Anti-Vaccine inanity...

[Hydrogen Cyanide]

I would be more in depth, but I really have to post and run (actually drive, being the child chauffeur on a holiday). So I've only glanced at this article, and from I could gather it had all the marks of total lunancy. From quoting the Geiers, Kennedy and Jane Orient (part of the really political "medical" group):
Vaccinating for Profit (http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_evelyn_p_060220_vaccinating_for_prof.htm)

[Rolfe]

:jaw-dropp

Wow. That one is simply jawdropping.

I wonder if this thread might tempt Kellyb back into the debate? She came into the parvovirus in wolves thread just as it was winding down, after a discussion of the possibility that canine parvovirus had initially been spread by a contaminated batch of vaccine in May of 1978. This was her post.
Rolfe,
Why do you think something like the parvo incident is so unimaginable now?
Modern influenza vaccines are not cultured in SPF materials.
(if you want a link on that I'll find one).

Just so you know, if you're curious, I'm a "refusnic" type who believes vaccines 'work'. I believe in heartworm prevention for my dogs, and my dogs were vaccinated for a time. Distemper is also still rampant in my city.
I don't think autism is always caused by the MMR or thimerosal or any kind of mercury, and I'm a sceptic, through and through, from god to homeopathy.

But, the truth of the matter is that flu vaxes are cultured in non-SPF avian eggs.
I don't think we've come as far as you think we have.She's a "refusenik", who doesn't think autism is always caused by MMR or thiomersal. She pretty much ignored the request to pick one, because as we know thiomersal has never been included in MMR, so if you think thiomersal is involved, then you have to look elsewhere than MMR for the problem. Instead we got
I still can't post links, but a quick google search on "Andrew Wakefield" will take you to the studies.We were then led on a bit of a dance, part of which seemed to be concerned with showing that Andrew Wakefield was an honest and innovative researcher, and part of which invloved presenting some rather obscure references to the possibilities of viral contamination of other (human) vaccines, principally the suggestion that MMR is contaminated by pestivirus.

I was (and still am) sceptical about this, and in particular by the sarcastic and sneering tone of many of her posts. Nevertheless it's going beyond my area of expertise, and it sounded potentially interesting. I therefore suggested she take the subject to one of the human-vaccine threads that were open, or start a new thread, which might attract more comment than the fag end of a thread that was essentially dead and attracting very few new views. This she steadfastly refused to do.

So, does anyone in the vaccine discussion have any knowledge of kellyb's assertions regarding pestivirus in MMR, unnamed contaminants in flu vaccine, or the possibility that SV40, a contaminant of polio virus in the 1960s which was thought to be nonpathogenic to man is actually linked to serious disease? (I think she said brain tumours.)

I'm very sceptical of a poster who appears supporting Andrew Wakefield, maintains a sneering tone that discourages open debate, and disappears rather than take her point of view to a thread where peolple like Capsid might see it, nevertheless I'd be interested in comment on her assertions.

Rolfe.

[Capsid]

Sorry, I didn't see it, I'm afraid I stopped reading the thread as you surmised.

I have not heard of pestivirus contamination of MMR. Pubmed returns no articles.

There's been some work on retroviral content of flu vaccines (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11761257&query_hl=17&itool=pubmed_docsum), but the manufacturing process pretty much destroys any potential infection (except of course, the attenuated live vaccine FluMist).

Th SV40 contamination of polio is real and the virus does cause brain tumours in experimental animals (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15982744&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_docsum), but not it seems in humans (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15484269&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_docsum). A PubMed search brings up several studies which do not find a correlation with the vaccine and SV40 infection

[kellyb]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=50707&page=6
Here's where the debate left off.


There's been some work on retroviral content of flu vaccines, but the manufacturing process pretty much destroys any potential infection (except of course, the attenuated live vaccine FluMist).

I have another question about Flumist, too...
What keeps the different strains from recombining?

[Capsid]

I have another question about Flumist, too...
What keeps the different strains from recombining?
Does it matter if they do reassort? The result would be an attenuated virus anyway.

[jj]

At the end of the article linked in the OP:


More information for injured parties can be found at Lawyers and Settlements



Uh huh.

[kellyb]

Does it matter if they do reassort? The result would be an attenuated virus anyway.
But if they reassort enough times they'll eventually regain virulence.
At least, I know that's what happens with attenuated polio virus. Wouldn't that be even more likely to happen with influenza?

[ysabella]

I'll just put my rant here. What has been irritating me lately (because I'm pregnant and people send me articles to read, and one the other day really got to me) is the mothering-woo-antivax types who insist there is some dark cabal trying to force us all to vaccinate for their evil purposes. The article in the OP was claiming public money as the motivation for this, as if doctors and pharma companies are getting rich off vaccines, which is laughable. Doctors sometimes lose money on vaccines, and pharma companies may profit from new ones to make back the research costs but it doesn't last that long. There isn't a huge margin on them, is my understanding.

The same dark forces, in the form of obstetricians, 'medicalize' birth with pricey chemicals and surgeries and promote fear of birth so that mothers will be under their power and submit to the doctor's whims. The message is, only barefoot granola midwives can take that fear away, because they are 'passionate' about birth.

My OB practice uses a hospital birthing center, but they welcome midwives, doulas, birthing tubs (the hospital doesn't offer that service but you can have one delivered to the hospital and set up for you), whoever and whatever you want at your birth. My OBs are so 'passionate' about birth that they completed many years of med school and obstetrical residency, plus years of practice. They will try to accomodate you and educate you, they try to give you the birth you want, and they don't talk smack about midwives at all. Why do the midwives poison the well like this?

If you ask me, they are the ones fear-mongering. Telling expectant mothers to fear science and medicine.

And then of course, when your baby is born they start plunging needles into it for nefarious purposes, cackling. It never occurred to whoever wrote that article that it's a huge privilege to have 'never heard of' some of these horrible child-killing diseases that we vaccinate for.

[Hydrogen Cyanide]

At the end of the article linked in the OP:


Uh huh.

It is not a coincidence that many anti-vax "information" websites are actually lawyer websites. One of the most prevelent is "Water and Kraus". One of the ending chapters of The Cutter Incident (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0300108648/ref=sr_11_1/104-3071261-7692732?%5Fencoding=UTF8)shows exactly what a "great" effect these guys have.

[ysabella]

This part really dropped my jaw:
Medical professionals have been trying to get lawmaker to take notice of the health problems caused by vaccines since the 1990s. On June 14, 1999, Jane Orient, MD, Executive Director of the Associating of American Physicians and Surgeons, testified before the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources of the Committee on Government reform and said:

"Striking increases in chronic illnesses have occurred in temporal association with an increase in vaccination rates," she said. "Asthma and insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus, causes of lifelong morbidity and frequent premature death, have nearly doubled in incidence since the introduction of many new, mandatory vaccines."

"There is no explanation for this increase," Orient added.
First of all, that's incredibly vague. "Since the introduction of many new, mandatory vaccines."

She makes it sound like Type I diabetes is on the rise, but it isn't clear that it is in the States (http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/projects/cda2.htm) - Type II is, and there are loads of reasons for that (increases in obesity, increases in nonwhite populations that are more susceptible to diabetes, also a lowering in the diagnostic threshold should be noted).
Regarding asthma, there's swimming in chlorinated pools (http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20030428215935data_trunc_sys.shtml) that appears to be a serious factor in asthma (and may explain my own asthma). Also some theories that we are keeping our homes a little too sterile, using too much bleach and antibiotic cleaners - the recent research with certain intestinal parasites that seem to prevent allergies/asthma has been very interesting.

[Hydrogen Cyanide]

Jane Orient is quite something. Many years ago when I first subsribed to the Healthfraud listserv she was very active. It was very entertaining to read her strange messages. It was only because her name was highlighted that I posted this (note, I still haven't read the whole thing... and tomorrow brings even more child chauffeuring... something one doesn't think of when they have children! Actuallly I am glad that one is coming to the age of "driver's permit"!).

Any time I see her name... I just think "loony"! (plus anyone whose last name is "Schlafly").

[Capsid]

But if they reassort enough times they'll eventually regain virulence.
At least, I know that's what happens with attenuated polio virus. Wouldn't that be even more likely to happen with influenza?
Why would it be more likely with influenza? Polio only needs to change one neucleotide to revert to full virulence which it readily does in the human gut. The reassortment of influenza only occurs with the HA and N proteins and not on the genes providing the cold-adapted attenuations. Moreover there are several attenuations so reversion requires all of them to change but no such changes have been observed.

