The Science of Sustainability

Vaccine Waivers, Informed Consent and Public Health

  • share this article
  • Facebook
  • Email
measles virus virion

This electron micrograph image shows the structure of a single virus particle, or “virion,” of measles virus. Before 1963, about 3 to 4 million people got measles each year and an average of 450 people died, mostly children. After the vaccine became available, the number of measles cases dropped by 98%. (Image: CDC/ Cynthia S. Goldsmith; William Bellini, PhD)

Gov. Jerry Brown has made it just a little bit harder for parents to refuse or skip vaccinations for their children.

By signing AB 2109 into law last month, Brown strengthened one of the nation's most permissive school immunization requirements. Under existing law, California parents could choose which vaccinations to reject simply by signing a form saying “all or some immunizations are contrary to my beliefs.”

Now, at least, their beliefs will need to be informed by actual science.

State laws require children entering private or public school to get immunized to reduce the risk of spreading infectious diseases to their classmates. All states allow medical exemptions for children with allergies, immunodeficiency or other conditions, and most allow exemptions on religious grounds.

California is one of 20 states that allow parents to opt out of laws requiring children to get vaccinated before they enter school simply because they choose not to.

Costs of easy exemptions
In California, personal belief exemption rates rose slowly between 1996 and 2007, from half a percent to 1.5 percent. But between 2008 and 2010, according to a study published in the American Journal of Public Health in August, the number of children with one or more personal belief exemptions increased by 25%.

That means more than 11,500 kids showed up in classrooms, playgrounds, and after-school activities without their vaccinations in 2010. Even more troubling, the number of kindergartners who attended schools with more than 20 exempted classmates more than doubled. Exempt children are clustering within the same schools, putting themselves—and their peers—at greater risk of an epidemic.

The San Francisco Bay Area has among the highest clustering of exemptions in the state, while Santa Cruz County ranks in the top 10 counties for all three measures analyzed: prevalence (proportion of students with exemptions), exposure (the likelihood a child would interact with an exempt classmate) and vulnerability (a measure of the risk of disease outbreak resulting from compromised herd immunity).

This late 1960s photograph shows a Nigerian mother and her child, who was recovering from measles. The child’s skin is peeling as his measles infection heals. Measles victims in poor countries where other diseases are prevalent often require intensive nursing to avoid complications, including subsequent infections. (Image: CDC)

The resurgence of vaccine-preventable diseases, from pertussis to measles, implicates exemptions in the outbreaks. But without data on the incidence of these vaccine-preventable diseases, says public health researcher Alison Buttenheim, “we can’t say for certain that more personal belief exemptions cause higher disease risk.”

Yet Buttenheim, an assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing who led the study, says there’s one thing she knows for sure. “Parents who choose not to vaccinate are free-riders, relying on herd immunity maintained by those who do vaccinate to protect their children.”

Though Buttenheim didn’t have the data to study the link, other studies have found that exemptions tend to cluster geographically, increasing the risk of local disease outbreaks.

And in a recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine, states with looser exemption policies also had more cases of pertussis (or "whooping cough"), a bacterial infection that killed 10 infants in California in 2010. (Anyone who thinks babies don't suffer from pertussis never heard this cough.)

“Vaccine-preventable diseases are going to start in places where people are refusing,” says Roger Baxter, a physician, infectious disease expert and co-director of the Kaiser Permanente Vaccine Study Center in Oakland. “We have lots of evidence of that around the world. We’ve seen it. We know it will happen.”

That’s why some states are requiring parents to think through the risks of leaving their children—and their neighbors’ children—vulnerable to deadly pathogens by refusing some or all pediatric vaccinations.

Last year, Washington (and just last month Vermont) passed laws requiring parents to have a health care professional certify that they received information regarding the risks of immunization, as well as the risks of exposing their family and community to potentially deadly diseases by forgoing immunization.

Under California's new law, starting January 2014, parents seeking personal belief exemptions must do the same.

The bill, sponsored by state Assemblyman Richard Pan (D-Sacramento), a pediatrician and director of the UC Davis Pediatric Residency Program, is little more than an informed consent law. Anytime you undergo a medical procedure, your doctor is required by law to counsel you on its risks and benefits. The bill requires the same counseling for parents who want to avoid vaccination.

In signing the bill, Brown noted that those “whose religious beliefs preclude vaccinations” don’t need a health care practitioner’s signature. Until the new law takes effect, the state’s philosophical and personal belief exemptions cover religious objections, and parents’ signatures are sufficient in either case.

The myth of 100% safety
But for Baxter, vaccine refusal has veered into religion, with people obsessed with “uber-protection” and vaccine safety. “There’s nothing in this world that’s 100 percent safe,” he says.

“With vaccines, we expect some reactions like fevers or sore arms. But for serious adverse events, where we might expect 1 in 1,000 for most medications, if we see 1 in 100,000 for vaccines, we think it’s too much. Yet many people are worried about things that happen as rarely as 1 in a million. The benefits of vaccines far outweigh that.”

There’s a 1 to 2 in a million risk that the measles-controlling MMR vaccine will cause a serious adverse reaction like encephalitis or pneumonia. By contrast, 1 to 2 of every 1,000 measles cases ends in death.

Just as no vaccine is 100% safe, no vaccine is 100% effective. That’s why the concept of “herd immunity” is so important. When vaccination rates in a community reach a certain threshold (85% to 95% depending on the contagiousness of the disease), then those who can’t get vaccinated—because they’re too young, on immune-suppressing treatments like chemotherapy, or their immune system didn’t respond to the vaccine—are still protected.

But herd immunity relies on high-compliance with recommended pediatric vaccination schedules.

An the trouble is, you’re not likely to know if your child’s vaccination didn’t offer full protection until he comes home sick after going to school, soccer practice, or a play date with unvaccinated peers.

Opportunistic pathogens
In February 2010, the SF Department of Public Health issued a health alert about a measles outbreak. How it started is unclear. But two years earlier, 11 cases of measles in San Diego were traced to a seven-year-old unvaccinated boy who had traveled to Switzerland with his parents and came home with the measles. Within 19 days, he had infected his two siblings, five classmates, and four children—including three infants who were too young to be vaccinated—at his pediatrician’s office. One of the infants had to be hospitalized for severe dehydration, which can be fatal for babies.

The child who started the epidemic went to a school where 36 of 376 children—nearly 1 in 10—had personal belief exemptions.

That’s why some doctors have decided not to see families who shun vaccination. Some regularly treat very sick children and don’t want to risk exposing them to infections that could cause complications and even death. But most doctors that Baxter works with see the informed consent law as an opportunity to explain the risks to parents who didn’t really understand them.

rubella vaccine poster

Typically a mild childhood illness, rubella (also known as “German measles”) can pose a serious threat to the developing fetus if the mother is infected during pregnancy. More than 20,000 babies were born with congenital rubella syndrome (CRS) during an outbreak in 1964-65, before the US vaccine was licensed in 1969. CRS can cause diverse symptoms ranging from deafness to seizures, encephalitis, and developmental delays. (Image: CDC)

Before Brown signed the bill, anti-vaccination activists led by ex-SNL cast member Rob Schneider fought against the bill on the grounds of parental rights, child safety, and a list of myths too numerous to go into here. Incredibly, Sacramento-based TV News Channel 10 gave Schneider 11 minutes to spread his misinformation. He was joined by die-hard anti-vaccination activist Dawn Winkler and Tony Amador, a candidate for the Assembly seat held by the author of AB 2109, Richard Pan.

Activists like Winkler and Schneider tell people that vaccines are dangerous and parents should have the right to decide what’s best for their children. What’s really dangerous, though, is giving people like Schneider — who have little grasp of the facts about vaccines, immunology, or public health — a platform to spread their misinformed beliefs. Infectious disease experts know what Schneider can't seem to grasp. Infectious pathogens are remarkably adaptable and will readily exploit any weaknesses in herd immunity to make a roaring comeback.

In 2008, a pertussis outbreak at an El Sobrante Waldorf school forced public health officials to close the school temporarily. According to data filed with the California Department of Public Health, 68% of children attending that school have personal belief exemptions on file this year. Only 6% of children there are fully vaccinated.

The San Francisco Waldorf School isn't far behind, with personal belief exemptions for 59% of children, leaving 22% of students without all their vaccinations. At the Greenwood School in Mill Valley, where 79% of students have personal belief exemptions, only 2% of children are fully vaccinated.

It’s bad enough that people who don’t want to vaccinate are putting they own children at risk, Baxter says. “But they’re also putting their children’s friends at risk, they’re putting little babies who are too young to be vaccinated at risk, they’re putting immune-compromised kids at risk, and they’re putting their classmates at risk.”

People shouldn’t lull themselves into complacency thinking that high vaccination rates in general will protect their kids. “If there’s a pertussis outbreak,” Baxter says, “it’s going to start in schools with high personal exemption rates. Same with measles, varicella, any vaccine-preventable disease. They’re going to start in places where people are refusing.”

Parents have the right to ask school administrators to disclose the exemption rates at their child’s school. You can also go to the California Department of Public Health’s web site to find each school’s exemption rates.

It would be a good thing if parents refused to send their kids to schools with high exemption rates, Baxter says, rather than choosing schools where “parental rights” are viewed as more important than public health.

In the end, he adds, it takes a mandate to bring vaccinations up to the levels that can protect people from these diseases. “It’s the only thing that works because people are busy, or lazy—or have weird ideas.”

Or, in too many cases, they're getting medical advice from the likes of Rob Schneider instead of a doctor.

Related

Explore: , , , , ,

Category: Biology, Blog, Health

  • share this article
  • Facebook
  • Email
Liza Gross

About the Author ()

Liza Gross, a freelance science writer and senior editor at the biomedical journal PLOS Biology, channeled an early love of wildlife into a lifelong exploration of the numerous ways diverse species, including humans, interact in the natural world. She writes mostly about wildlife, conservation, and environmental health. Her stories reflect a deep curiosity about natural and social interactions and often highlight evolutionary relationships that remind humans of their place in, and responsibility to conserve, nature. Her article "Don't Jump!" published in Slate, won an ASJA award in the op-ed category. She's a visiting scholar at NYU, a 2013 recipient of NYU Reporting Award funding and a Dennis Hunt health journalism fellow. Read her previous contributions to QUEST, a project dedicated to exploring the Science of Sustainability.
  • liza

    Here's the link to the California Department of Health's Web site, where you can find the number of exemptions at your child's school: http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/immunize/Pages/ImmunizationLevels.aspx

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1512610486 Shannon Morgan

    If other kids are vaccinated, how are they at risk from the unvaccinated? Unless, you think vaccinations don't really work. If that's the case, shouldn't you be more concerned about fixing vaccines instead of pumping kids with more viruses that aren't working anyway.

