for evidence that is not consistent with their hypothesis of vaccination being all a money-grubbing hoax by a conspiracy of Big Guv'mint and Big Pharma. They think that any evidence consistent with that conspiracy theory - even if it's also consistent with "a legitimate public health need recognized by government agencies and private industry, who try to meet that need in a way that bankrupts neither" - is evidence for that conspiracy.

Perhaps the clearest indicator of how poorly anti-vaxxers have their thinking honed is when they cite two interests that are not in conflict and cite them as a conflict of interest. "He both develops new vaccines and he writes articles about how important vaccines are!!" Yes, and those are both reflections of the fact that vaccines are important. Does a fireman face a conflict of interest if he not only fights fires but lectures on preventing them? It takes either inanity or a breathtaking amount of cynicism to think so.

I think that "philosophical exemptions" would take a nose dive if they would just be published by the school. Put out a list of parents that request exemptions, and have them explain to their kids why the other parents don't want them to play with their kids. Put a cost on mooching of the herd immunity.

Forcing parents with religious beliefs against vaccines to vaccinate their children violates their First Amendment rights.

That's kind of a gray area, isn't it? The constitutional right to free religious expression isn't without restriction, after all, especially in cases where acting on a religious belief (even when sincerely held) places a minor child or others at risk. Parents have after all been tried and convicted of wrongful death for withholding necessory medical care from their children.

Are we at the point where recommended immunizations represent necessary care? Probably not.

But are we at the point where enough parents are 'opting out' of immunization to compromise herd immunity and endanger other children and adults who for legitimate medical reasons cannot be immunized? For many diseases, yes--witness the greater frequency of pertussis/measles outbreaks worldwide.

Is it then in everyone's interest to reduce the number of religious and philosophic exemptions from immunization allowed, by requiring parents to actually be made aware of the real benefit and safety of immunization before granting an exemption? Assuredly.

@Mu

I suspect there may be some violations of patient confidentiality, there. Ethical issues that would take a bit more thinking through than I have time for at the moment.

Vaccines generate about $20 billion a year in the U.S.

Hutchinson expects us to think, "Wow, that is a lot of money," but she doesn't provide any context. What is the cost of producing and shipping those vaccines? How many vaccines are we buying for that amount of money? Those are numbers we would need to conclude, as Hutchinson wants us to, that Big Pharma is profiteering on vaccines.

Then in the next quoted paragraph she gets the math ridiculously wrong. If every dollar spent on vaccines saves $18.40 in health care costs, that would be $368 billion, not $42 billion as Hutchinson claims.

And in the end, $20 billion isn't all that much money. It's less than $70 per person. If you follow economic issues (I lurk on some blogs that do), you routinely see amounts in the trillions bandied about. In that context, a mere $20 billion is in the financial noise level.

Todd, I'm strictly talking personal belief exemptions, not medical.

@Mu

I know. Given that it is a medical procedure, there is still likely an expectation of confidentiality regarding medical decisions, even ones made for silly or unfounded reasons. As I said, there are ethical considerations that I'd need more time to consider to give any real meaningful opinion on it.

Ellie:

I don’t quite understand. Is Jennifer Hutchinson saying that she regrets the rabies vaccine was given to her child? Is she saying that certain death would have been better?

From what it says on her website, I don't believe her child was symptomatic. He received rabies prophylaxis (a series of rabies vaccinations) following suspected rabies exposure. Not all rabies exposures will result in disease, of course, and I don't know what sort of suspected exposure he had; if he'd been bitten by a dog known to be rabid, that would be different than if he was just bitten by a random raccoon (which may not even have been rabid). So it's not quite autism versus certain death. The third option (usually only exercised when nobody realizes there has been exposure) is to wait to see if symptoms manifest. It's not definitely death; it has better odds than playing blackjack at the casino. But given that what you're gambling is a human life, it's not a risk I'd be willing to take. Rabies is too horrible an illness.

About that inflated opinion:

Amongst the anti-vaxxers- as well as well-known woo-meisters- this is as common as believing in de-tox and super nutrition as cure-alls.

People learn to evaluate their own performance on a task - or in an area of study- gradually, as they turn from children to adolescents and adults. Everyone has seen kids, after being entranced by a musical/ dance/ athlethic performance by a great talent, emulate the basic outlines. They get frustrated if they should study that art and don't advance quickly. A tennis instructor reports that many students ( all ages) often vastly over-estimate their abilities: Roger Federer wasn't built in a day.

Being able to evaluate yourself is an ability with great variability across subjects and areas of interest: a person who can perfectly proof-read his or her essays may not be able to tell you whether they are good at swimming or not.

Imagining yourself as an authority ( as anti-vaxxers do) illustrates a few relevant issues to me: it tells me that they really don't know enough about the area to realise that the minute amount that they HAVE studied is only the surface of a vast sea. Also, they are naive enough to believe that the University of Google or alt med schools in any way approximate the real area of concern and they don't understand why the SOURCE you get information from is as important as the information itself.

However, they may know more than their audience's total zero and thus, can fool others into accepting their 'expertise'. I have often laughed to myself when I read a certain AoA mom or thinking mom, write about physiology or learning; woo-meisters, not content to mangle medical information, go on to mangle various areas of psychology. Thus someone who HAS studied seriously can spot a pretender, just like a tennis player can recognise a poseur before they hit the ball twice.

One of the usual follow-ups to our critiques is to deny that we have expertise: usually this involves a tortured path fraught with conspiracies hither and yon which generally boils down to how corrupt official sources are and how we are servants of the corporate-governmental-media oligarchy which presents fake science for profit.

Those I survey are rapidly constructing a mirror world of their own sources, authorities, associations, schools, websites, blogs, journals, film and media to put up as an alternative to SBM. In their evaluation, these are superior and uncompromised. People who can't evaluate them realistically may join their exclusively inexpert club.

@ Calli Arcale

Thank you for the information. However, to the best of my knowledge, if someone has symptoms, it's too late. There is no cure for rabies. It certainly isn't a risk I'd be willing to take, either.

As an example of what I discussed above:
@ Thinking Moms' Revolution today:
Ms Sugah recommends a book about a war veteran who sustained a brain injury caused by a BULLET ( by Luria, no less!) and regained some of his abilities as somehow being relevant to 'recovering' a child from autism.

I could go on.

I remember when you first blogged about Jennifer Hutchinson Orac. It turned out that Jake and a bunch of other people in her family required post-exposure rabies prophylaxis, because they were sleeping in an area of her home where a bat was found.

http://www.cdc.gov/rabies/medical_care/index.html

Notice that HRIG and the first vaccine are given on the same day and three additional rabies vaccines are administered on a strict schedule. Jake and her family members received these expensive HRIG shots and vaccines free-of-charge, which disregarded her ability to pay.

Now Jennifer, ever the opportunist, claims that her grandson's developmental delays were caused by the post-exposure prophylaxis and has written a book about the inherent risks of a child receiving post exposure rabies prophylaxis. What an ignorant POS she is...because suddenly she has received some minor stardom within the anti-vaccine world for the *expertise* she has about vaccines.

Orac, after your review of her book and website, you won't be listed as a *critic* of her book, like these individuals are :-)

http://unlockingjake.com/what-the-critics-are-saying/

Here's Jennifer Hutchinson being interviewed by one of my *favorite* media stars, Polly Tommey...

http://www.autismmediachannel.com/?episode=117

Ellie: agreed. There are a handful of cases where people survived after intensive treatment. Most have serious lifelong impairments as a result. They are by far the minority -- the death rate, with treatment, for symptomatic rabies is so high that it's a testimony to the hope and optimism of humanity that anyone even tries to save victims. Nobody tries to save a symptomatic animal, of course; they're euthanized as soon as possible.

lilady has posted more details now; sounds like the child was in a group where he would've had fairly good odds of surviving, as there was no confirmed exposure -- most people who don't know they were bitten by a bat whose rabies status is unknown probably haven't been exposed. But probably isn't the same thing as definitely, hence the recommendations for rabies prophylaxis. Rabies is *that bad*.

Heck, even tetanus is so bad that prophylaxis is recommended if there is the *possibility* of exposure and the person's vaccination status is unknown. And that's much more treatable.

Here's a youngster who was scratched by a feral cat and was able to survive rabies...only the 3rd person in U.S. history to survive the disease, without having receiving post exposure prophylaxis:

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/california-girl-us-survive-rabies/story?id…

@MatchesMalone:

We didn’t vaccinate either of our high school aged children with the latest round of ‘mandatory’ pertussis vaccinations, simply because there was no empirical evidence that the vaccine actually worked, and for no other reason.

Citation needed.

And you did not let them get a tetanus booster? That has definitely been shown to work!

You should read what Orac's friend wrote on ScienceBasedMedicine blog on waning pertussis immunity. He discusses the latest study from Kaiser Permanente that shows the Tdap booster is working for pertussis. At least it works much better than not giving a booster!

I also thought that (early, unexpected) waning immunity was the reason middle schoolers were getting pertussis. If anything, I'd just get the booster sooner, as opposed to not at all.

demandabanana, that is exactly what the reports say. I thought I left a comment before leaving the house, but it is not there. So I repeated it, but without links.

The NY Times had an health blog posting that said that there might be an extra booster between five and eleven, and the ten year tetanus boosters will all be Tdap instead of Td.

Here, I believe is the article that Orac's friend, wrote on the SBM blog:

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/the-problem-of-waning-per…

@ MatchesMalone: I hope you have the moral decency to inform the parents of the children that your kids interact with, that you have claimed a "philosophical exemption" to all vaccines. Parents with infants too young to have received any or all of the 4-doses primary DTaP vaccines, should know that your children might be pertussis disease vectors.

Ooops, still getting my pertussis vaccines mixed up. The primary pertussis series is the TDaP vaccine.

lilady, primary series from three months to six years is DTaP. Boosters for eleven and up is Tdap.

I was once bitten by a Jewish dog.
I contracted Rabbis.

Sorry.

Chris...right you are. I cannot blame my mistakes for not having my morning coffee, either.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/parents/downloads/parent-ver-sch-0-6yrs.pdf

Thanks for the correction :-)

Peebs...make sure your doctor orders a CT Scan

http://www.cartoonstock.com/directory/c/cat_scan.asp

Peebs: This joke and its permutations made *the rounds* when I worked as a public health nurse. (No, I can't sanitize it)

http://www.jokebuddha.com/Tolio

Okay...back on topic with an article from St. Lawrence County New York and their raccoon rabies problem:

http://northcountrynow.com/news/aircraft-drop-80000-rabies-bait-packs-a…

My knowledge is extremely imperfect on this subject, but here is my question:

Could the lack of smallpox vaccinations lead to a resurgence of the disease caused by the Yersinia pestis bacterium known as the "Great Mortality", "Great Pestilence," or "Black Death"?

Last week my son saw a raccoon in the backyard. I opened the door to look for it and he said: "Mom! Don't get rabies!".

Because...he's my son, and I've told him that raccoons (and skunks and bats) can give you rabies.

Ms Sugah recommends a book about a war veteran who sustained a brain injury caused by a BULLET ( by Luria, no less!) and regained some of his abilities as somehow being relevant to ‘recovering’ a child from autism.

"The Man with a Shattered World" is brilliant but heart-breaking. The veteran has full insight, and is completely aware of how much he lost when a bullet went through his parietal lobe. He has incredible determination, and spends the rest of his life trying to recapture some of those lost skills -- with almost no success -- recording all his efforts in a diary that he will never be able to read.

It's a tribute to the human spirit but don't expect a happy ending.

Age of Autism is ranting again that being FORCED to consult with a HCP about the risks/benefits of getting or not getting vaccines is TOTALLY UNFAIR.

Because getting educated by Big Pharma Shills is a violation of their civil rights.

I want to empathize with them. I really do. Posts like that make it hard.

Off-topic PSA: Abortion and birth control will soon be illegal in the US.

Okay, back to the topic. I seem to recall seeing an article that six people in Peru were found to have anti-bodies for rabies- since they'd apparently been bitten by vampire bats that had been exposed to rabies. I'll see if I can get a link. Btw, I keep getting error messages when I open this blog in Explorer. Anyone know what that's about?

Here is an article about rabies immunity:
http://www.virology.ws/2012/08/22/how-lethal-is-rabies-virus/

@ Anj: I have no empathy for these AoA bloggers and their groupies:

http://www.ageofautism.com/2012/09/rally-friday-ab2109-healthcare-right…

Apparently, one of the posters on that blog...is questioning their skewed thinking...

"I don't know about you, but I don't have extra cash lying around to pay for MD appointments...."

In that case, one may reasonably infer that you also don't have the funds to pay for an ER visit or, worse, hospitalization should it result from attempting to hide in the herd, thus laying the burden on society, or to defend against an action by someone similarly situated for damages owing to negligence in the transmission of infectious disease (and do note that there is no reason why all local holders of a personal belief exemption could not be named as a defendant class were substantial harm to have resulted).

Posted by: Godrey Wyl | September 25, 2012 at 02:40 PM"

Boo-hoo...they have no HCPs *willing* to see their kids if they opt out of vaccines. Sheer unadulterated b.s. They always have Dr. Bob Sears whose patient was deliberately not vaccinated, and who was the *index case* in a recent San Diego measles outbreak.

They always have the *pediatrician to the stars*, Dr. Jay Gordon who is Jenny McCarthy son's pediatrician, and who has a boutique practice for non-vaccinating parents...

http://drjaygordon.com/

@ herr doktor:
I have been a fan of Luria's for a while.. as if you didn't guess.

@ Anj, 5:09 PM

On the contrary, the posters at AoA are RIGHT for once - "being FORCED to consult with a HCP about the risks/benefits of getting or not getting vaccines is TOTALLY UNFAIR". It is still less time and cost than the responsible members of our communities are expending to protect everyone's children. Folks who decline vaccines should have the same appointment and fee schedule as the standard "well child" visits that the rest of us accrue, not less. There should be no incentive for endangering the rest of us and merely "consulting with a HCP" is still a savings in time and money. I will have no sympathy for their rants until their costs exceed those of the rest of us, until then they are freeloaders in all senses of the word.

Folks who decline vaccines should have the same appointment and fee schedule as the standard “well child” visits that the rest of us accrue, not less.

Which could also be seen as an argument that vaccines mandated for school attendance should be "free," which is to say, provided by the taxpayers with effectively no effort by the recipient: 24/7 properly equipped and staffed vax vans, just call. Something tells me the AoA contingent might suffer conniptions were this idea actually to be floated.

Orac, may I call again for a one-page, permanent rebuttal of the standard anti-vax tropes?

If we could point someone at a single link, it would do wonders.

"The top ten myths about vaccines" would do nicely - with lots of supporting evidence/links. I'm thinking the following (please wade in folks):

1. Autism. Rebuttal: Myth started by Wakefraud, who was caught red-handed falsifying his results, and stood to make a fortune if he could persuade enough people to not have the MMR. Struck off in disgrace, of course.

Rise in diagnosis does not equal rise in cases, etc.

(Could also point to the financial incentives for claiming 'vaccine damage' - and for running sites like AoA...)

2. Mercury. Rebuttal: Wasn't 'neat' mercury (duh!), but rather a tiny, negligible amount of a non-toxic preservative which is made from it - and which doesn't cause autism either, and isn't even used any more. eg. eat pure sodium or pure chlorine, you're in trouble. But sodium chloride is, of course, just common salt.

I'll speed up - you guys do the rebuttals:

3. Disease X was in retreat anyway. I've been shown that graph more times than I can count.
4. Vaccine-preventable diseases are no big deal. Literally been told 'nobody ever died from measles' (!)
5. Too many vaccines in one go (as if the billions of germs ingested/inhaled every day just don't bother the immune system). These folks want single shots, so they're not truly anti, just misled.
6. Better safe than sorry - goes back to #4: some people don't know - or accept - the risks of not vaccinating far outweigh the risks of doing so. Show the odds.
7. 'Natural immunity' is better. (Which is exactly what vaccination gives you, of course. So many folks think it's a drug!)
8, A cash cow for Big Pharma, don't trust them. (Zovirax and Viagra are cash cows, vaccines are a trivial % of their profits. But yes, the big companies ARE traditionally complete bastards, so I point to this awesome story: http://www.quora.com/Medicine-and-Healthcare/How-much-money-did-Jonas-S… )

Those are what I hear time and time again, anyway. Over to you guys for the last two, or more.

@Narad, 7:44 PM

That's a capital idea. If I ever get my share of "filthy evil pharma lucre" I'll re-invest it in said subsidized vans for my town.

At risk of sounding petulant:

I am feeling extremely irked and peeved about the venomous language that anti-vaxxers spit towards any who disagree with them, especially professionals. Orac discussed a letter Alison MacNeil wrote ( and never sent) to her child's doctor- I've run across another recently. There seems to be cavalier hate-mongering that follows fast behind rampant fearmongering.

Perhaps it's just the material that I survey: woo-meisters hiss and moms explode in hissy-fits about those who have 'destroyed' their lives,'stolen' their children and 'poisoned' babies.. it seems an endless, escalating hyperbole contest. Ceremoniously, these mantras appear to be followed by a promise ( or threat) to somehow 'even' the score : frankly I don't know what to make of some recent articles and comments at AoA. Righteous anger can be quite an unnerving force.

I have never encountered speech as aggressive and self-serving as I've witnessed in this arena ( and yes, I realise that the anonymity of the internet loosens tongues) and I have worked with people who have had issues and I have not led a sheltered life in the least.

People who follow these blogs faithfully are being de-sensitivised to what they're hearing ( reading)- it has come to sound inconsequential. I wonder if any of the faithful might be goaded towards action against these imaginary aggressive, reprobate enemies they hear so much about- calumniated and demonised?

If you envision people as devils, you might not feel any sympathy if harm were to visit them in fact, you might think that it was a well deserved comeuppance for their various sins.

Mark, one page rebuttals are all very well, but pretty soon you'd have people saying 'Yes, but...' and 'What about...'.

Something along the lines of One Page (Basic) , Intermediate and Advanced rebuttals for each topic the way it's done for climate change at http://www.skepticalscience.com/ might be a good idea. The various entry points like Most Used Myths, Newcomers and Big Picture could be really valuable.

One advantage. There really aren't that many myths for vaccines. You wouldn't need the 170+ SkS uses for climate.

Chris: Yep, that's the one I was thinking of. I know it's way too early to get excited about this finding, but it does seem promising.

@ Denice Walter,

I hear you, maybe I should get going with AJW's patent on his vaccine but I have a midterm next week and a very busy week presently.

Alain

@lilady
I had a real giggle at the commenter on the post you linked over at AoA screaming for the 'celebs' to stop caring about their careers and help them out because people need artists, athletes and actors to rally behind. Apparently they aren't having much influence themselves, that doesn't really say much for their position, does it?

Some of the posters on AoA have talked about how much their non-covered therapies and supplements cost.

My mind boggled when one mother listed her monthly outlay.

Maybe they could take a "supplement holiday" for a week to see if they notice a difference in their child, and use a fraction of it to go have a chat with a GP or a pediatrician to get their piece of paper signed? (I don't think what they are wailing about is a law yet.)

Mark, one page rebuttals are all very well, but pretty soon you’d have people saying ‘Yes, but…’ and ‘What about…’.

Something along the lines of One Page (Basic) , Intermediate and Advanced rebuttals for each topic the way it’s done for climate change at http://www.skepticalscience.com/ might be a good idea. The various entry points like Most Used Myths, Newcomers and Big Picture could be really valuable.

One advantage. There really aren’t that many myths for vaccines. You wouldn’t need the 170+ SkS uses for climate.

For a while there I was working (conceptually only, it never got to the coding stage) on a modified version of wiki software, the primary difference being that a new version of a page did not go "live" and become the one shown by default until a consensus of experienced users agreed that it was superior to the previous "best" version.

Had it ever made it to the testing stage, I was going to propose that we set up "VaccineWiki" (actually "-Haya" rather than "-Wiki", as that was the name I'd chosen for the new software design) and see how well the new design worked at keeping fanatic individuals from overriding a consensus formed by moderates (a huge problem at That Big Wiki.)

@ Mark McAndrew: Check out Rational Wiki under "vaccines" for common anti-vaccine themes:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Main_Page

@ Anj: The non-therapeutic therapies and the supplements that these parents claim are *so expensive*, are nothing compared to costs to provide physical therapy twice weekly for my son, for the 28 years of his life. These PT sessions kept him supple and prevented joint contractures.

Do the math... $15, 000 yearly X 28 years.

@ Alain:

You're doing important work but exams first!

In brief, here's something that reminds me that our task is not insurmountable: roundabout this time last year, Thomson Reuters polled American adults about vaccines- they found that 30% of parents with kids under 18 had *concerns* whilst older adults were much less worried. I'm sure that the figures in other 'western' countries are similar.

If we can assume that "concerned" runs the entire range of minor quibbles to out-and-out anti-vaccinationist fol-de-rol and that - like most things large- there is a normal distribution, thus true anti-vaxxers are not a large segment of the population- they're just loud and angry. I don't think that their arguments will hold water with most people.

I don't for a moment believe that there will be a great paradigm shift wherein the present majority will 'switch' over - vaccination supporters to anti-vaxxers or SBM to alt med- that is wishful thinking from adamant supporters meant to rally their own spirits and those of their compadres ( commadres?) And I've been hearing about these pipe dreams for a LONG time. Haven't happened yet!

For your entertainment:

Today at Natural News, Dr David Jockers discusses the possible "delayed reactions and long term health consequences" of flu vaccines.
In the midst of his speculations ( and there are many), he mentions the research of "world-leading immunogeneticist", Dr Hugh Fudenberg, who has associated the vaccine with a "10-time greater risk" of getting Alzheimer's..

Jockers goes on, I won't.

Denice,
I don't know how you stomach it.

Today at Natural News, Dr David Jockers discusses the possible “delayed reactions and long term health consequences” of flu vaccines.

I wonder what he has to say about the long term health consequences of death from fecking pneumonia? Or does he have a supplement to sell that miraculously prevents that? Of course he does!

I always find it fascinating that some people seem to recognize the correlation between modern medicine and an increase in the diseases of old age, but fail to spot the obvious connection: Modern medicine makes people live longer, longer lives mean more old people, more old people means more Alzheimer's and cancer. The fact that I had to spell that out is worrying.

This is probably off topic, but has anyone else noticed that antivax trolls are traveling in packs these days? Over at Patheos on Libby Anne's blog Love, Joy, Feminism about six showed up on an old (March 2012) thread and posted about forty comments. They were pretty well debunked but the discussion is still going on. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/
Is this some new tactic?

@ machineintelligence: OMG...you linked to a wacky religious cult...the "Quiverful Christians":

http://www.alternet.org/bizarre-christian-quiverfull-movement-pushing-w…

Hi Machintellegence, there are a bunch of anti-vax Facebook pages, each nuttier than the previous. They post links to articles etc. that need comments, hence the packs.

@Liz Ditz: Thanks, I suspected as much.
@lilady: Libby Anne escaped from that bunch. I started reading her blog because I knew so little about them. She has her head screwed on straight, her parents however...

@ Krebiozen:

Actually, I don't really know how I can tolerate it either**- my own theory is that I have inherited an ability to withstand huge amounts of idiocy which has served my ancestors and relatives well in the business world.. where you have to listen politely to ridiculous nonsense on a daily basis.

I thought to put my talent ( perhaps it's something like a high pain threshold) to good use whenever I can: I imagine that I am saving others from sufffering in some small measure. As they say, "Somebody has to do it."

** and there is much, much worse out there.

For anyone that might be interested and hasn't already heard, this: http://sfari.org/news-and-opinion/blog/2012/utah-revisited
came out yesterday. A study was done in the 1980s to determine prevalence of autism at the time using diagnostic criteria of the time.

The same data was re-reviewed and diagnosis made using DSMIVTR criteria for ASD. Guess what it found? ...

always find it fascinating that some people seem to recognize the correlation between modern medicine and an increase in the diseases of old age, but fail to spot the obvious connection: Modern medicine makes people live longer, longer lives mean more old people, more old people means more Alzheimer’s and cancer.

"Yes, now that we've gotten you to the point where you're not dying before 40, you'e getting neurodegeneration and cancer. We're working on it."

Got my flu shot this morning! Had a reaction I've never had before -- nurse hit a bleeder, apparently. I've never really bled during a vaccination before, but this one made a nice big stream of blood running down my shoulder. Weird. Bandaid took care of that. Shoulder a bit stiff, same as it always is after the vaccination. Have not developed autism. Still have ADHD. ;-)

Pinky:

Could the lack of smallpox vaccinations lead to a resurgence of the disease caused by the Yersinia pestis bacterium known as the “Great Mortality”, “Great Pestilence,” or “Black Death”?

As your question has not been answered, I'll take a crack. The answer is no; the lack of smallpox vaccinations will have no effect whatsoever in Yersinia pestis or bubonic plague cases. This is because smallpox was caused by a poxvirus, while bubonic plague is caused by a bacterium -- the organisms are so different that there is no cross immunity whatsoever. Lacking immunity to one doesn't make you vulnerable to the other, and having immunity to one gives you no protection against the other.

Fortunately, bubonic plague is very treatable; it responds very well to antibiotics. The trick is you have to catch it quickly. It's also not very contagious; the main vector is the bite of an infected flea. Humans are an incidental host for the bacterium; we die too quickly to be very useful. Rodents are the main reservoir. In North America, prairie dogs are a major reservoir, and there are occasional human cases. It is also fairly common in parts of Asia, where many believe it originated and where the local population tends to be more naturally resistant to it. I don't think there's likely to be a pandemic of it in the near future.

Because my fellow and sister sceptics are entirely worthy and deserving, I listened to Monday's Gary Null show ( as archived at Progressive Radio Network; here we go at about 21-28 minutes into the noontime show):

Null discusses Ben Goldacre's (!!!) recent Guardian article ( & book excerpt) that illustrates how pharma only published positive trials about a particular drug and left out those that showed no effects.

Oh my! Who would've thought that that might ever happen! I'm shocked! I might faint.

Null then jumps to various conclusions including that his own "research" ( sic) about vaccines has shown that studies ARE NOT TO BE TRUSTED and are merely what Pharma desires the public to know. Because the industry controls research, studies of drugs and vaccines are fraudulent and the federal agencies that oversee the industry are despicable and horrible.. beyond reproach.**

Indeed the entire edifice of medicine is corrupt and needs to be replaced by SOMETHING BETTER. Guess what.

Somehow I doubt that Dr G has arrived at a similar conclusion. I also doubt that he believes that we should toss everything and go back to the days of psychiatric hospitals without medications, to life prior to the 1950s or the brave new world of alt med solutions for SMI. Valerian, niaicin and prayer most likely.

In fact after reading the said article, I take back an entirely different message from Dr Goldacre..

Null tells his audience that he puts science and research into 'lay language' because the original material is too complex and dry for the general public.
Right.

** he actually doesn't use language like that- I translated it into what I call 'reasonably adult' speech.

correction:
that should be.. NOT beyond reproach..
I am not totally immune to the effect of BAD language leaping to BAD conclusions by a BAD commenter about BAD Science..

@ Calli Arcale:
You can also be immunized against plague. I was when I was working with prairie dogs, but it isn't a fun experience. It doesn't hurt at the time of injection, but the next morning you can't raise your arm above your shoulder without your deltoid saying "oh no you don't!

Orac,
OT but...
Any chance you are going to comment on this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/24/health/study-finds-variations-of-brea…

I just signed my name to Committing to Child Survival, A Promise Renewed at http://apr.nationbuilder.com/indiv_pledge

This was sent to me by the Facebook page "Informed Parents of Vaccinated Children" Anyone else care to pledge?

I'd like to add another disease to the list of disease eliminated by vaccination - Rinderpest (which is very relevant as it's related to rabies). This is now extirpated in the wild and it's definitely vaccine not increased hygiene!

Also why does nobody ever bring up animals when we discuss whether vaccines are effective - there's plenty of data showing that if you expose vaccinated and unvaccinated animals to disease the vaccinated animals get the disease. In most countries such studies are mandatory.

Pinkie: Short version, nope. See the other posts for the long version.

Calli Arcale: Bubonic plague is also endemic to the southwestern United States. I know there was a case in Colorado recently involving a seven year old girl who contracted it from a squirrel (well, former squirrel) that she was trying to bury.

Thank you Calli Arcale.

@ Denice Walter: AoA has re-run one of their Six, Sixty, Six Hundred Degrees of Separation articles...in *honor* of Ben Goldacre's New Book. Surprise, surprise...it is not one of Jake's convoluted *Bob's Your Uncle* masterpieces....

http://www.ageofautism.com/2012/09/best-of-aofa-whats-behind-ben-goldac…

This site is better. Over at Pharyngula, there is a troll war brewing. Looks like some idiot stole Narad and NJ's name for his own. Looks like PZ has his hands full.

Hello, Medicien Man/Mr. Smart/etc. You'll not be here for very long.

@politicalguineapig: Apparently there is a major die-off of prairie dogs in Montana, caused by bubonic plague...

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=95887&page=1#.UGPcYlFMmTY

I remember visiting Yellowstone Park ~ 15 years ago and we stopped our car alongside the area where a prairie dog *town* was sited. There were signs prominently posted warning people to not venture into the *town*, because the rodents are known to carry plague.

Hubby and I are glad that we did our major road trips through many of the National Parks, years ago. We got an early jump on the crowds that filled the parks after 11 AM. So many of the National Parks have now closed those roads to passenger cars and you have to park in "staging areas" to pick up small buses.

Here...transmission of plague, tularemia and monkey pox to humans through prairie dogs sold as "exotic pets".

http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/10/3/04-0045_article.htm

Lilady: Thanks for the info. I didn't know about the prairie dogs, but it makes sense that they'd be carriers.They are social animals, after all.
There seems to be a lot of nasty bugs that are expanding their range- last spring there was a hantavirus outbreak in northern Nebraska/southern South Dakota.

@politicalguineapig: How about the spongiform encephalopathies (prion) diseases found in herds of elk and other animals ...scary huh?

http://wildlife.state.co.us/hunting/biggame/cwd/Pages/CWDHome.aspx

Thanks to hunters who illegally brought raccoons to Virginia (for *sport*), from Florida about 40 years ago, which were infected with rabies, we have major problems in the Northeast United States...

http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/9/9/02-0608_article.htm

When you start messing with game and agriculture laws, designed to protect the habitat...you end up with different types of plant pests and zoonotic diseases being introduced, into wide swaths of the country.

Rinderpest (which is very relevant as it’s related to rabies)

Nope. Related to measles, though.

Plague now plaguing wealthy bedroom communites.What happens when you build you McMansions on top of prarie dog towns.

@ lilady:

I know, I saw that yesterday. It is by John Stone, who was surprisingly civil to me.
I can't figure that out.

Plague is likely to be more of a problem as humans interact more with the wild animals that carry it. The main reason I doubt it will go pandemic again is two-fold: 1) it doesn't transmit human-to-human especially well and 2) we know how to control it. Sadly, in a serious situation, #2 would undoubtedly involve a lot of pesticide; we'd probably wipe out the rodents that were carrying it, or at least enough of them to create a buffer zone around our communities. Prairie dogs have had enough problems to deal with thanks to human development; if plague becomes a big enough problem it could spell their doom. Unless, of course, someone works out an oral vaccine that can be delivered via bait, as is done with rabies in some areas.

When the antivax crowd drags out the improved-hygiene-and-nutrition nonsense, there is one answer that they can't counter in any sensible way: rinderpest. Rinderpest was the second disease, after smallpox, that was deemed to be eradicated by mass vaccination; it was a disease of cattle. The last known cases were in Kenya and the last suspected ones were in Somalia. I doubt that anyone can argue with a straight face that cattle in Somalia and Kenya have had much in the way of improved sanitation and diet in the last few decades.

Mr Orac,

You made the below and following comments.
Quote:

While it’s true that the latest pertussis outbreaks are mainly in vaccinated populations (as I discussed quit recently), unvaccinated children are still 23 times more likely to get pertussis. Unquote

Do you have any specific and actual data to make that false and clearly unproven claim? If the number of unvaccinated is less than 5%, then this would not be a fair percentage comparison even if it were the true percentage. How many unvaccinated children currently ever die or acquire permanent harm due to pertussis? Would and should that matter, in the vaccine decision? You know as well as I do that if even one case of death happened due to a child unvaccinated for pertussis, the pharma corporate for advertising mislead media hounds, would be all over it. As far a very young infants being protected by the herd immunity of pertussis vaccine protection; one, that would be impossible because the pertussis vaccine has not an no longer works in the directly vaccinated. Two, vaccine derived herd immunity is a complete myth to begin with.

The False Theory of Vaccine Derived - Herd Immunity
http://www.vacfacts.info/the-false-theory-of-vaccine-derived---herd-imm…

Quote:

As for measles, there is a much higher risk of measles in the unvaccinated as well. Antivaccinationists use the deceptive tactic of looking at the total number of vaccinated children who catch measles in an outbreak compared to the total number of unvaccinated. Because the number of children who are unvaccinated is usually less than 5% and the vaccine is about 90% effective, the gross number of measles victims who are vaccinated will be larger than the number of unvaccinated. But if you look at the relative risk of catching measles, it’s much, much higher in the unvaccinated. Unquote

The relative risk is much higher in the unvaccinated??? Based on what? Assumptions? How about providing some source of documented proof of and for everything you state, Mr. Orac? Again, please provide a source for your claims.
Again, do you have a list or a number figure on the number of measles deaths, and/or adverse outcomes resulting in disability due to acquiring the measles, and do you have that figure regarding those numbers in the entirely unvaccinated? Then you really do not have anything, now do you?

You also yet claim to that old and well known, small pox vaccine wiped out small pox claim. Really? How could that be when only 10% of the worlds population was ever vaccinated? So much for that needed vaccine derived herd immunity, huh? Must of been magic? So magic, that small pox disappeared as well in countries with little to no vaccine available, nor used.

You know Mr Orac how you claim to that all the science shows that vaccines do not cause autism? How many vaccines did they look at with those CDC funded epidemiological studies? The answer is one, the MMR vaccine. How many vaccine ingredients did they as well look at? The answer is one, thimerosal. So, how is it then that ALL the needed science is in? I have some collected vaccine harm science that here or in your next article, you may wish to entertain us with your version of the refute of those studies, all of them. I will be waiting for that one, so please get started; as you know you have always stated that it is all about that thing called science, that the so called anti-vaxers do not understand, but YOU do.

The Vaccine Damage Science
http://www.vacfacts.info/the-vaccine-damage---science.html

Vaccines Cause Autism and More - The Scientific Explanation
http://www.vacfacts.info/vaccines-cause-autism-and-more---the-scientifi…

Here comes that pesky little thing known as vaccine contamination.

Vaccine Production With - Human Diploid Cells (aborted fetal cell tissue)
http://www.vacfacts.info/vaccine-production-with---human-diploid-cells-…

Aluminum Adjuvants - Lack of Safety Data - Lack of Aluminum Adjuvant Safety Studies
http://www.vacfacts.info/aluminum-vaccine-adjuvants.html

Gardasil - The Real Truth
http://www.vacfacts.info/gardasil---the-real-truth.html

And lastly, if your pharma science and all the protocols are so good, I would like you to attempt to explain away this one.

Death By Medicine
http://www.vacfacts.info/death-by-medicine.html

And this one.

The False Foundations of Modern Medicine
http://www.vacfacts.info/the-false-foundations-of-modern-medicine.html

Old Rockin' Dave,

By the way, and as to the reason.

Its called natural immunity, and natural disease cycles.

Rinderpest as well is a poor comparison to make, but none the less is no different. How do you explain polio and small pox disappearing in countries that had no vaccine or very little vaccine used? You only thought it through as far as they told you it was true; which means you have not thought it through at all.

@Lowell - you again?

Since we have gotten much better at identifying diseases, it is possible to remove and isolate patients, so in areas where there was already a high level of natural immunity (with the attendant disease side-effects, unfortunately) it would be possible to find the remaining vulnerable or infected individuals, use selective vaccinations and quarantines, to accomplish the overall goal of disease eradication.

Now explain why the current generation of measles outbreaks in the US occur exclusively in unvaccinated individuals and groups.

