Dan Wilson

Senior Member.
When it comes to vaccinations, the general public is still exposed to strong supporters of conspiracy theories, misunderstandings, and general bunk concerning the practice. I'd like this thread to be open to discussion involving anything about vaccines. I'm not covering the autism idea in this post because it has been brought up in other threads and thoroughly debunked, but if you have any questions feel free to ask. Instead I'm going to focus on ideas suggested in the following documentary that claims vaccinations do not help and, instead, harm people who receive them. I will not cover every claim and I will discuss some things not in the film in order to make this post as comprehensive as possible.



Claim: One of the first claims brought up and is then talked about through the whole video is that the diseases vaccines were made to prevent were already declining before the vaccine was introduced. They suggest that this means the vaccines were not actually the cause for the decline in disease.

Fact: Let's take the first one they talk about, the whooping cough (pertussis) vaccine as an example. Dr. Isaac Golden presents us with a graph that shows a declining incidence rate of pertussis and an arrow to represent the introduction of the vaccine in 1948, which by this time in the graph the incidence rate is relatively low. There are a number of problems with this. Most importantly, the arrow is pointing to the wrong time of pertussis vaccine use. When vaccines became successful and widespread, many different vaccines were mixed together into a single shot for efficiency's sake. For example, the Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (MMR) vaccine. The 1948 mark points to the introduction of the Diphtheria, Tetanus, and Pertussis (DTaP or DTP) vaccine. Regular pertussis vaccines, however, have been around since the 1920's when Louis W. Sauer^ created a successful vaccine. Others were successful and used the vaccines to help control outbreaks.

http://www.nature.com/pr/journal/v55/n2/full/pr200452a.html (http://archive.is/HfWmf)
The efficacy of whooping cough vaccine thus could only be tested in clinical trials. Kendrick took the important step of comparing immunized children to observed controls. Her work convinced the American Academy of Pediatrics to recommend pertussis vaccine during the early 1940s (14)^. In 1948 it was licensed in the United States in combination with diphtheria and tetanus toxoids to become the familiar DTP, a final critical innovation leading to its widespread use in American infants.
Content from External Source
Dr. Viera Scheibner then presents another graph to claim the same thing about diphtheria. In this case, and many like it, the graph is deceptive in the fact that it shows a limited time span and, most importantly, is measuring the deaths attributed to that disease. This hides the true success of vaccines, as decreases in incidence rates are much more telling. To illustrate that with the examples I've listed, here are the data for pertussis and diphtheria incidence rates.

http://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/surv-reporting.html (http://archive.is/iFgXA)


http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/im/vpd-mev/diphtheria-eng.php (http://archive.is/T4ByV)


Another deceptive graph is the one presented about measles. Here are the real data.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Measles_US_1944-2007_inset.png


So the claim against vaccine effectiveness using these graphs turns out to be absolute bunk. Vaccines have been demonstrated to be hugely successful in reducing incidence of disease and even eradicating some nasty ones.

Claim: Bronwyn Hancock, the narrator of the film, claims that immunized populations fare no better than non-immunized populations.

Fact: Over the past few decades, especially with the emergence of anti-vaccination groups, there have been large groups of people who refuse to receive immunization. This unfortunate reality gives us the opportunity to address such a claim directly. In every case, immunized populations do, in fact, have lower incidence rates than non-immunized populations. One of the best examples I can think of is that of polio. Polio is close to eradication, but some countries still report relatively high incidence rates. These include countries in Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia. Radical groups have claimed that polio vaccines are a conspiracy to infect Africans with HIV and this has caused many to forego vaccination. These theories have no basis and every batch of polio vaccine is tested for contamination. As a result, polio has spread among non-vaccinated populations.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/28.full (http://archive.is/vtWag)
It's not that the virus circulating in Nigeria is any more dangerous. The problem lies in the lousy rates of routine immunization across a large swath of Africa, which leave huge numbers of kids vulnerable whenever the virus jumps the border from another country. By contrast, Pakistan's neighbors India and China have erected a high "wall of immunity" through strong and continuing vaccination campaigns.
Content from External Source
Similar stories can be found in the United States.

http://www.popsci.com/science/artic...ak-centered-around-vaccine-skeptic-megachurch (http://archive.is/6TgLB)
The latest outbreak of measles in the U.S.—a preventable disease that the Western Hemisphere eradicated decades ago, thanks to vaccines—has been traced to a megachurch in Texas. The church's senior pastor, Terri Pearsons, had previously criticized vaccines, USA Today reports^.
Content from External Source
Claim: Dr. Robyn Crosford suggests that because scarlet fever does not have a vaccine and is also no longer a threat to the population, that means vaccines are not needed to defeat these other diseases.

Fact: True, vaccines aren't always necessary to overcome disease and scarlet fever does not have any available vaccinations, but it is no longer a threat due to antibiotics. Vaccines aren't always the best and easiest solution to a disease. That is why vaccines are rigorously tested in clinical trials before being made available to the public. Sometimes vaccines won't work for a certain disease and other solutions will have to be found.

Claim: A number of people in the film will claim that vaccines can cause the disease they are meant to prevent in the people receiving them.