    • http://twitter.com/mem_somerville mem_somerville

      My nephew–battling leukemia–needs the community to protect him. But if you don't care about other people's kids, what can I say. Not much of a community….

      • nina_c

        Don't you ever wonder how a child got cancer in the first place? Do you even know what's in the vaccines you wish to inject into children?

        • http://twitter.com/mem_somerville mem_somerville

          Wow, that's really twisted. He's an identical twin, whose twin didn't get leukemia.

          Sometimes cell division has accidents. Blaming whatever you dislike is a truly stupid way to understand and deal with an issue. Ready–fire–aim!

          And thank you for contributing to the risk that vulnerable members of our community face. Thankfully you are still outnumbered, but you could be very much like a cancer metastasizing around if we let clueless reactionaries like you drive discussion.

          • http://twitter.com/MrJeffSimon Jeff Simon

            Actually mem_somerville, it's the vaccinated that are outnumbered. More than half the population are old enough that their vaccines have worn out. If we needed the "Herd" to be 75%+ vaccinated, we'd have all manner of infectious disease in extraordinary numbers. You can't count heads in a classroom, and ignore the adults who a child would encounter upon leaving school. Blessings to your nephew, you, and your family.

    • liza

      It's explained in the article.

    • http://twitter.com/ejwillingham Emily Willingham

      Always a key straw man question from those who oppose vaccines. The answer is obvious: There are groups of people who cannot, for medical reasons, be vaccinated and thus are vulnerable. Among these are infants before they receive the pertussis vaccine, the medically fragile, and those who do have genuine allergies to vaccine components or severe reactions to vaccines themselves. Protecting our children and ourselves with vaccines protects these groups, as well. Vaccines do not "pump kids" with viruses. Infectious diseases do that; vaccines prevent it.

      • Medical Freedom

        People who have been vaccinated with live viruses such as with the nasal flu vaccine and shingles vaccine are shedding live viruses and spreading disease. How are they protecting these medically fragile people who cannot get vaccinated? Seems to me there is a double standard when mainstream medical folks say we need to get vaccinated to protect the medically fragile.

        • White_and_Nerdy

          Correction: anti-vaccs prey upon folks that don't
          understand concepts like attenuated virus.

          Just another example
          as to why the anti-vaccs are marginalized to posting on the Net.

          W&N

    • White_and_Nerdy

      Personally I am very
      concerned that our education system produces people like you that can't see the
      innumeracy in your argument.

      Did you make any
      effort at all to understand the math?

      W&N

  • http://www.nvic.org/ NVICFactCheck

    This article is biased, and obviously written for the purposes propagandizing, fear mongering and setting parent against parent who are in the quest to simply do what is right for their children. Smoke and mirrors abound here to create an illusion that there is a dangerous fire that needs to be quickly eradicated.

    We start with this statement, “Now, at least, their beliefs will need to be informed by actual science.” The truth is there are no “myths” involved when stating that vaccines, like any pharmaceutical product, most certainly involve risks both known and unknown. Nor is it a myth that many of parental concerns lie in the well identified gaps in vaccine safety science. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) issued a historic report last year that acknowledged there is not enough quality vaccine science in the medical literature to determine whether or not many of the vaccines routinely given to children and adults cause more than 100 different types of brain and immune system dysfunction. IOM found that, out of 158 serious brain and immune system disorders reportedly associated with eight different commonly used vaccines, there were either no studies or too few methodologically sound studies to make a causation determination either way for 135 (85%) of them. For more information on the IOM Vaccine Safety Review and public comment made by Barbara Loe Fisher of the National Vaccine Information center please use the following link. http://tinyurl.com/cqegael

    Parents, like Rob Schneider and Dawn Winkler, who take the time to educate themselves find out there is a great deal of factual information concerning gaps in vaccine safety that their doctor either doesn’t know or isn’t willing to share with them. Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has declared vaccines "unavoidably unsafe" and have given drug companies a total liability shield from lawsuits, and that vaccine injury and death compensation awarded by the federal government to victims will soon exceed $2.5 billion – http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/statisticsreports.html#Stats – the public’s lack of trust in vaccines is likely to rise.

    Gross also states “The resurgence of vaccine-preventable diseases, from pertussis to measles, implicates exemptions in the outbreaks.” followed by “And the trouble is, you’re not likely to know if your child’s vaccination didn’t offer full protection until he comes home sick after going to school, soccer practice, or a play date with unvaccinated peers.” Dr. Baxter states, “If there’s a pertussis outbreak, it’s going to start in schools with high personal exemption rates. Same with measles, varicella, any vaccine-preventable disease. They’re going to start in places where people are refusing.” While the article tries to paint a picture of shocking concern, according to the this article there have been only 2 “outbreaks” of measles since 2008 involving a total of 15 people and a pertussis outbreak that has been attributed to failure in the vaccine providing long term immunity.

    Where pertussis is concerned, CDC has been extremely clear that the cause of outbreaks cannot be attributed to declining vaccination rates, as this article claims, but is most likely the result of waning vaccine immunity. CDC tells us “They [Pertussis vaccines] typically offer high levels of protection within the first two years of getting vaccinated, but then protection decreases over time. This is known as waning immunity.” http://tinyurl.com/9cyzeqp.

    With regard to measles, this article fails to note a measles outbreak in 1985 in Corpus Christi, Texas occurred in a school where more than 99 percent of the students were fully vaccinated that lead researchers to conclude that measles can occur when “99 percent of the students have been vaccinated and more than 95 percent are immune.” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3821823. It also fails to provide balance on the question of this vaccine and waning, as there are also studies that demonstrate measles outbreaks can occur in fully vaccinated populations. http://www.nvic.org/vaccines-and-diseases/Measles.aspx#effectivev Again, no “myth” is involved in these statements.

    Given the acknowledged gaps in vaccine safety research, research on outbreaks within vaccinated populations and recent statements by the CDC, it is simply unreasonable and dishonest to blame every individual case of disease on an unvaccinated person. Yet, CA felt it necessary to intervene in parental rights by requiring that they pay a doctor for a signature and “information on vaccines” when most parents making selective vaccination choices have already researched the subject and made an educated decision.

    Dr. Roger Baxter is quoted as saying, “There’s nothing in this world that’s 100 percent safe,” he says. “With vaccines, we expect some reactions like fevers or sore arms. But for serious adverse events, where we might expect 1 in 1,000 for most medications, if we see 1 in 100,000 for vaccines, we think it’s too much. Yet many people are worried about things that happen as rarely as 1 in a million. The benefits of vaccines far outweigh that.” He also says, “ There’s a 1 to 2 in a million risk that the measles-controlling MMR vaccine will cause a serious adverse reaction like encephalitis or pneumonia.” Dr. Baxter can not begin to qualify the expected number of serious adverse reactions to vaccines given the gaps in vaccine safety science identified in the IOM report referenced above and the fact that it is estimated that less than 10 percent, perhaps less than one percent of all vaccine-related health problems are ever reported to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System, the only official reporting source in the U.S. for vaccine injury.

    Both Gross and Dr. Baxter demonize educated parents for opting to alternatively vaccinate, or opting not to vaccinate, and appear to have forgotten that it is government who is responsible for maintaining trust in the country’s vaccination recommendations and mandates and in vaccine safety. The fact most vaccine studies are funded by vaccine manufacturers or academic researchers, whose universities receive funds from drug companies, or federal health and defense agencies, which have entered into a formal public-private business partnership with vaccine manufacturers does not inspire trust.

    Informed consent to medical risk taking is a human right. People have the right to be fully informed about the benefits and risks of pharmaceutical products – like vaccines – and be allowed to make a voluntary choice about whether or not to take the risk without being punished for it.

    While vaccination rates are still very high across the country and in California, with only 2 to 4 % of kindergartners opting out of 1 or more vaccines according to CDC http://tinyurl.com/9lucypj, the real bottom line is physicians like Dr. Baxter and biased journalists like Liza Gross can name call, fear monger, attempt to insight class warfare, and try to set parent against parent all they want. The reality is, the number of vaccine exemptions are likely to continue to increase as long as what parents hear from CDC, public health professionals, AAP, pediatricians and journalists remains so out of sync with the hard facts surrounding the gaps in vaccine safety science vs. the real threat from many of our vaccine preventable diseases.

    National Vaccine Information Center – Your Health, Your Family, Your Choice – http://www.nvic.org

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=528947525 Charlie Bachmann

      Thank you!

    • http://twitter.com/ejwillingham Emily Willingham

      FYI, "NVIC" is a propaganda machine against vaccines, not an unbiased informational resource, as they would like its name to imply.

      • http://www.nvic.org/ NVICFactCheck

        NVIC takes great pride in "getting it right." We are happy to address any point that you think is "propaganda."

    • White_and_Nerdy

      Correction: NVIC is
      an organization that makes money by scaring parents about vaccines. Its president, Ms Fisher, has been described
      by scientists as lying about vaccines. Ms Fisher didn't like this and so she
      sued–she lost.

      I think your comment
      here make it clear exactly why she lost.

      By paragraph number….

      #1: truth is
      biased. Parents' with an honest interest
      in the science use real scientists as their information sources.

      #2: strange…you didn't
      provide a link to the IOM report that you make claims about. Here it is: http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13164&page=1

      You have clearly grossly misrepresented the IOM's position
      which is very clear (e.g. page 28) where they describe vaccines as
      overwhelmingly safe and effective.

      You did provide a link to comments by Ms Fisher that don't
      stand up to the most childish effort at fact-checking.

      #3: Utter BS. The Supreme Court ruling is here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-152.pdf

      The assertion that they ruled vaccines as "unavoidably
      unsafe" is a complete fabrication.

      Similarly, the assertion that drug companies were given total
      liability shield from lawsuits is also a complete fabrication. Rather the Court clearly explains how all US families
      can sue for alleged vaccine injuries.

      I believe that NVIC is complete dishonest on this issue because
      they don't want parents reading the existing US Civil court cases. E.g.: http://mdcourts.gov/opinions/coa/2009/112a08.pdf

      Where the Courts clear detail how the vaccine critics are
      complete scams.

      #4: "..there
      have been only 2 “outbreaks”
      of measles since 2008 involving a total of 15 people." Once again NVIC is not truthful.

      E.g.:

      http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6133a2.htm?s_cid=mm6133a2_w

      "In 2011,
      CDC reported 17 outbreaks of measles.."

      http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6115a1.htm?s_cid=mm6115a1_w

      32% of cases required hospitalization. Misinformation
      from anti-vaccs like NVIC bear some responsibility for these peoples'
      illnesses.

      #5: your link doesn't
      support your assertion that the CDC doesn't attribute these outbreaks to unvaccinated
      individuals. To the contrary, the CDC
      has been very clear on the role that unvaccinated people have in the outbreaks:
      http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6128a1.htm?s_cid=mm6128a1_w

      Once again, you simply get the most basic facts wrong.

