The anti-vaccination movement --- rotten to the core

[HuckleB]

http://scienceblogs.com/whitecoatunderground/2009/02/dishonest.php


{i]"The movement against vaccination is old---very old. All medical interventions require scrutiny. Like any medical intervention, vaccines require systematic investigation before deployment, and monitoring during their use. Still, vaccines have done more for public health than most Westerners under the age of fifty can imagine.

Inoculation and vaccination have been vilified in many ways, from interfering with the will of God, to being a vast conspiracy to infect with , to a cause of autism.

There have been "bad" vaccines, and when this has happened, even if the vaccine wasn't clearly the cause of a problem, it was withdrawn. Other vaccines no longer have a favorable risk-benefit ratio, such as smallpox, and are no longer widely used. But the vaccines in regular use have been tested, retested, and tested again, and found to be very safe.

...

t's really that simple. People like Wakefield, Kennedy, and David Kirby promote the spread of deadly diseases. The current resurgence in epidemic diseases lays not at the door of poor policy, poverty, or corrupt governments, but at the feet of the dishonest ideologues who stand in the way of the health of your children and mine."


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


A fine, concise read on this ridiculous faux "controversy."

:hi:

[Better Today]

1. You had to reach all the way back a year and half to continue beating this dead horse?

Wow, fanatical.

[HuckleB]

6. In other words, you still can't respond with anything but BS.

:rofl:

[Better Today]

8. No, in other words, you're a broken record with a bad track or two.

[HuckleB]

10. Keep up the ad hominem BS.

I'll keep laughing!

:rofl:

[depakid]

16. I'll do one better for the scientificially illiterate

This "controversy" with fanatics has been settled at the legal level for over a century.

Jacobson v. Massachusetts

Proceeding under the above statutes, the board of health of the city of Cambridge, Massachusetts, on the 27th day of February, 1902, adopted the following regulation:

'Whereas, smallpox has been prevalent to some extent in the city of Cambridge, and still continues to increase; and whereas, it is necessary for the speedy extermination of the disease that all persons not protected by vaccination should be vaccinated; and whereas, in the opinion of the board, the public health and safety require the vaccination or revaccination of all the inhabitants of Cambridge; be it ordered, that all the inhabitants habitants of the city who have not been successfully vaccinated since March 1st, 1897, be vaccinated or revaccinated.'

Subsequently, the board adopted an additional regulation empowering a named physician to enforce the vaccination of persons as directed by the board at its special meeting of February 27th.

The above regulations being in force, the plaintiff in error, Jacobson, was proceeded against by a criminal complaint in one of the inferior courts of Massachusetts. The complaint charged that on the 17th day of July, 1902, the board of health of Cambridge, being of the opinion that it was necessary for the public health and safety, required the vaccination and revaccination of all the inhabitants thereof who had not been successfully vaccinated since the 1st day of March, 1897, and provided them with the means of free vaccination; and that the defendant, being over twenty-one years of age and not under guardianship, refused and neglected to comply with such requirement.

The defendant, having been arraigned, pleaded not guilty. The government put in evidence the above regulations adopted by the board of health, and made proof tending to show that its chairman informed the defendant that, by refusing to be vaccinated, he would incur the penalty provided by the statute, and would be prosecuted therefor; that he offered to vaccinate the defendant without expense to him; and that the offer was declined, and defendant refused to be vaccinated.

We are not prepared to hold that a minority, residing or remaining in any city or town where smallpox is prevalent, and enjoying the general protection afforded by an organized local government, may thus defy the will of its constituted authorities, acting in good faith for all, under the legislative sanction of the state. If such be the privilege of a minority, then a like privilege would belong to each individual of the community, and the spectacle would be presented of the welfare and safety of an entire population being subordinated to the notions of a single individual who chooses to remain a part of that population.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=197&invol=11

anti-vaccination nutters: no different than 19th Century fanatics.

[Better Today]

27. That's my point, it's been decided for a long time, it's a dead horse,

even the article referenced in the OP is over a year old. It's a dead horse. Yet the OP starts a thread on this topic on a regular basis just to annoy folks, imo.

[HuckleB]

32. Funny thing.

Kids are dying of Pertussis in California. DUers are starting anti-vax threads, like they've done for years.

Somehow your "dead horse" analogy ignores that. I could list more that you've ignored, but I really don't give a rip about the BS your pushing here.

[HuckleB]

33. BTW, you've offered up some big time illiteracy in regard to medical science in the past.

Your posts on this thread are a good example: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=222x80734#80750

As are the ones in this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=222x81541

Uh, and then there's your history at DU in regard to vaccines, which can be seen on this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=222x74053

And here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=222x71823

In other words, I don't trust your motives at all. You don't appear to care much about science, so I'm not surprised that you want me to stop posting.

[mzmolly]

78. "the OP starts a thread on this topic on a regular basis just to annoy folks" Yep.

It's generally considered flame bait. :shrug:

[HuckleB]

86. Your posts on this thread are great examples of flame bait.

FORMALDEHYDE! TOXINS! CANCER!

Of course, your whole line is BS, as has been shown, but you still keep screaming away.

The OP tells the truth about a group of people that work to put the public in harm's way. That's not flame bait. That's telling the truth.

Meanwhile, anti-vaxers continue to post their crap, but their fellow anti-vaxers don't tell them it's a "dead horse." Now why would that be?

Calling the OP flame bait or anything else is just propaganda intended to keep others from having a voice at DU. The anti-vax clan here is out of control, and appears to be pulling out every logical fallacy they can use to attack. Unfortunately, they don't seem to be able to deal with the science.

[mzmolly]

93. I'm sorry you'll have to take up that issue with the EPA

and other organizations who have classified formaldehyde a human carcinogen.

[HuckleB]

100. And you continue to ignore the real world.

And yet you to pretend that you don't have agenda.

It would be funny if it wasn't so sad and dangerous.

