This thread won't end well.

Quote from flancrest : This thread won't end well.

Sigh. I am going to watch this with my wife. However, look at my replies to the anti-gun threads. I believe in facts - read what I've said on another controversial issue. http://slickdeals.net/forums/show...st41766372 Numbers don't lie, but people can manipulate numbers. Problems from the start.

1) None of the awards are from people in the medical field. They are all given by various film festivals. Does this make me suspicious. Yes.

2) Vaccine kill. Period. I am drawing this from memory, but I believe the rate is 3 per 100,000. Now, prior to the age of vaccines 2 children in 5 did not survive to adulthood. Yet vaccines are bad?

People also quote the "adverse reaction" statistics. Those include a raised red spot from the vaccine, and people who faint because of needles, who, given the vaccine was given with a needle, guess what, fainted. There are a very small number of extreme reactions. They do not even come close to the pre-vaccine 2 children in 5 mortality rates.

3) The initial study linking vaccines to autsism was more than bogus. The researcher was paid by lawyers representing litigants against the vaccine industry, and he did not disclose this. Here is the Wikipedia link, and a germane quote from one of his disciplinary hearings. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_...ontroversy

Quote : On 28 January 2010, the GMC panel gave its verdict on the facts of the case: Wakefield was found to have acted "dishonestly and irresponsibly" and to have acted with "callous disregard" for the children involved in his study, conducting unnecessary and invasive tests.[80][81] The panel found that the trial was improperly conducted without the approval of an independent ethics committee,[82] and that Wakefield had multiple undeclared conflicts of interest.[83]

3) Anecdotal evidence trumps statistical evidence for most people. Think about it. From an evolutionary standpoint, we are individuals. What happens to us is what is about our personal survival.

4) People are hardwired to look for causation. Again, survival. If something bad happens, it's generally a good idea to prevent it from happening again. That's why for example prior to the age of science people often believed in witches, and in some cultures burned them. They KNEW witches were the cause of whatever the current beliefs said they made happen.

Combining anecdotal thinking with causation creates the current vaccination "debate." Children are diagnosed for autism right at the same time that they are receiving vaccines. We recommend a bunch of vaccine for children. Look at this chart for the vaccine/date listing for children. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/recs/...ule-pr.pdf Now, if a child is diagnosed for autism at 14 months, pretty much the earliest age this happens, look at the list of vaccines they are receiving. Look at the vaccines for 3-5 years, the more typical age of diagnosis.

Now if the numbers are 6 children per 1,000 for ASD (austism spectrum disorders) and one, maybe two children received an vaccines around the time the diagnosis was made due to the sheer number of vaccines, and given the human proclivity to causation even if the numbers don't back it, and add in a bogus study that gets huge amounts of publicity - you have a manufactured crisis.

5) Herd immunity. It's called gaming the system. Would you expose your children to a 3 in 100,000 chance of dying for no good reason? Parents who have no actual understanding of numbers, who buy in the witch-like causation mentality, and who haven't seen children die of childhood diseases feel they can do this. Sometimes with disastrous results. The parents who contributed to the 2008 outbreak in San Diego had no real problems, their children had a typical case of measles.

But 11 other families were not so lucky. There children were under the age of 1 and were too young for the vaccine. One story recorded the mother of one of those children talking about her baby being in intensive care, all red and in agony from a severe case. That child will probably have lifetime health effects due to the "choice" of the other parents not getting their children vaccinated. Not only did they make that "choice," they also chose to travel. The hell with the other 11 children. The non-vaccination parents' children could rely on the other parents who vaccinate their children so the herd immunity would protect them, and they didn't have to risk the 3 in 100,000 chance of dying. Tough luck for the mother with the baby in ICU, I guess.

As I said, it's gaming the system. They don't do it cognitively, they feel their way through a series of partial facts, facts out of context, and personal feelings combined with the way anecdotal evidence spreads via the internet. The bad cases receive all the press, and the other 999,997 cases get very little attention. Statistics are facts when properly analyzed. Anecdotes are exactly that.