I found out more about pestiviruses too. Perhaps the vets can help here. I should have recalled this having heard it recently. The virus is specifically bovine diarrhoea virus (BVDV) which may be present in foetal calf serum that is used to culture cell lines for the propagation of vaccine viruses such as measles. I understand that BVDV does not infect humans so there is no real cause for concern and a reasonable number of us (~30%?) have antibodies against BVDV through some form of exposure. Anyway there are eradication programmes in place I believe.

[kellyb]

I found out more about pestiviruses too. Perhaps the vets can help here. I should have recalled this having heard it recently. The virus is specifically bovine diarrhoea virus (BVDV) which may be present in foetal calf serum that is used to culture cell lines for the propagation of vaccine viruses such as measles. I understand that BVDV does not infect humans so there is no real cause for concern and a reasonable number of us (~30%?) have antibodies against BVDV through some form of exposure. Anyway there are eradication programmes in place I believe.
No, it definitely infects humans.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2564059&dopt=Abstract
Infantile gastroenteritis associated with excretion of pestivirus antigens.

Yolken R, Dubovi E, Leister F, Reid R, Almeido-Hill J, Santosham M.

Department of Pediatrics, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland 21205.

Faeces from children under 2 years old who had gastroenteritis that could not be attributed to recognised enteric pathogens were examined with a monoclonal-antibody-based immunoassay for Pestivirus antigens. Such antigens were detected in 30 of 128 episodes of gastroenteritis. Children without diarrhoeal disease and children infected with rotaviruses had little evidence of Pestivirus infection (faeces positive in 1 of 28 and 1 of 31, respectively). The diarrhoeal disease in children excreting Pestivirus antigens resembled that in other children except that it was more commonly associated with signs and symptoms of respiratory inflammation.

http://fn.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/78/3/F230#B21
Pestivirus infections
The two major PVs in animals are border disease virus (BDV) and bovine virus diarrhoea virus (BVDV). Pestivirus infections were thought to occur exclusively in animals until Giangaspero and coworkers recently reported the presence of specific anti-BVDV antibodies in up to 87% of animal handlers and veterinarians.18 Since then, lower prevalences of 15-16% have been reported in adults.19 20 Among children under 2 years, pestivirus antigens were present in 24% of specimens from diarrhoea episodes that could not be explained by more common enteric pathogens.21 Thus pestivirus infections occur in humans, although infection during pregnancy and a possible association with preterm birth or WMD have not yet been investigated.

Exposure to the pestivirus BDV of lambs leads to hypomyelination of their brains.9 Hypomyelination is a symptom of some diffuse forms of WMD.3 Infection with the pestivirus BVDV leads to necroses and cysts in the periventricular white matter and enlarged ventricles in lamb fetuses.10 All of these are expressions of WMD in preterm human babies.3 4

[Rolfe]

Is there any evidence that these two situations are related - I mean the possible presence of BVD in a vaccine, and the possibility that a group of cases of diarrhoea in infants might be caused by BVD. Because, if I'd just read the Yolken et al. abstract, I'd be assuming that these children had probably acquired the infection from contaminated milk. One also wonders how vaccination might be related to prenatal exposure to the virus.

Rolfe.

[kellyb]

Is there any evidence that these two situations are related - I mean the possible presence of BVD in a vaccine, and the possibility that a group of cases of diarrhoea in infants might be caused by BVD. Because, if I'd just read the Yolken et al. abstract, I'd be assuming that these children had probably acquired the infection from contaminated milk. One also wonders how vaccination might be related to prenatal exposure to the virus.

Rolfe.
No, I guess there's not. Is it really an illogical conclusion, though, that a vaccine contaminated with a virus might lead to an infection with that virus?

[Rolfe]

No, of course not. I was merely enquiring as to whether causation had even been suggested.

First, if BVD is widespread in vaccines, it would be surprising that so many of the children in the normal and rotavirus groups showed no evidence of exposure. Second, one has to consider whether the virus is in fact virulent by injection, when its usual route of infection is oral. It might be, but it's not inevitable.

Rolfe.

[kellyb]

No, of course not. I was merely enquiring as to whether causation had even been suggested.

First, if BVD is widespread in vaccines, it would be surprising that so many of the children in the normal and rotavirus groups showed no evidence of exposure. Second, one has to consider whether the virus is in fact virulent by injection, when its usual route of infection is oral. It might be, but it's not inevitable.

Rolfe.
PCR techniques were applied for the detection of mycoplasma DNA and pestivirus RNA to 43 lots of live viral vaccines (measles, mumps, rubella, and oral poliomyelitis) produced by six manufacturers in Japan. Although mycoplasma DNA was not detected in any of the vaccines tested, pestivirus RNA was detected in 12 lots (28%). The incidence of contamination among the four viral vaccines was in the range of 20 to 37%, and the incidence among the six manufacturers varied from 0 to 56%.
Faeces from children under 2 years old who had gastroenteritis that could not be attributed to recognised enteric pathogens were examined with a monoclonal-antibody-based immunoassay for Pestivirus antigens. Such antigens were detected in 30 of 128 episodes of gastroenteritis.
That actually looks like a pretty close correlation to me.

About virulence by injection, hmmm...
I'm pretty sure that's never been studied in humans.
There's a vaccine for BVDV for animals, though. But I don't know anything about it...
Actually, there's a lot of info about the virus in animals. I don't know how much of that would pertain to people, though.
But it would definitely be worth exploring.

[Capsid]

Thanks kellyb, when were the studies done that you quote? It's my understanding that foetal bovine serum is screened for BVDV now and is not present in vaccines. But I'm not sure when this screening started.

[Rolfe]

PCR techniques were applied for the detection of mycoplasma DNA and pestivirus RNA to 43 lots of live viral vaccines (measles, mumps, rubella, and oral poliomyelitis) produced by six manufacturers in Japan. Although mycoplasma DNA was not detected in any of the vaccines tested, pestivirus RNA was detected in 12 lots (28%). The incidence of contamination among the four viral vaccines was in the range of 20 to 37%, and the incidence among the six manufacturers varied from 0 to 56%.I may have dropped a stitch, but I can't see the reference for that quote. I don't know what you mean by correlation. The numbers relating to studies of Japanese vaccines have no relationship whatsoever to the numbers of selected cases of undiagnosed diarrhoea which turned out to be BVD +ve.

And I still don't see where causation is necessarily implied. Of course it's perfectly possible, but infection from milk is also possible. Does the source of that quote go on to suggest that these Japanese vaccines have caused disease?

Rolfe.

[kellyb]

Sorry...the links are in the other thread and I was being lazy.

gastroenteritis...1989
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2564059&dopt=Abstract

Pestivirus RNA in vaxes...1994
http://jcm.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/32/6/1604?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&titleabstract=pestiviruses+rna&searchid=1139946181475_4369&FIRSTINDEX=10&search_url=http%3A%2F%2Fjournals.asm.org%2Fcgi%2Fs earch

pestiviruses in kids with yuck butt...1998
http://fn.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/78/3/F230#B21

More pestivirus RNA in vaxes...1996.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9088554&query_hl=9&itool=pubmed_docsum

Here's what I was meaning:
You said, rolfe, "First, if BVD is widespread in vaccines, it would be surprising that so many of the children in the normal and rotavirus groups showed no evidence of exposure." and I'm saying that if the rate of vax contamination is 20-37%, and the rate of pestivirus in kids with yuck butt is 30 out of 128, then the math actually adds up.
And no, causation is never, ever implied. You're absolutely right that it could very well be milk.

And here's something from 2003, Capsid.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WBS-4938JFR-1&_coverDate=09%2F30%2F2003&_alid=366737273&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_qd=1&_cdi=6718&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=f03424c8fd8de6cc5ea8c0a10eef9083
Abstract
A protocol to test foetal calf serum (FCS) for contamination with bovine viral diarrhoea virus (BVDV) is described. Following this protocol, which combines cell culture methods and detection of pestivirus RNA, seven batches of FCS were tested. Infectious BVDV was detected in four of those batches. One of the remaining batches contained a relatively high number of non-infectious BVDV particles. A sample of this batch was formulated with aluminium hydroxide and aluminium phosphate as adjuvant into an experimental vaccine preparation. This product was injected twice into BVDV seronegative cattle with a 4 week interval. Blood samples taken 4 weeks after the second application were negative for BVDV specific antibodies. Our data stress that detection of BVDV RNA is not sufficient for a complete risk assessment on FCS. Discrimination between infectious and non-infectious BVDV is essential. This can only be achieved by cell culture methods
They do radiate the serum, but that has it's limits from what I understand. By the time you've killed all the viruses, you've killed the culture material, too.
So you're left with a small amount of virus that gets amplified in the manufacturing process when you're growing the virus you want.
Which, it appears,(to me, at least) is why we get unwanted viruses in vaccines.

