By March 29, 2014 610 Comments Read More →

Data Reveals Measles Outbreaks Have Nothing to Do With Non-Vaccination Trends

measles-vaccine

Whatever we might each think about the decision to not vaccinate ourselves or our children, one thing is clear: vaccination is a heated topic and debates about it often result in polarization. Maybe another thing is clear too: most opinions about vaccination (for or against) are influenced more by editorials on the subject, than by data itself. Thus, here is one more editorial on the subject, albeit one that does not pass judgment on vaccinations, for or against. It is, instead, intended as a call to research, and a reminder of the scientific maxim: correlation is not causation. That goes for both sides of this debate.

On the anti-vaccination side, there are many claims made that are often based on things that the data might imply, but is far from proving. This results in many ideas that are later discredited being circulated as fact.

On the pro-vaccination side, every time there is a measles outbreak, it seems mainstream news outlets trip over themselves to implicate “the growing trend to opt out of vaccinations” as the cause (read: causation). Again, “correlation is not causation”. Here’s why…

If the measles outbreaks in California, and particularly in and around Orange County, as well as New York City are because of non-vaccinators, then why aren’t we seeing outbreaks of everything not being vaccinated for? Why just measles and why all of a sudden, when the number of people opting out of vaccinations has actually steadily dropped in the last few years – after an initial wave of people not doing it?

cdc

Non-vaccinators in NY are .1-1% of the population. In California we are talking 1.1-2%. Why aren’t we seeing increases in outbreaks in Vermont, Michigan and Oregon where the rate is over 6%? Correlation (or worse yet, public perception of correlation), is not causation: whether it’s vaccines and autism, or whether it’s a tiny number of people not vaccinating, and a few places having measles outbreaks.

What does the data show on measles in the states where opting out of vaccination trends the highest? There was an instance in Oregon last year, and one this year with a 6% rate of opting out in the state. A child in Washington County, Oregon who developed measles on an overseas trip and exposed hundreds of people in the Portland area. Add to that one case in Oregon this year where a child contracted measles from a vaccinated adult.

Shouldn’t the state be the worst off? And where are Vermont’s outbreaks at 6% non-vaccination?

Measles has been trending down, but in the past year it has spiked in the U.S. in spite of the trend of non-vaccination dropping a bit. Measles outbreaks have been happening all over the world in the past year, even and especially where there is no significant increase of anti-vaccination trends (Turkey, Vietnam, Philippines and several countries in Europe). It’s up in California which likely is accounted for by the fact that there is so much travel in California from abroad. The 2013 case in Oregon? That was a traveller too, who had been in and out of international airports before contracting the disease. Same thing with New York City where outbreaks have been happening at a rate higher than the statistical norm.

States with the highest non-vaccination rates have not seen an increase in measles outbreaks that are statistically significant. News websites like to run with headlines that will get people to share, and vent outrage. But that doesn’t make such articles a good source of scientific data.

Remember, if you take nothing else away from this: correlation is not causation. Just because you heard on the news that there are a lot of people not vaccinating their children (an exaggerated statement, to be sure), does not mean that the rise in measles globally is due to families in Utah refusing vaccinations across the board. This is all the more so when the correlation does not even overlap the places where vaccine refusal is the highest.

Do some research. Use the search field on the CDC website. Hit your local University library up and search scholarly journals and databases. The data on these issues is not hiding, but it will not deliver itself to your email inbox without a little work. When you do the research you’ll find that the facts are not quite as sensational as many headlines might have you believe. There has been a recent spike in measles. That much is clear. But it is happening all over the world and it is actually not happening in places where people are refusing vaccinations the most. Whatever your position is on vaccinations, get the facts and don’t spread assumptions made by lazy writers. Again, that goes for both sides of the vaccination issue.

(Article by M.B. David; CDC data map via Mother Jones)

610 Comments on "Data Reveals Measles Outbreaks Have Nothing to Do With Non-Vaccination Trends"

Trackback | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Gregory Miller says:

    What a waste if 5 minutes to read. I am always concerned about other lay people suggesting that up one should do their OWN research, as though they are qualified to analyze the data and have a thorough fundamental understanding of the subject. I don’t either, but I am also aware that I do have to rely on the experts. It is no surprise that New York has a higher number of measles cases than Oregon or Vermont. Even adjust the statistics per capita, that will be the case. And of course, if one is to contract measles they have to be exposed and vulnerable. The risk of exposure increases with each person you are in proximity of that is close enough to pass the pathogen. You are much more likely to be in that position in New York, which has a much higher density of population, much more visitors, and many more opportunities for exposure than in Oregon and Vermont. The fact is, and it is undeniable, that if you are more likely exposed in New York and you ARE vaccinated, you have a lower likelihood of contracting it than one who is not vaccinated. This is not a debate. Those who believe that all the research is one vast corporate and government conspiracy are fringe. Every time you try to have a reasoned discussion with someone who is not reasonable is not a debate, which suggests that their are two reasonable points of view. Very disappointing op-ed piece.

    • Alisa Terry says:

      Prove it. Prove that in New York you are more likely to catch measles if you are un-vaccinated. Show data proving the vaccination status of those involved in the recent measles outbreak.

      • Gregory Miller says:

        As I pointed out, I am not a scientist and so I do not have that data. But the mere fact that the MMR vaccine is 95% effective means you are more likely to get measles if you are unvaccinated than if you are vaccinated. That is the proof and every single government and private health care authority in the world says the same thing. As I wrote, I have to rely on their evidence because I am not a doctor. Are you? You don’t seem to even have the most fundamental understanding of statistics.

        • Boe Tankersley says:

          You need to understand what they mean by “effective.” Effective means that a person produced antibodies for the vaccine antigen after injection. That does not = immunity. Antibodies are one small portion of the complex human immune system and the vaccine antigen is not necessarily the same as the live virus. I am a big fan of REAL and COMPLETE statistics, but It’s manipulation of statistics and data like this that causes so much confusion.

          • Gregory Miller says:

            My intent was not to manipulate statistics and I very much appreciate your clarifying remarks. Having said that, I do find the difference you state to be necessary but subtle. It doesn’t really change the point. But it is helpful to keep from getting caught in a fact trap.

        • Kevin Watson says:

          WEll, then, I have to say that you’re awfully self-important about researching among “lay people” and thinking you have any legitimate argument to offer. Besides “I say so”, of course.

          Oh, and I love the way you go from “I do not have that data” then go directly to quoting numers from unnamed sources…. hilarious!!! Please – PLEASE continue!

          • Gregory Miller says:

            Nope. Poor comprehension in your part again. My entire argument revolves around believing that the scientists and doctors probably know a lot more about it than us non doctors and scientists and second point, no conspiracy exists. It’s not me one ought to listen to, it is the legion of doctors and scientists for whom this is their life work and understanding that soemeone who isn’t qualified can’t behave as their overseers and second guess what is settled science

          • Tim Horita says:

            I have the data. Actually the data is open source in peer-reviewed medical journals. If you’d like to learn something (doesn’t appear you do) you need only to ask- politely- and quit being an asshat. Maybe I’ll teach you something of value.

      • Dorit Reiss says:

        All over the U.S., in the last years, measles has been primarily a disease of the unvaccinated. I’ll add the links below, because posts in links go into moderation, so it might take a while to appear. In 2008, of the 131 cases reported until July, 91% were unvaccinated or had an unknown vaccination status. In 2011, the United States saw 222 cases of measles. 86% of those sick were unvaccinated or had an unknown vaccination status.
        Between January 1-August 24 2013, the United States saw 159 cases of measles; 82% were in unvaccinated or people of unknown vaccination status.

        • BeStrong says:

          In the measles outbreak of 1990, (27,672 cases), the CDC was able to determine the vaccination status in every case of measles. Yet, in 2008, we have to accept an “unvaccinated status” and an “unknown vaccination status” as one statistic.
          This deceptive technique of reporting is obvious to anyone who employs critical thinking skills.

          • Gregory Miller says:

            That is not true. For example, people claim that children are vaccinated sometimes, yet it can’t be substantiated or is contradicted. SOmetimes people don’t remember and don’t keep records or rely on public health. If you work a blue collar job, you know that sometimes paperwork is lost. It’s no different in health care. Especially if that parents have a difficult time with such things for whatever reason.
            Time for you to develop better critical thinking skills.

          • BeStrong says:

            If the CDC could identify vaccination status in 27,672 cases in 1990, then it can be accomplished in 2014 in a small population.
            Records are kept with health care providers. It is not that difficult. If you think that someone is lying about receiving an MMR, then check for blood titer antibody levels for mumps and rubella and you can see if they are vaccinated. Blood titer levels are in a lower range for those who have been vaccinated then those who have had the disease naturally.
            Measles reports should include how many measles patients were vaccinated, how many were unvaccinated and how many have an unknown vaccination status at the present time.
            Try thinking about it a little more.

