Vaccines ... The Debate Rages On
Updated: Mar 10, 2019
AUTHOR NOTE: This is an ongoing work in progress. Originally this blog was posted mid-2018. The last edit was on March 10, 2019. I continually update the rebuttals at the end of this blog, and I've been asked for more sources so I'm providing them.
Okay, so I realize what I’m posting here is going to be met with a lot of negativity, but I’m honestly just throwing this out there because I’ve spent nearly 2 years studying every scrap of data, newspaper article, online forum, and looked at pretty much every piece of information I could find regarding vaccines and their link to autism as well as other medical conditions. I also subscribe to 7 different medical journals; BMJ, the New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA, PLOS, Mayo Clinic, CID, and the Journal of Cancer. I am not a doctor, nor have I any medical training.
With this debate, as with many, I have found that there is a need to be polarizing. Unless you are, the viewpoint is seen as neutral and thus dismissed. There must be dramatic opposition so that voices can be raised and the loudest group in the room can drown out the other side. The truth be told is that when you release any drug into the populous there will be harm and fatalities. That doesn’t necessarily mean that the drug is bad but rather there are some sensitive individuals. This will ALWAYS be the case, and this is the point both sides refuse to admit because it can be very hard for some to admit that if a few people die to save the many then that is an acceptable loss. I'm not trying to minimize the impact of such an event in one's life, nor am I saying we should all be perfectly fine when it happens. What I'm saying is that the only way to talk about science and medicine is to remove emotion.
To give you some background: in 2016 I was paralyzed from a freak accident, and a short time before 2 friends of mine had given birth to autistic children. In total there are 5 kids between the 2 couples, and 2 have autism. The one friend was speaking to me about the link between autism/harm and vaccines. I told him I didn’t know enough but being the curious sort that I am, and given that research is the primary tool in my life toolkit I would endeavour to learn. Stuck in bed, I started my journey down the rabbit hole. I only reference this to display how much time I had on my hands. It was shortly after that I joined Facebook groups with millions who stand against vaccines.
Mainstream Sources Research
I, of course, started with Wakefield’s article in The Lancet. Here we find the first real link between vaccines and autism on a mass scale. The article has been debunked but there is an argument to be made that big Pharma used their corrupt connections to force The Lancet's retraction. This is a widely held belief in the anti-vaxxer community so to make things easier let's say both sides cancel each other out on this one. I believe the retraction to have merit, but that's a personal stance. For sake of giving both sides an inch in the debate, we'll remove this article from the conversation.
Then we have Jenny McCarthy who re-energized the debate in 2007. She declared her son autistic because of vaccines, but in all likelihood, he was misdiagnosed. She claims her son was cured through alternative and controversial unproven treatments, but if that is the case then she has one of the only claims of a cure in history. How convenient for her. She also has gone back-and-forth regarding whether her son actually has autism.
I spent years in PR, and either she has experienced a true miracle or the misdiagnosis would have been quite embarrassing so some PR guy cooked up the cure story. I would say the latter is more likely. But okay, so she made her claims, however, has questionable involvement so let’s void her out of the debate as well. In her own words, “I’m not anti-vaccine, but pro-safe vaccine”. She’s at best a hostile witness.
Of the three most popular mainstream resources for the anti-vaccination movement, we then have the cinematic exploration that is Vaxxed. Wakefield is a main figure in the film, but we’ve already voided him and his article because of the controversy on both sides. Whether you believe in vaccinations or not, you can’t ignore the many holes in this film. William Thompson has already stated that his conversations in the film were taken wildly out of context, and that he and his research partners did not find a provable link to that which is suggested in the film. What we have here is a producer and director looking to be taken seriously as filmmakers. Even Robert DeNiro, AKA Fuck Trump, AKA Hot Head, AKA I’ll have my friend stab you with a pen, AKA Vaccines Suck pulled his submission of Vaxxed from Trifecta after cutting through the noise. There is a lot of antidotal evidence in the film that does tug on the heartstrings, but when you remove emotion and research the claims, you can’t find any scientific backing outside of the questionable characters used to drive the narrative.
In regards to autism and vaccines, a study published in March 2019 AGAIN found zero link.
Links to Articles & Studies
Now, let’s get out of the mainstream and look at the less popular studies on the subject. I have read all of the linked articles, as well as the articles these link to. I didn't glance at or quickly read through these either. Front to back, line for line; I sat there and took it all in. I have read far more but this is a good sampling:
https://www.sciencealert.com/it-s-official-anti-vaxxers-are-probably-to-blame-for-the-rise-in-measles (I love the headline on this one. It’s official … kinda. *facepalm*)
Having spent the past 2 years in anti-vaccine Facebook groups supporting the end of vaccinations or at very least waiting until after the age of 3 to start, I can say that 99% of what is shared on these community pages is from questionable media sources, skewed perspectives, or comes from the almighty meme. When credible articles in support of vaccines are shared there is no statistical analysis; just antidotal evidence. Of course, when an article in support of vaccines is shared, it's often called fake news citing those same questionable sources. I actually gave up looking back through these groups because just a little bit of research showed charts, quotes, and other pieces of content to be completely false.