      #6: Your comments on measles
      in highly vaccinated populations fail middle-school math and basic
      literacy. Do you truly not understand
      the statement “99 percent of the
      students have been vaccinated and more than 95 percent are IMMUNE.” ?

      #7: Your comments are just a straw-man argument
      and you literally argue against educating parents.

      #8: Your comments are absurd and demonstrate your
      total failure to understand vaccine safety data. You don't even know which data to refer
      readers to.

      #9

      " The fact
      most vaccine studies are funded by vaccine manufacturers or academic
      researchers, whose universities receive funds from drug companies, or federal
      health and defense agencies, which have entered into a formal public-private
      business partnership with vaccine manufacturers does not inspire trust. "

      Vaccine studies
      can be found here:

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

      Clearly the vast
      majority of vaccine studies are preformed without any funding from vaccine
      companies. Again NVIC is caught just
      making things up and clear has no knowledge of the most basic facts.

      #10:

      Clearly
      you have zero understanding of what informed consent means:

      http://www.emedicinehealth.com/informed_consent/page4_em.htm

      #11:

      Again NVIC is caught
      just making things up. Fact is
      vaccination rates are stable/trending upwards:

      http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6135a1.htm

      Bottom line: most parents utter reject NVIC POV not just
      because it is void of a coherent thought…but also because they endanger people's
      lives.

      W&N

      • http://www.nvic.org/ NVICFactCheck

        W&N, it's the weekend, so we'll get back with you on Monday to do the same dance we've done before. Maybe we'll start by linking to the articles where we've answered many of these same false accusations & misinformation already. In the meantime maybe you could tell us who YOU are…as you failed to answer that question last time we went rounds.

        • White_and_Nerdy

          By "dance"
          you mean I will continue to provide links for readers to fact-check and you
          will ignore the fact that NVIC systematically deceives parents.

          And I do very much appreciate
          your continued comments about my identity…rather perfectly captures the
          anti-vaccs….we have:

          Distraction…my
          identity has nothing to do with the merits of arguments,

          Staggering hypocrisy…since
          you choose to post under a pseudonym,

          Complete lack of
          thought….anyone can post under any handle here….and regardless as to what
          one posts about one's identity, you can never know if it is true or not….

          You might recall
          that I choose to remain anonymous due to many years of threats from
          anti-vaccs….including threats to murder people and their children.

          In each case you
          refused to condemn the anti-vaccs use of threats—this reflects entirely upon
          you as a person.

          W&N…still
          waiting for a truthful argument from you.

      • Common Ground

        W&N, Please don't take this the wrong way, but I think you need to calm down. Your emotions seem to be getting in the way of your reading comprehension.

        I haven't had time to follow all your links, but I did notice that your #4 point missed the part of NVIC's sentence where they said "…according to this article…" NVIC didn't say there had only been 2 outbreaks and 15 people, they were describing what the article was saying.

        I think your arguments will be much more cogent and convincing if you slow down, take a deep breath and try to relax a little bit. It's really not healthy to let yourself get so riled up.

        • White_and_Nerdy

          "…according
          to this article…"

          I did read
          correctly.

          I noticed that there
          was no article–NVICfactchecker didn't give any reference to support the
          assertion.

          And more to the
          point, it takes ~5secs to demonstrate that the assertion wasn't true.

          Now, do you want
          to go through the other 10 paragraphs of NVIC misinformation?

          W&N

          • Common Ground

            W&N,

            It's this article. The article we're all commenting on.
            I'm not sure how you missed that and it just makes me even more concerned about your well-being. Please take care of yourself. Peace to you.

          • White_and_Nerdy

            Then I guess I missed it.
            Why don't you quote the relevant text from this article.

            And why don't you care that the self-appointed fact-checker
            from NVIC didn't?

            W&N

          • White_and_Nerdy

            So common ground,
            I take it from your silence that in fact this article did not include the claims made by NVICfactchecker….who is caught just making things up again.
            W&N

      • http://www.nvic.org/ NVICFactCheck

        By dance, I mean the same old song and dance we usually do. I think I summarized it well in our July exchange to Forbes Magazine,http://tinyurl.com/8cy5z72 , where I say, “W&N, it is stunning how you accuse others of lying and then you attempt to substantiate that claim with disinformation and word plays,”…..and here we go again.

        Let me first address your claim that NVICFactCheck is a pseudonym. As you well know, NVICFactCheck is NVIC. http://tinyurl.com/9ecdxaf

        Your identity is relevant in that your tactics leave one wondering what vested interest you have in this issue. You are very sarcastic and demeaning and most of your comments include accusations with little or no citations to support your claims or are outright false. When NVIC posts a comment we are clear as to the fact that it is NVIC commenting, yet you use a pseudonym and despite being proven wrong, continue to comment in one article after the next with the same false rhetoric.

        We will once again address your accusations point-by-point. I think when I am through, it will become obvious who is more credible source of honest and factual information and who is engaging in tactics that are less than honest.

        W&N – Correction: NVIC is an organization that makes money by scaring parents about vaccines. Its president, Ms Fisher, has been described by scientists as lying about vaccines. Ms Fisher didn't like this and so she sued–she lost.

        NVIC – is a registered 501(c)3 charitable organization and our annual report can be found on our home page at http://www.nvic.org

        “Scientists” have not accused Barbara Loe Fisher of ‘Lying,” Paul Offit did. He is just one scientist and a very controversial one at that and he never stated what it was the she supposedly lied about. Offit has never put forth one example of a lie that she told and neither have you. As to the law suit, Fisher did not "loose" the case she filed against him when he called her a liar in the Wired article you've referenced. Instead the judge ruled not to let the case go to trial. On this topic Barbara Loe Fisher explains that, " [Judge] Hilton said that protection of First Amendment free speech rights are “at their zenith” in this case because Paul Offit and I are public figures debating an issue of “substantial public concern.” FisherHere is Barbara Loe Fisher's commentary on this topic. http://tinyurl.com/9a6wfqj

        W&N #1: truth is biased. Parents' with an honest interest in the science use real scientists as their information sources.

        NVIC – Paragraph #1 references IOM. So are you saying the Institutes of Medicine are not comprised of real scientists?

        W&N #2: strange…you didn't provide a link to the IOM report that you make claims about. Here it is: http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13164&page=1

        You have clearly grossly misrepresented the IOM's positionwhich is very clear (e.g. page 28) where they describe vaccines asoverwhelmingly safe and effective.You did provide a link to comments by Ms Fisher that don't stand up to the most childish effort at fact-checking.

        NVIC – We provided a link via our website but here are more direct links with specific quotes in support of our position on IOM.

        Report in Brief – “For the vast majority, (135 vaccine-adverse event pairs), the evidence is inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship. In many cases, the adverse event being examined is an extremely rare condition, making it hard to study. In these cases, there was not adequate evidence to determine if the vac- cine was or was not causally associated.” http://tinyurl.com/9mj6cf2

        Here are some of the specific quotes from IOM regarding adverse events and gaps in vaccine safety science with citation.

        Stratton K, Ford A, Rusch E, Clayton EW, editors. Adverse Effects of Vaccines: Evidence and Causality. Committee to Review Adverse Effects of Vaccines. National Academies Press: 2011. (Chapter on Increased Susceptibility – pages 70-73) http://tinyurl.com/9xe6khj

        "Both epidemiologic and mechanistic research suggest that most individuals who experience an adverse reaction have a preexisting susceptibility. These predispositions can exist for a number of reasons – genetic variants (in human or microbiome DNA), environmental exposures, behaviors, intervening illness or developmental stage, to name just a few – all of which can interact."

        "Some of these adverse reactions are specific to the particular vaccine, while others may not be. Some of these predispositions may be detectable prior to the administration of vaccine; others, at least with current technology and practice, are not. Moreover, the occurrence of the adverse event is often the first sign of the underlying condition that confers susceptibility."

        "Many adverse events appear to be immune-mediated."

        "Rechallenge cases (those in which a person suffered a particular adverse event after each administration of the same vaccine) also suggest a role for an altered immune response."

        "Much work remains to be done to elucidate and to develop strategies to document the immunologic mechanisms that lead to adverse effects in some individuals."

        "This list of factors that are known to confer susceptibility is by no means definitive or exhaustive. Rather, we hypothesize that continued study of alleged vaccine related injuries, informed by epidemiologic studies that identify vulnerable populations and exploration of underlying mechanisms of susceptibility, will provide greater insight into these and other mechanisms and will identify more factors that contribute to vaccine susceptibility."

        Evidence Inadequate to Accept or Reject a Causal Relationship, http://tinyurl.com/9mj6cf2

        W&N #3: Utter BS. The Supreme Court ruling is here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-152.pdf The assertion that they ruled vaccines as "unavoidably

        unsafe" is a complete fabrication.

        NVIC – Fabrication? Another example of creating a completely false accusation and hoping no one actually goes to the link you provided to find out for themselves who is being truthful. All one need do is search The Supreme Court ruling through the very link you provided for the words “unavoidably unsafe” and read all about how their decision was very much based in this premise.

        W&N – Similarly, the assertion that drug companies were given total

        liability shield from lawsuits is also a complete fabrication. Rather the Court clearly explains how all US families can sue for alleged vaccine injuries.

        NVIC – We’ve already answered this in great detail. See the July Forbes article titled “Anti-Vaccine Movement Causes The Worst Whooping Cough Epidemic In 70 Years” Expanded Comments, Pg 5 http://tinyurl.com/8cy5z72 The article in Forbes is another prime example of the tactics you use in an effort to twist reality and manipulate the reader.

        W&N – I believe that NVIC is complete dishonest on this issue because they don't want parents reading the existing US Civil court cases. E.g.: http://mdcourts.gov/opinions/coa/2009/112a08.pdf Where the Courts clear detail how the vaccine critics are

        complete scams.

        NVIC – 1st, we’ve proven above that there is absolutely no dishonesty on our part. 2nd, we encourage parents to read and educate themselves as fully as possible prior to making any medical decision for themselves or their family members, which goes to our mission of informed consent. http://tinyurl.com/9g3pq7v

        W&N – #4: "..there have been only 2 “outbreaks” of measles since 2008 involving a total of 15 people." Once again NVIC is not truthful. E.g.: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6133a2.htm?s_cid=mm6133a2_w"In 2011, CDC reported 17 outbreaks of measles.." http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6115a1.htm?s_cid=mm6115a1_w 32% of cases required hospitalization. Misinformation from anti-vaccs like NVIC bear some responsibility for these peoples'illnesses.

        NVIC – You have grossly manipulated our quote. We were obviously speaking to the information provided in the article pertaining to California cases. What we said was, “While the article tries to paint a picture of shocking concern, according to the this article there have been only 2 “outbreaks” of measles since 2008 involving a total of 15 people and a pertussis outbreak that has been attributed to failure in the vaccine providing long term immunity.” We were not referencing the nation wide case numbers.