          • BlGWlGGLYSTYLE says:

            That process you just described sounds immensely expensive. Will you be funding it?

          • Tim Horita says:

            Measles reports DO reflect vaccinated, unvaccinated and people who’s vaccine status is unknown. In addition, they even track where the original person got it from. The Disneyland outbreak is a current enough example.

          • kelly says:

            “Time for you to develop better critical thinking skills. ”
            So typical of you, Greg Miller! :)

          • Gregory Miller says:

            That’s just Not true. They reported the floor values but absolutely do not know the outliers such as how many of the nonvaccers are incompetent or incorrectly reported. Secondly, neither the resources nor the legal mechanisms exist to test people’s blood without consent. In every study, given the preponderance of other data, it is usually just not that important. Cherry pick all you want. You are not a scientist.

          • kelly says:

            ” You are not a scientist. ”
            So typical of you, Greg Miller.

          • Kevin Watson says:

            Neither are you. But I see you’re fond of cherries.

          • Gregory Miller says:

            Say something worth discussion or go away.

        • Guest says:

          That’s not what I asked for. In the New York outbreak, only two children had parents who refused to vaccinated them. It also likely spread in a medical facility that didn’t quarantine measles patients. Two adults likely caught it from an airport. This is a situation where booster shots for adults who travel needs to be addressed.

        • Boe Tankersley says:

          Just wanted to point out that those statistics don’t really say much except that we know for certain vaccination for measles does not equal immunization. That is exactly what the article was talking about….media hype and CDC scare tactics. Look at the agenda in the wording…. “91% were unvaccinated or had unknown vaccination status.” They could just as well have stated that 91% may have been vaccinated or not….we don’t know. The only thing it is really saying is that at least 9% got measles even though they were vaccinated.

          • Gregory Miller says:

            I don’t think your assertion is correct. One would need to know how the are categorizing people for that and what the measure is. It is more complicated than a simple yes or no but it still suggests that many are suspect. For example, what if 99% of those in that category were in fact unvaccinated and only 1% unknown.

          • Boe Tankersley says:

            That was exactly my point…the statistic doesnt tell us anything. It could just as well have been that 99% in the category were vaccinated but listed as unknown. The point is that there was an agenda behind the statistic. If there wasnt, it would have been reported as 9% vaccinated X% not vaccinated, Y% unknown…

          • Gregory Miller says:

            Well, one can have a belief that an agenda exists behind the statistic, but you don’t really know that. This could be your own bias driving that belief since you don’t know the answers as to why the matrices for that category exist. One would have to question how that matrix was set up and what the measurement criteria to see if in fact a logical reason exists or was at least reasoned for setting up the criteria in the fashion they did. Not knowing that does not mean the answer is what you say it is.

          • Tim Horita says:

            There’s an agenda behind how field studies obtain information? You mean like a conspiracy? What size hat do you wear- we’re running low on tinfoil.
            Measles outbreaks take investigation. With the recent outbreaks, that investigation is ongoing. They don’t have 100% information on every single person exposed- that’s the reality of field work. If you have a better way of conducting epidemiology in the field, please share it with us…

        • Jonah Bunzombie says:

          how do we know the unvaccinated aren’t getting sick from the vaccinated ?

      • Mike Stevens says:

        To avoid lengthy moderation…

        Unvaccinated exemptors are 35 times more likely to get measles than the vaccinated.
        Not theory, but scientific fact.

        JAMA. 1999;282(1):47-53

        • Alisa Terry says:

          That’s not only 15 years old, but also not what I asked for. In the New York outbreak, only two children had parents who refused to vaccinated them. It also likely spread in a medical facility that didn’t quarantine measles patients. Two adults likely caught it from an airport. This is a situation where booster shots for adults who travel needs to be addressed.

        • kelly says:

          I’d rather fight the real measles than dozens of funny stuff in measles shots. Thank you.

          • Gregory Miller says:

            Name on thing in a measles vaccine that has “funny stuff” you would have to fight. Answer: there is none!

          • keir watson says:

            According to the CDC the tri and quadravalent MMRs contain the following additional ‘funny stuff’:

            MMR (MMR-II)
            Medium 199, Minimum Essential Medium, phosphate, recombinant human albumin, neomycin, sorbitol, hydrolyzed gelatin, chick embryo cell culture, WI-38 human diploid lung fibroblasts

            MMRV (ProQuad)
            sucrose, hydrolyzed gelatin, sorbitol, monosodium L-glutamate, sodium phosphate dibasic, human albumin, sodium bicarbonate, potassium phosphate monobasic, potassium chloride, potassium phosphate dibasic, neomycin, bovine calf serum, chick embryo cell culture, WI-38 human diploid lung fibroblasts, MRC-5 cells

          • Gregory Miller says:

            And do you have any idea what any of that means? Which one of those are “toxic”? Or do you consider “funny stuff” just anything that is makes up the immunization? Give me a break. The fact that you can read does not mean you comprehend it. Ready a food package and you will see the same or read the breakdown of a pear. Fact is, your not a scientist. Just because YOU don’t know what any of that “funny stuff” is doesn’t mean it’s bad for you. This is why our country has so many tight controls on food and medicine.

          • keir watson says:

            Dear Gregory, it is interesting that you assume I’m not a scientist. I make assumptions about people too: I assume those with tattoos have low IQ, and don’t know the difference between the use of “your” and “you’re”, but I’m far too polite to point it out. What is your assumption about me based on?

            I don’t recall stating that any of the ingredients were toxic – that was a straw man thrown up by you. Kelly used the term ‘funny stuff’, and you dismissed her worries rather unsympathetically. The point is that vaccines do contain a wide range of additional ingredients alongside the attenuated virus. These are rarely declared by health service providers leading to a sense among many that they are being kept in the dark.

            A number of the listed MMR ingredients are proteins, so have the potential to cause an immune reaction, which in extremis includes anaphylaxis (a declared side effect of the MMR).

            Your comparison to food ingredients is specious for a number of reasons:
            1) Vaccines are injected not swallowed, allowing undigested proteins to enter the bloodstream. Proteins in food are broken down in the digestive system into less immunogenic peptides and amino acids.
            2) Ingredients lists on food are there to enable consumers to exercise choice about what they put in their body. Vaccine ingredients are rarely provided to recipients.
            3) Many people reject processed foods that contain ingredients that are unfamiliar or ‘unnatural’. This precautionary principle is not a stupid approach for non-specialists to take, and is part of a move towards whole foods and home cooking – widely acknowledged by nutritional scientists as a healthy development.
            Vaccine ingredients read like a list of all the things we would rather avoid in our food. I’m not saying they are intrinsically harmful, just that it is understandable that people have concerns. They won’t blindly accept a white coat telling them “You are not clever enough to understand this, so trust me the expert, it’s safe” – which is what your attitude seems to be.

            I am glad you have such confidence in your government’s controls on foods and medicines. We in the UK once felt the same, until BSE infected our beef and vaccines due to neurological tissue being sold from the abattoir back door to pharmaceutical companies in the 1980’s and 90’s. Even though the UK government was aware of the risk they mandated a large scale measles vaccine campaign knowing that some individuals could become infected with vCJD as a result.

            This only came to light due to the BSE enquiry, in which the government said:

            ‘The Working Group discussed the hazard-to-benefit ratio for the vaccines and decided that the benefits accruing from continuance of the vaccine programme outweighed the very remote risk to the population from the use of bovine material in these products.’
            What makes you think that decisions like this are not being taken in secret by the US government?