[Rolfe]

I'm saying that if the rate of vax contamination is 20-37%, and the rate of pestivirus in kids with yuck butt is 30 out of 128, then the math actually adds up.My, you do have a charming turn of phrase.

No, it doesn't. That 30 out of 128 is the percentage in a group of children with diarrhoea of undetermined aetiology, a group specifically selected as hypothetically infected with whatever it is they're looking for (BVD in this case), who were antigen positive. For the figures to add up, you'd have to show that about the same percentage of the entire population of vaccinated children were antigen (or maybe more realistically sero-) positive. When in fact the rotavirus-positive group and the healthy group both had very low rates of antigen positivity. (And we're not even told their vaccination status.) The stats are legitimately used in the paper to suggest that BVD may be the causal factor of about 23% of that group of cases. Extrapolating that figure because it looks similar to the median (or mode or whatever it was) of virus batches that were contaminated is a non sequitur.

Also, the vaccines studied were Japanese, and the range of batches contaminated was very wide. Without knowing the pattern of use of the different batches (which tend to get sent out in batches), it would be difficult to draw any statistical conclusions at all. Even in Japan. To relate those figures to a study of a highly selected group of symptomatic children in Maryland, is a complete non starter.

I'm not saying a connection is impossible, just wondering if anyone working in the field has suggested a connection. And maybe, if not why not?

I guess I should have BVD coming out of my ears by now. I've been intimate enough with enough sick calves, in all conscience. Actually, I have notably cast-iron digestion.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

They do radiate the serum, but that has it's limits from what I understand. By the time you've killed all the viruses, you've killed the culture material, too.
So you're left with a small amount of virus that gets amplified in the manufacturing process when you're growing the virus you want.
Which, it appears,(to me, at least) is why we get unwanted viruses in vaccines.I'm not sure that's accurate. You establish which batches are free from contamination, then you use these, to the best of my knowledge. However, Capsid knows more about this than I do.

Rolfe.

[Capsid]

I'm not sure that's accurate. You establish which batches are free from contamination, then you use these, to the best of my knowledge. However, Capsid knows more about this than I do.

Rolfe.
Yes that's right.

[kellyb]

My, you do have a charming turn of phrase.

No, it doesn't. That 30 out of 128 is the percentage in a group of children with diarrhoea of undetermined aetiology, a group specifically selected as hypothetically infected with whatever it is they're looking for (BVD in this case), who were antigen positive. For the figures to add up, you'd have to show that about the same percentage of the entire population of vaccinated children were antigen (or maybe more realistically sero-) positive. When in fact the rotavirus-positive group and the healthy group both had very low rates of antigen positivity. (And we're not even told their vaccination status.) The stats are legitimately used in the paper to suggest that BVD may be the causal factor of about 23% of that group of cases. Extrapolating that figure because it looks similar to the median (or mode or whatever it was) of virus batches that were contaminated is a non sequitur.
Oops...you're right.
I was looking at that all wrong.
Can we at least agree that BVDV does, in fact, infect humans?
I'm not saying a connection is impossible, just wondering if anyone working in the field has suggested a connection. And maybe, if not why not?
http://jcm.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/32/6/1604
1994
From the full text:
Procedures currently in use to detect the adventitious pest virus in biological products are culture methods and immunological assays.
Detection of pestivirus contamination in viral vaccines has been hampered because most (99%) of the pestivirus strains are noncytopathic in cell cultures. Immunological assays are sometimes incapable of direct detection of low titer contamination in viral vaccines. Therefore, the culture methods and immunological assays are not perfect for detection of pestivirus contamination in viral vaccines. And later….

Although it has not been established that BVDV infections cause specific symptoms in humans, infantile gastroenteritis associated with excretion of pestivirus antigens and microcephaly in infants who were born to mothers seropositive for pest viruses have been reported. Serum antibodies against BVDV have been detected in humans who had no contact with potentially infected animals.
So it's been mentioned at least once.
What was done about this?

Yes that's right.
Then exactly where is the pestivirus in the MMR coming from?

ETA:
My, you do have a charming turn of phrase.
:nope:
:rolleyes:

[Capsid]

Can we at least agree that BVDV does, in fact, infect humans?
Yes.

What was done about this?
The FBS was screened and BVDV positive batches not used?


Then exactly where is the pestivirus in the MMR coming from?
BVDV was in the FBS/MMR before screening but now it isn't.

[kellyb]

BVDV was in the FBS/MMR before screening but now it isn't.
When did they start screening?

We have this from 2002,
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12421586&dopt=Books
Which seems to say it doesn’t matter that pestiviruses are in vaccines, but then there’s this, from 2003:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WBS-4938JFR-1&_coverDate=09%2F30%2F2003&_alid=369398091&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_qd=1&_cdi=6718&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=21e54691a66ab3d30168a5b1a93537a0
Which sites the first article as a reference, and says “Yes, it does”.

[Capsid]

.
When did they start screening?

We have this from 2002,
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12421586&dopt=Books
Which seems to say it doesn’t matter that pestiviruses are in vaccines, but then there’s this, from 2003:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WBS-4938JFR-1&_coverDate=09%2F30%2F2003&_alid=369398091&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_qd=1&_cdi=6718&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=21e54691a66ab3d30168a5b1a93537a0
Which sites the first article as a reference, and says “Yes, it does”.
The second article you cite considers the issue of BVDV contamination as of concern for veterinary vaccines not human vaccines. The infectious particles have to be screened for in FBS because they could infect cattle receiving vaccines prepared using BVDV positive calf serum and cause disease.

The first article states that the FCS is gamma irradiated and that is sufficient to inactivate BVDV. It doesn't say when this was implemented though.

[Rolfe]

OK. We have some circumstantial evidence that BVD virus may cause occasional mild diarrhoea in young children. We also have some evidence that until a few years ago there was or at least might have been BVD virus in MMR. We don't have any specific evidence that MMR itself ever caused a child to have a bout of diarrhoea. There seem to have been no reports of anyone noting a temporal link between vaccination and a bout of diarrhoea, and no statistical evidence has been collected to make any causal link. And it may be that BVD can be acquired from contaminated milk (my speculation). Nevertheless, we cannot wholly exclude the possibility that some children in the past may have suffered bouts of diarrhoea as a result of vaccination with MMR.

How worrying is this? Not a cause for complacency, and indeed Capsid has shown that the matter is being addressed. Nevertheless, I submit that the clinical consequences do not seem to be dire. (I think "microcephaly in infants who were born to mothers seropositive for pest viruses ha[s] been reported" is getting too tenuous even to start considering a vaccine link.)

Certainly, given the choice between an undefined risk of a bout of diarrhoea, and the well-defined risks of virulent measles, mumps and rubella, I don't think it's much of a contest. Pragmatically, looking around at the hordes of healthy children who are all vaccinated, I don't intuitively see a terrible risk here either.

So Kelly, is this why you're a vaccine refusenik? Because the danger of a bit of the runs is too much to risk? Or is there more to it than that?

Rolfe.

[kellyb]

Really, we don't know what the virus does to people. It's never really been studied.
The animal information includes stuff like hypomyelination and immunosupression, but of course, it might not apply at all.
So it's a great big unknown.
Looking at the things that are "fairly certain", BVDV looks a lot like rotavirus. And rotavirus is now on the US vax schedule, again, after being withdrawn the first time for being unsafe.
Which brings to my mind Paul Offit, the vax spokeman for the CDC who owns the patent for the rotavirus vax.
Who wrote a book an above author of this thread mentioned.
It is not a coincidence that many anti-vax "information" websites are actually lawyer websites. One of the most prevelent is "Water and Kraus". One of the ending chapters of The Cutter Incident shows exactly what a "great" effect these guys have.
Paul's book, "The Cutter Incident" makes the case that vaccine manufacturers need total and complete immunity from lawsuits, even when they're found criminally negligent.
Which makes me think of this meeting, that I mentioned in the other thread.
http://www.fda.gov/cber/minutes/0910evolv.txt
Influenza is an actuated vaccine. Again, it's not made on SPF eggs, that is, specified pathogen-free eggs. They are avian leukosis free, but they are not free of all the other variety of pathogens that you would choose to screen for measles vaccine production system, for example.
And,
So even today then you have to bear in mind that a large amount of vaccine that's made is made on really quite crude materials, from an adventitious agent point of view. It's not a trivial usage. In fact, when you go through and consider what vaccines are actually made on these days, they are quite primitive, if you like, in some respects.
And since you can't test for viruses that you're not looking for, that's very very bad.
Hence the rush for pure cell substrates.
And then there's the last, most haunting part.
Now the regulatory authorities in the room will be well aware of a large number of other examples of this type which don't actually get published. I think that's not so good. I think this stuff really should be out there in the public literature. But nonetheless, these are the ones which are well known, I think.
And they mentioned pestiviruses earlier in the meeting.
This one is relatively common knowledge.