        W&N – #5: your link doesn't support your assertion that the CDC doesn't attribute these outbreaks to unvaccinated individuals. To the contrary, the CDC has been very clear on the role that unvaccinated people have in the outbreaks: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6128a1.htm?s_cid=mm6128a1_w Once again, you simply get the most basic facts wrong.

        NVIC – You say “CDC has been very clear on the role unvaccinated people have in the outbreaks.” REALLY? Why don’t you provide an actual quote from CDC’s MMWR that attributes the rise in pertussis to the unvaccinated? Oh, wait they don’t actually do that. Again here is the CDC quote “attributing” the increase to waning immunity. “The incidence of reported pertussis has increased in the United States after reaching historic lows in the 1970s. Since 2007, children aged 7–10 years have accounted for a substantial proportion of pertussis cases in the United States, a finding attributed to waning immunity in persons fully vaccinated with acellular vaccines in childhood.”http://tinyurl.com/9j6tsrv . And here CDC

        W&N – #6: Your comments on measles in highly vaccinated populations fail middle-school math and basic literacy. Do you truly not understand the statement “99 percent of the students have been vaccinated and more than 95 percent are IMMUNE.” ?

        NVIC – It would seem you are the one who isn’t grasping the point, which is very simply and quite obviously that those who are fully vaccinated against measles can sometimes still contract measles. Let me help you with the math…99% vaccinated – 95% with vaccine immunity = 4% with waning vaccine immunity. The vaccinated school population were left vulnerable to catching measles. Wow! That’s as least 2% more than those who have received a philosophical vaccine waiver for “one or more” vaccines in the state of California. Now who is most likely to spread measles?

        W&N – #7: Your comments are just a straw-man argument and you literally argue against educating parents.

        NVIC – Anyone familiar with our organization knows that is not true….but you’re entitled to your opinion.

        W&N – #8: Your comments are absurd and demonstrate your total failure to understand vaccine safety data. You don't even know which data to refer readers to.

        NVIC – Again, the greater concern lies in the gaps in data. You’ve said nothing and provided no substance here to further your position.

        W&N – #9 " The fact most vaccine studies are funded by vaccine manufacturers or academic researchers, whose universities receive funds from drug companies, or federal health and defense agencies, which have entered into a formal public-private business partnership with vaccine manufacturers does not inspire trust. " Vaccine studies can be found here:

        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed Clearly the vast majority of vaccine studies are preformed without any funding from vaccine companies. Again NVIC is caught just making things up and clear has no knowledge of the most basic facts.

        NVIC – We are referring to the very studies you reference in your NIH link. That link actually takes one to PubMed which is an online library. As PubMed describes itself it, “comprises more than 22 million citations for biomedical literature from MEDLINE, life science journals, and online books. Citations may include links to full-text content from PubMed Central and publisher web sites.” A study’s presence in PubMed does not mean it is an NIH study or that the study is either independent or funded by governmwnr. Another glaring example of the smoke & mirrors game you play. You’ve proven nothing here.

        W&N – #10: Clearly you have zero understanding of what informed consent means: http://www.emedicinehealth.com/informed_consent/page4_em.htm

        NVIC – You’ve provided a very inadequate definition of informed consent. This definition from AMA would be much more appropriate.http://tinyurl.com/9hoypoh . Here Is NVIC’s position on the issue with numerous citations. http://www.nvic.org/informed-consent.aspx

        W&N – #11: Again NVIC is caught just making things up. Fact is

        vaccination rates are stable/trending upwards: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6135a1.htm

        NIVC – Did you actually read the article or what we said here? It is the ENTIRE premise of the Quest article that vaccination rates are declining at an alarming rate (that isn’t) thus the need for the California legislature to make obtaining a philosophical waiver more difficult.

        W&N – Bottom line: most parents utter reject NVIC POV not just

        because it is void of a coherent thought…but also because they endanger people's

        lives.

        NVIC – Our mission is to inform. We go to painstaking effort to “get it right” and provide extensive citations to support our claims. Individuals are responsible for doing their own research and making their own decisions.

        • Twyla

          You tell 'em, NVICFactCheck!

          • White_and_Nerdy

            In other words you still refuse to fact-check any of the
            NVIC assertions…how typical…and exactly why some folks support the CA law.

            W&N

        • White_and_Nerdy

          New nonsense from "NVICfactchecker"….has there
          ever been a greater misnomer?

          (A) The comments are on page 5 of the Forbes comments
          section. It is very silly of you to
          continue making things up–I never accused anyone of lying–when everyone can
          see you are fabricating statements.

          (B) You still have failed to think correctly about handles. Anyone can create a profile using any name
          and it is absolutely 100% impossible for us to know if you are the same person
          as the one in the link from the NVIC page.

          Fine, I am happy to believe that you are Pamela….your link
          just reminds us of the absurdity of using someone with a B.B.A. in Management
          with Minor in Communications as a source for scientific information. Our children deserve real answers from real scientists.

          (C) That you choose
          not to ask vaccine critics to reveal their identity is profoundly
          hypocritical. That you continue to
          pretend that death threats are not a reasonable cause to choose to remain anonymous
          is absurd. That after months of this
          subject coming up you continue to refuse to condemn anti-vaccs threats to kill
          people/their children reveals a lot about you as a human being.

          (D) "… accusations with little or no citations to support your claims or are
          outright false." Thanks for the
          irony.

          I have already
          provided you with 9 references to the primary sources. The only thing false have been your comments
          where you are still batting zero on getting the basic facts correct.

          (E) On the
          lawsuit. Your link doesn't work for me.

          Anyway, you are
          very wrong. Offit call her a liar in national
          media. FTR many other scientists have also
          called Fisher a liar… you just don't seem to know any actual scientists.

          And to be very
          clear, Fisher's lawsuit was dismissed by the court. And if you read the court's words the last
          paragraph is key. The court took pains
          to point out how Ms Fisher could advance her cause…she would just have to
          testify under oath…where perjury laws are in effect. 2+ years later and she hasn't done so….seems
          pretty revealing.

          W&N

        • White_and_Nerdy

          Now for the old
          NVICfactchecker nonsense.

          W&N #1: Big deal you gave a reference. One also needs accurate commentary.

          W&N#2: All you provided was selective quoting of the
          IOM report which described vaccines as overwhelmingly safe–a report that you
          offered as a criticism of vaccine safety.
          You clearly have utterly failed to understand the IOM report.

          Big
          surprise: your bachelors in management
          didn't prepare you to understand the biology, physiology, immunology,
          toxicology, statistics, etc, etc….exactly why one should get science from
          scientists.

          W&N#3:

          (i) "The
          assertion that they ruled vaccines as "unavoidably unsafe" is a
          complete fabrication." The 25 word
          ruling is on page 2 of the PDF….it starts with the title
          "HELD"–nothing here about unavoidably unsafe.

          The description
          of what an " unavoidably unsafe" is on page 12 of the PDF….look at
          that, none of the vaccines on the schedule are unavoidably unsafe.

          Once again NVIC
          continues to just make things up.

          (ii) Here are
          your exact words from above: " and
          have given drug companies a total liability shield from lawsuits." This statement can not be any clearer and it
          is not true.

          Here are the
          courts words (page 6 of the PDF):

          " At that point, a claimant has two options: to accept the court’s
          judgment and forgo a traditional tort suit for damages, or to reject the
          judgment and seek tort relief from the vaccine manufacturer."

          This is also very clear.
          After going through the Vaccine
          Court, a family can reject the judgment and sue
          the vaccine manufacturer.

          Once again NVIC is caught deceiving parents and your only action
          has been to try and obfuscate the facts.

          (iii) you can assert anything you want about your
          intentions, the fact is your actions are to hide critical information from
          parents.

          Still this is really simple.
          You can prove your intentions by prominently posting on the NVIC
          homepage important information…like the Blackwell ruling…

          W&N#4: OK, but you didn't say California and you got the number of
          patients in the 2008 and 2011 outbreaks wrong.

          http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6121a1.htm

          http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm57e222a1.htm

          And it appears there has been another outbreak in 2012

          http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/NEWS/usaedition/2012-03-20-Measles_ST_U.htm

          W&N#5: you are
          lost. You have failed to understand the
          section on vaccination status or the 4th and 5th paragraphs of the editorial
          note.

          Truth is the CDC has spent many years detailing the role of
          unvaccinated in outbreaks, e.g.: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11135778

          Again the NVIC misinformation endangers people's lives.

          W&N#6: you did
          the math wrong. This is because you are
          so totally lost you don't even understand what the issues are…one should
          start by calculating relative risk.

          W&N #7: no I
          stated the only possible conclusion.
          Anyone with an honest interest in educating parents on science would not
          object to our best science being shared with parents before they make the
          decision.

          W&N #8: actually
          I pointed out that you didn't even discuss the most important safety data. You still haven't and I can't find it
          anywhere in NVIC's site. If only you would get your science from
          qualified scientists….

          W&N #9: what pubmed allows one to do is to pull
          however many vaccine studies one wants and to read the funding sources.

          All it takes is basic reading skills and the integrity to
          read the funding sources to see that one more time NVIC is caught just making
          things up when they claim that most vaccine studies are funded by vaccine manufacturers.

          What is clearly proven is that NVIC is untruthful and that
          you simply do not care.

          W&N #10: Surprise,
          you failed to correctly read your own link on informed consent which is
          contrary to your absurd comments in your 18Oct posting above.

          " People
          have the right to be fully informed about the benefits and risks of
          pharmaceutical products"

          Almost anyone can immediately see this an impossible
          standard…to bad NVIC doesn't have any ethicists either….

          W&N#11: I know
          that once again you have failed to read correctly. The quest article was about the increase in personal
          exemptions.

          I also know that the average middle school student
          understands math well enough to immediately see how personal exemptions can
          increase from 1.5% to 2% while at the
          same time polio use went from 93.6% to 93.9%.

          6 days and a huge number of comments and you still have
          gotten pretty much every single point wrong.

          In other words, you have exactly demonstrated why some folks
          support the CA law–it is to protect parents from the NVIC misinformation.

          W&N

        • White_and_Nerdy

          Hey NVICfactchecker….facts got your tongue?
          W&N

          • http://www.facebook.com/nvic.factchecker Nvic FactChecker

            You know, W&N, reading your comments directed at NVIC, me personally and others brings two things to mind.

            1. Your general basis of argument is Ad Hominem Abusive and is generally considered a logical fallacy, an error of reasoning.
            Ad Hominem Abusive means:
            (also known as: personal abuse, personal attacks, abusive fallacy, damning the source, name calling, needling [form of], refutation by character)
            Description: Attacking the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself, when the attack on the person is completely irrelevant to the argument the person is making.
            Logical Form:
            Person 1 is claiming Y.
            Person 1 is a moron.
            Therefore Y is not true.

