Tuesday, June 21, 2011

No Vacation from Vaccination




As Summer begins; and our children's thoughts turn to family vacations, the beach and time with friends, the Machine's thoughts turn to pumping more and more vaccine into those very same children. With a new pertussis vaccine mandate taking affect, the efforts of public health do-gooders are going into over drive. Heck, they're even making banners, buttons and fliers to support their crusade.

Assembly Bill No. 354 (a product of years of behind-the-scenes lobbying by The California Immunization Coalition: a shadowy organization representing a collection of vested interests drawn from medicine, public health, insurance, and the American Association of Pediatrics) mandates that one million older children and teens receive the Tdap vaccine each year. The public debate and input that scuttled attempts in 2007 to burden our children with an HPV vaccine mandate was this time absent.

The law targets an illness known as pertussis: a respiratory tract infection that can lead, in some cases, to severe coughing spells. It’s an illness that can be life threatening in infants but in older children (the targets of this new legislation) and adults, pertussis is usually mild or even asymptomatic.

The new compulsory vaccine includes boosters against two other infectious illnesses: diphtheria and tetanus. Don’t remember last year’s diphtheria and tetanus outbreaks? That’s because they didn’t happen. Your child just gets two extra medications because an individual pertussis booster is unavailable.

The California Immunization Coalition claims:

Immunizing school-aged children is key to preventing pertussis…from spreading in our communities, and school immunization requirements are the best tool for protecting public health from these preventable diseases.

But is the vaccination of one million children “key” to preventing pertussis and, even if it were, would those coercive vaccinations then be justifiable? The answer is on both counts no. Here’s why targeting kids won’t do much of anything. First, you already have a 43% vaccination rate (a level higher than the national average) in those being targeted) Additionally, you have many in the 7th through 12th grades who have already contracted pertussis and are therefore immune. So a large percentage of that entire group can’t transmit pertussis in the first place. Then we’ve got to consider the fact that, since there are far more adults than adolescents, adults will comprise the majority of the estimated 800,000-3 millionundiagnosed adult and adolescent cases that occur in this country each year. And those adults, free from the schoolmaster, aren’t showing much interest in the pertussis vaccine: according to the CDC only 6-14% of adults have received the adult booster.

In a population of 30 million there were, during the worst outbreak in 50 or 60 years, just ten fatalities. There were fourteen cases per one hundred thousand: hardly an existential threat to the state. Since the illness occurs in 3-5 year cycles, fatalities over the next few years will likely range form zero to perhaps two or three (the nation as a whole only experiences ~15-25 fatalities each year). Those figures, poor vaccine-induced immunity and hundreds of thousands of adult infections make it clear that targeting our children is hardly the key to anything. They’re just vulnerable because they’re kids and because they’re in school.

As to my second, point, one million older kids are not objects be used by the state to achieve their goal of providing theoretical protection to babies. Remember, vaccines like any medical procedure carry risks. Concerned families with infants can choose to vaccinate themselves and their own children (70% of infant infections are traceable to family members and or caregivers) Additionally those with babies can, if they so choose, isolate those babies until they can attain vaccine immunity (usually achieved after the first three shots at about six moths. Finally, concerned parents can encourage the hospital at which they give birth adopt vaccination policies to stop transmission by health care workers.

Additionally, vaccinating a twelve year old will likely only buy that child a few years of immunity. Remember the vaccine isn’t very good: even the experts admit “protection” lasts about five years. That’s why this booster will be the sixth pertussis vaccination in these 11 and 12 year-olds’ short lives (natural immunity on the other hand has been shown to last at least thirty years) With such weak immunity, are we then going to require a get out of school series of shots to extend immunity a little further. And will we then use college to keep these children (now really adults) under state control? And when free health care finally comes, will we use that as a mechanism with which to extend mandatory vaccines into perpetuity?

I knew about this new law, but I was surprised by such aggressive kick off: the program doesn’t start till July, which is really the next school year. I guess I shouldn’t have been, after all the group that pushed this legislation through the legislature is now, in conjunction with the California Department of Public Health, conducting something called preteen vaccine week: an event the two groups are both “observing” and “celebrating” and where among other things students are, during class, encouraged to have propaganda contests to see who can best extol the virtues of vaccination. Preteens, teens, adults and seniors are the next big vaccination markets.