Now, we cannot talk about vaccines without bringing up thimerosal. No matter what side of the fence you live on regarding what thimerosal actually is, after this "dangerous" substance was removed from many of the top vaccines, autism and harm rates did not drop. In fact, autism rates continued to rise (which we’ll get to). How can the main crux of the argument be dealt with but the rates not drop?
I believe most people who are a part of the AVC (anti-vaccination community) are generally conspiratorial. They look at an official story and question the holes, which is a great thought experiment, but these people cannot accept that all stories have holes in real life because no one plans to write them until after. In the case of thimerosal, we see that removing it had no effect and thus the debate should have been largely silenced. But the cause raged on with other demons such as age being the factor or the number of shots.
I liken this to the number of prophecies about the end of the world. In the 21st century alone there have been 21 largely followed apocalyptic theories. Since the beginning of recorded history, there have been thousands. 2012 anyone? When each date for the apocalypse comes and goes the “leaders” of the charge find a new date and interpretation. After all, it’s better to look philosophically wrong than factually wrong.
In the groups that I followed on Facebook about the debate, one common thread that I saw was the denial of measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) outbreaks amongst population centers that didn’t vaccinate. It is often said the rates are far too low to be taken seriously as a connective tissue between the 2 discussions. I guess what I have to ask is how low of a number is too low? If 2.24% of kids are contracting a disease that was dormant just years ago at the same time as a movement is happening against the very thing that made the disease dormant in the first place is that relevant? Maybe, maybe not. Hint: Keep that number in your head and understand the number is much higher of those who contracted measles and mumps.
Of course, this debate is very emotional for parents. Those who believe in the majority science say those who don’t are putting their kids at risk. That’s where the now classic line, “Well if your kids are vaccinated why would mine not being vaccinated put yours at risk,” comes from.
To that, there is an obvious answer. Diseases that have been stopped in their tracks die off while allowing them to show up again, opens the door for them to mutate … thus rendering the vaccines all but obsolete. A disease becomes dormant when it can’t find enough hosts to mutate and continue, hence vaccines. Again, how small does a number have to be before it is taken seriously? Japan and several locations throughout Europe have seen a rise in once dormant diseases, while cases have been reported in Canada and the US. This rise has steadily increased since the anti-vaccine movement has become popular. In fact, in a recent study, 70% of kids that had measles were unvaccinated, and there is evidence to suggest that those in the 30% came in contact with unvaccinated children.
Let's make this ultra simple to understand. The environment creates disease. Humans are required as carriers for the disease to mutate and gain strength. So, if there are 5 people in the world and all 5 have their vaccines then the diseases they were vaccinated for will die off. However, if just one of those people doesn't vaccinate and interacts with the environmental conditions that create a disease then once the disease has latched onto that person, it is given a chance to mutate and take out all 5 people because their vaccines are now useless against the new strain. Does that make sense? I hope so, because I have no better way of explaining how the science works.
Actually, here's a diagram:
As you can see, without everyone vaccinating we are left with a disease that mutates and sneaks in under the body's defences to kill everyone ... including all the kids you were pretending your Google search was saving.
No Deaths from Measles, 100 from MMR Vaccine
When you present that evidence, many will point to an article by Health Impact News that stated in the last ten years no one has died of measles in the U.S., but more than 100 people have died due to the MMR vaccine. These numbers are false, and the article has been completely discredited (no Snopes isn't the only link, but the best one to check out because of how the information is prepared in a simple manner). There had been reported deaths at the time it was written, and the 100 people that “died due to the MMR vaccine” were submitted to VAERS which does not actually track the scientific reasons for death but hypothesizes the possibility. Masterful science at work.
Do Numbers Matter?
Now keep in mind I am non-biased and non-alarmist. I’m neither red or blue, I believe in the legalization of marijuana but also carry a strong belief against illegal immigration. I go with what seems to make the world a better place.
What’s happening right now is anti-vaccine advocates are fighting a losing battle. With only 2.24% of children having autism you’ll have a hard time getting funding for a study on a topic already considered closed. Remember, another study on over 100,000 kids was done recently and there were zero indicators that vaccines cause autism. It’s considered to be a non-issue because when the claims of the link were originally suggested it was based on pseudoscience and even still, research is done time-and-time-again to alleviate concerns. The overwhelming evidence is that in a mass number of cases there is no link.
Yes, there has been a spike in the diagnosis of autism but that’s likely caused by education about the condition, improved medical facilities around the globe, and a change in the way the questions are asked that form a diagnosis. Even Jenny McCarthy’s kid isn’t considered autistic and upon the second consultation hasn’t been for a long time. It will be interesting to see if the spike continues though. That’s where you can probably win some battles in the AVC and get a study. If in the next ten years that number goes to say, 8% then science will have no choice but to take notice. This is because it would disprove the theory behind why the spike occurred in the first place.
