Friday, October 30, 2009

Still more censorship by Huff-Po moderators

It's alright to insult me.  And not let me reply.

Insult
isjois I'm a Fan of isjois 8 fans permalink
As to autism...REALLY, are you REALLY going to send me off to Neurologica and Science Based Medicine?!? We've interacted before and I've read numerous articles and writings from these "sources". It's shocking that they still cannot tell us what is causing autism - "in their opinion". For fun, I did just pull up Neurologica again and while the blogger is going on about the swine flu pandemic and dystonia - autism's "cause" is not highlighted.

No, I'm not asking to be redirected around the internet. I would really like for you or Josephius to tell us why so many kids are disabled today - or chronically ill with the conditions I mentioned in my original comment. You come across as well read - I'd like you to read your response. I'd like to hear your scientific findings.

And...don't claim "genetic conditions" or "improved diagnostic methods"...we don't have autism and allergies a generation back in our family tree. We do have them now - with my children's generation. I'd like someone who is exonerating vaccines to tell us - if vaccines don't cause autism and allergies (learning disabilities, asthma) - what does?

It is insulting that posters are minimizing the side effects of vaccines...when some of us are living with dramatic consequences of a largely untested and bloated vaccination program.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jay-gordon/a-national-emergency-no-a_b_336417.html?show_comment_id=33679109#comment_33679109

 My Reply 5 pm October 30th rejected by moderators


See, there's no need for direct insults.

isjois:  "It's shocking that they [science]  still cannot tell us what is causing autism."
sheldon101: Science can't explain schizophrenia  either..
isjois:  It's shocking that they [science]  still cannot tell us what is causing autism.
sheldon101:  They're trying.  Some autism has a genetic component..
isjois:  Vaccines cause autism.
sheldon101:  Doesn't follow from current science.
isjois:  Vaccines cause autism.
sheldon101:  Research studies  didn't find a link.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harvey-karp/cracking-the-autism-riddl_b_213730.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harvey-karp/cracking-the-autism-riddl_b_219160.html
isjois:  What about other vaccines? Vaccines cause autism.
sheldon101:   http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=1136
isjois:  Until Science can completely explain the causes of autism, vaccines cause autism,.vaccines cause autism..
sheldon101: Russell's teapot analogy applies.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot .  http://www.jennymccarthybodycount.com/

Flu vaccination:  It's safe, effective and morally correct.

More Censorship by Huff-Po Moderators

 Ms. Stagliano posts the story of her friends death from ALS at

www.huffingtonpost.com/kim-stagliano/my-friend-with-als-he-die_b_307907.html

A Huff-Po moderator rejected the following comment:

WHY I DIDN'T LOVE THIS BLOG ENTRY
--------------------------------------------------------------

Ms. Stagliano:  No approved treatment.
sheldon101:  Wrong www.mongabay.com/health/medications/Riluzole.html

Ms. Stagliano:  There's a vest and a machine needed to help breathing and they cost a lot and insurance covers only a little.   He wanted insurance to pay for his alternative treatments.
sheldon101:  The vest is better than tapping the chest. Many programs include BI-PAP or help those with ALS obtain a BI-PAP , http://www.alsforums.com/forum/tips-tricks-gadgets/9732-bipap-information.html    Without a "we'll cover crazy stuff" clause, the insurance company was correct.

Ms. Stagliano:   "Jim died just as the disease was overtaking the slowdown the alternative treatments had offered."
sheldon101:  Anything, including reading this blog, may appear effective.  However, most people know that correlation ( progression slows after reading Ms. Stagliano) isn't evidence of causation (reading Ms. Stagliano slows ALS). 

Ms. Stagliano:  "You did the right thing, my friend. You died quickly. If only that weren't the only option in America."
sheldon101:  It's not America, it's the disease. Unlimited funds wouldn't change the course of the disease. It just puts more money in the pockets of Big Alternative.

Thursday, October 29, 2009

Huff-Po moderator rejects my Comment

This one got rejected.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jay-gordon/a-national-emergency-no-a_b_336417.html

Doctor Gordon is not a public health expert, he's a pediatrician.  His opinions on public health, as a non-expert, aren't more valuable because he's an expert pediatrician. If he wants to disagree with the experts, he should preface his remarks with  "The CDC are the experts on the flu.  I'm not an expert, but in my personal opinion.."  To do otherwise is morally wrong.

Besides, he gets it wrong.  Dr. Gordon writes,"The vaccine is not dangerous but will cause harm to a tiny percentage of those who receive it."  True?   No.  0.0001% (1 in a million chance of injury) or 0.00001%  (1 in 10 million chance of dying from flu vaccine)  aren't tiny, they're  zero. 

Dr. Gordon writes: "The illness will also cause harm to a tiny percentage of those who contract it."   True. But 11* kids with lab confirmed H1N1 dying in the US in one week is still 11kids.  If  we had a time machine  and had those 11 kids vaccinated early enough the number would be close to zero. The same would be true for ICU admissions, hospitalization, pregnant women, those with asthma.etc., etc.

On public health, trust the opinion of an expert on public health, not a doctor who isn't one.

Vaccination: It's safe, effective and morally the right thing to do.
* 2  kids 99% chance H1N1 October 17  http://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Moderator Censorship at Huff-Po

I don't understand why some bloggers at Huff-Post are upset with me.  I'm just doing today what I did in the past. Find a place where there's a disconnect between what science or history say and what's being written at Huff-Post.

To make it easier, I've become a fan of some bloggers and get notified by email when they make new posts.  That way there's an alternative viewpoint, not just a love fest.