          • Gregory Miller says:

            Dear keir;
            Thank you for your detailed, albeit slanted missive The fact of the matter is that I am quite certain you’re not a scientist. Despite the fact that you can regurgitate information that you no doubt just “researched” with your computer doesn’t make you one either. So there you go, I have used both you’re and your correctly for you. And I have a lot of tattoos. And I run a health care organization in the USA with 150 employees. We just arranged for our annual flu vaccine clinic too. And by the way, you are not that polite. Another area you are incorrect about. If you were polite, you wouldn’t have pointed out how polite you are by not saying anything in such a smarmy, imperious way that the English are known for.
            If you were a scientist, you would have more to offer in terms of insight than you do. Pretend all you want, but you’re not. And you certainly wouldn’t be trying to argue the merits of this notion of “funny stuff”. The straw man is posed by those who take issue with the fact that ingredients are in it at all that they have no knowledge of and suggesting, by inference, that something potentially harmful might be in it. That is the straw man fallacy. That is the reason for my pointed question. If their is nothing harmful in the vaccine, then typically one does not need to worry about the “funny staff” because of course they aren’t just throwing anything in there for fun. I simply expose the straw man by asking which of those ingredients is toxic. It is a simple exercise of logic.
            The fact remains that the benefits of immunization far outweigh the risks by several orders of magnitude. Can things go wrong? Absolutely. Can you have a bad batch? Absolutely. No argument from me and no argument from scientists.
            Whether I have confidence in our government system is less a question that who is more likely to be trustworthy. I do trust scientists working for the regulator bodies more than people who read and post on the internet. While medicine is always improving and mistakes are made because, after all, science and medicine are committed by human beings, it is always someone equal or greater in their scientific accomplishments who shows the mistake. Not people like you who think they have found some smoking gun on the internet.
            As far as “whole foods” go, yes, that is a better health choice unless your whole foods are simply too much food or the wrong kind of foods, which can be far worse for you than eating processed foods in moderation. And actually very few people have a diet solely on whole foods. The vast majority of people eat processed foods in varying degrees. However a better analogy is to think of people who seek out non GMO foods as not being as nutritious or as being full of toxins and “funny stuff” because they don’t understand it. GMO food is just as healthy for you as non-GMO food and the science around those who refute that is equally spurious.
            And then of course, what I would suspect of someone of your ilk in your final, loaded straw man question, for which you do not have an answer. But hey, that’w the whole point, right? Give me a break. You write like a typical superior, “I know the truth and I am smarter because I “research” on the internet”, conspiracy theorist. If you do have an advanced science degree, you apparently wasted time and money on it.
            You may find other spelling errors on my response. This tattooed person needs to get back to work to organize our vaccination clinic so that none of our clients die this fall. Oh, and I have been doing this for twenty years and we have never had any clients fall ill from the flu vaccine. Go figure. Government must be covering that up, too.

          • Louise_Chanary says:

            “it is always someone equal or greater in their scientific accomplishments who shows the mistake”

            This is a very good point, and it is certainly right about the link between BSE and vCJD: this link was discovered in a laboratory by scientists.

          • kelly says:

            Don’t waste time with him, Keir. We don’t serve ppl who wanna die or be harmed by vaccinations. :)

          • Gregory Miller says:

            which virtually no one does. You are just sitting at home with your tin hat on being crazy.

          • David Uhas says:

            Tight controls on food and medicine? So that is why we have an epidemic of Autism, Asthma, allergies, chronic disease because the CDC and FDA have tight controls. This certainly shows they know what they are doing. Maybe depopulation agenda? Or maybe the government entities are sleeping in the same bed with the corporations and profit nicely from the chronic disease they perpetuate under the false umbrella of health care.

          • Gregory Miller says:

            Since you are clearly still wearing your tinfoil hat, you may have missed the meta-analysis done in Australia recently and the results published showing that Autism percentages have not changed. Further, I am an expert in disabilities and run a health care company serving disabled people, so I actually know something about it since it is my field. The fact is that we are better at diagnosing austin than before, like in all areas of health care. These same children were previously just labeled generically as having Mental Retardation (MR) before. The nonsense depopulation is again just your sense of superiority and of being special so you have manufactured this conspiracy so that you feel more informed and thusly more special than you are.

          • David Uhas says:

            Finally a little light is shed on the darkness of evil that you so vehemently defend. You also profit from the sickness that is created by the pharmaceuticals. An expert? And what does that consist of? Pharmaceutical training and education so that you are fully indoctrinated into becoming part of the problem instead of part of the solution. There it is again. The almighty dollar. You are so full of crap. How do you sleep at night? Oh I know. You justify the wicked
            works you perform by saying I am truly helping others and so what if I make money from the diseases and chronic illness that the drugs and vaccines create. I need to make a living. I do feel very special and fortunate because unlike you I have a conscience and a mind that I actively use to disseminate the facts from the lies you try to perpetuate. Education from the same corporations who control congress, the schools only makes you an expert in lying. So you want me and other intelligent thinking individuals to believe that the statistics on the ASD went from 1:10,000 in 1983 to 1:50 in 2013 because the DSM in 1983 did not recognize Asperger’s Disorder, and Pervasive Developmental Disorder Not Otherwise Specified (PDD-NOS) as is recognized now. I would have to be as ignorant as you are to believe this is the reason for the continuous rise in the ASD. Next, you will throw at me that it is a genetic problem. You are a Schill for the pharmaceutical corporations. nothing more, nothing less. A shell of a man.

          • Gregory Miller says:

            Actually you have no idea what you are talking about and typical of you wingnuts when you don’t like the scientific facts you malign the messenger. I am a man and I work in the real world. Go back to your tin hats, your imagined intellectual superiority in your mom’s basement and dream up more conspiracy theories to make you feel superior when rational people won’t buy into them. Your Google searches do not make you an expert and they do not make you a scientist or even intelligent. Quite the contrary.

          • David Uhas says:

            Again more opinions instead of citations. Expected of the ignorant and uninformed who profit from the disease they create. A man, I think not. A puppet, definitely. My tin hat allows me to discern your fictitious words and parroting of your pharmaceutical role models from the credible science that proves you are uneducated and unwilling to learn to help and perform actions that help society.

          • Gregory Miller says:

            Oh, that’s rich! This from a guy who thinks that regurgitating the nonsesne from Sears, who is widely discredited, is somehow evidence of anything. As I said at the start with you, your inflated sense of your own Importance and intelligence in this area along with your arrogance and the fact that you are not a professional who even understands the basics of disease and infection make it impossible for you to ever think that the entire medical and scientific community might know better than you. So enjoy your tin hate, you keyboard warrior, you.

          • David Uhas says:

            Vaccine schills use terms like conspiracy, tin hats, keyboard warrior and discredited to fool people into believing what the professionals say is not believable or based on science. Yet, you do not provide any citation, resource or anything credible to support your belief system. Dr. sears has never been discredited, nor has Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, Dr, Russel Blaylock, Dr. Tim Oshea, Dr. Suzanne Humphries and the list goes on. But you already know the truth. You are a denialist and probably on the pharmaceutical payrolls. You have a lot of time to spend on the internet trying to persuade the lay person not to independently research and think for themselves. You assume no one can learn, research, think for themselves or make decisions. According to your thinking, everyone is incompetent except the vaccine trolls and schills who try so hard to keep the cloth veil of vaccination from being lifted. We already know you profit from the diseases created by the drugs and vaccines you defend.

          • Gregory Miller says:

            No, you discredit yourselves with your nonsense and idiotic paranoia. We just have adjectives for an apt description of who you are.

          • Tim Horita says:

            Show us some citations then? Peer-reviewed published scientific studies….

          • Tim Horita says:

            “Education is controlled by corporations”- add that to the list of Anti-vaxxer conspiracy theories (-40 points) extra because you are uneducated and therefore feel the need to criticize the educated. Sorry.

          • Gregory Miller says:

            I guarantee you that no one works in health care is out concocting ways to make up more sick or disabled people. That shows your level of insanity. I sleep well at night knowing that I work in a field to serve disabled people and make their lives better. Nothing wicked about it. But you are insane and it is patently obvious to anyone reading this rant.

          • Tim Horita says:

            “Depopulation agenda”- add it to the list of anti-vaxxer conspiracy theories. (-25 points)

          • keir watson says:

            1. The point is not whether or not it is toxic. The point is that you can’t say there is NO funny stuff in vaccines when speaking to non-specialists/members of the public. Any ordinary member of the public would justifiably be alarmed to discover an ingredients list like that in a product following an apparently authoritative dismissal like yours.

            2. Many of those ingredients have the potential to be concerning or harmful to particular individuals, even if safe for the majority.

            The possibility of allergic reactions to the animal and human materials in the list cannot be dismissed out of hand. Furthermore, informed consent requires that patients have the opportunity to consider these ingredients for themselves.

            Do you think that vegetarians should not be told about the animal derived products in the vaccine? Perhaps we should deny Hindus the right to know that vaccines contain bovine gelatine?

          • Gregory Miller says:

            You are right, I can’t say. But the various reviews through the FDA, academia, and private labs means they do in fact test those ingredients and are aware of the levels that can be used without it being toxic. Ordinary members of the community would also be alarmed to see the chemical breakdowns of their daily food, and I don’t mean just processed food but fruits as well.
            Those ingredients do not exist in concentrations that are significant enough to cause concern for anyone. The only way toxicity could occur is with adequate quantity.
            Look, what you are trying to do, in my opinion, is ask questions that you don’t think have been asked before. Well, they have, and they have been answered. You are just out there thinking that none of this has been studied and we don’t have a 100 years of science, trials, studies and reviews for this stuff. Well, I guarantee you that the various scientific disciplines and the medical community is smarter than you or I and they have in fact considered all these points. I know I might get pilloried for not citing it to you what specifics there are. But you can look it up the same as I do, if you can look outside your google bias behavior and look for it.