            Using this tactic does absolutely nothing to prove your points…..or to disprove ours or others, for that matter. It is an attempt to put doubt in the mind of the reader as to the validity of your opponent, hoping that they won't look too deeply at the actual facts provided by both sides. Anyone who actually does that is going to quickly figure out that the more you (W&N) engage others the more you completely discredited yourself here.

            2. The following Proverb comes to mind as I read your personal attacks, shallow and unsupported claims, accusations and general ramblings.

            "When a wise man has a controversy with a foolish man, The foolish man either rages or laughs, and there is no rest."

          • White_and_Nerdy

            Thanks for the cognitive dissonance….clearly it is all you have left.

            Actually this has been very helpful because it has revealed the truth:
            That anti-vaccs such as NVIC are–with respect to vaccines–complete
            intellectual and moral failures.

            1. As the many examples here demonstrate you advocate positions that can only be described as blithering idiocy; bereft of the ability to correctly read or count much less reason.

            2. You continue to post things you know are not true, to make things up to support your POV, to refuse to get your science from actual scientists, legal advise from attorneys etc….you simply do not care about the truth enough to act in a responsible way such that you would get the facts correct.

            Heck, you continue to refuse to condemn the anti-vaccs for threatening
            to murder scientists/journalists and their children.

            Since you are utterly unable to truthfully support your claims you are reduced to personal attacks–demonstrating that your POV is more important to you than the truth.

            Bottom line: no moral person that has made it through middle-school can support NVIC. You are mostly harmless.

            Thanks for making this so very clear.

            Hey, you want to play the religious card?
            You should try keeping the 9th commandment…and at least Judas
            return the 30 pieces of silver, in contrast NVIC betrays the health of our
            children and doesn't return the money.

            In some sense NVIC is morally worse than Judas.

            W&N

    • Twyla

      Great comment, NVICFactCheck!

      • White_and_Nerdy

        Yes they are
        great–great at exposing how NVIC gets pretty much everything wrong…..oh, and
        that you don't care.

        W&N

    • John

      Well said. Thank you.

  • gimmeabreak

    Thanks to NVICFactCheck for making it clear from the very first sentence that his/her "comment" was written for the purpose of propagandizing, and not as a good-faith effort to "fact check." Fear mongering? Class warfare? Did you actually read Gross's post, or did you just fire off your boilerplate nonsense the second your Google News alert showed up? At least you saved me the trouble of slogging through whatever so-called "facts" led you to such a ridiculous, hysterical, and biased — yes, you might just be projecting — conclusion.

    • http://www.nvic.org/ NVICFactCheck

      We're happy to address any specific points your take issue with.

      • White_and_Nerdy

        Your actions here prove otherwise.
        W&N

  • healthylifestyleabc

    Vaccines have never saved us from these diseases, and in some cases evidence points out to the fact that they are direct contributors spreading the disease. This is well documented in the UK with smallpox and such is the case of polio too. For example, all cases of polio acquired in the US since 1979 are from the vaccine itself. Not only that, but it's been proven that the SV40 virus comes from the polio vaccine and it infected millions of people. It would be wise to point out that initially so called experts said that with 2/3 of the population it would be enough to protect against the diseases. We've had well over 90% rate of vaccinations for most of these diseases for at least 10 years and we still have outbreaks? Why? because they occur in the vaccinated population. Such is the case of the latest outbreak of pertussis in Australia, as well as the latest outbreaks in the US. Unvaccinated children pose no threat to vaccinated ones. If vaccines really worked vaccinated populations would not contract this diseases. There's nothing stoping these diseases, specially if they are airborne, you can't stop air… you can only boost your immune system and let it take care of the rest…

    • White_and_Nerdy

      The last wild-type
      polio case in the US
      was in 1993:

      http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/polio/dis-faqs.htm

      Your comments are
      entirely without merit. The only issue
      left is do you care about the facts.

      W&N

      • Common Ground

        I think you may have misunderstood what healthylifestyleabc was saying. I believe he/she said the last "acquired" case of polio in the U.S. was in 1979. I'm pretty sure he/she meant that was the last case caused by endemic transmission of wild virus.

        According to your link, the 1993 case was imported. That person did not acquire polio in the U.S.

        • White_and_Nerdy

          The point is that
          polio virus is still circulating around the world, being imported to the US and causing disease in the US as recently as 1993.

          There have been recent
          polio cases in the US
          not caused by the vaccine.

          You want to go on
          now to SV40?
          W&N

          • Common Ground

            W&N,

            I wasn't aware that people were claiming that there isn't polio virus circulating in the world.

            I think maybe you and I have a different sense of the appropriate use of the word "recent" in this context.

            I'm unfamiliar with SV40 so I'm not comfortable commenting on that. What is SV40?

          • White_and_Nerdy

            healthylifestyleabc's false claim was that all US cases of
            Polio since 1979 were from the vaccine.
            I was just pointing out that not only is this incorrect, but how it
            happened and why it can still happen today.

            SV40 is a simian virus that contaminated some lots of polio vaccine in the
            late 1950's.

            W&N

          • Twyla

            Healsthylifestyleabc said that "all cases of polio acquired in the US since 1979 are from the vaccine itself". Read more carefully, W&N.

          • White_and_Nerdy

            Typical anti-vacc
            strategy: focus on semantics rather than
            the actual issues.

            W&N

          • http://www.facebook.com/CarolAnnL CarolAnn Liebelt

            I imagine that W&N is probably the real life version of the comicbook store clerk from The Simpsons. http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120624090210/simpsons/images/c/cb/Comicbookguy.gif

            C'mon people! Let W&N have his fun. He obviously has no self esteem and gets off on harassing and insulting the families of vaccine injured children. It gives him something to tell his cats at night when he goes to bed alone. "Oh, Mr. sunggles, you should have seen it! I insulted the poor fool who was counting the number of doses of vaccines by counting the number of kinds of vaccine, and then said he can't count! hahaha It was great. I feel like such a winner right now, Mr. Snuggles."

            No matter what side of the argument you are on, I think we can all agree that W&N sounds like an imbecile with a false sense of arrogance. Your condescending attitude and your tendency to immediately insult people rather than help to educate them, doesn't help your cause. You turn more people off vaccinating because nobody wants to be on a team that would have you as a member.

          • White_and_Nerdy

            Thank you.
            Your comments are a badge of honor.
            Although apparently beyond your ability to comprehend, the reality
            is that you have just acknowledged the facts:
            1. the anti-vaccs endanger our children's lives and fabricate vaccine injuries through misinformation,
            2. the anti-vacc arguments are not even functionally literate, much less capable of a rational thought,
            3. folks like you just don't care,
            Please continue to post as often as you can.
            W&N

          • http://www.facebook.com/CarolAnnL CarolAnn Liebelt

            Nice try, but you can't ruffle my feathers with your absurd skewed perception of things. Nothing about my comment indicates any of the things you just listed.

          • White_and_Nerdy

            Hey,
            We have 100+ comments here and the facts speak for themselves.
            The anti-vacc scam is exposed to anyone with the most modest
            intelligence and the integrity to read the links.
            Since your only contribution has been ad hominem attacks we
            already know that you fail the second standard and since you can't figure this out, the first standard is looking like too high a hurdle for you.
            You could change this by offering some rational contribution….so
            far all you have done is to make a mockery of the anti-vaccs.
            W&N

  • Common Ground

    Just wanted to add some additional examples of what has happened at schools with clusters of students with personal belief exemptions.

    Last year there was a Waldorf student in Virginia who contracted measles and attended classes with many unvaccinated students. There were a higher percentage of unvaccinated students at his school than at the San Diego school referenced in the article. No students at that school came down with measles in spite of their exposure to the infected student.

    A similar situation happened within the last month when a student at a Waldorf school attended classes for several days with 80 unvaccinated kids at his school (out of a total of 145 students) while infected with measles. There were no additional cases of measles in this cluster of unvaccinated kids.

    • http://twitter.com/ejwillingham Emily Willingham

      That's because they *closed the school*, as this article describes; it also points out that 90% of people not immunized against the measles will contract it. http://www.newsplex.com/home/headlines/Confirmed_Cases_of_Measles_in_Charlottesville_122652194.html

      The student at the school who contracted it? Caught it from a visitor to the home. The index case was *hospitalized* because of the infection.

      • Common Ground

        The infected student attended school on Friday May 20th and his exposed, unvaccinated classmates all attended school together May 23-26 and the school closed for just one day on May 27th. Some unvaccinated students were excluded from school for several weeks, but that didn't affect the spread of the disease because none of them turned out to be infected, in spite of their exposure.

        Just wanted to clarify because I think your comment may have left the impression that the school was closed for several days or weeks. Were you trying to say that because the school closed for one day, (a day when the infected student wasn't even in attendance) measles didn't spread in the school?

        Sounds like the hospital did a very effective job of isolating the index patient as soon as she got to the hospital because the health department didn't identify the ER/hospital as a possible place for exposure to measles. Good for them.

    • Common Ground

      The infected student attended school on May 20th and his exposed, unvaccinated classmates all attended school together May 23-26. The school closed on May 27th for just one day. Some unvaccinated students were excluded from school for several weeks but that wasn't a factor in the transmission of the disease because none of those students were infected, in spite of their exposure.

      Just wanted to clarify because I think your comment may have left the impression that the school closed for several days or weeks. Are you saying that it's because the school closed for one day that measles was prevented from spreading among the students?

      On another note, it sounds like the hospital did a very effective job of isolating the index patient as soon as she got to the hospital because the health department didn't identify the ER/hospital as a possible place for exposure to measles. Good for them.

      • White_and_Nerdy

        You skipped this key
        point:

        "While the female did have little
        interaction with the community before the infection was detected, two people
        she did come into contact with now have the measles as well, the fourth and
        fifth confirmed cases in Virginia this year."

        There are
        lots and lots of examples of what happens when unvaccinated people are exposed
        to measles….not a good thing….

        W&N

        • Common Ground

          I think you may have misread the article you're quoting. The student caught measles from the woman who contracted measles in India. The woman was the third case of measles in Virginia last year but her case was unrelated to the two prior cases and those two cases were not connected to each other.

          The woman from India infected the student and the student's sibling while spending time in their home and those children passed the infection to another close household contact (their parent, I think). I think most people agree that staying home when you're sick is a good way to prevent the spread of infectious diseases. Of course, it's harder to prevent the spread to family members and other people you're in continuous close contact with.

          My examples were only to counter the frequently made assertion that unvaccinated school children pose a very high risk to fellow students, whether those fellow students are vaccinated or not. I just haven't seen any compelling evidence that the risk is as high as some people claim. School-centered transmission didn't happen in the Virginia Waldorf case and didn't happen in the New York Waldorf case last month either even though many unvaccinated students were exposed at school.