Along the way, the moderators at Huff-Post have decided some of my comments violate their no ad hominem  policy.  They don't seem to understand  the ad hominem fallacy. It isn't wrong to say nasty thing as long as they're directly connect to the argument

It's an attack on the person, unconnected to the topic at hand.
There is no ad hominen fallacy in the following:
John:  2 + 2 = 5  Mary:  You're ignorant because 2 +2 =4
There is here:

John:  2 + 2 =4.  Mary: You're ignorant because you didn't graduate high school.




Monday, October 19, 2009

US no Squalene - no Adjuvant Canada will use a Squalene Adjuvant

 Linda, the CBC story was confusing. There's no change to Canada's plans.

---UNITED STATES - SEASONAL OR SWINE FLU --
NO SQUALENE NO ADJUVANT NOW - NONE PLANNED
Stop claiming the US vaccine uses an adjuvant . That's a lie.

-- Canada
98% of Canadian vaccine, including what I'll get, will have an adjuvant. The rest is for pregnant women and others who get uncomfortable. I expect most pregnant will end up getting vaccine with adjuvant. The adjuvanted vaccine consists of 3.75mcg of virus material (the US uses 15mcg per dose) plus GSK's AS03 adjuvant.

US testing
--- This fall the US will test 3.75 mcg virus material plus GSK's AS03 squalene adjuvant on a couple of hundred healthy VOLUNTEERS with results in spring 2010.**

** American officials have obtained permission for daily helicopter sweeps over major Canadian cities to count the dead.***

*** That ..is ..satire. Here's what Canadian and US experts expert. The adjuvanted vaccine (Canada) was more effective in preventing flu than the non-adjuvanted vaccine (US). Vaccinated Canadians had a higher rate pain and soreness. There was no higher rate of serious side-effects (if any) from its use on millions of Canadians. A similar adjuvant, MF59, has already been shown safe in 40 million European vaccinatio­ns.*******

******Please change "Paid by Big Pharma to lie and mislead" to "A Canadian who doesn't belong here who is paid by Big Pharma to lie and mislead."
----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­--
Persuasion thru fairness starts with a name that tell you what I believe: www.vaccineswork.blogspot.com

Sunday, October 18, 2009

Sources

This is great
(2004)
http://www.medicine.emory.edu/id/ecirve/faculty_speaker_slides/Iskander_Influenzavaxsafe_EmoryOct05fin.ppt

This is technical (2008)
http://cdc.confex.com/cdc/nic2008/recordingredirect.cgi/id/3667

Search for VAERS read the page, find the link to CDC-Wonder, read the disclaimer and starting playing. I worked out an averge of 350 reports of severe adverse events ( before investigation) from influenza shots for 2006-2007 2008 2009. Start playing around.

Try the FDA because they're in charge of safe vaccine production.

One last, go to the vaccine court website. Download the full text of the 3 decided cases and work through them.

Finally, go here and read all of it. www.briandeer.com/wakefield-deer.htm

Appeal to Authority Fallacy

ou're guilty of the appeal to authority logical fallacy.. Doctors may be experts in cardiology or GI.. Family doctor is expert in family medicine stuff. None of them are experts on vaccination or viruses. Therefore what they say or do on vaccination or viruses isn't relevant. Unfortunately, on Huff-Po, you can see MDs opposed to vaccination who aren't expert enough to describe the views of both sides. I think they should be prohibited from blogging on vaccines unless they can provide proof of credentials. or they have a disclaimer saying they're not an expert and this is their personal opinion.

Salk had his kids vaccinated very early. Millions of kids took part in the great Salk vaccine trial. Parents knew half the kid got placebo, half got vaccine. That was a risk they could avoid by waiting a year for the results to come out. They didn't. Schools clamored to get in. That's how much people feared polio.

Taking a flu shot today is as risky, for serious events lasting more than a couple of days, as getting a shot of water.


Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/linda-bergthold/bill-maher-is-still-wrong_b_324501.html?show_comment_id=32981943#

The other power point slide

The US has a database of all reports people send in of adverse events after vaccination. That database is publicly available with a neat tool to use it. Search for VAERS, read the page and follow the link to CDC-Wonder. Read the disclaimer carefully. You'll be amazed at how little people report.

AMA has nothing to do with research except they have a peer reviewed journal

This is great
(2004)
http://www.medicine.emory.edu/id/ecirve/faculty_speaker_slides/Iskander_Influenzavaxsafe_EmoryOct05fin.ppt

This is technical (2008)
http://cdc.confex.com/cdc/nic2008/recordingredirect.cgi/id/3667

Are you going to call or am I going to call your Doctor to get set up for an early vaccination?

FDA Controls Release of Vaccine


Influenza Virus Vaccine for the 2009-2010 Season [SEASONAL FLU]
Cumulative 2009/2010 Season Lot Release Status (Updated 10/14/2009)
http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Post-MarketActivities/LotReleases/ucm162050.htm

Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccines Composition and Lot Release
http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Post-MarketActivities/LotReleases/ucm181956.htm

Take a look.






What you need to know

mmmd: "In fact, perusing your post one would be hard pressed to find one single fact."
sheldon101: I'd agree. So?

mmmd: Those who who believe every vaccine is totally safe are gullible.
sheldon101: Those people don't exist because we believe everything has risks.
mmmd: Now they're "probably not knowledgeable"

mmmd: "one really can't judge either way."
sheldon10101: Vaccine supporters "need little of the technical skills." That was sloppy: We need to know a vaccine provokes the same response the virus does. Beyond that find an experts explanation.
mmmd: "your blind faith in "the heavy lifters" is touching.
sheldon: I want to eat some wild mushrooms. I walk in the woods and pick a basket of mushrooms. I show them to an expert. He says. "These are safe and those will kill you." I blindly follow his advice

It's a fallacy to believe that your argument is strengthed if both sides reject it.