[mzmolly]

114. The real world where formaldehyde has been classified as a human

carcinogen? No,that would be YOU.

[HuckleB]

116. And you continue to play pointless BS games.

You know that the formaldehyde in vaccines is not a danger, and yet you pretend otherwise, which, if you con parents into believing, will lead to death.

You really are on the wrong side of this discussion.

I know you don't understand that, but nonetheless...

[mzmolly]

124. You know that formaldehyde is a human carcinogen

and you wish that people like me wouldn't point that out. Again, my goal is to eliminate carcinogen and neurotoxins from vaccines. That doesn't make me anti-vaccine, it makes me anti-carcinogen/neurotoxin.

[HuckleB]

125. And again you ignore the basic science of the matter to scare people.

WOW!

[mzmolly]

127. Who has been frightened and why? Certainly your zealotry and talking points

about fruit have quelled any concerns. "WOW!" You're sure becoming redundant.

[HuckleB]

128. So you feel that you're not successful in your attempts to con people out of vaccinations?

Well, tell that to the kids who died from whooping cough in California.

You know this is too easy, because you have nothing behind the crap you're trying to sell.

When it comes to redundancy, you win, BTW!

[mzmolly]

135. The kids in California were presumably exposed to their siblings and parents

who didn't have a booster available until recently. I personally advocated for the booster that's now available BTW. But I'm sure that doesn't interest you.

[HuckleB]

136. Uh, nice try.

Prove your assertion about the California cases.

Prove it with legitimate sources.

Prove it.

PS: Even a "stick it to the man" publication like Mother Jones understands the science. http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/06/vaccines-california-whooping-cough-epidemic

And even if you can blame it on other factors, those factors indicate that lower immunization rates are going to lead to this type of outbreak. Thus, your advocacy is for people to die.

[mzmolly]

140. Prove what? The booster is NEW and the vaccine wears off. You didn't know that?

SEE HERE >>>> http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/701612

And here: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/16/vaccination-is-steady-but-pertussis-is-surging/

"There are several explanations for the rise in pertussis, but the most likely is waning immunity after vaccination. “Immunity wears off, especially for adults who are decades past their most recent vaccination,” said Dr. Tom Clark, an epidemiologist with the C.D.C.

Moreover, adults and adolescents often wait weeks before seeking treatment for a chronic cough — and even then, doctors may not recognize it as pertussis.

“You only begin to think about pertussis when it’s been going on for weeks and weeks,” Dr. Clark said, “and then treatment is much less likely to make a difference, and you’ve spread it to other people.”

Another factor may be the declining use of antibiotics to treat simple coughs and colds. While doctors legitimately worry that indiscriminate use of antibiotics can lead to the development of drug-resistant bacteria, it may be that in the past the drugs inadvertently cured many cases of undiagnosed pertussis.

The rise in pertussis doesn’t seem to be related to parents’ refusing to have their children vaccinated for fear of potential side effects. In California, pertussis rates are about the same in counties with high childhood vaccination rates and low ones. And the C.D.C. reports that pertussis immunization rates have been stable or increasing since 1992."

Also according to recent science, the pertussis jab isn't as effective at preventing the spread of disease as it is masking symptoms.

"But scientists are struggling to understand why reports of pertussis cases have risen dramatically since the 1980s. It may reflect more testing or diagnosis; it may reflect the cyclical nature of the disease. It’s even unclear how often clusters like the one in Cobb occur.

“We are frustrated by the fact that we don’t know,” Messonnier said.

About 10,000 cases and 20 infant deaths were reported in the United States last year, but some studies have suggested the number of people sickened each year may be closer to 300,000, CDC officials said.

Experts believe the disease is underdiagnosed and underreported in vaccinated school-age children and adults who often have milder symptoms and whose childhood shots have worn off. They believe that adolescents and adults are spreading the disease to vulnerable infants and children."

http://www.ajc.com/health/content/metro/stories/2009/03/22/whooping_cough_vaccine.html

Pointing to a few unvaccinated children is lazy, dangerous and promotes the spread of death and disease. The issue is far more complex.

I'll check back soon. Good night. :hi:

[HuckleB]

142. In other words, you can push a bunch of red herrings, but you can't back up your claim.

:rofl:

Do you really think you're fooling anyone?

[mzmolly]

148. "The rise in pertussis doesn’t seem related to parents’ refusing to have their children vac'd."

You're being blatantly dishonest. Not surprised.

Again, goodnight.

[HuckleB]

149. You have a quote from one person.

This all you do. You think if you find a quote that supports your preconceived notions, that's all you have to offer.

No.

You have to look at the whole picture.

I've offered several pieces with several quotes that are not in agreement with what you've offered.

Seriously, when will you learn to be honest?

PS: Here is another piece that doesn't back up your assertion (again, noting that your own support doesn't back up your assertion):

http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2010/07/26/prl10726.htm

[HuckleB]

147. This is a good example of your inability to connect the dots.

You seem to think that you can throw down a bunch of pieces and they will add up to your preconceived notion. It's funny that your offerings are from people in political roles who must refrain from telling the full story right now. Further, you use VERY selective comments to "support" your assertion, even though they don't support your actual assertion.

It doesn't work that way.

The hilarity is acknowledged, but it's too late to laugh at your posts much anymore.

The California pertussis outbreak of 2010
http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2010/08/the-california-pertussis-outbreak-of-2010/

[HuckleB]

137. How California state law helps whooping cough spread

http://californiawatch.org/watchblog/1-how-california-state-law-helps-whooping-cough-spread-23

Whooping cough now an epidemic in California
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/06/23/whooping-cough-now-an-epidemic-in-california/

Whooping Cough and the Anti-Vaccine Wackos
http://www.tsweekly.com/5992-whooping-cough-and-the-anti-vaccine-wackos.html

Anti-Vaccine Activists Kill Two Children in California
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2010/04/anti-vaccine_activists_kill_tw.php

Yeah, this is all just for kicks, but why not? It's more substantive than what you've ever offered.