Fact: Modern vaccines do not cause disease. Vaccines work by priming the immune system. This happens because the vaccine introduces the body to pieces of the pathogen that causes disease. Once cells called macrophages consume the foreign material, they present it on the outside of their cell membrane sort of like a flag. This is called antigen presentation. Other cells will recognize these antigens and this will prime cells called B-cells to produce antibodies. Antibodies recognize that antigen very specifically, they almost never interact with anything else, and they help other cells in the immune system remove the threat. This process of priming the immune system can be done in different ways. There are three main kinds of vaccines to accomplish this.
Attenuated: This is a weakened pathogen vaccine. This means the pathogen has been weakened to a state where the body can easily consume it and process its antigens. Attenuated vaccines have some advantages, but many were responsible for adverse side-effects in the early years of vaccine use, especially to immune-compromised patients. This is probably where many of today's misconceptions come from. Attenuated vaccines are still used in certain cases where their safety has been demonstrated, but have been discontinued where they have been shown to be risky.
Killed: Killed vaccines, as the name suggests, contain pathogens that have been killed using either heat or chemical means. This means the pathogen can't replicate or function in the human body, but it's pieces will still be processed as foreign material by the immune system. Dr. Scheibner claims in the documentary that bacteria that cause illness by producing toxins will cause illness in killed vaccines because the toxin is not alive and can still cause disease. This is false, however, because bacteria that produce harmful toxins are not used in killed vaccines very often anymore. In the case where harmful toxins might be involved, the next vaccine type can be used.
Particle: Particle vaccines take proteins that are unique to a pathogen and deliver them to the body. Every pathogen has a unique genome that produces unique proteins. We select certain proteins and use them in vaccines so that the body can easily process them. If a selected protein is toxic but makes for a good antigen, we can use inactive pieces of that protein called toxoids to elicit the same immune reopens without the toxic effects (the DTaP vaccine, for example).
In order for pathogens to cause disease, they need to be able to adhere to a space in our body or attach to cells and then be allowed to grow. These methods of vaccine delivery do not allow for this to happen, nor do they allow for the successful activity of toxins. So vaccines will not cause the disease they are meant to prevent.

Claim: Dr. Archie Kalokerinos claims that antibodies, the end product of vaccines, do not offer protection from pathogens. He claims that HIV is an example of this because those who are infected are diagnosed by screening for antibodies against the virus.

Fact: It is true that antibodies against HIV in people infected with it are not protected against the disease. In fact, if you ever read about tropical viruses, many were ones that resulted in cases where those infected were diagnosed by testing for antibodies. Many of those diagnosed also died. So what's going on here? The thing to remember about us and pathogens is that is a war. The body has its defenses to hunt down and kill invaders and the invaders have their ways of infiltrating these defenses and taking out every cell they can get to. Both sides are constantly trying to best each other. Our immune systems are very good at dealing with some organisms and not so good at dealing with others. Some pathogens also have become extremely good at defeating our immune system. The example of HIV is actually very simple. HIV stands for human immunodeficiency virus. The virus does what its name suggests, it severely weakens the immune system. So even though there are antibodies against the virus, the immune system is too weak to do anything against the virus. Other factors go into it as well. Some viruses, including HIV and influenza, are extremely efficient at quickly infecting and replicating in human cells. The influenza virus of 1918-1919 could clear a tissue of its cells before white blood cells could even react, all the while releasing thousands of copies of itself per cell it destroys. Another factor is a virus's mutation rate. Out of thousands of viruses released per cell destroyed, there could be hundreds of different versions of one antigen. If the antigen the body uses to recognize the pathogen changes enough, the virus could escape detection. It is a war, and our defenses are never fool-proof against the world of microbes.

Claim: Vaccines contain formaldehyde, which is extremely toxic to the body. A parent in the documentary claims that vaccines should not be administered because of this.

Fact: The dosage makes the poison. Formaldehyde in vaccines is not present in very high quantities. The reason it is there is to neutralize the pathogen in attenuated vaccines and also to deactivate toxins. With a few injections of relatively low doses of formaldehyde, which we are exposed to in other ways naturally as well, there is no risk for formaldehyde in vaccines. The same goes for other substances that are claimed to be toxic in vaccines.

http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/ucm187810.htm (http://archive.is/IiBmW)

Claim: The documentary and others who oppose vaccination commonly claim that early batches of the polio virus were contaminated with SV40, a monkey virus that can cause cancer in humans.

Fact: It is true that early polio vaccine batches were contaminated with SV40. Polio can only replicate in cells, so monkey cells were used to get high enough numbers of the virus that vaccines could be made from. This accident resulted in spreading SV40 to millions of US residents between 1955 and 1963. The problem with the claim, however, is that there is no good evidence that the virus causes cancer.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...ionid=4FDAC67D663B49101FB866D4C8C74049.f03t01 (http://archive.is/U7gzC)
The present review of recent studies showed that the earlier results describing the recovery of SV40 DNA sequences from a large proportion of the above tumors were not reproducible and that most studies were negative. Contamination with laboratory plasmids was identified as a possible source of false positive results in some previous studies. The low-level immunoreactivity of human sera to SV40 was very likely the result of cross-reactivity with antibodies to the SV40-related human polyomaviruses BKV and JCV, rather than of authentic SV40 infection. SV40 sero-reactivity in patients with the suspect tumors was no greater than that in controls. In epidemiologic studies, the increased incidence of some of the suspect tumors in the 1970s to 1980s was not related to the risk of exposure to SV40-contaminated vaccines. In summary, the most recent evidence does not support the notion that SV40 contributed to the development of human cancers.
Content from External Source
Claim: This is not discussed in the documentary, but a common claim concerning flu vaccines is that they are dangerous because they cause Guillain-Barre Syndrome, which causes paralysis.