6) Unnecessary vaccines. There is ONE possible unnecessary vaccine. I am uncomfortable with the new chicken pox vaccine. Chicken pox is an innocuous childhood disease, that can actually be very dangerous to adults. The vaccine does NOT provide the same level of protection as getting it.

Even worse, the justification for this vaccine is partially economic. The numbers supporting the chicken pox vaccine do NOT offset the bad outcomes. However, they factored in economic issues, i.e. parent losing days of work due to their child having chicken pox. It is actually quite expensive. However, now were are gambling adverse affects versus economic benefit. At this point I become much more uncomfortable.

If I was a single parent living paycheck to paycheck, I might feel compelled to get this vaccine via the county health department. A child with chickenpox will cause me to lose several days of work. If my budget is hideously tight, I could lose my electric, phone, or water service as a result of loosing up to a week of work. Since I am not in that situation, I would not make that decision. But I want the choice as an option.

I'll watch the film, but from the preview info on the web page and the OP I have my doubts. There is no "both sides." The report that established the so-called link was bogus, and the man has been kicked out of the medical profession for egregious conduct, especially both his treatment of the children and the fact he did not disclose a substantial payment from lawyers suing over vaccines.

Bacteria and viruses don't "care" about your rights. They infect people, and kill a surprisingly large number without vaccines. Walk through an old graveyard and look at the ages on the gravestones. In many cultures in the past a child would not be named until the age of one because of the extremely high incident of infant mortality. Because of vaccines people have forgotten about this, and their ignorance of history causes them to not "feel" any necessity to listen to professionals who have devoted a lifetime to these issues. As I've said, I'll try watching this, but I seriously have my doubts.

Mr. Harley, I applaud you...you said it better than I ever could....reps to you!

"Anecdotal evidence trumps statistical evidence for most people."

Nuff said.

OK - the first 21 minutes by myself, my wife has two sick children and both of us are sick so she went to bed with them. It's EXACTLY what I predicted.

The have three anecdotal cases they are following - each one a real tear jerker.

They have one expert who is pro-vaccine, and several that are opposed. Even some of the experts who are presented in the "opposed" side are taken out of context. The one pro-vaccine type is given 70 seconds at the beginning of the film, and after 4:32 until 21:12 when I finally gave it up, they gave him exactly 15 seconds of additional time.

For example, Diane Harper who was a lead researcher for the gardisal vaccine, is pissed at Merck for technically accurate and totally misleading advertising. She may be a skilled researcher, but she's not a great statistician. She quotes the wrong rates and compares apples to oranges, or at least appears to in the edited pieces from her interviews.

She's pissed at Merck for a good reason. They have girls scared of cervical cancer. Doctor Harper quote a 3 per 100,000 death rate per year for cervical cancer, and rightly states the young ladies face a higher risk of death from a car accident. But she is looking at the wrong numbers.

Quote : Based on rates from 2005-2007, 0.68% of women born today will be diagnosed with cancer of the cervix uteri at some time during their lifetime. This number can also be expressed as 1 in 147 women will be diagnosed with cancer of the cervix uteri during their lifetime. These statistics are called the lifetime risk of developing cancer. Sometimes it is more useful to look at the probability of developing cancer of the cervix uteri between two age groups. For example, 0.25% of women will develop cancer of the cervix uteri between their 50th and 70th birthdays. (See Fast Stats for more detailed statistics, and Probability of Developing and Dying of Cancer for methodology

.
http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/...ervix.html
You see, as an individual we don't die per year, and comparing the one-time risk from a vaccine to a lifetime unvaccinated risk require choosing the right numbers. If you received the vaccine every year for the rest of your life, that 3 in 100,000 per year would be appropriate. But you don't die per year, you just die once. The 1 in 147 chance of being diagnosed with cervical cancer in a lifetime, with roughly one third dying if I am reading the stats correctly, compares very favorably to the risk of even the notorious military anthrax vaccine, which has a pretty miserable safety record. There is NO commercial vaccine of any sort on the market even approaching that level of risk, at least in the USA. In fact, it is impossible for that to happen.