Another thing I knew – unlike many Californians - was that exemptions are available to this and any other vaccine. Unfortunately the robocall failed to mention that. But failing to mention vaccine exemptions isn’t unusual. Recent articles about the law, appearing in several local papers, also made no mention of options available to parents.

So at the end of the day this post is really about building awareness. No not the usual disease awareness not even screening awareness and certainly not vaccine awareness I’m writing about freedom awareness. It’s your child’s body, not the school’s and not the government’s. If you think you can help, or if you want “protection for your child, I encourage you to get vaccinated, if however you’re not interested in this new compulsory vaccine, know your rights and know that you can say no.


33 comments:

  1. Pertussis is made out to be so deadly, but if you look at information from the CDC, it is easy enough to see the truth. In 2009, there were 17,000 reported cases of pertussis and 14 deaths. That's a mortality rate of 0.08%. In 2010, the numbers are a little higher; 21,000 reported cases and 26 deaths. That's still only a mortality rate of 0.1%. And even though it is true that pertussis is much more likely to cause complications in infants under one year of age, the mortality rate for that age group is reported as 1%.
    http://www.cdc.gov/features/pertussis/

    ReplyDelete
  2. You're right, Samantha. And those statistics you cite are only reported cases. Hundreds of thousands of cases occur every year and are so inconsequential they're neither reported nor noticed.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Permanent lung damage, neurological damage, long term complications, but at least the death rate is low! Big Pharma!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Really JayK? Okay fine, here are the CDC's stats for the complications from Pertussis.
    In infants under a year old:
    -1 in 5 get pneumonia (20%)
    -1 in 100 will have convulsions (1%)
    -half will have apnea - the most common reason for hospitilization, which resolves as they recover (50%)
    -1 in 300 will have encephalopathy (0.3%)

    In older children and adults:
    -33% will experience some weight loss
    -28% experience loss of bladder control (they pee themselves due to coughing so hard)
    -6% will pass out from coughing
    -4% will fracture a rib from coughing so hard

    Funny, it didn't really talk much about permanent lung damage, long-term complications, or neurological damage on the CDC website. So where are YOU getting YOUR information from?

    ReplyDelete
  5. This is from one of the many factsheets available on the internet. This one is from a state government health website in Australia:
    'Whooping cough is most serious in babies under 12 months of age and often requires admission to hospital. Whooping cough can lead to complications such as haemorrhage, convulsions, pneumonia, coma, inflammation of the brain, permanent brain damage and long term lung damage. Around 1 in every 200 children under six months of age who catches whooping cough will die.'

    ReplyDelete
  6. Sian, are there any babies under 12 months of age in middle school or high school?

    ReplyDelete
  7. excuse me Robert, but silly question which almost doesnt deserve answering, but maybe they have a newborn in the family or in their immediate circle. Lets not forget Whooping Cough is highly contagious and potentially and very rapidly fatal to newborns. Its about stopping the spread of infection. Both the unvaccinated and the vaccinated can contract and transmit pertussis, and even if you have had it once, you can get it again. And yes, vaccinated children can still get the illness, but it will usually be a mild form and wont see them fighting for their life in hospital on a CPAP. Immunity for WC in anybody, can wear off. So rather than booster shots for middle or high school kids, we need boosters for adults also. And maybe just an individual vaccine for WC, not combine it with diptheria and tetanus. @ Samantha, Whooping Cough is made out to be so deadly, because it IS DEADLY!! Mortality rate of 1% from the disease is acceptable to you, but a mortality rate of 0.0000001% due to the vaccine is not? The argument against just doesnt make sense. So many cases go unreported, probably because they are mild, yes, but every unreported (statistic) of whooping cough is a potential carrier and infector of the disease. Please all don't be naive, google Whooping Cough in a 7 week old baby and see for yourself what its really like. Basing your argument on old studies, alarmist websites with a vested interest in selling books or DVD's, or incorrectly interpreted data is simply naive and dangerous.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous

    [maybe they have a newborn in the family or in their immediate circle]

    Then they can get vaccinated. No one's stopping them.

    [Its about stopping the spread of infection]

    What's about stopping the spread of infection?

    [it will usually be a mild form and wont see them fighting for their life in hospital on a CPAP]

    Unless they are infants, they won't be fighting for their lives. Much of the developed world abandoned the whole cell pertussis vaccine with few deaths ensuing.