Fact: This claim can be traced back to the 1976 swine flu scare. After the death of a young army recruit at Fort Dix, the scene was starting to look eerily like the start of the devastating 1918-1919 pandemic that killed hundreds of millions of people. Everyone was scared and a state of confusion and panic caused rash decisions to be made. Millions of people were quickly immunized against this new strain of flu virus and US President Gerald Ford and his administration encouraged the public to get immunized by stating that any complications caused by the vaccine would be fully compensated by the US government. Despite the fear, the virus flopped and did not spread from Fort Dix. In the aftermath, many people attributed their various ailments to the vaccine in order to receive compensation. Many people did actually contract Guillain-Barre Syndrome and some even died. Although there is debate among epidemiologists about the numbers, the general consensus is that Guillain-Barre Syndrome did seem to be in excess at the time. There is no evidence, however, that there is a link between Guillain-Barre Syndrome and any modern influenza vaccines.

http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/12/1/05-1007_article.htm (http://archive.is/wwBaX)
http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/vaccination/gbs_qa.htm (http://archive.is/7VVMi)


There are many myths about vaccines, but the fact is that they have been one of the most important tools for preventing disease over the past century. Diseases that have had vaccines developed for them are preventable, yet some countries are still held down but them. The example I gave earlier in the post about polio in Nigeria is a very real example of what can happen when myths and lies about the science that helped build the living standards we have today are spread and believed. I hope this thread helps dispel those myths and offers a resource for those looking to understand vaccines. Prevention really is the best medicine and that has made vaccines one of our most powerful weapons in our war with microbes.

Other resources:
http://www.historyofvaccines.org (http://archive.is/JlgnD)
http://www.who.int/features/qa/84/en/ (http://archive.is/kKAYY)
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/...f-contagious-disease-prevented/?emc=eta1&_r=0 (http://archive.is/V9VAj)
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13164 (http://archive.is/xzgbE)
The Coming Plague, by Laurie Garret

EDIT: Typos and a little more info on toxoid vaccines.
 
Last edited:
This nonsense is exactly what got me into debunking.. Thanks for posting Dan.. I'll be referring a couple friends of mine this way so they dont end up doing more harm than good to their kids.
 
We take or accept the risk of death and/or bodily injury to travel in private autos all the time (and without much thought) but some of us strongly object to a death risk 262 times less likely when it comes to consenting to immunizations. Why? (see math and assumptions below)

The reasons "Why?" are IMO rather intriguing . . . a few that come to mind are:

1) The fear of getting some long term hidden consequences from the immunizations which are unknown presently but are irreversible in the future . . . long after the transient benefits of the immunizations are realized . . . i.e. . . . infertility, slow viruses, prions (spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs)), autoimmune sensitization, cross-species infection, allergies, etc. . . . things that are difficult or impossible to detect before administering the vaccines . . .

2) an overall distrust of the medical establishment, governmental authority and their motives . . . our protection or their protection and benefit . . . profit driven motives emphasizing short term profit over longterm financial liabilities . . .

3) some plot to depopulate the earth by reducing fertility and/or eliminating the weakest of the herd through selective mortality of subgroups . . .

4) the ineffectiveness of the vaccines and likelihood you have targeted the most dangerous infectious process . . .
----------------
Anything ingested, inhaled, absorbed or injected into the body have potential risks associated with them . . . people have hypersensitivities, allergies, and responses to even substances considered foods which are needed to sustain life . . . so when taking vaccines, medicines, ingesting foods . . . in the crudest way it is simply a numbers game . . . because to some predictable percentage of people, even if minuscule, there will be less than desirable outcomes to include even death. The question becomes when is this percentage of undesirable outcomes unacceptable and who gets to decide when that level is reached? Then the other question becomes . . . is the choice to participate or to reject participation allowable? And how much coercion is proper if the overall benefits of participation vastly outweigh the risks of rejecting participation?

Obviously, people who trust their government and medical authority have little objections to vaccinations because they feel some protection from a dreaded disease or infection is acceptable . . . unless they or someone they are aware of has had significant adverse reactions to what they know or suspect was a vaccination or maybe have a compromised immune system or a history of hyperactivity to allergens . . .

Most of us accept considerable risks every day and don't think much about it by getting in a private automobile or some form of public transportation . . . we know with considerable accuracy that a certain percentage of people will die each year because of that choice. . .
Of the 2,423,712 deaths in 2007 in the US . . . 43,945 people died from auto accidents . . . or 1.81% of all deaths in a population of over 300,000,000 . . . so we weigh the benefits of auto transportation and most decide to take the risk . . . data on death rates due to immunizations are hard to come by but for example the cited article below indicates 32 deaths out of 57,000,000 persons vaccinated was experienced . . . a rate well below the risk of death by private auto exposure . . . so if we extrapolate the 32/ 57,000,000 death rate to X/300,000,000 we get 168 deaths assuming all 300,000,000 took the vaccines . . . or roughly 168 people could die from immunizations while 43,945 died from auto accidents . . . so auto related deaths are (43,945/168) or roughly 262 times more likely than death caused by immunizations . . . not precise but rough approximations which illustrate the general risks involved . . .

Conclusion: We take the risk of death to travel in private autos all the time without much thought but object to a risk 262 times less likely when it comes to consenting to a vaccination . . .

"http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0119.pdf
The percentages of deaths due to:
23.2% Cancers
25.4% Heart
2.19% Suicide & Homicide
2.16% Pneumonia
1.81% Motor Vehicle Accidents"

---------
"
Hmmmm . . . I finally found adverse reactions for . . . papillomavirus recombinant vaccine

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/19690307/

So the death rate is 32 deaths in approximately 57,000,000 doses or one (1) death in 1.8 million doses versus over 44,000 auto deaths for 300,000,000 people/year . . . Or one (1) death out of 6,818 people in the US . . .