            As far as religion, no, I don’t believe it is incumbent on the physician to inform people of any specific religious issues. It is up to the individual to know that themselves. I am facing a situation right now where someone doesnt want to have an MMR for her children, who are planning to go to disneyland because their are stem cells in the vaccine. This, of course, makes them think they are getting aborted fetus tissue because the lack the scientific knowledge to no differently and begin good catholics, they do not want baby fetus injected into them. Even in spite of the fact that the vatican says you should get the vaccines if stem cell free vaccines aren’t available. So should she be exempt? I don’t think so. I think that we have responsibilities in society and participating in public health measures is one of them.

          • kelly says:

            Keor Watson, Yep, let him decide which one he wants to PICK as a “funny ingredient”!

            Gregory Miller said: “This is why our country has so many tight controls on food and medicine.”

            The lead Miller’s country allow in your foods/meds is about 6 times more than what my country (Singapore) allows. Europe bans GMO whereas Miller’s country may allow it with GMO labelling.

            Gregory Miller knows nuts but yet want to win the argument by saying commenters like me are “so full of themselves”. I guess Jesus, too is also full of themselves! LOL

            Keir, let’s not waste time with arrogant idiots. :)

          • Louise_Chanary says:

            In Europe people are routinely vaccinated.

          • kelly says:

            My country uses MMR (3 in one vaccine) for mumps, measles and rubella.

            The Physician’s Desk Reference mentioned that the MMR vaccinations can affect — blood, lymphatic, digestive, cardiovascular, immune, nervous, respiratory, and sensory systems following an MMR shot that could cause one or more of the following complications:

            encephalitis, encephalopathy, neurological disorders, seizure disorders, convulsions, learning disabilities, subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE), demyelination of the nerve sheaths, Guillain-Barre’ syndrome (paralysis), muscle incoordination, deafness, panniculitis, vasculitis, optic neuritis (including partial or total blindness), retinitis, otitis media, bronchial spasms, fever, headache, joint pain, arthritis (acute and chronic), transverse myelitis, thrombocytopenia (blood clotting disorders and spontaneous bleeding), anaphylaxis (severe allergic reactions), lymphadenopathy, leukocytosis, pneumonitis, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, erythema multiforme, urticaria, pancreatitis, parotitis, inflammatory bowel disease, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, meningitis, diabetes, autism, immune system disorders, and death.

          • Gregory Miller says:

            Read the PDR a bit more and you will Discover than all reported (not verfified) reactions to ANY medications, your reaction is silly. Look at any other regarded safe medication and you will see similar alarming reports. What’s important is the number of the reported likelihood. I see you conveniently left that out since it doesn’t verify your crazy. Seriously, what is it in your ego that makes you think you know better than the majority of health experts? You, wihtout an education in health sciences of any sort, know better than the entire collection of doctors and scientists. You are too full of yourself and not very discerning.

          • kelly says:

            “ALL medication reviews report any an all reactions ”
            Yes, that is why I would drink oregano tea over taking western antibiotics.

            “Seriously, what is it in your ego that makes you think you know better than the majority of health experts? ”
            When did I ever claim that? Which voice in your head is talking to you now?

            “You, wihtout an education in health sciences of any sort, know better than the entire collection of doctors and scientists. You are too full of yourself and not very discerning.”
            Oh really? Then I guess only doctors and scientists can discuss this. Are you one? Pot calling kettle black. :)

            IDIOTS like you should not reproduce and taint the human gene pool.

          • David Uhas says:

            So because it says on paper any and all side effects we should stop thinking for ourselves and listen to Dr. white coat who is educated by the same corporations who profit from selling drugs and vaccines for illness they cause. The same Dr. white coat who does not care enough to independently research or read vaccine inserts as to the damage a vaccine can cause. That would be totally foolish of anyone to trust such a person. Talk about uninformed, uneducated and with your head up your —. There are more and more doctors and parents who are starting to question the lack of any safety studies and researching the mountain of valid science that states vaccines are not safe and have never been proven effective in preventing any disease. The government is so scared that they are trying to shut down blogs where the pro-choice and pro-information people are disseminating the science and facts.

          • Gregory Miller says:

            And you have yet to tell me what the “funny stuff” is. What to change the conversation, I’m guessing you have no concept or couldn’t find a web site that quite confirms your idiotic assertion.

          • kelly says:

            You can keep guessing. Idiots like you who are so typical. :)

          • kelly says:

            Some would consider aborted fetus funny stuff. I do not engage debate with those who has to win any argument by being the first person to hurl insults at another. The conversation with you, Gregory Miller, is over.

          • Louise_Chanary says:

            Actually, he called your assumption idiotic, after which you called him an idiot.

          • James M. Barber says:

            You seem like the kind of person that buys into a pyramid scheme.

          • kelly says:

            And you seem to have a poopy mouth. 😀

          • Louise_Chanary says:

            Very strange. You choose illnes with a chance of dying over something that probably (in your opinion it is probably instead of certainly) has no side effects.

          • Tim Horita says:

            Thanks Jenny McCarthy for your infinite wisdom…

        • Vienta76 says:

          And in contracting the measles, said unvaccinated peoples will develop TRUE IMMUNITY to the disease, and a lifetime of it. Now that is a fact Mike. Some research and education of the diseases which we mass vaccinate against would benefit humanity as a whole in my opinion. The measles (as well as the mumps) for instance, is not a deadly disease in a healthy human being.

          • Mike Stevens says:

            What is the logic in running the risks of catching natural measles in order to gain immunity from it?
            That is like saying the best contraception is being pregnant.

            Vaccination gives lifelong immunity to measles without having to run the risks.

          • Gregory Miller says:

            Measles absolutely can be a deadly disease and it does kill. Your statement is simply not true. If you want to argue things that aren’t true, then nothing will convince you. Aside from the fact that it could kill a child, it can also pose a number of other complications that your child should not have to suffer. By the way, immunity from vaccines is TRUE IMMUNITY as well. You simply have no scientific or factual basis for your statement.

          • Louise_Chanary says:

            Not all people are healthy. And what is ‘true immunity’ worth if you first have to get it? So: you prefer getting ill once, but then having ‘true immunity’ over not getting ill in the first place.

        • keir watson says:

          “Unvaccinated exemptors are 35 times more likely to get measles than the vaccinated.
          Not theory, but scientific fact.”
          Another one I heard (although without a source) was that serious side effects from measles are 10,000 times as likely as from the vaccine.
          Taken at face value both these statistics make vaccination seem like a no-brainer, but its not as black and white as it seems.
          The reason is that very few people who are unvaccinated actually get measles and face the associated risks, whereas everyone getting the vaccine is exposed to its risks.
          For example in England & Wales over the last 18 years, there was an average of 566 cases of measles per year. Over a lifetime (70 years) that equates to 39,600 cases. Assuming these were split between vaccinated and unvaccinated 35:1, and with a 90% MMR coverage, the risk of getting measles in each group is:
          vaccinated: 0.0022%
          unvaccinated: 0.68%
          With serious side effects of measles being roughly 1:20, and the (admittedly dodgy) statistic for vaccines being 10,000 times lower (1 in 200000), gives the risk of serious side effects as:
          Vaccinated: 0.0077%
          Unvaccinated: 0.034%
          That’s only a 5 x higher relative risk (RR) of not-vaccinating v vaccinating. Nowhere near as big a deal as made out by the two headline statistics.
          In fact many everyday choices we all make have higher risk differentials; for example, the risk of becoming a casualty when cycling v travelling by car is 40 times higher, yet unlike the vaccine debate we don’t believe we have the right to tell people they are mad, stupid, uneducated or immoral if they choose to cycle!
          Lets bring a bit of respect for peoples rights and freedom to choose back into this debate!

          • Mike Stevens says:

            But this is a very dynamic situation.

            One only has to have the vaccination rates drop modestly to generate real risks of outbreaks sweeping the country thanks to low herd immunity.
            That is exactly what happened in South Wales last year (1200 cases, one death).

            So let’s not pretend that people can continue to “hide in the herd” when the herd they want to hide in has thinned itself down to the point of nothing (in infection terms).

          • Gregory Miller says:

            That commentary shows clearly you are neither a scientist, nor a statistics major when you think that 5 times higher risk in not a big deal. It is and it is avoidable. How about the fact that 1 in 1,000 children will develop encephalitis from measles as compared to 1 in 1,000,000 who get encephalitis as a result of the vaccine? Your (not you’re) risks are exponentially greater by not being vaccinated. So parse your statistics all you want, but your methods are flawed.
            Because of intense misinformation about MMR in the United Kingdom, MMR vaccine coverage has declined across Europe, resulting in outbreaks of measles and mumps in multiple countries, including the United States and Canada, and congenital rubella in the Netherlands and Canada. There were 140 cases of measles in the United States in 2008; more than three quarters of these cases were linked to imported measles from another country; most of the cases were unimmunized American children.
            And I don’t know about the UK, but here in the USA you are not 40 times more likely to be a casualty, unless you are not wearing a helmet, which is illegal in most of the USA. It is also illegal to not wear a seatbelt. Even though some claim that you might die because of a seatbelt in some instances as opposed to being kept alive by a seatbelt, the data is irrefutable statistically. The reason that this isn’t a private “rights” decision is because it is about public health. And by passing your misinformation around you are contributing to the problem. You might think you have the right to opt out of public health, but me and my children have a right to be kept safe from non-scientific woo because the MMR is only 95% to 97% effective (though anti-measles people say the number is lower) so people who opt out put other people who DO want to protect themselves from these infections at risk.