    [Mortality rate of 1% from the disease is acceptable to you]

    There are as many as one million cases of pertussis a year in the USA. Deaths hover between the teens and low twenties. Hardly a ratio of 1%

    [google Whooping Cough in a 7 week old baby]

    The odds of a 7 week old baby contracting pertussis are very low. Parents can protect their children by keeping them away from situations in which they might become infected. Additionally low birth weight, second hand smoke living conditions and a failure to breastfeed increase chances of mortality. Finally, the short term immunity gained through vaccination leaves parents vulnerable to the illness just as they enter the child-bearing years.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Robert Schecter said... " Parents can protect their children by keeping them away from situations in which they might become infected."

    Somewhat difficult when you cannot tell which person has been responsible and been vaccinated and which one hasn't due to mis-information.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Robert Schecter said...
    "Sian, are there any babies under 12 months of age in middle school or high school?"

    Which group are the most likely to be doing baby sitting jobs or part-time work in your local shopping mall?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous

    No one is responsible to undergo medical treatments for the benefit of others. And since they can't tell who's vaccinated and revaccinated, keeping infants away from the public becomes their best option.

    Are parents being forced to allow unvaccinated teens baby sit their infants? If they want an vaccinated sitter, they can make that a requirement of employment.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Robert Schecter said... " Parents can protect their children by keeping them away from situations in which they might become infected."

    Anonymous said... "Somewhat difficult when you cannot tell which person has been responsible and been vaccinated and which one hasn't due to mis-information."

    Really doesn't matter since vaccinated people can still contract and spread pertussis.

    And to the other Anonymous: Yes, a 1% chance of death is acceptable to me. My son had reactions to the DTaP he got at 2 months. He showed clear signs of neurological impairment within hours of being given the vaccine. Both of my older children have neurological conditions, and showed regressions immediately following vaccines. So for us, the diseases are a lot less risky than the vaccines.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Samantha, I understand your point of view. Its based on emotion because your children have been directly affected by vax. I am on the other side, with children who have been affected by whooping cough. Including one death.

    I dont know what you mean by neurological condition (that sounds scary)?

    There is no way to stop the spread of pertussis, as even the vaccinated can spread it yes, but we would see less mortality and less of it around in general, if more people were vaxxed.

    @ Robert, the odds of a 7 week old baby contracting pertussis is very Erm, "low" ?? Whats your definition of "low"? I am in Australia, which is in the grips of an epidemic. Chances here are considerably "higher" I feel, than "low". I dont smoke, I exercise, I eat well, and I am a natural therapist. My baby was a healthy 7 lbs 2 oz, not premature, and I breastfed her exclusively for 12 months. She caught whooping cough.

    ReplyDelete
  14. @ Robert, you said: Much of the developed world abandoned the whole cell pertussis vaccine with few deaths ensuing.

    ? please explain what you mean about that

    Robert, you said: Finally, the short term immunity gained through vaccination leaves parents vulnerable to the illness just as they enter the child-bearing years.

    ? once again, what do you mean? At what age is "child-bearing" 14? 21? 27? 35? 42? Its different for everybody. As is immunity. Immunity in the vaccinated and in the vaccinated, wears off.


    @ Robert also said: No one is responsible to undergo medical treatments for the benefit of others. And since they can't tell who's vaccinated and revaccinated, keeping infants away from the public becomes their best option.

    You must live in a bubble! or utopia. In a perfect world, yes, but keeping kids shut away from the public. What, not even to duck out for some milk? But that might be the time that one person coughs on them...for how long do we shut our kids away. Until they are vaccinated perhaps? But I thought you disagreed with vaccination?

    @ Robert again: Are parents being forced to allow unvaccinated teens baby sit their infants? If they want an vaccinated sitter, they can make that a requirement of employment.

    Okay, so you can put conditions of employment on other people, but our own health is our own responsibility. Right. Got it.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Conclusion. We need to vax the people around us. We need to vax the people we employ. We need to vax....um I know, why dont we just vax everybody! Special circumstances permitting of course, for ppl like Samantha. Respects to you Samantha for making your choice based on legitimate reasons.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous

    If you feel you can't go out for milk because it's too risky that's your problem. It's not the role of everyone else to get as much vaccine as the industry can produce in order to give you a sense of safety.

    People aren't things to be vaccinated for your benefit. THEY decide to get vaccinated or not. WE don't have them vaxxed.


    [I thought you disagreed with vaccination?]
    I personally have no interest in vaccination but others can have as much of it as they want. My only problem is with forced vaccination and the misinformation that is at the heart of the vaccine program.