Note: The causality of VAERS reported deaths and vaccinations is questioned by the CDC themselves . . .
Of all deaths reported to VAERS between 1990 and 1992, only one is believed to be even possibly associated with a vaccine. Each death reported to VAERS is thoroughly examined to ensure that it is not related to a new vaccine-related problem, but little or no evidence suggests that vaccines have contributed to any of the reported deaths."

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/6mishome.htm#Vaccinescause
Content from External Source


------------

Postlicensure safety surveillance for quadrivalent human papillomavirus recombinant vaccine.
Authors

Slade BA, et al. Show all
Journal
JAMA. 2009 Aug 19;302(7):750-7. doi: 10.1001/jama.2009.1201.

Affiliation
Comment in


RESULTS: VAERS received 12 424 reports of AEFIs following qHPV distribution, a rate of 53.9 reports per 100,000 doses distributed. A total of 772 reports (6.2% of all reports) described serious AEFIs, including 32 reports of death. The reporting rates per 100,000 qHPV doses distributed were 8.2 for syncope; 7.5 for local site reactions; 6.8 for dizziness; 5.0 for nausea; 4.1 for headache; 3.1 for hypersensitivity reactions; 2.6 for urticaria; 0.2 for venous thromboembolic events, autoimmune disorders, and Guillain-Barré syndrome; 0.1 for anaphylaxis and death; 0.04 for transverse myelitis and pancreatitis; and 0.009 for motor neuron disease. Disproportional reporting of syncope and venous thromboembolic events was noted with data mining methods.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/19690307/


In the United States, post-licensure vaccine safety monitoring and evaluation are conducted independently by federal agencies and vaccine manufacturers. From June 2006-March 2013, approximately 57 million doses of HPV vaccines were distributed and VAERS received approximately 22,000 adverse event reports occurring in girls and women who received HPV vaccines; 92% were classified as “non-serious.” Reports received by VAERS peaked in 2008 and decreased each year after that; the proportion of female HPV reports classified as “serious” (reports are classified as “serious” if they contain information that the event resulted in hospitalization, prolongation of an existing hospitalization, permanent disability, life-threatening illness, or death) peaked in 2009 at 12.8% and decreased after that to 7.4% in 2013 (for more information, see Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR):Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Coverage Among Adolescent Girls, 2007-2012 and Postlicensure Vaccine Safety Monitoring, 2006-2013 — United States

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaccines/HPV/Index.html#monitor

"
Content from External Source
 
Last edited:
I think part of that is whether we feel in control or not - "everybody" thinks they are an above average driver and so they won't case an accident.......less than 24 hrs ago I managed a 360 at slow speed due to light rain and probably a bit of oil on the road - it was a rude wakeup call - fortunately nothing damaged except a tyre and rim that hit the curb.....but I wasn't far from a power pole!!

But the point is that we are willing to take more risks if we believe we are in control and we have much higher fears of risks where we know we are not in control - eg from airline accidents or as is eth case here from vaccines - we dont' make het vaccine, we didn't research its effectiveness, we do not administer it.....and someone is telling us it is good for us...that ticks a lot of boxes for people.
 
I think part of that is whether we feel in control or not - "everybody" thinks they are an above average driver and so they won't case an accident.......less than 24 hrs ago I managed a 360 at slow speed due to light rain and probably a bit of oil on the road - it was a rude wakeup call - fortunately nothing damaged except a tyre and rim that hit the curb.....but I wasn't far from a power pole!!

But the point is that we are willing to take more risks if we believe we are in control and we have much higher fears of risks where we know we are not in control - eg from airline accidents or as is eth case here from vaccines - we dont' make het vaccine, we didn't research its effectiveness, we do not administer it.....and someone is telling us it is good for us...that ticks a lot of boxes for people.
I agree but many of us are also just passengers in autos as well . . . but I guess we get use to the person behind the wheel and feel we have some input in that person's performance as well . . . o_O
 
@George B: Is there a way of presenting that analogy (post #3) without linking to anti-vaccination articles and organizations? It doesn't seem appropriate to quote promoters of vaccine myths unless the intention is to refute specific claims.
 
@George B: Is there a way of presenting that analogy (post #3) without linking to anti-vaccination articles and organizations? It doesn't seem appropriate to quote promoters of vaccine myths unless the intention is to refute specific claims.
It was the source of the only death rate I could locate . . . and even if exaggerated it is still so low as to be minuscule . . . Update: The source is now the CDC . . . http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaccines/HPV/Index.html#monitor
 
Last edited:
It was the source of the only death rate I could locate . . . and even if exaggerated it is still so low as to be minuscule . . .

The problem is that the article is full of fertilizer -- they're publicizing their errant beliefs that vaccinations are dangerous. Even if you're having a rough time finding reliable mortality statistics from adverse reactions to make your comparison, I'd recommend omitting the anti-vax links. Even VAERS data would be preferable, despite its shortcomings.
 
The problem is that the article is full of fertilizer -- they're publicizing their errant beliefs that vaccinations are dangerous. Even if you're having a rough time finding reliable mortality statistics from adverse reactions to make your comparison, I'd recommend omitting the anti-vax links. Even VAERS data would be preferable, despite its shortcomings.
I cannot find reports of death from vaccines reported statistically by the CDC for public use . . . would love to have an authoritative source but I have yet to locate one . . . good luck if you are looking for one . . .
 