          • keir watson says:

            You have just illustrated my point for me again, and it suggests you didn’t understand it the first time round:

            *** Your statistics are not comparing vaccinated v unvaccinated risks. ***

            Accepting, for now, your risks for encephalitis (i.e. that getting measles confers about 1000 times the risk than getting the vaccine) I again must repeat that having the vaccine means you have 100% exposure to the risk, whereas 99.99% of the unvaccinated will never get measles, so are not exposed to either of these risks.

            [CDC data shows that over the last 5 years, the number of measles cases in USA is approx. = 1200; extrapolating over a 70 year lifetime this equates to 16,800 cases. Assume 5% population unvaccinated = 15 million. Assume majority of cases are among unvaccinated, gives lifetime risk of infection as 0.1%, i.e. 1 in 1000]

            So your own statistics for encephalitis actually indicate that the absolute lifetime risk of encephalitis is IDENTICAL between vaccinated and unvaccinated.

            In your ignorance you have misused statistical ‘facts’ to support an argument when they actually support the opposite! Unbelievable! You have undermined your own argument. Your misleading statistics were presented to support pro-vaccine woo.

            The reason it IS a civil rights issue is because ignorant people use distorted arguments to persuade the population otherwise. Ignorance is always the first to try and remove civil liberties.

          • Louise_Chanary says:

            If the risk is equal in vaccinated and unvaccinated, then the risk of encephalitis is no reason to refuse vaccination. In fact, vaccination protects you against measles, which is a plus.

          • keir watson says:

            What???

            Who are you people?

            If you can’t follow an argument then what hope for civilisation?

            (rant over)

            Please read what I have said over and over until you understand it, THEN make a comment. My comment is just the logical sequel that flows from Gregory Millers stats. The ONLY point of my comment is that his stats say something quite different to what he thinks they say.

            I have no idea if his stats are correct or not. The point is, he is mislead by them, and is misleading others. Do you agree with me on that? Or can you see a mistake in my statistical argument? If so, please point it out.

            Thanks

          • Tim Horita says:

            Quit demanding people read your overly wordy posts which contain no actual science, evidence or article citations. It’s childish and boring. You don’t have a “statistical argument” (and obviously don’t understand basic biostatistics)

          • keir watson says:

            I’m happy to let the readers decide who is being childish and boring Tim.

            I’m sorry if you found my argument difficult to follow. It does require the ability to read, think and follow mathematics, not just shout abuse.

            I am sure you could provide a valid rebuttle to the substantive points if you tried.

          • Tim Horita says:

            Nope. Nobody cares about your rudimentary math. It’s meaningless without support. Grown ups support their arguments with valid citations (read peer-reviewed science literature). Haven’t seen any of that from you so far…

          • Louise_Chanary says:

            You may want to consider the possibility that other people are trying to tell you something that may be worth listening to, instead of ranting about how other can’t ‘follow an argument’.

            Given that you don’t know (and nobody knows) who gets the disease or not, all unvaccinated people are at risk of getting it. This means that all unvaccinated are at risk of getting complications from the disease.
            You cannot look back after 70 years and say ‘these people never actually go the disease, so they were never at risk of getting it’. That’s like saying ‘these people never died of a car accident (but of other things like cancer, heart failure, whatever), so they were never at risk of dying in a car accident’.
            That is nonsense: only people who do not get in contact with cars are not at risk of dying in a car accident. So, if you don’t want to be at risk of having complications from a disease, you better make sure you never come in contact with the disease. You could try, but that is very hard to do given that there are a lot of other unvaccinated people out there, and you cannot actually see the disease. You could of course always stay indoors and try to never be in contact with something anybody else has touched….but yeah….I don’t think that would be easy.

          • keir watson says:

            Yes, exactly!
            You said: “all unvaccinated people are at risk of getting it. This means that all unvaccinated are at risk of getting complications from the disease.”
            (Using the US figures) So the correct risk calculation for not-vaccinating is = risk of exposure x risk of side effects = 0.1 % x 0.1 % = .0001 %
            In other words among the non-vaccinated, 999 out of 1000 never get measles in their lifetime. 1 in 1000 do (a few of them at Disneyland this week). Each of these infected cases has a 1 in 1000 chance of serious complications.
            Hence, for every1 million non-vaccers in the USA there will be only 1 case of measles induced serious side effects.
            That’s the same risk you claim from having the vaccine!
            – – – – –
            The real rebuttal of my case, is that it assumes measles cases stay low for the next 70 years. A drop in herd immunity could increase the risk for non-vaccers significantly.

      • Tim Horita says:

        Not just in New York, but anywhere. Un-vaccinated individuals are disproportionately affected in EVERY measles outbreak in the past 5-10 years. Prove it? Seriously? Read much?

    • darkoracle666 says:

      You made a ton of assertions and yet you started by saying you are not qualified to read data. Vaccine scientists cover for their colleagues and the industry. Vaccination may have been relevant at one time, but it is utterly and completely useless now. And judging by the looks of your recent comments, I do believe you’re the one with the axe to grind. You are purposely disinforming people or you have done absolutely zero research in regards to the autoimmune and neurological disorders that have been proven time and time again to come from vaccines. To what ends is the question.

      • Sammi10 says:

        Vaccines only relevancy is to make money!

      • Gregory Miller says:

        No, I didn’t say that I am not qualified to read data, I’m not qualified to interpret the data of that field. And it is subtle nuances and your misinterpretation and those other anti vaccers that are the problem. You “think ” that googling your bias makes you a researcher and informed. It doesn’t. You think you know the truth better than the very vast majority of the medical community. You don’t. You make wild assertions about some sort of cover up that you know about in a field you don’t work in. It is baseless. You are misinforming people and you and your type are a problem. You claim all these auto immune and neurological issues. But you can’t name one that has been show , replicated or named. And by the way, I am actually qualified in that area. No, no evidence exists that vaccines cause autism. It’s actually been debunked yet people like you keep repeating it. Shame on you, “guest”!

    • Guest says:

      You made a ton of assertions and yet you started by saying you are not
      qualified to read data. Vaccine scientists cover for their colleagues
      and the industry. Vaccination may have been relevant at one time, but it
      is utterly and completely useless now. And judging by the looks of your
      recent comments, I do believe you’re the one with the axe to grind. You
      are purposely disinforming people or you have done absolutely zero
      research in regards to the autoimmune and neurological disorders that
      have been proven time and time again to come from vaccines. To what ends
      is the question.

      • Gregory Miller says:

        Oh, seriously, give me a break. Now tell me it is how you know all this? Tell me how it is that every authoritative body in the world knows vaccines do work and are necessary but you know better? I didn’t make a “ton of assertions” as you suggest, except to say that common sense tells you that if you encounter more people in an environment then statistically your chances of encountering someone carrying measles is higher. This is not rocket science. The more opportunity you have to encounter any X factor increases your chances of having the event in question. Don’t believe that? Take a stats class. It’s fundamental. You are just mental.

        • Sammi10 says:

          Ignorance is bliss. It is hugely evident that you know nothing about this issue. You must be a seeder. If you believe everything the media tells you and the fixed studies that WHO and CDC do, you’re the one who is mental. They don’t test many things they put on the market. No double blind studies, using placebo’s. This is how proper studies are done! They don’t do studies any further than 90 days, before marketing drugs. Follow the money!!! Are you truly this daft?

          • Gregory Miller says:

            You are an idiot. The FDA actually has an extremely high bar for studies. The fact is that vaccines are a well understood part of medical care and science. Doctors understand physiology better than most and don’t just absurd what the CDC and WHO tells them. In fact, vaccines are responsible for the fact that we have the good health we do and have eradicated things like polio and smallpox. If you don’t accept that basic fact, that’s fine. But then you are the daft one with all yr conspiracy theories that you think nobody sees but people like you. You are so arrogantly entrenched that you cannot accept that you are not that significant and that you don’t know as much as experts on the subject. I’m not saying I do, I am saying I rely on the worlds subjects the very same way I have to rely on dentists, mechanics, heating service companies and all sorts of other experts. You, on the other hand, think you are the expert. But you are a Tuvalu just crazy. Edward snowmen should have taught you that it would be impossible to keep a conspiracy this big secret.