There are lots of other beautiful cases there. The lady at the National Vaccine Information Center, Barbara Loe Fisher is one of the unlucky few whose children lost the statistical lottery with vaccines and became brain damaged - my first post mentions that vaccine KILL, roughly 3 per 100,000 from memory. Now she is determined to "reform" the national vaccine system. I just absolutely love so-called unbiased individuals who make proclamations of that type.

She's been at it for 30 years from a government supplied bully pulpit with no accountability for the statements she makes running her mouth. Remember the British researcher? He's had his licensed pulled, been rebuked, and his research utterly discredited. He did a lot of damage before it all happened, but he did get the benefit of being innocent until proven guilty, and while the wheels of scientific bureaucracy grind very, very slowly, they do grind inevitably. He got nailed. She has no accountability for what she says.

They do have in the first 21 minutes an interesting sidebar by one Dr. Shaw, a neuroscientist, who has studied the aluminum adjuvent and has raised some serious questions as to its safety. His questions actually appear good, though I would have to see the rest of the study and his dosage models on mice to actually even begin commenting if his work presents highlights a problem that warrants emergency intervention by the FDA.

I am interested in his work, just look at some of my commentary on aluminum bakeware versus baking powder. I would be interested if he's looked at the absorbed dosage anyone who eats commercial bakery products gets of aluminum ions, i.e. bioactive aluminum versus metallic aluminum which in nonreactive, and see how this compares to vaccine exposure. If we are getting a much higher yearly exposure (I am talking level in the blood) from baking powder, then we relegate his study to a lower priority. If on the other hand these children are getting multiple times the aluminum dosage that we get from products that have been on the market for a century - then we need to have emergency intervention by the FDA.

The problem is that with as polarized as the vaccine debate has become, he's being ignored. The pro-vaccine people see statements made by people like Dr. Harper mentioned above being taken I am willing to bet out of context as she takes on Mercks advertising (note none of the video blurbs have her talking about the actual safety of the vaccine - maybe because she developed it and they cannot get an edited quote showing her attacking the safety). They develop a seige mentality, so when someone like Dr. Shaw brings up his aluminum issue, it gets ignored. Similar things have been happening in climate science, sadly.

They are also having the great misunderstanding of statistics that even many scientific types do. Causality versus correlation. For example, during the same time span they have a Dr. Pavelsky, a pediatrician, talking about the increases in neuro-developmental disabilities, we have been hugely increasing the amount of flame retardant additives to reduce fires. They have become so pervasive that people living inside the Canadian Arctic Circle have detectable quantities in their bodies. They are quite possibly endocrine disruptors.

So let's ban them. Umm, not so fast. Go back to a newspaper from fifty or better yet seventy years ago, and look at the number of reported fires. My sister is one of those statistics, and I got to watch them cart her out of the house with her skin still steaming from the burn damage when she was almost 4. I was in fourth grade, and called the ambulance because my mother's hands were burned so badly from putting my sister out you could see bones.

Soon thereafter they banned the flammable childrens clothes. Like the people in this film, my family got to be a statistic. It sucks (my sister survived, and its doing fairly well after roughly 80 surgeries in case you are interested). It does make me cautious about the idea of pulling all these useful chemicals out of the system. If you have lets say 1 in 10,000 cases of autism from flame retardants, but 1 in 1,000 people die of fires without them - well, guess what. If I was on a committee making that decision, I would recuse myself. Unlike Ms. Fisher with the National Vaccine Information Center, I know when I have too much emotional involvement to be dispassionate.

Here is one other possible casualty of the correlation versus causation issue. The thirty years shown by the one lady where she shows the number of vaccine doses have tripled has also correlated to one political party attacking "regulation", and especially the Environmental Protection Agency. That party has attempt to stop, starting with the sainted Ronald Reagan, almost every regulation reducing chemicals and pollutants that they could claiming it costs the taxpayers money, hurts business, kills US jobs, so on ad naseum. Maybe, just maybe that correlation, and things like the the fact the US permitted lead in paint for over fifty years after the Europeans had shown if caused (not correlated to) brain damage due to industry pressure, with a continuing similar attitude towards regulation today, might have more to do with the increase in autism, AD(H)D, etc. Just a thought.