Hmmmm . . . I finally found adverse reactions for . . . papillomavirus recombinant vaccine

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/19690307/

So the death rate is 32 deaths in approximately 57,000,000 doses or one (1) death in 1.8 million doses versus over 44,000 auto deaths for 300,000,000 people/year . . . Or one (1) death out of 6,818 people in the US . . .

Note: The causality of VAERS reported deaths and vaccinations is questioned by the CDC themselves . . .
Of all deaths reported to VAERS between 1990 and 1992, only one is believed to be even possibly associated with a vaccine. Each death reported to VAERS is thoroughly examined to ensure that it is not related to a new vaccine-related problem, but little or no evidence suggests that vaccines have contributed to any of the reported deaths."

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/6mishome.htm#Vaccinescause
Content from External Source




Postlicensure safety surveillance for quadrivalent human papillomavirus recombinant vaccine.
Authors
Slade BA, et al. Show all
Journal
JAMA. 2009 Aug 19;302(7):750-7. doi: 10.1001/jama.2009.1201.

Affiliation
Comment in


RESULTS: VAERS received 12 424 reports of AEFIs following qHPV distribution, a rate of 53.9 reports per 100,000 doses distributed. A total of 772 reports (6.2% of all reports) described serious AEFIs, including 32 reports of death. The reporting rates per 100,000 qHPV doses distributed were 8.2 for syncope; 7.5 for local site reactions; 6.8 for dizziness; 5.0 for nausea; 4.1 for headache; 3.1 for hypersensitivity reactions; 2.6 for urticaria; 0.2 for venous thromboembolic events, autoimmune disorders, and Guillain-Barré syndrome; 0.1 for anaphylaxis and death; 0.04 for transverse myelitis and pancreatitis; and 0.009 for motor neuron disease. Disproportional reporting of syncope and venous thromboembolic events was noted with data mining methods.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/19690307/
Content from External Source

In the United States, post-licensure vaccine safety monitoring and evaluation are conducted independently by federal agencies and vaccine manufacturers. From June 2006-March 2013, approximately 57 million doses of HPV vaccines were distributed and VAERS received approximately 22,000 adverse event reports occurring in girls and women who received HPV vaccines; 92% were classified as “non-serious.” Reports received by VAERS peaked in 2008 and decreased each year after that; the proportion of female HPV reports classified as “serious” (reports are classified as “serious” if they contain information that the event resulted in hospitalization, prolongation of an existing hospitalization, permanent disability, life-threatening illness, or death) peaked in 2009 at 12.8% and decreased after that to 7.4% in 2013 (for more information, see Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR):Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Coverage Among Adolescent Girls, 2007-2012 and Postlicensure Vaccine Safety Monitoring, 2006-2013 — United States
Content from External Source
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaccines/HPV/Index.html#monitor
 
Last edited:
I cannot find reports of death from vaccines reported statistically by the CDC for public use

Since the articles you cited involve the UK, perhaps the MHRA offers further information or statistics.

In any case, I maintain it's not worth linking an anti-vaccination website rife with misinformation, not even to pluck numbers for your analogy -- again, unless you're going to debunk specific claims made. To me that's counterproductive to this thread's intent.
 
Since the articles you cited involve the UK, perhaps the MHRA offers further information or statistics.

That 40 death mortality rate is a little suspect.

Details of the suspected deaths and neurological problems have been released just two months after a legal ruling forced the government to accept that its vaccination programme had left a baby severely brain damaged.

The family of George Fisher are convinced that the MMR vaccine contributed to the death of their 18-month-old son. He died 10 days after being inoculated in January 2006.
Content from External Source
The Sunday times article is pay per view. The full text can be found here: http://www.whale.to/vaccine/fortydeaths.html

EDIT: Yes, I know whale.to is dubious, but they can be trusted to cut and paste an article, can't they?
 
Last edited:
That 40 death mortality rate is a little suspect.

Details of the suspected deaths and neurological problems have been released just two months after a legal ruling forced the government to accept that its vaccination programme had left a baby severely brain damaged.

The family of George Fisher are convinced that the MMR vaccine contributed to the death of their 18-month-old son. He died 10 days after being inoculated in January 2006.
Content from External Source
The Sunday times article is pay per view. The full text can be found here: http://www.whale.to/vaccine/fortydeaths.html

EDIT: Yes, I know whale.to is dubious, but they can be trusted to cut and paste an article, can't they?
The data source has now been updated . . . it is only one vaccine but consider the rates similar to others:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/19690307/

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaccines/HPV/Index.html#monitor
 
Last edited:
The data source has now been updated . . . it is only one vaccine but consider the rates similar to others:

Those figures are no less suspect. The VEARS data does not show causality.

Many different types of adverse events occur after vaccination. About 85-90% of the reports describe mild adverse events such as fever, local reactions, and episodes of crying or mild irritability. The remaining reports reflect serious adverse events involving life-threatening conditions, hospitalization, permanent disability, or death, which may or may not have been caused by a vaccine.

https://vaers.hhs.gov/about/index
Content from External Source
Canada has the AEFI reporting system.

REPORT OF ADVERSE EVENTS FOLLOWING IMMUNIZATION (AEFI)

Report events which have a temporal association with a vaccine and which cannot be clearly attributed to other causes.
A causal relationship does not need to be proven, and submitting a report does not imply causality.

www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/im/pdf/raefi-dmcisi-eng.pdf‎
Content from External Source
At this point I'd dispute the premise that vaccines have caused any deaths. I'm not claiming they have not, I just haven't seen any evidence that they have.
 
Last edited:
Those figures are no less suspect. The VEARS data does not show causality.