I understand from some of the remarks that have been made that there are others that are known to a small coterie of people here that have not been publicly declared. I urge all of you to think about this seriously because it can and will have a great impact on this industry. Thank you.

DR. MINOR: I agree totally with that. It does seem to me that sooner or later the information will leak out. I think the industry looks very bad.
Pretty darn bad, I agree.
And that's just viral contaminants.
And then there's the Simpsonwood meeting, where they figured out that thimerosal (thiomersol...whatever) actually does cause developmental delays, which is a toxicology issue, not an advantitious agent one.
(If you want me to provide the link again I will).
And then they went on to out-right cover it up.
So some aspects of the antivax inaity and quackery don't really seem so inane to me.
Some.
Not all.
A lot of it really doesn't survive the critical thinking challenge.

Either way, when whatever it is that is destined to "leak out" does, I'm not going to be one of the people whining about how you can't legally sue for criminally negligent vaccine manufacturing practices after I have a child who's dead or brain damaged or whatever it may be.

[Capsid]

There is always a risk from vaccines. But of all the millions of us that have been immunised we are not facing a major problem. The risk/benefit ratio shows that it is worth doing. I don't advocate going back to pre-vaccine days when measles killed 100+ kids a year in th UK. Since the MMR there have been no measles deaths in the UK. The issue of adventitious viruses is acknowledged and being addressed by irradiating FCS for example. The industry is not standing still and there are checks and measures in place to assure the safety of vaccines. The UK has an independent testing laboratory (http://forums.randi.org/www.nibsc.ac.uk) for one and there is post marketing surveillance. Perhaps the industry does not like to talk about some of their issues because of the consequences that information might have. The MMR/autism debacle is a case in point. Unfortunately, there is an over reaction rather than a proper understanding of the issues in their proper context.

[Rolfe]

It's an interesting psychological phenomenon. Many people seem to feel that if something they actively do carries a risk, and that risk results in harm, that is 100% their fault and 100% culpable. However, if they don't do something, and the omission causes harm, then they carry no responsibility at all.

Adverse consequences of vaccination do occur. If you dredge the literature carefully enough you'll find the one-in-a-million anaphylactic reactions and things like that. Plus the accidents over the years, plus the theoretical possibility that there might be an issue with a current vaccine that has yet to be identified.

On the other hand the potential consequences of not vaccinating are clear. Measles can be disabling, and can even kill, for example. However, it's at this point that I note people starting to say, oh yes but that's rare isn't it, most people that catch measles don't suffer any permanent harm. True. But why not apply the same calculation of risk to the risks of vaccinating?

The fact is that not vaccinating carries far far higher risks than vaccinating. It just seems that some parents feel that they carry no personal responsibility for harm caused by the natural disease, while harm caused by a vaccine would be "their fault". So they choose to expose their children to the much greater risk, for the (to my mind) selfish reason that if that eventuality actually happens then they can manage not to feel bad about it, because the disease was natural, while in the much more remote eventuality of vaccine harm, they would feel guilty.

I wonder if the children would see it the same way? I wonder if the children who have come to harm because they were dependent on the herd immunity conferred by other children being vaccinated that wasn't there, because the parents of these other children were so selectively risk-averse, would agree?

Rolfe.

[Capsid]

Yes, and also I think many do not appreciate that mass vaccination is not about protecting the individual. It's about protecting humanity. Boys don't individually benefit from the Rubella vaccine for example. And as Rolfe points out we provide herd immunity to those who can not receive vaccines for one reason or another. I think we should provide for those people as we provide for those who are disabled. Or do we just abandon them?

[Rolfe]

I note my English was a little garbled in that passage. However, it's an important point. Children who are too young to be vaccinated, or who have an immunocompromising condition, or who have an allergy to the vaccine, must rely on the disease being excluded from the whole population, which comes about by having ~95% of susceptible individuals vaccinated. Thus the vaccinated individuals not only protect themselves, they protect their weaker neighbours.

However, I feel that parents who are so selfish that they will deny their children vaccination so that they won't have to feel guilty if anything bad happens, won't care about their neighbour's children either.

Rolfe.

[kellyb]

The risk/benefit ratio shows that it is worth doing.
What's your method for calculating the risk/ benefit ratio when the risks of one are unknown, not only because they haven't been studied, but when they're discovered, they're intentionally supressed?
You can say "Look at all the healthy people!", but I see all kinds of new problems replacing the old ones...they might not have anything to do with vaccination at all. But really, we don't know. And it might or might not be known to that "small coterie of people" who see the stuff we don't.
However, I feel that parents who are so selfish that they will deny their children vaccination so that they won't have to feel guilty if anything bad happens, won't care about their neighbour's children either.
Of course you don't.
I could attempt to psychoanalyize this ad hominem element of your psyche, but it would just piss you off.
But you know as well as I do that vaccinated children can be subclinical reservoirs of infection.
Of course, when you read the literature, it tends to be an unvaccinated kid that turns out to be the "index case"...like they spontaniously generated it in their body or something.
Exactly how much antivaxers impact herd immunity varies from disease to disease. And it's directly proportionate to the effectiveness, or lack thereof, of the vaccine.

[Capsid]

What's your method for calculating the risk/ benefit ratio when the risks of one are unknown, not only because they haven't been studied, but when they're discovered, they're intentionally supressed?
Doesn't the safety experience versus the reduction in disease incidence provide the evidence?

[ysabella]

kellyb, I think the point is that the technical experts here will not "bless" your non-vaxing stance for you, or whatever it is you seem to make them want to agree with. I'm really not sure why you keep wanting to make them agree with you, but they certainly don't when it comes to the big picture.
Since you're so concerned that the very rare incidences of harm from vaccines should be litigation-ready - which they are - then don't you think that if your unvaccinated child is the proven vector for (let's say) pertussis, and another child (a vaccinated one, who doesn't get sick but) carries the germs home to his infant sibling who has not yet been vaccinated, who gets ill and/or dies, shouldn't the family of the damaged/dead infant be able to sue you for negligence? If we could sue for that, we could stop these tragedies, and they do happen (http://www.pertussis.com/share.html), probably more often than funky goat colostrum gets rotavirus into batches of vaccines, or whatever you're on about.

Handy links for general interest:
Here is a chart (http://www.metrokc.gov/health/immunization/compare.htm) for comparing diseases to vaccines.
Skeptico's blog (http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/06/lies_damn_lies_.html) went over the typical misquotings of Simpsonwood transcript, and here's Skeptico's main post about the Simpsonwood transcript. (http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/06/robert_f_kenned.html) Majikthise (http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2005/06/simpsonwood_thi_1.html) went over it as well, and so did Orac (http://oracknows.blogspot.com/2005/06/mercury-and-autism-more-huffington.html).
Some good web sites that go over vaccine misinformation here (http://www.apologia.com/vaccines/vac_lies.html) and here (http://www.geocities.com/issues_in_immunization/fearmongers/opposition_to_immunization.htm).

[shalomsteph]

Rolfe,
Does the anti-vax hysteria roll over into their pets as well? Do anti-vax parents also not vaccinate their pets against rabies, kennel cough, distemper, etc?
I am just wondering. I know my city (in the US) requires rabies vaccines on all dogs and cats over 6 months old, and there is a big fine if it is discovered otherwise. Plus, the pet could be detained and/or euthanized if it bites another pet or person without a shot. So even if they believe the shots cause ADHD or Autism in children, there are no such diseases in pets, so there should not be any reason to not vaccinate.

Just wondering how that works...

Steph

[Yuri Nalyssus]

You can say "Look at all the healthy people!", but I see all kinds of new problems replacing the old ones...they might not have anything to do with vaccination at all. But really, we don't know
What are you trying to get at here - what would you propose as an alternate to vaccination?