[mzmolly]

141. I've addressed your desperate, inaccurate blame

game in my original response. Note what the 'experts' say vs a handful of writers with an agenda.

[HuckleB]

143. No, you haven't.

But you probably believe that you have.

[mzmolly]

144. You haven't had time to even read the response.

Dishonest much? Goodnight.

[HuckleB]

145. I know what you posted, and I read it as much as I needed to read it.

You think I don't know this stuff back and forth?

If you thought about anything, you would know that by now.

But thinking is not your forte.

[HuckleB]

146. Repeat.

[HuckleB]

138. The Anti-Vaccine Movement: Blinding Us With Pseudoscience

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/07/07/the-anti-vaccine-movement-blinding-us-with-pseudo-science/

Speaking of things that don't interest you.

[HuckleB]

139. State's whooping cough surge may be tied to lagging immunization rate

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/28/local/la-me-whooping-cough-immunization-20100627

[HuckleB]

150. Pertussis epidemic in California linked to vaccination gaps

http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2010/07/26/prl10726.htm

[HuckleB]

151. Baltimore’s Example in Stark Contrast to California’s Epidemic

http://shotofprevention.com/2010/07/23/baltimore’s-example-in-stark-contrast-to-california’s-epidemic/

[HuckleB]

152. More (California) Parents Not Vaccinating Kids

http://www.kpbs.org/news/2010/aug/24/more-parents-not-vaccinating-kids/

[HuckleB]

154. La Crosse area could fare better in whooping cough epidemic

http://lacrossetribune.com/news/local/article_92ad245e-aa7f-11df-8a16-001cc4c03286.html

[HuckleB]

156. BTW, look at the number of anti-vax responses to this piece.

Then tell me why we don't need to address this issue?

[Wilms]

2. I had acupuncture today!

Worked like a champ.

:hi:

[HuckleB]

4. You're proud that you gave your money to a con artist!

:rofl:

[Hawkowl]

14. Tell that to my horses

Acupuncture works for them. I'm sure it's the placebo effect.

[HuckleB]

18. It is.

Animal acupuncture
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=519

Is There a Placebo Effect for Animals?
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=263

[laconicsax]

161. Heroin works for some people, crystal meth for others. n/t

[Recursion]

17. Accupuncture has demonstrated benefits in chronic pain relief

People saying it's good for fertility, depression, whatever don't have evidence for that, but if it's for pain relief it's as effective as tylenol.

[HuckleB]

19. No.

Acupuncture Does Not Work for Back Pain
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=492

Acupuncture and Back Pain – Part II
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=500

Placebo is as good as acupuncture, so if you're going to waste money on placebo, poke yourself or go with something a little cheaper like OTC homeopathy.

[Recursion]

21. Notice I didn't say "back pain" NT

[HuckleB]

22. Those are examples.

I could post the reality of studies all day.

Do you really need me to do that, or are you going to be honest?

Acupuncture – An Implausible Premise Lacking Evidence
http://sciencebasedparenting.com/2009/06/28/acupuncture-an-implausible-premise-lacking-evidence/

Acupuncture – Disconnected from Reality
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=413

[Recursion]

23. Well, if you would bother to use pubmed

The search terms are pretty easy to guess.

Most cited seems to be Berman, et al: http://www.annals.org/cgi/reprint/141/12/901.pdf

Results: Participants in the true acupuncture group experienced
greater improvement in WOMAC function scores than the sham
acupuncture group at 8 weeks (mean difference, 2.9 (95% CI,
5.0 to 0.8);P 0.01) but not in WOMAC pain score (mean
difference, 0.5 (CI, 1.2 to 0.2);P 0.18) or the patient global
assessment (mean difference, 0.16 (C0I,.02 to 0.34)P; > 0.2).
At 26 weeks, the true acupuncture group experienced significantly
greater improvement than the sham group in the WOMAC function
score (mean difference, 2.5 (CI, 4.7 to 0.4);P 0.01),
WOMAC pain score (mean difference,0.87 (CI, 1.58 to 0.16);
P 0.003), and patient global assessment (mean difference,
0.26 (CI, 0.07 to 0.45);P 0.02).

That one shows greater function (if I'm correctly understanding WOMAC) but same pain on knee arthritis compared to being poked with needles in some other way.

Witt, et al examined lower back pain: http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/164/5/487

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was {euro}10,526 (euros) per quality-adjusted life year. Acupuncture plus routine care was associated with marked clinical improvements in these patients and was relatively cost-effective.

Now, I'm not a doctor, but I am an electrical engineer, and I'd love for my entropy trials to get the kind of P that first one had...

[HuckleB]

24. You are presuming that the studies you cite are fully justified in their claims.

When one actually looks at the usual claims in acupuncture studies, one is amazed. Do you know what a P value is?

Acupuncture, the P-Value Fallacy, and Honesty
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=2996

Now let's look at the big picture:

Acupuncture treatment for pain: systematic review of randomised clinical trials with acupuncture, placebo acupuncture, and no acupuncture groups
http://www.bmj.com/content/338/bmj.a3115.full

CONTROLS FOR ACUPUNCTURE STUDIES ARE IMPROVING. THEIR RESULTS ARE NOT. HOW ARE PEER REVIEWERS REACTING?
http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/acupuncture_real_or_sham/

Again, the plethora of evidence shows acupuncture to be no better than placebo.

[Recursion]

25. Ignoring for "do you know what a P value is?"

Good day, sir.

[HuckleB]

26. Oh goodness, that's funny.

Whatever excuse you need so you don't have to admit your assumption is baseless.

:rofl:

[Wilms]

36. I paid for and received results.

I'm certain it would have not made a bit of difference for some people.

But I can't let YOU con me into adopting a belief system contradicting my experience.

By the way, what ailment did you have that responded poorly to acupuncture?

[HuckleB]

37. I'm certain that you're certain.

And I'm certain that you're falling for a scam as old as they get.