Now, my blog has received some criticism for harping on autism too much. Realizing this is a losing battle, many in the AVC have disassociated themselves with the autism-vaccine link, even though it was the very belief their pedestal was built on just a few years ago. So, let's talk other issues such as any bodily harm. Do vaccines cause bodily harm? Yes, 100%. In a small minority of cases, people that get vaccines become sick, symptomatic, present with physical ailments and (although I can't find an actual report exclusively linking death to vaccines that isn't allergy related) death can occur.
Just a few years ago, some vaccines had dairy and nut based properties to them. This caused the majority of issues. Now, you might say to yourself ... "Jay, c'mon! How could they have been so short-sighted as to put those properties in vaccines? Don't they know how risky that is?" Sure, in hindsight I can see you taking that position. However, when I was in school there was no mention of nut or dairy allergies. Now, when I visit schools for speaking engagements I see signs with warnings everywhere. You have to remember that history cannot be framed by the issues of today.
The Standard & The Needs
The problem is the standard set in the debate, which leads me to my conclusion. If you live and die on the cross of either side you lose in the mind of a neutral thinker when the pervasive science shows consensus. Here’s what we do know:
There is no definitive link to autism. No matter what side you fall on you cannot argue that there is no definitive medical study by a credible source that gives you the answer, “Yes, vaccines cause autism”. Check your sources, because memes, who.it, Medical Medium, and sites like vaXism aren’t credible. They are skewed narratives with no accountability. These studies come for a vacuum with like-minded people sitting in the lunch room feeding each other a bunch of nonsense.
We’re all different. There is a chance that some children will get sick from a vaccine, as I've mentioned. It’s rare but possible. A genetic soup (that's us) mixing with a vaccine could make harm a possibility. In the vast majority of children, this will not be the case. Anti-vaccine advocates need to stop arguing whether vaccines are good or bad because you’ll never convince the mass public they are indeed evil. They stop disease! Know your audience. What needs to be the focus are studies about what possible genetic markers can raise the risk and how do you deal with such evidence? Let anti-vaccine doctors run the studies with those that back vaccines. But to be clear, educated, intelligent, experienced researchers have to conduct the study … not your auntie on Facebook. Keep in mind, I've now spent 3 years researching the shit out of this topic and many of you have spent as much as a decade looking into the harm vaccines can cause. However, NONE OF US hold a candle to those that dedicate their lives to the subject; going to school for endless classes, sinking themselves into debt to study, doing rounds as a medical graduate, and then implementing what they have learned in a hospital, lab, or research facility. We're morons next to these people and the point of all that studying and practice is to get professionals into a place where they can give us expert answers to the problems we don't have the time or the education to understand fully. I have a cleaner come to my house regularly; not because I can't clean but because she has done her research as to what should be used, has the experience to get the job done faster, and will always do a better job than me. I'm not sitting there telling her she doesn't know what she's doing because I am not an expert.
There is nothing in this world that can’t kill someone, so the medical community needs to stop pushing against people with skewed studies to prove a point, and so must the AVC. Meet in the middle and study claims, but use science to help the public understand instead of shutting it down. Facebook Live the years of research without interruption if you have to. The point of science is to address questions. Here’s a question by millions that needs to be solved once and for all. However, we must fight science with science and not the questionable claims of questionable people. What are the concerns of the millions not getting vaccines? Let’s research each. Even in the case of thimerosal, it was found to have no root causes of health concerns but it was removed from almost all vaccines because they wanted to meet the AVC in the middle and found a way to do so.
We don’t know what causes autism. That is 100% truth; not a single soul on earth has the answer, so for you to pretend you do is just ignorant. Further research needs to be done though, and here's why. Yes, the vast majority of studies show there is no link, but there is a margin for error amongst a small group of kids. To figure out if vaccines cause autism for those children the parents who claim the case need to allow that non-biased group of scientists to study their children. If you’re going to engage in passionate scientific debate then you need to be willing to go all the way.
The CDC needs to clean up their act and button up procedures. We shouldn’t be able to question an organization like the CDC because they should always publish whatever they know. Bias has no place in the conversation. Just like politicians and everyday people, the scientific and medical community along with the CDC have engaged in dishonest practices. This shouldn’t discredit the community as a whole but there are lessons here for them to learn from.
When evidence is presented we must move on. This is key. Jenny, Andrew, and most all sources of the information the AVC believes in have been debunked. Maybe you think the organizations that debunked them are corrupt … fine. But there have been plenty of studies on the matter and not one person has been able to back up these claims. Anti-vaccination "proof" falls somewhere between flat earth and religious text—fable.
I might sound like I’m strongly in support of vaccines … and that’s because I am. I wasn’t before this though. I could have gone either way because I thought both sides had plausible stories to back their claims. They just don’t. I do, however, believe that there is a chance some children could get sick from vaccines (which science agrees with) and that we need to study that side of the argument more.
