Saturday, March 15, 2014

Looney and the Beast: deconstructing the ramblings of a vaccine extremist

We’ve been getting some requests to respond to this piece of trash that recently appeared on the on-line rag, The Daily Beast.

It is written by a looney doctor who, like almost all vaccine militants is consumed with bitterness and anger. In a previous screed written for the same rag he snarls, “vaccinate your kids—or get out of my office!”

The piece we’ll examine today is chock full of ignorance, misinformation and abject stupidity.

He begins by calling us crazy for not spending our lives going to the doctor for vaccine, after vaccine, after vaccine (many of which are of questionable efficacy) to stop illnesses for which we are either at very low risk or that are generally mild – and, for that matter, almost non-existent. Yet he offers no explanation as to why ours is not the rational choice.

He continues by advancing a common tactic of the vaccine extremist: the attempt to demonize and objectify parents by labeling anyone who decides to not lap up as much vaccine as Merck can produce as, not a person, but an “antivaxxxer.”

Scapegoating fellow Americans in such a way is of course reprehensible, but because the cult of vaccination has such weak and decrepit arguments to support their position, they have no choice but to attack people rather than defend their own claims.

Interestingly this coward has no problem slandering parents while hiding his own name. The name he uses, Russell Saunders, is just a pseudonym for a pediatrician in New England. How pathetic.

As to some ridiculous charges included in the article itself.

He claims, “those who don’t vaccinate are bringing back the measles.” This is preposterous. Those who don’t vaccinate are not bringing back anything. The measles exists in the world. If it didn't there would be nothing to vaccinate against. There is no bringing back that which is here. Additionally “bringing back” implies an action on our part to actively go out and act in a way to cause the return of an illness. This is laughable. If someone acted to break into a lab where some remaining samples of smallpox were kept, then took those samples onto a train and released them,that would be bringing something back. Not vaccinating is of course nothing like that. Simply stated, not stopping something is not bringing it back

Since not vaccinating is a non-action there is no acting to bring back anything.

What could happen is, as a result of people seeing through the massive vaccination propaganda campaign and realizing how mild certain illness are, those people might begin to choose protection from vaccination rather than protect from those transient illness.

As a result, with fewer vaccinated people, more cases of those illnesses could occur. Conversely children would have to endure fewer vaccines and the risks they present. As such less vaccination would simply be a result of people expressing their personal preferences regarding the risks and benefits of the practice. And since people have no obligation to act in one particular way, one has no cause to feel guilty for making what they believe is the best choice for their families. Other people have no right to selfishly expect us to risk our children’s health to protect them.

Interestingly even this scenario is not happening – vaccination rates are still at all-time highs. And the measles is not making a comeback. In the pre-vaccine era there were four million cases each year. Today there are a few hundred. This is a blip on the radar not a “comeback.”

Additionally the number of measles cases fluctuates naturally as do any cyclical illnesses. With vaccination rates stable, we must look to other causes for these fluctuations. Perhaps increased measles activity in another part of the world has led to a few more cases here. Regardless a few more cases of the measles every so often cannot be attributed to America’s appetite for vaccination when our vaccination rates are stable.

At this point Dr. Pseudonym launches into a pathetic attempt to transform a minor illness into a existential threat to civilization. There is a “crisis” going on he exhorts. He fantasizes about “the good old days when measles was an active public health threat,” when in reality it was, according to the World Health Organization, considered nothing more than a minor annoyance. [link pending]

Here's some evidence regarding the general mildness of the measles and how it is perceived in the absence of a campaign of fear:

  • Although measles vaccine has been licensed since 1968, immunization against measles has not met with much success in France, partly because the disease is no longer feared
  • For most people who get measles, the illness is not serious
  • we invited some general practitioners to write short reports on the cases they have seen in their practices recently…These writers agree that measles is nowadays normally a mild infection.. *

But Dr. Pseudonym states, “Reports from New York note that several people have been hospitalized.”

Don’t hospitalizations mean the illness is serious?

No, not really. What we can discern from patients being hospitalized requires that we know why one is hospitalized. Is it a precautionary measure? Must tests be run? Does someone simply need an IV? From media reports, this is not possible.

One interesting point is that rates of hospitalization are higher than they were in the pre-vaccine era. Fifty years ago hospitalizations occurred in only about one in eighty-three cases. Today that rate is significantly higher. Perhaps this increase is simply a product of an overcautious society or the result the vaccine establishment’s relentless efforts to overstate the risks of self-limiting illnesses in order to scare people into vaccination. We'll examine one other theory to explain increased hospitalizations when we debunk the next of  Dr. Pseudonym’s many specious claims. This one pertains to some measles-related statistics

In order to paint a picture in which the measles is somewhat threatening affliction  Dr. Pseudonym parrots the misleading CDC claim that;
one to three cases per 1000 in the United States result in death
Why is this misleading? Because it is based on one anomalous outbreak occurring during 1989-1991 in the USA, and as anyone familiar with the scientific method realizes, you don’t take one example that is countered by every other available example and hold up the outlier as the standard. And even based upon the data from that outbreak: about 55,000 reported cases and 123 deaths, we only arrive at one death in 447 cases. Additionally since it is widely known that only about half these cases are reported due to their mild nature the figure 1-447 can be logically doubled to about 1 in 900. Neither the former nor the later figure is in line with the CDC’s 1-333 claim.

As to the outbreak being anomalous and distorting the actual severity of the measles, living conditions and nutritional status are well-known determinants of measles severity and during this epidemic, most cases occurred in low income populations having related risk factors not present in a larger, more representative population. Sadly this was the era of HIV and that infection played a role in many of the deaths. For example of the 12 deaths that occurred in New York City in 1989 6 were in persons infected with HIV while in 1990 and 1991, 60% of all measles-related deaths in New Jersey occurred in HIV-infected children.

Because co-factors such as HIV infection very often underlie measles mortality, these are classified as measles-RELATED deaths.