But it was the list of specific knowledge, presented in jargon, you decided was needed or "you can't really judge either way" that galled me. I wrote and then left out my reaction: "Are we supposed to kneel or is bowing sufficient?"

Who is pro safety

You're absolutely right. Let's start calling pro-safety those working to prevent vaccines from causing needless harm.

"Dr Ron Behrens runs a travel clinic at the London Hospital for Tropical Diseases. He has seen several patients who thought they were safe because they were taking homeopathic remedies to protect them. We've certainly had patients admitted to our unit with falciparum, the malignant form of malaria, who have been taking homeopathic remedies - and without a doubt the fact that they were taking them and not effective drugs was the reason they had malaria,"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5178488.stm

That's real injury, directly caused by a vaccine. A homeopathiic vaccine consisting of water or if you prefer, water and magic. Malaria beats water and magic.

Check this web site all about Jenny McCarthy.
http://www.jennymccarthybodycount.com

I'm trying out new mottos. How's this one: Flu vaccine: It's more dangerous than water.

I'm a strong advocate for vaccine safety.

Saturday, October 17, 2009

What a vaccine opponent should write about squalene and adjuvants

Here's all someone opposed to vaccination should write about squalene and adjuvants.

----------------------- start-----------------------------------------


This is the situation with the swine flu vaccine and adjuvants, especially one you may have heard about called squalene.

The current situation is this: There is no adjuvant, no squalene, no alum, no aluminum salt in any of the swine flu vaccine that will be used in the United State. It's expected that no adjuvants, squalene, alum or aluminum salt to any swine flu vaccine for the 2009-2010 swine flu season.

There's a very small chance that the CDC might add an adjuvant that contains squalene to the swine flu vaccine. As you know, the strain of flu virus that infects people a month from now can be different from the one that infects people today. It's possible that the new strain might be much more dangerous than the one infecting people now. The CDC and others who think that vaccination is safer than not getting vaccinated say that even if the new flu strain is much more dangerous, that the vaccine they're using now will be pretty good.

So why would the CDC add squalene? They'll do it because if you add squalene.to the vaccine you get vaccinate four times as many people. And if getting infected is more dangerous, some of the people who decided not to get vaccinated may change their mind and want to get vaccinated as soon as possible. If that happens, the only way to quickly vaccinate them may be to add squalene to the vaccine.

I don't believe that the vaccine works now and I don't believe when they say the flu strain can be more dangerous and yet the vaccine will work...... Inset anything desired here.


------------------------ end ----------------------------

I support swine flu vaccination. But what I've written above is pretty flat.

Anyone who opposes vaccination shouldn't have any problem with an article like this after adding some flourishes. People opposed to vaccination believe that the public isn't being told the truth they need to know to decide whether they're going to get vaccinated. That's all my suggested article does, it give the public information that's as accurate as possible so they can decide to get vaccinated or not on the facts.

Why did Katherine Sebelius grant legal immunity to the vaccine makers?

f the vaccine is safe, why did Katherine Sebelius grant legal immunity to the vaccine makers?

Because of a court decision. Without it Sebelius might not have made the Declaration. And there would be 99 irrelevant reasons for opposing vaccination instead of a 100.

Surprise! Flu shots have been in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program for year. You can't sue the vaccine maker. Instead, there's a compensation claim process, the Vaccine Court. In 2006, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeal decided thimerosal wasn't part of the vaccine and anyone blaming thimerosal alone could sue the vaccine maker.

It's now spring 2009. Most 2009 H1N1 vaccine will be produced in 10 dose vials. Thimerosal must be added to a 10 dose vial to prevent bacteria growing after the vial is pierced.

The US must buy adjuvant. At this time, no one knows how much virus is needed per dose or whether 1 or 2 doses are needed. Adjuvanted vaccine needs only 1/2 or 1/4 as much virus, so it doubles or quadruples doses produced. The thimerosal rule would apply as adjuvant is added after the vaccine is produced. As it turned out, NONE OF THE US 2009 H1N1 FLU VACCINE HAS ADJUVANT ADDED.

All the Sebelius' Declaration did was give vaccine makers the immunity they were supposed to have all along.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_court
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/E9-14948.htm

Baloney: Unvaccinated Can't Harm Vaccinated

It's obvious that if you catch the flu you can give it to someone else.
But there's a ridiculous idea that someone who is unvaccinated can't harm someone who is. That's just plain dumb.

1. 10 people get vaccinated 21 days ago.
2. Of the 10, 3 don't build up enough immunity.(70% effective, because of great match 85% more likely)
3. All 10 go to a party where they meet up with enough unvaccinated people with the flu that each person vaccinated takes into their body enough viral particles to infect them with the flu.
4. The 7 with built up immunity don't realize they were infected.
5. Thanks to the unvaccinated the other 3 have the flu. Of those one has very bad asthma and the flu quickly leads to viral lung inflammation which means he's put on a respirator in the ICU. Eventually, he fully recovers. Unfortunately, a sister of one of the 10 unvaccinated people got very ill. It didn't have anything to do with the flu and she'd been vaccinated. In the hospital, the extra flu victims in the ICU meant she couldn't get an ICU bed. She got poorer care so instead of walking out of the hospital .....

Authorities

You're right. But you still haven't seen the light. You're just as good an "authority".