Yuri

[Rolfe]

Rolfe,
Does the anti-vax hysteria roll over into their pets as well? Do anti-vax parents also not vaccinate their pets against rabies, kennel cough, distemper, etc?There are some. In animals the scare is a made-up condition called "vaccinosis", which is created by attributing every illness a pet suffers with three months of a booster vaccinaton to an adverse effect of the vaccine. This has actually been formally studied and found to be completely baseless. There is no higher rate of random disease seen in animals following booster vaccination. And no higher rate of any of the things they specifically mention, either. I remember a colleague of mine answering one of the antivax nuts in print "the solution to your distress at having to comfort all those guilt-ridden owners who bitterly regret having had their pets vaccinated is for you to stop telling them that every illness the pet happens to get was caused by the vaccine".

Try Googling "Catherine O'Driscoll", she's a local nut this side of the pond. These people also tend to be into raw food (roll up, roll up, get your Salmonella and Campylobacter and Toxoplasma here....), and to hate pet food manufacturers as well as drug companies.

The up side is that there aren't very many of them. They haven't got their message into the mass media the way the anti-MMR crowd succeeded in doing. As a result they don't really have much impact beyond harming their own pets - parvovirus is the usual fate for an unvaccinated dog. However, in population terms it's ignorance, laziness, forgetfulness and shortage of cash that have far more impact on animal vaccination rates.

Funnily enough there is a real danger associated with the cat vaccines. It's called Vaccine-site-associated fibrosarcoma or VAS for short, and it's a very nasty invasive cancer that occasionally appears at a vaccination site. Usually FeLV or rabies vaccine. However, there are moves to rename it "Injection-site-associated fibrosarcoma", because it's being recognised that any injection has the potential to cause it. For example, injectable flea control products have been implicated, and even innocuous things like vitamin injections. It seems to be a peculiarity if cat skin. Indeed there have been cases reported in farm cats which have never had an injection in their feral little lives.

Nevertheless the association with vaccines in particular is a concern, and there is a lot of research going into trying to figure out how to prevent it. So why do the antivax loons say little or nothing about that? The only speculation is that the problem is being vigorously addressed, and drawing attention to it might also draw attention to how seriously a real adverse event is treated when it is identified. In fact it is the fairly rapid suspicion, identificaton and confirmation of the vaccine link with VAS that throws into perspective the absolute lack of confirmation of any vaccine link with any of the other diseases the lunatic fringe likes to go on about.

In the UK there are no compulsory pet vaccines. Nobody will come and make you, you'll simply be unable to board at a boarding kennels or cattery, or take your cat to a show. The antics of the US refuseniks as they swap ways to endanger their neighbours by evading the compulsory rabies vaccine would be funny if they weren't so potentially lethal.

Kellyb sounds like a human-type version of the anti-pet-vaccinators. Let's just imagine that maybe anything might be caused by a vaccine, especially anything relatively recently recognised or being diagnosed more precisely these days. Even if there is absolutely no evidence at all to support a link. So, better not vaccinate, just in case. Don't want to be responsible for harming a child, do we?

Thus engaging in behaviour which is far far more likely to harm a child, either her own or someone else's, and completely abrogating any responsibility for such harm. I really think I'd be suspended if I said what I really think of people like that.

Rolfe.

[shalomsteph]

Thanks. I am surprised there are no mandates for at least rabies shots in the UK.
It seems to me that the whole anti-vax movement in humans is not because of lack of funds--the shots are available for free if needed. (Same with pets, BTW) Rather, it is the wealthier folks who scoff at vaccinating their kids. There is an "elitism" to it that is almost demeaning to those of us "ignorant" folks who DO immunize the kids and pets. I never even considered NOT immunizing...I guess I am just a foolish lemur.

[Rolfe]

Thanks. I am surprised there are no mandates for at least rabies shots in the UK.No rabies.

Until about 2000 it was actually illegal to vaccinate an animal agaist rabies, because the presence of animals with rabies antibody changes your rabies-free status. However, such was the pressure from people who wanted to travel with their pets that the quarantine regulations were relaxed for animals coming from certain countries. To take advantage of that, it is indeed mandatory to have a rabies vaccination. However, as the only wild-type rabies in the country is the very occasional case of bat lyssavirus, there is no necessity to vaccinate non-travelling pets against the disease.

Rolfe.

[kellyb]

Doesn't the safety experience versus the reduction in disease incidence provide the evidence?
What safety experience?
If the unsafe part of the safety experience is either unknown out of 1)incompetance, or 2)out right supression, then we can't really calculate for things like oncogenic viruses, can we?
Since you're so concerned that the very rare incidences of harm from vaccines should be litigation-ready - which they are - then don't you think that if your unvaccinated child is the proven vector for (let's say) pertussis, and another child (a vaccinated one, who doesn't get sick but) carries the germs home to his infant sibling who has not yet been vaccinated, who gets ill and/or dies, shouldn't the family of the damaged/dead infant be able to sue you for negligence?
Well, since you're using pertussis as the example, I'm not really sure how the antivax parents would be more likely to have caused the infant's illness.
The parents could have vaccinated, and we'd have the same scenario, more than likely.
And sure, ysabella, I'm actually expecting a blessing from rolfe and capsid. That's going to happen, and then I'll never, ever have to question myself ever again.
And about the Simpsonwood meeting, here's the link, again.
http://www.safeminds.org/legislation/foia/Simpsonwood_Transcript.pdf
I'm not going to debate with you about a blog some guy wrote about an article some guy wrote for some newspaper about it.
But I'm not really expecting you to read it, given that you apparently haven't even read this thread, though.
Kellyb sounds like a human-type version of the anti-pet-vaccinators. Let's just imagine that maybe anything might be caused by a vaccine, especially anything relatively recently recognised or being diagnosed more precisely these days. Even if there is absolutely no evidence at all to support a link. So, better not vaccinate, just in case. Don't want to be responsible for harming a child, do we?

Thus engaging in behaviour which is far far more likely to harm a child, either her own or someone else's, and completely abrogating any responsibility for such harm. I really think I'd be suspended if I said what I really think of people like that.

Rolfe.
My God, woman!
Your shameless use of personal insults as a debate tactic is just appalling.
Yes, Rolfe, I'm a sociopath.
How in the world did you figure it out?
I and all my antivax friends actually spend our free time volunteering at Guantanamo Bay torturing Afghani teens.
:rolleyes:

[Eos of the Eons]

Bah. My city is hosting 10 free booths for antivaccine folks like chiros and naturopaths at the annual conference for business and community networking. My boss is the one encouraging this "community wellness initiative" part of the conference, and at work we get to send out letters inviting people that sell wares like Mannatech to come and fill up the 10 free booths my boss wrangled for them.

I'm appalled that this is the plan for "complete community wellness initiatives" in my city. I'm scared my boss will find out how I feel about it. I'm saddened that I'm now part of spreading misinformation, especially as an ongoing goal in the community as "complete community wellness".

:(

HCN, that appalling article was published on my b-day, gahhhhhh

I'm going to bed, and curling up in a fetal position.

[Eos of the Eons]

Just before I got to bed though. Why are they still publishing garbage like that? China had no autism a few years ago? Yah, okay.

I might us well ring up the news and blather on about how eating chicken made me grow feathers.

[Yuri Nalyssus]

What safety experience?
If the unsafe part of the safety experience is either unknown out of 1)incompetance, or 2)out right supression, then we can't really calculate for things like oncogenic viruses, can we?
If you're going to argue that we can't judge as to the safety of vaccines because there might be information out there that we don't yet know about then you wouldn't be able to accept that anything was safe by the same argument.

This is exactly the same rationale used by other conspiracy types from UFOlogists with their big CIA cover-ups to homoeopaths with their "one day science will find a mechanism for action" assertions. The argument has appeal on a superficial level because there is an infinitessimal possibility it could be true, in the same way it could be true the Earth is flat, it's just that the authorities are conspiring to keep the truth from us. Only, people don't die from believing the Earth is flat but they do if they're not vaccinated.

What is it you are trying to achieve kellyb, would you prefer that vaccination was stopped?

Rolfe's idea that it's easier not to feel guilty if harm is caused by passivity & inaction (such as not vaccinating) rather than if harm, even slight harm, is caused by a delibarate act (such as vaccinating), even if well intentioned is an intriguing one.

Yuri

[Eos of the Eons]

This is exactly the same rationale used by other conspiracy types from UFOlogists with their big CIA cover-ups to homoeopaths with their "one day science will find a mechanism for action" assertions. The argument has appeal on a superficial level because there is an infinitessimal possibility it could be true, in the same way it could be true the Earth is flat, it's just that the authorities are conspiring to keep the truth from us. Only, people don't die from believing the Earth is flat but they do if they're not vaccinated.
Yeah, funny that my chicken feather thing won't be taken seriously, but claiming vaccines are the cause of EVERYTHING, is.