Other recent outbreaks in Europe, where mortality is much lower, belies the CDC’s one to three deaths per 1000. In fact based on European data and under reporting, it seems the CDC is exaggerating mortality by at least ten fold. In addition to that, in the pre-vaccine era an average of three to four million cases occurred with around four hundred deaths. This comes to about one death for every eight thousand seven hundred and fifty cases.

And remember, these deaths were and are concentrated in those with certain risk factors you may not have. So, in the general population, the risks are even lower than those implied by the generalized data.

In relation to mortality figures and to the hospitalization rate I discussed previously, I’d now like to examine the idea that vaccination itself has made certain illness slightly more serious. In the case of the measles’ mother’s who had a natural infection as children pass along antibodies that protect for a longer period of time than the antibodies of mothers who were vaccinated. Inferior protection means more vulnerable infants. In other words vaccination interfered with nature’s defense mechanism and infants got measles when they would not have gotten them in the past.

Also one dose was used in the eighties and protection from that schedule was found to wane. Additionally with fewer cases it became less likely someone would catch the measles as a child. As a result of these two factors some cases were pushed into adulthood where the illness can be more serious.

So should we be worried that vaccination has created a more serious measles threat? The answer is no. In both today’s world and in the pre-vaccine era the measles is and was still mild. It just might be a little less so today for some. The flip side of this is that there are far fewer overall cases.

Having advanced the odd notion that an illness used as a comedic device on TV programs of the 60s is a serious threat, he then tries to convince us also like us a few hundred cases of the measles are now overwhelming a nation of three hundred million. He frets:
not only is the nation’s largest city seeing cases in several boroughs, but other major metropolitan areas are warning of new cases as well.
then goes on to agonize:
But now, shoppers in Boston-area supermarkets get to worry that they may have been exposed when they stopped by for groceries. Commuters in the Bay Area now have to contend with the possibility that they or their children may contract the illness because they happened to get on the wrong train.
Calm down, Dr. Pseudonym. It's going to be OK. You're imagining a scenario that is unlikely to occur in the real world. Unlike you, most sane people are not afflicted with an all-consuming fear of germs, I think few people will express the utter terror you have to wrestle with each and every time you leave you house (or is it a plastic bubble?). You're just projecting your phobias onto the rest of us. Besides, doesn’t anybody’s vaccine work?

Moving on, the doctor continues by sharing this pearl of wisdom:
We vaccinate people for a reason.
What he fails to apprehend is people are not objects that YOU vaccinate. People are sentient beings who decide for themselves whether or not they feel the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks.  

At this point he enters full mental break-down mode with an irrational rant that continues his spiteful yet incredibly feeble attack on parents who don’t vaccinate: it is a parade of absurdities one more ludicrous than the other. They suffer from the same flaw as does his initial claim that the unvaccinated are bringing back illnesses (by not vaccinating or by having an unknown infection we are in no way acting to encourage, assist or promote infectious agents. Sorry if reality clashes with your delusions, Doctor) We are simply the victims of infection like everyone else. And there is no obligation to risk our health to stop what we perceive to be minor illnesses (or illnesses for which we are not at risk) when the vaccines used to against those infections are judged by parents to be of questionable efficacy and riskier and more painful than the potential infections for which they promise protection. This is an evaluation each parent must make and is not subject to the approval of others. They are our children and it is our choice.

Yet despite all evidence to the contrary Dr. Pseudonym, in order to vilify non-vaccinating parents, clings to a line of unreasoning that fixates upon his spurious idea that unvaccinated kids are or could at some point in time act as infectors, transmitters and spreaders of illness. It is not a new argument (the establishment has been trying to engineer this impression for years) just a bad one.

Remember before the rise of vaccine extremism, kids caught a cold or the measles or the chickenpox. But now in the spirit of scapegoating so popular in militant circles, these same kids now have to be “infected” by other kids. Did anyone ever say, Johnny was infected by Billy in years past? Of course not, because the implication that Johnny acted to hurt Billy is absurd. They said Johnny caught this, that or the other thing at school. And Billy didn’t actively pursue these extant germs in a conscious manner to “catch” them anymore than Johnny acted in a way to infect Billy. Parents knew germs were a part of life and they spread through out the community and it was a part of life. Today this is still true and our children have no obligation to allow an oft-erring medical and scientific community to trick their developing immune system in order to alter the course of natural events that have been going on for thousands of years. The only obligations that exist are when a child is knowingly- infected. And that obligation is to stay home, not undergo unwanted medical procedures such as vaccination

A real case of one person infecting another occurred recently when a medical technician was consciously acting in a way that led to the reusing of contaminated syringes on patients. This is an example of one person acting to infect another. Here the medical technician took physical action with full consciousness of what he was doing in a way that brought harm to another.

To use the same term for a child who is the victim of an unknown, unwanted infection and who is simply going about his or her day-to-day life is at best an abuse of the language and at worst a craven attempt to distort reality in order to turn public opinion against innocent parents

Dr. Pseudonym proceeds full speed ahead on his cray train leveling some additional charges all related to the concepts I covered earlier It is therefore unnecessary to debunk each one all over again. Instead I’ll post some of his sillier claims accompanied by a rebuttal. He charges:

Their [it’s those antivaxxers again] movement is responsible for sickening people.
Movements don’t sicken people. Germs do.
They [vaccine deniers I suspect] are to blame for the word “outbreak” appearing in headlines from coast to coast.
Blame implies moral culpability which requires actions or failing to take actions we have an obligation to perform. But we have no obligation to perform the act of vaccination on our children for the alleged benefit of others. Dr. Pseudonym does not even attempt to provide a sketch as to why such an obligation might exist. As such we can easily dismiss this ill-conceived charge.
The anti-vaccine crowd [so now we have antivaxxer, vaccine denier and anti-vax crowd. I think one way to predict how weak one’s arguments for vaccination will be is to look at the number of times these type phrases are used] may think they’re only making a decision for their own family. In fact, they’re threatening to make the rest of us sick.
More nonsense. People don’t make other people sick. Germs do.
Refusing to vaccinate your children means you are contributing to a worsening public health crisis.
Non actions do not contribute to anything. Non-vaccination simply fails to contribute to a program we have no obligation to support. And the only crisis going on is in your twisted imagination.
I never want to know that a child was sickened or killed because I let the recklessness of a vaccine-refusing parent jeopardize their health.
This claim can be broken into two equally juvenile arguments. The first, that not vaccinating is reckless is simply one more unsupported assertion: he provides no argument to buttress his charge so there isn’t even anything to refute. The second component of his claim, that children who are unvaccinated are endangering or can endanger others is absurd. Simply being unvaccinated puts no one in danger. I like many of you was not vaccinated for the flu this year and despite my existence in the community, I have put no one in danger. Could the unvaccinated put someone in danger if they catch the flu? Not if they are infected without their knowledge. Putting someone in danger in a way that generates moral culpability requires knowledge and intent: think of becoming intoxicated then driving. This is endangering fellow motorists, but only because you acted (by drinking) and did so knowing the ramifications of your actions.

In parting I'd like to leave you with this piece of advice Dr. Pseudonym. Go ahead and hide out in your little hole of an office in New England and make sure everyone you come in contact has received each and every vaccine Big Pharma can produce and that the CDC can foist upon America. And zip up that plastic bubble of yours real tight because you’re not going to use my children to alleviate your paranoia or provide you the protection you and your fellow extremists are responsible to provide to yourselves.

*"Measles Epidemic": British Medical Journal, Feb 7 1959, Page 354


  1. You are killing people. You are guilty of negligent mass homicide. That you are well-intentioned does not change the fact that you, personally, have blood on your hands. The blood of children, the blood of the elderly, and the blood of others. Your accounting of life is drenched in death. I wish you a happy life, as I do anybody. But if any of the religions that include an accounting of our deeds after our deaths is correct, you can rest assured at the end of your happy life you will have an eternity of torment. Your only hope lies in atheism. So, for your sake, I hope worms eat you slowly and that your skull is infested with maggots and that you aren't around in some otherworldy form to notice. You came from dirt, you'll return to dirt, but unlike many of us, you never stopped being dirt in the interim. You sicken me. Have a nice day.

    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    2. I agree Dorthy this guy gets the award. These who work to deceive our people purposely or maybe they just parrot what they beLIEve are really mean spirited most of the time & that's a big 'tell' on who has the truth & who does not.

    3. Notice he had to hide behind posting as "anonymous", too....

    4. cruel. So if a child has an allergy to an ingredient, or a compromised immune system, or can't get a vaccination for medical reasons do they have blood on their hands too? What about a child who was vaccinated, gets the illness anyway...Do they have blood on their hands? All of these are valid question. Look at the Insert for vaccines...They are not 100% effective. So should we lynch those kids too? Hmmm...Yes...Blame the child...not the vaccine makers, right? That was a horribly mean response to this well articulated article. You should choose your words more carefully, for someone who demands that a Parent Risk their child's health for another's is sad...But claiming the parent who does not vaccinate has blood on their hands is...well "Witch hunting"

    5. If you are so sickened, anonymouse, why do you keep returning here? Anonymous2

    6. They are killing you! Do you think the 1 in 29 babies now being born severely multiply infected matter to medical mafia USA? LOL Ask Insel and Issa, heads of brilliance guarding the Autism funding why still today NOT ONE antibiotic treatment is offered for kids suffering the real cause of AIDS!

      Ask the US Army why they gave our soldiers Anthrax and Smallpox antigens so Thousands would suffer their crimes against humanity of PTSD with 22 taking their lives because of recombinations of their junk infectious DNA growing in their brains!

      Ask the MILLIONS suffering SINDUMBS caused by the same infections if they like having to suffer MS, Autism, Alzheimers, Lupus, Parkinson's, Diabetes, ALS, ALD, MD, ME, CFS, GWS, PTSD, Crohn's, Celiac, Kawasaki's, Arthritis', Down's, and hundreds more lies they thunk up so they could keep killing stupid American's by adding to the mix.

    7. I'm sure this person enjoys their television 'PROGRAMMING' more than most. I'm sure this person excelled in their educational 'PROGRAMMING' more than most. And I'd bet this person is very knowledgeable about current media and government 'PROGRAMS' ... Perfectly Programmed ;D

      If only we all were perfectly programmed ... How much easier the lives of the handful of people would be, the handful of people who dictate all the programming.

    8. This is pathetically hilarious! And "Anonymous" of course!

    9. There is no coincidence that every media site has an "anti-vaxx" article on their site in the last 30 days. Dr. Brian Hooker has obtained the data from the Danish study and it proves what ha been know all along-mercury is dangerous and contributing to the rise in autism and other neurological/immunological problems that our children face today. Also, the number of vaccines has contributed to the fact that an entire generation of children has been lost because of greed. The articles has been an attempt to distract others from taking any articles in regards to that seriously by banging on the fear mongering drums.

      Also, the first comment is from a troll. They are assigned to be the first commenter on any website that has a vaccine article. If it's an article supporting the vaccine industry they start off saying vaccines are safe and effective. People who don't vaccinate their kids should be arrested or have their kids taken away. They also say how these people should be ashamed of themselves and how can they live with themselves. If the article is supportive of not vaccinating-well the prime example is at the top of the comments. There have been almost an identical article of the websites "Raw" and "Mother Jones". I'm sure these articles are being written by ghost writers who work either for the vaccine industry, FDA or CDC. They have their footprints all over it.

  2. ^^go eat a cookie and relax. Its a free world with your own personal choices. Govt shouldn't control every medical decision esp since it is based off of financial motives.


  3. More insight into the mental illness that is vaccine extremism. I'll let your own words serve as evidence as to your complete and total detachment from reality.