I'm giving the rest of this film a pass. We've had whooping cough (pertussis) outbreaks in the local area just this past year due to lack of vaccination and loss of herd immunity. Want to know why it's called whooping cough? Because the child is coughing so badly that they cannot breath, so when they can inhale between bouts of coughing it sounds like a whoop, hence whooping cough. They can become cyanotic (turn blue) because they are slowly suffocating as they cannot breath enough through the coughing. Something my 20 month old toddler would only understand as terrifying, if it didn't kill him. I think I'll stick to my vaccine, and hope people like Dr. Shaw can bring about any actual improvements that need doing.

Mr. Harley. You have great points and glad you are open minded enough to check out the video.

My only problem with Vaccine Policy in the US is:

Parents are usually not informed about possible risks or doctors would say it is perfectly safe. Parents should have the right to choose whether they can vaccinate their child or not. (they have exemption laws in every state (religious or medical etc.) but parents don't know about them). IF Vaccines work as well as they should....then the vaccinated group of the population should not be afraid. People should have the right to choose what gets injected or put in their body. It shouldn't be forced.

The Hippocratic Oath: First do no harm..... I guess isn't relevant when it comes to vaccines. Also, since you are already going to sacrifice a few in order to have "herd" immunity.....then it shouldn't be a problem if just a small percentage not vaccinate since in a worse case scenario......only a few "vaccinated" folks die from that disease that the vaccine was supposed to prevent.

I have another big problem with the government being influenced by the pharmaceutical companies.

Texas mandated all teenage girls to receive the HPV vaccine....not too long ago....and finally stopped mandating it after huge public resistance. Is HPV really that big of an epidemic to force these girls to submit to the vaccine?

ALSO. Why did California Governor Jerry Brown just sign that bill allowing children to be vaccinated with either the HPV or Hep. B vaccine w/o parent consent!?? How about letting the parents decide? Our kids can't even buy Modern Warfare or Battlefield w/o parent consent....BUT they can get vaccinated with no problem.

IMHO:
I understand that most doctors and researchers have the passion and heart to cure and prevent disease. I totally appreciate that. BUT patients/parents should all have the right to be fully informed about possible risks....even if it is 1 in a million. and should be given the choice whether to vaccinate or not.

"Anecdotal evidence trumps statistical evidence for most people."

I agree

BUT what if the medical researcher is "indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of wire fraud and money laundering based on a scheme to steal grant money the CDC had awarded to governmental agencies in Denmark for autism research." ?

Can we trust his research study now??

http://www.justice.gov/usao/gan/p...13-11.html

AND check this out:

It has been exposed that: "communications between Centers for Disease Control (CDC) personnel and vaccine researchers revealing U.S. officials apparently colluded in covering-up the decline in Denmark's autism rates following the removal of mercury from vaccines."

http://news.yahoo.com/scandal-exp...10030.html

IMHO........It looks like when it comes to MONEY......statistics and numbers can be easily "doctored" accordingly.

My suggestion:

We should all be well informed...understanding all of the possible risks and benefits....when making health care choices.

Mr. Harley,

BTW: At the 1 hour mark of the documentary. The pediatrician presents this study (below). Where it shows that the major decline in infectious diseases were due to mainly improvements in sanitation and nutrition and less over crowded situations etc. etc. and the study specifically states that it is not attributed to vaccines.

I don't have access to this study. Do you think I can get a copy? I would like to be able to read this whole study.

Annual summary of vital statistics: trends in the health of Americans during the 20th century. Guyer B, Freedman MA, Strobino DM, Sondik EJ. Pediatrics. 2000 Dec;106(6):1307-17.

UNBIASED...? Its stuff like this that makes people believe that

... 9/11 was a government conspiracy

... the moon landings never happened

and so on...!