Many different types of adverse events occur after vaccination. About 85-90% of the reports describe mild adverse events such as fever, local reactions, and episodes of crying or mild irritability. The remaining reports reflect serious adverse events involving life-threatening conditions, hospitalization, permanent disability, or death, which may or may not have been caused by a vaccine.

https://vaers.hhs.gov/about/index
Content from External Source
Canada has the AEFI reporting system.

REPORT OF ADVERSE EVENTS FOLLOWING IMMUNIZATION (AEFI)

Report events which have a temporal association with a vaccine and which cannot be clearly attributed to other causes.
A causal relationship does not need to be proven, and submitting a report does not imply causality.

www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/im/pdf/raefi-dmcisi-eng.pdf‎
Content from External Source
At this point I'd dispute the premise that vaccines have caused any deaths. I'm not claiming they have not, I just haven't seen any evidence that they have.
The data is considered appropriate because it has been normalized against normal background rates . . .


MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Numbers of reported AEFIs, reporting rates (reports per 100,000 doses of distributed vaccine or per person-years at risk), and comparisons with expected background rates.

CONCLUSIONS: Most of the AEFI rates were not greater than the background rates compared with other vaccines, but there was disproportional reporting of syncope and venous thromboembolic events. The significance of these findings must be tempered with the limitations (possible underreporting) of a passive reporting system.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/19690307/
Content from External Source
 
The data is considered appropriate because it has been normalized against normal background rates . . .


CONCLUSIONS: Most of the AEFI rates were not greater than the background rates compared with other vaccines,
Content from External Source

Yes, no greater than background rates compared with other vaccines. VEARS and AEFI data does not show causality for any vaccine.

VEARS and AEFI are reporting systems that track effects after someone gets a shot. If someone dies, it gets reported. That does not mean the death was caused by the vaccine. What they are saying is that death rate incidents after receiving a papilloma vaccine, are similar to death rates after receiving some other vaccine.

In neither case can it be said that the death was cause by either vaccine.
 
Last edited:
Yes, no greater than background rates compared with other vaccines. VEARS and AEFI data does not show causality for any vaccine.
Well . . . I don't know for sure because I don't know their rules of engagement but I would bet they review the deaths rather closely and compare them with normal death rates for the sex and ages . . . so they have a pretty good idea if these are associated with the vaccinations . . . but it is true there is no way anyone can be 100% sure of any cause of death . . .
 
Well . . . I don't know for sure

Well you are free to speculate. Just realize that it's speculation and the VEARS and AEFI data is not evidence that vaccines cause death.

so they have a pretty good idea if these are associated with the vaccinations

Do you have any evidence to back that up? I'm not saying you're wrong, it just sounds like you're speculating about what "they" think.
 
Last edited:
Well you are free to speculate. Just realize that it's speculation and the VEARS and AEFI data is not evidence that vaccines cause death.



Do you have any evidence to back that up? I'm not saying you're wrong, it just sounds like you're speculating about what "they" think.
Well they have reported the deaths as adverse reactions . . . just like all the other categories so . . does that mean to you none of these categories are valid? So it would seem they (the CDC) have the responsibility and obligation to detail the validity of the reported events . . . otherwise they are indicting their own reporting data system . . . it isn't worth the effort to collected such worthless and misleading information . . .
 
Well they have reported the deaths as adverse reactions . . .

Death is reported as a possible adverse reaction. Have they reported vaccines cause death?

just like all the other categories so . . does that mean to you none of these categories are valid? So it would seem they (the CDC) have the responsibility and obligation to detail the validity of the reported events . . . otherwise they are indicting their own reporting data system . . . it isn't worth the effort to collected such worthless and misleading information . . .

Reaserchers collect data to find correlations. They use the correlations to build hypothesis. They test the hypothesis to form conclusions.

Very few people take the short track from assumptions to conclusion.
 
Last edited:
EDIT: Yes, I know whale.to is dubious, but they can be trusted to cut and paste an article, can't they?

Sure. Actually I was referring to the Times author, Sarah-Kate Templeton. Sorry that wasn't clear, I probably should've specified.

I'd imagine most forum participants recognize whale.to as sketchy.
 
Here is a compilation of the deaths from the VAERS database of people who received an HPV vaccine for the dates covered by the study George linked to (Jun 06 through Dec 08). It's an Open Office spreadsheet.

The database listed 31 deaths. Of note are columns S through U, the vaccination date, onset of symptoms date, and the number of days between the vaccination and onset of symptoms. Wouldn't an adverse reaction manifest within a few hours, at most within a few days? Only 4 deaths occurred within 2 days of the jab.

Reading the symptom text and lab data columns it is evident the study never attempted to eliminate the vaccination as the cause of death because the actual cause of death can deduced from the information in the database.

https://sites.google.com/site/chewtansy/msfn/VAERS deaths.ods
 
Here is a compilation of the deaths from the VAERS database of people who received an HPV vaccine for the dates covered by the study George linked to (Jun 06 through Dec 08). It's an Open Office spreadsheet.

The database listed 31 deaths. Of note are columns S through U, the vaccination date, onset of symptoms date, and the number of days between the vaccination and onset of symptoms. Wouldn't an adverse reaction manifest within a few hours, at most within a few days? Only 4 deaths occurred within 2 days of the jab.