  4. "You are killing people. You are guilty of negligent mass homicide."

    More insight into the mental illness that is vaccine extremism. I'll let your own words serve as evidence as to your complete and total detachment from reality.

    1. What is that reality Robert? Could it be the FACT 1 in 29 babies are now being born with the real cause of AIDS?

      Could it be that millions suffer hundreds of neurological syndromes all caused by the same?

      Could it be that Thousand of US soldiers are suffering criminal neglect and failure to treat their PTSD also caused by the same with 22 a day taking their own lives? Could it be because our criminal Medical Mafia KNEW in 1985 what really caused AIDS and did nothing to stop criminals from adding junk infectious DNA to the gene sharing stealth infections they already gave them?

      At what POINT do you think reality will set in to the fact we all already have everything we need to activate latent infections that is and always was the real cause of AIDS----Spirochetal disease we all got in vaccines for decades killing America.

  5. Sorry, but my first responsibility is to protect my child

    1. Everyone else is already protecting your child.

    2. How is that possibly even so?

    3. See, I can be anonymous too, so you don't even know which one of us you are, but I am the one that posited the question above. How is it even possible that everyone is protecting my child and don't give me that crap about herd immunity. That only pertains to naturally acquired immunity.

    4. Actually no herd immunity is not only naturally acquired immunity.

    5. You asked a question but dismissed it with a naturalistic fallacy. Herd immunity is just a statistical threshold, nothing more. It really is very basic stuff.

    6. No vaccine ever protected anyone from anything. They are ALL INFECTIVE! After they gave us all the antigenic variation of the real cause of AIDS for decades that recombines in the viral/prion/fungal synergy that is spirochetal disease even their junk GMO is growing in your guts, skin, and brains. Your an idiot if you think IMMUNE SUPPRESSION equals PROTECTION. Autism kids suffer massive infections in that immune suppression because of INFECTIOUS VACCINES.

    7. Except that the majority of the "herd" (adults) have not been immune for decades and yet, no massive increase in disease. And over half of the "outbreak" cases are in vaccinated people. It's pretty clear that vaccine herd immunity, which was only ever a theory based on a mistaken belief that 1 vaccine would provide the same life long immunity as the disease, is completely impossible. And yet, the so-called scientific side refuses to admit that the evidence proves their sacred cow is a hoax.

  6. Anonymous, please for the sake of children do the proper research. Reason & logic better set in to enough people & soon if we are to save posterity from the evil behind the vaccine hoax. Question for all the beLIEvers in vaccines. It is supposed to be known vaccines wear off. So where has all that disease been because we know most people in the world do not ever get those boosters?
    You can’t say outbreaks are happening as we hear about whooping cough, measles & mumps of late because it is known they are in vaccinated populations.
    The trade off for getting vaccines only caused many different disease epidemics & illness of huge magnitudes because all the vaccines did was suppress childhood disease & morph into the sick state we all can see with our own eyes. Ruining immune systems giving whole new meaning to survival of the fittest.
    Like the lies saying chicken pox caused the horrible shingles. It is the vaccines! Older people can attest to the fact chicken pox has been around for ever but shingles is relatively new in especially the huge numbers it is now affecting.
    They say autism & cancer is not really on the rise because media reporting it just makes it seem that way. But older people can attest to the fact we are seeing that increase with our own eyes because years ago it was not so. THE LIARS!
    History if researched properly will show death from disease was already on the decline before vaccines were even invented. The decrease was do to better sanitation, food & water.
    Salk went on record before he died to say his polio vaccine actually causes the disease it was intended to prevent. Many doctors & scientists have been warning us. Research all that!
    All those children in California who are right now losing use of limbs is said to be a polio like condition. It is polio. It was never eradicated. They just changed the name. Look up ‘polio Myth” & study up. Maybe this polio outbreak is in part because Governor Jerry Brown signed into law that they can vaccinate our children behind parents backs in school?
    Did you know Jenner’s son who he exposed to pox soon became very ill & even retarded. Some people hate that word being used due to the insensitivity of others when it comes to their vaccine injured children. But truth is truth & vaccines do cause neurological disorders that ‘slow’ down the brain or change it in bad ways along with a lot else. Look it all up people & stop buying the snake oil. It is experiments & our children are the guinea pigs.
    They discredited Dr. Andrew Wakefield & took his license while the real criminal, Poul Thorsen is on the run from the FBI. He stole the CDC’s research money. He was head scientist behind the Danish studies they had hoped would be the last nail in the coffin of the truth that vaccines do cause autism. But it should not be called that. It is neurological brain injury that comes with a variety of other horrible conditions.
    Media dragged the good name of Wakefield through the mud but nary a word on Thorsen.
    Kathleen Sebelius , Secretary of Health and Human Services, told Readers Digest;
    “There are groups out there that insist that vaccines are responsible for a variety of problems, despite all scientific evidence to the contrary. We have reached out to media outlets to try to get them not to give the views of these people equal weight in their reporting.”
    Now why would she do that unless there was something to hide? Where is the fair debate. Big ‘tell’ huh?
    Look up ‘Dan Burton and 2002 congressional hearing’ to learn real facts. In that hearing watch the little vaccine injured boy in frustration & pain if you can. It is a nightmare many have been going through for far too long. It is past time the barbarians causing this are stopped. Wake up people & wake up all you can. Save our children & do it now. Hit the streets & see many already know but still we have a long way to go & many more to wake.

    1. I think it is safe to say we will never agree, but for precisely the same reason: to protect people.

    2. Again, anonymouse, you have but to explain how you are protecting people. I know I am protecting my child from death and injury from vaccines and giving them the opportunity to keep their non-screwed up, undamaged immune system working, while vaccines do the opposite and cause harm and death to people and the evidence is everywhere you look. I will refer to myself as anonymous 2 to avoid being confused with any deluded persons.