I mean, is it so BAD that kids now survive long enough to be diagnosed with things like autism?

I did a search for MMR in that article:

“Our best estimates are that the thimerosal contributed to about 75% of the cases of neurodevelpmental disorders while the MMR contributed to about 15%,” they said. “The remaining 10% of the cases were related to mercury in Rhogam, a shot given to Rh-negative women, and to other sources of neurotoxicity.”


Well, they finally STOPPED saying MMR has mercury in it! WOW!!!

Okay. But, I like how they insinuate there would be NO cases of autism if there were no vaccines. 10 + 15 + 75 =100
Because autism NEVER happened 100 years ago!
More kids died from pertussis though, but that's a non - issue here.

Let's do away with vaccination, and lil johnny won't survive. Let's wipe out autism rates by increasing childhood death!

Also, if Johnny survives polio, then he won't notice if he has autism if he's paralyzed! Heck, you can then blame polio for his autism.


Yes, it would be an ideal world, like it was before, without vaccination! Becaue there really was NO AUTISM 100 years ago! Hmm, did only autistics die from vaccine preventable diseases? Just as likely a theory as the vaccine causes autism theory!

You know, more people still have schizophrenia than autism. 1 in 166 have autism. 1 in 100 have schizophrenia. Why why why are vaccines not blamed for causing schizophrenia? Why? As pointed out by David Hartman (1998), mercury's ability to cause a wide range of common psychiatric disturbances should be considered in their diagnosis, and it might also be productive in developing hypotheses about and designing research studies for these other disorders. The disorders might include depression, OCD, dementia, anxiety, ADHD/ADD, Tourette's, and schizophrenia. Mercury may play a role in the etiology of some cases of these conditions. Conversely, investigating mercury's wide ranging effects upon neurobiological processes may lead to a quicker understanding of the organic etiologies in these other diseases which are now seen with increasing frequency.

http://www.vaccinationnews.com/DailyNews/July2001/AutismUniqueMercPoison.htm

OH, they do lump it under "mercury damage" now too. Silly me. All the more people to get to sue vaccine manufacturers, just because none of these things existed before vaccines, none, ever, everyone was PERFECT before vaccination came on the scene.

[Rolfe]

What safety experience?
If the unsafe part of the safety experience is either unknown out of 1)incompetance, or 2)out right supression, then we can't really calculate for things like oncogenic viruses, can we?

Well, since you're using pertussis as the example, I'm not really sure how the antivax parents would be more likely to have caused the infant's illness.
The parents could have vaccinated, and we'd have the same scenario, more than likely.
And sure, ysabella, I'm actually expecting a blessing from rolfe and capsid. That's going to happen, and then I'll never, ever have to question myself ever again.
And about the Simpsonwood meeting, here's the link, again.
http://www.safeminds.org/legislation/foia/Simpsonwood_Transcript.pdf
I'm not going to debate with you about a blog some guy wrote about an article some guy wrote for some newspaper about it.
But I'm not really expecting you to read it, given that you apparently haven't even read this thread, though.

My God, woman!
Your shameless use of personal insults as a debate tactic is just appalling.
Yes, Rolfe, I'm a sociopath.
How in the world did you figure it out?
I and all my antivax friends actually spend our free time volunteering at Guantanamo Bay torturing Afghani teens.
:rolleyes:Don't be ridiculous. I didn't call you a sociopath. I do, however, think that you're using sophistry to construct a case that will allow you to refuse to vaccinate, so that you don't have to take any responsibility for any harm which might even hypothetically result from vaccinating. At the same time you turn a blind eye to the self-evident harm that is caused by not vaccinating, because of a simplistic feeling that you aren't responsible for what you don't do.

We don't even need to look at complex epidemiological studies and so on to see the difference. A hundred years ago, diptheria and scarlet fever and other long-forgotten diseases cut a swathe through the infant population. In the middle of last century there was a polio outbreak that resulted in wards and indeed hospitals of children breathing with the aid of iron lungs. I'm just old enough to remember my mother's horrified reaction even to the mention of an iron lung, and I clearly remember the general joy when the first vaccine became available and I was taken to be vaccinated with the first cohort, when I was about three. I had measles, I had whooping cough, I had mumps, I had rubella. I was lucky, like most children. I remember being delirious for 24 hours with measles, but I wasn't sick enough to be hospitalised. But some children died, and if you look at the figures on a country-wide basis, they're scary.

Now, most people have never even seen a case of most of these conditions. They're forgetting what it was like. Well, that's what it was like, and that's what we'd go back to if we didn't vaccinate. Against that scenario, the actual problems attributable to vaccines, yes, even the infamous Cutter Incident, affect only a tiny minority of people. And constant monitoring and research is reducing the risk of such incidents all the time.

Now, we worry about different things. Autism. Oh yes, the village idiot has now been rebranded as "autistic". Improved access to care for such individuals has resulted in the condition developing a higher profile, and more cases are being diagnosed as a result. It may indeed be that it's commoner than it was, but related studies have been unable to show any epidemiological linkage to vaccination, either MMR or thiomersal-containing vaccines. (Awfully funny that two such diametrically different things as mercury and measles virus just happen to cause the same clinical syndrome, no? It's almost as if people were determined to blame vaccines for the condition, and happened to come up with two quite different mechanisms and can't decide which one to go with.)

Never mind, maybe there's a link we don't know about. Maybe there are all sorts of dangers in vaccines we aren't aware of. So, just in case, let's stop vaccinating and go back to the days of the iron lung, and children brain-damaged by measles infection, and diptheria carrying off many young children, and adult men rendered sterile by mumps, and so on. This is so much preferable to taking any risk that just maybe (although we can't exactly prove it), vaccines are causing insidious and scary side-effects.

Yeah, right.

Rolfe.

[MRC_Hans]

Very well put, Rolfe. We just had a talk of this today at work; many of my collegueas have children in the vaccination age. We all agree that avoiding vaccination was like paratroopers talking about not using parachutes, since troopers are rarely getting killed from falling from a plane, and when they do it is due to faulty parachutes.

Hans

[Yuri Nalyssus]

We all agree that avoiding vaccination was like paratroopers talking about not using parachutes, since troopers are rarely getting killed from falling from a plane, and when they do it is due to faulty parachutes.
Which of course has been validated by a placebo controlled trial (Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials):
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/327/7429/1459?maxtoshow=

Yuri

[MRC_Hans]

Very amusing article (which btw. concludes that parchutes have NOT been evaluated in controlled trials). I assume they intend to make a point there, which is somehow lost, since plenty of interventions are in fact not verified in blinded trials. A good medical example is insulin. To my knowledge, the basic efficacy of insulin has never been verified in this way. While troubled by unceartainties, in some situations, it is precise enough to make valid conclusions. These are the situations where the outcome of non-intervention is known from broad experience to be ceartain, or so certain that a few contrary observations after some intervention is enough to conclude that the intervention is significantly better than non-intervention.

Back to parachutes: While the article tries to claim this is not the case, we do actually have considerable experience with the effect of leaving an aircraft in flight without a parachute to conclude from even a few survivals while doing it with one to conclude that parachutes have a significant efficacy.

Hans ;)

[Yuri Nalyssus]

Very amusing article (which btw. concludes that parchutes have NOT been evaluated in controlled trials).
Oops, of course I was applying a homoeopathic interpretation to the results (ie results mean whatever I decide they mean). That'll teach me to post old URLs without re-reading them. The gist of the piece seemed to be a tongue-in-cheek dig at the extremes of evidence based medicine but whatever the intention, very amusing.

Yuri

[MRC_Hans]

Ahh, sorry. I assume I wansn't actually supposed to read it ;).

Hans

[Capsid]

I would like to think that I am making the future for my kids that bit better. I hope that one day we won't have to vaccinate as the goal here is to eradicate these diseases. So yes I'm an anti-vaxxer too! Then my kids or grandkids won't have to either worry about the disease for their kids and not have to make agonising decisions over whether to vaccinate or not.

I don't have to worry about smallpox vaccination now nor will my kids or theirs and theirs etc. The longer we have the incidence of these diseases then the longer we will have to vaccinate.