Its called natural immunity, and natural disease cycles.

And what diseases have been eradicated via "natural immunity"?

Any disease which successfully kills off all of its hosts is eradicated via the "natural disease cycle".

Can I have volunteers to test this theory? Yes, it will be an informed consent suicide mission, but it is FOR SCIENCE! And you'll knowing that you've helped to thwart the plans of Big Pharma.

[end sarcasm]

You made the below and following comments.
Quote:

While it’s true that the latest pertussis outbreaks are mainly in vaccinated populations (as I discussed quit recently), unvaccinated children are still 23 times more likely to get pertussis. Unquote

Do you have any specific and actual data to make that false and clearly unproven claim?

Sure thing. I blogged the study three years ago:

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/05/26/one-more-time-vaccine-refu…

@Lawrence

Now explain why the current generation of measles outbreaks in the US occur exclusively in unvaccinated individuals and groups.

-----------------

Kind of hateful of someone always bringing the truth in front of you, aren't you Lawrence.

I want you to do something for me? I would be interested in your refute of the information in this presentation made in the video by Dr .Russell Blaylock. Can you refute any of that? lets see you try?

THE CENTRAL ROLE OF IMMUNOEXCITOTOXICITY IN ALUMINUM AND MERCURY-CONTAINING ADJUVANT-TRIGGERED NEURODEVELOPMENTAL AND NEURODEGENERATIVE DISORDERS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9DkcpEEBPI

Published Papers – Dr. Russell Blaylock
http://www.russellblaylockmd.com/

Dr. Russell Blaylock is a board certified neurosurgeon, author and lecturer. He attended the Louisiana State University School of Medicine in New Orleans and completed his general surgical internship and neurosurgical residency at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston, South Carolina. During his residency training he worked with the eminent neurosurgeon, Dr. Ludwig Kempe. Together they developed the transcallosal removal of intraventricular tumors, a technique still used today. For the past 25 years he has practiced neurosurgery in addition to having a nutritional practice. He recently retired from his neurosurgical duties to devote his full attention to nutritional studies and neuroscience research.

"49 doses of 14 vaccines, by the age of 6"
http://www.nvic.org/downloads/49-doses-posterb.aspx

You just believe that the measles outbreaks are all and largely in the unvaccinated, because the false propganda machine spins it that direction. There are plenty of case of outbreaks of measles in the fully vaccinated. All you have to do is google the words measles outbreaks in the vaccinated, to see those many outbreaks. So, do you ingnore that? Obviously so.

What they won't admit about measles outbreaks: Most children who catch measles were already vaccinated
http://www.naturalnews.com/033399_vaccines_measles.html

Am J Public Health. 1987 April; 77(4): 434–438.
PMCID: PMC1646939
Measles outbreak in a vaccinated school population: epidemiology, chains of transmission and the role of vaccine failures.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1646939/

Canadian Measles Outbreak Hits the Vaccinated. Excuses Abound.
http://gaia-health.com/gaia-blog/2011-10-27/canadian-measles-outbreak-h…

AN EXPLOSIVE POINT-SOURCE MEASLES OUTBREAK IN A HIGHLY VACCINATED POPULATION
MODES OF TRANSMISSION AND RISK FACTORS FOR DISEASE

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/129/1/173.short

Measles Outbreak in Previously Immunized Children, Florida, US
http://www.vaccines.me/articles/jlurg-measles-outbreak-in-previously-im…

And what diseases have been eradicated via “natural immunity”?

Black Death, probably. Surely several others. Basically, as Anj mentioned, any lethal disease without alternate reservoir will go through the population like forest fire and leave behind only dead and resistant.

For some reason anti-vaccinationist are always forgetting the "dead" part.

Science Mom

http://justthevax.blogspot.com/
7:57 am
Its called natural immunity, and natural disease cycles.

And what diseases have been eradicated via “natural immunity”?

--------------

And what diseses can you prove have been eradicated by vaccination, and not natural immunity an/or diseasse cycles? Small pox vaccination rates were covering at best only 10% of the population. Both polio and small pox ended as well in countries with little to no vaccine ever used. Explain that?

Lowell, read Lawrence@5:32 am.

Oh geez, it's Lowell.

You've made a number of claims there, Lowell.

Please provide peer reviewed studies in reputable journals regarding the 10% smallpox vaccination rate, and that polio was eradicated without vaccination.

Then come back to us.

Thats right puppygod. All the vaccinated for DISEASES ARE DEADLY. No one actually has a functional immune system, and we can not survive without endless toxic chemical, and poluted biological concoctions made by pharma and injected into our bodies. Are you and your body short of pharma chemicals and biologically altered antigens made from any animal from a monkey to a cow, to even made from an aborted human fetus, puppygod? Otherwise we are all going to be in iron longs, and whooping the whooping cough until we crock, correct? Measles and rubella and dipethria will everywhere? I haven't been vaccinated for anything in over 4 decades and there are thousands if not millions in literally the same boat. Why are not all those HORRIBLE diseases coming back? We all as well broke the herd immunity, they said we HAD to have?

Here is a little study for you, on the issue of vaccine contamination in regard to the production of vaccines made with human diploid tissue. (On this page).

Vaccine Production With - Human Diploid Cells (aborted fetal cell tissue)
http://www.vacfacts.info/vaccine-production-with---human-diploid-cells-…

The False Theory of Vaccine Derived - Herd Immunity
http://www.vacfacts.info/the-false-theory-of-vaccine-derived---herd-imm…

While it’s true that the latest pertussis outbreaks are mainly in vaccinated populations (as I discussed quit recently), unvaccinated children are still 23 times more likely to get pertussis. Unquote

Do you have any specific and actual data to make that false and clearly unproven claim?

I see that Orac provided substantiation; I would like to add to that the recent Washington State pertussis outbreak numbers correlate with that as well: http://justthevax.blogspot.com/2012/08/washington-state-pertussis-outbr…

The relative risk is much higher in the unvaccinated??? Based on what? Assumptions? How about providing some source of documented proof of and for everything you state, Mr. Orac? Again, please provide a source for your claims.

Do you live in a lonely Montana cabin or in a cave? http://justthevax.blogspot.com/2012/08/record-measles-outbreak-in-uks.h…

http://www.cdc.gov/measles/outbreaks.html

Given what you are using for information, you don't have a leg to stand on to demand anything. Besides, it's obvious you're uneducable and won't believe anything contrary to your "facts" anyhow.

And what diseses can you prove have been eradicated by vaccination, and not natural immunity an/or diseasse cycles? Small pox vaccination rates were covering at best only 10% of the population. Both polio and small pox ended as well in countries with little to no vaccine ever used. Explain that?

Easy. You're a moron.

@Lowell: Vaccines work because of the immune system. Everything is made of chemicals. And the "aborted fetal tissue" is a well-established lie. I recommend learning the basics of a subject before commenting on it.
For those wondering, communal immunity works on the same principle as fire codes. If you only have a few buildings in a large city that fail the code, then if a fire were to break out in one, it would most likely not spread any further. A city without a fire code, however, would quickly catch ablaze. To deny herd immunity is to deny that disease spreads.

@Darway

It all depends on what you accept for sources. If you go by your highly biased sources, you will never know the historical truth. Have you ever done any actual uinbiased research, Darway?

Do you actually think you can find historically the percentage of small pox vaccination, given in any peer reviewed journal? if you want to refute my statement and you require that be done by referencing a peer reviewed journal to prove it; I suggest that it is then thus you that needs to prove what the actual small pox vaccination rate percentage was; and to do it from a peer reviewed journal. Prove me wrong, by your own required methodlogy, Darway! Get right to it, and come back to us.

@GF - so Lowell is of the "Magnets, how do they work??!!??!" Bill O'Reilly School of Science.....

@Lowell - you don't get to just choose which sources you will accept based on what you consider "biases."

You make a statement that has no bearing on the smallpox eradication effort & then ask us to prove you wrong?

The eradication of the disease, plus the methodology used is public knowledge - you are an idiot.

Do you actually think you can find historically the percentage of small pox vaccination, given in any peer reviewed journal? if you want to refute my statement and you require that be done by referencing a peer reviewed journal to prove it; I suggest that it is then thus you that needs to prove what the actual small pox vaccination rate percentage was; and to do it from a peer reviewed journal. Prove me wrong, by your own required methodlogy, Darway! Get right to it, and come back to us.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22188930
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22486979

Gee, that was so hard.

Oh, so your name calling proves your point there, Science Mom? Wow, and thats all it takes?

Being you call yourself Science Mom??? Here is some real and unbiased science for you to review. I don't expect you to be there long, because I know people such as yourself simply can not tolerate real science, and you must ignore it. You will be right back ranting some more insults, and selectively forget all about it; just watch.

The Vaccine Damage Science
http://www.vacfacts.info/the-vaccine-damage---science.html

Vaccines Cause Autism and More - The Scientific Explanation
http://www.vacfacts.info/vaccines-cause-autism-and-more---the-scientifi…

Aluminum Vaccine Adjuvants
http://www.vacfacts.info/aluminum-vaccine-adjuvants.html

Gardasil -The Real Truth
http://www.vacfacts.info/gardasil---the-real-truth.html

Vaccine Production With - Human Diploid Cells (aborted fetal cell tissue)
http://www.vacfacts.info/vaccine-production-with---human-diploid-cells-…

"And what diseses can you prove have been eradicated by vaccination, and not natural immunity an/or diseasse cycles? Small pox vaccination rates were covering at best only 10% of the population. Both polio and small pox ended as well in countries with little to no vaccine ever used. Explain that?

Here's the percentage of the world's population, country-by-country, which have received 3 doses of polio vaccine.

http://apps.who.int/immunization_monitoring/en/globalsummary/timeseries…

The smallpox vaccine was part of the United States childhood schedule of vaccines until 1971...and it was required for school entry. Were 90 % of the children back then, not vaccinated against smallpox because their parents claimed religious or philosophical exemptions?

@Lowell - this one as well:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22188929

"Highly biased sources"

You mean like Vactruth.org, NVIC.org, Age of Autism, etc?

I'd agree - those are biased and worthless.

Oh, I almost glossed over this gem:

"Do you actually think you can find historically the percentage of small pox vaccination, given in any peer reviewed journal? if you want to refute my statement and you require that be done by referencing a peer reviewed journal to prove it; I suggest that it is then thus you that needs to prove what the actual small pox vaccination rate percentage was; and to do it from a peer reviewed journal."

That's not how it works - you make the claim, you provide the evidence.

You don't want to have to search for it, because you're:

A: Illiterate.
B: Lazy
C: Ignorant
D: All of the above.

I'm leaning towards option D.

@Darwy - Lowell doesn't know the difference between incidence rates & mortality rates and also believes that history has been systematically re-written to make diseases appear worse then they actually were.....and supposedly he has access to some "secret" knowledge about the true story of human history.....not exactly playing with a full deck.

@ Science Mom

Those two Pubmed studies do not show any percentages as I refered to. So you are and were asking for something from me, that you can not produce yourself? Imagine that?

Those two studies are not exactly both of them a story of success, if you actually read it. Polio is not small pox and were were as well talking about specifically small pox eradication worldwide. If you have so much faith in that polio eradication program that Bill gates has rolling, perhaps you have not been told about the cases of vaccine derived polio paralysis. What UNICEF and the WHO, etc. would never mislead anyone about their success, would they.

And guess what, my study comes right from Pubmed, too. This study is not any success story, by the way.

Indian J Med Ethics. 2012 Apr-Jun;9(2):114-7.
Polio programme: let us declare victory and move on.
Vashisht N, Puliyel J.

Source:Department of Paediatrics, St Stephens Hospital, Delhi 110054, India.

Abstract
It was hoped that following polio eradication, immunisation could be stopped. However the synthesis of polio virus in 2002, made eradication impossible. It is argued that getting poor countries to expend their scarce resources on an impossible dream over the last 10 years was unethical. Furthermore, while India has been polio-free for a year, there has been a huge increase in non-polio acute flaccid paralysis (NPAFP). In 2011, there were an extra 47,500 new cases of NPAFP. Clinically indistinguishable from polio paralysis but twice as deadly, the incidence of NPAFP was directly proportional to doses of oral polio received. Though this data was collected within the polio surveillance system, it was not investigated. The principle of primum-non-nocere was violated. The authors suggest that the huge bill of US$ 8 billion spent on the programme, is a small sum to pay if the world learns to be wary of such vertical programmes in the future.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22591873

@puppygod

And what diseases have been eradicated via “natural immunity”?

Black Death, probably.

Nope. Black Death, aka, plague, aka Yersinia pestis, is still around. But it is not particularly common and is very easily treated with antibiotics.

I wonder how Lowell would explain the eradication of rinderpest.

@ Lawrence

Thats a good one there Lawrence. When you can not actually respond in any honesty to the information; just make some mindlessly silly accusations up that have no basis in fact, and call it good. Nice job.

and we can not survive without endless toxic chemical

High irony coming from everyone's favorite serial DUIeur.

@Lowell - your history of comments more than speaks for itself....I hear the Illuminati are looking for a few good men, perhaps you should sign up?

"Furthermore, while India has been polio-free for a year, there has been a huge increase in non-polio acute flaccid paralysis (NPAFP)"

NPAFP is not polio. It's not caused by the polio virus. Again, you don't understand what you're reading - or you just don't care.

O_o Apparently they can also forgot the "resistant" part when it's convenient for them. Lowell, have you ever tried to stop, take a breath and read something without instantly falling into "Gaargh monkey foetuses!" rage?

The problem with "natural cycle of disease" is that the alternative is:
a) you're lucky, you get sick for couple of weeks but get better;
b) you're less lucky, you got sick, permanently damaged but somehow survive;
c) you're out of luck - proteins that were your body returns to great, all-natural nutrient cycle. That is, you die, naturally.
d) Nope. There is no d).

Frankly, none of the above is especially appealing. So thank you, I'll take the very unnatural vaccine full of homeopathic doses of toxic materials and two days of sore shoulder over any of the above.

Nope. Black Death, aka, plague, aka Yersinia pestis, is still around. But it is not particularly common and is very easily treated with antibiotics.

I thought that it was related, but distinct from Yersinia pestis variant that causes bubonic plague. I stand corrected.

@ Lawrence

Vaccine. 2011 Dec 30;29 Suppl 4:D7-9. Epub 2011 Dec 19.
The eradication of smallpox--an overview of the past, present, and future.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22188929

That study does not prove asnything. All it is - is the same old WHO claim with nothing to back it up, as always, and that we have heard 100 times before.

Sure is funny how correlation in you peoples world, always equals and implies causation; however when you turn that around correlation never equals anything when it comes to autism, and the vaccine harm, ever.

Lowell, what do you mean by "nothing to back it up?" I'd trust them over someone who never bothered to learn the first thing about vaccines.

@Darwy

“Furthermore, while India has been polio-free for a year, there has been a huge increase in non-polio acute flaccid paralysis (NPAFP)”

NPAFP is not polio. It’s not caused by the polio virus. Again, you don’t understand what you’re reading – or you just don’t care.

-------------

NPAFP is paralysis caused by the polio strain in the vaccine, and shedding because it is a live virus being used in a country that has in areas, far less than acceptable if not deporable sanitation and little access to drinking clean and non contaminated water.

When the numbers of paralytic polio, and that is what it is; equal or exceed the previous numbers of polio cases, that is NOT a success story, by the way. Are you making denial that the vaccine was the cause of that paralysis? Any reputable scientist and/or immunologist would not be able to nor would ever deny that cause. It is simply and commonly known fact.

Lowell, do you have any evidence for that accusation? I could just as easily say you were responsible for all the cases of NPAFP in India.

"same old WHO claim with nothing to back it up"

D. Henderson
Smallpox: the death of a disease
Prometheus Books, New York (2009)

[2]
F. Fenner, D.A. Henderson, I. Arita, Z. Jezek, I.D. Ladnyi
Smallpox and Its Eradication
World Health Organization, Geneva (1988)

Apparently the concept of references eludes you, Lowell.

Those two Pubmed studies do not show any percentages as I refered to. So you are and were asking for something from me, that you can not produce yourself? Imagine that?

Yes they do, you just don't like that they directly refute your stupid claims. Are you perchance Robert Prey also? You quote from the same silly Indian journal that doesn't know the difference between AFP and VDPD, both reportable as separate stats and hidden out in the open by the WHO. And your claims are eerily, similiarly stupid.

@Gray Falcon

Does THIS look Like I know nothing about vaccines?

http://www.vacfacts.info/index.html

How many vaccines did those CDC funded epidemiological studies actually look at? Answer, one; the MMR vaccine. How many vaccines did they look at? Answer is one, thimerosal. So are you going to tell me in honesty that you beleive that all the needed scicne is in and has been looked at? And you are going to tell me that because what? Because they told you so, and you beleived it, right? Exactly.

Deny it all you want. You can stay a sheeple, or you can learn of the real science that they selectively ignore; and as well the facts and truth they must ignore; your choice.

Does THIS look Like I know nothing about vaccines?

Yes.

Causes of non-polio acute flaccid paralysis: non-polio enteroviruses!

NPAFP is paralysis caused by the polio strain in the vaccine

No, it's not, you fucking moron. That's what the name means. If you had the fucking wits to examine the surveillance reports, you'd know that the cases are laboratory-tested and that both VDPV and NPEV cases are broken out separately.

High irony coming from everyone’s favorite serial DUIeur.

Oh is this the same bloke? Oh this is rich; someone with multiple drunken driving offences, with obviously no regard for what excessive alcohol does to the body, no regard for anyone else's safety going on about "toxic" and "ineffective" vaccines. Uneducable for certain.

@Science Mom

So now you are even making denial that those 47,500 new cases of NPAFP, actually happened? So you waht do you think is the real story; that they made it all up? They lied about it? Really? Why would they do that? Thats what you are telling me, quite obviously. Oh it is a success story because of what? Polio went down while vaccine caused and vaccine strain polio caused 47,500 new cases of NPAFP, in just the country of India alone. So, do you feel then that you can and should ignore all that, because such collateral damage is acceptable in the so called eradication of polio in those countries? Thats what you are telling me, correct?

And more enteroviruses!

@Lowell:

So now you are even making denial that those 47,500 new cases of NPAFP, actually happened? So you waht do you think is the real story; that they made it all up? They lied about it? Really? Why would they do that? Thats what you are telling me, quite obviously. Oh it is a success story because of what? Polio went down while vaccine caused and vaccine strain polio caused 47,500 new cases of NPAFP, in just the country of India alone. So, do you feel then that you can and should ignore all that, because such collateral damage is acceptable in the so called eradication of polio in those countries? Thats what you are telling me, correct?

No, we're saying the cause was something else entirely. Now, are really stupid enough to lie about what somebody said in a comment thread people can read simply by scrolling upwards?

Is this you Lowell Hubbs? http://vaccineconspiracytheorist.blogspot.com/2010/10/lowell-hubbs-self…

Four DUIs in South Dakota; that ain't easy to do.

Lowell, the phrase 'correlation does not necessarily mean causation' means something.

It's not just a magical talisman skeptics use to ignore whatever nonsense you have made up or heard of regarding vaccines & autism.

Yes, Lowell--yes it does make you look like you know nothing about vaccines.

Polio went down while vaccine caused and vaccine strain polio caused 47,500 new cases of NPAFP, in just the country of India alone

Here, jackass, 2011:

AFP cases with stool specimens 38,449
Culture positive for poliovirus 1461
Positive for poliovirus + NPEV 230
NPEV 8400
No poliovirus or NPEV 26,558

So now you are even making denial that those 47,500 new cases of NPAFP, actually happened? So you waht do you think is the real story; that they made it all up? They lied about it? Really? Why would they do that? Thats what you are telling me, quite obviously. Oh it is a success story because of what? Polio went down while vaccine caused and vaccine strain polio caused 47,500 new cases of NPAFP, in just the country of India alone. So, do you feel then that you can and should ignore all that, because such collateral damage is acceptable in the so called eradication of polio in those countries? Thats what you are telling me, correct?

What part of NPAFP and VDPV being different stats are you having trouble with? http://www.npspindia.org/Surveillance%20Strategy.asp

@lowell

Using vacfacts does make you look like an ignorant idiot.

@ Todd W.

The study compared NPEV isolates AFP cases and were done in north and South America; what the study termed the Americas. India is a long way from there, and is an entirely seperate continent. There has been no refute of that India study as to the claims of it being exactly that new cases of NPAFP, vaccine polio strain derived. Like I said, the same thing has been found to be resulting from use of the live oral polio vaccine in Africa, etc.

^ That was 2012 through September 15, actually.

Using vacfacts does make you look like an ignorant idiot.

Vacfacs-dot-info is Lowell.

@ novalox

Will I need to list and excerpt every scientific study thats on that site for you; because you failed to even look and acknowledge what is really there? Why do you not go to that site and look at all those endless said studies; and then provide me some refute of that information, by presenting your own counter studies supplied by Big Pharma, the CDC, and Paul Offit. It should not be a problem at all for you to provide me one single aluminum adjuvant safety study , should it? Unless, there are none that exist? Get started, as all you and several others here have done so far, is throw personally attacking and false discreditation mud and poo, like a child. What you have going on here is clearly not very impressive.

Get started, as all you and several others here have done so far, is throw personally attacking and false discreditation mud and poo, like a child. What you have going on here is clearly not very impressive.

No you drunken sot; real peer-reviewed studies and reputable sites have been provided along with your stellar (factual) qualifications as a paragon of humanity and intelligence.

@Lowell

So, you're saying that non-polio enteroviruses couldn't possibly cause any AFP in India? Also, you didn't seem to look at my second link.

@ Science Mom

No actually that is not me, regarding your url.

This is me responding with the facts, right here; making the author of that blog look like the real fool that is is; and showing again and again the error in his false claims. Sorry, but your false, personally attacking, and intended false discreditation smoke screen won't work. Not for anyone that is actually paying attention.

The Vaccine Truth Denialist

A blog describing the actions, lies, and continual hypocrisy of pro-vaccination denialists.

http://vaccinetruthdenialist.blogspot.com/

It is best to ignore Mr. Hubbs. He has a long and storied history, and is more than likely in need of some serious psychological intervention. He is much like Thingy.

By the way, Science Mom. I no longer do any of the above; and has been 6 years. Your claim is entirely irrelevant. As well as being a very sick and desperate attempt at false discreditation. Do you have a problem in dealing with just the facts. One angry bird, aren't you.

@lowell

You made theasertion, you provide the evidence.

Simple as that.

And every piece of "evidence" that you have pathetically attempted to provide has been shot down rather easily.

And BTW, the old pharma shill gambit that you tired to attempt makes you look even more ignonant than usual.

But do please post again, I do like an ignorant fool for the laughs, and you seem like the perfect one for some lulz.

No actually that is not me, regarding your url.

Fuck you. Nobody but nobody cites the mess that is vacfacts.info except for Lowell Hubbs.

@ Chris

All of it is filled with B.S and lies, as a fact. Every page of it. You see, Costner is very angry as well, just like you are about the truth I put forth. So, what did he do? He has created a personally attacking blog that has gone on now for over 2 years, and with some over 80 titled pages of that same personal attack.

Now, we are talking about here your promotion of a blog where that man is so obscessed with me, he created 80 titles pages attacking me; one after another. Now, who do you think is really in need of some serious psychological evaluation and intervention??? That answer should be obvious to you.

My blog is in reponse to that blog; however I only counter for the most part in my pages, the misinformation and bullcrap he has going on with his claims as to the medical and vaccine subject matters. And you what; I really do a good job of that too.

Just look.

The Vaccine Truth Denialist

A blog describing the actions, lies, and continual hypocrisy of pro-vaccination denialists.

http://vaccinetruthdenialist.blogspot.com/

Lowell, Costner has physical evidence backing up his statements.

@ Science Mom

What part of NPAFP and VDPV being different stats are you having trouble with? http://www.npspindia.org/Surveillance%20Strategy.asp

Oh, there is some significant difference? Thats what you are tryting to tell me? Really? No, I don't think there is actually much of any difference, and all comes from the same source, the oral polio vaccine; inappropriately used in an underdeveloped country with less than adequate sanitation. then add a little malnutrition. The polio virus has as well in those countries has as well been said to be seen mutations where due to the situation with the oral vaccine. thats all they need; potentially creating a far more deadly and a world wide spread of super strain polio. Don't think it won't happen.

The mainstream media has been busy hailing the supposed success of India’s polio vaccine campaign over the past few years, with many news outlets now claiming that the disease has been fully eradicated throughout the country. But what these misinformation puppets are failing to disclose is the fact that cases of non-polio acute flaccid paralysis (NPAFP), a much more serious condition than that caused by polio, have skyrocketed as a result of the vaccine’s widespread administration.

A recent report published in the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics (IJME) explains that, clinically, NPAFP is indistinguishable from polio paralysis. But according to the Office of Medical & Scientific Justice (OMSJ), NPAFP is twice as deadly as polio paralysis, and yet was not even an issue in India prior to the rollout of the massive polio vaccine campaigns.

In 2011, for instance, the year in which India was declared to be polio-free, there were 47,500 known cases of NPAFP, which is a shockingly high figure under the circumstances. And based on data collected from India’s National Polio Surveillance Project, cases of NPAFP across India rose dramatically in direct proportion to the number of polio vaccines administered, which suggests that the vaccines were responsible for spurring the rapid spread of this deadly condition.

Similarly, cases of vaccine-associated polio paralysis (VAPP), a condition in which paralytic symptoms similar or identical to those caused by wild-type polio manifest themselves following the administration of polio vaccines, are also on the rise. Not only are the paralysis symptoms associated with NPAFP and VAPP typically far worse than those brought about by wild-type polio, but they can also accompany other negative side effects including neurological damage.

Far from being a success, in other words, India’s polio vaccine campaign appears to have induced a new epidemic of a much worse type of polio-related paralysis that is even more deadly than the first one. And based on the figures, overall rates of NPAFP in particular are now 12 times higher in India following the polio vaccine campaigns, with some areas of the country reporting rates as elevated as 35 times higher.

Lowell, would you trust a car salesman who had no idea what an "engine" is? This is why nobody believes you.

Heres a further link to that, Science Mom
http://gdsajj.wordpress.com/tag/npafp/

How much scienced do you actually have to support the safety and effectivenss of multiple, repeat vaccines; Science Mom?

Would you produce for me at least on single vaccine aluminum adjuvant safety study? You can go to the site and see exactly what you are up against with that; just thought I would ask if you had any?

@ Grey Felcon

Unfortunately for you, and as a fact there are numerous people that believe me. Quite obviously as well there is not and never was in existence and any actual question of disbelieving me. The fact is, the entire vaccine issue is not even about me personally. You have alot of real science in front of you, showing the exact mechanisms and the processes of vaccine harm neurologically and to the brain; and as well directly related to ASD. If you had actually looked at it all it is an extremely damning expose on vaccines; like it or not; and deny it all you want. Are you making denial as well as to large the vaccin e truth movement has grown? People are fed up with these promoted as safe and effective endless vaccines, and so many children being vaccine damaged, and it all going on being denied as to the cause.

Just because you refuse to face the facts, and instead as all die hard vacine harm denalists do; choose to attack my personal credibility, instead of debating the information and science put forth itself; that certainly does not even come close in itself to any form of debate nor refute of the information.

Lowell, you claimed that our stance was "no one has a functional immune system", when, in fact, vaccines work because of the immune system. From there, one can conclude anything else you say has no merit. Frankly, I'm not even trying to convince you or anyone else, I'm just keeping you away from the more interesting threads.

@Gray Falcon

11:36 am
Lowell, Costner has physical evidence backing up his statements.

----------------

Physical evidence of what? A crime?

He Costner, is so sick that what he has done is put copies of legal documents up on his blog, that are nothing more than an eviction proceeding for non payment. At a property where the landlord conducted illegal and perverted surveillance and is not getting paid; he is likey going to be counter sued.

Those documents have not been in its matters even heard yet by a court. Those documents were hacked from the plaintiffs legal office, and the other document hacked from my word computer file I used to draw it up. Now, is any of this personal business any of your concern, Grey Falcon; and should it be? Were we not debating the issue of vaccines? So, how do you suggest it came to involve this matter? And you are fishing for some accusation as to something wrong with me, so hard; in the form of false discreditation here; that you will use any form of mud and poo you can grab onto. Am I right; of course I am. Sick stuff.

Lowell, if I needed evidence that there was something wrong with you, I'd just link people to this thread. (Sorry, I had to say it.)

@ Gray Falcon

No, that was not my stance; that was your stance; at least get that much right. Vaccines cause immune system depletion, dysregulation; overactivation of the brains microglia, resulting brain inflammation, ASD, neurological damage and a whole lot of not good things. But by the time you figure that out hell will have liong froze over. Go check out my site if you think there is no scinece to back what I just stated. Or do I need to excerpt every study to you?

Unfortunately for you, and as a fact there are numerous people that believe me.

Lowell, the only time that anyone pays you the slightest bit of attention is when you take it into what remains of your head to pop up someplace and loudly make an ass of yourself. The antivax types need a self-discrediting nitwit like you about as much as they need David Icke hanging around and babbling about reptilian shape-shifters.

Vaccines work precisely because our immune systems function. They work on the same processes as natural immunity does: 'Training' the immune system to produce effective antibodies. We use vaccines because they produce immunity with little or no prospect of serious illness. Serious illness is exactly what we're trying to prevent. Developing immunity isn't the goal, it's the means. The goal is preventing death and morbidity.

Vaccination is like basic training for soldiers: They're not likely to die or be seriously injured on the training grounds. They get to study and perform target practice on dead/weakened viruses and find the best weapon (antibody) for that particular virus. When the real enemy attacks, they have a better idea of what to do. They don't have to learn this part in the middle of a life-and-death struggle.

Natural immunity that comes from getting the disease is like throwing untrained soldiers directly onto the battlefield. Sure, the survivors are going to learn how to fight that particular enemy, but are the casualties really necessary? Diseases maim and kill. This is known. This is why we fight them. Natural selection works, but it's an ugly, messy process, and we want something better. We're not savage beasts. We care about the well being of our weaker brethren.

The people who crow about natural immunity from being infected have their means and goals reversed: They essentially want to use serious illness as the means to the goal of immunity.

"Vaccines cause immune system depletion, dysregulation; overactivation of the brains microglia, resulting brain inflammation, ASD, neurological damage and a whole lot of not good things."

Wow. A statement without any evidence to back it up. I guess all the doctors, health care workers, scientists and public health officials must believe you now.

Piece of advice, it would help if you actually understand the papers you reference before using them as "evidence". Good luck.

No, that was not my stance; that was your stance; at least get that much right.

Your statement "no one has a functional immune system" was a direct quote from you. None of us said anything like it, you just act like we did.

Similarly, cases of vaccine-associated polio paralysis (VAPP), a condition in which paralytic symptoms similar or identical to those caused by wild-type polio manifest themselves following the administration of polio vaccines, are also on the rise.

I hate to break it to you, Lowell, but this cut-and-paste assertion from Natural News is simply made up. There's no documentation whatever for it. Vashist & Puliyel mention John Greenleaf Whittier more frequently than they do VAPP.

Lowell uses the Monkey Method for 'proof'.

Fling enough sh*t at the wall and hope some of it sticks.

@ Science Mom
No actually that is not me, regarding your url.

By the way, Science Mom. I no longer do any of the above; and has been 6 years. Your claim is entirely irrelevant.

One of these things is not like the other Lowell Hubbs DUIer. And it's entirely relevant; someone with no regard for the safety of others racking up at least 4 DUIs and not remotely pensive about it doesn't get to act concerned about children via rubbish spewed about vaccines.

He Costner, is so sick that what he has done is put copies of legal documents up on his blog, that are nothing more than an eviction proceeding for non payment. At a property where the landlord conducted illegal and perverted surveillance and is not getting paid; he is likey going to be counter sued.

The text is quite clear you filthy drunken loser; it contains your DUI indictment along with your own guilty plea.

@ Science Mom

What part of NPAFP and VDPV being different stats are you having trouble with? http://www.npspindia.org/Surveillance%20Strategy.asp

Oh, there is some significant difference? Thats what you are tryting to tell me? Really? No, I don’t think there is actually much of any difference, and all comes from the same source, the oral polio vaccine; inappropriately used in an underdeveloped country with less than adequate sanitation.

Given that the samples are tested and reported, you simply wave them away, the onus is upon you to get your lowlife drunken arse to Nigeria, Pakistan and Afghanistan to test stool samples yourself and publish the results. Until then STFU.

People are fed up with these promoted as safe and effective endless vaccines, and so many children being vaccine damaged, and it all going on being denied as to the cause.

I'd say a helluva lot more are fed up with boozey losers like you getting behind the wheel of a car. You don't get to advocate for anyone lush bucket.

Important fundamental/epistemological question for anti-vaxxers: How do you establish causation?

I don't mean vaccines, I mean causation in general. How would you prove with confidence that Cause A leads to Effect B, if we're talking something medical/biological in complexity?

For Lowell, that's simple.

It's always the fault of the vaccine, the CDC, Big Pharma, the FDA, the government and chemtrails - regardless of the issue. Exposure to or use of anything promoted, sold, marketed, or related to the above entities is always causative for anything which is 'wrong' with a person.

Did I leave anything out?

@lowell

Go check out my site if you think there is no scinece to back what I just stated. Or do I need to excerpt every study to you?

I just did. The stupidity that you possess, it burns pretty mightily.

Do you even have an iota of what the hell you are talking about? Certainly, if I wanted to point out to other people how NOT to read scientific papers, you'd be a prime example.

Narad, would you go to my blog and shoot me an email please? Top right "Contact us". Thanks.

I'm afraid that Lowell is too far gone to be *helped*.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernicke%E2%80%93Korsakoff_syndrome

Narad, would you go to my blog and shoot me an email please?

The chair is against the wall.

Thanks.

@ Orac

You made the below and following comments.

Quote:
While it’s true that the latest pertussis outbreaks are mainly in vaccinated populations (as I discussed quit recently), unvaccinated children are still 23 times more likely to get pertussis. Unquote

Do you have any specific and actual data to make that false and clearly unproven claim?

-------------

Sure thing. I blogged the study three years ago.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/05/26/one-more-time-vaccine-refu…

-------------

Regarding your blog page presented as that said docmented proof, I would call your attention to the below article that is a mainstay to this said type of claim; which appears for the most part, the front line of your said blog article.

Did you by any chance actually read the well done expose by both Hilary Butler, and David S. Fostner, in the (Responses to this article) section? As a fact those analysis clearly blow that study in the dirt as near worthless and unreliable. The reasons are outlined very well, and you can deny it all you want.

You will find them on this page.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/123/6/1446.abstract/reply…

Article
Parental Refusal of Pertussis Vaccination Is Associated With an Increased Risk of Pertussis Infection in Children

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/123/6/1446.abstract

Hilary Butler?

You're kidding, right?

You mean this Hilary Butler?

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/08/09/a-sad-premature-death-cyni…

You owe me a new keyboard, as I just spit up a whole bunch of iced tea I was drinking on it in paroxysms of laughter.

Just wait Orac

He'll pull out Blaylock, King and Shaw too.

He seems to think that a published 'response' in a journal is more than a simple letter to the editor. It isn't science - and in the case of dear Hilarious Hilary - he seems to think she's qualified to discuss vaccinations.

Then again, he thinks HE'S qualified to discuss vaccinations.

Say Lowell.... are you still going on about two forms of CH2O?

Lowell...anyone who has an entire page devoted to her at whale.to must be *an expert*.

http://www.whale.to/vaccines/butler3.html

@Science Mom

Quite clearly your little extended personally attacking expose above; quite obviously unknown to you, only exposes and outlines the nature of your own very unstable state of mind, Science Mom. Your attacking and angry state of mind is misdirected, and only redirects your persistent any denial of the vaccine facts, to a person who did not create those facts, nor the misguided and to much to lose vaccine promoting world you live in.