Don't let them brainwash you. Stop using the computer. It's authorities with their smugness and la-de-da superiority that have created your computer and the internet.

Get out of your home. There are authorities everywhere -- in the fridge, the water, the toilet, the furnace. Take some food and a container of water and go deep into the woods or an abandoned farm. And start again with just the personal knowledge and expertise you've got. Much of it taught by authorities like your parents or teachers or books.

If you survive, come back in the spring and tell us how much fun it was.

Injected Flu Vaccine: More Dangerous Than Water

n 1976, the US unintentionally carried out the largest safety test ever on flu vaccine. When it was finished at worst, the vaccine gave 500 people GBS with most of them recovering fullly 25 people died. Yes, it was a shame that people died when there was no flu. But if the flu wasn't there, any excess cases of anything might be caused by the vaccine. And the only thing that stuck out with 40 milion vaccinated was GBS. The injected Flu Vaccine: More Dangerous than water.

For later years, there were only zero to one extra case of GBS per million vaccinated. Most of those additional cases of GBS will recover fully. 5-10% will die. Your chances of dying from the flu vaccine at the low end is zero and at the high end are (lets be conservative) is 1 in 5 million. The injected Flu Vaccine: More Dangerous than water.

The nasal spray vaccine has some additional risk and will probably be a bit less effective-- go for the needle and the sore arm


On Praying for Flu Vaccine

If the US adds adjuvant to flu vaccine this flu season, anyone not vaccinated will already by praying their hearts out.

There is no adjuvant in any US flu vaccine. Each of the injected vaccine uses 15mcg of dead virus material. The US has bought the same adjuvant Canada is adding to its vaccine. The Canadian vaccine will give a bit better protection using only 3.75 mcg per dose.

If the viruses infecting people get really nasty, I expect everyone to be surprised with the results. People vaccinated 14-21 days or more earlier will still be well protected. The US will quadruple the number of doses available by adding adjuvant.

Anyone not vaccinated will pray for immediate vaccination and keep praying until enough time has passed to build up immunity.

"The part of the virus that determines whether or not it's very deadly is a different part of the virus that determines whether or not you're going to be protected by the vaccine. That's good news. Because, it means that the vaccine that we have now, which is very effective, very highly, tightly matched with the virus that's spreading is likely to protect you even if this virus were to become more deadly."
http://www.cdc.gov/media/transcripts/2009/t091006.htm (October 6)

Why do you think we'e immoral?

Anti-vaxer: You work for a drug company
Me: You're right. Evil mean them paying me to lie. But you'll never prove I'm lying because...
Anti-vaxer: You work for a drug company.
Me: No. Your mother wears army boots (Never understood this)

I've made a pact with the devil. He'll give me the super vaccine if I only blog in favor of flu vaccines for a year. But vaccines make him wait longer... Oh, my God, I've made a pact with God. And me a foxhole hater. But that means vaccine opponents think they've made a pact with .. and it's actually with....

I don't care why anyone is commenting here. It would be great if a vaccine company expert commented here. Experts are good.

Anti-vaxers frequently accuse their opponents of ulterior motives and tell the undecided to ignore them as if we're contaminated their personal playground. Why?

We think anti-vaxers have a dark warped view of the people involved with vaccines. They don't or won't the checks and balances around any vaccine.

We know the worst of them are examples of confirmation bias gone wild. We know they're missing, for whatever reasons, a lot of the knowledge they need, especially when it comes to understanding risk. We have a hard time hiding our (justified) smugness.

We think they're wrong --- not iimmoral. We think our morality trumps there's: Come to the light and we'll help your loved ones and our loved ones from dying unnecessarily.

Friday, October 16, 2009

The Flu Vaccine: More Dangerous Than Water

photo

1. If you're allergic to anything in the vaccine, you shouldn't get vaccinated.  Anyone giving the vaccine must be prepared for anaphylactic reactions.
2. If you've had GBS in the last 6 weeks, consider waiting.

That's the complete list of safety precautions required by the FDA for CSL, Novartis and Sanofi-Paster injected 2009 H1N1 vaccine. Wow, is that stuff dangerous. Don't believe me. Here they are in detail.

4 CONTRAINDICATIONS
Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine is contraindicated in individuals with known
hypersensitivity to eggs or chicken protein, neomycin, or polymyxin, or in anyone who has had
a life-threatening reaction to previous influenza vaccination.
5 WARNINGS AND PRECAUTIONS
5.1 Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS)
If GBS has occurred within 6 weeks of previous influenza vaccination, the decision to give
Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine should be based on careful consideration of the
potential benefits and risks.
5.2 Altered Immunocompetence
If Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine is administered to immunocompromised
persons, including those receiving immunosuppressive therapy, the immune response may be
diminished.
5.3 Preventing and Managing Allergic Reactions
Appropriate medical treatment and supervision must be available to manage possible
anaphylactic reactions following administration of the vaccine.
5.4 Limitations of Vaccine Effectiveness
Vaccination with Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine may not protect all
individuals.

Proper Testing MInimizes Differences

Homeopathy supporters claim the lepto test in Cuba was a proper test
Bizarrely the Finlay institutes did regular and magic vaccine work on lepto. With regular vaccine, they did everything properly and published results in a Cuban medical journal. Unfortunately, the vaccine is too expensive to vaccinate everyone.

The magic vaccine isn't classic homeopathy and would be rejected by homeopaths.

At a cost of $200,000 and without small scale tests, they vaccinated 95% of 2 million people with magic. And claimed a great victory for non-homeopathy homeopathy.

I don't care if it is a real drug or a magic drug: Any trial worth mentioning has got to be able to show that the only difference between two groups is that some got a drug and some didn't.