          Vaccination rates in the U.S. are high and rising. Children living below the poverty level have lower rates than children above the poverty level, so there seem to be some issues with access to vaccines for all children, but, in general, most children are vaccinated fully and on time. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6135a1.htm?s_cid=mm6135a1_e

          For some reason, though, some people seem to feel attacked by the tiny numbers of parents who don't fully buy into the entire vaccine schedule so they've begun to focus on the "clusters" of unvaccinated children and have claimed that these children are some sort of threat to public health. If they're going to make this claim, it would be helpful if they could back it up with some convincing evidence. Otherwise, it starts to look like they're relying on scare tactics in place of truth.

          • White_and_Nerdy

            " My examples
            were only to counter the frequently made assertion that unvaccinated school
            children pose a very high risk to fellow students, whether those fellow
            students are vaccinated or not."

            Since the person
            in your example had " little interaction with the community before the
            infection was detected" this doesn't really tell us much about risk since
            this example is so very atypical.

            Here is a summary
            of US measles outbreaks and it gives a better idea of the risks:

            http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6115a1.htm?s_cid=mm6115a1_w

            This summaries
            the investigation into one outbreak:

            http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6034a5.htm?s_cid=mm6034a5_w

            W&N

          • Common Ground

            Aaah, that link to the report on the Indiana outbreak is infuriating. How hard is it to diagnose measles? Again we see that an outbreak occurs because the index case or another of the earliest cases goes to a hospital or doctor's office and the healthcare providers fail to correctly diagnose measles. Isn't that what happened in Tucson, San Diego and last year in Minnesota? It seems like that's a characteristic of all the recent larger (10-15 cases) outbreaks.

            The link you provided about the 2011 outbreaks shows that only 50 of the 222 cases were kids who were unvaccinated because of their parents' exempting them for personal belief or religious reasons. There were other unvaccinated cases but they were unvaccinated because of access/poverty barriers or age. We know exempted kids are only a piece of the puzzle in preventing outbreaks so it's critical that healthcare professionals do their job of identifying and isolating infected individuals.

            As we've seen, as in the recent measles case at the New York Waldorf school, you can have an exempted infected individual and many other exempted individuals exposed for several days but as long as isolation/quarantine is implemented in a timely manner, an outbreak can and will be prevented. Or you can have individuals who, in spite of being seen by healthcare providers, will not be accurately diagnosed in a timely manner which results in many unnecessary exposures and lead to infections in both the unvaccinated and vaccinated.

            My daughter is vaccinated but has a dysfunctional immune system so that is why I've developed an interest in this topic. I don't rely on anyone from either side of this issue to determine my outlook. I read everything I can find and evaluate the sources and draw my own conclusions. I'm just not seeing that the biggest threat to her is people with personal belief exemptions. It seems like there's a lot of energy directed at those people when it could be more constructively directed at healthcare providers who aren't skilled at diagnosing infections or at our politicians and public health officials so that more families living in poverty that wants vaccines can access them.

          • Twyla

            Interesting, too, that many of these articles make no distinction between children who have received no vaccines and children who have received most of the vaccines on the schedule but skipped only one or two of them. There are actually very few children who are completely unvaccinated.

          • White_and_Nerdy

            Interesting how
            your comment has nothing to do with understanding the risks increased by
            foregoing vaccination.

            W&N

  • No Rights in WV

    The very fact that this author called exempting parents "lazy" is hilarious to me. Most parents who exempt have either experienced vaccine injury first hand, and/or have done extensive research which has led to an educated decision to exempt their children. In WV there is already a vaccine mandate in place. Our children are medical prisoners to the DHHR. The DHHR can even override a medical exemption granted by the child's doctor. This will soon be happening in California if you don't stand up and fight it now.

    • White_and_Nerdy

      "extensive"
      lunacy is not a very compelling argument.
      See the many comments here….

      W&N

      • No Rights in WV

        W&N- it appears to me that the lunacy here is you maniacally replying to each post made by people who choose not to vaccinate. I'm sorry, but your ranting is not going to make me feel less resentful toward the fact that our DHHR is overstepping doctors' exemptions and demanding that our children be vaccinated anyway, with vaccinations that are not included in the mandated schedule to enter school, AND have not been added to the mandated list through legislation. (Just imagine an agency knowing what is best for our children, whom they have never met, as opposed to a doctor who interacts with our children at least yearly.) Oh, and my children do have all of their required vaccines to be in school, but looking back on the fact, I wish I would have started researching earlier. If I had, they wouldn't have had any
        P.S. I'm really not concerned about the lack "of many comments here", if one person reads this and realizes his or her medical rights are being taken away I've succeeded in what I have to say.

        • White_and_Nerdy

          Actually if you
          notice the anti-vaccs argue by assertion or provide references to other anti-vaccs.

          I have posted 13
          links where readers can fact-check and look at that….the anti-vaccs
          systematically misrepresent the most basic facts.

          My personal view is that all parents should have the right
          to philosophical exemptions.

          The fact is that
          there are profoundly dishonest organizations making lots of money scaring
          parents about vaccines and there are a remarkable number of parents that will risk
          their children's lives by believing the most extraordinarily stupid
          arguments.

          So it is inevitable that laws are changing to reduce
          parental vaccine choice. The anti-vacc
          dishonestly is mostly responsible for this.

          And yes it is way beyond lunacy that adults can't count
          correctly to 11 or correctly read the words in a document….but as the posting
          here demonstrate this is too much of a challenge for some folks.

          Any person that bothers to fact-check can't help but hold
          the anti-vaccs in contempt.

          W&N

          • Twyla

            Nobody is "making lots of money scaring parents about vaccines".

          • White_and_Nerdy

            Twyla,

            You know that
            isn't true.

            NVIC made
            $800,000+ last year and they have been in business since 1982.

            Other examples
            have previously been supplies to you…some million plu$.

            W&N

          • Informed

            And you think that the men and women working for the CDC and FDA who have direct ties to the vaccine industry are NOT making money by setting the current schedule and scaring parents INTO vaccinating? Look up the number of conflict of interest waivers of individuals in the CDC and FDA because of direct ties to the vaccine industry; it is outrageous.

          • White_and_Nerdy

            Informed,

            Your comments have nothing to do with the fact that NVIC
            makes money with falsehoods that endanger children's lives.

            There are many resources on how to act ethically with
            respect to scientific/medical information.

            But I bet you won't do the research because then yoiu would be appalled
            by NVIC's ethics and understand how the CDC/FDA's actions are ethical.

            W&N

          • FACAfan

            Wow…a
            whopping $800,000 made by a charitable non-profit organization of 30 years (NVIC) known to
            work with Congress to pass the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986
            (http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/authorizinglegislation.pdf) to acknowledge, among other things, that vaccine injury and death were real and
            deserving of compensation – almost $2.5 BILLION awarded by feds to date for
            vaccine injury and death?

            Hmmm, compared to the
            pharmaceutical industry that has a global vaccine market worth over $18.7 BILLION. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/01/24/idUS172183+24-Jan-2008+BW20080124)

            W&N, would you like more whine with
            your cheese? Your protest is as hollow as they come.

            Seriously, if your gripe is that this
            organization that was founded by parents of vaccine injured children has been
            able to scrape together $800,000 last year to successfully advocate for on-going vaccine
            safety research and informed consent protections in mass vaccination policies, you need to get your violin retuned.

            You infer by your statement that
            $800,000 is a great deal of money. For an individual, it might be – for an
            organization of 30 years, it is not. Let's put it in perspective – it is a
            pittance when compared to 1) the budgets of federal agencies promoting vaccines
            while having conflicts of interest with industry, safety and oversight; and 2)
            the ever expanding profits of the vaccine industry expected to have a global vaccine market worth $31.3 BILLION by 2013, and which has a guaranteed revenue stream
            via vaccine mandates and protection from liability via the 1986 act and recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

            NVIC certainly appears to be a David against the Goliath of an industry protected by conflicted government interests. Your whiney
            violin playing is just irritating white noise for anyone that can read a financial statement, IOM report,
            vaccine package insert, vaccine injury life plan award document or federal
            advisory committee transcript.

            You continue to incorrectly define those exercising informed consent as anti-vaccine. Few people totally reject vaccines, or are actually anti-vaccine. Many question vaccine safety, efficacy and the diseases vaccines are designed to protect against. Many of those concerns are legitimate. They also investigate harms, risk and treatments available on both sides of the coin – vaccines and disease. Your demonization of the educated decision-making process known as informed consent is misleading at best, and at worse it encourages the pitting of parents against one another as they struggle to determine what is in the best interest of their child based in their individual risk factors, values and the available evidence.

          • White_and_Nerdy

            No FACAfan,

            The exact point is that since NVIC systematically
            misrepresents the facts/science they do not promote informed consent…they deceive
            parents….and it was $800K in one year.

            Your HRSA link wouldn't work for me. Here is the Vaccine Court site:

            http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/vaccine-programoffice-special-masters

            All you have to do is to read the rules to see that $2.5B
            has not been paid for actual injuries or deaths from vaccines.

            Yes, the world-wide vaccine market is large in value. That is because health care systems/companies
            purchase vaccines….no surprise since their data demonstrate how very wrong
            NVIC's criticisms of vaccine safety are.

            I already posted above the actual SCOTUS ruling–funny how
            the anti-vaccs don't–here it is again:

            http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-152.pdf

            One more time, all US families can sue for alleged vaccine
            injuries.

            W&N

          • FACAfan

            #1 – I agreed with you on the $800,000 in a year – read the response again. I don't really care about the amount and said it wasn't much money for an organization, particularly considering how well funded their opposition is – you make a mountain out of a molehill. I have been on websites of charitable non-profit organizations that make far than NVIC and that aren't nearly as fact based. Seems like they get pretty good bang for their buck if you ask me. I doubt NVIC's adversaries loose much sleep over the $800,000 at NVIC's disposal.