[Wilms]

38. Positive results = "falling for a scam"?

Hmmm.

[HuckleB]

39. As has been pointed out, if you want the placebo effect, save money and go with homeopathy pills.

It doesn't matter what kind you get, they have all the same amount of nothing in them.

[Wilms]

40. But what you advocate is likely more expensive, and may or may not produce results.

It could also have serious side-effects. It seems you are saying a cure is not a cure unless achieved through the modalities you appove.

I'm unmoved.

[HuckleB]

41. I'm saying treatments that have no scientific basis in evidence are scams.

Homeopathy would be much cheaper than what you're doing now in order to get the placebo effect you desire. Though why we let the scam artists of either arena con people out of their money is bizarre. It seems like we are allowing some scams to be legal, and others put people in jail. It's an odd situation.

Your frequent trips for acupuncture are not necessarily cheaper than therapies that actually have a scientific basis, btw.

[Wilms]

42. A lack of "scientific basis" you equate with scam.

I don't look at it that way. I think the word is efficacy.

You refute achievements you can't understand through "science".

Doctor, heal thyself.

[HuckleB]

44. The scientific method proves/shows efficacy.

And the "you can't understand" BS is nothing but a lame logical fallacy.

You're being conned, and you're defending the con to the bitter end because you don't want to admit that you could be conned.

The evidence has been presented, yet you choose to ignore it.

And you offer up that lame last line to me?

:rofl:

[Wilms]

57. Very odd behavior.

"The evidence has been presented"?

Your like Frist, tele-diagnosing me via the intertubes. Who's the con-artist?

[HuckleB]

58. Nice ad hominem.

Are you pretending that people who care about science at DU have not offered overwhelming evidence that acupuncture does not work?

Really?

:shrug:

[Wilms]

59. You've already offered your under-whelming evidence that acupuncture does not work.

I'll not part with my reality to satisfy your fetish.

[HuckleB]

60. Actually, the evidence is overwhelming.

For to pretend otherwise indicates that you have either chosen to ignore it (which is likely the case), or you've chosen to be dishonest about it.

It appears to me that you are struggling to convince yourself here. If you are so convinced of the validity of your faith in acupuncture, why continue to engage me? Further, why engage me and ignore the evidence against acupuncture as a valid treatment?

It seems bizarre.

[Wilms]

72. Thanks, but if I want your opinion, I'll consult Frist.

See ya.

[HuckleB]

74. And another ad hominem.

:rofl:

Yes, run away from the evidence. Doing so may not be good for your wallet, and some day it might actually be quite harmful to your health, but you have the freedom to choose to be scammed.

[Wilms]

79. ad hominems?

You produced a books worth on this thread.

Sorry about your condition.

[HuckleB]

80. Maybe.

Did I offer any to you?

[HuckleB]

91. You do understand that I'm not "tele-diagnosing" you, or anyone else.

I'm simply stating that acupuncture does not work.

Why offer so many logical fallacies?

[pnwmom]

3. The safe-vaccination movement resulted in a much safer DPT vaccine

eventually being approved; and in the law that set up the vaccine courts, which provide compensation for vaccine deaths and injuries. Without that law, pharma companies would be susceptible to vaccine-related lawsuits and would be more reluctant to develop vaccines.

[HuckleB]

5. No, it had nothing to do with it.

Actual scientists had everything to do with it. And the "safe vaccines" movement still tells parents to avoid vaccines. The hypocrisy is stunning.

[pnwmom]

7. Scientists couldn't develop the vaccine without FUNDING. And the funding for research into

a safer vaccine was available because of the lobbying by the families that formed the core of the safe-vaccine movement. Families of babies, like my sister, who were killed or seriously injured by the vaccine. The safer-vaccine movement also resulted in the passage of the bill that compensates families for vaccine-related deaths and injuries.

[HuckleB]

9. You keep telling yourself that.

:rofl:

[pnwmom]

11. Logic and argument failed you. So you laugh.

Have at it.

[HuckleB]

12. Hardly.

[Q3JR4]

13. Thank you for posting this.

I'm familiar with the vaccine conspiracy nutballs who would like to go back to the old days when people died from diseases that we now have vaccines for.

I'll tell you this. When the number of people who die from easily preventable deaths go up, and people start getting scared, the rates of vaccination will also start to go back up. It's really hard to fight for your anti-vaccination cause when there's the chance that your baby will start coughing up its lungs if someone doesn't stick it with a needle. It's just going to take people seeing that again before sanity will reassert itself.

Q3JR4.
_{Homeopathy, anti-vaccination proponents, HIV deniers, NASA conspiracy proponents, big foot proponents, UFO, New Age wackos, birthers, religious fundamentalists, all of them cut from the same cloth.}

[pnwmom]

15. "The vaccine conspiracy nutballs" who advocate for safer vaccines and compensation

for those injured by vaccines?

As someone who lost a sister due to encephalitis caused by the old "whole cell" DTP vaccine (which has now been replaced by a safer vaccine), I'm grateful to those who fight for safer vaccines -- and who pushed for the enactment of a law that compensates these families.

[HuckleB]

20. Keep trying.

http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2009/10/why-dont-the-so-called-vaccine-safety-orgs-talk-about-vaccine-safety/

also...

THE RISK OF SEIZURES AFTER RECEIPT OF WHOLE-CELL PERTUSSIS
OR MEASLES, MUMPS, AND RUBELLA VACCINE
http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa003077

Vaccine safety: informing the misinformed
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS147330990970307X/fulltext?rss=yes

The anti-vaccine movement strikes back against Amy Wallace using misogyny
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/10/the_anti-vaccine_movement_strikes_back_u.php

Vaccine Safety & the Anti-Immunization Movement: Facts & Myths
http://videos.med.wisc.edu/videoInfo.php?videoid=87

[mzmolly]

56. What a sensitive response

to a person who lost a family member to a vaccine side effect. :eyes:

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HuckleB]

88. Nice game playing.

:eyes:

[mzmolly]

29. Thank you for continuing to speak

for those who don't have a voice pnwmom.