Neurologica -- Suck it Up

Modified from a response to
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=1086#comment-15104

Medicine didn’t become useful until it started treating people “as robots or computers with their predictable 1’s and 0’s” and ignored “intangibles like experience and instinct.”

I want my medical care to treat me socially as individual. Otherwise, please don’t treat me as individual.

That’s especially true for something as simple as flu vaccination with essentially zero or very, very close to zero serious side effects.

A/California/7/2009 (H1N1)v is the flu strain used in every vaccine worldwide. If you don’t understand that real safety of this vaccine is really based on the safety of last year’s vaccine, and only looked at the size of field trials worldwide for this vaccine, you might be correct in not getting vaccinated immediately. After all, if you just wait a few weeks , the vaccine’s safety will then rely on the millions of people who’ve been vaccinated and monitoring systems world wide looking for problems.

You complain about that information is rammed at you. I’ve got a couple of responses.
1. I”m sorry you feel that way. Let me explain this to you again in a kinder, gentler fashion.
2. Suck it up. You’re an adult making a serious medical decision for yourself and your kids.
Facts are facts. whether they’re screamed at you or gently and lovingly explained. It’s a lousy vaccination, who cares if it upsets your sense of self-worth and self esteem.

Finally, I’ve been commenting a lot at Huffington-Post on vaccines. There are pro and con regulars. Vaccine supporters are pretty polite and don’t go after character. Not because they’re no nice, but because it doesn’t make much difference to their arguments.

On the other hand, vaccine opponents have precious little evidence they can use. That only leaaves attack on the characters of vaccine supporters, Big Pharma and anyone else they can find. You want vitriol and hate rammed down your throat. you’re looking in the wrong place.

Have a Bit of Faith

Comment at New York Times

Limiting myself to the US and the 4 vaccines being supplied.
1. All vaccines have been on the market for years. They make swine flu vaccine the same way they made seasonal flu vaccine. Only the strain has changed so getting any of the 4, you've got the millions and millions of people who got vaccinated in the past providing great evidence of safety. The FDA isn't changing its seasonal flu vaccine safety rules for the swine flu. So if you got vaccinated in the last few years, get vaccinated with the swine flu vaccine. As far as the whole vaccine process is concerned, conceptually there is no new safety concerns between 2007 vaccine and 2008 vaccine OR 2008 vaccine and 2009 swine flu vaccine.

Thursday, October 15, 2009

The Nasal Spray Vaccine is Safe

Can the nasal spray vaccine give the flu itself to another person?

If you're vaccinated with the nasal spray vaccine you won't get the flu. But you may transmit a small amount of the very, very, very weakened flu virus to another person.

From research, there's 2.5% estimated chance that you can spread the very, very, very weakened flu virus in the vaccine to another person. However, researchers only found one case where they could find the very,very, very weakened strain had been transmitted to another person, a young child. The young child did not develop any signs or symptom of the flu.

On the Conspiracy Theory

 Vaccine opponents ultimate weapon is claiming that those who develop, make, sell, research and regulate vaccines aren't reasonably ethical and reasonably honest. And therefore, vaccines are unsafe and unethical. But there's very little evidence that this is true. Putting this claim in writing is much less effective than when you add sound and video

Vaccine opponents point to the evil being in the vaccine makers or the FDA or the CDC or the university researchers who develop the vaccine or the epidemiologists and public health officials who test vaccines for safety and effectiveness in trials of vaccines and studies after they're widely in use.    But you see, to effectively hide the truth, it has to be people in all those roles.   Plus it has to include all those countries round the world with similar expertise.  And it has to go back  a long time.  Sabin's oral polio vaccine was tested in the Soviet Union in 1957.   Influenza vaccine goes back to the 1940s and 1950s.

What's the real story about the safety of the 2009 H1N1 vaccine.

H1nThe safety of 2009 H1N1 really relies on the proven safety of flu vaccine in 2008 and earlier years.
This includes:
(1) Government supervision of vaccine production in 2008 and previous years.
(2) Vaccine makers testing their vaccines lot by lot each year.
(3) The additional testing lot by lot by government in 2008 and previous years.
(4) The trials of those vaccines in 2008 and previous years
(5) The passive (VAERS in US, similar in other countries) and active (VSD) monitoring of reports of adverse effects
(6) The millions and millions of people vaccinated in 2008 and previous years with zero or very close to zero serious adverse effects found by vaccine monitoring.

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

What about the Virus Mutating

From the CDC:
"Our biggest concern is that the virus could change, mutate to become more deadly. We have seen nothing that would be the case. So far, in fact, the virus has been quite stable genetically. It hasn't changed much at all. The part of the virus that determines whether or not it's very deadly is a different part of the virus that determines whether or not you're going to be protected by the vaccine. That's good news. Because, it means that the vaccine that we have now, which is very effective, very highly, tightly matched with the virus that's spreading is likely to protect you even if this virus were to become more deadly."

http://www.cdc.gov/media/transcripts/2009/t091006.htm

MMR and Wakefield Cooking the Books

Please expose the flaw in my argument:

1.Assume that I, as the lead investigator of a research published in the famous peer reviewed Lancet, state that all 12 children in the study were "previously normal." before MMR vaccination.

2. Assume that an examination of medical records show the following: Child 1, 8, 6 and 7 had clear signs of neurological problems before the vaccination. The study claimed Child 2 had symptoms 2 weeks after vaccination while records show it started 3-5 months later.

3. Peer reviewing can catch problems found in the study submitted to the Lancet. They assume, rely on and require those involved are honest and ethical.