    3. Wow really? You really believe that the chicken pox vaccine is what causes shingles??? My dad had BOTH chicken pox and shingles, BEFORE the chicken pox vaccine existed. I have a friend who has had shingles, she had chicken pox BEFORE there was a vaccine, and thought she was safe because she had it so didn't get a shingles vaccine. I'm sorry, I'd much rather protect my child from the pain of shingles, and chicken pox, which I know as a young child is usually harmless, but if she were to get it as an adult it could be fatal. I'd rather protect her in any way I can, and it bothers me that people like you are so niave to think that you don't affect other kids, and put kids, like my daughter who isn't fully vaccinated yet, because she's too young for some, at risk by not vaccinating your child and putting them, and their lives at risk. Vaccines, unless there is an allergy, or compromised immune system do not harm a child, they don't cause autism... and know what even if they really did have a risk of autism, I'd rather take my chances with autism than take my chances of my daughter becoming disabled or dying from a preventable illness.

    4. You protect them from the slim possibility of a reaction to the vaccine, plus the imagined possibility of damaging their immune system which is unable to differentiate between a real or simulated infection.

      You miss out on protecting them from the damage a real infection can do before the immune system is able to fight it off (which it may not be able to) as well as lengthening the duration of the infectious stage so they can liberally distribute it around to their peers.

      The vast majority of the numbers suggest that the latter option is statistically more likely to be beneficial not just to the individual but if enough people are participating to everyone, to the point where the disease is unable to gain a foothold in a given population.

    5. Marsha, I agree with everything you said 100%.
      And as for 'anonymous' (another coward, just like the anonymous doctor), get a life. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.


    The amount of Straw Man in your article is disgusting. Maybe people can take you seriously when you learn to argue like a logical person instead of like a 6-year old.

    1. And rather than explain how it is "strawman" you rely on an ad hominem attack... projection much?

    2. You wouldn't take this article seriously, if you even had any logic to begin with and it was written by Einstein. Some people just have no argument at all but like to 'appear' that they have something to say that makes sense and adds to the topic at hand, but sadly, Mr. Goldmeyer, that simply is not you. You exhibit no logic nor do you provide any argument, let alone add to the topic. So why did you come here? Anonymous2

  8. It is a given that vaccines are not 100% effective. Why, some don't even come close. Most of the population is susceptible if they have not gotten their booster shots and that would be the adults. It is a given that in the population 95% of children are vaccinated, (not to be confused with immunized), then how can it be said that the remaining 5% of children are responsible for the out breaks when children only make up 23% of the entire population (2012 U.S. government statistic). That means that 78% of the population is the possible source of the outbreaks and you want to blame 1% of the children for all of them? Ridiculous, anonymouse. Anonymous2

  9. Your children will get sick, and depending on the disease, your child will die. As a molecular biologist, I guess Im classified as extremist, but whatever. I can assure the reality of a viral disease and it's treatment is much more frightening than the unproven fears you have. Good luck to you all, and I hope you never have to experience what I witness, and I hope that I never have to analyze the viral strain that infected and/or killed you or your kids.

    1. If you are a molecular biologist, which I have every reason to doubt, then go back and tell us how to remove all the contaminants in the vaccines that can lead to DNA mutation, retroviral infection, tumorgenesis, etc. I want to know how they make these vaccines 100% free and clear of contamination and then call them safe. Anonymous 2

    2. You're a molecular biologist? Prove it by providing your real name, that we can look up.
      And sure, children get sick, and it has been shown that vaccinated kids suffer 500% more illness than unvaccinated kids. Why is that? Because the immune systems of unvaccinated children haven't been altered, messed with and hampered, but were allowed to naturally mature, as God intended.
      I am almost 61 years old. I grew up in Germany with six brothers and a sister. We and all our friends had all the childhood illnesses, and usually they weren't a problem whatsoever, and we ended up having lifelong immunity. Which we were able to pass onto our babies while breastfeeding, ensuring that our babies didn't get those illnesses while tiny babies. Which was good, because those illnesses can be life threatening in children under 12 months of age, at which point their immune systems can handle dealing with them without any problems.
      There has never been any credible evidence that even a single vaccine in history has ever been safe or effective. None of them offer real immunity, and none of them are safe.
      Before mass vaccination with the pertussis vaccine, there was no such a thing as SIDS. SIDS was invented to cover up the fact that the pertussis vaccine kills babies. Beforehand, no babies died in their sleep without a good reason.
      The smallpox vaccine caused some of the worst smallpox epidemics in history. The Prussians made smallpox vaccination mandatory in 1834. They force-vaccinated their whole population not just once, but 4 to 10 times each for 35 years, and then suffered a smallpox epidemic that killed 148,000 people. Remember, this was a 100% vaccinated population (if you refused to vaccinate your child, the police would come, take the child to the doctor to be vaccinated, and then bring the kid back home; if a man refused the vaccine on commencement of mandatory military service, he'd be held down and would be vaccinated ten times on each arm, which I expect would usually result in death, so nobody dared).
      As for the polio vaccine, it never worked at all, but actually causes polio. After they started polio vaccinations, they suddenly re-named most cases of what would have been diagnosed as polio as aseptic meningitis, encephalitis, Guillaine Barre Syndrome, CFS, MS, acute flaccid paralysis and several others, which is how they made it look like the vaccine worked.
      As for the terrible picture of iron lungs? Kids with acute flaccid paralysis are still put onto the equivalent of those, except that now they look a lot less daunting, with the little oxygen tank and the small cut and hookup to the throat, but it is the same thing. And according to doctors at the Mayo Clinic, they have plenty of those cases, which are REALLY polio.
      Not to mention that India, which has just been declared polio free thanks to the vaccine, has had more than 50,000 new cases of acute flaccid paralysis in the past two years, which their own researchers admit are directly caused by the polio vaccine, and actually IS polio.
      I could give many more examples, but this will have to suffice.