Articles like the one in the OP are recycled inflammatory bullshit. To suggest that any critique of vaccination = the love of disease is absurd on its face. It's like suggesting that those who promote vaccines, wish to spread child cancer (given formaldehyde is used in their manufacture.)

[HuckleB]

87. FORMALDEHYDE!

No matter how many times you use your scare tactics, they don't amount to anything but yelling "FIRE" in a theatre.

[mzmolly]

94. You'd prefer we ignore the fire

eh?

[HuckleB]

101. You are lighting your own fire and pointing at someone else.

That's pretty sick.

[mzmolly]

115. You lit this particular, recycled fire from 2009

not me.

[HuckleB]

120. This from the person who posted a single ten year old study...

... that had recently been recycled by one of your favorite anti-vax sites.

:rofl:

http://www.talulahmankiller.com/?p=2780

[Name removed]

126. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HuckleB]

92. You're welcome.

Unfortunately, I fear that many kids will have to die for the anti-vax crowd to realize that they're "stick it to the man" routine is as dangerous as it is ugly.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

28. I'd not paid much attention to the controversy...

...surrounding vaccines until all the hype last year over the H1N1. In doing some research I found the commentary in this interview of retired neurosurgeon, Dr. Russel Blaylock, to be quite shocking, but very believable:

1 of 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--nWrqIspnQ

2 of 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnaiubVJv8E&feature=related

3 of 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktcoJW6mj1U&feature=related

4 of 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5E2N4pliXs&feature=related

[xchrom]

31. Posting something from blaylock is the same as giving

Bad medical advice.

[xchrom]

30. Recommend

[mzmolly]

34. By the same criteria of the hack author in the OP, Offit and his counterparts promote the spread of

child cancer through their pro-ignorance movement. "Fortunately, formaldehyde does not seem to be a cause of cancer in humans" ~ Paul Offit and Rita Jew.

Source >>>>>> http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/112/6/1394

The truth = "Formaldehyde Linked To Cancer In Humans"

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/environment/88/8823govc3.html

“There is sufficient evidence of a causal relationship between formaldehyde exposure and cancers of the upper respiratory tracts, with the strongest evidence for nasopharyngeal and sino-nasal cancers,” the agency says. “There is also sufficient evidence of a causal association between formaldehyde exposure and lymphohematopoietic cancers, with the strongest evidence of Hodgkin’s lymphoma and leukemia, particularly myeloid leukemia,” EPA adds.

http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/pressreleases/2009/formaldehyde

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/06/epa_formaldehyde_can_cause_can.html

http://www.propublica.org/article/study-reinforces-links-between-formaldehyde-and-cancer-518

I wouldn't have commented on this tired, recycled BS flame bait from the summer of 2009, but for some reason, my un-rec has been changed to a rec. :shrug:

[HuckleB]

35. FORMALDEHYDE!!! Yawn. I see the anti-vax, pro-disease shills are still trying to push their lies.

Common Ingredients in U.S. Licensed Vaccines
http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/ucm187810.htm

"Why is formaldehyde in some vaccines?

Formaldehyde has a long history of use in the manufacture of certain viral and bacterial vaccines. It is used to inactivate viruses (e.g., influenza, polio) and to detoxify bacterial toxins, such as the toxin used to make diphtheria vaccine. Formaldehyde is diluted during the manufacturing process, but residual quantities of formaldehyde may be found in some current vaccines. The average quantity of formaldehyde to which a young infant could be exposed to at one time through vaccines is very small and is considered to be safe. Although high concentrations of formaldehyde can damage DNA (the building block of genes) and cause cancerous changes in cells in the laboratory, formaldehyde is an essential component in human metabolism and is required for the synthesis of DNA and amino acids (the building blocks of protein). Therefore, all humans have detectable quantities of natural formaldehyde in their circulation. In addition, quantities of formaldehyde at least 600-fold greater than that contained in vaccines have been found to be safe in animals."

And anti-vaxers hate this guy, because he doesn't let them get away with their lies.
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=9

[mzmolly]

43. Cancer has a long history

as well. Formaldehyde ingested differs from formaldehyde inhaled, absorbed or injected.

The "pro-cancer" crowd hates me because I don't let them get away with their lies.

[HuckleB]

45. The anti-vaccine crowd IS the pro-cancer crowd.

I will not discuss these matters with you. You've shown that you don't understand the first thing about any of it, and I won't waste my time addressing you directly. I will correct your BS in other ways, if I feel like it.

[mzmolly]

46. Anti-vaccine? You know what I didn't post this week?

"3 babies died within hours after they were vaccinated"

Source - http://news.asiaone.com/News/Latest%2BNews/Asia/Story/A1Story20100903-235387.html

And, this is what I didn't post last week.

"India stops vaccine programmes after four children die within minutes of vaccination."

Or "Central team: Measles vaccine contamination may have caused deaths"

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/central-team-measles-vaccine-contamination/591646/

A simple google alert on 'measles' provided me with the info above. I didn't share these articles because I found them to be inflammatory.

By the way, I DO understand the issue of formaldehyde. I've researched the "science" on this matter alone, for hours. And I've consulted toxicologists as well. I also recently read about a parent who was told her son may have leukemia due to formaldehyde in vaccines. The source? Her son's oncologist. Google formaldehyde and leukemia. Perhaps you'll find out how they discovered a link between them?

If you wish to raise legitimate concerns about various "anti-vaccine" claims, I don't have an issue with that. HOWEVER, I will NOT allow you and others like you to stifle conversation and shame people like JFK Jr., David Kirby, Bill Maher and others for daring to raise legitimate questions.

[HuckleB]

48. You clearly don't read the crap you push.

Which is why there is no point in discussing anything with you. To date: You still don't get that correlation is not causation. And that's one of the many things you don't understand. You have a preconceived agenda, and you support it with every little ounce of illogical nonsense you can muster. It's either dishonesty or ignorance. I don't know which.