4. Deliberate dishonesty must be treated very, very seriously, especially on controversial topics that may affect the health of children.

Please pick apart my conclusions:
1. The paper published in the Lancet is worth than useless. It is an example of deliberate pathological science.
2. The lead investigator actions must be condemned by everyone.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5683643.ece

Add a Real Vaccine to Homeopathic Vaccines

People who use homeopathic remedies will often take other remedies from other alternative medicine systems. They might use acupuncture and they might use a naturopath.

For this comment, I'll pretend homeopathy is as good as you say it is. What's wrong with adding a remedy from another 'alternative' medicine system, a vaccine from conventional medicine? That way you get the benefit of a homeopathic vaccine and one from conventional medicine.

You're already using antibiotics from conventional method which is part of the same system of Big Pharma and costs and benefits as vaccines.

Prescription drugs help most of the people who take them (benefit) but in even proper dosages can result in conditions that kill people (cost). That doesn't mean you shouldn't take them --- because we know that nothing is perfect.

Apply that to the flu vaccine and you'll take it.

Before Antibiotics and Vaccines

"It seemed that everybody had TB in those days [late 1930s]...[The nursing] students who came from rural areas always tested negative for TB when they started their studies. With equal certainty, they all tested TB-positive after a year on the urban health wards."

"In 1939 Uncle Bernard started a two year residency in medicine...where he met my Aunt Bernice...Bernice limped and was deaf in one ear, the results of a childhood bacterial infection. When she was nine, the bacteria grew in her ear eventually infecting the mastoid bone.... Shortly after they met, Bernard got a nasty pneumococcal infection and, because he was a physician, received state-of-the-art treatment: tender loving care and oxygen.

From the introduction to "The Coming Plague: Newly Emerging Diseases in a World Out of Balance"
by Laurie Garrett (1994) ISBN 0-14-025091-3

The Gold Standard in Testing


The gold standard in research is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (RCT). That trumps all other studies. You got 20 other studies and I got one good RCT study --- I win. No joke.

They took healthy volunteers and randomly divided them into 4 groups. One group was injected with the flu vaccine. A second group got a similar liquid without the vaccine. A third got the nasal spray flu vaccine. A fourth got a nasal spray without vaccine. They diagnosed the flu using lab tests.

The results: Compared to placebo, the injected vaccine was 68% effective, the spray 36% effective.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/361/13/1260

That only leaves the anti-vaxxers only one response: That everyone gets money from Big Pharma and that alone means they're greedy and lying cheats who've faked results. Unlike most of you, I've been part of a RCT. The study may be designed by the guys who get big money from Big Pharma, but it's carried out by lower level researchers and others who aren't making the big bucks.

The only surprise is that the nasal spray vaccine is half as effective as the injected vaccine in healthy adults. See the paper for a possible explanation.

That's it, until somebody else does a really good RCT study that says otherwise.

Homeopathy - Water and Magic and Not Tested

Let's not forget what's in a homeopathic remedy.
It can be plain water
It can be plain alcohol.
It can be a plain sugar pill
The other ingredient is always magic. Because homeopath agrree. the chances of there being a single molecule of whatever the original remedy was in the homeopathic remedy you've bought is zero.

It's a funny kind of magic because banging it around while you dilute it makes the magic stronger. Does science think this magic is possible? There's no mechanism (other than making it up or faking) that explains how nothing can prevent or cure disease. Be smart: get vaccinated. If you don't get vaccinated, at least don't waste your money on magic.

Please provide the reference to the formally published paper on the results of giving 2 million people in Cuba a homeo vaccine for lepto.

I don't think there is one, even in a homeo journal. I don't think there ever will be one, because this wasn't a study or a trial.

Take a disease that responds to public health measures and individuals can cut down greatly if they follow prevention rules.Add in a REAL vaccine. Add in an infection whose rate depends on the weather.

Now give 95% of a population a vaccine --- either a real one of a magical one. And count the number of deaths and infections. And compare that to an earlier year.

How can you tell if the vaccine was effective? At the very minimum, you've got to do an awful lot of work to eliminate all the factors. I don't think it can be done. But there's no evidence that those who reported on the homeo vaccine even tried to do this.

Does this prove a homeo vaccine for lepto didn't work? No.
Does this prove a homeo vaccine for lepto worked? No.

So it's useless.


On the other hand:

The Cubans are very proud of their vaccine for leptospirosis that was developed at the Finlay Institute and then tested for safety and effectiveness. Although the dosage is a bit higher than the 200 CH from the homeopathic presentation (200 CH means 0 molecules of anything effective). In a vial of vax-SPIRAL® (probably contains 10 doses) you get 3 x 50-80 x 10 raised to the 6th power cells of lepto plus an old style adjuvant of aluminium hydroxide gel with the addition of 0.01% thiomersal as preservative. Between a 150 and 240 million cells in a small vial.
http://www.finlay.sld.cu/english/products/vaxspirale1.htm
http://www.medicc.org/publications/medicc_review/1004/pages/cuban_medical_literature_2.html

In a blog entry, Dana Ullman goes gaga over recent work by Tom Jefferson calling into question the effectiveness of flu shots, especially in the elderly. But what evidence does he supply that Homeopathy works?

Sure homeopathic remedies are much safer. Do you know how safe they are. In Cuba, they mixed up a homeopathic (close enough here) vaccine, didn't do any trials and gave it to 2 miilion people without a single side effect. No one would do that with a real vaccine.

What could be safer than a little bit of water, a little bit of alcohol or a plain sugar pill PLUS magic. One of the reasons homeopathic remedies are successful is that people don't know how they're made. If you don't know, check it out and you'll see that all that's added is magic.