[Rolfe]

Indeed. If it hadn't been for the antivaxers in Africa, it's quite possible that polio might have been eradicated worldwide by now. What an achievement in 50 years! Then of course the decision could be taken not to vaccinate. Because there's no point in vaccinating if there's no chance of being exposed to the disease - just like rabies in Britain.

But, thanks the antivax mob, who allowed polio to take hold again in Africa, we still have to go an vaccinating for the forseeable future.

Rolfe.

[ysabella]

Well, since you're using pertussis as the example, I'm not really sure how the antivax parents would be more likely to have caused the infant's illness.
The parents could have vaccinated, and we'd have the same scenario, more than likely.
So that whole way that these diseases go away when people vaccinate and we gain herd immunity...that's for other people. These cases start happening when vax rates drop. But since it's somebody else's baby of course it's just not your problem.
And sure, ysabella, I'm actually expecting a blessing from rolfe and capsid. That's going to happen, and then I'll never, ever have to question myself ever again.
Then you can stop washing your hands, too. In fact, that's a great idea for your next big campaign - IT'S ALL LIES! Get those JREF handwashing experts all up in arms!
And about the Simpsonwood meeting, here's the link, again.
http://www.safeminds.org/legislation/foia/Simpsonwood_Transcript.pdf
I'm not going to debate with you about a blog some guy wrote about an article some guy wrote for some newspaper about it.
But I'm not really expecting you to read it, given that you apparently haven't even read this thread, though.
OMG! She said I di-in't read tha thingy! She said I di-in't read the thread! OMG! Like totally whatEVER! *snaps gum*

[ysabella]

Indeed. If it hadn't been for the antivaxers in Africa, it's quite possible that polio might have been eradicated worldwide by now. What an achievement in 50 years! Then of course the decision could be taken not to vaccinate. Because there's no point in vaccinating if there's no chance of being exposed to the disease - just like rabies in Britain.

But, thanks the antivax mob, who allowed polio to take hold again in Africa, we still have to go an vaccinating for the forseeable future.

Rolfe.
I was going to post about how I don't see it as all one big anti-vax thing worldwide, and point out the weird conspiracy theories some mullahs cited to tell the people in Nigeria not to vax which has caused this polio outbreak...and then I thought, well, it really is the same thing. :boggled:

[Hydrogen Cyanide]

Now to add to the mix... here is an article about the tactic used by one person:
http://www.thehawkeye.com/daily/stories/ln1_0224.html

(and people wondered why I was not happy with the notice of my firstborn being put into the newspaper without my permission, with his name misspelled... fortunately that stopped by the time #2 was born)

[ysabella]

I take it the newspaper included their surnames? If they leave those off, it's probably not possible to figure out who they are.

Don't get any ideas about sending her letters, to give her a taste of her own medicine. One quick Google search (http://www.armyofgod.com/danholmanNewsLetter.html) is all it takes to figure out that she'd feel all Persecuted and think it was great.

Then again, sending some facts...case studies, with photos of adorable big-eyed children killed or disabled by pertussis, measles, polio, etc. might be good. There's a PO Box on the link above, but WhitePages.com pops out:

Dan & Donna Holman
776 Eicher St
Keokuk, IA 52632-2419
(319) 524-5587

Perhaps subscribing them to some skeptic newsletters would be wacky hijinks.

[Hydrogen Cyanide]

I take it the newspaper included their surnames? If they leave those off, it's probably not possible to figure out who they are.....

They used to include the whole name, now I believe it is only paid announcements. This is just for future reference... don't let any relatives post an announcement of your baby's birth. You will get badgered by baby photographers, insurance agents and other annoying people (it is bad enough that some of that information is available through vital statistics). Many of these people do not care about "do not call" lists, and trust me... the last thing you need is someone calling you on the phone when you've been up half the night with a newborn!

[kellyb]

Don't be ridiculous. I didn't call you a sociopath. I do, however, think that you're using sophistry to construct a case that will allow you to refuse to vaccinate, so that you don't have to take any responsibility for any harm which might even hypothetically result from vaccinating. At the same time you turn a blind eye to the self-evident harm that is caused by not vaccinating, because of a simplistic feeling that you aren't responsible for what you don't do.
Well let me clue you in on something.
The idea of my child possibly transporting a pathogen to an immunosupressed child is something I take very seriously.
Here in the US, our republican party loves to talk about 'personal responsibility'. Their use of the phrase essentially blames the poor for being poor, etc., but it's still a useful term to me in describing my view on vaccination.
I really go the extra mile in making sure my kid doesn't transmit even the common cold. I know my kid's runny nose might end up being pertussis. Neverminding that most disease is transmitted within fully vaccinated populations, and the fact that unvaxed kids (and mine is partially vaxed) actually aren't a signifigant risk to the general population, immune compromised or otherwise, I still "own" the personal responsibility of making sure my child doesn't kill a severly immunocompromised child.
How many vaxing parents do you know that don't let their runny nosed kids play on playgrounds?
I'm also very, very aware of things like peanut allergy and shopping carts. Milk allergy and doorknobs in public.
I can't believe I've let you trick me into defending my character.
Shame on me, I guess.
Either way, yes, if some freak occurance were to happen where my child caused the death or serious illness of another child, my very first thought would be "What did I do?"
And if not vaccinating were the answer, I'd just "own" that.
Just like when I've vaccinated, I've "owned" that, as well. I'll never cry and say "But they said it was safe!"
And I'll never just blindly defer to "But it's not my fault at all" if my kid is a link in a chain of events that vaccination might, even just maybe, have prevented.
We don't even need to look at complex epidemiological studies and so on to see the difference. A hundred years ago, diptheria and scarlet fever and other long-forgotten diseases cut a swathe through the infant population.
Whatever happened to scarlette fever, anyway?
Sounds like it used to be a real killer...
I had measles, I had whooping cough, I had mumps, I had rubella. I was lucky, like most children. I remember being delirious for 24 hours with measles, but I wasn't sick enough to be hospitalised. But some children died, and if you look at the figures on a country-wide basis, they're scary.
I've had a few of those, too.
And I was vaccinated.
I'm also permanently epileptic now, probably from the old DTP. So I'd take your 24 hours of delerium from measles for my epilepsy any day.
Luckily for kids today, they eventually fixed that problem.
Now, most people have never even seen a case of most of these conditions. They're forgetting what it was like. Well, that's what it was like, and that's what we'd go back to if we didn't vaccinate. Against that scenario, the actual problems attributable to vaccines, yes, even the infamous Cutter Incident, affect only a tiny minority of people. And constant monitoring and research is reducing the risk of such incidents all the time.
I agree that things are getting better. They're still not good, though.
Despite Capsid's claim that pestiviruses are now out of the MMR, I haven't seen any evidence.
I don't think he's lying...I think he's assuming.
Coz that's where these problems come from. Everyone assumes that surely someone else has done the work to fix whatever problem they didn't even know was a problem to begin with.
The regulatory authorities assume that the manufacturers have studied it, and the scientists working for the manufacturers assume that the regulatory authorities wouldn't allow it if it weren't already solidly safe.
Now, we worry about different things. Autism. Oh yes, the village idiot has now been rebranded as "autistic". Improved access to care for such individuals has resulted in the condition developing a higher profile, and more cases are being diagnosed as a result. It may indeed be that it's commoner than it was, but related studies have been unable to show any epidemiological linkage to vaccination, either MMR or thiomersal-containing vaccines. (Awfully funny that two such diametrically different things as mercury and measles virus just happen to cause the same clinical syndrome, no? It's almost as if people were determined to blame vaccines for the condition, and happened to come up with two quite different mechanisms and can't decide which one to go with.)
Time #3 I beg you to actually read this.
http://www.safeminds.org/legislation/foia/Simpsonwood_Transcript.pdf
Never mind, maybe there's a link we don't know about. Maybe there are all sorts of dangers in vaccines we aren't aware of. So, just in case, let's stop vaccinating and go back to the days of the iron lung, and children brain-damaged by measles infection, and diptheria carrying off many young children, and adult men rendered sterile by mumps, and so on. This is so much preferable to taking any risk that just maybe (although we can't exactly prove it), vaccines are causing insidious and scary side-effects.

Yeah, right.

Rolfe.
Or better yet, how about a world where the problems are made available to the public?
Where more attention can be paid to fixing them sooner that a few decades down the line?
How about a reality where all the problems are known and dealt with for what they are and thusly, the public might regaine trust in the program?
I would honestly rather trade in the ability to sue for total disclosure.

[Capsid]

The EMEA issued a guidance note (http://www.emea.eu.int/pdfs/human/bwp/179302en.pdf) in 2003 regarding BVDV in FCS.