Quote:
The text is quite clear you filthy drunken loser; it contains your DUI indictment along with your own guilty plea. Unquote

Actually it apears that you did not even read what was there, and that was a jury trial in March of 2006. No one ever goes to actual trial on such a matter, if you know you were guilty. In fact I knew that charge was false for many reasons; and it turns out that it was a payoff done by someone I had never known was after me. The very sick and high dollar criminalized life he was leading provided him with major amounts of money that he had access to. It was a false charge, and is as well why I also went all the way to the federal court with it. Any previous charge to that was actually over 10 years ago. I have had 6 years go by since then; and thus your claims are misdirected and as I said irrelevant. You do not actually have a clue, nor could you. You simply assume and put forth whatever fits your needed agenda, no matter how obviously desperate.

People like you when you can not actually respond in honesty to the information and the science put forth; immediately go on to dig and grap for poo to throw, like a bratty child. It as well really does not speak well for the credibility of the pro vax side; because these are the continual tactics they use and are thus obviously put in a position where is follows through to that resulting outcome. This blog article is the perfect example of that occurance.

Regarding your blog page presented as that said docmented proof, I would call your attention to the below article that is a mainstay to this said type of claim; which appears for the most part, the front line of your said blog article.

WTF is this, your Rumpole of the Bailey impression?

No, Narad - he really IS that crazy.

Lowell,

When the numbers of paralytic polio, and that is what it is; equal or exceed the previous numbers of polio cases, that is NOT a success story, by the way.

I've said this before, and no doubt I'll say it again, but if you look at the numbers of polio cases found by active surveillance in say, 1978, you find that incidence approached 1 in 100 in some areas with rural areas at around 4.6 per 1000. Incidence of non-polio AFP was about 0.33 per 1000.

Let's see how many cases of polio and non-polio AFP we would see of they were currently at the same incidence they were in 1978. Since the population of India is now 1.24 billion and the birth rate is 22.22 births/1,000 population, there must be at least 135 million children aged 5 and under. If 1 in 100 of those had polio there would be over 1 million of them. Even taking the lower rural figure of 4.6 cases per 1,000 there should be 620,000 of them. We would expect to see 44,550 cases of AFP.

Active surveillance last year found 60,000 cases of AFP and no cases of polio, so it looks as if polio cases have fallen dramatically, by about a million, and AFP cases have stayed about the same.

And based on the figures, overall rates of NPAFP in particular are now 12 times higher in India following the polio vaccine campaigns, with some areas of the country reporting rates as elevated as 35 times higher.

That is clearly untrue, there are about a million fewer cases of polio (adjusted for population increase) than there were before the eradication program was started. Comparing passive surveillance figures with active surveillance figures and then claiming that they show an increase is laughably dumb.

Claiming that AFP is actually polio is just ignorant. Apparently you know nothing at all about diagnostic testing for polio and other enteroviruses.

Did you by any chance actually read the well done expose by both Hilary Butler, and David S. Fostner, in the (Responses to this article) section?

Lowell, could you please tell us what their qualifications are?

Actually it apears that you did not even read what was there, and that was a jury trial in March of 2006. No one ever goes to actual trial on such a matter, if you know you were guilty. In fact I knew that charge was false for many reasons; and it turns out that it was a payoff done by someone I had never known was after me. The very sick and high dollar criminalized life he was leading provided him with major amounts of money that he had access to. It was a false charge, and is as well why I also went all the way to the federal court with it. Any previous charge to that was actually over 10 years ago.

Wow, that's some grade-A craxxy right there.

People like you when you can not actually respond in honesty to the information and the science put forth; immediately go on to dig and grap for poo to throw, like a bratty child. It as well really does not speak well for the credibility of the pro vax side; because these are the continual tactics they use and are thus obviously put in a position where is follows through to that resulting outcome. This blog article is the perfect example of that occurance.

I have posted numerous sources for you to reject and your criminal record does, in fact, go to your (complete and utter lack of) credibility and sanity. AFP =/= VDPV and the onus is on you to prove otherwise if you don't like how experts are conducting and reporting it. Not just sit on your drunken arse bitching about it. Yea, I don't like drunks, not many do so suck it up buttercup.

Would it be unethical if I cut-and-paste (or screen-shoot) Lowell's comments for a lecture on mental disease that I'm working on? I'd block out his name, of course.

@Orac

Thats right, Hilary Butler. But of course the first thing you do instead of actually adressing the information she put forth in that analysis, and debating it on an honest level; you simply and as always, simply proceed to a personal attack. Then as evidence of your claims you only then offer and promote another page of your additionally personally attacking and twisted nonsense. Why can you not actually address the specific analysis, Orac? Your blog is nothing but a twisted expose of what ifs and speculation, on every front. Is there anyone anywhere on earth that promotes alternative information, protocols; and as well alternative unbiased science and analysis; that you have not personally attacked that in your blog pages here?

In that blog page you created on Hilary Butler, all you did was another what if, and if they did that, or if this happened it means, and if this or that did or didnt happen, there i NO proof of anything. You simply made denial that the death of Jasmine Renata New Zealand, as due to Gardasil. Further you went on to attack the personal credibility of and as well the work of Mr. Sin Hang Lee and his testing device in the determination of existing HPV typing and as well regarding his finding of the said Gardasil HPV contamination. One thing you can not deny is how similar many of those young womens deaths are after the HPV vaccine; and as well how similar the unrecovered outcomes are. You can not deny that in any honesty if you actually of knowledge of the situation.

You are simply a denialist of all opposing claims and fact, Orac. A denialist with all your to much lose and following minions in tow. You are here to keep the sheeple being sheeple; but I can tell you from what I see and do see of it; the people that really want the truth do not and are not following you. Wake up and take a look at what is here. It is a literal snake pit of false personal attack on credibility, and denial on all, and on all fronts.

This is Hilary Butlers website. She does not appear to be misinformed whatsoever. In fact she appears to be very well educated regarding the facts and truth of vaccinations. You can hate it, deny it; talk your crap all you want. people that want the truth do not come to this blog; or if they do they do not stay long. What I think is so telling as well is how when the to much to lose vaccine promoters get stuck and with no way to find any science nor data to support their claims, they go straight to you and up comes one of your blog pages on the reply post. The most hilarious thing is that they actually beleive that your material actually contains factual data, and science to back their claim. Nothing is further from the truth. You are a fraud that just keeps leading the mislead.

Oh, and here is that site link. Looks pretty precise, intelligent, and informed, to me. Three spins of the scramble dictionary select the words wheel and here go with the smart attacking phrases, and here you go again with more of your in the dirt attacks.

http://www.beyondconformity.co.nz/

Lowell, Orac,

“You mean this Hilary Butler?”

I’m quite familiar with that woman’s output. For a sample, try my post Bad science: baking soda, fungi, cancer, nuclear fallout, rosacea. She believes baking soda will cure cancer, that cancer is a fungal infection, offers homeopathetic remedies radiation sickness, etc. (Oh, darn, I keep doing this Freudian thing and typing 'homeopathetic' for 'homeopathic', but it suits, eh?!) The whole nine yards, in other words. (She had a *lot* to say on the Jasmine Renata case at the time her mother filed the CARM report, too, but hasn't strikingly said a single word around the time of the coroner’s inquest.)

@ Science Mom

You have nothing here that I have not responded to; as a fact.

Like I said, between you and I; the only person repeatedly proving yourselves to be crazy and unfit to debate any of these vaccine related issues at all, is clearly you.

I am not here to debate my life story, so you can keep on twisting it all and lying about someone you actually have no clue; such like myself. I a not about to go any further with that while you yourself have no real identity of your own to draw from. For a lack of better available terms; that is clearly more than just a bit sick on your part. I am here to to address the issues of vaccines; and not anyones personal business which is certain irrelevant to issues. Truth is truth no matter who puts it forth.

Actually, looking at her comment I feel like writing to the editor of that journal.

Hilary has described herself as 'freelance journalist/writer' and declared no conflicts of interest.

She runs several anti-vaccine forums and was the founder of the Immunization Awareness Society. Doesn't this have her lying to the readers there? (Or are running organsations/fora somehow except as COIs - I'd like to think not, but...)

That this Lowell guy can described beyondconformity as “pretty precise, intelligent, and informed,” is hilarious. Hilary’s posts there are extended rants, complete with strange emphasis styling (weird underlining, emboldening, and whatnot). Like I said, I quite familiar with them.

Related, but slightly to one side, I once dissected a ‘rebuttal’ of a post of mine that the IAS spokesperson of the time wrote (Hilary is founder of IAS they hold her up on a pedestal and cite her frequently). I never did publish it, despite >4800 words of effort, as every last claim was wrong and it would take a huge amount of time to present the correct counterparts. (I prefer to offer the corrected story in addition to showing the errors.)

Point is, beyondconformity it’s ilk (e.g. IAS in this case) are not sound sources of medical information.

@ Bronze Dog

3:09 pm
Important fundamental/epistemological question for anti-vaxxers: How do you establish causation?

I don’t mean vaccines, I mean causation in general. How would you prove with confidence that Cause A leads to Effect B, if we’re talking something medical/biological in complexity?

------------------------

How about the studies on this site that were put in front of you, and which you ingored? Would any of that equal causation in a rational mind; or should it? How much would be enough? Please provide me all of the aluminum adjuvant safety studies that you have, Bronze Dog! But of course Paul Offit and the CDC have not acknowledged the existence of those studies. Even so, for the sake of the children and the general public; can you come up with one single reason that those studies should not recieve serious consideration and follow up studies funded by the CDC and done with overight from independant scientists?

Being that the CDC clearly in their own documents, admits to the lack of aluminum and aluminum adjuvant safety data; should this not be imperative? Would anything less, be irresponsible; after 80 years of giving any form of aluminum at all an approval stap of (GRAS), generally regarded as safe. That has rating has existed as a fact since 1929, an no safety studies have been done and by the CDC's own admission, no sufficient safety data collected. But you would not know that if you had never done any unbiased investigative research. If you never questioned anything as it stands by them as promoted to the public. But I am the person you must make look crazy and throw personal insults at here on this blog; and dig for any dirt on. Do the facts matter? How about for the endless numbers of families with vaccine damaged children, that trusted the CDC and FDA? Should the truth matter for them. They should continue to trust everything they were told about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines; even after their child with diagnosed ASD is healed and returned to them, by means of properly done biomedical treatment. If you all had you way, the child would remain on pharma drugs and without hope the rest of their life; because you must deny it. There is to much to lose, and in facing the truth. The CDC denies it all, and so can you...keep on rolling.

Looks pretty precise, intelligent, and informed, to me.

Perhaps you could switch to Muse and be able to tell yourself the same thing. The aesthetics of George Hutchins seem more contitutionally suitable, though.

@ Bronze Dog

Check out the pages of that site, and see how much real and damning vaccine harm science is there. Now, as long as you have nothing to counter that with, for available safety science; or can come up with some; I suggest that it stands as is and as said should not be continued to be ignored by the CDC. Nothing is ever going to be enough; as there is simply to much for them to lose.

Vaccines Cause Autism and More - The Scientific Explanation
http://www.vacfacts.info/vaccines-cause-autism-and-more---the-scientifi…

Grant:

(Or are running organsations/fora somehow except as COIs – I’d like to think not, but…)

Apparently it is a COI. Neil Miller failed to declare his association in a paper (one that was discussed here). So a Corrigendum was issued:

Affiliations

The Authors’ affiliations were published as:

Neil Z Miller, Independent researcher, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA Gary S Goldman, Independent computer scientist, Pearblossom, California, USA

However, for the purposes of this publication the correct affiliations are as follows:

Neil Z Miller, Think Twice Global Vaccine Institute, USA Gary S Goldman, Computer scientist, Pearblossom, California, USA

Declaration of Conflict of Interest

No declaration of Conflict of Interest was made at the time of submission. The Authors would like to make the following declaration at this time:

Neil Z Miller is associated with the ‘Think Twice Global Vaccine Institute’. Gary S Goldman has not been associated with the ‘World Association for Vaccine Education’ (WAVE) for more than four years but was, at the time of publication of the article, still listed as a Director for it on the WAVE website.

@ Krebiozen

J Hyg (Lond). 1978 October; 81(2): 179–187. (your study)

Your data is irrelevant because you are appropriately supposed to be addressing the current data and situation in India, dated 2011; NOT the said and claimed to situation in 1978, 40 years ago.

You will recall that I put forth a pubmed study as well, in regard to those numbers.

Thanks Chris. Maybe I'll get around to pointing it out to them. (Need to write a few others, too, e.g. re Lee's new ‘Gardasil test’. Am hoping Orac will find time to poke into the neck of the woods. Someone suggested Lee’s sequence analysis is flawed - if I can find time (ha!) I'll look into that aspect.) Can't help noticing how Lowell is now trying to walk around his error without mentioning it. Par for the course, I guess - sigh.

@ Grant

You see, you have a just a bit of a significant problem yet here. You have yet to address specifically any of Hilary Butlers information that I put in front of you. Is there a reason that you are unable to do that, or to complete any of that?

Simply stating, [Actually, looking at her comment I feel like writing to the editor of that journal.]; that does not actually address any of the information that she put into that said analysis of the study. Now does it? All you are conducting is a dancing around the actual issue, frivilous, and nonspecific to the actual issue and information; nit picking at it all and her and anything as well unrelated, attack on her personally. Appearing all of it to be quite baseless at that.

If they can not address the message and information, they will attempt to discredit the messenger by whatever means they have. Better known as shooting the messenger.

Lowell,

Your data is irrelevant because you are appropriately supposed to be addressing the current data and situation in India, dated 2011; NOT the said and claimed to situation in 1978, 40 years ago.

I am "addressing the current data and situation in India, dated 2011" i.e. 60,540 cases of AFP. You are the one who claimed that "overall rates of NPAFP in particular are now 12 times higher in India following the polio vaccine campaigns, with some areas of the country reporting rates as elevated as 35 times higher". I looked at the polio and non-polio AFP prevalence found during an active surveillance study in 1978, before the polio vaccine campaigns, and compared them to the polio and non-polio AFP prevalence found last year, according to the WHO, and found that your claims are incorrect. What is "irrelevant" about that?

There are several similar studies from the pre-vaccination campaign period on PubMed, and they found a similar prevalence of polio and AFP. Your claims are simply wrong.

@ Ren:

I find it useful to state that I would NEVER presume diagnosing someone over the internet but that perhaps I should instead allow his own unique expressions to speak directly on his behalf. I wouldn't cut and paste but copy his exact words, blocking out the name, of course.

Because you are in a different profession, you have more leeway. Much more.

@ Grant:

I often stop myself from typing *homeopathetic* as well. Freudian slips speak volumes.

@ Grant

What error is that you are claiming I walked around? Perhaps you should first provide a question. Go ahead an outline that. It seems to me that the only one walking and actually dancing around the information in front of you, is you. But then you mind you will never have to address anything directly, if you can falsely discredit every last source
of information that does not fit your agenda.

You were lied to. And you bought the lies and misinformation they that have obviously to much to lose, told you and and fed you; you should get just a bit more honest, and face that.

Sin Hang Lee MD: Why Ethics Don’t Pay
http://www.omsj.org/blogs/sin-hang-lee-md-why-ethics-don%E2%80%99t-pay

Sin Hang Lee? On ethics? There goes another irony meter...

Lowell,

“You see, you have a just a bit of a significant problem yet here.”

Oh, I love the ever-so condescending tone you use. Bit silly to accuse others and do that.

“You have yet to address specifically any of Hilary Butlers information that I put in front of you.”

I could, but it’d be a waste of time given what her standards are. (I pointed out her wayward believes and nonsense. Those are her statements speaking freely for herself.) I note you haven’t addressed any of what I put forward, so you’re not in a position to complain. (FWIW, I have actually run into her key claims there before and they illustrate that she can’t read scientific papers.)

“Simply stating, [Actually, looking at her comment I feel like writing to the editor of that journal.]; that does not actually address any of the information that she put into that said analysis of the study.”

Wrong-headed. I never said that would - I was pointing at her COI statement and description of herself.

I haven’t nitpicked either - notice you’re contradicting yourself there, doubly. You can't have me both not addressing her claims and nitpicking them. A COI is a serious matter, not a nitpick.

“attack on her personally.”

I addressed what she writes - freely by her own hand: pure nonsense.

I note you are studiously avoiding my and Orac’s main message - that you erred in offering her as a credible source.

You were lied to. And you bought the lies and misinformation they that have obviously to much to lose, told you and and fed you; you should get just a bit more honest, and face that.

Indeed. Just man up and blame it on the landlord's "perverted surveillance."

Krebiozen,

I’ll say. Mind you, Lowell is already blowing an irony meter. Not sure I have many left. *looks around*

Must get onto Lee’s recent paper on his method to ‘test’ Gardasil.

Lowell,

“What error is that you are claiming I walked around?” --> “that you erred in offering her [Hilary Butler] as a credible source.”

You have nothing here that I have not responded to; as a fact.

Au contraire; I asked you what Hilary Butler's and David S. Fostner's qualifications were and you haven't answered.

You may also procede to answer how polio testing is conducted and the deficits of it. You can use big technical words too.

Denice Walter:

I find it useful to state that I would NEVER presume diagnosing someone over the internet but that perhaps I should instead allow his own unique expressions to speak directly on his behalf. I wouldn’t cut and paste but copy his exact words, blocking out the name, of course.

You should find this person very interesting. I am now finding it painful since it is too familiar.

Anj above said:
"I can’t imagine NOT vaccinating a dog against rabies"

...there are people who refuse to vaccinate their pets, too.

Not just dogs, but also cats, horses. Can you imagine a rabid horse? I know someone who had to get post-exposure treatment for rabies in the 70's because it wasn't yet common to vaccinate horses against it. Yeeeesh.

@ Krebiozen

51 035 cases of AFP appear in this document (p 578) for India in 2011, and the in 2011. The figure of 86 638 was listed globally. My point is and always was exactly this. Quite obviously they should not be using the live oral polio vaccine in countries with less than adequate sanitation, due to shedding. That should be obvious. Perhaps you feel that as long as you can show that polio cases dropped and at the same time you believe that AFP stayed, or at least if they can show that AFP stayed approximately at the same rate; that somehow that kind of collateral damage is ok, and worth it. As if there is no other way. Why can not Gates and his chronies and with all of his money he is spending, help provide the killed or semi attentuated vaccine instead of the oral vaccine in these underveloped nations? Does that make any sense? That is my point. Depending on the source, there is some reference to that both non polio AFP and AFP are somehow caused by the vaccine. It seems to me to be irresponsible to keep on claiming to want to eradicate polio, but yet remain using an oral vaccine. For the same reason that was discontinued in the US.

http://www.who.int/wer/wer8650.pdf

@ Chris:

OMFG!
Obviously EFL/ESL; other cognitive stuff / dx Oh my.

Unfortunately the type of anti-vax rhetoric we hear all-too-often seems precisely targetted to people like her.
Also the anti-pharma message will certainly remain: if she's ever prescribed apropro meds, she'll refuse. Woo-meisters assist those with SMI to remain inviolate from pharmaceutical intervention. Keeping them as Nature intended.

@ Science Mom

Irregardless of who they are, the fact is and still remains, that you in your supposed expertise, can not address nor refute that analysis of the said AAP study Orac put forth. Quite obviously the America Academy of Pediatrics accepted it and it still remains both of those analysis letters attached to the study itself. Orac's said blog page was based on a lot of that and just like I said invalidates what he claimed to regarding the claims of such studies. Like it or not; you have no defense by more false personal attack on credibility.

Quite obviously a researcher who spends long enough at it and is wise enough, can much to your dismay learn and know far more than the so called scientists likely pharma connected that produced that flawed and and erroneous study.

This should tell you more about here research level; as much as you hate it.

http://www.ias.org.nz/about/

@Krebiozen

September 28, 9:10 pm
Sin Hang Lee? On ethics? There goes another irony meter…

-----------------------

Just address and refute the information if you can.

Immediate and lame personal discreditation, without any basis for it, clearly looks like you are refusing to accept any reference to the truth. So be it.

Perhaps you feel that as long as you can show that polio cases dropped and at the same time you believe that AFP stayed, or at least if they can show that AFP stayed approximately at the same rate; that somehow that kind of collateral damage is ok, and worth it.

How is not vaccinating for other diseases (for which there is no vaccine for) that cause AFPs collateral damage?

As if there is no other way. Why can not Gates and his chronies and with all of his money he is spending, help provide the killed or semi attentuated vaccine instead of the oral vaccine in these underveloped nations? Does that make any sense?

Perfect sense but this is why dunderheads like you shouldn't be commenting on issues out of their league. Tell me the difference in how OPV and IPV are administered, their efficacies and why the former is being used now where polio is still endemic as opposed to the latter.

Depending on the source, there is some reference to that both non polio AFP and AFP are somehow caused by the vaccine. It seems to me to be irresponsible to keep on claiming to want to eradicate polio, but yet remain using an oral vaccine.

What source(s) would that be Lowell other than the voice(s) in your head? How is non-polio AFP caused by OPV? Are you not aware of any endemic enteroviruses or syndromes that cause AFP?

Lowell,

*Try* - e.g. Orac has written about him - try the search box on the top-right of this page. There's some on my blog too (see in Location; you'll want to read the comments, too). It’s called looking for yourself. Putting up links and ‘demanding’ that others ‘answer’ to them is silly and asking everyone else do your work for you.

@ Grant

I do not need to address your tabloid trash on Hilary Butler, and it is unrelated to the subject matter of the direct issue. The issue as well you addressing and offering any refute of her analysis to the said study Orac , put forth.

[Lowell,

“What error is that you are claiming I walked around?” –> “that you erred in offering her [Hilary Butler] as a credible source.”]

No, Grant. You have it backwards. I have put my point directly in front of you. I am thus acussing YOU of being a none credible source. So prove that you aren't; and quit dancing around it.

Flawed Foundational Premise
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/123/6/1446.abstract/reply…

Obfuscation and misinterpretation?
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/123/6/1446.abstract/reply…

Article
Parental Refusal of Pertussis Vaccination Is Associated With an Increased Risk of Pertussis Infection in Children

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/123/6/1446.abstract

Here's an interesting blog: http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/court-decides-pa…

Who do you think is going to be the first to start spamming this?

@ Grant

[“One wonders if the inquest board was aware that Dr. Lee was unceremoniously given the boot as director of the diagnostic laboratory at Milford Hospital in December 2010.”]

The fact is that he recieved what he did because he was involved and dared to be involved even by coincidence in the findings that he had; which is in direct conflict with the workship status of hallmark and sacred symbolism and cash cow of modern medicine; vaccines. He wasa liability in his findings and as to rocking that boat.

This article as said explains that.

Sin Hang Lee MD: Why Ethics Don’t Pay
http://www.omsj.org/blogs/sin-hang-lee-md-why-ethics-don%E2%80%99t-pay

You see you Grant, could care less how many young women are injured and end up with unrecovered outcomes and their lives destroyed, nor do you care how many die. Because in your state of being for whatever reason, this must be denied. You know that is a fact.

As for this little tidbit of borderline to slanderous trash that you posted. The remainder of it is exactly that, nothing of substance and amounts to simply tabloid style baseless and senseless trash.

http://sciblogs.co.nz/code-for-life/2012/08/09/dodgy-experts-in-the-cor…

@ Lara Lohne

I was wondering about something; perhaps you have the answer? If vaccines are so good, then why are they having to force them on people by taking away even their religious exemptions? As well why are they so worried about the vaccine truth movement and when exemption rates still are often less than 5 %? The many misguided parents all hate and fear the non vaccinators; so what would they care if they think their said non vaccinated children are at risk? If the vaccines work so well, why would their be any need of herd immunity? I think it is that they just need a lame andb blaming it on anything else excuse, for why their vaccines have failed and those outbreaks occurr in the vaccinated.

Do you really believe in vaccine derived herd immunity? Do you have any actual science to support it. Oh, I know; vaccines create increases in antibodies, and thus herd immunity, right? The clinical trials have show those increases. End of story, thats all you need to know. Where is the specific science that shows why the vaccines failed, due to lack of a required percentage of vaccine uptake and thus herd immunity? Somebody just thought it up and said, hey yaa thats right, thats what we will say is true. Any time there is an outbreak we will find a way to blame it on the unvaccinated because you know they will never question it nor require any proof. I actually think there is an obvious and large hole in that theory.

The False Theory of Vaccine Derived - Herd Immunity
http://www.vacfacts.info/the-false-theory-of-vaccine-derived---herd-imm…

I think it is rather interesting that Lowell links to Dr. Lee's explanation why his employment was terminated at Milford Hospital. It's hard to believe that the blog that Lowell linked to states this:

"Although Dr. Lee still maintains his medical staff privileges during the appeal, his position as director of the laboratory was summarily terminated along with his employment relationship at Milford Hospital on December 13, 2010 and he has been prevented from using the hospital’s laboratory to continue his testing and research there ever since that time. A lawsuit addressing the wrongful termination claim has been brought against the Milford Hospital."

Then the next paragraph states this:

While the hospital-based appeal hearings and the lawsuit are pending, Dr. Lee’s research and testing and the operation of his world class, CLIA certified molecular diagnostic laboratory at the Milford Hospital have all been significantly hindered and obstructed. Dozens of opportunities for Dr. Lee to test Gardasil samples for contaminants have been lost as the hospital has redirected and/or returned vaccine lots sent to and intended for Dr. Lee back to the senders or other locations. Dr. Lee and his attorneys are pursuing all available legal remedies to restore the testing laboratory as soon as possible in order to protect the public health, safety and well being."

Here again, Dr. Lee and the blogger are *confused* about who owns the Milford Hospital laboratory...

Through the donation of his laboratory facilities, time and effort, Dr. Lee was able to confirm the contamination of Gardasil® with recombinant HPV DNA firmly attached to the aluminum adjuvant contained in the vaccine. This is a man who has dedicated his life to what is best for the medical consumer, no matter what the cost to himself personally.

So, Dr. Lee was using the hospital lab and all its equipment and running unapproved tests such as the rDNA HPV Vaccine test and the Lyme Disease PCR Serum test, while he was collecting a paycheck as a paid employee of Milford Hospital. Yeah, Dr. Lee is real ethical.

If vaccines are so good, then why are they having to force them on people by taking away even their religious exemptions?

There's no right to a religious exemption for public-school attendance, Lowell, it falls under the plenary police powers of the states. I believe you've met them.

@Science Mom

What source(s) would that be Lowell other than the voice(s) in your head?

Lowell could be consulting the Leprechauns in his underpants.*

*Hat tip to Herr Doktor Bimmler for making me aware of that source of anti-vax data.

“You see you Grant, could care less how many young women are injured and end up with unrecovered outcomes and their lives destroyed, nor do you care how many die. Because in your state of being for whatever reason, this must be denied. You know that is a fact. ”

Wow. That was rude. And incorrect - of course.

My reading of is that your views feel so threatened that you've fallen to this. Over the years I've noted a pattern that when anti-vaccine people feel threatened or cornered they lash out with something like this. (I suspect this sort of wild answer from you that isn’t new or news to people here - ?)

So, you seem to be acting as shill for SANE Vax now?

Apparently, SANE Vax *hired* Lee's services. They are an anti-vaccine organisation. Ergo, he does their anti-vaccine work for them.

You do realise that the article you point to ‘supporting’ Lee is a SANE Vax piece, right? It's even penned by the SANE Vax president with her saying that right on the page.

They are not offering anything that would make their patients better, only gather ‘information’.

This statement “Dr. Lee was able to confirm the contamination of Gardasil® with recombinant HPV DNA firmly attached to the aluminum adjuvant contained in the vaccine.” assumes that Lee's work is accepted as valid. Science doesn't work by the hand of one man like that. It works in the context of review and criticism of others. I would suggest you read Orac’s article on this (he linked to it earlier). Or at at Riddled. Or by the IMAC staff.

How is non-polio AFP caused by OPV?

Lowell doesn't seem to get this any more than why the sensitivity knob on the AFP surveillance box is set at 11, but the lone underlying issue seems to be whether Indian reporting files VAPP under NPAFP. This seems improbable offhand given the general need for the presence of a vaccine strain, but I've seen it asserted from places that didn't seem obviously bonkers.

Lowell: Is English your first language? Or are you typing on a cell phone? 'Cause I can hardly get through the slaughtered punctuation and sloppy spelling to refute your point. Could you clean it up, just so I can stop wincing at your posts?

And btw, Lowell, I have ADD, went to school with kids who had several learning disorders, and have friends with Aspergers. Stop treating those disorders as if they were portents of the apocalypse. It's really offensive.
As for ADD, I'm pretty sure it's not caused by vaccines. In my case, I'm nearly 100% sure it's genetic.

@Politicalguineapig

I believe "redneck" is his first language, followed by malt liquor.

Asking him to use proper English is about as likely to happen as the Pope jogging naked through the Vatican.

Lowell, you are not seriously hanging your points on Sin Hang Lee? Lee is a maverick and sometimes mavericks are right. However, in the case of Lee he is always wrong.

He offerred completely useless and made up evidence in a recent coroner's inquest in New Zealand

He has also been caught making claims that Green Tea cures cancer.

He can also find DNA in just about everything.

Lastly, he lies about his employment.

So pardon us while we guffaw every time you mention him.

Lowell,

51 035 cases of AFP appear in this document (p 578) for India in 2011, and the in 2011.

I prefer to use the current data from the WHO which is available at the link I gave above, but let's agree on 50-60,000 cases found by active surveillance. I assume you understand the difference between active and passive surveillance.

The figure of 86 638 was listed globally.

Let's stick to India, shall we?

My point is and always was exactly this. Quite obviously they should not be using the live oral polio vaccine in countries with less than adequate sanitation, due to shedding. That should be obvious.

Not to me. In fact spreading the vaccine strain which prevents paralytic polio in areas where wild polio is endemic seems like a good idea to me. OPV causes about one case of paralytic polio for every 4.1 million doses of OPV. Wild polio leads to paralysis in about one in a hundred cases. In other words OPV is 40,000 times safer than wild-type polio.

Perhaps you feel that as long as you can show that polio cases dropped and at the same time you believe that AFP stayed, or at least if they can show that AFP stayed approximately at the same rate; that somehow that kind of collateral damage is ok, and worth it.

What collateral damage? I see a reduction of around a million cases of paralytic polio with no significant increase in non-polio AFP.

As if there is no other way. Why can not Gates and his chronies and with all of his money he is spending, help provide the killed or semi attentuated vaccine instead of the oral vaccine in these underveloped nations?

OPV is an attenuated vaccine. You have to balance risk against benefit. The OPV is a great deal easier to administer than the IPV, which is an important factor in places like India, where people have to go trekking into remote villages to vaccinate children. The IPV does not confer much intestinal immunity, while the OPV does, so OPV works better in areas where polio is endemic, and also help confer immunity to people who have not been vaccinated by shedding, which I think is a good thing. At some point, based on a risk/benefit analysis, the WHO will make a decision to switch to IPV in India. This is all <a href="http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/85/6/06-037457/en/"constantly discussed and debated in great detail and has been for years.

Does that make any sense?

Not really.

That is my point. Depending on the source, there is some reference to that both non polio AFP and AFP are somehow caused by the vaccine.

What evidence is there that non-polio AFP is caused by the vaccine? How can this possibly be true since the numbers of cases of AFP with any cause have fallen so dramatically since the introduction of the vaccine program in India? If we include polio and non-polio AFP, that Lucknow study found from 5-10 cases of AFP per thousand. The WHO last year found 16.1 cases per 100,000. This is an enormous reduction, isn't it? You do understand that the non-AFP rates given by the WHO are per 100,000, don't you?

It seems to me to be irresponsible to keep on claiming to want to eradicate polio, but yet remain using an oral vaccine. For the same reason that was discontinued in the US.

It was discontinued in the US when the risk of contracting the disease had fallen to around the same level as the risk of VAPP from the OPV. When those conditions apply in South Asian and West Africa, the same thing will be done there. Why on earth do you think you know better than epidemiologists and public health scientists who have spent their lives studying this?

Sigh. Here's the unmangled mangled link from above.

@ politicalguineapig: Lowell is just an old troll with a "wet brain" who craves engagement. He will argue with you until you just ignore him.

See Narad's comment at 1:22 AM. There is no "right" to claim a religious exemption and to have an expectation that your child has a "right" to attend public schools.

Trying to explain any science and surveillance of polio infections and non-polio AFPs is like trying to explain medicine to "medicien man", "Dr. I. M. Smart" or any of his other sockies.

Thats right, Hilary Butler. But of course the first thing you do instead of actually adressing the information she put forth in that analysis, and debating it on an honest level; you simply and as always, simply proceed to a personal attack

No, I simply pointed out that, when it comes to vaccines, Hilary Butler is a completely biased source who can't construct a reasonable, science-based argument to save her life. I've deconstructed the same fallacy- and misinformation-laden arguments that she routinely uses many times before and don't feel motivated to do it again right now.

I suppose that it's possible that, like a stopped clock being right twice a day or a the proverbial squirrel finding a blind nut, but I consider the odds of that in this case to be too small to be worth my bother.

Politicalguineapig:

Right. Most of our abilities are based in genetics tempered by environmental influences. The 'vaccines-cause-everything' partisans have an awfully limited idea about what 'environmental' means.

I like to use an example to illustrate this:
we know that a serious mental illness has genetic and environmental causes but the environmental ones are not what early theories proposed ( parental choices, stress when adolescent et al) but are, instead, very early pre- and peri-natal factors that transformed development in conjunction with genetics.
( see schizophrenia.com/ causation). I think eventually a similar picture will emerge about ASDs.

Of course, the LATER environment is very important in shaping people's abilities no matter how they start out . How we imagine ourselves to be has a very important influence on what we actually do as well. Abilities are changed by what we do with them.

Cookie-setting, sorry.

lilady: I know, I know, I just get so tired of the 'OMG learning disorders/spectrum disorders are teh end of the world' line from the anti-vax nuts. In most cases, work-arounds can be found.
Darwy: Not redneck. South Dakota is wild-eyed religious fanatic/glibertarian territory. There are a few sensible people, but they tend not to stick around there for long.

DW: In my case, I suspect my grandmother and father have it; possibly my grandfather, too. It's interesting to me how much the understanding of learning disabilities has changed.

When I was younger, the common understanding was that it was probably caused by oxygen deprivation at birth. But if that was the case, my siblings (both blue babies) should've had ADD instead of me.

One thing that I've wondered about schizophrenia; was it somehow 'programmed' to develop after puberty to give it's carriers a chance to reproduce? In most early societies, anyone in their late teens and early twenties would probably have a family already, so genetically speaking, the carrier was superfluous.

Orac,

“I suppose that it’s possible that, like a stopped clock being right twice a day or a the proverbial squirrel finding a blind nut, but I consider the odds of that in this case to be too small to be worth my bother.”

I have similar sentiments (expressed earlier in the comments), but for what little it's worth I recall having seen the main claims she makes there before. My recollection is that when I checked those back then I found that the kindest I could say was that she didn't know how to properly read the scientific paper she referred to. (It's possible her opinion may have been cited by Rutledge, the then spokesperson of IAS [that Butler founded] in a ‘defense’ to my critiquing her statements to media.)

Maybe I'm just a cynic but I'm still not very impressed at Butler not declaring her involvement in running anti-vaccine organisations in her declarations of conflicts in writing her response to the journal. (She offers that she has none.)

@Politicalguineapig

Oh, having read Mr. Hubb's blog and his postings on the internet, I believe it's safe to say redneck - but I agree with the wild eyed fanatic portion of your assessment.

He's self aggrandizing, overcompensating for being an idiot and possesses a bloated sense of self importance.

@ Grant

I have absolutely NO concern for anything in regard to that my views are threatened Grant; because they have not been threatened whatsoever, and those views stand on some very solid ground. Because you throw all your spin and refuse to get it at the computer screen here, does not in any way invalidate what I have put forth. You want to keep throwing at it it that it is all just opinion, but actually if you had the actual fortitude to get honest and look at the complete information, it is actually all in all the whole package of information available, a very damning account on vaccines, to include the issues surrounding Gardasil. It is so very easy to spew your provax in denial of all venom, and not need to back up your claims while disregarding the facts in front of you, when you do not need to use any real identity nor as well disclose you conflicts of interest. As I said, as long as you can throw your poo at any source of information anywhere that counters your claims, you will never in your mind, ever need to enter into any honest discussion nor debate on the matter; and thus you can remain in denial. Isn’t that how it works, and has always worked with you people? Of course it is. What do you see continually on this page? Exactly that.