    3. Please provide verifiable data to the fact that children will die if they are not vaccinated. Since you are a molecular biologist please answer the following questions:

      1. provide one Independent double-blind, placebo-controlled study that can prove the safety and effectiveness of vaccines?

      2. provide scientific evidence on ANY study which can confirm the long-term safety and effectiveness of vaccines?

      3. provide scientific evidence which can prove that disease reduction in any part of the world, at any point in history was attributable to inoculation of populations?

      Independent means no vaccine industry, CDC, FDA, IOM, IOH, no medical associations such as AAP or AMA, no universities who who has received any money from the pharmaceutical industry and no researchers who has received any financial, academic or professional assistance from the pharmaceutical industry.

      I have a copy of the CDC's National Vital Statics Report from 1940 -2012 (presently updating) and I can tell you specifically how many children have died from childhood diseases. As a molecular biologist you should be familiar with these documents. Just to give you an example,
      5 people in the US have died from measles since 1998. 3 children were immunosuppressed and the other two just had question marks next to their age & sex.

      There are under 10 cases of measles in NY and they are calling it an outbreak-seriously! Measles has become such a mild illness that most countries outside of the US don't even give it such as Japan which stopped in the 90's and Finland. If they have a few cases, they are mild, they run its course and are gone. You don't hear about the government flipping out.
      BMJ called 41,000 measles cases in 1959 an epidemic but said it was a mild disease and no one was freaking over it. Measles epidemic [page 354] Br Med J 1959;1:351.2 (Published 07 February 1959) Measles were 99.4%abated before the vaccine was developed.

  10. The MMR shot rarely needs a booster as an adult. But by not vaccinating you take away from the herd immunity that people who are allergic to an ingredient, the immunocompromised, those that choose not to vaccinate and people who don't get full protection rely on. Nothing is 100% NOTHING! Not birth control pills, not condoms, not herbs, not advil, NOTHING. Because everyones bodies are different. YES people who don't vaccinate put those who do, and those who can't at risk and YES that is why the measles outbreaks are happening. It's already been determined that most places that have had them here have lower than average vaccine rates.

  11. Anonymous do as you have been asked and do p roper research Herd immunity was coined based on natural immunity not vaccination. In entire states last year in USA ALL the hospitalisation cases for measles were vaccinated so what is it doing ...? making it worse
    Actually where I disagree with the article is in the vaccination not making the disease worse Firstly vaccination compromises immune systems for diseases overall If it confers no protection at all and the disease is caught it will be worse version
    Secondly and most importantly measles is a mild disease where there is exposure and immunity to it. Where there is no exposure it is deadly Through vaccination which is a stirring o fhte immune system largely through poisonous adjuvants there is a danger that the population may become more and more one that has no natural exposure and immunity to it and we could end up with the 95% death rate shown in the pacific in the 19the century

    1. There is so much wrong with this I don't know where to start.

      Herd immunity can be applied to any form of inoculation, wild acquired or otherwise; it is a phenomenon, not a trademark.

      Hospitalisation is to be expected for severe cases, the number of severe cases per head of population is the thing you should be looking at.

      Measles is severe enough as the chances of a truly bad case are fairly low, but the chances of catching it are very high. Being prepared seems prudent, at least to me.

      If you've been exposed and survived already the chances of fatality are small, it's the first exposure that is the problem vaccination attempts to mitigate, so you have essentially said nothing at all there to support your case.

    2. Measles is severe enough as the chances of a truly bad case are fairly low, but the chances of catching it are very high. Being prepared seems prudent, at least to me.

      Measles is a mild disease and didn't become a "killer" until the pharmaceutical industry got blanket immunity in 2002 from prosecution if they kill a child. Up till than, Eli Lilly and big pharma were being sued by parents for vaccine damage. Once the vaccine industry got blanket immunity, measles became this incredible killer disease and people who lives their lives in fear of every germ, embraced the thought the measles were hiding behind every corner. Just follow the money. Go to the CDC website and watch how they pull down webpages when too many people are accessing certain pages like they did with the SV-40 webpage. 5 have died from measles since 1998 according to the National Vital Statics Report from the CDC. The government lies! So do you.

  12. HIV never caused AIDS. Spirochetal disease in all of its hundreds, poss. thousands of morphological forms did and do! Cos they gave it to all of us for decades. Who is the ONE who has the right to say WHO LIVES OR WHO MUST DIE because criminals lied to us?

  13. it sounds to me that annonyous one is posing as an authority on a subject that he obviously hasn't gone outinto the field to get the true facts, instead he is positing all of the pharmaceutical bullshit that they keep throwing up, my guess is that he is only a n internet troll working for the industry , so his input is not valid at all guys, people like myself who have been around for nigh on seventy years and have seen the truth re the vaccine bullshit know, that good food and good health practices, and natural medicines are all that is needed to protect oneself from all of there so called killer diseases, because they have strong immune systems to defend themselves, HE is obviously blind to all of the damages done to children and adults through vaccines, the evidence is out there ,one only has to open there eyes to see it, but no he wont do that , he will just quote more statistical bullshit from his ivory tower, I would say to him , go hang your head in shame, you are the one doing all the harm perpetuating pharmaceutical fraud onto innocent children and adults!!

    1. Well I have posted a couple of responses but the rest are from at least one other person.

  14. PS I guess I am actually called anonymous 3

  15. I really wish I could edit this.

  16. Just wow!!! There is a good reason why people are vaccinated when they travel. It's because you come in contact with things that you have no immunity. There are people from all over the world everyday coming into this great country of ours. A lot of them ARE NOT VACCINATED, but they have immunity to the things that will infect us with, just by coming contact with us. That everybody else is protecting your kid because they vaccinated! That is some twisted stuff right there. Who said everyone else's kids are vaccinated? Just because you have had a vaccine does not mean that a titer would come back at a safe level immunization. I would know because I have been vaccinated with the mmr twice. I also only had two of the hep B vaccine because I only needed two. The hep B is normally a three series of shots. Yes vaccines are different for everyone, but not taking a precaution when you know the risk is selfish. It's not like everyone comes through immigration or customs to get here.