Now all those "pediatricians" should visit Polio endemic countries. And see what happens there.

maybe we should stop vaccinating everybody. An entire generation needs deja vu of what Polio can do, what Measles can lead to, and how even a common infection like the Chicken pox can lead more often to meningitis and encephalitis than MMR has been shown to cause Autism.

Liberals are damning this country and this is just one example of it.

Quote from jaydoc79 : Liberals are damning this country and this is just one example of it.

Vaccines aren't a liberal/conservative issue no matter how convenient it is for your brain to see it in such feeble terms. Pretty much every serious politician thinks vaccines are a good idea (see Rick Perry encouraging the HPV vaccination as an example of a conservative encouraging vaccination, Bachmann's notion that it causes retardation as an example of a conservative opposing it).

As I said in post #2, this thread has not ended well.

Quote from jeffhoang310 : Mr. Harley. You have great points and glad you are open minded enough to check out the video. My only problem with Vaccine Policy in the US is: Parents are usually not informed about possible risks or doctors would say it is perfectly safe. Parents should have the right to choose whether they can vaccinate their child or not. (they have exemption laws in every state (religious or medical etc.) but parents don't know about them). IF Vaccines work as well as they should....then the vaccinated group of the population should not be afraid. People should have the right to choose what gets injected or put in their body. It shouldn't be forced.

I understand you are well meaning, but did you catch my point about gaming the system. Those parents who "choose" to not vaccinate get to do so on the backs of all those parents who took the risk. I'm using the 3 per 100,000 mortality rate figure, but why should I expose my children even to that small risk when all the other suckers are exposing their children and I can get away with it. That's why many countries have mandatory vaccines.

The problem with the "choice" as you've put is that more and more parents start gaming the system. Then you have whooping cough outbreaks like this one in 2010 in California. Note that the death rate was 10 infants in 9,143 cases. So you get to not immunize your child, and several years down the line your child helps spread it at school, it ends up at a mall - doctor's office - family gathering - sporting event - ad naseum, an infant gets exposed AND THEY DIE. As I said before, I guess it's just tough on the parents of those infants. I'm not being harsh to you as an individual, I am being harsh to the entire anti-vaccine movement. Did this wonderful, prize winning documentary talk about this, and show video of a baby in ICU coughing so much that the child turned blue and essentially asphixiated? Did it show the parents powerless as they watched their baby die? Did they show the panic in the child's face as they tried to get some kind of breath of air as they coughed their life away?

Quote : •In 2010, 9,143 cases of pertussis (including ten infant deaths) were reported throughout California. This is the most cases reported in 63 years when 9,394 cases were reported in 1947 and the highest incidence in 52 years when a rate of 26.0 cases/100,000 was reported in 1958. Previously, the peak was in 2005 when there were 3,182 cases reported. In 2011, disease activity is still at relatively increased levels throughout the state. Visit the California Department of Public Health website for the most recent information.

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

How does this compare to autism?

Quote : The epidemiology of autism is the study of factors affecting autism spectrum disorders (ASD). Most recent reviews of epidemiology estimate a prevalence of one to two cases per 2,000 people for autism, and about six per 1,000 for ASD

Newschaffer CJ, Croen LA, Daniels J et al. The epidemiology of autism spectrum disorders [PDF]. Annu Rev Public Health. 2007;28:235–58. doi:10.1146/annurev.publhealth.28.021406.144007. PMID 17367287. thank you wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epid..._of_autism

They also mention it may be that Autism is underdiagnosed. Now 1 in 1,000 children died in a single outbreak of a single childhood disease in California. Now add in Rubella, measles, polio, et al. I am all for making vaccines safer, as I commented about the aluminum research before. But if you are going to have a coherent discussion both parties have to agree to the rules. It's like the researcher who was obviously not a statistician quoting the 3 in 100,000 risk of getting cervical cancer. That's per year, and you live a lifetime and then you end up with a 1 in 147 chance. Rates can be critical. You need to compare the total risk of adverse affects by the vaccine to the actual risk posed by the disease. If you tell me well you get to put your children at risk - remember a 3 in 100,000 death rate from vaccines - so I can take advantage of that and not expose my children but piggyback their health on your mature decision - well, I'm not exactly thrilled about that. Worse, though, is enough people start gaming the system that it falls apart, and you have the results of the outbreak in California. Psychologist, people trained in human behavior, have shown that once you permit gaming the system with no consequences, the people IN the system and supporting it start quitting because they get fed up with it. Everything goes to hell in a handbasket.