            #2 – You continue to promulgate that NVIC "deceives", yet you won't be specific. NVICFactCheck has called you out on this tactic in numerous article comment sections you have been on. When I visit NVIC's website I note that they cite peer reviewed science and link out to federal agencies when making their statements on risk, etc. NVICFactCheck appears to be ready and willing to address your accusations – what are you waiting for? I am satisfied with NVIC's website and often click through to the supporting science/agency links that they use to back up their statements. They appear to go to some effort to provide information that is offered on many websites, but that is hard to find. If you aren't willing to be specific, then you are just expressing your opinion. That's your Constitutional right, but it really doesn't add anything meaningful to the conversation.
            #3 – The HRSA link works – suggest you check your browser preferences on pdf links and/or pop up windows. I was linking to the 1986 act if referred to in my previous post – not the Special Masters and their website. Here is a link to the act you can use furnished by the U.S. House of Representatives that is not pdf based – http://uscode.house.gov/search/criteria.shtml – you will need to type in the USC to access. It is 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to 300aa-34.
            #4 – Yes, almost $2.5 Billion – here are the HRSA links: http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/index.html for overview that clearly states that it is compensation for vaccine injury – you might also want to visit the Vaccine Injury Table while there, as well as click the ACCV link and read February's minutes on the possible upcoming expansion to the Vaccine Injury Table (VIT) because of the findings recently made by the IOM. I note NVICFactCheck has also brought IOM findings up numerous times, as well as the lack quality science and/or its absence on the 85% of vaccine reactions they reviewed and reported on 8/2011. The expansion of the VIT is based on the 15% percent of quality science on vaccine reactions that the IOM was able to locate and review. Your accusation on safety concerns falls a little flat on this count – See #2. Link here http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/data.html and go about half way down and you will see the amounts compensated to date. Also, you can visit here – http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/search/node/proffer%2C+damages and see some of the awards specifically – some are life plan awards over $1 million. This basic search was done on published cases with only two key search terms – proffer and damages and can be linked to from the link you provided in lieu of the HRSA link I provided. There are many more such injury and death award examples – about 2,500 if you go to the Data & Statistics link I provided above for awards compensated to date by VICP.
            #5 – Yes, market is large and valuable. You are missing the point. Suggest you read IOM again – it is just the latest example. I see NVICFactCheck has given you plenty of quotes from the report. Epidemiology is not bench science, it is only one indicator. Additionally, VAERS is passive and reactions underreported, etc. – facts NVICFactCheck consistently points out to you.
            #6 – Yes, I have read the ruling – thanks for the link, but I don't need it. Parents cannot sue on product defect via U.S. Supreme Court Ruling. Hannah Bruesewitz was denied compensation the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program/U.S. Court of Claims and then denied the right to sue Wyeth by the Supreme Court. My particular favorite quote – "unavoidably unsafe" – Control F that term, pretty sure you will find in the opinion – as NVICFactCheck has already pointed out.
            Finally – I cede my dance card to NVICFactCheck. Your avoidance of entering into any real dialogue/discussion is rather obvious. It will be interesting to see if you accept the challenge from NVICFactCheck offered earlier, but I suspect you will instead leave the ballroom as you have before in other article commentary sections – she isn't the only one that has noticed. :)

          • White_and_Nerdy

            #1: what "a lot of money" is, is a matter of opinion. I
            think most people would consider $800K+ per year a lot of money.
            #2: numerous examples
            of NVIC falsehoods are posted above.
            Just as the systematical misrepresentations of NVICcheckers response is
            also clearly documented above.
            Yes they cite many references, just not correctly–again
            many examples of this are provided above.
            #3: Thanks for
            link. Here is the a direct link
            http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/authoringleg.pdf
            The Vaccine court link I provided also has how the law is
            interpreted and the resulting process.
            #4: You
            didn't read your link correctly.
            It says " The VICP is a no-fault alternative to the traditional tort system for
            resolving vaccine injury claims that provides compensation to people FOUND to
            be injured by certain vaccines"
            If you had followed my suggestion, you would
            have seen what the rules are for deciding "found" means in this
            context.
            One example:
            table injuries–where basically you automatically win compensation
            http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/vaccinetable.htm
            Lots of these injuries are caused by many
            other (non-vaccine) effects.
            It is 100% incorrect to say the compensation
            means the injury was caused by the vaccine.
            #5: I
            think you missed the point. Health
            insurance companies/systems pay for vaccines because their data proves vaccines
            are extremely safe.
            The IOM report is an excellent example of #2. NVICfactchecker selectively quoted a couple
            of sentences from a 866 page report. No
            one reading her comments could ever understand that the IOM determined that
            vaccine are "overwhelmingly safe".
            This is very clear: a person reading NVICfactchecker comments
            would be deceived.
            #6: Then
            you didn't understand the ruling. The
            Court affirmed the law: the Bruesewitz's can not sue making a design
            defect argument.
            But the SCOTUS
            was very clear, they could still sue.
            E.g. they could sue and argue that the facts show that the medical
            problems were caused by the vaccine.
            As I posed above, the unavoidably safe
            discuss is on page 12 of the SCOTUS ruling pdf…..and ZERO of the vaccines on
            the schedule are unavoidably unsafe.
            Again NVIC is clearly misleading parents.
            Finally the reality is very clear. Just like NVICfactchecker your claims arecontrary to the basic English meaning of the facts.
            Thanks for playing .

            W&N

          • White_and_Nerdy

            #1: what a lot of
            money is, is a matter of opinion. I
            think most people would consider $800K+ per year a lot of money.
            #2: numerous examples
            of NVIC falsehoods are posted above.
            Just as the systematical misrepresentations of NVICcheckers response is also clearly documented above.
            Yes they cite many references, just not correctly–again
            many examples of this are provided above.
            #3: Thanks for link. Here is the a direct link:

            http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/authoringleg.pdf

            The Vaccine court link I provided also has how the law is
            interpreted and the resulting process.
            #4: You didn't read your link correctly.
            It says " The VICP is a no-fault alternative to the traditional tort system for resolving vaccine injury claims that provides compensation to people FOUND to be injured by certain vaccines"
            If you had followed my suggestion, you would
            have seen what the rules are for deciding "found" means in this
            context.
            One example:
            table injuries–where basically you automatically win compensation.
            http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/vaccinetable.html
            Lots of these injuries are caused by many other (non-vaccine) effects.
            It is 100% incorrect to say the compensation means the injury was caused by the vaccine.
            #5: I think you missed the point. Health
            insurance companies/systems pay for vaccines because their data proves vaccines are extremely safe.

            The IOM report is an excellent example of #2. NVICfactchecker selectively quoted a couple of sentences from a 866 page report. No
            one reading her comments could ever understand that the IOM determined that vaccine are "overwhelmingly safe". This is very clear: a person reading NVICfactchecker comments
            would be deceived.
            #6: Then you didn't understand the ruling. The Court affirmed the law: the Bruesewitz's can not sue making a design defect argument.
            But the SCOTUS was very clear, they could still sue.
            E.g. they could sue and argue that the facts show that the medical
            problems were caused by the vaccine.
            As I posed above, the unavoidably safe
            discuss is on page 12 of the SCOTUS ruling pdf…..and ZERO of the vaccines on the schedule are unavoidably unsafe.
            Again NVIC is clearly misleading parents.

            Finally the reality is very clear. Just like NVICfactchecker your claims are contrary to the basic English meaning of the facts.
            Thanks for playing .
            W&N

  • READtheFDA-PackageInserts

    This article is bought for you by generous donations from Merck, The BM Foundation etc. Follow the money.

    • White_and_Nerdy

      Translation: to have nothing rational that supports your
      POV.

      Thanks for
      acknowledging this.

      W&N

  • http://twitter.com/MrJeffSimon Jeff Simon

    "Now, at least, their beliefs will need to be informed by actual science."

    "Actual Science"

    Yea, OK, reality check time . . .

    Science is the study and explanation of
    empirical phenomena. Not just empirical phenomena that corresponds to your pre-determined suppositions. Not just empirical phenomena that supports the bottom line of the folks paying your salary or paying the salary of your sources.

    When the Childhood Vaccine Injury Act passed in 1986, the
    CDC scheduled 11 vaccines from birth to age 18. The schedule has gradually
    increased to 69 vaccines today (26 for infants, 50 by age 5). In promoting the
    need for boosters, which accounts for much of the increase, the vaccine
    industry claimed that vaccine efficacy fully wanes between 2-10 years. That
    leaves, at the absolutely most optimistic, half of the US population protected. How could
    I objectively believe that an 85-90% vaccination rate is necessary to maintain
    protection when it’s not possible and we still don’t have all manner of communicable
    disease sweeping the country-side? Why count vaccinated heads in a private
    school classroom in Marin or Santa Cruz, yet stop counting when these same kids are exposed
    to a vast spread of ages—and now unprotected adults—as soon as they leave
    school?

    You can’t claim the scientific high-ground and put your head in the sand about
    the empirical that does not support your suppositions.

    Liza Gross, Dick Pan, Orac, Alison Buttenheim, and Roger Baxter are like Lois Lane, an apparently gifted
    investigative reporter. And we are asked to suspend disbelief when she can’t
    recognize that the Superman she pines for hides in plain sight behind nothing
    more than a pair of dark-rimmed glasses.

    I'll start listening to your "scientific" advice just as soon as openly addressing the empirical. ALL OF IT!!!

    • White_and_Nerdy

      Wow,

      Here is the US vaccination
      schedule:

      http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/downloads/child/0-6yrs-schedule-pr.pdf

      There are only 11
      vaccines given.

      Here again is
      pubmed:

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

      The assertion that
      vaccine immunity complete wanes by 2-10 years is a complete fabrication.

      One can't discuss
      the science with folks that won't get even the most basic facts correct.

      W&N

      • http://twitter.com/MrJeffSimon Jeff Simon

        1986: 11 Vaccines scheduled.
        2012: 69.
        If vaccines didn't wane, we wouldn't need boosters. Besides, this is a pharma/doc position.
        For most folks, I'd chalk this up to a simple misunderstanding/misreading. But, in your case, Anonymous White, I'll take it as a conscious attempt to strawman my position.
        Let me know if you ever have the courage for a cogent dialogue.

        • White_and_Nerdy

          I have posted the
          vaccine schedule already. Here it is
          again: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/downloads/child/0-6yrs-schedule-pr.pdf
          The US
          2012 schedule has exactly 11 vaccines on it.

          And a person with
          an honest interest in how vaccine immunity wanes, can search the Pubmed
          site….duration of immunity is a good search phrase. Here it is again: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed
          Anyway….I don't
          know–and I don't really care–if you are unable or unwilling to count
          correctly to 11….but I do know that the anti-vaccs are marginalized to
          posting on the Net because they can not articulate a rational argument. Thanks for demonstrating this.

          W&N

          • http://twitter.com/MrJeffSimon Jeff Simon

            And thanks to you White_and_Nerdy for demonstrating your inability to maintain a fidelity to the facts and an honest representation of the sources you cite. More and more undecided parents are discovering the dangers of vaccines everyday. Between doctors who use intimidation tactics, school districts who misrepresent exemption options, and legislators with a track record of accepting copious sums of pharma money to pass radical legislation undecided parents can smell that something is terribly wrong with vaccine policy in this country. If that wasn't enough, we have posters like you: hiding behind anonymity, casually tossing around insults when you can't make an honest argument, and blatantly peeling words out of context.

            I'll keep sharing the facts. You keep using those cheap, lazy, barroom argument tactics. The house-of-cards, ward-of-the-state, vaccine industry will collapse under the weight of its own hubris soon enough.