    1. If your immune system actually works as it should, by being breastfed as an infant, having had good, wholesome food all your life, staying away from junk, and getting enough sleep, you should be able to handle most illnesses, even if you're not immune to them.
      Vaccines don't offer immunity and are useless, and actually hurt your immune system.

  17. Regarding this “Vaccine Machine” post:
    “It is written by a looney doctor . . .”
    This statement has weak support. The linked article, while having a mildly sensationalist title (and don’t they all these days?), seems not to be “looney” at all to me nor do I sense “anger” or “bitterness”. I read it as coming from a doctor who is concerned about his patients and who has a certain amount of exasperation with patients who come to him for his expertise but then won’t listen to it. The actual article, by the way, does not have an exclamation point in the title.
    “He continues by advancing a common tactic of the vaccine extremist: the attempt to demonize and objectify parents by labeling anyone . . . an “antivaxxxer.” “
    I fail to see how “antivaxxer” is demonizing/objectifying. It is shorthand for “parents who don’t want to vaccinate their children”. It seems pretty neutral to me - accurate in its essential meaning, an understandable abbreviation, and by itself lacking the bias of “extremist” or “militant”.
    “they have no choice but to attack people rather than defend their own claims.”
    For the consciousness-raising intent that it clearly has, the DB article actually has quite a bit of support and “defense” provided when the hyperlinks are considered. A reader may decide that the support is wrong or insufficient but the implication that the author provided no support seems wrong.
    “Interestingly this coward has no problem slandering parents while hiding his own name. . . . How pathetic.”
    He did not use names of parents or patients. His anonymity also seems understandable given the controversy that surrounds this issue and the concern that mentally unstable persons may seek to harm him or his practice. He is making no claims that make his personal identification necessary. It is clearly an “opinion piece” in my mind and the Daily Beast is validating the author as being a being a pediatrician in New England. The identification of the author seems satisfactory to me given the type of article. It is at least as much as what I see on the typical “Internet Blog” involving this subject. Speaking of which, I see no byline on this VM post and I see no identification of the people behind the “The Vaccine Machine”. Is that information available?
    “He claims, “those who don’t vaccinate are bringing back the measles.” This is preposterous . . .”
    The support for the claim being preposterous is weak. It is very clear in the article that the author is referring to bringing back measles TO THE UNITED STATES. Of course measles exists in the world – that is the reason for the concern. The argument that inaction is not bringing measles back seems very petty and silly. I , for one, recognize that inaction can cause harm or at the very least can amplify the harm of some external cause. I am not going to make the case that seatbelts aren’t necessary because car collisions cause harm to riders, not the “inaction” of not using a seatbelt. This kind of petty argument makes me question the validity of the VM author’s whole post.
    “Although measles vaccine has been licensed since 1968, immunization against measles has not met with much success in France, partly because the disease is no longer feared”
    Wow. The abstract of the very paper that the VM author links to finishes with the following statement: “The problem posed by measles is sufficiently grave to justify a national campaign urging the widespread vaccination of children.” The VM author is using a study to support a conclusion that is directly opposed to the conclusion of the study. That is at the very least a grave error on the VM author’s part and a deception if done intentionally. In either case, my confidence in the VM author is greatly diminished.
    I’m tired at this point but I think I have read enough of this VM article to dismiss it. I think I have a healthy amount of skepticism where the government and big pharmaceutical companies are concerned but I have just as much skepticism for anonymous internet sites that can’t even put together a coherent argument.

    1. The linked article, while having a mildly sensationalist title (and don’t they all these days?), seems not to be “looney” at all to me nor do I sense “anger” or “bitterness”

      Perhaps you are not perceptive enough to recognize anger when it stares you in your face. This is from the "get out of my office" screed:

      Few topics are more apt to send my blood pressure skyrocketing than this.

      If there is an issue more controversial and fraught with anger and frustration for pediatricians than the question of vaccine safety, I can’t think of it


      "fail to see how “antivaxxer” is demonizing/objectifying"

      You probably can't apprehend the purpose of inserting terms such as vaccine denier and anti-vaccine crowd either. Simply not seeing the value in a product does not mean you are opposed to it. It simply means it's not right for you. So the only purpose of 'anti" is a propaganda device


      His anonymity also seems understandable given the controversy that surrounds this issue and the concern that mentally unstable persons may seek to harm him or his practice

      I am unaware that such crimes have ever occurred so I don't know why you imagine it is understandable to worry them


      Speaking of which, I see no byline on this VM post and I see no identification of the people behind the “The Vaccine Machine”. Is that information available?

      My name appears under the article and my photo appears on the right side of the page


      It is very clear in the article that the author is referring to bringing back measles TO THE UNITED STATES.

      No mention is made regarding measles being brought back to the united states so I don't know how you can draw your inference - regardless the term "bring back" is used to create the illusion of moral culpability but, since people who are infected overseas and return to America after becoming unknowingly infected are under no obligation to take vaccine after vaccine to make sure this does not happen. As I stated in the piece, no one is obligated to stop acts of God


      for one, recognize that inaction can cause harm or at the very least can amplify the harm of some external cause. I am not going to make the case that seatbelts aren’t necessary because car collisions cause harm to riders, not the “inaction” of not using a seatbelt.

      This simply makes no sense. Perhaps you'd like to gather your thoughts and try again


      The abstract of the very paper that the VM author links to finishes with the following statement: “The problem posed by measles is sufficiently grave to justify a national campaign urging the widespread vaccination of children

      The link was posted as demonstration of how the illnesses is perceived by the public and it does that. Just because some overwrought public healther attaches his own distorted opinion at the end does not change the fact that the public does not fear the measles

    2. “Looney”, “anger”, etc.