Quote : The Hippocratic Oath: First do no harm..... I guess isn't relevant when it comes to vaccines. Also, since you are already going to sacrifice a few in order to have "herd" immunity.....then it shouldn't be a problem if just a small percentage not vaccinate since in a worse case scenario......only a few "vaccinated" folks die from that disease that the vaccine was supposed to prevent.

See above for California. That's ten dead babies in one year in one state from ONE DISEASE. The problem is that it's NOT a small percentage, and it has reached high enough levels that many childhood diseases are coming back. We've had whooping cough outbreaks two counties away last winter. What's even worse for these infant deaths is that the parents are powerless. The baby is too young to immunize, and those individuals exercising their "freedom" to game the system don't give a - crud, OK, I'll say crud - about the other parents' children.

Yes I get hot about this. IMHO now that we have highly accurate DNA analysis, if your unvaccinated child starts the outbreak that kills my child - I get to sue you. I'm not that fond of lawyers, but most people when they are facing possible bankruptcy if their freedom screws me over suddenly get much more careful on how they exercise their freedom.

It's like driving 80 in a 60 mph zone. As long as nothing goes wrong, and there is light traffic, it's no problem. But add in weather, increasing traffic, or even just a moments lapse of concentration and suddenly people are dead. Not vaccinating your children is the same thing, and just like with the car analogy, if something doesn't go quite right - other people's children are dead.

That is why you quote on the hippocratic oath shows a well-meaning, but utterly uninformed knowledge of communicable diseases and their consequences and fatality rates. Not vaccining the child has by far and above the highest "harm quotient" of any choice. You aren't alone. Most people don't get numbers. The Pediatrician in the film doesn't. He understands individuals, and is probably an excellent doctor. He is not an expert in communicable diseases but is an expert in treating children who have them. They are NOT the same.

Quote : I have another big problem with the government being influenced by the pharmaceutical companies. Texas mandated all teenage girls to receive the HPV vaccine....not too long ago....and finally stopped mandating it after huge public resistance. Is HPV really that big of an epidemic to force these girls to submit to the vaccine?

Two different issues. On your first point, I agree. Pure and simple. Unfortunately lobbying is part of our system, and as we cut government personnel politicians rely more and more on lobbyists to provide them with data. Public health departments have taken merciless cuts in recent years. Even worse, they don't contribute to a politicians re-election.

The Texas problem puzzles me. Did you read my second post? HPV will cause cancer of the cervix in 1 out of every 147 women in their lifetime. Roughly 1/3 of them will die, and those that don't will have to undergo cancer treatment, which is neither inexpensive, nor painless.

Now Gardrasil has had 40 million doses distributed and 71 VAERS reported deaths. Note that the deaths do not show causation, they only indicate they occured in the same time frame. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/...dasil.html

One example of how this can lead to highly erroneous assumption is the case in Britian where the girl dropped dead after receiving the vaccine. There was a bunch of hoopla - until the autopsy came back showing she had a large cancer I believe it was in the pleural cavity, i.e. heart and lungs. It had spread well throughout the organs, and they stated she was going to die at any moment - which she did, coincidentally at the same time she received the vaccine. If you give 40 million doses, guess what. There will be some association with almost everything. Some girls probably were in fatal car accidents going to and from the physicians office given that many doses? Do we stop having them drive to the Doctor's office. That's ridiculous, right?

Before you start looking at the of serious side effects shown in the CDC - which stands for Centers for Disease Control, i.e. people who have spent lifetimes on exactly the issue we are discussing - have you even known someone who was treated for cancer, i.e. my 1 in every 147 women lifetime risk of cervical cancer. Trust me. Search out the number of adverse affects from cancer treatment, or bet yet ask an Oncologist - a specialist in cancer treatment.