You conduct absolutely no actual debate here, but to continue your personal attacks and throwing poo at the messengers of all counter information that does not support your agenda. That is all you people can ever do. And you have made the ridiculous claim that my views are threatened; and calling me rude, which is the only thing you could concoct to avoid addressing the matter of what I really put to you.
[They are not offering anything that would make their patients better, only gather ‘information’.]

Again you are either clueless by choice and uneducated on the matter regarding Mr. Lee’s work. You want to address the issue but you are not educated enough as to the facts, to actually even begin debating the issue at all. So, any efforts here essentially amount to a waste of a persons time. You as ell refuse to accept any information put in front of you. More poo ending up being thrown. So, what does that tell me? That you could care less what the truth is, just like I stated earlier. I was correct. Why should I attempt to educate you, when you refuse to accept any and all information? You have already educated yourself Grant, correct? But what source of information did you educate yourself from? So now I should be expected to form a debate, with someone that has only followed the false propaganda and chooses to be I nothing but denial while holding onto nothing but the false information he was fed; correct? And all of us vaccine truthers are just a bunch of misguided gullible idiots; right? Probably as well with a few mental and psychological issues; right? You must maintain and believe that; right? And you do not want to in any honesty review what I put forth, but you want to redirect me back to Mr. Orac's, to much to lose tabloid style trash?

The testing to determine if a subject were HPV positive with having the vaccine targeted strain of HPV, was available at the time that Gardasil was approved. Mr. Lee applied to the FDA for that purpose, as to his equipment and protocol. The FDA ignored him because to do prior testing for existing HPV would draw to much attention to the negative aspects of Gardasil. Why would they need to do that testing? Because in the FDA preapproval document it clearly outlined the observation increased findings of precancerous indicators in those who received the Gardasil vaccine, while at the same time being HPV vaccine targeted strain – positive. The FDA allowed the vaccine to be approved with the requirement that Merck study it further, and report back at a later date. Do you know anyone that has seen that report document?

"PCR-based HPV detection device with provision for accurate HPV genotyping is more urgently needed now because vaccination with Gardasil of the women who are already sero-positive and PCR-positive for vaccine-relevant genotypes of HPV has been found to increase the risk of developing high-grade precancerous lesions by 44.6%, according to an FDA VRBPAC Background Document : Gardasil HPV Quadrivalent Vaccine. May 18, 2006 VRBPAC Meeting.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/Report_HPV_Vaccine_3.html#ixzz27tUUSoiD

It is all outlined right here, if you would care enough to follow it, rather than just throw more poo at it, Grant. The FDA VRBPAC preapproval document is as well provided a copy of; even though the FDA has since removed it from their site, (ask why).

The Great HPV Vaccine Hoax Exposed
http://www.naturalnews.com/Report_HPV_Vaccine_0.html

Here in this video, it details it for you verbally, Grant.

Gardasil HPV Vaccine Hoax Exposed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XK97CHQZhq0

Gardasil – The Real Truth
http://www.vacfacts.info/gardasil---the-real-truth.html

Gardasil Vaccine rDNA Introduced at Coroner’s Inquest
http://vactruth.com/2012/08/09/gardasil-rdna-coroners-inquest/

Bombshell Interview Reveals DNA Fragments Discovered 6 Months After Vaccination
http://vactruth.com/2012/08/16/rdna-fragments-after-vaccination/

Actually, Grant; it certainly appears that Mr. Sin Hang Lee, MD has had it RIGHT, all along. The problem is that THEY have to much to lose in what he has exposed, and cared enough to learn and expose. Deny it all you want. In the fact that the FDA has now been exposed to this information through Sane Vax, that they themselves failed to find or even have any concern about; who are thus the real villians? Is it them and you, or is it the people like me that put the truth forward?

Sin Hang Lee MD: Why Ethics Don’t Pay

http://www.omsj.org/blogs/sin-hang-lee-md-why-ethics-don%E2%80%99t-pay

@ Orac

No, I simply pointed out that, when it comes to vaccines, Hilary Butler is a completely biased source who can’t construct a reasonable, science-based argument to save her life. I’ve deconstructed the same fallacy- and misinformation-laden arguments that she routinely uses many times before and don’t feel motivated to do it again right now.

I suppose that it’s possible that, like a stopped clock being right twice a day or a the proverbial squirrel finding a blind nut, but I consider the odds of that in this case to be too small to be worth my bother. Unquote.
____________________

The fact is Orac, that she clearly outlined exactly what was in error with that study that you had put up as a basis for your said claim that unvaccinated children are still 23 times more likely to get pertussis. The other letter by David S Foster, IT Engineer, also nailed it quite correctly.

The fact is that clearly you have no interest in addressing those said analysis, nor directly; because you have failed to do so. All you want to do here is to keep throwing false discreditation poo at Hilary Butler. You can not deny that, Mr. Orac.

As well, clearly the pertussis vaccine in itself has become a situation where B.Parapertussis has become significantly more prevalent, and likely so due to the vaccine itself. B. pertusis is of course the pathogen tageted in the vaccine, and thus B. parapertussis entirely evades that current vaccine. There is as well some significant indication that
the targeted strain has changed, mutated if you will; and thus vaccinating has resulted in an outcome found where a majority of those in the outbreak were fully vaccinated. Is this an important issue that should be more honestly and directly adressed by the CDC? Why have they refused to do so; and whie as well continuing to falsely blame the unvaccinated for it all?

Acellular pertussis vaccination enhances B. parapertussis colonization

An acellular whooping cough vaccine actually enhances the colonization of Bordetella parapertussis in mice; pointing towards a rise in B. parapertussis incidence resulting from acellular vaccination, which may have contributed to the observed increase in whooping cough over the last decade.

http://www.cidd.psu.edu/research/synopses/acellular-vaccine-enhancement…

Flawed Foundational Premise
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/123/6/1446.abstract/reply…

Obfuscation and misinterpretation?
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/123/6/1446.abstract/reply…

Article
Parental Refusal of Pertussis Vaccination Is Associated With an Increased Risk of Pertussis Infection in Children

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/123/6/1446.abstract

@ Krebiozen

Why on earth do you think you know better than epidemiologists and public health scientists who have spent their lives studying this?

------------

Because 51 035 cases of AFP listed for India in 2011, and the figure listed as 86 638 globally; are far to many.

Lowell,

Because 51 035 cases of AFP listed for India in 2011, and the figure listed as 86 638 globally; are far to many.

So you don't celebrate the million cases of paralytic polio prevented in India each and every year, but instead complain that there are other causes of AFP that polio vaccine cannot prevent? As it happens I think that any cases of AFP are too many, it's a horrible thing for anyone to have to deal with. That's why I'm glad that other enteroviruses are next on the agenda for eradication. I suppose then you will be complaining that Indians still get AFP from snakebite.

Hopefully one day AFP in India, and the rest of the world, will fall to a similar level to that in the developed world, about 1 per 100,000.

Krebiozen,

It's a bizarre complaint alright. One thought though, the absolute count (51,035) is large, but it has to be compared against India's huge population - 1,241,491,960 in 2011, according to World Bank. 51,035 / 1,241,491,960 = 0.000041107797428 - about 4.1 in 100,000.

I was wondering about something; perhaps you have the answer? If vaccines are so good, then why are they having to force them on people by taking away even their religious exemptions? As well why are they so worried about the vaccine truth movement and when exemption rates still are often less than 5 %? The many misguided parents all hate and fear the non vaccinators; so what would they care if they think their said non vaccinated children are at risk? If the vaccines work so well, why would their be any need of herd immunity? I think it is that they just need a lame andb blaming it on anything else excuse, for why their vaccines have failed and those outbreaks occurr in the vaccinated.

Do you really believe in vaccine derived herd immunity? Do you have any actual science to support it. Oh, I know; vaccines create increases in antibodies, and thus herd immunity, right? The clinical trials have show those increases. End of story, thats all you need to know. Where is the specific science that shows why the vaccines failed, due to lack of a required percentage of vaccine uptake and thus herd immunity? Somebody just thought it up and said, hey yaa thats right, thats what we will say is true. Any time there is an outbreak we will find a way to blame it on the unvaccinated because you know they will never question it nor require any proof. I actually think there is an obvious and large hole in that theory.

The False Theory of Vaccine Derived – Herd Immunity
http://www.vacfacts.info/the-false-theory-of-vaccine-derived—herd-immunity.html

I read through your article, Lowell; I figured that if you had written down anywhere an actual argument against herd immunity, it would be there.

But it wasn't there. What you have written there amounts to:

1. I, Lowell Hobbs, am a smart guy who'd know by looking into something whether it's right or wrong.

2. I, Lowell Hobbs, have looked into vacccine-derived herd immunity and figured out that it's wrong.

3. Therefore, it's wrong.

Now, if I was coming to this debate as an outsider, with full wits but no previous experience, the first thing I'd wonder upon reading that would be: Why is Lowell Hobbs deliberately withholding his actual argument against vaccine-derived herd immunity? Because that's what you're doing. You're telling people that "I, Lowell Hobbs, understand the logic by which herd immunity is supposed to work; I understand where the flaws in that logic are; but even though I could explain those flaws to you, I won't, and I'll just expect you to trust me that they're there." Why would I trust you? You're telling me not to trust mainstream science, but mainstream science is willing to explain why it believes in herd immunity, and you can only say "Their logic falls down. Somewhere. Trust me."

I'd like you to show some evidence that you actually understand the theoretical basis of herd immunity, so I'm going to pose the following thought experiment: suppose there is a particular disease, which spreads by human-to-human contact, and there is a non-vaccine treatment which reduces a treated individual's chances of contracting the disease if exposed by 90%. In your opinion, would a sufficient number of people in the population using that treatment create a herd immunity effect, or not? Whatever your answer is, explain why you think it's the correct answer.

Lowell, I suggest you might like to read the articles more carefully before you present them as evidence. Let’s take the letter from David S Foster, IT Engineer as an example. Now if David S Foster was a biologist rather than an IT Engineer he might have made fewer mistakes. In fact, if David S Foster was able to pass reading comprehension he might make fewer mistakes. David S Foster waxes lyrical about PCR being insufficient on its own for diagnosing pertussis and moves on from there to criticise the study results. Sadly for David S Foster, a reading of the paper itself shows that 0 diagnoses were made on the basis of a PCR test alone.

So when you claim David S Foster nailed it quite correctly, can I suggest that the nail was the one on his thumb? He managed to completely miss the intended target.

The fact is Orac, that she clearly outlined exactly what was in error with that study that you had put up as a basis for your said claim that unvaccinated children are still 23 times more likely to get pertussis.

I have been looking at Hilary Butler's comment, and see no such nailing. I see no refutation or even attempt at a refutation of the conclusion that unvaccinated children are 22.8 times more likely to contract pertussis than the vaccinated.

For what it's worth, I have the following observations:

1. Butler cites a study that suggests, of the acellular pertussis vaccine, that "the vaccine may permit a bit of colonization" (I love the precise scientific terminology BTW). She claims this is, "a polite way of saying that the vaccines don't work". She ignores the fact that the vaccine produces antibodies against "pertussis toxin and various combinations of the bacterial adhesins" (which enable the bacteria to stick to the epithelial cells lining the respiratory tract) and the fact that, "these vaccines are highly effective at preventing the severe manifestations of pertussis but are less effective at preventing bacterial colonization". All those quotes are from the study she cites.

This is either ignorant or extremely dishonest of her. She may be correct that the "bit of colonization" allows some people to have a subclinical infection that reduces the herd effect a bit, but if everyone was vaccinated, this wouldn't be a problem. Anyway, those who oppose vaccination seem to embrace natural infection as the ideal way of acquiring immunity that prevents natural infection (any strangulated logical hernias in that statement are not my responsibility).

2. Looking for explanations for her faulty understanding of the first paper ( i.e. that "pertussis vaccine is not immunogenic" against antibodies it does not contain means that it doesn't work), she moves on to another paper. This one notes that only low levels of adenylate cyclase toxin (ACT) antibodies are found in those who have been vaccinated using the acellular vaccine (and some types of celllular vaccine). This is not surprising as ACT is not included in the aP vaccine.

The paper observes that in cases of vaccine failure, despite exposure to ACT in wild pertussis bacteria, ACT antibody levels are low, speculating that this may be due to "original antigenic sin" i.e. the tendency of the immune system to preferentially produce antibodies to proteins it was exposed to the first time it encountered a pathogen.

Butler then claims that acellular pertussis vaccines lack immunogenicity because of this "original antigenic sin". That is not what the paper suggests at all.

Butler hypothesizes that because those vaccinated against pertussis may not produce antibodies against ACT, this may explain why, "vaccinated adolescents and adults are unable to clear the bacteria, because their bodies learned the antibody immunity the wrong way, and therefore they also have no cellular immunity. The result is that they do spread frequent asymptomatic infections far and wide".

This is utterly ludicrous, as original antigenic sin regarding ACT does not prevent the production of antibodies to the other components of the vaccine, the pertussis toxin and bacterial adhesins I mentioned, which prevent both the worst effects of the illness and its persistence. There is work being done on ACT as a possible component of future pertussis vaccines.

My conclusion? Butler doesn't properly understand what she is writing about, and her comments contain nothing that in any way challenges Glanz et al..

@ Politicalguineapig:

I don't think that it was 'programmed' but shows up later because of how the nervous system develops and transforms as a person grows up ( and other factors). Yes, it isn't detected ( or suspected) until early adulthood so puberty may have already occured, etc.

Darwy: Wild-eyed fanatic describes most of South Dakota, actually. The best parts of South Dakota are the ones that are uninhabited.

DW: Duly noted. I know nothing about genes, so I was just spouting stray thoughts. Still, it'd be interesting to see whether certain genes, especially ones that are late-onset like Huntingtons and schizophrenia would be affected by things like delaying puberty or taking hormones. Obviously, a formal study couldn't be done, so I guess we'll never know.

@ Antaeus Feldspar

Actually Feldspar, I did give you an actual argument against the concept of VACCINE DERIVED herd immunity. Being that you have ignored that infrmation; you thus have created a situation where I obviously need to excerpt it to you, as is was on the page. There was NO valid arguement there? Really?

______

Here.

If vaccine derived herd immunity were a realistic and proven theory; then there would be some scientific evidence behind it. After reviewing numerous studies that were claimed to represent and show the vaccine derived herd immunity theory to have a scientific basis; I conclude that there is NO scientific backing for the claim. Correlation equals causation, simply can not and should not be applied only where it benefits the intended promotional agenda, and then at the same time the same principal is disregarded, where it does not produce a conclusion favorable to the intended and thus promoted agenda. You can not have it both ways, and not lose major credibility, as to the level of existing bias.

What we can find is the backing for is the premise of natural herd immunity, because the majority of those thus becoming immune, have life long immunity. Any even 3rd grade science student, could comprehend the obvious validity of that basic concept.

The huge hole in the obviously incorrect concept of vaccine derived herd immunity, is exactly this. Vaccines do no provide increased vaccine derived antibody production, for life. Vaccines only provide relatively passive immunity, if and when they provide protection at all; and providing as well that over time the targeted pathogen has not mutated or changed to a point that the vaccine has become increasingly ineffective. This is what is happening currently in regard to the pertussis vaccine. As well in the use of the DPaT or whatever vaccine in the past was or currently is; other similar pathogens tend to because of the vaccine, as well become more commonly seen, dominant; and at times even more virulent. In regard to the known and current pertussis outbreaks, that non vaccine targeted pathogen is B.parapertusis; with B. pertussis of course being the existing vaccine targeted pathogen.

The second phase as to the understanding of why vaccine derived herd immunity is a myth, is to realize that thousands and if not millions of adults exist with having had no vaccines in decades. What are the odds that their childhood vaccines still protect them from polio, small pox, pertussis, diphtheria, measles, rubella, etc??? Agreed, there is a big push in the recent past to give tetanus boosters to adults, which often includes the entire, DTaP. But think of all the decades that have gone by where the ONLY people in that vaccinated herd, were the infants, and school children. In the recent past more of the CDC directive has gone to vaccination boosters for teens and college students, for certain, but limited numbers of vaccines.

http://www.vacfacts.info/the-false-theory-of-vaccine-derived---herd-imm…
___________

To get to your question as quoted here.

I’d like you to show some evidence that you actually understand the theoretical basis of herd immunity, so I’m going to pose the following thought experiment: suppose there is a particular disease, which spreads by human-to-human contact, and there is a non-vaccine treatment which reduces a treated individual’s chances of contracting the disease if exposed by 90%. In your opinion, would a sufficient number of people in the population using that treatment create a herd immunity effect, or not? Whatever your answer is, explain why you think it’s the correct answer.

Answer.

If 90% of the population were exposed to the said disease and as well the said preventative and there were to claim there were a 90% reduction in the disease; you would first need to prove that 90% of the population would have acquired the disease, if not for the preventative. You are attempting to prove a negative. To have your scenario stand as correct, you would have to believe that the vacines worked as advertised. Given the known outbreaks in fully vaccinated children, and as well the known decline in several of the vaccine targeted illneses long before a vaccine was available; leaves a huge hole in the and any such claim. You deny this; so we are back to square one, proving a negetive. Get it? There is no win.

Argument from ignorance

It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.

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

Argumentum ad Ignorantiam: (appeal to ignorance) the fallacy that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false or that it is false simply because it has not been proved true. This error in reasoning is often expressed with influential rhetoric.

http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/ignorance.html

@ ChrisP

September 29, 7:20 pm

You stated:

David S Foster waxes lyrical about PCR being insufficient on its own for diagnosing pertussis and moves on from there to criticise the study results. Sadly for David S Foster, a reading of the paper itself shows that 0 diagnoses were made on the basis of a PCR test alone.

So when you claim David S Foster nailed it quite correctly, can I suggest that the nail was the one on his thumb? He managed to completely miss the intended target.

---------------------

You then as proof of that claim, find a dead link in your reply post, that goes to one of Orac's past bloggings. No link to the study itself; but a link to another blog page.

This is what the study actually stated. take a look.

RESULTS

Cases of Pertussis
We identified 439 patients with a diagnosis of pertussis in the automated databases. Of these, 178 (41%) had a medical chart–verified positive PCR or positive culture for pertussis, and 165 were between 2 months and 18 years of age. We excluded 9 (5%) patients who were either unvaccinated or partially vaccinated, because the reason for lack of vaccination was not documented in the medical charts. This resulted in a final study population of 156 laboratory-confirmed cases. The annual incidence rate of confirmed pertussis cases increased over time, with 78% of the cases occurring after year 2001. There was, however, no evidence of clustering of cases in a specific time period or geographic location.

Parental Refusal of Pertussis Vaccination Is Associated With an Increased Risk of Pertussis Infection in Children
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/123/6/1446.abstract

Obfuscation and misinterpretation?
David S Foster, IT Engineer
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/123/6/1446.abstract/reply…

Actually, he did nail it!

@ Krebiozen

Excerpts from your reply.

I have been looking at Hilary Butler’s comment, and see no such nailing. I see no refutation or even attempt at a refutation of the conclusion that unvaccinated children are 22.8 times more likely to contract pertussis than the vaccinated.

( It was my request that Mr. Orac prove that claim, so are you thus saying that there was no proof of his claim?)

This is either ignorant or extremely dishonest of her. She may be correct that the “bit of colonization” allows some people to have a subclinical infection that reduces the herd effect a bit, but if everyone was vaccinated, this wouldn’t be a problem. Anyway, those who oppose vaccination seem to embrace natural infection as the ideal way of acquiring immunity that prevents natural infection (any strangulated logical hernias in that statement are not my responsibility).

( The problem in that statement is clearly in the fact that the know average vaccine exemptions rate is at an average of 55 or less. So you are telling me that simply adding 5% to the uptake rate to make a 100% vaccination rate, will solve the said problem? I guess you haven't read my - The False Theory of Vaccine Derived - Herd Immunity page, either.
http://www.vacfacts.info/the-false-theory-of-vaccine-derived---herd-imm…

Butler hypothesizes that because those vaccinated against pertussis may not produce antibodies against ACT, this may explain why, “vaccinated adolescents and adults are unable to clear the bacteria, because their bodies learned the antibody immunity the wrong way, and therefore they also have no cellular immunity. The result is that they do spread frequent asymptomatic infections far and wide”.

This is utterly ludicrous, as original antigenic sin regarding ACT does not prevent the production of antibodies to the other components of the vaccine, the pertussis toxin and bacterial adhesins I mentioned, which prevent both the worst effects of the illness and its persistence. There is work being done on ACT as a possible component of future pertussis vaccines.

(Original antigenic sin regarding ACT does not prevent the production of antibodies to the other components of the vaccine, the pertussis toxin and bacterial adhesins I mentioned, which prevent both the worst effects of the illness and its persistence.

Do you have any scientific proof of that - your said claim?)

You do know as well that there have been several outbreaks of pertussis in the fully vaccinated? The majority of those outbreaks have been said in the fully vaccinated, and the CDC has this time not denied it. The CDC then continues to mindlessly fear monger that the unvaccinated are the causation and to keep up and up the vaccination rates and all the boosters. They even promoted the cocoon style vaccinating of whole families, and still the outbreaks occurred. Would it be any streach at all to tell you that the vaccine targeted strain of pertussis has mutated, and possibly because of the vaccine? Pertussis is a form of bacteria. If that mutations can happen due to antibiotics, then why not vaccines?

As well it currently it appears that B. parapertussis has become a far more prevelant pathogen than it previously was, and is at times indistinguishable as to visual diagnosis, from vaccine strain pertussis; which is of course B. pertussis.

Acellular pertussis vaccination enhances B. parapertussis colonization

An acellular whooping cough vaccine actually enhances the colonization of Bordetella parapertussis in mice; pointing towards a rise in B. parapertussis incidence resulting from acellular vaccination, which may have contributed to the observed increase in whooping cough over the last decade.

http://www.cidd.psu.edu/research/synopses/acellular-vaccine-enhancement…

Thats right!

Typographic error-corrected

The problem in that statement is clearly in the fact that the known average vaccine exemptions rate is at an average of 5% or less.

Mr. Hubbs, can I ask you again for your answer about whether a non-vaccine protective measure that reduced a treated individual's chances of contracting a disease upon exposure by 90% would create a herd immuniy effect in a population where enough people received that treatment? Why or why not?

If you actually understand herd immunity as well as you claim to, well enough to be able to declare as fact that vaccine-derived herd immunity does not exist, this should be a very easy question for you to answer.

"A medical chart VERIFIED positive PCR test"

Again Lowell... what you think you read and what's actually written - two different things.

Lowell,
Foster states that, "PCR by itself is generally considered insufficient for diagnosing pertussis". He doesn't seem to understand that this means it can be used for diagnosis in combination with "the clinical symptoms and epidemiological information". Culture is only really useful during the first two weeks, when pertussis may not be suspected. As Glanz et al state:

The abstractor recorded pertussis PCR and culture results, clinical diagnoses of pertussis, duration of cough, presenting symptoms (paroxysms, post-tussive emesis, whoop), sequelae of pertussis (apnea, pneumonia, seizures, encephalopathy), and previous exposures to close contacts infected with pertussis.

As ChrisP stated, Foster is an engineer so he can't be expected to understand how clinical diagnoses are made. Speaking as someone who worked in diagnostics for a couple of decades I suggest he sticks to his area of expertise instead of blundering about in unfamiliar areas making foolish statements like this.

Actually, he did nail it!

No, he succeeded in making himself look like a victim of the Dunning Kruger effect.

@ Antaeus Feldspar

I have already answered your question, and quite clearly. Just because you do not like the answer, or can not handle the answer, do not expect me to go back and give you the answer that you direct me to give you, and expect me to to make fit into your in denial agenda!

@ Darwy

“A medical chart VERIFIED positive PCR test”

Again Lowell… what you think you read and what’s actually written – two different things.

-------------------

How dumb does it get. Just because you do not like the correct answer, does not mean anyone misread or misunderstood anything. They are one and the same. Amazing denial, and refuse to be wrong!

Cases of Pertussis
We identified 439 patients with a diagnosis of pertussis in the automated databases. Of these, 178 (41%) had a medical chart–verified positive PCR or positive culture for pertussis,

READ IT!

@ Antaeus Feldspar

That reply answer by the way was made at 7:19 am, and has yet to be published, and states; Your comment is awaiting moderation. Must be to much truth.

Another reply comment at 8:13 am, CST and is still awaiting moderation, and is a reply to the Krebiozen, regarding Hilary Butlers side of that analysis. I don't suppose there would be any censorship going on? Who knows.

Have fun with Lowell...

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/surv-manual/chpt10-pertussis.html

"Clinical case definition

A cough illness lasting at least 2 weeks with one of the following: paroxysms of coughing, inspiratory “whoop,” or posttussive vomiting; and without other apparent cause (as reported by a healthcare professional).
Laboratory criteria for diagnosis

Isolation of B. pertussis from a clinical specimen
Positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay for B. pertussis DNA

Case classification

Probable: Meets the clinical case definition, is not laboratory confirmed, and is not epidemiologically linked to a laboratory-confirmed case.

Confirmed:

A case of acute cough illness of any duration with a positive culture for B. pertussis; OR
A case that meets the clinical case definition and is confirmed by PCR; OR
A case that meets the clinical definition and is epidemiologically linked directly to a case confirmed by either culture or PCR

Comment:The clinical case definition was designed to increase sensitivity for detecting pertussis cases when confirmatory laboratory testing was not done or was negative. Laboratory tests can be negative even when the patient has pertussis. The clinical case definition is appropriate for endemic or sporadic cases. In outbreak settings, including household exposures, a clinical case can be defined as an acute cough illness lasting 2 weeks or longer without other symptoms. A case definition of cough illness lasting 14 days or longer has demonstrated 84% sensitivity and 63% specificity for detecting culture-positive pertussis in outbreak settings.[10] It is important to note that the outbreak case definition should be used for the epidemiologic investigation and not for reporting purposes"

Because 51 035 cases of AFP listed for India in 2011, and the figure listed as 86 638 globally; are far to many.

I find it cute that Lowell cannot be bothered to assemble coherent prose but takes care to not risk radix confusion in his adoring worldwide audience.

@ Krebiozen

Foster states that, “PCR by itself is generally considered insufficient for diagnosing pertussis”. He doesn’t seem to understand that this means it can be used for diagnosis in combination with “the clinical symptoms and epidemiological information”. Culture is only really useful during the first two weeks, when pertussis may not be suspected. As Glanz et al state:

---------------------

You are grasping at straws, Krebiozen. It is well known that diagnosis by evaluation of “the clinical symptoms", has been unreliable. So are you going to tell me that a combination of said two unreliable diagnosis techniques, thus will equal a resulting good diagnosis technique?
And epidemiological information refers to what; other presumed cases of pertussis that were so called verified the same way?

@ lilady

Just because the CDC proposed that, does not mean that it is correctly accurate.

[10] It is important to note that the outbreak case definition should be used for the epidemiologic investigation and not for reporting purposes”

The CDC is a complete joke. We are talking about the same CDC as well that quit testing for H1N1 before even 60 days had passed into the flu season outbreak, and then for the most part used the quick test in every clinic in the country, and proclaimed everything as H1N1 that came through the door with a sniffle. Even though that quick test can not differentiate between common flu and H1N1.

@Narad

Just so you and anyone else here knows, I refuse to respond to that kind of pointless stupidity.

Ok, I am going to attempt to republish these two replies that show they have not yet received moderation.

7:19 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

@ Antaeus Feldspar

Actually Feldspar, I did give you an actual argument against the concept of VACCINE DERIVED herd immunity. Being that you have ignored that infrmation; you thus have created a situation where I obviously need to excerpt it to you, as is was on the page. There was NO valid arguement there? Really?

______

Here.

If vaccine derived herd immunity were a realistic and proven theory; then there would be some scientific evidence behind it. After reviewing numerous studies that were claimed to represent and show the vaccine derived herd immunity theory to have a scientific basis; I conclude that there is NO scientific backing for the claim. Correlation equals causation, simply can not and should not be applied only where it benefits the intended promotional agenda, and then at the same time the same principal is disregarded, where it does not produce a conclusion favorable to the intended and thus promoted agenda. You can not have it both ways, and not lose major credibility, as to the level of existing bias.

What we can find is the backing for is the premise of natural herd immunity, because the majority of those thus becoming immune, have life long immunity. Any even 3rd grade science student, could comprehend the obvious validity of that basic concept.

The huge hole in the obviously incorrect concept of vaccine derived herd immunity, is exactly this. Vaccines do no provide increased vaccine derived antibody production, for life. Vaccines only provide relatively passive immunity, if and when they provide protection at all; and providing as well that over time the targeted pathogen has not mutated or changed to a point that the vaccine has become increasingly ineffective. This is what is happening currently in regard to the pertussis vaccine. As well in the use of the DPaT or whatever vaccine in the past was or currently is; other similar pathogens tend to because of the vaccine, as well become more commonly seen, dominant; and at times even more virulent. In regard to the known and current pertussis outbreaks, that non vaccine targeted pathogen is B.parapertusis; with B. pertussis of course being the existing vaccine targeted pathogen.

The second phase as to the understanding of why vaccine derived herd immunity is a myth, is to realize that thousands and if not millions of adults exist with having had no vaccines in decades. What are the odds that their childhood vaccines still protect them from polio, small pox, pertussis, diphtheria, measles, rubella, etc??? Agreed, there is a big push in the recent past to give tetanus boosters to adults, which often includes the entire, DTaP. But think of all the decades that have gone by where the ONLY people in that vaccinated herd, were the infants, and school children. In the recent past more of the CDC directive has gone to vaccination boosters for teens and college students, for certain, but limited numbers of vaccines.

http://www.vacfacts.info/the-false-theory-of-vaccine-derived—herd-immunity.html
___________

To get to your question as quoted here.

I’d like you to show some evidence that you actually understand the theoretical basis of herd immunity, so I’m going to pose the following thought experiment: suppose there is a particular disease, which spreads by human-to-human contact, and there is a non-vaccine treatment which reduces a treated individual’s chances of contracting the disease if exposed by 90%. In your opinion, would a sufficient number of people in the population using that treatment create a herd immunity effect, or not? Whatever your answer is, explain why you think it’s the correct answer.

Answer.

If 90% of the population were exposed to the said disease and as well the said preventative and there were to claim there were a 90% reduction in the disease; you would first need to prove that 90% of the population would have acquired the disease, if not for the preventative. You are attempting to prove a negative. To have your scenario stand as correct, you would have to believe that the vacines worked as advertised. Given the known outbreaks in fully vaccinated children, and as well the known decline in several of the vaccine targeted illneses long before a vaccine was available; leaves a huge hole in the and any such claim. You deny this; so we are back to square one, proving a negetive. Get it? There is no win.

Argument from ignorance

It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is “generally accepted” (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.

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

Argumentum ad Ignorantiam: (appeal to ignorance) the fallacy that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false or that it is false simply because it has not been proved true. This error in reasoning is often expressed with influential rhetoric.

http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/ignorance.html

8:13 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation. No. 2

@ Krebiozen

Excerpts from your reply.

I have been looking at Hilary Butler’s comment, and see no such nailing. I see no refutation or even attempt at a refutation of the conclusion that unvaccinated children are 22.8 times more likely to contract pertussis than the vaccinated.

( It was my request that Mr. Orac prove that claim, so are you thus saying that there was no proof of his claim?)

This is either ignorant or extremely dishonest of her. She may be correct that the “bit of colonization” allows some people to have a subclinical infection that reduces the herd effect a bit, but if everyone was vaccinated, this wouldn’t be a problem. Anyway, those who oppose vaccination seem to embrace natural infection as the ideal way of acquiring immunity that prevents natural infection (any strangulated logical hernias in that statement are not my responsibility).

( The problem in that statement is clearly in the fact that the know average vaccine exemptions rate is at an average of 55 or less. So you are telling me that simply adding 5% to the uptake rate to make a 100% vaccination rate, will solve the said problem? I guess you haven’t read my – The False Theory of Vaccine Derived – Herd Immunity page, either.
http://www.vacfacts.info/the-false-theory-of-vaccine-derived—herd-immunity.html

Butler hypothesizes that because those vaccinated against pertussis may not produce antibodies against ACT, this may explain why, “vaccinated adolescents and adults are unable to clear the bacteria, because their bodies learned the antibody immunity the wrong way, and therefore they also have no cellular immunity. The result is that they do spread frequent asymptomatic infections far and wide”.

This is utterly ludicrous, as original antigenic sin regarding ACT does not prevent the production of antibodies to the other components of the vaccine, the pertussis toxin and bacterial adhesins I mentioned, which prevent both the worst effects of the illness and its persistence. There is work being done on ACT as a possible component of future pertussis vaccines.

(Original antigenic sin regarding ACT does not prevent the production of antibodies to the other components of the vaccine, the pertussis toxin and bacterial adhesins I mentioned, which prevent both the worst effects of the illness and its persistence.

Do you have any scientific proof of that – your said claim?)

You do know as well that there have been several outbreaks of pertussis in the fully vaccinated? The majority of those outbreaks have been said in the fully vaccinated, and the CDC has this time not denied it. The CDC then continues to mindlessly fear monger that the unvaccinated are the causation and to keep up and up the vaccination rates and all the boosters. They even promoted the cocoon style vaccinating of whole families, and still the outbreaks occurred. Would it be any streach at all to tell you that the vaccine targeted strain of pertussis has mutated, and possibly because of the vaccine? Pertussis is a form of bacteria. If that mutations can happen due to antibiotics, then why not vaccines?

As well it currently it appears that B. parapertussis has become a far more prevelant pathogen than it previously was, and is at times indistinguishable as to visual diagnosis, from vaccine strain pertussis; which is of course B. pertussis.

Acellular pertussis vaccination enhances B. parapertussis colonization

An acellular whooping cough vaccine actually enhances the colonization of Bordetella parapertussis in mice; pointing towards a rise in B. parapertussis incidence resulting from acellular vaccination, which may have contributed to the observed increase in whooping cough over the last decade.

http://www.cidd.psu.edu/research/synopses/acellular-vaccine-enhancement…

Thats right!

Just so you and anyone else here knows, I refuse to respond to that kind of pointless stupidity.

If everybody took that attitude you'd have nobody to talk to, Lowell.

@ Narad

Thats funny, lots of in the know on vaccines parents, really like my information. And much to your obvious dismay, that is a fact.

Here you go, some perfect for the occasion reading material for you.

Potential Hazards of Modern Whooping Cough Tests; False positive results, unnecessary antibiotics, and inaccurate statistics, by Hilary Butler
http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2012/06/20/potential-hazards-of-testi…

Vitamin C for Whooping Cough. Updated Edition. Suzanne Humphries, MD
http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2012/09/07/vitamin-c-for-whooping-cou…

Why is nobody studying vitamin C in whooping cough? – Conventional medicine’s hypocrisy. by Suzanne Humphries, MD
http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2012/08/03/why-is-nobody-studying-vit…

"Just because the CDC proposed that, does not mean that it is correctly accurate."

Perhaps Lowell ought to write to the CDC to "correct" the epidemiological pertussis case criteria. I'm *certain* they would be interested in the *opinions* of an ignorant, uneducated, drunk with a criminal record.

Lowell,

You are grasping at straws, Krebiozen.

No, I'm not. This is an area I'm very familiar with, though more so in biochemistry than microbiology, and Foster is incorrect.

It is well known that diagnosis by evaluation of “the clinical symptoms”, has been unreliable. So are you going to tell me that a combination of said two unreliable diagnosis techniques, thus will equal a resulting good diagnosis technique?

It depends what you mean by "unreliable". Some methods have false positives and some have false negatives. If you combine two techniques you can end up with high sensitivity and specificity. If a patient has all the clinical signs and symptoms of pertussis, and they have a positive PCR for pertussis, then you can be reasonably confident that they have pertussis. That's how diagnosis of most conditions works, as very few diagnostic techniques are 100% reliable.

PCR used to have a problem with false positives due to contamination but better techniques and the use of real time PCR have greatly improved this. If a patient has a positive culture, they almost certainly have pertussis, but culture has a high false negative rate, so you will miss quite a number of cases. Here's an evaluation of a real time PCR method that gives a good idea of relative sensitivity and specificity - figure 3 sums it up nicely.