      I’m unconvinced by your rebuttal. Mentioning “anger” and “frustration” is not the same as writing in an uncontrolled and “looney” manner where emotion is over-riding the author’s ability to put together coherent thoughts. This latter interpretation is clearly what you were trying to imply and I see it as clearly wrong. The author’s tone was calm, clear, and concise. If you did an objective comparison between what he wrote and what you did, you would find many more emotionally-charged words and ad hominem attacks than what is contained in the DB article.


      I think you are splitting hairs. A reasonable person reading a site like yours certainly can pick up an anti-vaccination sentiment. I am sure there are subtleties (maybe not ALL vaccinations, maybe an emphasis on freedom of choice, etc.) but for purposes of making a reference to the general group of individuals with these types of beliefs and values, the term does not seem to me to be unduly misleading nor disparaging. And again, I would encourage you to try to do an objective comparison between the DB article and your own post regarding biased and propagandist wording. You would "win“ that contest by a comfortable margin.


      I think you have led a very closeted life or are just being disingenuous. There are many horror stories of how people have been the victims of character assassination on the Internet. Fake negative reviews on review sites, forced associations of a person’s name with unsavory topics on search engines – you name it. Wikipedia has an entry on Cyberstalking if you are truly ignorant of the concept.

      “The Vaccine Machine”

      Yes, I finally saw your name after looking hard. Now the question is: Who the heck is Robert Schecter (assuming that is your real name)? Apparently you have no medical or science background so now I am judging the writings of a one “parent” against one “pediatrician”. I’ll come back to that in a moment.

      “bringing back”

      The two sentences immediately after the “bringing it back” statement refer to the outbreak in New York City and the elimination of measles in the UNITED STATES in 2000. In your post, you specifically state “The measles exist in the world” like the pediatrician was ignorant of that fact. It seems ultra-clear to me that the doctor was completely aware of that fact and that it actually contributes to his concern.


      My point is very simple: inaction (or “non-action” if you prefer) CAN cause harm. I can spray my house for termites, fail to do that in the future, and by my inaction, “bring back” termites in to my home. Placing the blame on the termites is just silly. It was my failure as a home-owner.

      “perception of the public”

      I am sure the pediatrician would AGREE with you regarding public perception. That is part of what compelled him to write the article! I maintain that the way you cited the article was misleading, whether on purpose or accidental. Your rebuttal only makes it worse in terms of generating confidence in you as a writer.

      = = =

      I am just pointing out that your post is riddled with emotionally charged and biased language along with straw man arguments and misleading information. You are worse than the pediatrician regarding the very things you are complaining about.

      If your objective is just to “preach to the choir” and get lots of referrals from people who already believe as you do, then you’re probably on the right track. If you are interested in serious debate of these issues though, you need to re-think the way you are writing. No objective person is going to consider seriously a critique claiming “propaganda, emotional lunacy, and misinformation” when the critique itself has those same attributes. Kill the straw man arguments, the emotional and biased language, the hair-splitting semantics, and the misleading citations and make the most solid points you have (assuming you have them). The only thing you really have separating you as a lone “parent” from a lone “pediatrician” is the quality of your logic and writing. Make it count.

    3. Hey,
      To be a troll this is pretty good. I recognize many of the steps from the handbook. Everybody needs a good laugh and thank you for providing.

  18. Apparently you have no medical or science background

    I have an extensive background in both. You are confusing a formalized education with "background" If I did not have a background in these subjects I would not have been so easily able to debunk the misleading assertion that the measles kills 1- 300


    now I am judging the writings of a one “parent” against one “pediatrician”. I’ll come back to that in a moment.

    No you are judging evidence provided to support each case. My evidence holds up. The doctor's does not


    I’m unconvinced by your rebuttal. Mentioning “anger” and “frustration” is not the same as writing in an uncontrolled and “looney” manner where emotion is over-riding the author’s ability to put together coherent thoughts. This latter interpretation is clearly what you were trying to imply and I see it as clearly wrong.

    The doctor admits he is filled with anger. I'm sorry you cannot accept this basic fact. I did not claim this caused him write in an uncontrolled manner. This is something you've pulled from thin air . And all your conclusion does is engage in mind reading


    with these types of beliefs and values,

    What types of beliefs and values? Everyone who does not vaccinates has the same ones? Sounds like some stereotyping going on here


    Pointing out one's fanaticism isn't an ad hominem attack. And ad hominem attack is against the person to refute or make a point in regards to an argument. You can better familiarize yourself with the concept here

    And perhaps this link will help you better grasp the use of the "anti" label in propaganda efforts - unless you are simply pretending not to understand

    The two sentences immediately after the “bringing it back” statement refer to the outbreak in New York City and the elimination of measles in the UNITED STATES in 2000

    This argument is unpersuasive


    inaction (or “non-action” if you prefer) CAN cause harm. I can spray my house for termites, fail to do that in the future, and by my inaction, “bring back” termites in to my home. Placing the blame on the termites is just silly. It was my failure as a home-owner.

    Bad analogy. The termites are the cause of the harm. The failure to spray just fails to prevent them from harming the house. I do not understand why you find this concept elusive


    Kill the straw man arguments, the emotional and biased language, the hair-splitting semantics, and the misleading citations

    I demonstrated quite clearly the citation supported the claim for which it was used. You have given no examples of straw man arguments so that assertion can be dismissed until you do. And you confuse accuracy with hair-splitting semantics

    I am just pointing out that your post is riddled with emotionally charged and biased language along with straw man arguments and misleading information.

    As you have failed repeatedly in your attempt to do this, your charge is invalid

  19. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  20. You're an idiot, or you're just plain crazy. HIV is the only thing that causes AIDS. I have a family member with Lyme disease, and another family member with HIV (who, by the way, did not receive the same childhood vaccinations as I did because they're 67). It's not even remotely the same disease. If it was, the anti-retroviral (notice VIRAL, because Spirochaetes are bacteria) medications my HIV+ family member would never work as well as they have to prevent the onset of AIDS.