[mzmolly]

52. I didn't "push" anything.

I noted the articles to demonstrate that I DID NOT SHARE these articles in a thread of my own, for a reason.

Aren't you even curious about what killed these babies? I am, and one of the articles provided potential answers. Answers curious people can learn from, perhaps preventing future tragedies.

Yeah I have an agenda. It's to address nonsense like that in your OP. If that bugs you, good.

[HuckleB]

85. Baloney.

You push ALL of the usual anti-vax crap.

[mzmolly]

98. I guess the EPA is a "pro-disease/anti-vaccine" organization

now?

[HuckleB]

118. Is the EPA assessing vaccines?

Nice try. Cut the crap.

Your game is over. You lost. And if you continue it, you have one thing to gain: The deaths of children to preventable diseases.

That is sick.

[mzmolly]

131. LOL. I'm not advocating for the end of vaccination. I simply want human carcinogens out of

vaccines. Those who advocate to keep carcinogens and neurotoxins in vaccines are responsible for the deaths of children to vaccine preventable disease and possibly cancer and other reactions. If there were a "green vaccine" choice, we wouldn't be having this conversation, frankly.

[HuckleB]

132. BS.

That game is over. You keep trying to play it, but your actions speak louder than your words.

My four-year-old knows better than to try that crap.

[HuckleB]

89. And the articles make it quite clear that what you want to blame isn't to blame.

But you can play your BS curiosity card all you want.

Since you lack the curiosity to deal with the real science of vaccines, we both know curiosity is not something you prize.

[mzmolly]

99. You finally looked at the articles?

Bravo! I pointed you in the direction of what's to blame earlier. Regardless without DISCUSSION and INQUIRY one wouldn't know what's to blame, would they? If we had it your way, we'd never find out how a child died as a result of vaccination. It would be chalked up to "a rare event, for the greater good."

[HuckleB]

103. I gave you the benefit of the doubt.

I should have known better.

And now you come up with this response?

Pitiful.

[mzmolly]

107. Oh good

grief. LOL :rofl:

[HuckleB]

110. Wow!

You didn't read them. I assumed you had, as my response indicates. Later, you posted as if you hadn't. Now you accuse me of not reading them until later.

You lose your own game again.

[Name removed]

117. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HuckleB]

119. And you go for another ad hominem line of BS.

WOW!

[HuckleB]

155. Also, it's funny how you ignored the fact that I noted that you hadn't read the articles.

In my FIRST response.

Dishonesty is despicable.

Why do you display it so often?

[mzmolly]

47. Question. Do you think that no child has ever been harmed by a vaccine?

Or, do you simply think we should ignore them?

[HuckleB]

49. How ridiculous can you get?

Do you really think I'm going to play your little anti-vax routine? (BTW, this question shows that you don't read anything by people like Dr. Offit, who you slam blindly. And knowing that, makes my choice to ignore your crap that much easier.)

WOW!

:rofl:

Goodbye.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mzmolly]

54. . dup delete

[HuckleB]

84. And the usual anti-vaxer ad hominem routine!

What a pitiful post.

[mzmolly]

95. Calling JFK Jr. and "pro-disease" is

pitiful.

[HuckleB]

104. No. It's the truth.

[laconicsax]

162. I think that excerpt explains it all...

"Formaldehyde is diluted during the manufacturing process..."

Translate into woo with a homeopathy filter:

"Formaldehyde is strengthened and made more potent during the manufacturing process..."

[HuckleB]

163. Dang. THAT DOES EXPLAIN IT!

[HuckleB]

50. Evaluating Risk, Benefits, and Safety in Vaccine Policy

http://www.vaccineethics.org/issue_briefs/risk_safety.php

[HuckleB]

51. History of Vaccine Safety

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Vaccine_Monitoring/history.html

[mzmolly]

55. Keep formaldehye in vaccines for the Koch Brothers.

http://themoderatevoice.com/84381/billionaire-koch-brothers-tea-party-david-koch-brings-the-sugar-of-money/

"REGARDING BEING ON A CANCER BOARD AND MANUFACTURING 2.2 BILLION POUNDS of FORMALDEHYDE YEARLY
Mr. Koch serving on the National Cancer Advisory Board has been attacked as a hypocrite, for Koch industries is one of the largest manufacturers of formaldehyde, estimated at 2/2 billion pounds a year and has spent huge amounts of money to lobby legislators attempting to forestall EPA classifying the substance as directly responsible for serious illnesses in children and adults … formaldehyde a known carcinogen dangerous to human beings, particularly putting them at risk for cancers of the blood."

[HuckleB]

61. The Toxin Gambit Part 1: Formaldehyde

http://justthevax.blogspot.com/2009/05/toxin-gambit-part-1-formaldehyde.html

It's a good overview on this part of the "TOXINS!" gambit of the anti-vax rants. The conclusion, as one who has looked at the science would expect:

"Given what is known about human formaldehyde metabolism, excretion and toxic levels, along with what is actually in vaccines, we hope that this gives some perspective about the safety of the amount of formaldehyde that an infant would receive via vaccines. There is simply no valid argument, beyond the scope of fear-mongering that formaldehyde exposure from vaccines is implicated in any health problems, whatsoever."

[mzmolly]

64. Formaldehyde bound to enzymes in fruit and our bodies differs from "free" formaldeyde in vaccines.

This according to a toxicologist I've corresponded with. Must be why it's considered a human carcinogen?

[Name removed]

65. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HuckleB]

62. More On The Formadehyde And General Toxin Gambit Of The Anti-Vaccinationsts

http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2008/06/green-this/

[mzmolly]

66. Again, free formaldehyde differs from that

bound to enzymes.

[HuckleB]

67. Keep pushing your propaganda.

It's baseless, and anyone who cares to look into it, will figure that out.