And epidemiological information refers to what; other presumed cases of pertussis that were so called verified the same way?

All of these methods are thoroughly evaluated before they are put into use, and are constantly monitored to make sure they are performing properly. You seem to think people working in diagnostics are imbeciles. We use external quality assurance which involves samples being sent to all accredited laboratories to be analyzed and the results checked, to be sure that methods are performing properly. If you get the results wrong without correcting the problem, you can lose your accreditation

By the way, even if clinical signs and symptoms plus PCR was unreliable in diagnosing pertussis, which it isn't, why would this affect a case control study? Why would unvaccinated children be disproportionately given false positive diagnoses?

Only 40?

At any rate perhaps *les mamans pensants* might scare up a few more after they read yesterday's rant:
Ms Cupcake shrieks to high heaven about what was taken from her when the vaccine-medical cartel destroyed her child. While she must step back to gather her forces, she asks others to "fight" for her.

These people desperately need some kind of real help and it's not the kind that AJW and their own cohorts supply.

@Lilady

There you go bringing proof again. You know Lowell doesn't understand proof, only the TROOF.

Error:

I posted in response to Narad on the thread about "rallying the troops".

I don’t suppose there would be any censorship going on? Who knows.

Any comment with more than two links is automatically held for moderation by the spam filter. Limiting to one or two links is not guaranteed to avoid the spam filter (the workings of which are often incomprehensible), but is fairly reliable.

Sometimes the links go a bit crazy here, but I haven’t had that happen before. Never mind. For those interested this is the paper in question. So let us start with the bit Lowell quoted:

“We identified 439 patients with a diagnosis of pertussis in the automated databases. Of these, 178 (41%) had a medical chart–verified positive PCR or positive culture for pertussis, and 165 were between 2 months and 18 years of age.”

Now we should see what Foster said about the paper

“PCR by itself is generally considered insufficient for diagnosing pertussis”. What Foster (and Lowell) have done is failed to read. The phrase “medical-chart verified” used is there for a reason.

A reading of the methods explains this further:

The medical charts of potential cases were then reviewed by a trained abstractor, who was blinded to vaccination status. Details from the pertinent medical encounter and all records up to 14 days after this encounter were abstracted. The abstractor recorded pertussis PCR and culture results, clinical diagnoses of pertussis, duration of cough, presenting symptoms (paroxysms, posttussive emesis, whoop), sequelae of pertussis (apnea, pneumonia, seizures, encephalopathy), and previous exposures to close contacts infected with pertussis.

Lowell,
Here we go again.

So you are telling me that simply adding 5% to the uptake rate to make a 100% vaccination rate, will solve the said problem?

You misunderstand me. Pertussis in the vaccinated is usually a far less serious illness than it is in the unvaccinated, so even if herd protection was not achieved, vaccination would still help. In point of fact, if everyone was up to date on their pertussis vaccinations, including boosters, the disease could probably be largely eliminated.

I guess you haven’t read my – The False Theory of Vaccine Derived – Herd Immunity page, either.

Yes I have, and frankly I'm surprised anyone would admit to having written such a piece of idiotic drivel. No offence.

I wrote:

Original antigenic sin regarding ACT does not prevent the production of antibodies to the other components of the vaccine, the pertussis toxin and bacterial adhesins I mentioned, which prevent both the worst effects of the illness and its persistence.

Lowell replied:

Do you have any scientific proof of that – your said claim?

That's a very odd question since what I claimed is the very definition of 'original antigenic sin'. The dominant antigens in the acellular vaccine are the pertussis toxin and bacterial adhesins, to which the immune system will preferentially mount responses when subsequently exposed to pertussis bacteria, according to the theory of original antigenic sin, which Butler brought up, so don't blame me.

You do know as well that there have been several outbreaks of pertussis in the fully vaccinated?

Yes, and this is relevant to Butler's arguments how?

The majority of those outbreaks have been said in the fully vaccinated, and the CDC has this time not denied it.

The vaccine is not 100% effective and 95% of people are vaccinated as you pointed out above, so you would expect the majority of cases to be in the vaccinated. It's very simple math, but then so is herd immunity and you appear to be incapable of grasping that.

Bacterial vaccines are problematic for various reasons. Anitivaxxers complained about the cellular pertussis vaccine because of (alleged) side-effects, though it was very effective, and now they complain about the acellular vaccine because it is less effective, though it is (supposedly) safer.

The CDC then continues to mindlessly fear monger that the unvaccinated are the causation and to keep up and up the vaccination rates and all the boosters. They even promoted the cocoon style vaccinating of whole families, and still the outbreaks occurred.

Since no one has yet refuted Glanz's estimate that the unvaccinated are 23 times more likely to get pertussis than the vaccinated I think the CDC are quite right in encouraging vaccination. The only mindless fearmongering I see comes from antivaxxers.

Would it be any streach at all to tell you that the vaccine targeted strain of pertussis has mutated, and possibly because of the vaccine? Pertussis is a form of bacteria. If that mutations can happen due to antibiotics, then why not vaccines?

Oh good grief... Bacteria constantly mutate to evade immune systems whether they are vaccinated or not. Maybe people should take immunosuppresants to stop their immune systems from encouraging pathogens to mutate?

As well it currently it appears that B. parapertussis has become a far more prevelant pathogen than it previously was, and is at times indistinguishable as to visual diagnosis, from vaccine strain pertussis; which is of course B. pertussis.

So you would prefer children to get good old-fashioned whooping cough so they develop immunity against parapertussis? I can tell you from personal experience that watching your child coughing until they are blue in the face for weeks is a horrible experience to watch, much less go through. We also need parapertussis vaccines, and I'm sure there are drug company researchers working on them at this moment.

Acellular pertussis vaccination enhances B. parapertussis colonization

In one experiment in mice! I repeat, would you prefer your child to have whooping cough? If not, what point are you trying to make here?

You don't appear to have made any substantive points in your comments, certainly nothing that suggests that Glanz was wrong in his estimate that the unvaccinated are 23 times more likely to get pertussis than the vaccinated (it bears repeated repetition I think).

Lowell wrote:

Why is nobody studying vitamin C in whooping cough? – Conventional medicine’s hypocrisy. by Suzanne Humphries, MD

Far out. Vitamin C for pertussis. You are dredging the bottom of the barrel here Lowell. This idea was debunked as long ago as 1938..

Not much more to say really. Although I did WTF at this comment by Suzanne Humphries

It seems very odd to me how viciously vitamin C has been attacked given that it is both safe and easily available. Could it be because vitamin C is not patented and because it leads to an improvement in overall health that FDA HAS COME DOWN SO HARD AGAINST ITS INTRAVENOUS USE?

Does this woman have any idea of how things work?

Oh and Lowell, you have failed to provide any useful evidence once again.

I’d like you to show some evidence that you actually understand the theoretical basis of herd immunity, so I’m going to pose the following thought experiment: suppose there is a particular disease, which spreads by human-to-human contact, and there is a non-vaccine treatment which reduces a treated individual’s chances of contracting the disease if exposed by 90%. In your opinion, would a sufficient number of people in the population using that treatment create a herd immunity effect, or not? Whatever your answer is, explain why you think it’s the correct answer.

If 90% of the population were exposed to the said disease and as well the said preventative and there were to claim there were a 90% reduction in the disease; you would first need to prove that 90% of the population would have acquired the disease, if not for the preventative. You are attempting to prove a negative. To have your scenario stand as correct, you would have to believe that the vacines worked as advertised. Given the known outbreaks in fully vaccinated children, and as well the known decline in several of the vaccine targeted illneses long before a vaccine was available; leaves a huge hole in the and any such claim. You deny this; so we are back to square one, proving a negetive. Get it? There is no win.

I'm afraid that your "answer" has nothing to do with the question I asked you. I asked you, in a thought experiment where we knew certain premises to be true, what you would expect to result from those premises. You can't answer a question like that by claiming you can disprove the premises - especially since you say you can prove "the vaccines [didn't] work[] as advertised", and I specifically asked you about a non-vaccine treatment.

You also seem to have misunderstood the premises themselves, because I used the figure of 90% in exactly one place: I said that in our thought experiment, "there is a non-vaccine treatment which reduces a treated individual’s chances of contracting the disease if exposed by 90%." Your reply talked about "claim[ing] there [was] a 90% reduction in the disease" and "you would first need to prove that 90% of the population would have acquired the disease, if not for the preventative," neither of which follow from the premise. (If I posited a treatment that reduced an individual's chances of contracting the disease when exposed to it by 0.05%, would I first need to prove that only 0.05% of the population would have acquired the disease, if not for the treatment??)

I'll give you another chance, so please pay attention. First: this is a thought experiment. When we do thought experiments, we can set premises and say "these are true in our hypothetical world; now what would the consequences of that be?" To talk about the premises being "unproven" makes no sense because the point is not to prove the premises but to extrapolate what the consequences would be. No one ever asked Einstein to prove that a train could travel at the speed of light; no one ever asked Schroedinger exactly which isotope and which poison he proposed to put in the box with the cat. Anyone who did would have been demonstrating their inability to engage correctly with the ideas that had been put forth.

Second: One of the premises of our thought experiment is that for the particular disease in question, the non-vaccine treatment reduces an individual's chances of contracting the disease when exposed to the pathogen by 90%. If a particular individual's chance of contracting the disease from a given exposure without the treatment is 50%, the treatment reduces it to 5%. If their chance without the treatment is 5%, the treatment reduces it to 0.5%. If their chance without the treatment is 100%, the treatment reduces it to 10%.

Now, with those being the premises, would a sufficient number of people in the community getting the treatment create a herd immunity effect? Why or why not?

ChrisP,

For me, your URL as appended stuff that breaks it. Trimming that off, I get:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2210412/

I’ve seen this claim and the reference you mention before. It's one of the things I brought up in a still-unpublished response to IAS spokesperson Michelle Rudgeley responding to a post I wrote, where I gave it an initial poke.

Chris

Humphries thinks Vitamin C cures everything; even tetanus. She'll trump out any study she can find from the 30's to the 50's (which are poorly set up and even worse controlled) to try to claim an effect.

Her 'regimen' for treating pertussis in a newborn is to give them Vitamin C until they lose their bowels; then you know you've hit the right dose.

I find that revolting.

Chris,

Does this woman have any idea of how things work?

Evidently not. All sorts of non-patented IV fluids, including high doses of ascorbate, are given to patients. In the treatment of burns high doses of ascorbate are part of standard care, as an ICU nurse told me a few years ago, to my surprise. She didn't report any miraculous cures though, sadly.

It took me a while to even understand Lowell's mathematical misunderstanding of the premise suggested to him, but I figured it out. Here's what was originally said:

... suppose there is a particular disease, which spreads by human-to-human contact, and there is a non-vaccine treatment which reduces a treated individual’s chances of contracting the disease if exposed by 90%.

If 90% of the population were exposed to the said disease and as well the said preventative and there were to claim there were a 90% reduction in the disease; you would first need to prove that 90% of the population would have acquired the disease, if not for the preventative. ...

He somehow thinks that "reducing an individual's chance of contracting the disease by 90%" means "finding a population whose percentage chance of contracting the disease is over 90%, and merely subtracting 90 from that percentage chance." However, this ignores both that a) we were specifying an individual's chance of contracting the disease from a particular exposure, not a measure of the general population, and b) percentages don't work that way. If Lowell went shopping and saw a sweater marked "Originally $90; now 90% off" he (presumably) wouldn't think that the sweater was now free because 90 - 90 = 0; why does he think that straight subtraction would be the correct way to calculate a percentage of a percentage?

@ ChrisP

Far out. Vitamin C for pertussis. You are dredging the bottom of the barrel here Lowell. This idea was debunked as long ago as 1938..

Not much more to say really. Although I did WTF at this comment by Suzanne Humphries

It seems very odd to me how viciously vitamin C has been attacked given that it is both safe and easily available. Could it be because vitamin C is not patented and because it leads to an improvement in overall health that FDA HAS COME DOWN SO HARD AGAINST ITS INTRAVENOUS USE?

Does this woman have any idea of how things work?

Oh and Lowell, you have failed to provide any useful evidence once again.

---------------------------

Really?

There are 23 scientific references at the bottom of this article, and as was reply posted for you. Nothing would be enough, would it? During the H1N1 (far less than a pandemic); there were as well cases that were obviously near to deaths door that were recovered by implementation
of IV Vitamin C. So why would the FDA then condemn and ban the use of that treatment? Only a drug can cure or prevent disease- FDA. Anything else requires millions in clinical trial testing funding. If that is not affordable nor feasible due to the balance sheet showing a less than profitable outcome even if you could acquire a patent; the substance and/or protocol will never make it to full scale use, nor be allowed to. You do not compete with pharma, all to obviously; a complete and manintained monopoly.

Vitamin C for Whooping Cough. Updated Edition. Suzanne Humphries, MD
http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2012/09/07/vitamin-c-for-whooping-cou…

If pharma's science is so good, and as well all the knowledge and so called improvements in and of their protocols and technology; then why does modern medicine remain in well done studies, as determined to be over-all a leading cause of death in the US?

Death by Medicine
http://www.vacfacts.info/death-by-medicine.html

@ Antaeus Feldspar

He somehow thinks that “reducing an individual’s chance of contracting the disease by 90%” means “finding a population whose percentage chance of contracting the disease is over 90%, and merely subtracting 90 from that percentage chance.” However, this ignores both that a) we were specifying an individual’s chance of contracting the disease from a particular exposure, not a measure of the general population, and b) percentages don’t work that way. If Lowell went shopping and saw a sweater marked “Originally $90; now 90% off” he (presumably) wouldn’t think that the sweater was now free because 90 – 90 = 0; why does he think that straight subtraction would be the correct way to calculate a percentage of a percentage?

----------------------

Somehow when you do not like the obvious conclusion of an analysis, you must spin it sideways and around and around until it somehow is supposed to make sense to you in the twisted terms you choose to use, and therefore in your mind reverts it back into some form a claim that you believe again supports your claimed to ascertion.

Really though, I think you should stick with the simplified version and stop trying to spin it back into your own version. I was correct. There is no necessary math involved, just common sense.

Lowell, you should really stop before you make a bigger fool of yourself.

Admit it; you don't understand statistics. You don't understand relative risk. You have no idea what you're trying to swim in, and you can barely tread water.

As for Humphries' references

1: Nothing to do with Vitamin C curing pertussis.

2: Nothing to do with Vitamin C curing pertussis.

3: Nothing to do with Vitamin C curing pertussis.

4: Nothing to do with Vitamin C curing pertussis.

5: Nothing to do with Vitamin C curing pertussis.

6: Nothing to do with Vitamin C curing pertussis.

7: Nothing to do with Vitamin C curing pertussis.

8: Nothing to do with Vitamin C curing pertussis.

9: Nothing to do with Vitamin C curing pertussis.

10: Nothing to do with Vitamin C curing pertussis.

11: Not even a correct cite of a reference. If it's the same reference as above (then you just use the same reference number in the text - you don't need to make a new entry for it.)

12: Nothing to do with Vitamin C curing pertussis.

13: Nothing to do with Vitamin C curing pertussis.

14: Nothing to do with Vitamin C curing pertussis.

15: Nothing to do with Vitamin C curing pertussis. (It is the first source that mentions Vitamin C though - so you're getting closer!)

16: Another improper cite.

17: Nothing to do with Vitamin C curing pertussis.

18: Nothing to do with Vitamin C curing pertussis.

19: Nothing to do with Vitamin C curing pertussis.

20: Another improper cite.

21: Nothing to do with Vitamin C curing pertussis.

22: Nothing to do with Vitamin C curing pertussis

23: Nothing to do with Vitamin C curing pertussis.

Congratulations. You've referred us to a 'referenced' article whose references do nothing to support the claims made.

What a piece of garbage - and that includes Humphries.

@ Darwy

Humphries thinks Vitamin C cures everything; even tetanus. She’ll trump out any study she can find from the 30′s to the 50′s (which are poorly set up and even worse controlled) to try to claim an effect.

Her ‘regimen’ for treating pertussis in a newborn is to give them Vitamin C until they lose their bowels; then you know you’ve hit the right dose.

I find that revolting.

----------------------

Vitamin C therapy has been around for a long time Darwy; you should actually educate yourself to the information before you comment. This is standard protocol if you want to do it right, and provide the maximum effective dose of vitamin C to fight off a pathogen. The body knows what that needed maximum dose is, and will excrete any excesses. That said dose in not the same for all individuals. When that tolerated dose is found, you then back off the dose until tolerated. It is a great way to assure that you do not become severely ill from the flu to the common cold. I recommend vitamin D3 in adequate amounts as well, and are far above the IOM recommended doses; which essentially will do little good for fighting an active viral or bacterial infection when a large portion of the public is known defiecient in vitamin D esspecailly in the winter when there is little exposure to direct sunlight.

Have you ever thought of going to Pubmed to see if there are any studies, before you shoot your mouth off Darway. Have you ever considered doing any unbiased research at all?

Vitamin D Supplementation, proper doses
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/about-vitamin-d/how-to-get-your-vitamin-…

Again, 23 scientific references were at the bottom of Butlers first article.

Zhonghua Jie He He Hu Xi Za Zhi. 2012 Jul;35(7):520-3.
[An in vitro study on the pharmacological ascorbate treatment of influenza virus].

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22931805

J Int Med Res. 2012;40(1):28-42.
A combination of high-dose vitamin C plus zinc for the common cold.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22429343

Dr. Archie Kalokerinos, vitamin C, simply google it. Just because mainstreeam does not promote it, and refuse to promote it, does not mean it is some sort of snake oil idea of treatment.

"If 90% of the population were exposed to the said disease and as well the said preventative and there were to claim there were a 90% reduction in the disease; you would first need to prove that 90% of the population would have acquired the disease, if not for the preventative."

Methinks this idiot has no idea how epidemiology works.

@ Darway

I think it is all to obvious who has actually made a fool of themselves Darwy. Deny it all you want. No facts nor science is acceptable to you that does not fit your in denial agenda. Ok thanks; and now that we have that cleared up and clearly understood.

@Lowell: Any specific complaints, or do you just have to hope people actually believe your vague taunts?

@ FilipinoMDstudent

No, I actually understand it completely, and that if you do not like the outcome of the information and the study, and in epidemiology; you just spin the dogmatic numbers and information util it either produces the desired finding, or you scrap your intended plan.

"No, I actually understand it completely"

Nah, you have proven beyond reasonable doubt that you have no idea what you are talking about. It's okay, though. Idiocy has been tolerated on this blog for a really long time.

So, Lowell - what you're saying is you know Humphries is a piece of trash, her theories are trash and she can't provide any proof of Vitamin C curing pertussis.

But in usual Lowell style, because you're dense enough that light bends around you, you try to point at everyone else in hopes that they won't notice how much of an ignorant jackarse that you are.

I hate to break it to you, but everyone noticed it about 10 posts ago.

@FilipinoMDStudent

You should see some of the blogs out there devoted to showcasing Lowell's idiocy and conspiracy theories. The man needs serious psychiatric help.

@Darwy

Yup, I tried reading about the guy and even some of the references he's been citing. I'm afraid I have to disagree about him being in need of psychiatric help, but only because saying he needs psychiatric help is an insult to psychiatric patients everywhere.

@ Antaeus Feldspar

He somehow thinks that “reducing an individual’s chance of contracting the disease by 90%” means “finding a population whose percentage chance of contracting the disease is over 90%, and merely subtracting 90 from that percentage chance.” However, this ignores both that a) we were specifying an individual’s chance of contracting the disease from a particular exposure, not a measure of the general population, and b) percentages don’t work that way. If Lowell went shopping and saw a sweater marked “Originally $90; now 90% off” he (presumably) wouldn’t think that the sweater was now free because 90 – 90 = 0; why does he think that straight subtraction would be the correct way to calculate a percentage of a percentage?

Somehow when you do not like the obvious conclusion of an analysis, you must spin it sideways and around and around until it somehow is supposed to make sense to you in the twisted terms you choose to use, and therefore in your mind reverts it back into some form a claim that you believe again supports your claimed to ascertion.

Really though, I think you should stick with the simplified version and stop trying to spin it back into your own version. I was correct. There is no necessary math involved, just common sense.

I don't think you actually understand what an "argument" is, Lowell.

Everything you said in your quoted response above is just fancy words for "You're wrong, and I'm right." Well, everyone already knows you believe that. But what reason are you giving them to think they should believe it too?

Believe or not, I'm actually giving you help, Lowell. I'm giving you a chance to demonstrate that you understand the theoretical basis of herd immunity. If you can show that understanding, that will make people more inclined to think, "gee, he knows what he's talking about! Maybe he's right about vaccine-derived herd immunity not being real!" Of course, it does go the other way as well.

So I'll give you yet another chance. I'll skip over the percentages math that you find so difficult, and phrase it this way: in our hypothetical world, whatever an untreated individual's chance would be of contracting the disease when exposed to it, a treated individual's chance of contracting the disease under the exact same exposure conditions are one-tenth of that. Now, would a sufficient number of people in a community receiving that treatment create a herd immunity effect, or not? Why, or why not?

Remember, it's not going to do any good to bluster about "your premises are unproven," because then you'll just be demonstrating that you don't understand what a thought experiment is, and how can you expect people to believe you understand epidemiology better than epidemiologists when you don't understand one of the most basic tools of that field (not to mention of countless others)?

/popcorn

Not sure if this will get you to the right place, since I've already opted for my answer, it only allowed me to go to the 'results' page. Apparently someone named Meryl Dorey has sent in 'flying monkeys' to boost the numbers on the will not vaccinate side of the poll. So thought we should maybe do the same, because even with all the flying monkeys, vaccinations are still over 50%, but we need to show then just how low their numbers actually are.
http://www.causes.com/causes/787378-the-immunization-initiative/actions… I apologize if this doesn't get you to the right place, I'm not 100% certain how to direct you other then this. But perhaps a little poking around will help you find it.

@Lara

Meryl is the Queen of the AVN .. the "Australian Vaccination Network" a rabid bunch of anti-vaccination folks who will bomb any poll or questionnaire on the internet.

She's been caught in so many lies, it boggles the mind.

Lowell,

Regards the vitamin-C treatment of pertussis, I’ve previously looked into this in response to claims make to media by the then IAS* spokesperson, Michelle Rudgeley. Yes, there are some studies, but research literature must be taken as a whole - you can't cherry-pick. The literature does not support it’s use. (There is more than on my blog; I never published an examination of a further rebuttal that Rudgeley wrote.)

---
* An anti-vaccine organisation founded by Hilary Butler, run as a charitable organisation. (You'd wish were limited to organisations that benefited others, eh?)

@Grant

Lowell only knows how to cherry-pick and misinterpret science. He has no grasp of the concept of 'research literature taken as a whole'.

He sees research he doesn't agree with, because it doesn't conform to his bias, and ignores it. Or calls it 'pharma paid' or 'government funded' or some other conspiracy that's in his mind.

There are many great articles/pages/blogs that the Faecbook page for Informed Parents of Vaccinated Children share and post. Since I don't want to bombard the comments every time they post something, thought I'd allow everyone the opportunity to check them out for themselves: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Informed-Parents-of-Vaccinated-Children/2…

@ Lara: It's a great Facebook page...I refer to it often.

OK, the system has begun transmitting. Getting LOS was a bit tricky.

CQ CQ CQ de CWO-39 QTC QTC
NR 01 01 =

No, I actually understand it completely, and that if you do not like the outcome of the information and the study, and in epidemiology; you just spin the dogmatic numbers and information util it either produces the desired finding, or you scrap your intended plan.

You know anyone about it and those studies, and refuse to be any actual data to enter into the fact. Those documents, have you will and psychological evaluation and those studies, as that you have a fact cow to falsely discredit the reason that would they will everywhere? Your agenda.

Unquote do you that?

- T -
AR AR QRU QRU SK SK

@ Darwy: FWIW, I bear lurkers in mind when I write ;-)

@lilady, Lara: have to admit it's the first counterpart of the likes of the AVN, IAS, VFFNZ, etc., Facebook pages I've seen. But then, it's not as if I look for them.

Is that you Lowell bot? Now you are finally making sense.

Lowell, you really are dense aren’t you. Did you have a look at the references? I did and I was unconvinced by the argument based on them. Darwy has already been through them and explained their significance for Humphries’ argument.

Allow me to sum up Humphries’ argument as I saw it:

“More vaccinated people get whooping cough than unvaccinated; that children who contact whooping cough naturally can become immune to the bacterium; I don’t understand how the immune system works, so I can just make it up; pertussis bacterium produces toxins; anti-oxidants are supposed to be good at removing toxins; therefore Vitamin C will stop symptoms of whooping cough.”

The argument is as nutty as a box of frogs.

You claim modern medicine is the leading cause of death in the US? I don’t think so.

@ChrisP

What do you have against poor innocent frogs?

In re: the Vitamin C argument, I can remember every winter back in the 70's having my mother buy huge bottles of tablets and lining us up to take them, not that this made much difference in the # and frequency of our catching colds. I'm not aware of any evidence supporting its efficacy against anything except, possibly, scurvy.

@ Antaeus Feldspar

So I’ll give you yet another chance. I’ll skip over the percentages math that you find so difficult, and phrase it this way: in our hypothetical world, whatever an untreated individual’s chance would be of contracting the disease when exposed to it, a treated individual’s chance of contracting the disease under the exact same exposure conditions are one-tenth of that. Now, would a sufficient number of people in a community receiving that treatment create a herd immunity effect, or not? Why, or why not?

---------------------------

Again, first you have to prove that a treated individual’s chance of contracting the disease under the exact same exposure conditions are one-tenth of that of an untreated person. You are loading a loaded question, and you should know that. If the effect of being treated is no more than 1/10th more effective than not being treated, I would say that likely herd immunity could never be achieved. Herd immunity only speaks of naturally acquired illness and that in almost every case gives long term immunity which is as well most often life long and complete immunity. Temporary immunity provided for some but not all persons, leaves holes all over the place for the pathogen to work its way back in, especially when an equally as large adult population is often never even vaccinated again. Clearly any vaccine derived immunity may only last a relatively short time in years. This as said blows the entire vaccine derived herd immunity claim to literal dust.

Now that I have addressed that, and after you spun it all 4 different ways and while still coming up empty; please provide me with some vaccine aluminum adjuvant safety studies. These are the studies you will need to counter with them. http://www.vacfacts.info/index.html

ANTI anti-vaxers?...TAKE NOTE ...here is some truth you likely will deny....but as Ayn Rand suggests:
You can ignore reality, but you cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality------*

HERE...you will take note: In the discussion section---scroll hard right and open the location to read---you will see 119 genes on the human genome with 535 "hotspots" where "residual DNA" (what is this?....the DNA from insects, animals, yeast, mold, viral forms, bacteria, and even ABORTED BABIES) that can cause autism and other neurodegenerative diseases..etc.

Computational Detection of Homologous Recombination Hotspots in X-Chromosome Autism-Associated Genes
http://www.cogforlife.org/SCPIIMFARHR.pdf

@Lara Lohne (AKA: Venna)

You forgot to mention that there are many other parents on facebook that do not share your view.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Proud-Parents-of-Unvaccinated-Children/3…

@ Grant

Lowell,

Regards the vitamin-C treatment of pertussis, I’ve previously looked into this in response to claims make to media by the then IAS* spokesperson, Michelle Rudgeley. Yes, there are some studies, but research literature must be taken as a whole – you can’t cherry-pick. The literature does not support it’s use. (There is more than on my blog; I never published an examination of a further rebuttal that Rudgeley wrote.)

--------------

What 23 scientific references were not enough for you in regard to treating pertussis with vitamin C. And because none of them supported your agenda, you call them all cherry picked? If 100 studies had been selected, would you as well call them as well all cherry picked? Who is actually doing the cherry picking, here? But yet you can not refute any of the studies? Imagine that.

http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2012/09/07/vitamin-c-for-whooping-cou…

Shay

12:45 am
@ChrisP

What do you have against poor innocent frogs?

In re: the Vitamin C argument, I can remember every winter back in the 70′s having my mother buy huge bottles of tablets and lining us up to take them, not that this made much difference in the # and frequency of our catching colds. I’m not aware of any evidence supporting its efficacy against anything except, possibly, scurvy.

----------------

Ever heard of Pubmed???

J Int Med Res. 2012;40(1):28-42.
A combination of high-dose vitamin C plus zinc for the common cold.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22429343

Can Fam Physician. 2011 Jan;57(1):31-6.
Complementary and alternative medicine for prevention and treatment of the common cold.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21322286

Am Fam Physician. 2012 Jul 15;86(2):153-9.
Treatment of the common cold in children and adults.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22962927

There are a bunch of them there. But your good doctor didn't tell you so you, and the FDA states that only a drug can cure or prevent disease, so keep sticking with that.

@ ChrisP

October 1, 8:27 pm

Lowell, you really are dense aren’t you. Did you have a look at the references? I did and I was unconvinced by the argument based on them. Darwy has already been through them and explained their significance for Humphries’ argument.

Allow me to sum up Humphries’ argument as I saw it:

“More vaccinated people get whooping cough than unvaccinated; that children who contact whooping cough naturally can become immune to the bacterium; I don’t understand how the immune system works, so I can just make it up; pertussis bacterium produces toxins; anti-oxidants are supposed to be good at removing toxins; therefore Vitamin C will stop symptoms of whooping cough.”

The argument is as nutty as a box of frogs.

You claim modern medicine is the leading cause of death in the US? I don’t think so.

--------------------------

The only that is nutty is a person who can not comprehend that removing toxins is essential to staying healthy and in recovery from illness. Vitamin C is an antioxidant, and detoxifier, and you actually deny that? If you do not like Humphries 23 studies, then go to pubmed and check out some more; maybe you will find one you can't reject? If it doesn't fit your agenda, no amount of studies would ever be enough. Nice going.

And to counter what I put forth regarding two studies, one in 2000 and one in 2003, the first one which was actually published in the AMA Journal (later removed, no reason given), showing that over-all modern medicine was the 3rd leading cause of death in the US. The second study in 2003 showed the same said pharma system to be the leading cause of death. To counter those to studies and as well all of this information, Death by Medicine http://www.vacfacts.info/death-by-medicine.html you give me an actually dead link at the CDC site? That surely was impressive.

Oh, the lulz , this is gold - Lowell doesn't even recognise a fake PPOUC page even when the snark is obvious - if he had been following things properly he would have seen the real PPOUC page squeal , hoist their skirts and run away some days ago when pressured by a few pro-vaxxers in their midst!!
https://www.facebook.com/embarrassedcousins/posts/420611024653840

Lowell,

You've clearly not read what I have written, yet "demand" I respond to what you write. Can you see the double standard in writing that?

You've also misrepresented me. (Which reminds me of another troll, incidentally.) My reference to cherry-picking was to what Michelle Rudgeley wrote - as I said.

What I wrote that the literature does not support it's use - i.e. taken as a whole.

(Darwy addressed these paper earlier, pointing out what they show; your response was an empty dismissal, suggesting you are not really interested in what the papers do or not show, just in asserting what you would like to be true.)

The reason I wrote at all was that you kept making out others haven't looked into this, but I have and I found that the literature does not support it’s use.

Lowell,
You are clearly way out of your depth here, and don't understand this subject at all. There's no shame in ignorance (unless it's willful), but trying to pretend you understand this makes you look very foolish indeed. You can't bluff people who know the subject.

If the effect of being treated is no more than 1/10th more effective than not being treated, I would say that likely herd immunity could never be achieved.

In the scenario Antaeus described, "whatever an untreated individual’s chance would be of contracting the disease when exposed to it, a treated individual’s chance of contracting the disease under the exact same exposure conditions are one-tenth of that", in other words the treatment is 90% effective, in the same ballpark as most vaccines.

Herd immunity only speaks of naturally acquired illness.

That's not true. It doesn't matter what the source of immunity is for herd immunity to occur. If 95% of the population wore biohazard suits (I know it's impractical, this is a hypothetical situation), herd immunity against pertussis would occur (herd immunity threshold in pertussis is 92–94% because it is very contagious). It's a matter of reducing the number of people an infected person infects.

If each infected person infects two other people, the number of infected people will increase exponentially (2, 4, 8, 16, 32 etc.), what we call an outbreak or an epidemic. In the case of pertussis, in a completely non-immune population each infected person will infect 12-17 others, because it is spread by aerosol droplets and is very contagious.

If each infected person only infects one other person the disease will become endemic. If each infected person infects, on average, less than one person, the disease will eventually be eradicated (assuming no animal or other reservoir, or reintroduction from outside).

Let's say that each infected person is in close enough contact to infect ten other people every day. If none of those people have immunity to the disease there's a good chance of them catching it depending on how contagious the disease is. If nine of those people are immune to the disease, whether naturally, through vaccination, or by wearing biohazard suits, and only one is non-immune then only that one non-immune person can get infected, and so on.

and that in almost every case gives long term immunity which is as well most often life long and complete immunity

That's not true either. As we accumulate more evidence it's looking more and more likely that the immunity from most vaccines is similar to that gained from natural infection, and when it isn't a booster can be given, without the risks associated with the actual disease.

You seem to forget that there is constant influx of non-immune people into the population: babies. In non-vaccinated populations contagious diseases go in cycles. As the number of non-immune people increases, and as soon as there enough of them, and one of them gets infected, an outbreak occurs. The outbreak ends when there are too few people to maintain the exponential spread. That's why childhood diseases used to occur in childhood.

You also seem to forget that natural lifelong immunity is won at the cost of most children getting the actual disease, with the burden of death and disability that comes with it. That's the whole point of vaccination.

So what we have here is a vaccine that has mutated the pertussis pathogen, and as well caused B. parapertussis, (not in the vaccine) to become a more common and if not dominant pathogen, which literally indistinguishable from B pertussis. Add to that the lack of testing and possible unreliable PCR testing, even when used. We have the CDC saying nothing about the problem but to further fear monger about getting the in recognition of the clearly now often failed vaccine. We have outbreaks in fully vaccinated groups. And we have an exemption rate in the schools said to be at 5% or less. And the CDC keeps on blaming the unvaccinated while neglecting to inform the public of the real problem. Top that off we have Hilary Butler promoting the use of vitamin C, and she is considered as only a snake oil salesman. I see the problem.

Whooping Cough Outbreaks Are 10 Times More Deadly Because of the Vaccine
http://gaia-health.com/gaia-blog/2012-08-04/whooping-cough-outbreaks-ar…

Acellular pertussis vaccination enhances B. parapertussis colonization

An acellular whooping cough vaccine actually enhances the colonization of Bordetella parapertussis in mice; pointing towards a rise in B. parapertussis incidence resulting from acellular vaccination, which may have contributed to the observed increase in whooping cough over the last decade.

http://www.cidd.psu.edu/research/synopses/acellular-vaccine-enhancement…

Potential Hazards of Modern Whooping Cough Tests; False positive results, unnecessary antibiotics, and inaccurate statistics, by Hilary Butler
http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2012/06/20/potential-hazards-of-testi…

But oops, whats this? Its happening with the polio vaccine too? Imagine that?

Mutant Polio Virus Spreads in Nigeria
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-204_162-5242168.html

Mutated Polio From Vaccine Is Spreading in Africa
http://www.gaia-health.com/articles51/000078-Polio-Caused-By-Vaccine.sh…

Nigeria Sees Polio Outbreak from Mutated Vaccine Virus
A mutated virus from the oral vaccine used to prevent the spread of polio in Nigeria has paralyzed at least 124 children in the West African country this year.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/health/july-dec09/polio_08-24.html

Polio in Nigeria Traced to Mutating Vaccine
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/11/world/africa/11polio.html?_r=0

Mutated virus confirms polio vaccine fears. New Delhi
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1101024/jsp/nation/story_13094132.jsp

Polio vaccine suspected as cause of fatal mutant form of encephalitis
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2047-mutant-polio-vaccine-regains…

Mutant polio vaccine regains virulence
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2047-mutant-polio-vaccine-regains…

Lowell, it has already been pointed out of that Suzanne Humphries’ 23 references only one has any vague relevance to the claim and that one is vague.