This debate was a perfect storm! The rise of information technology, celebrity endorsement, lies, and preying on the minds of those who aren’t in the fields of research, science, and medicine made for a disaster. If there is a link that is ever found it is likely to be in a very few number of cases and as cold as this sounds … that’s okay because we’ll never be perfect with anything but vaccines have saved billions of lives.
But, if that’s not convincing enough for you, look at it this way. If there is a mass conspiracy, and the government does know of an actual link, would they be getting the vaccines along with you? Nope.
So I guess I should put a bow on this. Still, to this day no one has found a link between real harm and vaccines. Not one scientist, researcher, or doctor can state that they know vaccines cause any diseases whatsoever. There have been billions of dollars poured into the research and not one claim can be substantiated. We have become a society of experts; absolutely sure that Building 7 was blown up by controlled demo because we are engineers, absolutely certain that someone is guilty of a crime because of a video freeze frame that shows it in their eyes, absolutely correct that vaccines cause autism. We just don’t seem to understand that the internet doesn’t make us experts—education and experience do. Anyone can cherry-pick facts. I hope you see that I’ve tried to look at this from both sides and give a bit on the possibilities but in the end the government needs to mandate vaccines on a schedule because we’re not just talking about your kids when you don’t want to vaccinate, we’re talking about the world’s population. I don’t care about what religion you raise your kids to believe in, or what principals you instill, as long as what you teach doesn’t affect the whole. Not vaccinating based on the current “evidence” is irresponsible and dangerous. Then again, I’m just some guy on the internet.
I must admit that I used this article as a bit of a troll when I first wrote it. You see, I wanted to get the perceived proof out of the AVC (Anti-Vaccines Community) and scrolling through their groups just wasn’t enough. At times the feeds read like socio-political hate groups. So, I posted a slightly incomplete blog in hopes that they would put me on blast. I've also posted the blog elsewhere to get feedback.
Here’s what people had to say and what the mountains of printed information and bookmarked scientific sites say in response. Warning: This gets really long.
You're overlooking the fact that there is no vaccinated vs 100% unvaccinated studies. How can one say vaccines don't cause autism if both control and experimental groups are vaccinated?
First, I never say vaccines don’t cause autism. Read again. I never say it. Just like I bungee jump but never say there’s zero chance I won’t die, or when I eat meat I also don’t say there is a zero percent chance that I will contract Salmonella. To further put a point on this I’m also agnostic because God might exist; it’s unlikely but possible.
Now, as for the first part of the post. I asked for a credible source and was given this. Down the rabbit hole, I went. Here is the part of the study that both raises concern and clears up some misconception:
This was a “case-control” study: women who had a miscarriage were compared with a control group of pregnant women who did not.
Researchers compared 485 women aged 18-44 who miscarried (cases) to 485 pregnant women aged 18-44 who did not miscarry (controls) to determine if the women who had miscarriages were more or less likely to have received the 2010-11 or 2011-12 flu vaccine 1 to 28 days before their date of miscarriage.
This study used vaccine safety data collected through the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD).
The health information includes demographic characteristics, vaccinations, and medical outcomes.
The study has some limitations. These include:
Cases and controls both had pregnancies confirmed by the medical record. Cases had a miscarriage confirmed by medical record review. Cases were compared with controls from the same age group (less than 30 years or 30 or more years), had nearly the same date of last menstrual period, and were enrolled in the same health care plan. VSD is a collaboration between CDC’s Immunization Safety Office (ISO) and several integrated healthcare organizations across the United States. The VSD uses electronic health information from more than 9 million people, approximately 3% of the US population.
The study examined data from a small number of women in a subgroup who received H1N1-containing vaccines in consecutive years. The small numbers in the study could have led to imprecise results. It is possible that women who have an increased risk for miscarriage might also be more likely to have received influenza vaccine. These conditions could have made the women more likely to miscarry.
Many miscarriages occur early in pregnancy and may not come to medical attention. The impact on the study findings of miscarriages that were not identified is unknown. This study was a case-control study that estimated an odds ratio of vaccination among women who had a miscarriage compared to those who did not. The study did not estimate risk of miscarriage after influenza vaccination. Therefore, the findings cannot be used to estimate the probability of miscarriages for pregnant women who received an H1N1-containing flu vaccinations two years in a row. Finally, it is not known how many women in the study were aware they were pregnant at the time of vaccination. Flu vaccinations could have been incompletely recorded because some women could have received flu shots in another setting. The possible impact of unidentified vaccinations is unknown. However, this effect cannot account for the observed association if unidentified vaccinations occurred with similar frequency in cases and controls. A review of reports to the Vaccine Adverse Reporting System (VAERS) (Moro et al, 2011) found no unusual or unexpected patterns of reporting for pregnancy complications or adverse fetal outcomes among pregnant women and flu shots.