[mzmolly]

73. Back atcha

buddy.

Have a nice weekend. :hi:

[HuckleB]

82. I suppose you actually believe that.

:rofl:

[HuckleB]

63. Historical Comparisons of Morbidity and Mortality for Vaccine-Preventable Diseases in the (US)

Historical Comparisons of Morbidity and Mortality for Vaccine-Preventable Diseases in the United States

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/298/18/2155

[HuckleB]

68. Why is formaldehyde in some vaccines?

Again...


"Why is formaldehyde in some vaccines?

Formaldehyde has a long history of use in the manufacture of certain viral and bacterial vaccines. It is used to inactivate viruses (e.g., influenza, polio) and to detoxify bacterial toxins, such as the toxin used to make diphtheria vaccine. Formaldehyde is diluted during the manufacturing process, but residual quantities of formaldehyde may be found in some current vaccines. The average quantity of formaldehyde to which a young infant could be exposed to at one time through vaccines is very small and is considered to be safe. Although high concentrations of formaldehyde can damage DNA (the building block of genes) and cause cancerous changes in cells in the laboratory, formaldehyde is an essential component in human metabolism and is required for the synthesis of DNA and amino acids (the building blocks of protein). Therefore, all humans have detectable quantities of natural formaldehyde in their circulation. In addition, quantities of formaldehyde at least 600-fold greater than that contained in vaccines have been found to be safe in animals."

http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/ucm187810.htm

[mzmolly]

75. The 600 fold greater amount supposedly "found to be safe"

was added to drinking water and given to rats. I don't think there is a valid scientific comparison between the drinking water rat studies and residual formaldehyde injected ala vaccines. Here's why.

http://www.eco-usa.net/toxics/chemicals/formaldehyde.shtml

"Formaldehyde dissolves easily in water, but it does not last a long time in water and is not commonly found in drinking water supplies."

Lots of good info here as well: http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/chemicals/formaldehyde130605.pdf

KINETICS AND METABOLISM IN LABORATORY ANIMALS AND HUMANS

The kinetics and metabolism of formaldehyde have been reviewed by IPCS (1989,
2002). Ingested formaldehyde is readily absorbed by the gastrointestinal tract. In
dermal studies, it was absorbed less readily in monkeys than in rats or guinea-pigs
(Jeffcoat, 1983). It appears to be distributed mainly to muscle, lower levels being
found in the intestines, liver, and other tissues (Bhatt et al., 1988).
Formaldehyde is rapidly oxidized to formic acid; the subsequent oxidation to carbon
dioxide and water is slower in monkeys than in rats...

In all seriousness, I'd love to be able to dismiss the formaldehyde concern I have. So, if you find any studies that bolster the following assertion, I'd greatly appreciate it. "The average quantity of formaldehyde to which a young infant could be exposed to at one time through vaccines is very small and is considered to be safe."

Given study results vary depending upon route of exposure and the animal exposed, I'm interested in studies via human or even primate injection in particular.

With that I'm out.

[HuckleB]

76. You should be out.

You're continuing to push a half-baked con on people. You're trying to con people into forgoing safe vaccines for some bizarre reason, and you're using dishonest spins on selected research to do it. That's pitiful. Seriously pitiful.

[mzmolly]

77. I'm not suggesting anyone forgo vaccines. I've posted info that is pro and con.

What is sad however, is the movement suggesting that citizens should never advocate to make vaccines as safe as possible for our children. If we do, we're called "anti-vaccine" or "pro- disease." THAT is pitiful. I want formaldehyde additives taken out of wood products also (given the FEMA trailer disaster etc.) That doesn't make me anti-wood.

I notice you failed to address my question so I'll pose it again. Where is the science demonstrating that injecting X amount of free formaldehyde ala vaccination, is safe for infants?

I do hope you'll answer my question because I'd like to be turned around on this issue as formaldehyde is my last personal vaccination hurdle.

I'm out now. Cheers.

[HuckleB]

81. BS.

You post nothing but anti-vax lies.

[mzmolly]

96. Anyone taking a quick look at my journal will see that you're resorting to

lies.

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mzmolly]

111. Not once

have I lied in this forum, or elsewhere on this board.

[HuckleB]

113. Nice claim.

A shameless BS claim, but nice claim.

:rofl:

[HuckleB]

153. Again, anyone who wants to know the truth about the anti-vaccination stands you make...

... can peruse the health forum.

I don't care about what your "journal" says or doesn't say.

[HuckleB]

90. BTW...

You've been shown that your lies about formaldehyde are lies, yet you don't care. Besides, you always come up with yet another anti-vaccine "concern."

:rofl:

[mzmolly]

97. I've demonstrated that I have an understanding of the formaldehyde issue.

Your hope is that your following is too ignorant to know.

[HuckleB]

102. You've demonstrated that you don't understand the first thing about it.

Just as you've repeatedly demonstrated that anything in regard to basic science is beyond your grasp.

[mzmolly]

105. I've responsed to the bogus talking points

you trot out when allowing others think for you several times.

Now, if you can refrain from more absurdity and insults, I'll be on my way. :hi:

[HuckleB]

108. You've "responded."

But you haven't responded with anything but distractions and dishonesty.

[mzmolly]

109. I've responded with science,

which troubles you.

[HuckleB]

112. You don't know the first thing about science.

Do you actually think you have a clue when it comes to the basic scientific method?

If you do, I'm here to tell you that your posts show otherwise.

[mzmolly]

122. Do you think your question

and hubris is at all convincing? The "you don't understand the science" BS has been resorted to here for years. It's often trotted out by those who have run out of arguments.

[HuckleB]

123. I don't "resort to it" unless it's obvious and repeated.

You have made it obvious by repeating your inability to understand it over and over and over again.

At that point, why should I pretend that things are different?

[mzmolly]

129. Trying to convince yourself,

or those even less intelligent?

I'm out. You've run out of relevant talking points provided you by others, apparently.