You seem to forget that I already went to PubMed to check on the claim about Vitamin C and pertussis and found it had been debunked in 1938. There were 3 papers suggesting a positive effect dating from earlier years, but they were all small case studies of a few patients. There has been nothing positive since 1937. I make that 75 years ago.

But if you are interested in what the research really says about Vitamin C, I recommend the Cochrane Collaboration meta-analyses. This is the one for common cold. Let’s see what it concludes:

Regular ingestion of vitamin C had no effect on common cold incidence in the ordinary population. However, it had a modest but consistent effect in reducing the duration and severity of common cold symptoms.

Not terribly convincing.

As to removing toxins. I have a liver and kidneys for that. Strangely, my body makes all sorts of toxins all on its own. And then to stay alive, I must breathe in oxygen, another toxin.

Ah the old modern medicine is the leading cause of death being dragged up again. You realise this is an old trope perpetrated by the likes of Mercola, Adams and Null to get suckers to part with their money for non medicine. Perhaps I should remind you again that medicine which works is called medicine; that which doesn’t work is called alternative medicine by those pushing it.

I really have to fix how the links come out – without preview it is a bit tough – but the CDC one was http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm

LOL at Lowell being 'punk'd' by a fake Facebook page.

Then again, he's complained about the FBI, ICE and 'black hat hackers' have hacked his Facebook and website.

He's certifiable.

@ janerella

That page was for proud Parents of Unvaccinated Children, was still there a few days ago. At that time there had been commenting about threats and how they were threatened and feared for their lives. All because of people like you. And obviously you are knowledgeable about it. They are now said to be a private group and nothing remains on their actual old (real) page.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Proud-Parents-of-Unvaccinated-Children/2…

Interesting as well are these comments.

BEWARE PRIOR FRIENDS OF PPOUC, THIS PAGE THIS PAGE AND ALL PPOUC FOUNDED IN AUG OR SEPT ARE FAKE! THERE IS LEGAL ACTION AGAINST THE PAGE ADMINISTRATORS OF EMBARRASSED COUSINS OF PROUD PARENTS OF UNVACCINATED CHILDREN AND THESE FRAUD PAGES WERE CREATED TO HARASS THE NEW FRIENDS OF PPOUC WHO THINK THESE ARE LEGIT PAGES!!!! BE CAREFUL!!

The administrator took it down due to cyberbullying by embarrassed.cousins of proud parents of unvaccinated children and there's legal action being taken against them. They do have a closed group now. Can't give out any further info than that.

You can see that this is an example of the level of desperation the pro vax side will go to harass and to silence the truth. So be. Sick stuff.

@Krebiozen,

[bows, grovels]
I am not worthy!

This is elegant:

"You seem to forget that there is constant influx of non-immune people into the population: babies. In non-vaccinated populations contagious diseases go in cycles. As the number of non-immune people increases, and as soon as there enough of them, and one of them gets infected, an outbreak occurs. The outbreak ends when there are too few people to maintain the exponential spread. That’s why childhood diseases used to occur in childhood.

You also seem to forget that natural lifelong immunity is won at the cost of most children getting the actual disease, with the burden of death and disability that comes with it. That’s the whole point of vaccination."

Darwy

LOL at Lowell being ‘punk’d’ by a fake Facebook page.

Then again, he’s complained about the FBI, ICE and ‘black hat hackers’ have hacked his Facebook and website.

He’s certifiable.

---------------

You act and sound like a bratty child, but what else is new for you people. Grow up.

No complaint was ever made that ICE or FBI had hacked my facebook nor my site. You better get your facts straight. However as a fact my old site was hacked by a known individual that admitted to it 15 months ago. My facebook acct., was recently hacked, but has since been set up with phone code log in. Good luck with that if tried again.

You can bring anything you want to me, dude. Unlike the people over at Proud Parents, I fear nothing.

So I’ll give you yet another chance. I’ll skip over the percentages math that you find so difficult, and phrase it this way: in our hypothetical world, whatever an untreated individual’s chance would be of contracting the disease when exposed to it, a treated individual’s chance of contracting the disease under the exact same exposure conditions are one-tenth of that. Now, would a sufficient number of people in a community receiving that treatment create a herd immunity effect, or not? Why, or why not?

Again, first you have to prove that a treated individual’s chance of contracting the disease under the exact same exposure conditions are one-tenth of that of an untreated person.

As anyone can verify by reading the thread above, Lowell, you were already gently alerted to what an educated person would already have known: you can't demand "proof" of the premises of a thought experiment. No person with half a clue would listen to Einstein say "Suppose we had a train that traveled at the speed of light" and demand that Einstein "prove" that his imaginary train is really going that speed. No person with half a clue would demand that Schroedinger "prove" that the imaginary isotope and imaginary vial of poison he's putting in an imaginary box have exactly 50/50 chances of killing an imaginary cat within a specified time frame.

It's been spelled out for you before; it can't be spelled out any plainer. In a thought experiment, you accept the premises that are given, and then ask "What would follow from those premises, in an imaginary world where the premises are true?" Anyone who can't deal with a thought experiment is intellectually crippled, because planning for the future requires just that sort of thinking about "I haven't made this choice yet, but if I made it this way, what would be the consequences of that choice?"

You are loading a loaded question, and you should know that.

I'll demonstrate how a thought experiment works. Suppose we have an Oracle, whose pronouncements are known to be absolutely true. And suppose that Oracle said "Believe it or not, Lowell actually was trying to communicate something he believed with the phrase 'You are loading a loaded question.'" Then I would have to take it as true that you actually had a meaning in mind, and would have to guess at what the meaning could possibly be.

In this case, I think the most likely meaning is "If I do what an educated, responsible adult would do and follow your thought experiment to its logical conclusions, I don't like the conclusions. Therefore, I'll pretend that there's something wrong with the thought experiment, and also that I don't even know what a thought experiment is." Now of course, that's a dishonest, fallacious response, because whether an argument is valid or not is in no way determined by whether you like its conclusions.

If the effect of being treated is no more than 1/10th more effective than not being treated, I would say that likely herd immunity could never be achieved.

And once again, you demonstrate an impressive non-grasp of both math and reading comprehension. "If the effect of being treated is no more than 1/10th more effective than not being treated" means that if an untreated person's chance of contracting the illness upon exposure is 50%, a treated person's chance would be no lower than 45%. That is, quite blatantly, a lot different from the actual premise, in which a person whose chance of contracting the disease would be 50% if untreated would have just a 5% chance if treated. Since I gave you exactly those sample percentages and more besides to demonstrate exactly what our premise of the treatment's effectiveness meant, the only possible conclusions are: you can't read with comprehension beyond a second-grade level, or you aren't even making a good-faith effort. Or, of course, both.

Herd immunity only speaks of naturally acquired illness

Now, did you pull that out of your own @ss, or some other antivaxxer's? We're talking about a thought experiment where we only know that immunity is acquired by some means; it's special pleading to introduce an unfounded assumption that it matters whether the immunity is "natural" or not.

and that in almost every case gives long term immunity which is as well most often life long and complete immunity.

Irrelevant to our thought experiment. Do you really have no better response than a desperate attempt to change the subject?

Temporary immunity provided for some but not all persons, leaves holes all over the place for the pathogen to work its way back in, especially when an equally as large adult population is often never even vaccinated again.

Irrelevant to our thought experiment. Do you really have no better response than a desperate attempt to change the subject?

Clearly any vaccine derived immunity may only last a relatively short time in years.

Irrelevant to our thought experiment, especially as from the very beginning and as I've already explained to you once, our hypothetical treatment is not a vaccine. Do you really have no better response than a desperate attempt to change the subject? Of course you don't, and I guess at some level you understand that, that if you were to answer these questions honestly it would show your position up for the mass of contradictions it is.

This as said blows the entire vaccine derived herd immunity claim to literal dust.

@ ChrisP

You can spin it any way you want. The truth is that there is plenty of science that does show the benefits of vitamin C, and as to how and why, no matter what the pathogen is or might be. You are simply in denial and refuse to be wrong.

Your little trick with the CDC document has been tried before. The problem for you is that you failed to do the math when you put that CDC information together with the information in those studies, and especially the latest one. All you have going again and again is just more desperate throwing mud and feces at the authors of the study; and falsely shooting the messenger . In that tactic you never once addressed the actual study in any form of refute. If those studies could be refuted it would have already been done, but they never have been. the first study came from Barbara Starfield and was published right in the AMA Journal, and you still want to throw your poo at it? Nothing would be ever enough for you denialists.

Your link
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm

Compare it, the numbers
http://www.vacfacts.info/death-by-medicine.html

@ Antaeus Feldspar

Isn't that just a bit of over-kill on herd immunity? That is the most mindless expose I have ever seen, Feldspar! You call that a thought experiment? I would call it far more; how about an experiment in mind control, at best. And with all that you still pointed out nothing. Amazing. What I had put in front of you was in such simplified terms, that even Paul Offit could understand it . And you go and waste the time to put a kackbunkled and bent sideways expose of literal trash like that. LOL.

How absolutely desperate are you people, and how desperate do you actually look. You should be embarrassed; but you apparently never are, because you are so deep in your denial, that anything goes; no matter how ridiculous.

Lets recap this and essentially cap it off, all the bull crap.

What we have here is a vaccine that has mutated the pertussis pathogen, and as well caused B. parapertussis, (not in the vaccine) to become a more common and if not dominant pathogen, which literally indistinguishable from B pertussis. Add to that the lack of testing and possible unreliable PCR testing, even when used. We have the CDC saying nothing about the problem but to further fear monger about getting the in recognition of the clearly now often failed vaccine. We have outbreaks in fully vaccinated groups. And we have an exemption rate in the schools said to be at 5% or less. And the CDC keeps on blaming the unvaccinated while neglecting to inform the public of the real problem. Top that off we have Hilary Butler promoting the use of vitamin C, and she is considered as only a snake oil salesman. I see the problem.

Whooping Cough Outbreaks Are 10 Times More Deadly Because of the Vaccine
http://gaia-health.com/gaia-blog/2012-08-04/whooping-cough-outbreaks-ar…

Acellular pertussis vaccination enhances B. parapertussis colonization

An acellular whooping cough vaccine actually enhances the colonization of Bordetella parapertussis in mice; pointing towards a rise in B. parapertussis incidence resulting from acellular vaccination, which may have contributed to the observed increase in whooping cough over the last decade.

http://www.cidd.psu.edu/research/synopses/acellular-vaccine-enhancement…

Potential Hazards of Modern Whooping Cough Tests; False positive results, unnecessary antibiotics, and inaccurate statistics, by Hilary Butler
http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2012/06/20/potential-hazards-of-testi…

But oops, whats this? Its happening with the polio vaccine too? Imagine that?

Mutant Polio Virus Spreads in Nigeria
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-204_162-5242168.html

Mutated Polio From Vaccine Is Spreading in Africa
http://www.gaia-health.com/articles51/000078-Polio-Caused-By-Vaccine.sh…

Nigeria Sees Polio Outbreak from Mutated Vaccine Virus
A mutated virus from the oral vaccine used to prevent the spread of polio in Nigeria has paralyzed at least 124 children in the West African country this year.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/health/july-dec09/polio_08-24.html

Polio in Nigeria Traced to Mutating Vaccine
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/11/world/africa/11polio.html?_r=0

Mutated virus confirms polio vaccine fears. New Delhi
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1101024/jsp/nation/story_13094132.jsp

Polio vaccine suspected as cause of fatal mutant form of encephalitis
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2047-mutant-polio-vaccine-regains…

Mutant polio vaccine regains virulence
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2047-mutant-polio-vaccine-regains…

This as said blows the entire vaccine derived herd immunity claim to literal dust.

That of course should have been blockquoted. Not only do I not possess the delusion that the mathematical consequence called herd immunity stops working if the individual immunities it is based on are achieved through vaccination, I know what the freaking word "literal" means.

Anj,

This is elegant:

Why thank you [blushes].

@ Anj

8:22 am
@Krebiozen,

[bows, grovels]
I am not worthy!

This is elegant:

“You seem to forget that there is constant influx of non-immune people into the population: babies. In non-vaccinated populations contagious diseases go in cycles. As the number of non-immune people increases, and as soon as there enough of them, and one of them gets infected, an outbreak occurs. The outbreak ends when there are too few people to maintain the exponential spread. That’s why childhood diseases used to occur in childhood.

You also seem to forget that natural lifelong immunity is won at the cost of most children getting the actual disease, with the burden of death and disability that comes with it. That’s the whole point of vaccination.”

----------------------

So you are claiming that illness/disease outbreaks are dependant on the disease cycles of and in the incoming number of babies. You also claim that the outbreak ends only when there are too few people to maintain the exponential spread. Why aren't the outbreaks ever ending then Anj, because they have continued, and as well in mostly the vaccinated? But you will of course deny that.

That’s why childhood diseases used to occur in childhood, and not adulthood? That would be a real long shot, to claim to that, as there is no direct correlation. Diseases (illnesses) occur in childhood because there has been no prior exposure. They also occur and build and prime the immune system response properly, if allowed to happen through natural illness. You can fear monger all day and all night about the potential for disability and death in regard to non vaccinating, but I would take my chances with an entirely non dysregulated by vaccines immune system any day, over that of vaccinating over and over again with potentially contaminated and chemical filled and toxic. however if you do not know nor admit to the risk of vaccinating and the odds of ending up with a vaccine injured child, then you can NEVER properly evaluate any form of the benefits verses risks. You are denying the risks. Thats the whole point of learning how to keep a person healthy by naturopathic means.

Lowell: I've heard of Pubmed; and unlike you, I can actually read. And the three studies you cite are full of qualifiers like "may," "possibly," and "mild." In none of them do I find any kind of ringing endorsement. At best the second one states that prescribing Vitamin C does no harm.

@ Antaeus Feldspar

[Not only do I not possess the delusion that the mathematical consequence called herd immunity stops working if the individual immunities it is based on are achieved through vaccination, I know what the freaking word “literal” means.

------------

mathematical consequence

if the individual immunities it is based on are achieved through vaccination]

I suggest talking in other than alien mind control language, Feldspar. 10 times reading it and it still shows nor proves nothing. That is and would incule an as well an assumption that the vaccines work as advertized

You call that a thought experiment? I would call it far more; how about an experiment in mind control, at best.

Lowell, you don't even understand what a thought experiment is. You proved that over and over when you kept asking me to "prove" the premises of the thought experiment I was proposing to you. There is no such thing. You think you "won" but what you really did was prove to anyone who understands what a thought experiment is that you can't grasp the concept even when it's explained to you simply and repeatedly. Why would anyone believe that you know more about epidemiology than the epidemiologists, when you can't understand such a basic tool?

Lowell 8:04 am (and again at 9:02 am), Oct 2:

So what we have here is a vaccine that has mutated the pertussis pathogen,

Please be so kind as to explain how this can happen. The vaccine, after all, is destroyed and excreted by normal physiological processes, long before the pertussis pathogen is present. It has left behind only the antibodies to the pathogen — antibodies that have been created by normal physiological processes, and that are the same antibodies that a "natural" infection would cause.
If the pathogen has been mutated as a result of these antibodies, why would the "natural" infection's antibodies fail to generate the same mutations? Do you claim some magic in the physiological processes?

and as well caused B. parapertussis, (not in the vaccine) to become a more common and if not dominant pathogen, which [is?] literally indistinguishable from B pertussis.

If B. parapertussis is actually indistinguishable from B . pertussis, how is its presence detected, and why does it have a name that is distinguishable from the other's name? If the one is actually indistinguishable from the other, how are they detected separately? Hint: 'literally' is a synonym for 'actually' of 'in fact'.
Or maybe it's just the case that you are as confused and/or ignorant of physiology and immunology as you have shown yourself to be of epidemiology and science in general.

Humbug! thew second indented blockquote should not have been a blockquote at all, in mine of 10:50 am.

@Shay

9:36 am
Lowell: I’ve heard of Pubmed; and unlike you, I can actually read. And the three studies you cite are full of qualifiers like “may,” “possibly,” and “mild.” In none of them do I find any kind of ringing endorsement. At best the second one states that prescribing Vitamin C does no harm.

---------------

Really, let me excerpt it for you so you can read it again. I see no such thing. As well there are several more studies as you go down the list and the pages. You people will obviously and repeatedly lie your way out of anything.

J Int Med Res. 2012;40(1):28-42.
A combination of high-dose vitamin C plus zinc for the common cold.

Maggini S, Beveridge S, Suter M.
Source: Bayer Consumer Care Ltd, Peter-Merian-Strasse 84, Postbox 4002, Basel, Switzerland.

Abstract
Vitamin C and zinc play important roles in nutrition, immune defence and maintenance of health. Intake of both is often inadequate, even in affluent populations. The common cold continues to place a great burden on society in terms of suffering and economic loss. After an overview of the literature on the effects of the separate administration of either vitamin C or zinc against the common cold, this article presents data from two preliminary, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials, conducted with a combination of 1000 mg vitamin C plus 10 mg zinc in patients with the common cold. In both studies, a nonsignificant reduction of rhinorrhoea duration (range 9-27%) was seen. In pooled analyses of both studies (n=94), vitamin C plus zinc was significantly more efficient than placebo at reducing rhinorrhoea over 5 days of treatment. Furthermore, symptom relief was quicker and the product was well tolerated. In view of the burden associated with the common cold, supplementation with vitamin C plus zinc may represent an efficacious measure, with a good safety profile, against this infectious viral disease.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22429343

Can Fam Physician. 2011 Jan;57(1):31-6.
Complementary and alternative medicine for prevention and treatment of the common cold.

Nahas R, Balla A.
Source: Seekers Centre for Integrative Medicine, Ottawa, ON.

Abstract
OBJECTIVE:
To review the evidence supporting complementary and alternative medicine approaches to treatment and prevention of the common cold in adults.

QUALITY OF EVIDENCE:
MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from January 1966 to September 2009 combining the key words common cold or influenza with echinacea, garlic, ginseng, probiotics, vitamin C, and zinc. Clinical trials and prospective studies were included.

MAIN MESSAGE:
For prevention, vitamin C demonstrated benefit in a large meta-analysis, with possibly increased benefit in patients subjected to cold stress. There is inconsistent evidence for Asian ginseng (Panax ginseng) and North American ginseng (Panax quinquefolius). Allicin was highly effective in 1 small trial. For treatment, Echinacea purpurea is the most consistently useful variety; it was effective in 5 of 6 trials. Zinc lozenges were effective in 5 of 9 trials, likely owing to dose and formulation issues. Overall, the evidence suggests no benefit from probiotics for prevention or treatment of the common cold.

CONCLUSION:
Vitamin C can be recommended to Canadian patients for prevention of the common cold. There is moderate evidence supporting the use of Echinacea purpurea and zinc lozenges for treatment. Ginseng and allicin warrant further research.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21322286

None here, either.

Am Fam Physician. 2012 Jul 15;86(2):153-9.
Treatment of the common cold in children and adults.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22962927

"Again, first you have to prove that a treated individual’s chance of contracting the disease under the exact same exposure conditions are one-tenth of that of an untreated person."

Wow. This idiot is just as stupid as Thingy.

Wow. This idiot is just as stupid as Thingy.

Even more stupid, if such a thing is possible.

@ Antaeus:

Not all people are able to participate in a thought experiment: you need to be able to think hypothetically and make use of other characteristics of formal operations. There are additional reasons why someone might refuse to accept the premises of a particular thought experiment that I won't go into although I'm sure you might guess.

@Shay

You may recall as well that you made this below statement.

I’m not aware of any evidence supporting its efficacy against anything except, possibly, scurvy.

Obviously you had never looked.

The words “may,” “possibly,” and “mild.” do not discredit a study in itself as to the validity claims of effectiveness and benefit; and would you still disagree with that? How about the pharma clinical trials then where they take a 3% benefit and through use of multiple end point numbers spin that into a 30% or more benefit? But that is ok for you?

If a study stated, Vitamin C may also increase production of interferon, a natural antiviral substance produced by your body; then it can be automatically discredited as worthless, correct?

Will or would this be of any additional help to you as to your denial in regard to the validity as to the claim that vitamin C indeed helps fight viral and bacterial infections. And you yet deny that?

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, December 3, 2009

Vitamin C As An Antiviral:
It's All About Dose

http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v05n09.shtml

In Vivo. 2008 Jul-Aug;22(4):471-6.
Antiviral, antibacterial and vitamin C-synergized radical-scavenging activity of Sasa senanensis Rehder extract.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18712174

Injectable Vitamin C: Effective Treatment for Viral and Other Diseases, (a list of multiple more studies)
http://injectablevitaminc.com/download.html

The Use of Vitamin C as an Antibiotic
FRED R. KLENNER, M.D. (List of again 26 ref. studies)
http://www.seanet.com/~alexs/ascorbate/195x/klenner-fr-j_appl_nutr-1953…

Publications/studies by Archie Kalokerinos
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archie_Kalokerinos#Publications_by_Archie_…

VITAMIN C: LABORATORY TESTS INDICATE ANTIVIRAL EFFECT
http://www.aids.org/topics/vitamin-c-laboratory-tests-indicate-antivira…

Lowell,

I suggest talking in other than alien mind control language

Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it is "alien mind control language". I understood perfectly every word that Antaeus wrote. You are spouting nonsense about subjects you clearly do not understand at all, and humiliating yourself by trying to bluff your way through this in front of people who do understand them, and you seem to be utterly unaware of it. It's painful to watch. I suggest you learn some basic immunology, math, statistics and epidemiology.

That is and would incule an as well an assumption that the vaccines work as advertized

Now that does resemble some sort of alien language, but assuming you are talking about pertussis acellular vaccines, even Cochrane found they are safe and effective.

This updated review included six efficacy trials with a total of 46,283 participants and 52 safety trials with a total of 136,541 participants. The efficacy of multi-component (≥ three) acellular vaccines varied from 84% to 85% in preventing typical whooping cough (characterised by 21 or more consecutive days of paroxysmal cough with confirmation of B. pertussis infection by culture, appropriate serology or contact with a household member who has culture-confirmed pertussis) and from 71% to 78% in preventing mild pertussis disease (characterised by seven or more consecutive days of cough with confirmation of B. pertussis infection by culture or appropriate serology). One- and two-component acellular vaccines were less effective. Most systemic and local adverse events were significantly less common with aP than with wP vaccines for the primary series as well as for the booster dose. This review found that multi-component vaccines which contain three or more aP components are effective, with less adverse effects than wP vaccines.

@Lowell - Paranoid conspiracy theorists imagining threats and fearing for their lives? Quelle surprise!

And pfft - I'm pretty sure the admin of the EC page welcomes legitimate legal action from PPoUC - who'll be like the guy who calls the police because his weed was stolen.
I'm sure he's salivating for a legitimate charge of harassment - the PPoUC admin will have to drop the terribly brave anonymous moniker to reveal their name -nicely leaving an opening for EC admin to charge for defamation of character. They've has publicly accused him with quite the laundry list of imaginary crimes.

So yeah, don't think he's holding his breath waiting for that knock on the door. I 'll bet no lawyers, nobody is suing anyone. It's just a ploy to make them appear more powerful than they really are.
Pretending to be powerful is a great way to influence the gullible and intellectually lazy over to your side, and once you play the game long enough, you can actually become somewhat powerful.

As long as you keep appealing to the gullible and intellectually lazy, anyway.

@ Denice Walter

I had laid out my analysis on vaccine derived herd immunity vs natural immunity perfectly; and he could not even address it on those common sense terms. Don't even begin to tell me that was not acceptable, and thus required the eight way spin on of his ridiculous thought experiment.

@ janerella

Don't know, don't care. All I said was that PPoUVC had stated on their page earlier that they had received threats, and some strange stuff had gone on with their page. And now that page is gone, and replaced with an attacking and fake page. You really have a lot to talk about and deny don't you; concerning you knowledge of it. But then if you had any decency and facts to stand on, you people would not need to resort to the child like accusations of craziness, name calling, and poo throwing that you do. You would just debate the facts as they stand.

I tend not to debate facts.

@ Krebiozen

Herd immunity as in speaking of naturally acquired illness in almost every case gives long term immunity which is as well most often life long and complete immunity.

Temporary vaccine derived immunity, lets say and presume provides the majority of but likely not all vaccinated persons, with temporary immunity. Now as well typically we have additionally a large adult population that is often never again vaccinated. You can not deny that for decades we have had that being the case.

Clearly any vaccine derived immunity may only last a relatively short time in years. Thus we have always had a large group of the population with obviously little to no vaccine protection left existing.

How do you explain the existence of that large group of people not being a large hole in that vaccine derived herd immunity? Even if you factor in that some of those people may have acquired natural immunity? How do you explain that the only people in that herd in need of vaccination to acquire herd immunity at the percentage of uptake they the so called authorities have specified, are only the infants and school children - students? On your terms and as for the terms the CDC puts forth in this theory, the entire population would need to maintain vaccine derived herd immunity for it to work. There would be no way you could say, oh ok now we can just forget about anyone that is 21 years of age and older. Not all people go to college and require their minimum of vaccines, so that clearly leaves a large part of the population without any vaccine derived immunity, and thus a large hole in that theory.

Do you have anything to say about that which I have just put forth here, Krebiozen?

All your bullcrap regarding your said thought experiment, can not address that which I have just put forth, nor explain it away.

You can read more on that right here.

The False Theory of Vaccine Derived - Herd Immunity
http://www.vacfacts.info/the-false-theory-of-vaccine-derived---herd-imm…

@lowell - because of the large-scale immunizations that occurred over the course of a few decades, plus the older generation that had already had the disease (and hence a "naturally immune" population).

This, along with continued vaccination of the young, deprived these diseases of the typical large pool of potential hosts to infect, removing them from their "natural habitat."

In doing so, the number of people who would even come in contact with these diseases was drastically reduced (and in fact, in the case of measles & mumps, eliminated from the US entirely). Hence, it became extremely easy to spot & isolate infected individuals before large numbers of people were exposed.

Therefore, despite some gaps in the communal immunity, it is hard to get infected because these diseases are no longer "prevalent" in the wild.

And you are a moron - since this very basic understanding of disease, communal immunity, and even mathematics seems to escape you.

I had laid out my analysis on vaccine derived herd immunity vs natural immunity perfectly;

If you are referring to your webpage on herd immunity, that's not an analysis, that's a joke. You claim that the only evidence for herd immunity is "correlation equals causation" which is not true, as herd immunity is part of a mathematical model that makes very accurate predictions.

You mistakenly claim that natural infection provides lifelong immunity while vaccines only provide "relatively passive immunity", which is not true.

You claim that vaccines cause pathogens to mutate, which is not true.

You state that, "thousands and if not millions of adults exist with having had no vaccines in decades" and ask, "What are the odds that their childhood vaccines still protect them from polio, small pox, pertussis, diphtheria, measles, rubella, etc???". This is good evidence that vaccines do offer protection for decades and in most cases for life - see my link above.

You mention tetanus boosters in connection with herd immunity when herd immunity only applies to contagious diseases.

Finding that the overwhelming evidence does not support your claims you are forced to resort to conspiracy theories, "we have been mislead and lied to about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, for the past 100 years", but present no evidence to support that at all.

Then you claim that, "the CDC refuses to acknowledge the bulwark of existing scientific evidence, as to the harm of vaccines; as well as to the vaccine connection to the current major increases in cases of ASD". What "existing scientific evidence" is this? You fail to provide any at all, despite your claim that, "The real science has existed front and center, the whole time." You link to blogs and other websites that are even more moronic than yours.

I suggest talking in other than alien mind control language

You do not address the information that the number of the needed science that said type analysis (you come up with and misinformation and the truth). Were fully vaccinated, to make sense? Prove aren't you do not fit your claims. Again supports your and dipethria will are nothing to several others here.

Lowelll,

Do you have anything to say about that which I have just put forth here, Krebiozen?

Yes, the evidence you put forth contradicts your premises. You are arguing that since people who were vaccinated years ago must have lost their immunity, but we haven't seen massive epidemics, herd immunity must not exist. Has it not occurred to you that a more reasonable explanation is that vaccine-induced immunity lasts, in most cases, for decades or for life? Perhaps you missed what I posted above. I repeat, as we accumulate more evidence it's looking more and more likely that the immunity from most vaccines is similar to that gained from natural infection, and when it isn't a booster can be given, without the risks associated with the actual disease.

@ Lawrence

Those claims amount to nothing more than a literal high level and amount of unsubstantiated speculation, Lawrence. What makes that a well founded conclusion; just because you say so? So, by your claims the older generation all had polio, mumps, measles, diptheria, mumps, pertussis; all of that, and thus had acquired natural immunity. Then vaccinations came into the picture and just like the next the new joining army took over the situation and natural immunity was never needed again. There are now what, five to six decades of vaccinations for the most of that said; correct? And in that time as said we have had thousands if not millions of people walk off and away from getting or for the most part requiring any further vaccines for the rest of or the majority of the rest of their lives. And you claim there is no said and significant hole in the vaccine derived herd immunity there? And do you actually expect anyone to believe that?

No YOU, are a moron Lawrence, and as I have as well seen you reply post before on multiple articles and including elsewhere than this blog. It is the always same denial and the same attack every time, no matter who you are reply posting to, or where what article happens to be. You are nothing but a paid off shill that has a level of honesty and common sense, that has gone for the most part, literally missing in action, beyond the point of being downright pathetic. You are just another one of those people that nothing ever would be enough. And you know it. It is your trademark.

@ Denice Walter

Not all people are able to participate in a thought experiment: you need to be able to think hypothetically and make use of other characteristics of formal operations. There are additional reasons why someone might refuse to accept the premises of a particular thought experiment that I won’t go into although I’m sure you might guess.

I think it's really just a case of Dead Men DO Bleed Syndrome; he knows the conclusion he wants to come to, and he'll throw everything else out the window, no matter how stupid it makes him look, rather than admit that his conclusion is unsound.

To actually watch the desperation, though, is quite something. I'm reminded of the scene in Zoolander where the title character angrily swipes the architect's model of the proposed school that will bear his name onto the floor, asking how any child could possibly learn there when they couldn't even fit through those tiny doors.

@ Lowell

I had laid out my analysis on vaccine derived herd immunity vs natural immunity perfectly; and he could not even address it on those common sense terms. Don’t even begin to tell me that was not acceptable, and thus required the eight way spin on of his ridiculous thought experiment.

As anyone can confirm by reading this page, I asked you to give an answer to my very simple thought experiment before you gave your "perfect" "analysis" of "vaccine derived" vs. "natural" immunity. You did not give an answer; you did not even demonstrate that you had the elementary-school knowledge necessary to comprehend the question. You still have not answered the question. Your "perfect" "analysis" is, like your allegations of "alien mind control," just an attempt to distract people from noticing that you either can't or don't dare answer the question.

I really wonder who you think you're fooling.

Lowell,

And in that time as said we have had thousands if not millions of people walk off and away from getting or for the most part requiring any further vaccines for the rest of or the majority of the rest of their lives. And you claim there is no said and significant hole in the vaccine derived herd immunity there? And do you actually expect anyone to believe that?

You are assuming that vaccine-induced immunity wanes more than natural immunity. What evidence do you have for that?

For example, here's a study on the duration of measles immunity after vaccination, "These results indicate that the immunity induced by successful primary immunization may persist for at least 15 years". Another example, polio vaccine provided protection for at least 25 years. I could go on with other pathogens, but another link will put my comment into moderation.

@lowell - I'm pretty sure that isn't English, at least not in any sensible frame of wording that represents a coherent thought.

You must be getting angry - I can imagine you hovering over the keyboard with literal spittle flying from your mouth as you madly type out your rants - because you are becoming more and more incoherent as time goes on. Perhaps you should lay off the sauce a bit too.....

As for everything else, I schooled your sorry behind on Herd Immunity a while ago - since you cannot grasp history, mathematics, or basic science / biology, I can only assume that the years of alcoholism have damaged your brain to the extent that you can no longer form rational or coherent thoughts.

I feel sorry for the people that have to interact with you, in person, on a daily basis.

I still stand by my "fire code" analogy, which, I should note, Lowell has done nothing to address.

@lowell - here's a few questions for you:

What is the natural host / disease reservoir for measles?

What happens when you remove the ability for this disease to infect its natural host?

If a disease cannot infect its natural host & has no other known hosts or means to replicate itself, where does it go?

@ Krebiozen: Here's an updated article about measles vaccine duration of immunity:

http://www.chop.edu/service/vaccine-education-center/a-look-at-each-vac…

"....When this vaccine virus (a now modified form of the natural virus) is put back into the body, it grows very poorly. Whereas natural measles virus reproduces itself thousands of times during natural infection, the measles vaccine virus reproduces itself probably fewer than 20 times. That is why natural measles virus causes illness, but measles vaccine virus doesn't. However, because the measles vaccine virus reproduces itself a little bit, it induces immunity against measles that is life-long. (see How Do Vaccines Work?)....."

@ Krebiozen

First, it would really be helpful to the situation if you actually put forth only what I have stated and not add claims that were not made; and as well stop putting forth only your twisted and incorrect interpretation of what I stated.

For you to to attempt to explain that way by now claiming that because we haven't seen epidemics in years now, that it must mean that the vaccines last for long periods of time, and that its looking more and more likely that immunity gained from vaccines, is similar to that gained from natural infection, simply flies in the face of all previously known data and facts about vaccines and vaccine derived antibodies. I know that, and you should know that is a claim that is completely bullcrap.

As for the time estimates in your link, those would all be a best case scenario; and across the board may actually be much lower. Even if every person acquired that actual vaccine derived protection, and as it states; how many people as said does that leave unprotected by a vaccine. That number could be yet be literally millions. But you must deny it. Then spin into the mix the false claim across the board that natural immunities do not last for life, and all of a sudden vaccines are to be perceived as the same thing as natural immunity. Boy it doesn't get any more bogus than that.

Then lets go to this flat out either lying and/or or never actually looked b.s filled claim of yours right here, Krebiozen.
What would I have to do, list each study that is there? That site is there so you can use it for that purpose, and thus I do not have to list it all on a site or blog reply post. But as long as that is not done right in front of yo of course, you can yet deny that any studies were ever there, as you just did in your comment below. You will find those studies right here, and you still claim there are no such said studies on that site? Are you entirely blind? Or entirely in denial, which is it? Nothing would ever be enough, as always for a must deny it denialist like yourself, Krebiozen.

Should those autism an aluminum adjuvant studies be important studies to consider, when as well the CDC admits to having no adequate data on safety, and no safety studies in existence?

------------
Quote:

Then you claim that, “the CDC refuses to acknowledge the bulwark of existing scientific evidence, as to the harm of vaccines; as well as to the vaccine connection to the current major increases in cases of ASD”. What “existing scientific evidence” is this? You fail to provide any at all, despite your claim that, “The real science has existed front and center, the whole time.” You link to blogs and other websites that are even more moronic than yours. Unquote

--------------

And you have the audacity to claim that the real science concerning vaccine safety and effectiveness has been there all along. How in denial and delusional is the reality of that claim, Krebiozen? Get to producing for me some aluminum adjuvant safety studies then Krebiozen! You said it is all there? Provide me some counter studies that perhaps the CDC or Paul Offit have, to counter all that??? Lets see you actually do it? Any actual studies to counter that at all. get started and prove it. They do not exist, I know it and you should know it.

You can start right here with what you are going to need to match up studies with; and you can provide all that science which you claim has existed front and center, the whole time. You either have never looked at anything there, or you are being entirely dishonest, which is it? I suggest you get started. Five titled pages exist there with that said causation and harm science on each one.

http://www.vacfacts.info/the-vaccine-damage---science.html

Lowell, if you make a claim, you have to provide evidence. That's all there is to it.

Even if every person acquired that actual vaccine derived protection, and as it states; how many people as said does that leave unprotected by a vaccine.

And we are you call that said and with. Would be right and dared poo than an actually in itself as a way you can not the correct; answer one, single vaccine. I fear walked around the pages, of learning how less.