On his own Huffington blog, Ullman takes pleasure in using a serious but very much minority view coming out of some major, recent, peer reviewed and good quality studies questioning the effectiveness of the flu vaccine. Notice these words: major, recent, peer reviewed and good quality.

So what does Ullman use as evidence that homeopathic and naturopathic medicines work on infectious diseases ? Impressive results that are over a 100 years old. If that's convincing, then you'd better reconsider sending $8.000 to cover some advance expenses before they deposit 5 million dollars in your bank account.

Do antibiotic drugs simplify the bacteria in your body? Yes, along with killing what we want to kill, some other bacteria are killed. On the other hand, you're not getting very, very sick or dying because of an infection. Take your pick. The same is true for anti-virals.


Won't Get the Flu Because Something Bad Happened

I'm sorry that your father-in-law got GBS after he got the flu shot. You do know that that doesn't prove he got GBS because of the flu shot. I'm pretty sure that the normal rate of getting GBS is still a lot higher than getting GBS because of the flu shot. But there's still a good chance he got it because of the flu shot.

You're genetically unrelated to your father-in-law. You've got no more chance of getting GBS than anyone else. The '76 vaccine was a tragedy because there was no swine for the vaccine to protect against. So there was loss without benefit. This time round there's absolutely no doubt--- it's coming and it will kill.

So if your fear is GBS then get the flu shot. It will greatly decrease your chances of getting GBS than if you get the flu. As to lying, I don't think there was lying in 1976. Certainly, there's none now. There's an internet where you can believe what's true or find anything that appeals to what you want to believe.

Flu Vaccine is Incrdibly Safe

The rate of serious side effects from the flu vaccine in anybody, including children, is either zero or very, very close to zero. Serious side-effects exclude any that clear up in a day or two.

GBS is the only serious side-effect that might be caused by flu vaccine. You have more chance of getting GBS from the flu itself. So get vaccinated. In 1976, there was a vaccine for swine flu but no swine flu. So no benefits, only costs. Of 40 million vaccinated, there were 500 extra cases of GBS. Of those, most recovered completely, a smaller number had permanent damage and there were an extra 25 (5%) deaths.

For flu vaccine after 1976, the worst case is 1 extra case of GBS per million vaccinated. A review of the best evidence found no additional cases of GBS from flu vaccination.

And that's it. Great benefits and no cost. Really.

Let's say you want to know how the CDC knows the flu vaccine is safe. And you want to see the numbers of adverse vaccine reports. Have I got a presentation for you. If you don't have powerpoint, search for "powerpoint viewer" and install it.

http://www.medicine.emory.edu/id/ecirve/faculty_speaker_slides/Iskander_Influenzavaxsafe_EmoryOct05fin.ppt

On Rushing the Vaccine and Testing

They've actually done wider testing on 2009 H1N1 vaccine than they do on the seasonal flu vaccine.

Vaccine makers have to be approved for making their flu vaccine in general. Each year when they get the strains of vaccine for the new seasonal vaccine they don't change anything in their process except the strain of flu virus they use.

With 2009 H1N1 there was a concern that their normal processes would produce less dead virus and might also require 2 doses of dead virus --- so they did more testing than usual.

Question: Was the testing for 2009 H1N1 rushed compared to the usual seasonal flu vaccine? Yes, they started later than usual.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5839a3.htm

Do I care that virus and vaccine experts move from government to industry to university and back again? A tiny bit. The big money isn't in vaccine making, studying or researching--- that's in drugs for chronic conditions or for some cancers.

"We simply want safe, effective, and proven vaccinations."

Vaccine opponents almost always say: "We simply want safe, effective, and proven vaccinations."

Our answer is that you're already getting them but you won't believe it even if you've read all the research and understand vaccines well. Because there's still a lot of opposition to vaccines because of a belief that you cannot trust governments all around the world, university researchers all around the world and some big companies and some small companies all around the world to act mostly ethically and mostly honestly in researching, testing and making vaccines.

This belief is held despite the fact that there's precious little evidence showing dishonesty and unethical behavior. Evidence of problems with making vaccines, such as the Baxter contaminated virus strains is blamed on malice rather than negligence.



On Trusting the CDC

"ATLANTA — Health officials said Friday that 76 U.S. children have died of swine flu, including 19 new reports in the past week – more evidence the new virus is unusually dangerous for the young.

The regular flu kills between 46 and 88 children a year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That suggests deaths from the new H1N1 virus could dramatically outpace children's deaths from seasonal flu, if swine flu continues to spread as it has."
----------­----------­----- that's scary ----------­----------­---

The flu vaccine is pretty effective (60-70% effective in healthy adults) in protecting against the flu. The rate may be a bit lower in kids. Anybody got good rates for kids? But let's pretend that it's not very effective in kids. We know it is incredibly safe. So who cares if it isn't that effective. Protect your kids. Get them the vaccine.

Earned this Response by mofmars333
The regular flu kills between 46 and 88 children a year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."

That's propaganda & people understand today that those who die have underlying conditions & the flu does not kill on it's own.

That's hype the Centers for Disease & their cohorts want you to believe to push their legal toxic drugs that come in form of vaccines.


Which I answer as follows:

It's one thing to say that the CDC can't be trusted to give honest reports on vaccines, in the absence of good evidence.

It is something different to look at statistics from the CDC, not like them, and say without evidence, that they're hype and can't be trusted.

This reminds me of criticisms of William Cooper from within the UFO community. Whenever someone disagreed with Cooper, Cooper would just make his conspiracy theory larger so it now included his critic.