[HuckleB]

130. I've foolishly played your juvenile game.

Only because I'm tired. I've shown the reality, and you are not offering anything but fantasy.

Anyone who can think without preconceived notions will see that.

You should have seen that. It's sad that you've let yourself become a tool for those who want disease to come back.

[HuckleB]

69. What is in my child's vaccines?

"Formaldehyde.

Some vaccines are made from live germs (bacteria/viruses), which need to be killed. Other vaccines are made from toxins that need to be changed so they are safe to use. Formaldehyde is used to do this, and then most of it is removed. The tiny amount left in the vaccine cannot cause harm."

http://www.healthlinkbc.ca/healthfiles/hfile50d.stm

[HuckleB]

70. Vaccines - Are They Safe?

"Formaldehyde is used in some vaccines to kill or inactivate the bacteria or virus being targeted. Once the germ is killed, the vaccines are purified to remove all but trace amounts of the formaldehyde. This amount of formaldehyde is several hundred times lower than the amount known to cause harm to humans."

http://www.wdghu.org/page.cfm?id=497

[HuckleB]

71. The Truth About The Evils Of Vaccination

"Vaccines contain formaldehyde. However, the chemical structure of the formaldehyde in vaccines is the same as that produced by our own bodies. It is used during the manufacturing process, but is diluted to remove it from the finished product, leaving only small or trace amounts. The total amount of formaldehyde in a finished product is far less than what is naturally found in the human body."

http://antiantivax.flurf.net/

[HuckleB]

121. Why Anti-Vaccination Proponents Annoy Me

http://www.talulahmankiller.com/?p=2780

:applause:

[HuckleB]

133. Rising Rates of Measles, Mumps and Pertussis of Great Concern.

http://shotofprevention.com/2010/05/18/rising-rates-of-measels-mumps-and-pertussis-of-great-concern/

[HuckleB]

134. Measles and Immunity: It’s all In the Numbers

http://shotofprevention.com/2010/04/12/measles-and-immunity-it’s-all-in-the-numbers/

[HuckleB]

157. Who knew DU was anti-vax?

:shrug:

[trotsky]

158. Don't worry.

It truly is a small, ignorant, yet shrill and loud minority. A long time ago I posted a poll to gauge support for vaccination in here - that's right, here in the Health Dungeon - and it was OVERWHELMINGLY in favor of vaccination. The anti-vaxers have only fooled themselves. They aren't changing any minds on DU.

[HuckleB]

159. That's good to know.

I made that response after this thread had been moved to the 9/11 dungeon, which seemed extremely bizarre. It was moved back after I voiced my dismay.

[trotsky]

160. I can only assume it's because the anti-vax movement...

has about as much truth on its side as do the 9/11 nutters.

[uppityperson]

164. kick

[HuckleB]

165. Ouch.

That hurt.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=9552

[HuckleB]

166. NEJM: The Age-Old Struggle against the Antivaccinationists

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1010594?query=TOC

"Since the introduction of the first vaccine, there has been opposition to vaccination. In the 19th century, despite clear evidence of benefit, routine inoculation with cowpox to protect people against smallpox was hindered by a burgeoning antivaccination movement. The result was ongoing smallpox outbreaks and needless deaths. In 1910, Sir William Osler publicly expressed his frustration with the irrationality of the antivaccinationists by offering to take 10 vaccinated and 10 unvaccinated people with him into the next severe smallpox epidemic, to care for the latter when they inevitably succumbed to the disease, and ultimately to arrange for the funerals of those among them who would die (see the Medical Notes section of the Dec. 22, 1910, issue of the Journal). A century later, smallpox has been eradicated through vaccination, but we are still contending with antivaccinationists.

Since the 18th century, fear and mistrust have arisen every time a new vaccine has been introduced. Antivaccine thinking receded in importance between the 1940s and the early 1980s because of three trends: a boom in vaccine science, discovery, and manufacture; public awareness of widespread outbreaks of infectious diseases (measles, mumps, rubella, pertussis, polio, and others) and the desire to protect children from these highly prevalent ills; and a baby boom, accompanied by increasing levels of education and wealth. These events led to public acceptance of vaccines and their use, which resulted in significant decreases in disease outbreaks, illnesses, and deaths. This golden age was relatively short-lived, however. With fewer highly visible outbreaks of infectious disease threatening the public, more vaccines being developed and added to the vaccine schedule, and the media permitting widespread dissemination of poor science and anecdotal claims of harm from vaccines, antivaccine thinking began flourishing once again in the 1970s.1

Little has changed since that time, although now the antivaccinationists' media of choice are typically television and the Internet, including its social media outlets, which are used to sway public opinion and distract attention from scientific evidence. A 1982 television program on diphtheria–pertussis–tetanus (DPT) vaccination entitled “DPT: Vaccine Roulette” led to a national debate on the use of the vaccine, focused on a litany of unproven claims against it. Many countries dropped their programs of universal DPT vaccination in the face of public protests after a period in which pertussis had been well controlled through vaccination2 — the public had become complacent about the risks of the disease and focused on adverse events purportedly associated with vaccination. Countries that dropped routine pertussis vaccination in the 1970s and 1980s then suffered 10 to 100 times the pertussis incidence of countries that maintained high immunization rates; ultimately, the countries that had eliminated their pertussis vaccination programs reinstated them.2 In the United States, vaccine manufacturers faced an onslaught of lawsuits, which led the majority of them to cease vaccine production. These losses prompted the development of new programs, such as the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), in an attempt to keep manufacturers in the U.S. market.

The 1998 publication of an article, recently retracted by the Lancet, by Wakefield et al.3 created a worldwide controversy over the measles–mumps–rubella (MMR) vaccine by claiming that it played a causative role in autism. This claim led to decreased use of MMR vaccine in Britain, Ireland, the United States, and other countries. Ireland, in particular, experienced measles outbreaks in which there were more than 300 cases, 100 hospitalizations, and 3 deaths.4

..."