@Lowell, I have no doubt actually that there are multiple facebook pages populated mostly by the same individuals as is on every other page, only not all of them use the same nym on every page, or even post under multiple nyms to make their numbers appear larger then they really are. The issue here is, vaccinated individuals far outweigh the anti-vaccine people, and we are finally learning to fight fire with fire. Anti-vaccine groups are using the internet to spread their misinformation and myths regarding vaccines and VPDs, so now we are doing the same thing to show how ridiculous, when compared to science the claims of anti-vaccine groups really are. So when I find one that is particularly good, I'm going to share it with my vaccine advocate friends as another resource to good, reputable information relating to vaccines. There is the big difference between vaccination advocacy pages and anti-vaccine pages, the word reputable. How trust worthy, how verifiable is the information they are sharing? If it isn't trust worthy and isn't verifiable, through science (not another site making the same claims) then it is not reputable.

@ Bill price

If B. parapertussis is actually indistinguishable from B . pertussis, how is its presence detected, and why does it
have a name that is distinguishable from the other’s name?
If the one is actually indistinguishable from the other, how are they detected separately? Hint: ‘literally’ is a synonym for ‘actually’ of ‘in fact’.

Or maybe it’s just the case that you are as confused and/or ignorant of physiology and immunology as you have shown yourself to be of epidemiology and science in general.

------------------

Well, as long as you misrepresent what I have stated, you can twist it around and pretend that to be true. Do you do that intentionally? Of course you do. You have zero basis for any such claims. What was being referred to is of course that B pertussis it symptomatically similar to B. Parapertussis. However somewhat related, it was NOT referred to as the same bacterial pathogen. You are asking me, how it is detected, and you claim to understand physiology, immunology, and epidemiology. You have got to be kidding. PCR test is what they use; if and when they actually test for it; ever heard of it? Nice try and trash filled expose though. Here is a question for you, does your twisted expose discredit how an antibiotic causes a bacteria to mutate and change to the point it evades an antibiotic, too? Thats not real nor ever happened either, right.

Krebiozen

You are assuming that vaccine-induced immunity wanes more than natural immunity. What evidence do you have for that?

For example, here’s a study on the duration of measles immunity after vaccination, “These results indicate that the immunity induced by successful primary immunization may persist for at least 15 years”. Another example, polio vaccine provided protection for at least 25 years. I could go on with other pathogens, but another link will put my comment into moderation.

-------------

Yes, of course vaccine - induced immunity wanes more than natural immunity. As for the evidence, you can not possibly be that ignorant.

Naturally Acquired versus Artificially Acquired Immunity
http://www.texashste.com/documents/curriculum/pathophysiology/naturally…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immunity_(medical)

First of all having vaccine derived antibodies, does not necessarily equate to proven immunity, and as there are as well obviously more systems actively involved with acquiring immunity than just antibodies alone. Natural immunity does a much better job of that and quite obviously would be far more assurance with that.

This study states 18 years regarding polio vaccine, which is it? As you can see the rest of the vaccines as well certainly do not show life time immunity, and that is if antibody levels actually equate to efficacy at all.

http://www.immune.org.nz/category/tags/vaccine-duration

To claim that measles vaccine protects across the board for 15 years, just might be a little over rated; due to the outbreaks in vaccinated populations that have existed.

@Krebiozen

Your answer is in moderation but to add to that, I am pretty darn sure that naturally acquired immunity, does NOT require additional herd immunity, to work!!! Agree, or disagree?

@ lilady

That is why natural measles virus causes illness, but measles vaccine virus doesn’t. However, because the measles vaccine virus reproduces itself a little bit, it induces immunity against measles that is life-long. (see How Do Vaccines Work?)…..”

------------------

My B. S detector just went off the charts, with that statement! Measles vaccine induces immunity against measles that is life long??? But only what, if there is adequate herd immunity present? Ehhhh?

@Krebiozen

My condolences on your friend. I vividly remember every time.

My B. S detector just went off the charts, with that statement! Measles vaccine induces immunity against measles that is life long??? But only what, if there is adequate herd immunity present? Ehhhh?

And now, Lowell has descended past the point of speaking English.

@lowell - neither measles, mumps nor rubella are currently circulating in the United States, how would you supposed an outbreak is supposed to occur (regardless of vaccination status), unless it is brought in from the outside?

And since we can easily identify "patient zero" and at minimum vaccinate all of those that may have come in contact with the infected individual(s), there will be no further reservoir or hosts for the disease to continue.....

You argue against "herd immunity" - I think communal immunity is a better term, when the proof is right in front of you.

@ Lara Lohne (AKA: Venna)

I have 387 friends on my facebook profile and the majority of them are strongly anti-vaccine, (more correctly stated vaccine truth). You can deny it all you want, but this movement is getting larger than you would obviously like to believe it is. And do not even think of belittling us as all uneducated to the facts, and mislead. We do follow the science closely, where ever possible, and if you do not believe that, then compare YOUR available science collected, to my collection. Do you think you have been missing anything? There is a balance in this in the advocation of all those multiple repeat vaccines, where it quite clearly becomes an issue of more harm than good done.

If the vaccines actually work, then you should not have to worry, and we all know on our side that the concept of vaccine derived herd immunity, is nothing but a baseless myth. I have always found complete honesty and perceptiveness within our ranks, and nothing but denial of all with your ranks, so don't get to carried away with that put down, and the scare tactics of what we are actually doing.

In fact I have yet to meet any open and honest person who would remain pro-vaccine, after fully realizing the truth and the real vaccine harm science that is all to clearly there. The main message is that each person has the right to choose, based on complete information; as long as they had no conflicts of interest tying them to vaccines. Vaccines should not be mandated, as well simply because of the continued harm being done, and as well the CDC connected unwillingness to do the studies and the further studies that obviously need to be done.

The Vaccine Damage - Science
http://www.vacfacts.info/the-vaccine-damage---science.html

I am pretty darn sure that naturally acquired immunity, does NOT require additional herd immunity, to work!!! Agree, or disagree?

Not only do I agree, but I would like to point out that naturally acquired immunity is only acquired when herd immunity fails. Of course, it should also be pointed out that vaccine acquired immunity doesn't require herd immunity to work.

Lowell,

Your answer is in moderation but to add to that, I am pretty darn sure that naturally acquired immunity, does NOT require additional herd immunity, to work!!! Agree, or disagree?

You really don''t have a clue what 'herd immunity' actually means, do you? When babies are born, they do not have any immunity. Once enough babies have been born, the percentage of immune people will fall to a level below the herd immunity threshold. Surely you can understand that!

@lowell - does vaccine status matter is a disease has been eliminated?

If everyone (or a sufficient number to break the chain of infection) is vaccinated or naturally immune, doesn't that mean the population as a whole is now "immune" to a particular vaccine-preventable disease?

As such, does that not constitute "population / herd" immunity?

Come on, this is basic logic and science fella.....if you can't grasp that one single point, then are you definitely suffering from some kind of mental deficiency.

@Krebiozen - it is obvious that Lowell can't conjure up a coherent response or understand basic scientific principles. It is highly likely that his years of self-medicating did serious damage, both mental & physical (to his mind, I mean).

Because no one who is actually of sound mind and body could so completely reject basic scientific fact, mathematics or biology as Lowell has done. Actually, in a way, I'm glad he continues to post, because he is the poster-child for the anti-vaccine crank / nutjob & anyone with a grade-school education can see how wrong he truly is.

So go ahead Lowell, keep posting, please! You're making our case for us - the worse you make yourself look.

@Lowell, what part of what I said before are you finding to be a put down? I've lived the anti-vaccine lifestyle, grew up in an anti-vaccine family where the family business was chiropractics. My grandparents and my parents believed chiropractic care was the only thing we needed to be healthy and strong, believed it could 'cure' by older brother's cerebral palsy. But as I grew up and was able to think for myself, there were too many things about what I had been told about vaccines that just didn't make any sense. I did my research, the hard way, when I was expecting my first child, because I wanted to do what was best for her and for all my children to come. This was years prior to the Internet being available. Let me tell you, when you are reading through references books and scientific research in the library for hours at a time every day, you can learn a lot, and what I learned is science knows a lot more then you think they do, and the anti-vaccine myths, are exactly that, myths, as in made up, unable to be substantiated with science and meant to just scare people. The fact that I knew first hand how damaging VPDs can be, and the real truth I learned after reading about them convinced me it is by far safer to vaccinate my children then to leave them vulnerable to these diseases. I don't think that anti-vaccine people are uneducated. On the contrary, they are very well educated, which gives them an arrogance to think they know more about science then scientists and more about medicine and disease then medical professionals who have studies it for years. If I have a tooth ache, I don't try and fix it myself, I go to a dentist who has been schooled on how to fix it properly, when I am ill I see a doctor, I don't believe that I know more then a doctor does simply because I read something on the Internet, because there is a lot of misinformation on the Internet. My mom believed she found a cure for diabetes on the Internet, fell for it and died just a few years later from renal failure, congestive heart failure and multiple massive strokes because she believed the things she read on the Internet gave her more knowledge about diabetes and treating it then doctors who told her she needs to eat properly, take her insulin and exercise regularly. She wasn't even 62 years old. That to me is just one example of how devastating the myths and misinformation, that is rampant on the Internet, can be.

So, by your claims the older generation all had polio, mumps, measles, diptheria, mumps, pertussis; all of that, and thus had acquired natural immunity. Then vaccinations came into the picture and just like the next the new joining army took over the situation and natural immunity was never needed again. There are now what, five to six decades of vaccinations for the most of that said; correct? And in that time as said we have had thousands if not millions of people walk off and away from getting or for the most part requiring any further vaccines for the rest of or the majority of the rest of their lives. And you claim there is no said and significant hole in the vaccine derived herd immunity there? And do you actually expect anyone to believe that?

If your 'naturally-derived' immunity is so good then how do you explain ~4 million cases of measles annually in the U.S. pre-vaccine as opposed to a couple of hundred now (almost exclusively in unvaccinated). How do you explain ~20,000 cases of Congenital Rubella Syndrome pre-vaccine as opposed to none or a couple of imported cases now? There were ~20,000 cases of invasive Hib disease prior to the vaccine, how many now Lowell?

I can't wait to hear the answer to this.

Since it doesn't seem to have been done,

HERE…you will take note: In the discussion section

It's a poster presentation, Lowell.

—scroll hard right and open the location to read—

Beg pardon? Most people don't need instructions on how to read a single page, Lowell, much less ones that include nonsensical directives to "open the location."

you will see 119 genes on the human genome with 535 “hotspots” where “residual DNA” (what is this?….the DNA from insects, animals, yeast, mold, viral forms, bacteria, and even ABORTED BABIES) that can cause autism and other neurodegenerative diseases..etc.

OH MY GOD, YEAST DNA. I'M GOING TO FERMENT FROM THE INSIDE OUT.

Anyway, this is none other than Tracy Deisher, who has already been addressed by our host.

HERE…you will take note: In the discussion section—scroll hard right and open the location to read—you will see 119 genes on the human genome with 535 “hotspots” where “residual DNA” (what is this?….the DNA from insects, animals, yeast, mold, viral forms, bacteria, and even ABORTED BABIES) that can cause autism and other neurodegenerative diseases..etc.

Computational Detection of Homologous Recombination Hotspots in X-Chromosome Autism-Associated Genes

So, since homologous recombination does not occur between birth and puberty, it's best to vaccinate people when they are young.

You do know what homologous recombination is, right, Lowell?

OH MY GOD, YEAST DNA. I’M GOING TO FERMENT FROM THE INSIDE OUT.

Nah. This is homologous recombination we're talking about. You're a guy, right? You've got a handy release valve to get those cells out of your body. And if you're a lady, well, those cells will be gone in a few weeks anyway (or 40).

Lowell,

"Top that off we have Hilary Butler promoting the use of vitamin C, and she is considered as only a snake oil salesman."

- While Hilary writes this and other nonsense, she is a consumer, not a seller.

Regards the vitamin as treatment claims, reading ChrisP’s comments he is travelling a very similar route that I have travelled in the past and has come to the same conclusions. Independent verification of my conclusions of what the literature shows. (Ditto from others.)

Lowell,

compare YOUR available science collected, to my collection

I have been working my way through your collection, and none of it supports anything you say so far, apart from the antivaccination websites that make stuff up, and cranks like Blaylock, Tenpenny, the Geiers, and Chris Shaw.

Most of the citations have nothing to do with vaccines at all. Just because autism may have immunological aspects or inflammatory aspects doesn't mean that vaccines cause it. Most illnesses have inflammatory and immunological aspects.

Studies on rats subjected to oxidative stress that have dopamine imbalance, or brain cancer cells in culture spiked with vast amounts of mercury that show damage don't support any of your claims.

There's even a citation of a study that does not refer to vaccine adjuvants but to microbial byproducts that act as adjuvants, which you have completely misunderstood. You clearly don't understand a lot of scientific terminology and several of your citations actually say the opposite of what you seem to think they do.

By the way, you mentioned aluminum adjuvant safety studies. We know how much aluminum is toxic, from premature babies on TPN and kidney patients. We know what blood concentrations are associated with aluminum toxicity, and we know that vaccines with aluminum adjuvants do not elevate blood levels above the normal range. In fact the increase in blood levels is so small it is difficult to measure, and is a small fraction of the concentration required to cause toxicity.

Unless aluminum can magically travel from muscle to brain without passing through the blood (from where it would be rapidly excreted by the kidneys) I don't see how aluminum in vaccines could possibly cause neurotoxicity. Even if that much aluminum was injected intravenously a child could excrete it without any harm. Adults taking aluminum antacids absorb more aluminum in a day than a vaccinated infant does in six months. There is no plausible reason to think the risks of aluminum adjuvants exceed their benefits, which are to reduce the amount of antigen required in vaccines.

A study by the FDA last year concluded:

The risk to infants posed by the total aluminum exposure received from the entire recommended series of childhood vaccines over the first year of life is extremely low, according to a study by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This study is important because it provides additional scientific information confirming that the benefits of aluminum-containing vaccines administered during the first year of life outweigh any theoretical concerns about the potential effect of aluminum on infants.

I come back in here 2 hrs later and I have 11 posted replies for 6 people, and you actually expect me to get all that garbage responded to? What a sick, sick, and in denial bunch of people and blog. But that has always been known.

@ Lawrence

3:22 pm
@lowell – neither measles, mumps nor rubella are currently circulating in the United States, how would you supposed an outbreak is supposed to occur (regardless of vaccination status), unless it is brought in from the outside?

And since we can easily identify “patient zero” and at minimum vaccinate all of those that may have come in contact with the infected individual(s), there will be no further reservoir or hosts for the disease to continue…..

You argue against “herd immunity” – I think communal immunity is a better term, when the proof is right in front of you.

-----------------

ZERO PROOF of anything you stated, you just talk anything that comes to your head, and think everyone is to believe it as fact and as if everything you state just because you assume it is so. As long as it sounds like provaccine politically correct statement anything goes and it is assumed to be correct; just like all these other posts. There is so much crap written here that has no basis in provable fact, and in these replies that it is beyond disgusting.

Oh, I see. So it's not your responsibility to know what a thought experiment is, or even pay attention when someone patiently explains it to you ... but us, on the other hand, we're supposed to know your schedule and workload and know how many questions is too much for you poow widdle heady-head, and we're "sick" if we don't. Sure, that makes perfect sense.

I come back in here 2 hrs later and I have 11 posted replies for 6 people, and you actually expect me to get all that garbage responded to? What a sick, sick, and in denial bunch of people and blog. But that has always been known.

WTF are you talking about? Nobody has complained about the timeliness of your replies.

@ Lowell:

A nice, simple question. Why was measles previously controlled to the point that it was no longer endemic in the UK, and what has changed so that it is once again endemic?

3:23 pm
I am pretty darn sure that naturally acquired immunity, does NOT require additional herd immunity, to work!!! Agree, or disagree?
--
Not only do I agree, but I would like to point out that naturally acquired immunity is only acquired when herd immunity fails. Of course, it should also be pointed out that vaccine acquired immunity doesn’t require herd immunity to work.

--------------------
Vaccine derived immunity doesn't require herd immunity to work?

Isn't that a little contradictory to the typically promoted pro-vaccine message on herd immunity? That claim is entirely opposite of what the CDC claims to.

Natural immunity is only acquired when herd immunity, fails??? Natural immunity leading to herd immunity would still occur in those to young to have been exposed, as you can not get immunity without acquiring the pathogen and likely the illness, or at least a sub clinical silent infection from it. I am actually debating this little mind game trivia stuff like this?

@Narad- I now fully expect Lowell to deny the sky is blue.

@lowell - seriously, you deny that domestic measles, mumps and rubella haven't been eliminated? That all known cases over the past few decades have been imported by the unvaccinated?

These are facts dear alcohol-addled crank. Though you wouldn't know a fact, or math, or basic biology of it came up and bit you in the ass.

Ya, thats right, add ten more reply posts here directed to me; before I can get even two more replied to; it all looks real good then, for you.

Comment in moderation showing, again what an imbecile Lowell is. He still doesn't understand basic biology or know what "facts" are.

Oops. Stupid iPhone. Just pointing out that Lowell still doesn't understand basic biology or what "facts" ate.

Ya, thats right, add ten more reply posts here directed to me; before I can get even two more replied to; it all looks real good then, for you.

Would you like some cheese with that whine?

Ah herd immunity. Nope it does not exist.

@Lawrence

1:29 pm
@lowell – here’s a few questions for you:

What is the natural host / disease reservoir for measles?

What happens when you remove the ability for this disease to infect its natural host?

If a disease cannot infect its natural host & has no other known hosts or means to replicate itself, where does it go?

-------------------

Another irrelevant and poorly designed question, borderline to pointless.

Which type of immunity are you referring to, as if it would even matter much matter. Of course Lawrence, let me give you an easy example, the more natural immunity acquired by a population, be it human or animal, the better chance you have of driving out the pathogen. Is that even debatable. now we are talking about with vaccines, periodic outbreaks which have been seen at times in significantly large groups of vaccinated, more-so than the unvaccinated. If that were natural immunity we would of course not be dealing with that, nor waning vaccine immunity throughout the so called herd. Thats the difference.

Thats right Lawrence, you guys again get two more questions added and loaded onto the screen here directed to, before I can get to the 8 more that you posted before that. Sick. You guys are awesome.

Actually Lowell, your inane and irrelevant response to what are simple questions again shows you know nothing about disease or biology.

Let's try this again.

What happened to domestic measles?

Why didn't this occur before widespread vaccination?

Perhaps laying off the sauce for a bit would help.

@ Krebiozen

3:25 pm
Lowell,

Your answer is in moderation but to add to that, I am pretty darn sure that naturally acquired immunity, does NOT require additional herd immunity, to work!!! Agree, or disagree?

You really don”t have a clue what ‘herd immunity’ actually means, do you? When babies are born, they do not have any immunity. Once enough babies have been born, the percentage of immune people will fall to a level below the herd immunity threshold. Surely you can understand that!

------------------

I definitely have ALWAYS understood that, Lawrence. It is perfectly understandable and common sense in regard to natural immunity. However, in relation to vaccine derived herd immunity there are far more variable factors involved which turn the whole thing into a subject of an entirely different nature.

You only make a fool of yourself posting immature and DINGY questions like that. But that is mostly definitely not at all knew for you, and is your standard trademark. No matter what article it is on. Why don't you just stick with the vaccine safety science, which is actually the most important issue? But you know you can't do that, can you.

There is so much crap written here that has no basis in provable fact, and in these replies that it is beyond disgusting.

I gave you nice easy numbers to work with Lowell, even a lamped fool like you should be able to explain the numbers pre and post vaccination.

@ Lawrence

No, in fact what I have done is quite obviously, is to outline and point out your own insane and irrelevant ramblings, Lawrence; something that you keep completely wasting my time with. Are you filled with much hypocrisy, Lawrence? No, not at all, right?

Nice to know I've gotten on Lowell's nerves, you know, by asking questions he can't answer and pointing out that he does understand basic biology or little things called "facts."

So Lowell, why aren't wild measles, mumps, rubella or polio circulating in the US?

Why have all recent outbreaks of measles shown to be imports by unvaccinated individuals?

These are little things called "facts" Lowell, you know, like the sky is blue type stuff. The more you talk and deny, the more idiotic you look (if that was even possible at this point).

@ Lawrence

I can answer any question you have Lawrence, and make you look like ignorant of fact fool that you repeatedly are, and do that on any article you are on, and any day of the week I choose to. Face it. And I have done that on every article you have ever been on.

Just because you throw onto the screen 9 dumb questions before even two can be answered, proves only what desperate moron you really are. It doesn't prove anything. And do you really think I should need to sit here and answer to 20 question or comments put to me in a row. How many questions are you actually answering? Answer - none. That while and when all the while all you are doing is avoiding the real issue, which is that of the lack of vaccine safety science, which is the biggest elephant in the room that you all choose to repeatedly ignore.

How are these children, so many of them being damaged; and as well ending up with ASD, and all those disorders and end up across the board with the nations children in a state of being sicker than they have ever been in history, all parallel. All coincidence, right; with no answers; but you know its not vaccines, because they did a CDC funded epidemiological studies on one vaccine and one ingredient, and called it good.

But you know you Lawrence can't be bothered with any minor details like that, as you have a pharma shill job to do. The CDC and Paul Offit deny it all and so can all of you. There is always another Orac/Gorski article you can spin off of and throw a link or two on the screen, with nothing else provided to back your claims. Think you don't see that, that is all you people ever have.

Lowell, Vitamin C is good for scurvey. Is that what you mean? Although, the wide availability of fresh fruits and vegetables means scurvey is rare these days and Vitamin C supplementation rarely needed for most people.

You seem to give me powers I don't have. I didn't put the CDC figures together. A quick read of the page shows how they were obtained. Page 6 of the report:

Data in this report are based on information from all resident death certificates filed in the 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Fancy that. Now how exactly did Null come up with his numbers?

@ Lawrence

Correlation for you, equals causation, when referring to where did measles go, no science nor actual proof needed. Correlation does not equal causation if anyone anywhere is asked for the proof that vaccines cause ASD, and no amount of unbiased science directly showing vaccines causing ASD and far more than ASD, will ever be enough nor do. When you ask you for proof of vaccine derived herd immunity, again correlation will always equal causation. When you put in front of you the information that shows biomedical treatment works, and why; and that many children were healed that mainstream had no answer for but more pharma drugs, you say again that correlation does NOT equal causation, no matter what, and you ask for the peer reviewed studies on it all as proof; and that you yourself can not produce to show any real safety data on the vaccines. This is classic hypocrisy, that you all deny.

@lowell - are you at a keggar this evening or just drinking by yourself? Because your responses are getting more incoherent as time goes on.

let me give you an easy example, the more natural immunity acquired by a population, be it human or animal, the better chance you have of driving out the pathogen. Is that even debatable.

Funny how that didn't work with measles, isn't it, Lowell?

@ ChrisP

Perhaps you could have provided a link for your data. I don't the have time nor care to dig back through 20 replies to find it; (if that's where it is), nor should I need nor be required to to.

If you are still so non observant and unwilling to review and consider any research that shows vitamin C to be effective for far more than scurvy; you are thus as well then ignoring decades of history of its use and data. I can not help you if you refuse to educate yourself, by by repeatedly ignoring and limiting the data you are willing accept. You can spin that in your own denial, 8 different ways if you want, but it still comes back to the same obvious said conclusion. You refuse to be honest.

@ Lawrence

Nope, just diet coke here. But keep proving your own level of denial and childish immaturity, and your limited ability to only throw irrelevant poo at the screen and anyone that disagrees. I wouldn't want anything to change with you, because you make such a good wiping post to get my points across.

Lowell, simple question I asked. How did Null calculate the number of deaths caused by modern medicine?

As to Vitamin C, I have reviewed the evidence at PubMed and the meta analyses of the Cochrane Collaboration. I have drawn my conclusion based on the review of that literature. You haven't even look at it or understood it, prefering to get your 'science' from quack websites and even then you don't understand what is being written.

I accept good well-run trials. What do you accept?

The ravings of Mercola, Null, Butler et al.

Lowell,
I'm honestly trying to understand why you believe what appears to me to be nonsense in the face of what appears to me to be large amounts of evidence that contradicts it.
I simply don't understand how you can make a statement like, "the more natural immunity acquired by a population, be it human or animal, the better chance you have of driving out the pathogen". When in human history has any pathogen been "driven out" in this way? How could this possibly happen, since the only way of acquiring natural immunity to the kinds of contagious diseases we are discussing is to get the disease, and become contagious, thus spreading it to others?

This is like suggesting that if you burn your house down it will be fire-proof. Do you really want to go back to the days when thousands of children died or were permanently disabled by vaccine-preventable diseases (links to PDF), just so that the survivors acquire natural immunity? Really?

Why do you think why chicken pox has practically disappeared in the US, but in the UK about 90% of people still get it in childhood? Why do you think there have been tens of thousands of cases of measles in Europe this year (also links to PDF), with over 12,000 hospitalized?

Dammit. thousands of children died or were permanently disabled by vaccine-preventable diseases

I’m honestly trying to understand why you believe what appears to me to be nonsense in the face of what appears to me to be large amounts of evidence that contradicts it.

I was wondering about the same thing while taking a stroll. The most convincing explanation I could come up with is that he genuinely thinks it might get him laid.

Too many, Too soon!
Don't bother to reply because I don't read posts by Orac's
fanatics.

Vote for Obama! You will see real science denial if R&R
win (in addition to other catastrophes)!

@ken

Yawn, try a better insult next time, child.

@lowell

Answer Lawrence's question within three replies, are we can assume you do not know what happened to domestic measles.

If you're not getting yourself into another DUI, here are the questions:

What happened to domestic measles?

Why didn’t this occur before widespread vaccination?

Get the popcorn ready, I'm going to have some real entertainment with lowell's non-answers.

Narad

October 2, 8:11 pm
let me give you an easy example, the more natural immunity acquired by a population, be it human or animal, the better chance you have of driving out the pathogen. Is that even debatable.

Funny how that didn’t work with measles, isn’t it, Lowell?
-------------

Like I just said, and I will say it again; it certainly works regarding natural immunity; that that is common sense because it results in long term solid and natural immunity.
Vaccines no matter how much you want to deny it, and claim otherwise; do not provide the same thing. Once a said pathogen is on the earth Narad, and causing or has caused 1000's of cases of illness, does that pathogen stay actively causing illness until the end of time, historically speaking, is that what you actually conclude? And you are absolutely correct about that, and in no way are anything but vaccines responsible for any declines in disease, correct? How scientific is that, they said they have all the science, right? Vaccines equal more antibodies, and thus is proof of immunity; nothing more needed, right?

And lets say for an example, that vaccines all work exactly as they have been advertised for decades. Just exactly as Paul offit claims to, and its all good. Now, if those same vaccines were causing lets say hypothetically the 1 in 88 ASD figure.

What if as well the aluminum adjuvant content in the multiple and repeat vaccines were in some children causing over-activation of the brains microglia, and as well resulting chronic levels of brain inflammation. After all an aluminum adjuvant works by causing inflammation, multiple studies on that right in Pubmed, although they say the exact mechanism is poorly understood. Would that be an issue that the CDC should rightfully address and do more follow up studies, and to determine exactly what is going on, and confirm it on their own? Let me tell you that is exactly what is happening. This is no longer actually even an argument about if the vaccines work, but one of what have the vaccines done, and are there to many of them. There is where the real focus needs to be.

What if Dr Wakefield was right, and they covered it all up to discredit him. In fact he was right, and as well the recoveries in biomedical treatment clearly show that. Why has not the CDC addressed all these supporting studies, they say do not even exist?
http://www.callous-disregard.com/research.htm

How about this little girl right here, that recovered, and while main stream gave her no chance. She is not alone as there are so many of them that now have. That doesn't point directly at the vaccines, detox and healing; not at all does it?

http://regardingcaroline.com/

I think you need to reset your debate subject priorities to something more highly relevant, Narad. But never mind me; what do I know, right?

@Narad - actually, Matt Tabibi did a great job explaining people like Lowell in "The Great Derangement." Why some people feel the need to gravitate to the extremes - conspiracy theories, NWO crap, 9/11 truthers, doomsday Christians, etc....as a rejection of the mainstream.

It gives them a sense of purpose and direction, since only they have access to the "truth." And no amount of evidence to the contrary will convince them otherwise, because refute the "truth" is to destroy these people's sense of worth and who they are.

Lowell is a pretty extreme example - someone who can deny reality when it is staring him right in the face. I fully suspect that he would deny the sky was blue, if it was against his view of the world.

@lowell – are you at a keggar this evening or just drinking by yourself?

I'd like to make a statement in this regard. It is indeed I who first mentioned Lowell's track record. However, I do not fault him for having (one hopes) had an alcohol problem. I absolutely fault him for getting behind the wheel so frequently that he got busted four times, though, and now having the hypocritical gall to style himself some sort of defender of public safety by virtue of advancing semiliterate, sanctimonious, and incoherent antivaccine performances.

@Lowell - how about just answering the simple questions instead of going off on tangents (or better yet, lay off the rants)?

Do you know the difference between mortality & incidence?

Which one went down due to better medical care & treatments, but didn't effect the other?

Which one actually resulted in the reduction of the incidence of VPDs from 95 - 99.5%?

Also, what happens when you insert a large number of un-vaccinated individuals into a naturally immune population with actively circulating diseases (let's say, "hypothetically", the birth of a new generation of children)?

Now, compare that to today - what's the difference Lowell?

If you can't answer these questions....well, actually what makes me think you'll answer them. You can't answer them without refuting your own illogical persona & self.

@Narad - perhaps he has gotten over his drinking problem. Obviously, his past history has not done much to improve either his intelligence, ability to form rational thoughts or analyze actual facts presented that utterly demolish his theories.

@Krebiozen

October 2, 8:32 pm
Dammit. thousands of children died or were permanently disabled by vaccine-preventable diseases

And without any question vaccines were 100% responsible for any and all reductions, even if the illness was in major decline before any vaccine was available, correct. And polio and small pox disappeared on continents that had available little to no use of a vaccine. And yet today they keep going into many countries using a live oral vaccine that sheds, claiming it is the only option they have, and yet we have over 50,000 cases going on globally AFP, and they claim they are winning the war on polio. Whats wrong with that picture.

Here is what happened historically in our own country regarding the real history of polio. And they claim to a success story and everyone believes it, because they at the CDC and WHO, say it was.

The polio vaccine: a critical assessment of its arcane history, efficacy, and long-term health-related consequences. http://thinktwice.com/Polio.pdf

And you can not believe that the world would ever be that evil, and that any authorities would ever be that involved in any such cover-up. But it is true. Do you actually think anyone would or could make up an account of it all like that, and that it would be entirely false and fabricated information? Really? Well, one thing is for sure, if it is true; and I believe it is; it changes the picture of claimed erradication with vaccines, to a whole new level of understanding the facts.

@ Narad

That was now nearly 7 years ago, dude. It is irrelevant. Your false accusations and current insinuations are entirely sick and quite obviously very desperate. Angry cause you can't win here; it sure shows.

@lowell

Three strikes, yer out.

So you do not know what happened to domestic measles and why didn’t this occur before widespread vaccination.

Think twice? What's next, pray tell? Janine Roberts?

@ Lawrence

Again, your questions are pointless and irrelevant, and you are clearly the person running off on other tangents. I have already answered what I had time to answer. You mindlessly throw 10 replies at a time directly at one man; and then throw a fit if everything didn't get entirely replied to.

You refuse to address the information I put in front of you, and the actual Vaccine Damage Science, but yet turn around and throw loaded unrelated questions back at it, essentially answering a question with an unrelated question. The clear avoidance, moving the goal posts, and hypocrisy level here is simply astounding; as well as the level of ad hominem replies. http://www.vacfacts.info/the-vaccine-damage---science.html

Your questions next.

Your throwing 8 reply posts at a time made by 4 people, and you all want your questions answered right away, right? And then 6 more after that, right? And 4 more by three more people after that, right? And if I missed any you are pissed off and claiming it wasn't and couldn't be answered, right. Why haven't you ever answered more than about one of my questions, as to what I put forth??? Sick tactics and stuff. Thats getting a little old, yaa think?

Why didn't what occur before vaccination, Novalox? Try and present a question that is actually a question. Measles was already in a major decline before the vaccine existed; do you need to know more? Get to finding some aluminum adjuvant safety studies to counter the damage that all these studies show, Novalox. or at least start refuting the studies that are there, without throwing all the false discreditation mud and poo and while disregarding that the studies were ever there.

5 separate pages there with the studies
http://www.vacfacts.info/vaccines-cause-autism-and-more---the-scientifi…

Good grief. Is this guy a full-time troll?

Speaking of vitamins—and horribly self-promoting (yes, I know I must get out the habit…)—I've written covering the research paper that came out today testing if vitamin D reduced the severity and duration of colds: http://http://bit.ly/Vrs8K8 (It didn't. This research is led by researchers from my local university.)

Your throwing 8 reply posts at a time made by 4 people, and you all want your questions answered right away, right?

I think "in an orderly fashion" is more like it, Lowell. Look, simplify your life: Pick an antivaccine hill to die on and stick to it.

@lowell

Too late, you didn't answer the question in time, and your "facts" don't directly answer the questions stated at all.

You struck out again.

But hey, at least I can show my fellow classmates and workers a perfect example of Dunning-Kreuger at work by pointing to your supposed "webpage" of facts. At least then can see what the damage chronic alcoholism can do to critical thinking skills.

Thank you for the entertainment, lowell, got any more idiocies to spit out?

@ Grant:

Several of the alt med prevaricators I survey REALLY push vitamin D as a preventive/ cure all.
Is vitamin D the new vitamin C? THAT**
used to be hawked for everything from hiv to cancer to colds- everything save scurvy that is.

** some of the mythos persists with IV megadose C.

Get to finding some aluminum adjuvant safety studies to counter the damage that all these studies show

Where are the studies proving broccoli is safe? It contains immunodulating chemicals like diindolylmethane, so it must cause autism.

By the way, a serving of mussels contains more aluminum than the entire vaccine schedule.

Measles was already in a major decline before the vaccine existed; do you need to know more?

More lies. Nearly 100% of people got measles before vaccination was introduced, just as they had for centuries before. Improvements in hygiene and medical care make no difference to the incidence of a highly contagious disease like measles that is spread by aerosol droplets, though fewer people die of it .

That was now nearly 7 years ago, dude. It is irrelevant.

No, it is not irrelevant, as a genuine sense of remorse is the sort of thing that people might well expect to preclude such hypocrisy. Your sense of responsibility does not seem to have evolved since the citizens of your state found you to require physical imprisonment by virtue of being a menace to public safety.

@ Lawrence

[@Lowell – how about just answering the simple questions instead of going off on tangents (or better yet, lay off the rants)?

Do you know the difference between mortality & incidence?

Which one went down due to better medical care & treatments, but didn’t effect the other?]

------------

Lawrence, when a person can prove that so called modern medicine is currently the leading cause of death in the US, you obviously do not need to prove nor show anything else. You can accept the information or you can without cause deny the information, its all up to you.

Death By Medicine
http://www.vacfacts.info/death-by-medicine.html

The False Foundations of Modern Medicine
http://www.vacfacts.info/the-false-foundations-of-modern-medicine.html

The Modern Paradigm of Medicine is Deeply Flawed Because Western Medicine Promotes and Causes Disease
Hippocrates – The Body Can Heal Itself
http://www.healingourchildren.org/hippocrates-father-of-western-medicin…

Modern medicine is not the cure we were brought up to believe.
http://www.goodsamiam.com/modern_medicines_secret.htm

Like I said, your questions are irrelevant, Lawrence; for these reasons.

--------------

[Which one actually resulted in the reduction of the incidence of VPDs from 95 – 99.5%?]

It doesn't matter Lawrence, because the figures and graphs you are using are not the same figures and graphs I am using, and I believe mine are unbiased and correct.

[Also, what happens when you insert a large number of un-vaccinated individuals into a naturally immune population with actively circulating diseases (let’s say, “hypothetically”, the birth of a new generation of children)?

Now, compare that to today – what’s the difference Lowell?]

You are extremely confused Lawrence, as you believe that those diseases are all highly damaging and deadly. An unvaccinated child today that has not had all the endless vaccines, if you actually knew; clearly has in all cases I have ever known of, superior health to that of an unvaccinated child. In knowing specifically all the protocols and proper diet to keep the immune system functional and working correctly parents today would rather take their chances of natural infection and recovery with acquired immunity, than risk the chronic ill health and conditions that many vaccinated children now have, due to excessive repeat vaccination. You do not want to face the facts, Lawrence; and you never will. I don't expect to change your mind.