    ReplyDelete
  17. @ Robert, no, I wouldnt take my newborn baby out for milk before she had been vaxxed, and that would be my decision, not my problem. The diseases I would be avoiding would be other people's problem. Other people's problems that are made to be my problem and yeh, force me to do something I would usually have not given much thought to.

    Vaccination is forced, you say. I dont know about America, but there ARE exemptions for legitimate objectionists in Australia. And people should need a good reason.

    I think the only thing that should be compulsory is that all parents must make a fully informed decision about immunisations. Currently, GPs, MCHNs, etc, hand out government-published pamphlets about immunisations. The government websites only provide reasons why we should vaccinate, not arguments against. If you want to know the ingredients in a particular vaccine, you have to do the research yourself (and it can be HARD to find balanced information that a non-medically trained person can understand). You just need to be extremely careful where you get your info from.

    Another problem I see, vaccines are grouped together, which further takes away our choice. But to a newborn, this could also be seen as a benefit, because if a 3 in 1 vaccine is given, there will be less adjuvants in total to 3 separate vaccines.

    I also don't like being told what to do. But give me valid arguments for and against, and allow me to make an informed decision.


    @ Robert, respectfully, you say you have "no interest" in vaccination. So that means that you don't get vaccinated? Or have your kids vaccinated? May I ask, really Why? Seriously, I am not having a dig at you, I would really like to know what you consider to be the misinformation.

    Do you just feel its a violation of your rights? Do you just like to "rage against the machine"

    You are right, the misinformation out there is rife, but what is misinformation according to you? Big pharma? Government? Doctors? Or the anti-vax lobby groups?

    Do science, statistics and history doesn't come into play for you?

    I am no medical expert, and I agree that there are many questions parents have about vaccines safety, how much of it we give so quickly to newborns in the first year, why do we give Hep B to a newborn who is not in a high risk category etc. I challenged one or two things, vaxxed my kids for most of the reccommended schedule and didnt have any adverse affects. The benefits of vaxxing them far outweigh the risks from the illnesses for me. I will continue to vax my children, because, even if none of my other questions are answered, science, history and statistical logic tells me its the right thing to do.

    And I have seen first hand that Whooping Cough can kill. And not just in my inner circle. And thats not counting the number of outbreaks I have seen in adults and kids. For them its very distressing, but not deadly. If not treated, it goes on and on and significantly affects your ability to work, study etc. The vaccine is 87% effective. Seriously, why wouldnt you? And funnily, preceding this outbreak in my area, (I don't think its a co-incidence) that vaccination numbers have fallen significantly in my immediate area.

    ReplyDelete
  18. From Robert: People aren't things to be vaccinated for your benefit. THEY decide to get vaccinated or not. WE don't have them vaxxed.

    But didnt he say you could make it a condition of employment that the babysitter be vaxxed? Isnt vaccinating for one's own benefit what you said to do? Erm, besides that, I though vaccination was for everyone's benefit?

    And a newborn can't decide for themselves? what do you suggest here?

    ReplyDelete
  19. I'm doubtful that anyone has an obligation to get a vaccine based on wishful thinking. http://www.vaccine-tlc.org/images/herd-immunity-pertussis.png

    The vaccine doesn't necessarily prevent either carriage or transmission of the illness. I've never been vaccinated against pertussis and I've never had a visible case, although I've probably had it (I'm 61). Apparently even unvaxed people can have asymptomatic pertussis or mild pertussis.

    One of the important questions is how much exposure is needed for someone to catch the illness. Will a casual cough in passing do it or does a person need prolonged exposure? The fact that most cases come from other family members makes the prolonged exposure seem more likely.

    quote: Older children and adults, including parents, often have mild disease. They can spread whooping cough and not know it. This is because they do not feel very sick so they do not see a doctor or get treated.
    http://www.sfcdcp.org/pertussis.html

    quote: Pertussis vaccine prevents severe disease in young infants, but even a vaccinated person can get pertussis infection.
    http://www.kingcounty.gov/healthservices/health/communicable/diseases/pertussis.aspx

    And an example of the contrast between natural infection and vaccine in terms of immune results http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21508166

    ReplyDelete
  20. This is an interesting example of where the vaccine push actually originates. Read the entire article and then follow up the links :)
    http://www.omsj.org/corruption/pertussis-epidemic-scam-threatens-children