          • Sammi10 says:

            Well, you are clearly out of your mind. You have so much trust in what everyone tells you to believe. You obviously question nothing. Dentists love mercury and so does pharma. You’ve obviously got your fair share of this harmless neurotoxin. Have fun with that. Bliss is nice they say!

          • Gregory Miller says:

            actually, I have trust in science and those who are scientists. I also know what I don’t know and trust those with an education and training in this area. I also trust the most respected medical organizations across the globe because I am not qualified to disagree with them. The beauty of science is that a theory remains in place not firmly, but tenuously. Because when further information comes along that moves us to better solutions and better theories, the scientific community accepts it. If it wet for the likes of you, we would still be i the dark ages. The very ere fact that you reference mercury and neurotoxins in this way means you have zero understanding of the human body and of this science. You are just vomiting forth all the other nonsense from the uneducated non-vaccers. I have heard it all and none of it stands to scrutiny. If ignorance is bliss, you must be practically in nirvana.

          • kelly says:

            Just STFU already Gregory Miller. You have no credibility whatsoever. I had enough reading your nonsense. This comment here is the last of my attention to you. My time is better spent on people who wants to be saved from what that could hurt or kill them. You’re now muted.

          • Gregory Miller says:

            And you, of course, are able to judge credibility. You are a joke and an idiot. Now you are going to ignore me. Yeah, being ignored by a nutcase bothers me a lot. “My time is better spent on people who wants to be saved from what that could hurt or kill them.” Get over yourself already.

          • Gregory Miller says:

            I actually don’t believe what “everyone” tells me, like you and the naysayers on this posting. I trust what the experts say and overwhelmingly the experts assert that the benefits of inoculations far outweigh the risks. The end

          • Gregory Miller says:

            And you love a conspiracy. Try to be a little discerning. If the things you think of were actually true, it would involved a cover up including everyone in the scientific and health care fields, of which I am one. My parents always told me not to argue with crazy people and fanatics. When will I ever learn!?

          • Mike Stevens says:

            What a doofus that commenter is. I mean, how silly of you Gregory to believe information that is published by the CDC, the WHO, the AAP, Medical societies, Public Health agencies and organisations. You should believe what you see on YouTube instead.

          • Sammi10 says:

            Clearly you haven’t read what the CDC, the WHO has to say!

          • kelly says:

            The recent Ebola info is one such instance. LiveScience had mentioned it can be spread via sneezing etc, and CDC says no, it cannot be spread that way.

            Trusting CDC for credible info will kill more people!

          • Louise_Chanary says:

            LiveScience does not say it can spread via sneezing (I just looked it up). It can spread via direct contact with saliva, which is what the CDC also says. For the illness in the saliva to reach you via a sneeze, a lot of things must happen (enough illnes in the saliva, it has to live long enough outside of the body etc.). It is technically not impossible, but it is very unlikely. In fact nobody has yet contracted it that way. That is also what LiveScience says (by quoting medical professionals/scientists who you say you do not trust).
            So Livescience and the CDC say the same thing. But I don’t see why you think LiveScience is more trustworthy than the CDC.

          • Gregory Miller says:

            Thank you, Mike. I appreciate the sarcasm.

          • kelly says:

            Which Medical societies, Public Health agencies? I don’t think they should be grouped as one.

          • James M. Barber says:

            I think your by far the least scientifically capable women I’ve ever seen on Disqus, and I head over to talk with tin foil hat crowds often. Please return to scool and try harder to pay attention.

          • kelly says:

            lol Talk about the topic, not about me. You have proven NOTHING. :)

          • Sammi10 says:

            Speaking of Edward Snowden, didn’t he release information about our government lying to us and he let out the truth? You just hung yourself my friend!

          • Gregory Miller says:

            Did I? What did he release about this vast vaccinating conspiracy that involves the private world in cahoots with the government for over a hundred years? I must have missed that one. You are seriously out of touch with reality.

          • minoritybabble says:

            Are you a robot that only comments in logical fallacies?

          • Gregory Miller says:

            “Logical fallacies”? Are you an idiot and a troll? Answer: yes, yes you are.

          • minoritybabble says:

            I’m not sure why you’re taking offense, the comment was directed at Sammie10.

          • Gregory Miller says:

            Very sorry. It’s not always easy to follow who is replying to whom, especially if you are an iPad.

          • minoritybabble says:

            Nope, dude. You’re a “seeder”. That’s how you know HE knows the truth.

          • kelly says:

            “You are an idiot. ”
            “You, on the other hand, think you are the expert. But you are not.”
            Did Sammi10 claim to be an expert? Again, so typical of you Greg Miller. You cannot give comments politely, can you?

          • Gregory Miller says:

            The ethical dilemma for not doing double blind studies is apparent and has been explained properly by others, so I am not going to re-hash it. The proof is in the pudding as has been done by epidemiologists for a very long time. I suppose you also believe that this field is phony and in on the conspiracy.

      • kelly says:

        Greg Miller is just a troll, ignore him.

    • Charity Hedge says:

      I think you actually have it backwards. The article says that New York has the fewest exceptions = more children who are vaccinated yet there are more cases of the measles. Oregon and Vermont have more exemptions = more children un-vaccinated yet there are fewer cases of the measles :) so your comment makes no sense at all.

      • Gregory Miller says:

        Actually, if you don’t get it, then it’s because you have no education or are just stupid. The number of potential exposure incidences will be higher in a higher population, with a lot of tourist and through traffic than in places where the population is substantially lower with less tourist and through traffic. This is not a unique statistic. In fact outbreaks will almost always occur first where the population is heavier, statistically.

        • Charity Hedge says:

          So then by your own admission, its about place/population and nothing at all to do with vaccinated/un-vaccinated

        • Sammi10 says:

          Then you just proved, that it has nothing to do with the non vaccers! Correct?

          • Gregory Miller says:

            No. I think you are not very bright. The FACT is that the very vast majority of this vaccinated will not get measles. The effective rate is 95%. This particular outbreak has not been determined yet. However, in previous outbreaks, they absolutely were able to trace back the infections overwhelmingly to unvaccinated people. And are you so much an imbecile that you don’t understand that vaccines are 95% effective but unvaccinated is nowhere ?

      • Gregory Miller says:

        No, charity, that is not the case and that is not what I said. I know you think you are some sort of great under appreciated wise person who knows better than doctors and attorneys and as a result you think you caught me in an “aha” moment, but you didn’t. You are just showing your lack of attention span. As it relates to opportunities for exposure, obviously a higher population offers more opportunities, which clearly explains why it is in New York that with low populations of unvaccinated people they still may see higher instances of measles than a low population area like Vermont or Oregon. But the fact remains indisputable that the MMR is 95% effective. If New York had lower number of vaccinated people, the situation would be far worse. At the same time, it is important to remember that these two stats were cherry picked. In Texas, also a low population state, a whole mega-church community did not believe in immunizations. Then when they were struck, the church had to reverse its position because they had a mini epidemic limited mostly to people from that church.

        • Sammi10 says:

          95%? That’s a fact? Show me, or tell me where you find this information.

          • Gregory Miller says:

            You are welcome to look at the CDC or Oxford journals. There, two respected sources with the worlds best scientists. But I’m sure you know better.

          • Mike Stevens says:

            One dose vaccine effectiveness is around 90%, 2 dose is approaching 99%. Many of those in outbreaks are entirely unvaccinated, or have had one dose only.

          • keir watson says:

            ‘There’ , where?
            Oh, you mean they’re…

            Nice to see you wear a suit now. Keep those tattoos covered up – they’re going out of fashion anyhow, and give the impression that you make poor judgements.

            :)

          • Gregory Miller says:

            Good one! You caught a typo! You must feel so superior. My poor judgement is best expressed in the fact that I continue to engage with someone as avid, arrogant and self important without any qualifications such as you. Don’t you have some of your snake oil to peddle now?

      • cheleagh says:

        The point that is missed here is that measles in general is not a bad thing. Grossly misunderstood. Most measles cases are mild.
        If the unvaccinated contracted measles then so what?
        If the vaccinated contracted measles then what strain? Could it be from the vaccine? was the body compromised because of the vaccines? What state of health was the person in beforehand?(probably poor health)
        many factors can be attributed to an illness. Because each of us are unique the affects vary slightly from person to person.

        BTW There’s one vaccine they haven’t produced as yet…………………….the paranoia vaccine!! :-)

      • Gregory Miller says:

        Go take a statistics class and then we can talk. Until then, your post is a waste of time to respond to.

    • kelly says:

      All Singaporeans who caught measles while travelling were vaccinated cos in our country, the MMR is mandatory. Waste of civilians’ tax money for “a lifetime” of immunity against measles.

  2. Minority View says:

    There were two main points in the article–the one that isn’t being discussed is that measles seems to be rising in a number of countries–do they all have declining vaccination rates or are there are problems?