          • White_and_Nerdy

            It should go
            without saying that in order to protect their children's health most parents
            are willing to follow a link….in this case to read the US vaccination
            schedule….and get the truth.

            The only facts
            that you have demonstrated here are that anti-vaccs are wrong and they just
            don't care.

            Good news: as the many comments here demonstrate, anyone
            that has made it through middle-school can't help but see the anti-vacc scam.

            W&N

          • Twyla

            W&N, there are 11 types of vaccines listed, but multiple doses scheduled.

          • White_and_Nerdy

            Here is what Mr. Simon actual wrote:

            "The
            schedule has gradually increased to 69 vaccines today (26 for infants, 50 by
            age 5)."

            And it is still
            incorrect.

            W&N

          • Twyla

            It is not incorrect. Count them.

          • White_and_Nerdy

            In your previous comment you acknowledged that there are 11
            vaccines.

            Anyone interested in the facts can count them for
            themselves….the schedule is posted above….but not by the anti-vaccs.

            W&N

  • READtheFDA-PackageInserts

    News articles exposing that pertussis is more prevalent in the VACCINATED population, NOT the unvaccinated. In fact, many are admitting that the vaccine is causing the disease.
    http://www.dailypaul.com/167931/a-collection-of-mainstream-news-reports-and-studies-exploding-the-whooping-cough-vaccine-myth

    • http://twitter.com/ejwillingham Emily Willingham

      Here's a corrective to the poor math understanding or willful deception behind that statement: http://skeweddistribution.com/2012/05/14/true-or-false-there-are-more-vaccinated-pertussis-cases-than-unvaccinated/

      Here is a graph showing pertussis cases over time relative to the advent of the vaccines. It's not per capita but raw numbers of cases; were it per capita, the drop you see would be *even steeper*.

      • READtheFDA-PackageInserts

        skeweddistribution is a great name for this blogger…math based on hypothetical assumptions. Fail.

        "To be conservative, we will therefore assume that 93% of Californians under age 18 had been vaccinated for pertussis and that 7% had not. I will now use a hypothetical example with nice round numbers to illustrate the problem with stating that the rate of pertussis was higher in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children."

    • White_and_Nerdy

      Here is the actual
      data:

      http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6128a1.htm?s_cid=mm6128a1_w

      Look at that,
      unvaccinated kids are at much higher risk than vaccinated.

      W&N

  • READtheFDA-PackageInserts

    More research showing the DPT ineffective : CDC / "Pertussis Infection in Fully Vaccinated Children in Day-Care Centers, Israel —Conclusion " –"Therefore, even young, recently Vaccinated children may serve as reservoirs and potential transmitters of infection." http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/6/5/00-0512_article.htm Dr. Matt Kinsman

    • http://twitter.com/ejwillingham Emily Willingham

      Here's what you left out of what you quoted: "The effects of whole-cell pertussis vaccine wane after 5 to 10 years, and infection in a vaccinated person causes nonspecific symptoms (3-7). Vaccinated adolescents and adults may serve as reservoirs for silent infection and become potential transmitters to unprotected infants (3-11). The whole-cell vaccine for pertussis is protective only against clinical disease, not against infection (15-17). Therefore, even young, recently vaccinated children may serve as reservoirs and potential transmitters of infection….

      "Children who were seropositive and remained both asymptomatic and PCR negative probably had sufficient immunity from vaccines or natural boosters to protect them against persistent colonization and clinical disease. Their seropositivity could not be due to vaccine because the children were tested more than a year after having been vaccinated. Yet not all the children were protected from infection and from colonization with the bacteria. Whether a child who is serologically or PCR positive for pertussis and is clinically asymptomatic is a potential transmitter of infection has not been established. What is certain, however, is that vaccine-induced immunity against infection does not persist throughout adulthood. In France, booster vaccinations have been recommended for adolescents and teenagers (18). We found that immunity does not even persist into early childhood in some cases. We also observed that DPT vaccine does not fully protect children against the level of clinical disease defined by WHO. Our results indicate that children ages 5-6 years and possibly younger, ages 2-3 years, play a role as silent reservoirs in the transmission of pertussis in the community. More studies are needed to find the immunologic basis of protection against infection and colonization and thus an effective way to eradicate pertussis."

      This paper addresses the death of an infant who had two siblings in daycare and a mother, age 35, and an aunt, age 18, who all had "paroxysmal cough," the mother for 3 months. The authors found 11% of the children in the two daycare centers the siblings attended were positive for pertussis colonization in the nose and that rates of positivity were lower in younger children who had been vaccinated in last three years. The paper is 12 years old and may have been a driver of change; the current schedule for DTaP, per CDC, is
      "Children should get 5 doses of DTaP, one dose at each of the following ages: 2, 4, 6, and 15-18 months and 4-6 years," presumably to provide more coverage as children age out of toddlerhood. I note that this appears on the CDC website, so clearly they're not making an effort to hide information from the public they serve.

      Waning immunity with the vaccine described in this paper is not news and is the primary reason for the urgency that people get booster shots and that children get the full series of vaccines. Thank you for the opportunity to point out why it's so important that children get that final booster at age 4-6.
      It's been known for a long time that this vaccine is not 100% in children, but like varicella, it confers significant protection compared to no protection at all and when vaccinated children do contract either, the symptoms are usually much milder and of shorter duration than in the absence of vaccination. Wearing a seatbelt or riding in a carseat isn't 100% protection against death or severe injury in a car accident, but the safety it does provide is significant relative to the alternative. The government also legislates those practices, for similar reasons.

    • White_and_Nerdy

      Did you even read
      your own link?

      First sentence of
      the conclusions points out the vaccine is effective.

      W&N

      • READtheFDA-PackageInserts

        Yep, sure did. Consider the source and follow the money

        • White_and_Nerdy

          Ok,

          So when you
          wrote: " More research showing the DPT
          ineffective" you posted it knowing
          that this statement wasn't true.

          Here is the full
          text version of your reference:

          http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2627963/pdf/10998384.pdf

          Which was funded by
          the Israeli government. And your point
          is?

          W&N

          • Sam

            The conclusion, in all fairness, stated that it wasn't effective in preventing infection. In fact, only decreased clinical symptoms and created a reservoir to spread infection to unvaccinated individuals.

          • White_and_Nerdy

            Actually the study concluded that the vaccine protects
            against clinical disease–which is the primary goal of a vaccine.

            W&N

  • Amy

    It sounds like there are more and more people unwilling to place their child in front of the roulette game the Pharma and gov't is playing with our population. Unfortunately, there are those who are still blindly following "science" that makes no effort and has no desire to safeguard our overall health. They don't seem to care that the major increase in autoimmune diseases and other health problems like cancer; as well as child behavior and mental problems with new labels have all shown up in larger part by those who have followed the vaccine schedule over the years. I've had cancer and I'm not about to put any more formaldehyde in my body than I have to. My kids are all very healthy and have never had any of the diseases you immunize against, yet they've not been vaccinated. My kids are not going to make your kid sick b/c they are healthy and have healthy immune systems. Don't forget one of the types of immune systems cells has a limited number of assignments that can be made, you are using them all up on diseases you "might" encounter leaving none for the actual diseases you most likely "will" encounter. I don't expect you to change your mind, but I certainly hope you understand that absolutely none of us have made this decision in ignorance. We believe we are not only doing our children right, but do not feel the general population has any risks by our not immunizing our children with vaccines we feel are unsafe. If you want to take a battle up with someone take it up with the gov't and pharma companies that make no effort to find out how to make their vaccines more safe. If I knew the genetic markers that caused reactions or that the chemicals they use to keep the vaccines stable were natural and safe, then I might consider vaccinating, but that is not the case nor do I believe they will ever make that effort. Chemicals are chemicals, we all try to avoid them as much as possible, why purposely introduce them directly into the bloodstream?

    • White_and_Nerdy

      "… but I certainly hope you understand
      that absolutely none of us have made this decision in ignorance"

      Really? No vaccine is introduced "directly into
      the bloodstream".

      And there is
      literally centuries of governments/companies working to make vaccines more
      safe. E.g DTP to DTaP or OPV to IPV.

      Fact is you are
      profoundly ignorant about vaccines. The
      only issue is do you care enough to get the facts?

      W&N

  • flu vaccine victim

    WHY IS QUEST CENSORING WHITE AND NERDY'S COMMENTS??? AFRAID OF THE FACTS ABOUT VACCINES? My mother is nearly dead from one seasonal flu shot and she has suffered with complete paralysis and excruciating pain for almost four years. Please watch her professionally made video so the same thing doesn't happen to you or your children. People need to be informed about the risks and need to be able to say no to drugs for themselves and their children. Vaccines are drugs, not harmless candy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRcZZROphLM

  • One in 88

    Why are you censoring the National Vaccine Information Center? Wouldn't you like to have to take care of the one in a million children who got encephalitis from the MMR? Oh that's right you think it's one in a million. More like one in 88.

    • http://science.kqed.org/quest Craig Rosa

      Hi One in 88: No worries – QUEST is not censoring comments.
      As we have mentioned to NVIC folks who have posted in the past, comments using pre-written language from NVIC are perceived as spam by
      our commenting system (we use Disqus) because they so closely resemble
      comments found elsewhere on the internet. I have checked our filters, and the comments stuck in the queue are indeed "cut and paste" language found already in the comments attached to this post. Also, due to past commenting abuses on other sites, the commenter in question has been flagged as "Low-rep" by our comment system – over which we have no control.

      Thanks for the opportunity to clear this up.

  • healthylifestyleabc

    I'm surprised to see how desperate pharmaceuticals have become. Thanks NVIC for representing the growing number of parents that are aware that vaccines are not safe, and like GMOs, they pose a real threat to our children's health.

    • White_and_Nerdy

      Thanks for reminding us that you don't care even when NVIC is
      demonstrated to be factually incorrect….and that their business model is to
      prey upon folks that can't figure out what the world "safe" means in
      this context.

      W&N

  • Barry

    Are folks aware of this website: http://www.historyofvaccines.org/ A great resource for understanding the science of vaccines (and the long history of people who oppose the use of vaccines)

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1186401772 Kelly Daugherty

    They are poisoning us through vaccines, food, and the illegal "geo-engineering" we are constantly subjected to … Nano particles of aluminum and barium.. guess they want to add more metals to our bodies along with the mercury.. W O W when will we wake up??? http://www.flickr.com/photos/40003627@N03/sets/72157627980192086/

  • Richard

    Is vaccine court a myth? pharmaceutical companies are not responsible for any damages their vaccines cause, instead damages are paid by you and me in vaccine court… if this is a myth then I stand corrected,
    …but if this is not a myth, then this entire article is complete utter bull crap, for stupid sheep