    ReplyDelete
  21. You state: "First, you already have a 43% vaccination rate (a level higher than the national average) in those being targeted) Additionally, you have many in the 7th through 12th grades who have already contracted pertussis and are therefore immune. So a large percentage of that entire group can’t transmit pertussis in the first place". This implies that those vaccinated cannot transmit pertussis. That is false as has been shown in studies. Additionally you state that "vaccinating a twelve year old will likely only buy that child a few years of immunity". This is also questionable as the vaccine does not grant immunity. In fact the vaccine has been shown to not be working much at all which is why Dutch scientists want to improve the vaccine to account for changed strains. I'm with you on the spirit of this article, but think you're being too generous the effectiveness of the vaccine.

    ReplyDelete
  22. [http://www.vaccine-tlc.org/images/herd-immunity-pertussis.png]
    Good article. As the last line reads, the long term implications of the changing pertussis vaccine, how it infect, progression of the disease and its infectiousness, are as yet unclear. Meanwhile, we have to make do with what we've got.

    [The vaccine doesn't necessarily prevent either carriage or transmission of the illness] Agreed. The vaxxed can still get the disease, albeit the likelihood is, it will be a lesser dose. I have been vaccinated against pertussis, and I have had a (blood test confirmed) case.

    Re: exposure. It can be passed on by a cough sneeze, or breathing the same air ie. even being in the same room or vicinity of someone with it. It is spread via droplet contamination. When I had WC, I was living in a house for a week with my sister. ie. prolonged exposure. She caught it. She had not been immunised recently ie. no booster shot. Our children (6 months, 3, 4, 7 and 11) were also in the same house and they did not catch it. They had all been immunised. My three year old had previously caught it the year before (even though immunised). Possibly from prolonged exposure (she goes to kindy and maybe an asymptomatic carrier) but really cant prove anything. I also know of several babies who caught whooping cough, not from prolonged exposure. 1st baby. from hospital, because a visitor in the room had WC. 2nd baby unknown contamination, possibly going on an outing and breathed the same air.

    Prolonged exposure or brief minimal exposure can make you susceptible. It all depends on the state of your immune system at the time. Babies are most vulnerable, but really, if anyone with a suppressed immune system could catch it from brief exposure.

    [Older children and adults, including parents, often have mild disease. They can spread whooping cough and not know it. This is because they do not feel very sick so they do not see a doctor or get treated]
    I agree. There would be hundreds of people out there walking around with it, unknowingly. And yes, only the severity of it will get you into a doctor for treatment.

    Btw, its not fun to have it, and its not some benign illness. The Chinese call it the 100 day cough for a reason. It wakes you constantly at night. It goes on and on and can cause permanent damage to your lungs. I still cough occasionally. (over a year later) I have come down with every cold/flu going around since, and my immune system used to be fighting strong. You have uncontrollable fits of coughing, and gasp for air. Its like breathing in oven cleaner.

    [Pertussis vaccine prevents severe disease in young infants, but even a vaccinated person can get pertussis infection]
    I agree

    [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21508166]
    obviously, more work needs to be done to improve the efficacy of the pertussis vaccine. But meanwhile, I believe we have to go with the one we've got. Any protection is better than no protection. And if my 2.5 y.o HADNT been immunised, I am convinced she would have been fighting for her life when she did get it. I would never wish the wild form of the disease on anybody, unvaccinated or not.

    ReplyDelete
  23. @Trevor

    I've heard that the vaccinated can still transmit the illness, but have not come across a citation I can use to advance that point. It you could provide one I'd find it most helpful. On the same note a link to a study demonstrating the pertussis vaccine either grants no immunity or questionable immunity would be welcomed. I've only seen data relating to immunity but only for a short period of time.

    @Anon

    I'll get back to you tomorrow.

    ReplyDelete
  24. @ Minority, are you serious? http://www.omsj.org/corruption/pertussis-epidemic-scam-threatens-children does not scream authentic to me.

    Also why is the research we can do online somehow better than the years scientists spend researching, developing, following, analysing and re-examing the vaccines?