    The author also assumes that vaccine exemptions equals 100% unvaxed for everything. That is rarely the case. A family may decline the Hep B vaccine or the chickenpox vaccine or get everything except for Prevnar. Saying that a state has the highest exemption rate for kindergarten doesn’t actually tell you what the vaccination rates really are.

    I’m sort of suspecting that the focus on exemption rates rather than vaccination rates is because the exemption rates generally can be made to look very scary.

  3. SteveMichaels says:

    Gregory Miller, you are only as intelligent as the information upon which you rely. It is quite obvious that your research into “data” is limited and biased. As such, your conclusions are inaccurate and ignorant. I don’t mean that harshly. It is just a plain and simple demonstrable fact. You keep spouting on about the 95% efficacy of the measles vaccine. Do you even know what the establishment definition of “efficacy” is? It’s not “proof of protection”, it is “proof of increased antibody titre levels”. There is ZERO proof that increased titre levels translates into real world protection. NONE. It is merely assumed. Here is what the Mayo clinic had to say about your nearly infallible measles vaccine:

    ‘We found 18 reports of measles outbreaks in very highly immunized school populations where 71% to 99.8% of students were immunized against measles. Despite these high rates of immunization, 30% to 100% (mean, 77%) of all measles cases in these outbreaks occurred in previously immunized students. In our hypothetical school model, after more than 95% of schoolchildren are immunized against measles, the majority of measles cases occur in appropriately immunized children.

    The apparent paradox is that as measles immunization rates rise to high levels in a population, measles becomes a disease of immunized persons. Because of the failure rate of the vaccine and the unique transmissibility of the measles virus, the currently available measles vaccine, used in a single-dose strategy, is unlikely to completely eliminate measles. The long-term success of a two-dose strategy to eliminate measles remains to be determined.‘ Poland GA, Jacobson RM., Department of Internal Medicine, Mayo Vaccine Research Group, Mayo Clinic and Foundation, Rochester, MN./1994

    Just as a confirming note, the chart of vaccine exemptions is inherently misleading. The definition of qualifying vaccine exemption is anybody filing an exemption for ANY recommended vaccine. So if a person files an exemption for ONE vaccine they are counted even if fully immunized for all of the rest. That means that the overall coverage rate for MMR is HIGHER than the exemption rate chart would imply. You don’t need to be a scientist to understand basic concepts.

    • Laurie J. Willberg says:

      Spot on! Moreover “efficacy” says nothing about real world “effectiveness”. Research also shows that mothers who had measles pass on maternal protection to their children, whereas those who only had a measles vaccine do not. People need to learn that antibodies are proof of exposure, not proof of immunity. Animal research has shown that dogs who were never subjected to rabies (and other) vaccines showed high titres of antibodies. There is more data from dogs than kids because educated pet owners are opting for titre testing in order to avoid subjecting their beloved pets to vaccine toxins too.

      • Chubby Rain says:

        You do realize that antibodies are used in virtually every area of biochemistry and medicine and that their ability to bind to and neutralize pathogens is incredibly well-documented and researched? Of course you don’t…You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

        • Laurie J. Willberg says:

          Antibodies are proof of exposure, not proof of immunity. It’s why dogs that have never had a rabies shot can show high antibody titres to rabies. Looks like you’re pretty clueless about the subject.

          • Chubby Rain says:

            Exposure leads to antibody production which leads to the body’s humoral immune response which leads to immunity, less severe symptoms, etc. And I admit to being clueless on the subject of dogs + rabies + antibody titers. I’m in medical school learning the physiology and pathology of disease in humans, not dogs.

          • Laurie J. Willberg says:

            That’s the pop culture current THEORY but there’s no actual proof that it leads to immunity.
            If you need to perform a blood test to determine what viral illness someone has you’ll do a titre test to see what antibodies are circulating. It shows exposure. Post vaccine, circulating antibodies will show exposure. So far no one has been able to show that immunity can be created by vaccines but we know from practical experience that once someone has actually had a disease they’re immune to getting it a second time (this is real immunity).

          • Chubby Rain says:

            Seeing as you appear to be struggling with the scientific concept of a “theory”, which I’m going to be generous and call an 8th-grade level of scientific knowledge, I do not know how effective this response is going to be. That said, what you have written may have been applicable in 1897 when Paul Ehrlich first showed that antibodies were produced in mice who were exposed to increasing amounts of ricin and hypothesized that these antibodies were the cause of immunity. However, since then we have OVER 100 years of experiments elucidating the mechanism for antibody-mediated immunity (i.e. the humoral immune response). We make artificial antibodies in labs, give them to patients suffering everything from cancer to macular degeneration, and have found them to be remarkably effective at treating these diseases. What you are saying about “no one has been able to show that immunity can be created by vaccines” is simply false. That you consider the immune response to a “disease” to be “real immunity” shows that you have no idea of the underlying mechanisms and basic science of biological immunity. Please take some small amount of time to look into these concepts. And one last thing, please NEVER use the term “proof” in a scientific discussion. Science does not PROVE anything, it never has, and it never will.

          • Laurie J. Willberg says:

            Perhaps you’d like to share the actual research results that confirm that the immunity that results post infection can be matched by what you are claiming vaccines can do? That is if you can ditch your pompous-ass attitude and put your money where your mouth is.
            Since cancer and macular degeneration are not caused by viruses, perhaps you can explain the mechanism by which artificial antibodies operate to treat these diseases and elaborate on where and on whom these experiments have been conducted.
            I said that real immunity is conferred after an individual has lived through exposure to real disease. You know that not reading isn’t any better than not being able to?

          • Gregory Miller says:

            Oh the irony. You accuse others of pomposity when YOU are the one who, without an education in science, thinks you know better than the entire medical community. Pompous much?

            And to your middle point, it is pretty clear that you simply pulled off a google search of a number of different articles and decided that in order to test someone’s intelligence that you should ask them to prove it by the arcane question you probably cut and pasted (mostly). This, of course, is the folly of it. Because of course no one is encyclopedic in their memory unless the specific subject matter is of personal interest. And, of course, anyone can do a power google search just like you. It still doesn’t make you a researcher because you can read an article.

            To demonstrate: Therapeutic monoclonal antibodies operate by one of two general mechanisms. Some antagonize protein-protein interactions critical for cellular signaling. For example, Humira and Remicade, which are used to inhibit inflammation in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, bind to tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) and prevent it from binding to its cognate receptor. Avastin is an anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor VEGF antibody that sequesters this hormone from the VEGF Receptor 2 (VEGFR2), thus inhibiting angiogenesis, an important process in the development of “wet” macular degeneration and the spread of some cancers. Many other such examples exist. But other antibodies employ a more complex mechanism of action known as antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity (ADCC). [1] In this case, the Fc region (Fig. 1) of certain antibody isotypes can recruit effector molecules and cells to a target cell by virtue of recognition of a cell surface marker. These include the complement system, natural killer cells and other pieces of the armamentarium of the immune system. In this way, binding of antibodies to a receptor displayed at sufficient density on a target cell can result in the destruction of that cell type. This process is called antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity (ADCC) and is an important therapeutic strategy

          • Laurie J. Willberg says:

            Considering you know zero about my educational background, what did you use, a crystal ball? It appears you did a cut and paste in order to play “If you can’t dazzle ’em with brilliance, baffle ’em with B.S.” You have simply employed misdirection in order to avoid the questions I asked.

          • Gregory Miller says:

            Oh, Laurie, what I DO know about you is that based on your writing, you are neither a doctor, scientist or other qualified health care provider. And you apparently also have poor reading comprehension because I was quite clear that I was demonstrating what you had just done in your reply to Chubby Rain! LOL! So when you want to talk about not dazzling wi brilliance but baffle them with BS, I was demonstrating what you had done. Oh, this is just too easy.

          • Laurie J. Willberg says:

            Ad hominems instead of the research studies I clearly asked for? What kind of CV do you need to be a paid pharma troll? Please enlighten us about your attempt to play authority figure because you don’t know enough to answer my questions.

          • Gregory Miller says:

            Laurie, I understand that when my ideas conflict with the entire medical and scientific community that I am likely wrong. Your arrogance and self importance won’t let you do that apparently. That is not ad hominem, that is a factual observation. You have yet to produce any research that concludes your assertions either. Several people who are qualified doctors have responded to you with little success. The thing is hat you are not really looking for information, you are just continuing without substance to try and show how much more you know than the entire scientific and medical community. And the paid shill comment shows how useless it is because on top of the rest of it, you are also a tine hat wearing conspiracy theorist. Yes, I am sure that “big pharma” has paid shills all over these post sites to monitor and refute. You are laughable.

          • Laurie J. Willberg says:

            We all know that GPs/MDs are not experts on either epidemiology or immunology, which makes your opinions even less reliable.
            I have yet to see you post the research references I requested, which makes you nothing more than an opinionated (and long-winded) troll.