[If you can’t answer these questions….well, actually what makes me think you’ll answer them. You can’t answer them without refuting your own illogical persona & self.]

Really Lawrence? looks like you are full of and spewing a bunch of twisted crap, to me? The provax side needs a guy like you. How is your search for those aluminum adjuvant safety studies coming along?

"immunodulating"? I meant immunomodulating. Past my bedtime.

Somehow that link got mangled, it ought to be: http://bit.ly/Vrs8K8 (See also my Location.)

Denice Walter,

A local author has a book out espouses it as a miracle cure too. Ian Wishart is the author, if you know the name. I've asked my readers in my post if he covers colds in it as I haven't read it (nor am inclined to!)

Lowell, it is not a case that we want or questions at once. You are allowed to think about them - or perhaps you have trouble with that. What we are after is having the questions answered at all. You make grand claims and when the detail is inspected the claims don't stack up. That is why we are asking questions about your understanding.

You do realise smallpox has been eradicated from the wild, or has that slipped your mind? What did it was vaccines.

We have even managed to eradicate rinderpest. Guess how?

@ Narad

Thats pretty sick and hateful, Narad. And any such unrelated to this subject matter, personal attack like that and as well is obviously very desperate. You have no idea about me, nor have you ever met me; nor have you ever talked to me, relating to any such matters. Your claims are entirely without merit, and they are not an appropriate nor obviously relevant subject matter for discussion here. That is extremely sick and uncalled for!

-------------

Your reply is there Lawrence, just wait for it to come up.

Waiting for more of lowell's idiotic answers.

I need a good laugh, and lowell is providing plenty of them.

Thats pretty sick and hateful, Narad. And any such unrelated to this subject matter, personal attack like that and as well is obviously very desperate. You have no idea about me, nor have you ever met me; nor have you ever talked to me, relating to any such matters. Your claims are entirely without merit, and they are not an appropriate nor obviously relevant subject matter for discussion here. That is extremely sick and uncalled for!

Lowell, my concern for your apparently delicate sensibilities is the same as your concern for other people. Now, please try to pick your strongest, most bestest antivax talking point. Focus, dude.

Damn, I missed this trope.

Lowell said:

Measles was already in a major decline before the vaccine existed; do you need to know more?

Except it didn't. US Data Polish data (note the log scale on the y axis).

@ ChrisP

You can yourself try having the insanity of endless reply posts thrown at you, that I have had here; and then come back and tell me about it what a simple deal that is to address every question in an adequate matter. Do you actually know how many reply posts that would take? I would be here all night, and likely still never get to the end of it. Wake up. And most it is the same old senseless and repeated dont get it, don't want to get it, and refuse to get it and trash, that has been dealt with over and over before.

SMALL POX WAS NOT ERADICATED BY THE VACCINE- PERIOD. Did you read that? NOT! I have a website, why have you not just gone there and read the answer I would give you there, and with the referenced to material. Why do you think I have a website? You don't want to learn of any of it; then DON'T learn. Rinderpest. That is the lamest comparison to anything related as reference information, that you could make. Oh, Rinderpest was eradicated, it all was eradicated by a vaccine. Go on believing it all, and when your children are damaged by 49 doses of 14 vaccines by the age of 6, I told you so. Just keep doing what your doing; your choice. The information is there is you want it.

And there is more: Chinese data (again note the log scale). So Lowell, where is that major decline in measles before the vaccine was introduced?

Lowell, So your proof that smallpox was not eradicated by the vaccine is based on your website? Really, I think you should look at some other literature. Rather than "repeatedly ignoring and limiting the data you are willing accept", don't you?

Here is a long read all about the eradication of smallpox and the essential role vaccines played in that eradication

Here is a shorter read

Like I just said, and I will say it again; it certainly works regarding natural immunity; that that is common sense because it results in long term solid and natural immunity.

And BAM! we have it. It's all so clear now folks; ^this^ is common sense to Lowell.

I'll ask again Lowell. Why were there ~ 4 million cases of measles each year in the U.S. (that's United States) BEFORE there was a measles vaccine?

And why are there about 200 cases now each year in the U.S. (that's still the United States) AFTER the measles vaccine, bearing in mind that mass vaccination has been going on for over 40 years?

Damn, the blog software has done it to me again. This is the long read

whqlibdoc.who.int/smallpox/9241561106.pdf

@lowell

LOL, please keep posting the stupid, lowell.

Measles was already in a major decline before the vaccine existed; do you need to know more?

No, it was not. And if you refuse to believe the data at the link Chris posted, just go ask anyone with children born between 1955 and 1980.

As for your claim about smallpox not being eradicated by vaccines, you'll need to do more than type in all caps.

@ ChrisP

It is all about what sources of information you are willing to accept. There are far more sources than the CDC, and what they are stating aways has alway been a bunch of misleading and false propaganda. Same with the WHO. And their sources for the proof and the numbers are what? Does that all look impressive to you, it doesn't to me. There are a increasing numbers and always have been large numbers of people that actually believe the real figures. Don't want to believe it, then simply don't believe it. Doesn't matter to me. There are so many references to all that and the whole picture in general; I am not listing all that, you can go to the site. if you refuse to do that, then you are not actually interested in anything other than your set conclusion anyway, so what would it matter.

Vaccines Did Not Save Us – 2 Centuries of Official Statistics
http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/graphs/

Contradictions between Medical Science and Immunization Policy
http://www.relfe.com/vaccine.html

Fact, vaccines have never eradicated anything, ever
http://vactruth.com/2010/07/23/fact-vaccines-have-never-eradicated-anyt…

Dang...that should have been 1960.

Some of us are old enough to remember getting the measles, having all of our siblings get the measles, and all of our friends and classmates get the measles.

SMALL POX WAS NOT ERADICATED BY THE VACCINE- PERIOD. Did you read that? NOT!

What? I will take this to represent the summit of Lowell's Dianetic volcano.

Janerella: I tend not to debate facts.

I think you just won the thread.

This is the long read

Longer.

@Narad

I would take it that your reluctance to accept anything that hasn't been put forth by the CDC, the WHO, and Paul Offit, is off your list of acceptable references. So, what would it matter, it all gets swiped off the table before it even gets on the table, or barely on the table so what would it matter.

Now thats an Narad's arse hole full of in denial spewing volcano. Talk all the smack and crap you want.

Lowell seems to have blown a fuse.

Well, thanks PGP, but the collective pwning of the Lowltroll has been achieved most bodaciously by commentators far more eloquent and knowledgeable than me.

Now thats an Narad’s arse hole full of in denial spewing volcano.

Lowell, you really don't need to add a fake British accent to your incessant fake legalese.

Vaccine derived immunity doesn’t require herd immunity to work?

Isn’t that a little contradictory to the typically promoted pro-vaccine message on herd immunity? That claim is entirely opposite of what the CDC claims to.

Goofus is, to no one's surprise, completely incorrect about what the CDC claims. No, vaccine-derived immunity doesn't require herd immunity to work. They are two complementary approaches to disease prevention, just like two complementary approaches to "not getting hurt by flying projectiles" would be "wearing padding" and "doing something to reduce the number of projectiles flying around."

Increasing one's own individual resistance to disease through vaccination is the equivalent of "wearing padding"; it's a way that even if you do get hit by a flying projectile, your chances of being hurt by the projectile are much lower.

Herd immunity is "reducing the number of projectiles flying around." If you catch a disease like measles, how did you catch it? From someone else who had it. How did they catch it? From someone else who had it. And so on, and so on, and so on, as far back as you want to trace.

Now, what would have happened if the person before you, let's call her Alice, had been vaccinated? Even if the vaccine was only 80% effective, if Alice had been vaccinated, that means that there's an 80% chance she wouldn't have gotten the measles. You definitely couldn't have caught the measles from Alice if she didn't have them! What if the person who gave the measles to Alice, Bill, what if Bill had been vaccinated when he ran into the person who infected him? Then there's an 80% chance that he never would have caught the measles from that person. If he never caught the measles, Alice couldn't have caught it from him, and then she couldn't have passed it on to you - and so on, and so on! If both Alice and Bill are vaccinated, there's only a 4% chance of the infection even reaching you by that route.

If even a vaccine which is only effective 80% of the time can break chains of infection so well, you may well ask, "then why haven't diseases like measles died out completely since we got vaccines for them?" Well, notice that we said that if both Alice and Bill got vaccinated with an 80% effective vaccine, your chance of being exposed was only 4%, by that route of infection. You might completely avoid being exposed to measles by Alice and Bill in the morning, and then get exposed to the pathogen by Quentin in the afternoon.

So, when only a handful of people in the population get vaccinated, it helps them, but not necessarily others. As more and more people get vaccinated, however, the more chains of infections get broken. Your chance of catching a disease starts to go down just because people you might have caught the disease from are getting protected from it. The phenomenon of people getting protected because other people have been protected from it is called herd immunity - which is why, if you read someone saying "Oh, naturopathic/homeopathic/dietary methods are much better than vaccines at warding off infections; vaccines don't work and neither does herd immunity," you know you're listening to someone who doesn't know what they're talking about. If those naturopathic/homeopathic/dietary methods actually did work to significantly reduce people's vulnerability to disease, enough people in a population using them would have a herd immunity effect. Likewise, anyone who says "vaccine-derived immunity needs herd immunity to work" is badly misinformed; herd immunity can complement vaccine-derived individual immunity, but it's not a foundation of vaccine-derived individual immunity.

@Grant

http://bit.ly/Vrs8K8
October 2, 10:14 pm
Somehow that link got mangled, it ought to be: http://bit.ly/Vrs8K8 (See also my Location.)

Denice Walter,

A local author has a book out espouses it as a miracle cure too. Ian Wishart is the author, if you know the name. I’ve asked my readers in my post if he covers colds in it as I haven’t read it (nor am inclined to!)

-------------------------

You amaze me. Do you actually call yourself and consider yourself a researcher? I am a researcher, Grant; deny it and that or not. I research all sides and angles to what is actually available; and I do it in as much of an unbiased way as possible. You come up with one study that claims to show the ineffectiveness of vitamin D, while ignoring the bulwark of existing science that shows the real effectiveness of vitamin D against respiratory infections, the flu, and much more. And you call that actually researching a subject matter? Then you put it forth one study as if it is concrete proof; when so many other studies as well exist, showing the opposite to be true. And you are not aware that there are people that do research as well with the exclusive intent to discredit a natural substance that they feel may compete with the pharma agenda? But oh, thats all a tin foil hat conspiracy theory, no conflicts of interest at pharma, they actually want to cure disorders and disease, don't they? Thats why they have so many of those cures, right?

@ Narad

Did you want to speak to me personally about it and your earlier said accusations, and you know before you go spewing all that B. S., about me personally? You know, you should have done that first. You should actually know someone before you accuse falsely that kind of trash. I can tell you all about why it is not true. Or otherwise give me your identity and I can see what kind of dirt I can actually dig up on you.

Did you want to speak to me personally about it and your earlier said accusations, and you know before you go spewing all that B. S., about me personally?

Please identify what "B. S.," has been "spewed."

@ Antaeus Feldspar

You know I read about half way through all that twisted nonsense and concluded that you clearly haven't an actual clue. Alice, Bill, and Quentin where do they live? I need to go show them some aluminum adjuvant not so safety studies, and inform them about the contamination in vaccines, and as well the human diploid cell contamination linked to autism. I think they will listen better than you do. I'm going to try. LOL!

You know I read about half way through all that twisted nonsense and concluded that you clearly haven’t an actual clue.

Lowell, have you ever heard The Ballad of Frankie Lee and Judas Priest?

Oh, for crying out loud, that has a splice-out at 4:50.

Ken: Get outta my party. You are in as deep denial as Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan are.

Lowell,

You managed to not present a single piece of substance in your rant opposing my linked article, only rather silly personal attacks. Entertaining, perhaps, but silly.

(Lowell obviously hasn't read what I wrote, as their research is placed in context with earlier, which I note in my article. I also point out some of the limitations, too.)

...Because that's the only thing Lowell seems able to do. I've read at least 9 of his replies and not once has any of them made sense. He can't even seem to get an insult correct. Perhaps, Lowell, it's time to call it a night. You aren't able to answer the questions as they are posed to you, either you lack the ability to answer or you don't understand the questions are they are being asked. You could ask for clarification if the latter were true, but my guess is you're just getting angry and defensive because you can't answer them because your huge collection of data just doesn't have answers to those questions. Yep, it's time to sign off and get some sleep. Maybe in the morning you will be able to make more sense.

@ Narad

Do you have alzheimers. That B.S. you lied about because you know what I have is actually the truth, and you need to and have to throw any false mud and poo you could find.

That song seemed a little extra dumb, to me?

Don't forget about all that vaccine harm science as to and regarding aluminum adjuvants, that the CDC has refused to acknowledge, Narad. That is irresponsible to have that information available and to never have done any safety studies in the entire history of the CDC. Giving the substance aluminum an FDA approval rating of (GRAS) generally regarded as safe, in 1929; and then never considering doing aly safety studies even though aluminum adjuvants have beens used for nearly 80 years; would you call that irresponsible and reckless? A neurological poison, and remains generally regarded as safe to inject in a vaccine? Just as reckless as they were with Thimerosal and continue to be.

And that study on human diploid cells contamination and its connection as well to autism. Sure is something how the FDA has covered-up all the issues on vaccine contamination, while clearly knowing the potential for what that can do, as to causing chronic illness and autoimmune disease. Gardasil, what a dangerous vaccine, and now as
well with thousands of young women left with unrecovered from neurological conditions and what they call new medical conditions. Again, denial of all and that there is any proof. They are not looking but they actually know, without acknowledging all those said problems are there. They can't as it would cause potentially the whole vaccine program to crumble at the foundation, as it actually implicates the problems with all vaccines.

Did you know that Dr. Andrew Wakefield's study was actually replicated more than once with the same findings. Thats right, the case against him was built on their own fraud. They know what that vaccine has done, and they aren't actually that stupid. To much to lose. Wakefield and his primate studies, it all had to be discredited; and with money and power and hidden pharma connected conflict of interest, they got away with it all.

Research References
http://www.callous-disregard.com/research.htm

Don't forget this site, Narad! I know you actually want to educate yourself to the facts.

Vac Facts.info
http://www.vacfacts.info/the-vaccine-damage---science.html

And when you get some spare time, you will want to go through this presentation video by Dr. Russell Blaylock. Wow, I wonder why the CDC never investigated that information and considered doing any further studies to confirm or deny that all that was true. Seems like they are in the dark ages, and all their crank telephones must fallen off the walls in 1959, and no call to the actual science department has been made since.

THE CENTRAL ROLE OF IMMUNOEXCITOTOXICITY IN ALUMINUM AND MERCURY-CONTAINING ADJUVANT-TRIGGERED NEURODEVELOPMENTAL AND NEURODEGENERATIVE DISORDERS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9DkcpEEBPI

Published Papers – Dr. Russell Blaylock
http://www.russellblaylockmd.com/

And they actually call this guy a quack, just because he sells a newsletter and a product which in reality does more good in healing than pharma has or could ever do.

Dr. Russell Blaylock is a board certified neurosurgeon, author and lecturer. He attended the Louisiana State University School of Medicine in New Orleans and completed his general surgical internship and neurosurgical residency at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston, South Carolina. During his residency training he worked with the eminent neurosurgeon, Dr. Ludwig Kempe. Together they developed the transcallosal removal of intraventricular tumors, a technique still used today. For the past 25 years he has practiced neurosurgery in addition to having a nutritional practice. He recently retired from his neurosurgical duties to devote his full attention to nutritional studies and neuroscience research.

Sure am glad I could use you for a sounding board, Narad. However, actually a blog like this as to all this denial and refuse to get; it is not something you can stomach every day. Actually, I would rename it, As the Stomach Turns.

@ Grant

What part of you do NOT know how to do unbiased research, do you not understand? Selecting one single study claiming to show the ineffectiveness of vitamin D in the treatment of the common cold, as evidence that vitamin D is worthless for viral infections, while several existing studies show that effectiveness, is completely bogus on your part.

Here is the problem with that study. they only used the standard RDA of 400 IU per day, and when the therapeutic dose is much higher, and is 5000 IU per day.

Vitamin D Council recommended amounts
Based on the body's indicated daily vitamin D usage, Vitamin D Council recommends the following amounts of supplemental vitamin D3 per day in the absence of proper sun exposure.

Healthy children under the age of 1 years – 1,000 IU.
Healthy children over the age of 1 years – 1,000 IU per every 25 lbs of body weight.
Healthy adults and adolescents – at least 5,000 IU.
Pregnant and lactating mothers - at least 6,000 IU.

http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/about-vitamin-d/how-to-get-your-vitamin-…

Go ahead and explain why what I am pointing out is still not correct , Grant? I told you so.

@ Lara Lohne (AKA: Venna)

You aren’t able to answer the questions as they are posed to you, either you lack the ability to answer or you don’t understand the questions are they are being asked. You could ask for clarification if the latter were true, but my guess is you’re just getting angry and defensive because you can’t answer them because your huge collection of data just doesn’t have answers to those questions.

------------------------

What amazes me is just how baseless, delusional, in denial you are as to your comments. It seems to be more than a bit contagious here. If they could find a vaccine for that, then we would be getting somewhere.

@lowell

Yawn, more infantile insults and no evidence. Try a little harder, a six year old could come up with better.

Lowell,

Thank you for confirming that you have not read my article (http://bit.ly/Vrs8K8) or the research paper :-

You wrote “they only used the standard RDA of 400 IU per day”.

They did not.

They used 100,000 IU, given monthly.

This is stated quite clearly in the their abstract and quoted near the top of my article. Let me quote it here for you:

“monthly administration of 100 000 IU of vitamin D did not reduce the incidence or severity of URTIs in healthy adults.”

If you read my article or the research paper you can verify this for yourself.

Lowell, care to try one more thought experiment about herd/communal immunity.

Imagine someone figures out an exact dosage of vitamin C (or D) that prevents nine out of ten people from catching the common cold. It becomes so well known that almost everybody takes the vitamin, and so about 9 out of every 10 people are protected nationwide.

The cold is also a relatively virulent one, so we can assume that someone coming in contact with the germs without effective protection will get sick.

We also assume that we are speaking on average.

Now, assuming that was true...

1) ...How easily would someone with cold infect people they come in direct contact with, like family members and co-workers? Lets call him/her A.

2) ...how likely is that A's cold would pass from one of his/her family members or coworkers to any one of their friends and family, who have no direct contact with A?

3) So, comparing the answers from question 1 and 2, is there a difference in the likelihood of catching the disease?

4) A infects 10 people (group B), and each of those goes on to infect 10 people. How many people group B came in contact with?

5A) Out of all those people group B met, including the total of 100 infected, as well as the rest who were protected with vitamin C (the answer from question 4), 1 randomly selected person goes on to participate in a Pharma Shills convention, with a 100 participants who refuse to take vitamin C in recommended doses on principle. How likely that one person is to infect anyone at the convention?

Also, for extra credit:

a) Does vitamin C granting 9 out of 10 people protection from cold only work if we can prove that without the vitamin, OVER 90% of all people would have caught it?

b) Can this logic be applied to any other disease and/or preventive measure? If yes, please specify. If not, please specify.

Lowell , October 2, 2:20 pm, full of sound and fury, dignifying nothing (sorry, Wm):

@ Bill price

If B. parapertussis is actually indistinguishable from B . pertussis, how is its presence detected, and why does it have a name that is distinguishable from the other’s name?
If the one is actually indistinguishable from the other, how are they detected separately? Hint: ‘literally’ is a synonym for ‘actually’ of ‘in fact’.
Or maybe it’s just the case that you are as confused and/or ignorant of physiology and immunology as you have shown yourself to be of epidemiology and science in general.
——————

Well, as long as you misrepresent what I have stated, you can twist it around and pretend that to be true. Do you do that intentionally? Of course you do.

(My questions for Lowell to answer are bold and/or underlined, if either of these basic html features are supported by this blogging software.)
How did my direct quote of your words misrepresent what you stated? How is my direct quote of your own wording "twist[ing] it around and pretending [something] to be true?" My attempt to make some sense of your statements was, indeed, intentional. I posed some questions, in that attempt: do you now attack me for questioning your "truth" (or is it your troof?).

You have zero basis for any such claims.

The only claims I make are "‘literally’ is a synonym for ‘actually’ or ‘in fact’". What problem do you see in these claims that give you a basis for contesting them? Do I need to do your basic dictionary work for you? Hint: I not volunteering — you get to do your own basic dictionary work. Keep the dictionary handy as you read further: I'm going to use some big words like 'mutagenicity', which is a topic you bring up without naming.

What was being referred to is of course that B pertussis it[sic] symptomatically similar to B. Parapertussis. However somewhat related, it was NOT referred to as the same bacterial pathogen.

Your original words, which I quoted earlier, were that the pathogens B. pertussis and B. parapertussis are "literally indistinguishable". You are now misrepresenting what you said earlier when you claim them to be merely "symptomatically similar". Do you do that intentionally? Of course you do.
You now claim that, in an Alice in Wonderland fashion, "literally indistinguishable" means "symptomatically similar", "somewhat related", but not "the same pathogen." Can you explain, as I asked before, how, being "literally indistinguishable", one can determine that they are not "the same pathogen". If, as you claim, there's no way to tell them apart ("literally indistinguishable") then just how does one tell them apart? Or are you just contradicting yourself to defend your faith?

You are asking me, how it is detected,

Yes. That's the question just above: if, as you claim, they cannot be distinguished, how can they be distinguished? (The question is rewritten so that maybe one of versions will make sense to you.) I know full well, as do most of the rest of us here, that B. pertussis and B. parapertussis are distinct organisms. It is you who has claimed them to be identical. I asked you to support your claim of identity, in light of your other claims about their differing antibody responses. If you have now contradicted your earlier claim of "literally indistinguishable", presumably for good reason, then the question's basis is removed. Your public self-contradiction is sufficient answer to my original question.

and you claim to understand physiology, immunology, and epidemiology.

I have made no claims. I point out that any understanding that I may or may not have should be apparent from my writing, regardless of any claims I make or which are made for me. I will make one multi-part claim now: "I have a basic lay understanding of physiology, immunology, and epidemiology, among other subjects. I read, understand and write English. I have sufficient understanding that I am sometimes able to spot nonsense in these areas, and ask potentially appropriate questions concerning the nonsense." What I claim to be able to do is exactly what I have done.

You have got to be kidding. PCR test is what they use; if and when they actually test for it; ever heard of it?

Of course I have: Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) is used to amplify a tiny genetic sample to the point where it suffices for subsequent DNA testing. PCR is not, itself, a DNA test. (That came from my own understanding, with no recourse to Google of Wikipedia. I did watch the OJ trial in 1994 or so, where PCR played a big rôle.)

Nice try and trash filled expose[sic] though.

(In order to make sense of this, I've read 'expose' as 'exposée' in both places, and rendered it properly in my reply. If that is incorrect, please let me know.)
What, pray tell, might my "trash filled expos[ée]" have exposed? I noticed that your claims made no sense to me, and I asked you to explain how your claims might have merit. Your response has been an attack on me for daring to question you.

Here is a question for you, does your twisted expose[sic] discredit how an antibiotic causes a bacteria to mutate and change to the point it evades an antibiotic, too? Thats not real nor ever happened either, right.

Short answer: the question isn't even wrong, but I'll address it anyway as if it were a valid question with a valid basis.
When I asked for clarification of your seeming nonsense, I asked you to justify your claim that a vaccine-induced antibody could be mutagenic, while the identical infection-induced antibody would not be mutagenic. Not only do you refuse to address that question, but you add to that seeming nonsense with this question.
You do, don't you, understand enough basic biology (evolution, in particular) to distinguish between mutagenicity and selection? If you don't so understand, you're in the wrong discussion.
I would ask you, like I asked concerning antibodies, how "an antibiotic causes a bacteria to mutate and change to the point it evades an antibiotic". I am aware, of course, with my basic lay understanding of biology, how an antibiotic can (when it's improperly used) select for pre-existing resistant strains in a bacteria population. But that's not what you're asking. I know of no instances where an antibiotic has caused a mutation for antibiotic resistance in any bacterium. Can you point to such an instance?
Of course it's possible for antibiotic resistance to occur as a mutation: the Lenski experiment shows that a sufficiently large population of bacteria, after a sufficiently large number of of generations, can spontaneously produce interesting mutations. In the Lenski experiment, it took about 33000 (IIRC) generations for the glucose-dependent bacteria to come up with a population that could thrive in citrate-rich, glucose-deprived environment. On the other hand, Lenski and crew didn't report any mutagenic substances in the bacteria's foodstuffs. His experiment design would not be appropriate for testing antibiotics for mutagenicity. That would have to be a different design.

As has happened before, my blockquotes were improperly marked up in the above. The second, third, and fourth instances of nested blockquote should be plain text instead.
BTW: It appears the the <u><b> markup produces only bold, without underline..

Bill Price, a good explanation, but sadly wasted on Lowell.

ChrisP @5:10 am: Thanks. I realize that Lowell is a waste, as well as a waste of time. I'm just (a) having fun fisking his nonsense, (b) writing for any real people that might show up with what I hope to be valid points, valid presentation and just enough snark to keep their attention, and (c) giving the regulars a little relief – they seem to be getting justly tired of Lowell, and missing some good opportunities.

This could be an entertaining discussion, but whatever software Lowell is using to translate into English, it isn't working.

What part of you do NOT know how to do unbiased research, do you not understand? Selecting one single study claiming to show the ineffectiveness of vitamin D in the treatment of the common cold, as evidence that vitamin D is worthless for viral infections, while several existing studies show that effectiveness, is completely bogus on your part.

You seem to be suggesting that cherry-picking only those studies that show what you have already decided is true, i.e. that vitamin D protects against viral infection, is unbiased research. It isn't. Truly unbiased research looks at all studies, deciding in advance what criteria will be used to include them or not. The Mayo Clinic carried out a review of the literature on vitamin D deficiency last year. They point out that there are some correlations between low serum vitamin D levels and various illnesses, but this could be because low vitamin D occurs in people who don't get out in the sun much, which also correlates with illness. In other words low vitamin D could be a consequence of illness, not a cause.

Studies that looked at vitamin D supplementation usually included calcium as well, another possible confounder. There is also some evidence that high doses of vitamin D may lead to kidney stones, vascular disease, and fractures. They recommend vitamin D supplementation in the elderly at risk of fractures.

Since people with darker skin have lower levels of vitamin D, why don't they get more infections than lighter skinned people?

Here's an interesting look at the role of vitamin D in preventing infection that concludes:

Data from several models of infection have so far not supported a role for vitamin D in affecting the course of disease. There is also very little evidence that vitamin D affects the course of human TB infection. Experiments have not been done in cells, mice or humans to evaluate the effect of vitamin D on influenza virus. At this time it would be premature to claim that vitamin D has an effect on TB, influenza or any other infection.

I closed that bold tag, I checked it, and the damnable thing has vanished. Grrr.

Krebiozen,

If I had time to cover the ground first-hand I might add it to the comments in to my post. (I doubt I'll find the time.) Interesting suggestion that illness might cause the deficiency rather than deficiency creating a susceptibility to illness. (I was thinking of vitamin D's role in the immune system [in broad terms!] in my article.)

Regards the high doses, one finding reported in the study I glossed was that in their experience the high doses generally had few ill effects, a few exceptions excepted.

Regards TB, the authors noted “vitamin D insufficiency is associated with increased risk of developing tuberculosis” (note that's insufficiency, not deficiency).

The authors look to have hoped to cover influenza, but obtained too few cases to do so (from memory, I've got to hit the sack so no time to verify that, sorry).

You know I read about half way through all that twisted nonsense and concluded that you clearly haven’t an actual clue. Alice, Bill, and Quentin where do they live? I need to go show them some aluminum adjuvant not so safety studies, and inform them about the contamination in vaccines, and as well the human diploid cell contamination linked to autism. I think they will listen better than you do. I’m going to try. LOL!

If there's anyone out there (other than the Goofus who can't understand the concept of "thought experiment") who tried to understand my explanation of herd immunity and couldn't, please, let me know what you found confusing and I'll try even harder.

GALLANT asks respectfully for clarification when someone gives a polite explanation and he doesn't follow it all. GOOFUS sneers and tries to change the subject to something else he thinks he can "win."

Grant,

Interesting suggestion that illness might cause the deficiency rather than deficiency creating a susceptibility to illness. (I was thinking of vitamin D’s role in the immune system [in broad terms!] in my article.)

I suspect that may explain the generally disappointing effects of supplementation, which is a shame; such a simple and relatively safe way of preventing infection would be wonderful. Also, if high levels of vitamin D did reliably prevent infection you would expect to see little infectious disease in populations living near the equator who get lots of UV skin exposure, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

Regards the high doses, one finding reported in the study I glossed was that in their experience the high doses generally had few ill effects, a few exceptions excepted.

I guess it depends how high the dose is - Gary Null springs to mind - and whether the benefits outweigh whatever risk there is. The bottom line is we don't really know what the long-term benefits and risks of supplementation with high doses are, yet. I think Mercola, the Vitamin D Council, and many others are not only speculating beyond the data, but are suffering from premature certainty about this.

Regards TB, the authors noted “vitamin D insufficiency is associated with increased risk of developing tuberculosis” (note that’s insufficiency, not deficiency).

Again I wonder if that could be confounded by someone who is ill staying indoors - by the time TB is diagnosed a person may have been unwell for some time. What is required are prospective studies, and we don't seem to have too many of those yet. Even vitamin D supplementation may only help TB patients with the tt genotype of the vitamin D receptor (PMID: 21215445), which is only 8% of patients (in India anyway, other populations may differ).

The authors look to have hoped to cover influenza, but obtained too few cases to do so (from memory, I’ve got to hit the sack so no time to verify that, sorry).

You're quite right. They do mention a Japanese RCT that found a 42% reduction in laboratory-confirmed influenza A infection but that was barely statistically significant, and was a small study.

There's lots of vaguely promising research but nothing conclusive, and given the propensity of trials to give false positive results, and the possible confounders, I'm skeptical that vitamin D will prove to be the panacea many people hope it is. I hope I'm wrong.

I actually had to open another window so I could reply and yet not miss anything!

@Lowell

"No complaint was ever made that ICE or FBI had hacked my facebook nor my site"

http://torrentfreak.com/feds-seize-new-domain-add-to-bat$hit-conspiracy…

(replace the $ with an s if you use the above link. Hate getting caught up in the profanity filter)

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/06/no-the-feds-didnt-seize-your…

http://vaccineconspiracytheorist.blogspot.dk/2011/06/lowell-hubbss-pers…

"Hacked by a known individual"

Really, you make me laugh.. especially when you try to use Natural News, Mercola, Blaylock, Gaia Health as 'evidence'

B. parapertussis is not the same thing as B. pertussis. There's a reason why the names are different - because they're different species.

If they were the same organism, they'd have the same damn name.

Congratulations on failing 5th grade biology.

I can't help but notice that, if Lowell had spent 1/4 the time answering queries as complaining about being asked them, they would have all be answered.

I can only conclude that he in fact is completely incapable of answering... or realizes that any answer would have to either (a) be a deliberate lie or (b) show even more clearly that he hasn't the faintest shadow of a hint of a clue what he's talking about.

@Beamup

Lowell can't tie his shoes unless he checks with Blaylock or Mercola.

He's incapable of being rational, he's incapable of thinking critically. He exists on the pablum put out by Natural News, Gaiahealth and the healthy home economist.

Again, he's so dense that light bends around him.

Arguing with Lowell won't get you very far unless you are simply seeking entertainment at his expense. I've read about him and this is the same guy who actually thinks you can cure cancer with baking soda.

He is also a 9/11 truther and a believer in Wakefield. No amount of logic or fact will change his mind because he believes he has the answers while the world around him is clueless. It doesn't matter that he can't prove anything because he will just spin around and demand that you prove that water is wet or that gravity exists.

http://vaccineconspiracytheorist.blogspot.com/2011/01/mr-hubbs-thoughts…

Lowell is starting to make me miss Thingy's pithy quips.

@Lowell,

Ooh, was that a personal attack, calling me delusional? What have I stated in any of my comments that comes across to you as delusional? In my last comment I was merely pointing out that you aren't making a lot of sense in your comment replies, many of them weren't even related to the question that was posed to you and thought perhaps you were fatigued and needed to take a break.

Nothing I've read from you makes a lot of sense. Sentences seem to be incomplete, words are duplicated or left out or appear to be in the wrong order. I have dyslexia so I know how difficult it can be, reading and writing. Typically fatigue will exaggerate it. Proof reading before posting helps too. I generally read through my comments two and sometimes three times prior to posting, and I still don't catch all my flubs. Just a suggestion for future reference that you may find beneficial.

@Edith Prickly
Thingy sneaked one in under a sock puppet known as INF-b yesterday evening. It's been banned from yet another blog and has shown up there using the same nym demanding that Th1Th2 be unbanned. Of course that isn't going to happen and I believe it has been banned again, from its new nym, on that blog since I've not heard from it in a couple of days.

Lowell is starting to make me miss Thingy’s pithy quips.

Sad, but true. I never really appreciated as I do now how Thingy could get to her point quickly, even if her point was completely counter-factual.

Thingy sneaked one in under a sock puppet known as INF-b yesterday evening.

It still hasn't figured out how to make a beta? It used an Eszett when deploying this name at MDC.

Do you have alzheimers. That B.S. you lied about because you know what I have is actually the truth, and you need to and have to throw any false mud and poo you could find.

What lie would that be, Lowell?

That song seemed a little extra dumb, to me?

I realize that it's probably a bit above your language skills, involving, you know, allegory. Allow me to lay out the bit that was clipped in that recording:

Well the moral of the story
The moral of the song
Is simply that one should never be
Where one does not belong

Use it in good health, Lowell.

I find the reactions of people who adamantly believe what appears to the rest of us to be obviously untrue being confronted with inconvenient facts, as Lowell has been above, oddly fascinating. Last night I watched a BBC documentary called 'Conspiracy Road Trip'. It featured a British comedian taking a group of British 9/11 Troofers across America to be confronted with evidence that contradicted their beliefs. It's the same phenomenon we see here so frequently, of people who adopt a belief and then collect evidence that fits it and either discard or discredit everything else, or distort or misinterpret it so it does fit.

Particularly interesting to me was when they talked to an air traffic controller who told then that on 9/11 the various agencies didn't communicate with each other properly, and that it was all a horrible screw-up. The conspiracy nuts came away thinking he had told them it was a government cover-up. Any of you curious about the psychology of this stuff, as displayed above, might enjoy it if you get the chance.

Krebiozen,

“I suspect that may explain the generally disappointing effects of supplementation,”

You‘ll have noticed I offered a different explanation, which also can explain the general lack of effect of supplementation ;-) The difference is, of course, which came first (as in the chicken or the egg) - :-) (From memory the authors cite the TB example as support for this possibility.)

“Also, if high levels of vitamin D did reliably prevent infection you would expect to see little infectious disease in populations living near the equator who get lots of UV skin exposure, but that doesn’t seem to be the case.”

Do people there have higher levels of vitamin D, or does the body limit the increase at some level? (e.g. via feedback regulation) I’d have guessed the latter.

About TB, my pick was with the second of your two thoughts (hence my emphasising insufficiency as opposed to deficiency).

“I’m skeptical that vitamin D will prove to be the panacea many people hope it is.”

The study I covered does strongly suggest that’s the way it’ll likely prove to be. One thing that's relevant to that is that they find few people were deficient. If vitamin D had an effect in non-deficient people, it'd would then "have" to be worth looking at. With no effect observed on people with satisfactory vitamin D levels (what they find), AFAICT you’re more-or-less forced to look to people who are either insufficient or deficient for vitamin D for a medicinal effect.

I'd add your suggestions to the comments (you're welcome to yourself), but I'd have to cover the background and I'm pretty much out of time. My own suggestion is partly from what is in the research paper. Now I have to get on with my day…!