All batches must be tested for BVDV and only used if no infectious virus is detected after inactivation.

The regulatory authorities work very hard on vaccine safety.

Scarlet fever is an interesting bacterium. It has virulence genes that mutate and can go through periods of high and low virulence. It's low at the moment but that wasn't the case in the early 1900s. Antibiotics work very well too, so no need for a vaccine.

[burrahobbit]

I would really like kellyb to move (with child) to India or Africa.

Diseases you people treat as minor (theoretical) issues are killers in other places. And this anti Vax nonsense is spreading. Polio is a case in point.

Something about the American psyche. I am allowed to go hunting and "accidentally" shoot someone with no comeback but got help me if my vaccine could possibly, possibly (P<0.000000000001) cause someone to stub his toe.

kellyb, have you considered the possibility that your epilepsy was NOT caused by vaccines. Julius Caesar was epileptic and, AFAIK, there weree no vaccines around then.

[Hydrogen Cyanide]

My first child had seizures when he was 48 hours old (he spent the next week in the hospital, the cause was never found). Because of those he was given a DT vaccine, and has never been vaccinated against pertussis.

This was during a time when the county we live in was having a pertussis epidemic. Not fun (we had to be very very careful who he came in contact with his first year).

He was on phenobarbitol for his first year... he was weaned off it by the time he was 14 months later.

Then when he was 15 months, he had a grand mal... oh, about two weeks after getting the MMR.

So far, I've had people blame his first seizures on the HepB vaccine. Oops, sorry... he was born several years before that was available (my 11-year-old daughter was the first child to get that at birth... she has had no health problems, other than being a pre-teenage girl who likes manga and anime!).

Then I've had folks blame his seizure when he was a toddler on the MMR.

Uh, no... at that time he was suffering from a terrible gastrointestinal bug, and was seriously dehydrated.

... a nasty bug that may have been preventable with the newest rotavirus vaccine.

[Yuri Nalyssus]

Well let me clue you in on something.
Either way, yes, if some freak occurance were to happen where my child caused the death or serious illness of another child, my very first thought would be "What did I do?"
And if not vaccinating were the answer, I'd just "own" that.
Knowing that transmission could have been avoided if your child had been proteted by vaccination would probably be little comfort to the parent of the child with measles meningitis; still, just as long as your conscience is clear.

I'm also permanently epileptic now, probably from the old DTP.
"Probably" is a very tenuous basis for arguing that vaccination should be abolished.

Yuri

[kellyb]

Then when he was 15 months, he had a grand mal... oh, about two weeks after getting the MMR.



Then I've had folks blame his seizure when he was a toddler on the MMR.

Uh, no... at that time he was suffering from a terrible gastrointestinal bug, and was seriously dehydrated.

... a nasty bug that may have been preventable with the newest rotavirus vaccine
You do see the irony of that story in the context of this thread, don't you?
"Probably" is a very tenuous basis for arguing that vaccination should be abolished.

Yuri
Now where have I argued any such thing?

[Yuri Nalyssus]

Now where have I argued any such thing?
I have asked twice what your aim is concerning vaccines and had no response, I would be interested to know.

'Probably' is a very tenuous basis for arguing the abolition of vaccination, it's also a very tenuous basis for any reasoned crtiticism of vaccination.

Yuri

[kellyb]

I have asked twice what your aim is concerning vaccines and had no response, I would be interested to know.

'Probably' is a very tenuous basis for arguing the abolition of vaccination, it's also a very tenuous basis for any reasoned crtiticism of vaccination.

Yuri
I apologize for not responding. I was a little overwhelmed by the quantity of responses after a certain point.
All I really want is full disclosure of the true risks and benefits, and total freedom to choose what to do after that.
And no, this is not like alien/government conspiracy theories.
Show me one, just one, government document that refers to and actual conspiracy to cover up the truth about aliens and I'll admit it's the same.
I don't advocate ending the eradication of polio.
I'm just pissed off that the down side of vaccination is hidden. I'm mad that toxicology studies on mercury weren't done before it was an issue, and I'm pissed off that the studies done after the fact were either buried or watered down before being released.
You have to actually read the simpsonwood transcript to follow what happened later, though, and to understand what happened with thimerosal and why it was taken out of vaxes.
I'm pissed off at the US FDA. They've let a lot of things slip by.
I've read Capsid's link on new regulations for BVDV a few times, and I'm not really seeing anything at all about PCR testing for BVDV and only letting the negative serums in for human vax use.
I'm seeing the same old cell assay tests that have been used since the 80's, with the unspoken G-radiation processing used since the 80's. The main, new recommendation now is trying to find herds free from BVDV, which, IMO, isn't possible.

[Capsid]

The guidelines advise testing for infectious virus, a PCR test won't do that, so the "old" cell assay are the appropriate means to demonstrate infectious virus. Just because they are old does not make them invalid. This and the gamma radiation will ensure no BVDV is present in FCS.

[kellyb]

The guidelines advise testing for infectious virus, a PCR test won't do that, so the "old" cell assay are the appropriate means to demonstrate infectious virus. Just because they are old does not make them invalid. This and the gamma radiation will ensure no BVDV is present in FCS.
So how is that different from anything that was going on in the 1980's when most live vaxes for human use were contaminated with pestiviruses, tested by cell assay, and gamma irradiated before being distributed and tested in human vaxes?
The only difference now that I'm seeing is an urging by the regulatory authorities to try to find bovine herds free from BVDV.
And the reason, logically, would be that you can't, reliably, get it out if it's in the serum to begin with.
Coz like I said before, by the time you kill all your viruses, you've killed your serum, too.
The best gamma irradiation gets is a 6 or 7 fold decrease in viruses. Which is good, but not good enough if the remaining viruses grow alongside the virus you're trying to cuture.

[Capsid]

I'm not sure that the FCS was tested in the 1980s. The guideline was issued in 2003 so there was no requirement for this before that time. Do you have information that says otherwise?

Why does killing viruses also kill the serum? The irradiation destroys infectious DNA/RNA not the growth factors (proteins) required for cell culture.

[Hydrogen Cyanide]

You do see the irony of that story in the context of this thread, don't you?

Now where have I argued any such thing?

Actually, not really. You'll have to clarify.

Quote by HCN:
.... a nasty bug that may have been preventable with the newest rotavirus vaccine

What part of "may" did you fail to understand?

There is a small possibility that if my son had not had that illness (which was either similar OR the same as the disease the rotavirus is supposed to prevent) he would not have had the last nasty seizure. Even if that did not have anything to do with his severe motor speech issues and ongoing learning disabilites, I would have rather had the vaccine than the disease.

Edited for more thoughts.

[Yuri Nalyssus]

I apologize for not responding. I was a little overwhelmed by the quantity of responses after a certain point.
Feelings run high on this issue.

And no, this is not like alien/government conspiracy theories.
Show me one, just one, government document that refers to and actual conspiracy to cover up the truth about aliens and I'll admit it's the same.
The point is it's possible to take the precautionary principle too far. If you're going to reject the use of something as life saving as vaccines on the basis that there may be some intangible, undisclosed conspiracy going on to keep some unspecified risk from the public then that's fine so long as it only applies to you and your family. If your actions endanger others then you have to be prepared to listen while those others defend themselves.

I don't advocate ending the eradication of polio.
This is quite a circumspect reply. Where do you see vaccination fitting in to the eradication of polio?

I'm just pissed off that the down side of vaccination is hidden. I'm mad that toxicology studies on mercury weren't done before it was an issue, and I'm pissed off that the studies done after the fact were either buried or watered down before being released.
Me too; I'm pissed off at any cover up by "business" whether it's asbestos safety, mandatory seatbelts in cars or the risks of smoking tobacco. It is a fact of life that big business is complacent and protectionist. That's why sceptics like most of the people on this list are so important, to make these things *issues* and make sure the studies are done. But that is no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water - vaccination is not perfect but it is one of the most important innovations in the history of medicine and has saved millions of lives.

Yuri

[Hydrogen Cyanide]

You do see the irony of that story in the context of this thread, don't you?

Now where have I argued any such thing?

Hmmm... just noticed you snipped out the bit about my kid not getting vaccinated for pertussis, especially at a time he could not rely on herd immunity because the county (which is has a large percentage of people who do not vax for no particular reason) was having a pertussis epidemic.

This same county gets outbreaks of measles every so often. The largest was when a kid came back from visiting Korea and spread measles around his private school:
http://www.metrokc.gov/HEALTH/news/01021901.htm