Quote : ALSO. Why did California Governor Jerry Brown just sign that bill allowing children to be vaccinated with either the HPV or Hep. B vaccine w/o parent consent!?? How about letting the parents decide? Our kids can't even buy Modern Warfare or Battlefield w/o parent consent....BUT they can get vaccinated with no problem.

I don't know the reasons for Hep. B., but let me share with you a story. As I mentioned before, I have siblings. I have three younger sisters. We had a "friend" of the family, a teacher of gifted children no less, try to seduce the two younger ones when they were 12 and 13. I only found out about that a decade later. After our "friend" did this, these two little girls had to talk about it - and decided not to tell me or my father because, to quote the older of the two when she finally told me about it - "You would have killed him." She's right, and I am probably not in prison today, or maybe just getting out, due to a very smart little girl put in a horrible situation.

Now, what about those girls who don't or cannot say no. Trust me, those abusers typically don't were condoms (the greater the disparate power the more likely the abuser is to force unprotected sex on the victim - that's been studied by psychologists, which my wife is, though a M.A. not a Ph.D.) Also, in many households the girl doesn't feel she can step up to her parents and tell them I need a vaccine for an STD. Think about it. This is to give that adolescent, who knows she is sexually active but cannnot speak to her parents about it the chance to beat that - remember that number - 1 in 147 chance of cancer. It's her chance of cancer, not her parents.

I hope when my daughter gets old enough she feels she can talk to me about stuff like that - but it won't be a problem, because I intend to have her vaccinated, with her concurrence, before that is ever a problem. You see I don't believe in gaming the system, I believe in the numbers enough to get the flu vaccine for myself every year - sans thimerisol, reference the other poster - and know how nasty it is to watch someone die of cancer - my mother died of cancer that had metastisized to her liver when she was 52. She was yellow when she died (jaundice). Liver failure is not the most pleasant way to die.

Quote : IMHO: I understand that most doctors and researchers have the passion and heart to cure and prevent disease. I totally appreciate that. BUT patients/parents should all have the right to be fully informed about possible risks....even if it is 1 in a million. and should be given the choice whether to vaccinate or not.

I once saw a book titled "Private choices, public consequences." It was about personal lifestyle choices and their effects on the societal cost of health care. This is a similiar case. If I support your right to make that "choice", will you support my right to sue you if your choice caused my toddler to become infected and become handicapped, or dead? Most people who exercise their rights want the rights, but not the responsibilities. Look at Wall Street Bankers and the Mortgage Crisis. I'm not saying you are one of these people - but consider that. As I said earlier, bacteria and viruses don't care about your rights. Go to the CDC site and read one and one-half hours of modern outbreaks of childhood diseases and the consequences, and fatalities. The same length of time as this documentary. Hopefully you will learn a little more than the anecdotes and clever graphics used to manipulate you by the people who made this, and start to understand why I detest individuals who don't want to be confused with facts.

Quote from flancrest : As I said in post #2, this thread has not ended well.

YOU____TOLD____ME_____SO.

Quote from jeffhoang310 : I don't have access to this study. Do you think I can get a copy? I would like to be able to read this whole study. Annual summary of vital statistics: trends in the health of Americans during the 20th century. Guyer B, Freedman MA, Strobino DM, Sondik EJ. Pediatrics. 2000 Dec;106(6):1307-17.

Probably not. Unfortunately in our increasingly privatized world professional journals are even bigger business than they used to be, and almost always charge fees. My actual field is aviation - I was a dual major in Biology and Chemistry before my mother became terminally ill, and I quit in my last year and never got back into the field. You may be able to get access through your local university, is my best advice.

I'll get back to your post on thimerisol another day - it's one of those necessary evils (note I avoid it in my flu vaccines) that due to exactly the kind of work you want done is being phased out. The amounts are tiny, probably much less than what we get out of coal fired plants - but mercury is a purely accumulative toxin, so every exposure that is unnecessary should be avoided. Just remember in the fraud case - he was caught, so we don't have false reports like the one that started much of this in this system. There is scientific fraud, and he got caught.