Reading the symptom text and lab data columns it is evident the study never attempted to eliminate the vaccination as the cause of death because the actual cause of death can deduced from the information in the database.

https://sites.google.com/site/chewtansy/msfn/VAERS deaths.ods
I am unable to open this Link presently . . . however, death from any "cause" unless accompanied by a board of inquiry, autopsy, complete inpatient and outpatient records is questionable . . . in fact even then it can be questioned . . . however, in the US if a child (especially an infant) died within a Hospital the death is almost always reviewed by a Morbidity and Mortality Review Committee of senior medical staff to determine if there was any practice or liability issues regarding the care of the child based on cause of death . . . these are the same people who would be doing the reporting to the CDC etc . . . for example many hospitals use any death of a child occurring within their facility as a trigger for analysis . . . this is pushed by the minimum requirement by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care Facilities to review the death of any full term infant under their Sentinel Event protocols . . . http://www.jointcommission.org/assets/1/6/CAMH_2012_Update2_24_SE.pdf
 
Last edited:
Wouldn't an adverse reaction manifest within a few hours, at most within a few days?

I would think so. But does that mean the jab caused the reaction? I'm sure this has happened to everyone at some point; You walk under a street light just as it goes out. It then turns back on when you're a short distance away.

Spurious relationships need to be filtered out of the VEARS data. I'm not convinced that's been done.

Because this issue is about vaccines, people are actually getting hurt by the bunk. There is a lot of dangerous bunk based on speculation and assumptions surrounding vaccines. Using speculation and assumptions to combat the bunk seems counterproductive to me.
 
I would think so. But does that mean the jab caused the reaction? I'm sure this has happened to everyone at some point; You walk under a street light just as it goes out. It then turns back on when you're a short distance away.

Spurious relationships need to be filtered out of the VEARS data. I'm not convinced that's been done.

Because this issue is about vaccines, people are actually getting hurt by the bunk. There is a lot of dangerous bunk based on speculation and assumptions surrounding vaccines. Using speculation and assumptions to combat the bunk seems counterproductive to me.
Just how would you suggest the data reported be vetted and/or analyzed? Seems the CDC are the experts and the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) made the observation that they suspected under reporting . . . they don't seem to have your concerns of causality.
The significance of these findings must be tempered with the limitations (possible underreporting) of a passive reporting system.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/19690307/

Content from External Source
 
Last edited:
Just how would you suggest the data reported be vetted and/or analyzed? Seems the CDC are the experts and the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) made the observation that they suspected under reporting . . . they don't seem to have your concerns of causality.

Yes, the CDC are the experts and determining causality is how they evaluate threats. As for how the experts at the CDC view the VEARS data...

Of all deaths reported to VAERS between 1990 and 1992, only one is believed to be even possibly associated with a vaccine. Each death reported to VAERS is thoroughly examined to ensure that it is not related to a new vaccine-related problem, but little or no evidence suggests that vaccines have contributed to any of the reported deaths."

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/6mishome.htm#Vaccinescause
Content from External Source
As I've been saying, the CDC does not attribute even a single death to vaccines using the VEARS data.

The only question that remains is if you're going to redact the bunk you twice posted here on this forum and on GLP.
 
Last edited:
Yes, the CDC are the experts and determining causality is how they evaluate threats. As for how the experts at the CDC view the VEARS data...

Of all deaths reported to VAERS between 1990 and 1992, only one is believed to be even possibly associated with a vaccine. Each death reported to VAERS is thoroughly examined to ensure that it is not related to a new vaccine-related problem, but little or no evidence suggests that vaccines have contributed to any of the reported deaths."

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/6mishome.htm#Vaccinescause
Content from External Source
As I've been saying, the CDC does not attribute even a single death to vaccines using the VEARS data.

The only question that remains is if you're going to redact the bunk you twice posted here on this forum and on GLP.

. . .As I stated before and above I did not know what the rules of engagement for VARES was but only quoted their published statistics and JAMA's comments . . . the rates I calculated are simply those presented by them on Deaths . . . my whole point was it is minuscule compared to almost any other human endeavor where we have death rates reported to include but not limited to ground transportation . . . I will edit my Posts to include the following modifier. . .

Note: The causality of VAERS reported deaths and vaccinations is questioned by the CDC themselves . . .
Of all deaths reported to VAERS between 1990 and 1992, only one is believed to be even possibly associated with a vaccine. Each death reported to VAERS is thoroughly examined to ensure that it is not related to a new vaccine-related problem, but little or no evidence suggests that vaccines have contributed to any of the reported deaths."

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/6mishome.htm#Vaccinescause
Content from External Source
 
You are misinformed.

Myth 2: Vaccines contain mercury Mercury was removed from all routine childhood vaccines in Australia in the year 2000 (with the exception of one type of HepB vaccine which contains trace amounts) and it was never in the MMR vaccine. Prior to 2000, thimerosal, an organomercury compound, was used in the manufacturing process of vaccines as a preservative. The process left only trace amounts in the finished product – you ingest more mercury when you eat a can of tuna than you would ever get from a vaccine. Also there are two types of mercury – methyl mercury is the scary environmental toxin that “bioaccumulates” in your body, and ethyl mercury the type found in thimerosal, which does not bioaccumulate.
http://www.mamamia.com.au/news/vaccination-myths-busted-by-science-cheat-sheet-on-immunisation/
Content from External Source
 
Trust Your own immune system, it will make You stronger.

Discouraging people from getting vaccinated can have serious life long consequences. If you're just trolling, please stop it and pick another subject.

If you actually believe what you're saying then consider that Smallpox has killed 500 million people. Why didn't their immune systems make them stronger? Vaccines have eradicated the disease.