A study using VSD data (Irving et al, 2013) found no increased risk of miscarriage among pregnant women who received flu vaccines in the 2005-06 or 2006-07 flu seasons. A large study using VSD data (Kharbanda et al, 2013) found no increased risk for adverse obstetric events (like chorioamnionitis, pre-eclampsia, or gestational hypertension) for pregnant women who received the flu vaccine from 2002 to 2009 when compared to pregnant woman who were not vaccinated. A VSD study (Nordin et al, 2014) compared pregnant women who received the flu shot with an equal number of pregnant women who did not receive the flu shot during the 2004-05 and 2008-09 flu seasons. The study found no differences between the two groups in the rates of premature delivery or small for gestational age infants.
A large August 2017 study using VSD data found that the babies of women who received the flu shot during their first trimester had no increased risk of having children with major birth defects.
Now, regarding no studies into whether vaccines cause autism because there are no direct correlation studies. One needs to simply study the numbers in the general populous that have received vaccines vs the number of cases of autism. On average there is 80% coverage in countries like Canada and the US. The number of children with autism in the US (where vaccines are the most controversial) is 1 in 59. Now, we have to be careful with these numbers because they are flawed but the only way they can be reported:
This number does not mean that 1 in 59 children who received vaccines was diagnosed with autism. This is a general overview of diagnosed cases. Keep “diagnosed” in mind as you continue to read.
There is a higher rate amongst financially challenged families giving credence to the opinion that fast food, sugars, and other dangerous diets could be linked to autism. Studies pending. I feel for anyone who has had a kid and can’t afford to give healthy options. It’s sad and looking at this as the issue can make one feel completely helpless so it’s best to tackle the information presented by the tribal mentality than the fringe.
The first cases of “autism” were found in 1908 amongst what were once believed to be schizophrenic patients. In 1944 Asperger's Syndrome was added as a milder form of autism unofficially. Autism rates increase as a result.
In 1980, Infantile autism is listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) for the first time; the condition is also officially separated from childhood schizophrenia. Rates of autism again rise.
In 1987, Infantile autism as a term is replaced with what we now call the spectrum. Rates of reported cases skyrocket under the new definition.
In 1994, Asperger's Syndrome is officially added to the spectrum, once again causing a spike in the numbers.
In 2000, science bends and fucks up their entire narrative. Thimerosal is removed from the MMR vaccine despite no evidence that it causes autism or has any ill effects conclusively. This is the first major incident where science bends to public fear in modern times and fueled the debate. Despite this public outcry, science wavering, and thimerosal being removed it does no good (in that illness and autism rates don’t decline) because ... you know, science and shit.
2009, the CDC releases numbers showing a huge jump in autism cases. This is largely shown as proof in the AVC that vaccines cause autism and other diseases because at this time the number of vaccines required had been increasing. However, (again) science just improved. Diagnostic measures are strengthened and the recognition of the spectrum, as well as populations with increased access to medical resources and doctors who understand the disease, can easily explain the increase. The same research can be found with certain cancers.
In 2013 we officially find the creation of ASD (Autism Spectrum Disorder) which encompasses impaired social communication and/or interaction, and restricted and/or repetitive behaviours. Shockingly (sarcasm) the rate of autistic diagnosis increases greatly.
You see, with each information release people panic, especially parents. I’m not holding that against anyone. I get undying love for your child. However, if a new study comes out that states a “new form” of autism is out there then more parents are going to flock to their doctors, leading to an increase.
Merging variants in autism cases causes science to shoot themselves in the foot. Then again, who can have predicted that millions of people would get into pseudo-science once the “information” age took hold? The CDC and DSM, amongst many other agencies, do not disagree with the notion that vaccines can cause some harm, with very rare cases of severe complications. Nothing in this world is perfect. Vaccines are not either good or bad. They are largely good with some bad like everything because humans are far too variable for blanket solutions. However:
Eradicated diseases because of vaccines:
Smallpox (300m people died in the 20th century)
Rinderpest (Millions died, stock wiped out in certain areas)
Diseases with global eradication underway:
Poliomyelitis or Polio (Millions died)
Dracunculiasis (Few deaths but effects are brutal)
Yaws (Few deaths but effects are brutal)
Malaria (About 1m deaths/year, mostly where there are no vaccines)
Regional elimination established or underway:
Hookworm (It’s killed a lot of puppies)
Lymphatic filariasis (Few deaths but effects are brutal)
Measles (400 to 500 deaths per year down from 1879)
Rubella (400 to 500 deaths per year)
Onchocerciasis (Few deaths, but disfigurement and blindness)
Bovine spongiform encephalopathy or BSE (100′s of deaths)
Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease or vCJD (Fatal within 24 months in 99% of cases)
Syphilis (Untreated 8% to 58% of people die)
So, what are we to do? Just let diseases kill us all because of a small risk? Keep in mind that smallpox almost killed the entire population of the US in the 20th century alone. So here are your case studies regarding vaccines vs no-vaccines:
The numbers of kids getting vaccines vs the number of serious cases of illness or autism are not at all proportionate. That is why science says there is no correlation.