Just Because The CDC Screwed Up With CFS/ME doesn't mean you shouldn't get vaccinated.
It's all about people. People have prejudices and people are uncomfortable changing what they believe.

I'll assume everything you say about CFS/ME is true and the CDC did things it shouldn't have done. That shouldn't affect your decision on flu vaccination.

The CDC played an important role in the 2009 H1N1 flu story. But so did vaccine, virus and public health experts from all over the world. If you don't like the CDC's recommendations, follow the Canadian or the British or the French or the Australian recommendations.

With 10 companies around the world all making vaccines based on the same A/Californ­ia/7/2009(­H1N1)v strain, it's hard to hide anything wrong. In the US, 4 companies are supplying vaccine. There will be claims that the vaccines caused damage and those on both sides will look carefully at differences in the rates of side effects between those 4 vaccines.

If you don't like the CDC's on the death and injury toll from the virus, ignore them. PIck examples from all around the world. The 2009 H1N1 viruses found around the world are nasty enough. But it could turn nasty, nasty, nasty. The good news is that changes that make it really, really nasty won't make the vaccine ineffective. Unfortunately, I've got a CDC reference.
See: http://www.cdc.gov/media/transcripts/2009/t091006.htm

Just because the CDC behaved very badly with CFS/ME doesn't mean you should reject the amazing consensus world wide that you should be vaccinated








Watching Videos is Useless

Watching videos on vaccine issues is a waste of time.

It's a grave weakness of any comment on vaccines that it links to or relies upon a video.

Vaccine opponents ultimate weapon is claiming that those who develop, make, sell, research and regulate vaccines aren't reasonably ethical and reasonably honest. And therefore, vaccines are unsafe and unethical. But there's very little evidence that this is true. Putting this claim in writing is much less effective than when you add sound and video.

Videos are great if you're trying to confuse someone and make your case appear stronger. They're great for sneaking by logical fallacies, especially appeals to emotion and special pleading.

They're great for emphasizing the atypical over the run of the mill. They're great for making issues seem easier than they actually are.

Whether you're in favor of vaccination, opposed to vaccination or are looking for more information and you want the best opportunity to learn more --- don't watch a video.

Why Vaccine Opponents Attack Character

Vaccine supporters rarely attack the character of the opposition. Instead, they complain of distortion, untruth (of what they report) and ignorance.

Vaccine opponents add to that list attacks on the character of the opposition. They routinely write off anything they don't like on the grounds that either the commenters themselves or those who they're reporting on are greedy, liars, cheats and thieves. Sometimes they may even be bent on world domination.

It's even worse if you follow their links.

Assume which you like.
1. Those supporting vaccination here do so as part of their job at Big Pharma, the illuminati, or because they made a pact with the devil.
2. They have no connection with Big Pharma, the Illuminati and haven't yet made a pact with the devil.

It makes no difference to the accuracy and fairness of what we write, so my real name makes no difference.

My style and the most common style of vaccine supporters is to make statements that accurately and pretty fairly report information from supplied links or can otherwise be confirmed. Our reputation isn't based on claimed expertise but on the fairness and accuracy of what we write.

Do we get it wrong sometimes? Yes. But that's not the point. The point is that overall, we're pretty fair and pretty accurate in what we report.

Spend  a  bit of time following links supplied by vaccine supporters and opponents

Who you are doesn't matter. How fair and accurate you are matters.

You Don't Have To Agree But You Have to Know the Basics

Another example of ignorance.

I don't expect everyone who is very active on the Huffington flu vaccine debate to agree with me. I do expect they know the basics. If you don't you're ignorant and need to fight confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is the tendency to only read information that confirms your current beliefs and to judge information that disagree with your current opinion much harsher.

Certainly they should know the official line on serious side-effects of the flu vaccine even if they think it is baloney. The official line is that GBS is the only known serious side-effect of the flu vaccine.The official line is that in 1976 there were some 500 odd extra cases of GBS and some 25 extra deaths.

Since 1976, the rate of GBS due to flu vaccine is put lower with estimates of 1 in a million extra cases.

http://www.cdc.gov/FLU/about/qa/gbs.htm

http://vaccinations.suite101.com/article.cfm/h1n1_swine_flu_and_guillainbarre_paralysis

or if you like flu vaccine sensationalism.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1206807/Swine-flu-jab-link-killer-nerve-disease-Leaked-letter-reveals-concern-neurologists-25-deaths-America.html

On Ignorance

I've been asked to talk about ignorance. Here's what I think most of those who support vaccines understand and I expect that many of those who oppose vaccination don't understand.

That anecdotal evidence of bad results is useless when talking about vaccines that are very widely given.

They understand the Post hoc ergo proctor hoc fallacy (why one thing happening after another doesn't me the first thing caused the second)

That correlation doesn't mean causation. And for this specific point, I recommend watching some videos. http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=1980

That carrying out good trials of drugs and vaccines is difficult. That there are different types of trials. That what you're trying to do in almost all trials, is as much as possible, have everything as identical as possible between groups of people, except that some got a drug or vaccine and other's didn't. That's why many reports on homeopathic vaccines (including the Finlay one) are useless.

That vaccines aren't 100% effective. That it doesn't matter if a vaccine is 100% free of serious side effects (even though that's nearly true of the flu vaccine). That what matters is comparing the likelihood of bad things if you choose to be vaccinated or you choose not to be vaccinated.

That although science is done by people with all their weaknesses, over time science will self-correct its mistakes.

And although it ain't about ignorance, that those who support vaccines have a more positive view of humanity.