SmallpoxvictimIllinois1912.jpg

The overall case-fatality rate for ordinary-type smallpox is about 30%, but varies by pock distribution: ordinary type-confluent is fatal about 50–75% of the time, ordinary-type semi-confluent about 25–50% of the time, in cases where the rash is discrete the case-fatality rate is less than 10%. The overall fatality rate for children younger than 1 year of age is 40–50%. Hemorrhagic and flat types have the highest fatality rates. The fatality rate for flat-type is 90% or greater and nearly 100% is observed in cases of hemorrhagic smallpox.
Content from External Source
 
You are misinformed.

Myth 2: Vaccines contain mercury Mercury was removed from all routine childhood vaccines in Australia in the year 2000 (with the exception of one type of HepB vaccine which contains trace amounts) and it was never in the MMR vaccine. Prior to 2000, thimerosal, an organomercury compound, was used in the manufacturing process of vaccines as a preservative. The process left only trace amounts in the finished product – you ingest more mercury when you eat a can of tuna than you would ever get from a vaccine. Also there are two types of mercury – methyl mercury is the scary environmental toxin that “bioaccumulates” in your body, and ethyl mercury the type found in thimerosal, which does not bioaccumulate.
http://www.mamamia.com.au/news/vaccination-myths-busted-by-science-cheat-sheet-on-immunisation/[/EX]
Content from External Source


http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html
Nothing about Your vaccines. Seriously, this is all beautiful. But the doctor 'discredited' (in the article You posted) has staggering evidence, as have many others who were similarly discredited because it is a multi billion dollar business and that just adds to the conspiracy. Articles like the one You sent are exactly how they are discredited with no substantiating evidence except the words in the article. More vaccinations they can talk You into, more money they make and the sicker You will get. It's JUST an article with no substantiated evidence. If You are really interested, I will connect You to credible, serious scientists who dedicate themselves to producing facts and overwhelming data on many of these issues.
Content from External Source
 
The anti-vaccine movement from the well educated areas around SF could be partially responsible for a new possible outbreak of measles affecting people who have recently commuted on the Bart system. This is a case where bunk can cause real serious problems to the larger community promoted by people who should have known better.
http://www.latimes.com/business/hil...nation-20140219,0,7698897.story#axzz2tpQsJNTE

Outbreaks of vaccine preventable diseases are on the rise. Here's a couple of graphs for Mumps and Whooping Cough.

mumps-oreillons-eng.jpg
pertussis.jpg
 
Articles like the one You sent are exactly how they are discredited with no substantiating evidence except the words in the article.
Excuse me? So it's more mercury than you would get eating a can of tuna? So the words that talk about the difference between methyl and ethyl mercury and bio-accumulation - that's just made up words that mean nothing? Who do they discredit? If you can discredit someone by *actually proving what they say is empty waffle* then I guess they were just trying to discredit.

Simple question - are what they said about mercury facts? Or empty words?

And what in this fact-sheet would you dispute?
http://www.ncirs.edu.au/immunisation/fact-sheets/thiomersal-fact-sheet.pdf
 
Trust Your own immune system, it will make You stronger.

Your immune system is not perfect. It will not protect you against everything and there are plenty of weapons pathogens can use to defeat it, especially the nasty ones we routinely vaccinate against. I can't emphasize how much it is literally a war between us and the pathogens. I know a professor who gets this point across by yelling in his lectures about bacteria, "They will freaking eat you if they can!" and he is not joking.

as have many others who were similarly discredited because it is a multi billion dollar business and that just adds to the conspiracy.

Vaccines are actually extremely inefficient if you're trying to pull a profit. One immunization with a booster shot is usually the most it takes for life long immunity. Not really a big money maker compared to some other more regular treatment that could be invented if the motive was to make money.

It's JUST an article with no substantiated evidence.

Why is it unsupported? Why do you think thimerisol in vaccines (the few that still have them, that is) is a problem?
 
Your immune system is not perfect. It will not protect you against everything and there are plenty of weapons pathogens can use to defeat it, especially the nasty ones we routinely vaccinate against. I can't emphasize how much it is literally a war between us and the pathogens. I know a professor who gets this point across by yelling in his lectures about bacteria, "They will freaking eat you if they can!" and he is not joking.



Vaccines are actually extremely inefficient if you're trying to pull a profit. One immunization with a booster shot is usually the most it takes for life long immunity. Not really a big money maker compared to some other more regular treatment that could be invented if the motive was to make money.



Why is it unsupported? Why do you think thimerisol in vaccines (the few that still have them, that is) is a problem?
Because the author's argument is no more credible than the article I sent, which is exactly My point. The article is an opinion (seemingly) with no clinical study evidence to support it. With respect to a booster shot, You're right, one is enough and not very profitable. I don't expect You will believe Me, but aside from perhaps a couple of colds in My childhood and chicken pocks good and early, I have never been sick and never had a shot. My immune system works beautifully. The more drugs We take, the weaker We become. Think of it like a wheel chair. If there was nothing wrong with Your legs but You chose to stop using them for long enough, eventually You will need the wheelchair, You're legs will stop developing muscles. Immune system is like a muscle, it needs exercise and it needs to develop naturally. No animals needed antibiotics or vaccinations before humans and We are supposed to be the 'supreme' beings. Making vaccinations mandatory in a country with over 300 million people is definitely going to be profitable for the pharmaceutical company making the vaccine. None of these shots were mandatory 20 years ago and health has gone down since, not up. Especially with respect to mental health; specifically ADHD and autism.
 
Remember, the eternal quest for health care is really just the eternal quest for eternal life. We all came here to die. You can stretch it out as long as You want, but when it's Your time, it's Your time. No vaccine or miracle drug (yet) is going to let You live forever. ;)
 
Back
Top