A study of the timeline reveals reasons for the increase.
The number of deaths and severe effects by diseases vaccines treat greatly outweigh the number of children that have “reportedly” contracted any serious condition from vaccines.
The only conclusion any sane or rational person can draw is that there are negative effects, and in some cases, there are some extremely negative effects, but vaccines by and large in over 98% of cases prevent disease and stave off the complete and total eradication of the human species.
Wakefield and Jenny McCarthy? Has anyone here EVER cited them as sources?
No, you’re right. No one has. There’s absolutely no reason to think that Wakefield and McCarthy have led to the panic. Well, except for the fact that they are both poster children for the movement. Have you heard of Google? We now have Kat Von D reigniting the debate.
You only mention the MMR which is a clear sign of a rookie. You’ve left out: 1. The effect of vaccine-induced Th2 dominance that suppresses SYMPTOMS but not disease, thereby affecting diagnosis. Unvaccinated are more likely to have a balanced (Th1 and Th2) response and seek treatment. (Also, they’re more likely to stay home and NOT spread illnesses, but that’s a story for another day) This is very important to consider. 2. There is no mention of maternal immune activation. Vaccines most certainly activate the immune system, though they aren’t the loan cause. 3. No mention of cytokine storms 4. No mention of aluminum 5. No specific mention of factors that may predispose susceptible individuals to vaccine injury (including autism) 6. Genetic factors (and how they come to be) 7. Healthy user bias 8. Decline of diseases for which no vaccine was widely distributed or included in the current schedule 9. You’ve conveniently left out the CDC incidence stats commonly shared in this group showing that disease incidence is increased with subsequent booster shots
How many moving targets are we supposed to hit? Regarding Th2 dominance, pretty sure you’re cherry picking your information or you’re one of those people that believe all large organizations are evil. Case in point. There is evidence this is true, but again it’s cherry-picked information because the immune response is only compromised and not depleted and the number of cases of death or illness associated with this impairment are so low that statistical analysis can only identify it as an anomaly. Once again, the risk vs reward is clear.
Now regarding point 2 and 3, I can of course debate with the 3 main points of contention (it cannot be assumed that MIA is the same as causing immune activation in the fetus or in an infant receiving vaccines, there is no evidence that an infant can be similarly injured by immune activation, and the immune activation experiments do not use vaccines) but then you’ll tell me there is growing science to suggest otherwise. I must admit that on this point more research is needed to come to a clear consensus but it is a point like this in a debate that drives people to completely disregard something because of risk that really grinds my gears. We are an infantile species and learning more each day. Yes, there will be risks found and addressed. This is yet another. But, if this is why you’re not getting vaccines then you are doing a disservice to the entire population of the world. The numbers don’t lie. Vaccines have overwhelmingly prevented the eradication of our species.
I have not said once that I don’t believe there are negative effects from vaccines. We’re going to learn as we go here since we are doing something for the first time. Yes, there will be complications. Man once built mud huts that couldn’t handle rain and would collapse and then kill the family inside. We now live in skyscrapers that move with an earthquake. If your demand is that science and medicine be perfect then you are an unrealistic asshat. When’s the last time you dealt with a problem for the first time and handled everything perfectly? Get a life. You can’t hold any other human to a standard you can’t meet as well. Think about a grocery store; the more you go the better you navigate the aisles. It sounds trite, but this is absolutely true in medicine. The research will always evolve scientific theory because that’s kinda the point.
You do have a point here though, that I did make above. Scientists and the global medical community need to stop saying there is no risk or no correlation between risk and vaccines. There clearly is, but like we debate politics we debate medicine; everyone has to go to extremes. There are responsible scientists who say there is risk, but for those that state vaccines are 100% safe, they need to get their shit together.
I’m not going to debate aluminum because it’s a stupid fucking debate and has been blown out of proportion. It can be equated to the debate over whether anti-freeze is in some food. No, an active ingredient is shared, but it has been shown to have zero effects in humans. More cherry picking.
Regarding points 5, 6 and 7, I clearly mention this, that from the research I believe there are genetic and dietary causes that link with vaccines driving illness or disease. I specifically say that. Thanks for reading the whole thing.
To point 8, what are you new? No one is stating that vaccines are the lone solution to disease, but the numbers are clear that vaccines do drastically reduce, if not eliminate some of the most dangerous diseases known to mankind. So what’s your solution here? We just get rid of vaccines because of some risks that don’t present in the majority of cases? No, we drive science forward. We look at the risks that present and solve them.
Regarding point 9, I didn’t conveniently leave it out; but rather purposefully did. You’re looking at numbers skewed to make your point. The funny thing about all of these debates is that you can’t even see I’m not an anti-vaccine hater. I’m simply presenting what I have learned and in some cases, science and medicine drive me nuts, but again it doesn’t ultimately discount the fact that vaccines provide large risk vs reward benefit over the issues that present. And, it’s not like the issues that come up are being ignored. With all issues that present, science and medicine evolve. Their PR departments suck though.