    ReplyDelete
  25. @Robert

    Please look at the following:

    Vaccinated may transmit disease:

    http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol6no5/srugo.htm

    "Vaccinated adolescents and adults may serve as reservoirs for silent infection and become potential transmitters to unprotected infants"

    Inefficacy of vaccine:

    http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol6no5/pdf/srugo.pdf
    http://www.watchdoginstitute.org/2010/12/13/whooping-cough-epidemic-california
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21508166

    Toxicity of the vaccine:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1051941/

    Vaccine worse than disease:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Whooping%20cough%20and%20pertussis%20vaccine%3A%20a%20comparison%20of%20risks%20and%20benefits%20in%20Britain%20during%20the%20period%201968-83

    Use of vaccine may have contributed to number of whooping cough cases:

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

    Severe reactions to vaccine:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8502521

    For more information review my site: http://www.vacvine.com

    ReplyDelete
  26. Thanks, Trevor. I'll have a look ASAP.

    ReplyDelete
  27. @Anon

    [So that means that you don't get vaccinated? Or have your kids vaccinated?]

    Yes and yes


    [May I ask, really Why?]

    To me, none of the illnesses present enough of a threat to alter the functioning of a perfectly good immune system, subject a child to numerous painful injections, place them at risk of somewhat common reactions such as three plus hours of high pitched crying or expose them to the next case of viral contamination (SV40) or high levels of a potentially neurotoxic ingredient (thimerisol) On top of that, we may think we know how all these vaccines affect children, but science has a long history of finding previously safe substances unsafe.

    ReplyDelete
  28. @Anon

    [what is misinformation according to you?]

    Just read the last few blog post here. They're all about misinformation.


    I'm glad your vaccination experience has been a good one and feel that they are beneficial to you. We don't discourage vaccination; we encourage free choice and truthful information

    ReplyDelete
  29. Should read, "that you feel they are beneficial"

    ReplyDelete
  30. @Robert you are welcome. I invite you to submit your blog posts at http://www.vacvine.com. It works like a digg site for vaccines. Sure I'm looking for a little more exposure as it is a new site. But likewise it will backlink to your site and more readers should find links to your posts. I will also repost popular stories to my facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/VacVine/216467301720252

    ReplyDelete
  31. @ Robert re my question: [what is misinformation according to you?]
    Your answer: Just read the last few blog post here. They're all about misinformation.

    Not sure which blog post you refer to, but I did read Trevors links (thanks Trevor)

    Severe reactions to vaccine:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8502521. Couldnt find any misinformation there. Its a study of DPT reactions.

    http://www.cidd.psu.edu/research/synopses/acellular-vaccine-enhancement-b.-parapertussis
    A very interesting read. Shows more needs to be done to research improve the current Pertussis vax. But wheres the misinformation?

    Vaccine worse than disease. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Whooping%20cough%20and%20pertussis%20vaccine%3A%20a%20comparison%20of%20risks%20and%20benefits%20in%20Britain%20during%20the%20period%201968-83

    Are you kidding me??? This talks about the period 1970 - 1983 when a very different vaccine was used. Why is it relevant in 2011? Where is the misinformation? The only misinformation is when this sort of stuff is peddled to people who cant interpret it, but read your blanket statement (vaccine worse than disease) as the outcome! This study is not relevant to this discussion.

    Toxicity of the vaccine:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1051941/

    Again, seriously, a journal from JUNE 1979!! Where is the misinformation and why is this relevant to me in 2011?

    http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol6no5/srugo.htm
    Vaccinated may transmit the disease. Yeh, so can the unvaxxed. So what is your point? Some protection is better than none against the ugly B. Pertussis, and until they can find out the answers (and I note, that nothing conclusive had been made yet) we have to work with the one we've got. And again, where is the misinformation?

    http://www.watchdoginstitute.org/2010/12/13/whooping-cough-epidemic-california
    I liked that article. It seems the jury is out on the efficacy of the acellular vaccine against a possible new and stronger strain of pertussis. (and I note again, that nothing conclusive had been made yet) Meanwhile the current vaccine is the only tool available. No misinforming the public there.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21508166
    Yep, it appears that the acellular vaccine doesnt work as well as the whole cell vax, but remember the side effects of the past, which, thats right, the government learnt from and changed for our benefit?

    @ Trevor, for posting those articles, I did enjoy reading and learning from them.

    @ Robert I didnt think any one of those articles demonstrated misinformation. If anything they demonstrated old studies, which are irrelevant, or newer research postulating theories which havent yet been proven. Doesnt mean we should all rush out and shout that the government is covering things up. Man, its good to ask questions, and I hope the people out their make decisions on relevant, established fact, not fear.

    ReplyDelete