Reference Denmark - first, remember that a single study NEVER causes a change in science. It must be reproduced, it's a cornerstone on which science is founded. In fact those issues are what some of the climate science deniers use to claim certain things are only "theory" - and what climate alarmists got pissed about when a doomsday scenario cannot be reproduced. It took a very long while until is was discovered Hormone Replacement therapy is a killer, and only recommended for a short time for women in a certain health profile and age. People don't want to listen to the entire sentence.

I wouldn't be too concerned (note, I DID NOT SAY unconcerned) about thimerisol, as quantities have been hugely reduced, and they are trying to eliminate it. I happen to get a very bad reaction to it - it used to be in drops for contact lenses - so I've actually had to be careful about it for 30 years. I am very aware that it is not "safe" - but neither is a bacterial infection from a contaminated vaccine. Modern sterile manufacturing techniques are eliminating much of the necessity for it. I am actually more concerned about the aluminum adjuvant, but as I said, I haven't seent the study, and I would like to compare the dosage of aluminum from baking powder absorbed into the blood stream to the levels in vaccines. Think of it as a long term trial.

If our exposure from baking powder is higher, then I'd say there are more pressing problems. If the vaccines are creating huge spikes in blood levels, then we really need to take an immediate look at it. However, there are many business interests that really wouldn't want us examining that. Think about the possible headline. "Killer regulations, FDA bans baking powder." The FDA is made up of people, and they have to pick and choose their fights given the current political climate. So does the CDC. Remember that.

Mr. Harley. You have many great points and I'll have to admit that its great to see you are extremely knowledgeable when it comes to this topic.

I am more concerned about how it may take a long time for us to find out about the true side effects (the ones that don't result in immediate symptoms or death) when it comes to multiple vaccines in the same day as well as vaccines being injected in newborns and toddlers. We may never find out b/c no one will fund research looking for adverse reactions and when it comes to VAERS.....it is believed that only b/w 1-10% of the adverse reactions are reported since it is a voluntary reporting system.

The reason why we should be concerned is because of the ingredients in the vaccines (as you already mentioned them) and how it is essentially injected directly into our blood stream .

Aluminum, Antibiotics, Egg protein, Formaldehyde, Monosodium glutamate (MSG), 2-phenoxy-ethanol, Thimerosal, Triton X-100 -- a detergent, Phenol (carbolic acid), Ethylene glycol (antifreeze), Betapropiolactone - a disinfectant, Nonoxynol etc.

We shouldn't take them lightly b/c they are being injected directly into our body. If we drink or come into contact with these chemicals through our skin....at least our body has a chance to filter them out. But if it is injected directly into our blood then you essentially bypass those natural filtration systems thereby making the effects exponentially worse.

We also have to remember that the first vaccine given is the same day the baby is born and further multiple series of vaccines are given within months. In Physiology it is well known that the blood–brain barrier (BBB) was still immature in newborns so when it comes to heavy metals such as Aluminum and Thimerosal......it will accumulate in the brain and/or nerve tissue. Also, bile production is also immature in children under 2 y.o. so that also limits their ability to filter out toxins in their body.

It is obvious that I don't have research to back up my concerns/claims. The reason why I'm extremely concerned is b/c if you just look around....more and more children are sicker than ever. Everything from asthma, allergies, auto-immune type diseases, diabetes, cancer, ADD/ADHD to various learning disabilities, etc. etc. The worse part is the number of vaccines mandated will continue to rise and we won't know the long term effects b/c no one will fund the research.

I believe we should seriously look into how it may add to what children are exposed to today. (i.e. pollution, household chemicals, pesticides, growth hormones/antibiotics in our food etc. etc.) esp. how we aren't extra careful when it comes to children that are born immature or already have a congenital disease.

I understand we can attribute everything to vaccines and I don't want to make this a back and forth type debate so I'll end it here.

The bottom line is that we may never find out the long term effects of vaccines since there won't be any independent research anytime soon.....