Most of us parents have sorted through that amount of research in DAYS! The years we have spent researching and our first hand experiences as PARENTS are way more valuable than this blog entry. I'll search through groups of caring parents for info and help before I take any word of some group stalker. Bye boy
Yeah, that’s not antidotal and driven by emotion at all. You’re so cute and funny the way you listen to the tom-toms beating in the streets over trained professionals in a complex field. Being PARENTS make you an expert? Jesus, I had no idea.
Okay, I’ll stop being condescending now. I get that the herd mentality does often present as proof. It’s simply disguised though. Experiential evidence has its place but in this case, it’s going against empirical evidence so it’s not nearly as valid. Being a parent doesn’t make you an expert in anything to do with medical matters, science, or psychology. Get off your high horse. Gone girl.
So...someone who says they "researched" vaccines ... but conducted that "research" using social media? Lol. It's also very obvious that the author has no background knowledge in medicine, physiology, or microbiology. For someone who has been "researching" for 2 years? I would expect to see a list of sources and a better understanding of the issues. CNN, Fox News, and Fakebook are not credible sources of research material. This needs a huge epic fail stamp
Well, I did link to sources, and I didn’t use social media. Thanks for the assumptions though. Your post really reveals how valid you are in the debate. While you’re right, I do not have any formal medical training, neither do you (based on your social media lol) or the vast majority of people leading this movement. That’s a really funny statement coming from you and all. I do however have a highly developed research skill and subscribe to all kinds of credible journals. I don’t sleep all that much so I spend all night developing my own sense of the world.
When you say look at who is behind the studies, are you considering who is behind the so-called debunking of the studies that you referenced in your article? Have you looked at the conflicts of interest that reach the conclusions that your article States?
Yes. I am satisfied that the sources I have found are far more credible than an earlier source that you came up within the group; abcnews.com.co.
Read this. It will change your mind and make you realize it’s all a monopolistic gain... http://urhealthinfo.com/.../how-rockefeller-founded-bi.../
Umm ... no, it won’t. Unsourced hyperbole with a scary picture. It’s also on a site that published an article about someone being cured of breast cancer with cannabis oil. While cannabis oil can help, it is not alone a cure and is often misrepresented by sites without oversight.
If you have been in this group and doing research for 2 years, then you know that autism is not the biggest concern for those who choose not to vaccinate. Death and damage are. There is risk in either choice, but the facts don't lie. Vaccines cause more death and damage than the natural diseases. For example, measles. And this is my personal work. I did this for every disease. I am a scientist. I love science and math. I question everything. I do the research. Because a decision made out of fear will not be as good as a decision made from facts. For example: chance of contracting and dying from the measles in the 5 years prior to the vaccine (1958-1962). According to National Vaccine Information Center: 503,282 cases reported per year with 432 death Chance of getting measles: 503,282 cases of measles/186.5 million (US population)=.00270 or .270% Chance of death IF you contract measles: 432 deaths per year/ 503,282 total cases of measles= .000858 or .0858% Chance of contracting and dying from measles (figured 2 different ways): .000858× .00270=.0000023166 432 deaths/186.5 million=.0000023166 or .00023166% chance of death from measles BEFORE vaccine introduced Chance of severe reaction to MMR vaccine according to vaccine insert: CDC states 10,000,000 doses per year: High Fever: 5-15% (500,000-1.5 million) Seizure: 1 in 3,000 (or 3,333) Thrombocytopenia: 1 in 30,000-40,000 Allergic reaction: 35-100 per year Encephalitis: 1 per million (or 10) Serious Neurological Disease: 1 in 365,000 (or 27.4) Chance reaction to MMR vaccine according to insert using averages for data with a range ( also not including fevers): 3,333+285+65+10+27.4/10 million doses= .000372 or .0372% Other severe reactions are rare, but are reported to VAERS as such: (I am calculating separate to ensure no overlap in data of insert and VAERS report) Severe adverse reaction documented 7692 cases from 1990-2016 and of these 397 resulted in death 7692 reactions/26 years=295.84* per year 397 deaths/26 years=15.3* per year *According to the American Medical Association this number is only 1-10% of all cases reported. Meaning actual number could be anywhere from: 2,958.4 - 29,584 adverse reactions per year. from MMR 153-1,527 deaths per year from MMR Chance of reaction from MMR using the lower end of the range (VAERS): 2958.4/10 million doses= .000296 .0372% chance severe rxn (MMR insert) .029% chance adverse rxn (VAERS) .00023166% chance natural death 1962
Whoa right? When you first look at this you have to be impressed. I mean first, she’s a scientist. Second, she did her own math! Third ... no, wait. This is just copied and pasted from various sites. Damn it, there was so much possibility in this response. I was really excited to be proved wrong. If you really want to cut through the bullshit, just go here. Now, if you’re one of those people that don’t believe in big government then I guess you can say, they’re lying. I do, and it’s my blog so 😝.
Here’s a PDF of my research with credible sources: https://www.docdroid.net/LyJoYpZ/vaccine-file.pdf#page=2. Learn!
Thank you for the PDF. It was quite enlightening; but not the way you think. Of the “credible sources” I found many that just aren’t. Immunize is slanted at best, and several are just weak unsourced articles. Of those that are credible, I didn’t find anything that disputes the conclusion I have come to. See below.
I'm no one's lab rat!
You're right, you're not. No one that gets vaccinated is a lab rat. That's because vaccines were tested on lab rats long before humans and this continues to be the case. So go get your vaccines because all of those lab rats and the billions of lives saved would really appreciate it.
I vaccinate but not on a schedule.
Okay, that's a luxury you have now. It's good to see you're vaccinating at some point, but if the trend of pretending you know better than the medical community continues that luxury won't be around much longer. You'll be lined up like the millions in Japan that took the same approach previously. I hope you have a full iPhone battery because you're going to be there awhile; so long you might just die of the disease in line.
You're an idiot for linking climate change to disease.
Well, clearly you're just not listening. As the ice melts and the planet changes, old diseases will be released in the environment. Those that don't vaccinate are at serious risk, putting the entire planet in jeopardy.
Focus on adult immunizations instead of kids.
Fuck, no. What are you insane? The 2 groups most at risk to disease due to a lack of vaccinations are seniors and children. So why would we focus our efforts on the strongest group? Many child immunizations last through adulthood anyway. Healthy adults have a nil chance of contracting any disease compared to kids. I know—build the immune system then get the shots. The problem is that if everyone thinks that way there will be no immune system to build because all the kids will be dead or seriously sick. That's not an alarmist statement; but rather a statement based in fact. Look, it's a good idea to keep on top of your vaccines as an adult but that's not a viable starting point unless you don't like children and seniors.
The rest of the posts were pretty hilarious. There were some cool little graphs, a lot of people talking about how they witnessed it first hand or with other’s kids, how parents know best, on and on. 3 people actually told me that we just need to get rid of vaccines and wash our hands more because we’re more hygienic now and that’s what brings the disease rates down. Love the optimism and while that does play a role, not enough. Not nearly enough. It was also brought up that we don't group those who are sick together in the same room basically on top of each other anymore. Correct, and that's awesome progress, but again, not enough to stop the plague if it comes back.
People also assumed I have no first-hand experience, which living in Canada is next to impossible. I went to several schools, got all my shots, as did my friends, and while the bus they delivered the shots in was scary, and the process was weird ... we’re all okay (of those I speak to or remember anyway). I have friends with autistic children who vax and don’t. My best friend growing up had autism. Many around me have strong viewpoints. My cousin can't get her measles shot due to an allergy. Not to mention I'm not a Nationalist because I'm not ignorant. I share this planet with everyone and I am concerned we are giving birth to the greatest period of illness in generations.
This is all very real for me.
The interesting thing is that I scoured 4 groups (with over 5m members) for weeks and couldn’t find anyone with any death related first-hand experiences. I found many that said their kids had gotten sick, but that’s to be expected. It happens, and no one is disputing that. Isn't that odd? 5m members, and not one could point to a first-hand death? Things that make you go hmmmmm ...
My conclusion, worded differently is this:
There are risks in vaccinating, and no credible person on either side of the debate is disputing that. However, with science, there is an evolution of understanding. When risks present they are researched and dealt with. That’s how it works. So maybe tomorrow they will find out that vaccines cause babies to cry more. Once they have found the link they will work on the solution. I never stated once that I believe vaccines are 100% safe because nothing is. However, if we stop vaccinating we will all (including the parents and their precious babies) die from diseases that were killed off long ago.
Back in the early 20th century, we didn’t have to worry about outbreaks spreading as fast because people didn’t get around the globe as freely. Now, if a major disease that is contagious breaks out in NYC for example, we’re fucked without vaccines. It’s that simple.
So, are their risks? Yes. Do they suck? Yes. Is there enough risk to stop vaccinating and wash our hands enough times to make sure disease is stopped? Fuck no. Do vaccines cause autism? There is no evidence to say that is the case. Is all of this very sad? Yep. Should emotion ever play into science and medicine? Absolutely not.
These are my opinions. You’re not going to change my mind unless new research that comes out stating one of the following:
A clear link between autism or any disease and vaccines. CLEAR!
A side effect so bad and rampant that it outweighs the number of deaths staved off by vaccines.
A vetted list of those killed by vaccines that far out numbers those helped by them.
Oh, the irony of writing this on the medium that inflates the problem. What a time.
Thank you for reading. It’s a long blog, and I know you probably have a lot to do. I also know I don’t bring a lot of heart to the debate, which might make you think I'm an asshole but in science there can't be heart ... it has to be all brain.
Cheers to a world where we can all debate, admit our mistakes and work together behind the experts that do the heavy lifting.