          • Gregory Miller says:

            “We all know that GP/MDs are not experts on either epidemiology or immunology, which makes your opinions even less reliable.” So, I guess you think you know better? You do not. They ARE more of an expert than you are, believe it or not. You are not the arbiter of medical qualifications. The vast majority of my responses to you are regarding the fact that you don’t know better than the scientific and medical community and you are not a researcher so researchx papers would not move you. Ultimately, that is the truth.

          • Laurie J. Willberg says:

            All you have to do Big-Mouth is post some research that shows vaccines create memory cells the way natural disease exposure does.
            I didn’t say it was gonna be easy. Because there are none.
            You have failed to convince anyone that you’re anything other than a pharma troll.

          • Gregory Miller says:

            “All I have to do”? Actually, I don’t have to do anything. The fact is that your arguments don’t have an ounce of logic to them so it’s hard to pull anything from your nonsense tangents such as continually referring to “THEORIES” as though that calls into question the veracity of the theory. As someone else pointed out, you lack even the most basic understanding of how science works so no way will I follow you dowb that rabbit hole. Other people have done so with you, including a PHD for goodness sake. Your level of confirmation bias and denial is astounding. And the mere fact that you even use the term pharma troll speaks volumes about your intelligence and critical thinking skills. So go on with your delusion that you know better the science than the doctors, scientists and their respective fields, you lovely keyboard warrior.

          • Laurie J. Willberg says:

            You can’t back up your opinions with science, can you? That’s why you resort to long-winded diatribes appealing to authority. You’re a windbag apologist for the vaccine industry.

          • Gregory Miller says:

            Dear, dear. The thing is, I’m not the one saying that science and doctors are wrong and know less than I do. You are the one who is saying that. It seems me that it is incumbent on YOU to provide something of substance or science since you are refuting current accepted science, not up to me to confirm accepted science. But whatever, resort to your personal attacks. I stand by, and reiterate my previous post.

          • Tim Horita says:

            I can. Quite easily- there is abundant solid peer-reviewed scientific literature, and it’s all available to the public. But I imagine since you’re part of the anti-vaxxer cult you won’t bother to look at it. You’ll fall back to your next retreat position- usually containing some bullshit about “Big Pharma”. Just in case though, here’;s another scientific paper to help shut you up:

            Waning immunity to measles in young adults and booster effects of revaccination in secondary school students.
            He H, Chen EF, Li Q, Wang Z, Yan R, Fu J, Pan J.
            Vaccine. 2013 Jan 7;31(3):533-7.

          • Laurie J. Willberg says:

            Considering you’re playing shill for the vaccine industry you’re going to argue black is white. Take all the vaccines you like. Most outbreaks occur in highly vaccinated populations. Nonetheless, it’s not Bubonic Plague and the hysterics are unwarranted.

          • Tim Horita says:

            Everyone who disagree with you antivaxxers is a paid pharma shill. Yawn…

          • Timbo says:

            Outbreaks occur where there is inadequate immunity to prevent the outbreak.
            This is why Measles was almost completely gone in the US. This is why polio is controlled. This is why diphtheria is in our past.

            Then idiot anti-vaxxers (like you and Jenny McCarthy) decided they knew more than science and stopped vaccinating and discouraged others from vaccinating.

            Do I need to teach you everything, or are you going to make an effort to learn something on your own?

            You haven’t posted any scientific basis for your nonsense, in fact you’re completely wrong and several basic facts (immunology, virology, infectious disease, public health, epidemiology)

          • Chubby Rain says:

            If you do not like my attitude then please don’t be so incredibly ignorant while simultaneously giving opinions that could jeopardize the medical decisions of other people. As for actual research results, I doubt you have the scientific literacy to understand those studies – simply google “timeline of immunology wiki” for an incredibly basic overview of the experiments that have contributed to our present understanding of immunology and click on associated links as necessary.

            Several cancers have been linked to viruses – HPV, Hep A and C, Epstein-Barr, HHV-8, HTLV-1 off the top of my head. Mechanism: antibodies bind to things and do stuff. In the case of cancer, monoclonal antibodies that bind to specific aberrant proteins on cancer cells inhibit the functions of those proteins or trigger elements of the body’s humoral immune response. In the case of macular degeneration, the target is vascular endothelial growth factor-1 which is necessary for the pathogenesis of wet macular degeneration. In the case of viruses and bacteria, antibodies bind to other proteins and molecular markers and again either impair function or trigger immune responses. A five-second google scholar search will provide you will all of the sources you want on these topics.

            I read your comment and will attempt to provide more clarification. There is no biochemical difference between “real immunity” as you put it and the immune response generated by vaccines – the immune response is largely the same which is why you can get a low fever, malaise, and other flu-like symptoms from injections. The only things that are different are 1) the degree of response and 2) the available targets (antigens) presented to the immune system. Again, please take the time to actually look into these concepts before making ignorant statements.

          • Tim Horita says:

            Well put, sir. Add to the list of infectious disease that cause cancer, Helicobacter Pylori ( a bacteria in the case) and its role in producing stomach cancer.

          • Tim Horita says:

            Comparison of the effect of two different doses of recombinant hepatitis B vaccine on immunogenicity in healthy adults.
            Li J, Yao J, Shan H, Chen Y, Jiang ZG, Ren JJ, Xu KJ, Ruan B, Yang SG, Wang B, Xie TS, Li Q.
            Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2015 Jan 21:0.

            Really. You should stop.

          • Timbo says:

            If I post the actual research showing efficacy of vaccine in producing scientifically verifiable immunity, will you promise to go away forever?

            Otherwise, it seem like you are completely resistant to learning from the people here who have an actual education on these topics. Therefore, you’re just interrupting while the grown-ups are trying to talk, and that’s rude.

          • Gregory Miller says:

            Um, sweetheart, that is not the pop culture theory, that is the medical theory. And I can see by the caps lock on theory that you are implying it is only a “theory”. This is exactly tyne sort of thing, and the sort of simpleton thinking that gets us in trouble. You clearly have a remedial understanding of basic scientific principles.

          • Laurie J. Willberg says:

            Well, cutie-pie, it’s the pop culture theoretic notion that’s sold to the public. There has never been any scientifically demonstrated equivalence of vaccines creating immunity because it’s never been demonstrated that vaccines can create memory cells the way natural disease exposure does.
            So start producing some research that shows vaccines create memory cells or find something else to do with your time that might be more productive.

          • Gregory Miller says:

            I love how you make these outlandish assertions, without even the slightest reference, and expect “research” in response. Look, it’s quite clear that you are cherry picking your Google searches and spending quite of bit of time doing it. And while you can regurgitate all of that, or as you have done before that I’ve mocked you for, cut and paste. But the fact is that epidemiologists know that your assertion is nonsensical. Perhaps one of them can respond to you, or not. Because stripping it back to its fundamentals reveals that you haven’t a clue what you are talking about. The fact is that vaccines do in fact create memory cells. Whether that is in exactly the same process as with natural infection, I can’t say for sure. But it’s also immaterial. A hundred years of vaccinations show they do in fact work and make people immune with those pesky deadly diseases and epidemics. If your assertion were true then we would never have needed vaccines in the first place. It makes no logical sense to be willing to get measles and risk death or disability when a safe and harmless vaccine is available.

          • Tim Horita says:

            Still wrong (you’re not doing very well here) Immunology isn’t a theory, it’s an entire discipline in Medicine. The fact that you’re ignorant about it should preclude you from discussing it in a public forum…

          • Timbo says:

            No, if you want to find what virus a person HAS, you test for that specific virus. Antibodies are used LATER.
            Antibody titers to document adequate immune status post-vaccination are used all of the time. You need them before you’re allowed to work with sick people. This has been the case for a long time and is the Medical Standard of Care.

            For goodness sakes woman stop embarrassing yourself in a public forum with your blatant lack of understanding.

          • Tim Horita says:

            Sorry, but you’re wrong. Antibody titers are a direct measurement of immunity to a disease.

          • Laurie J. Willberg says:

            Nope. Memory cells indicate immunity to disease and there’s currently no way to measure those.

          • Tim Horita says:

            Sorry, missy. You just showed us all your COMPLETE lack of understanding of immunology. We measure IgG levels to verify an Immune response has taken place in the past (from the disease or from vaccination- doesn’t matter at this level, but this is true for any infection). This is what smart people call “titers”. IgM levels, however, are an indication that a current battle is going on between the host and the antigen. Memory cells aren’t measured because their measurement is irrelevant. That’s just silly and ignorant. You’re welcome for the free science lesson,- but now get back to the kids table, or you will not get a juice box!

          • Laurie J. Willberg says:

            Sorry cutie pie. Titres are merely evidence of exposure not immunity. You’ve either got it backwards or you’re deliberately trying to mislead or both. Memory cells can’t be measured because the technology to do so doesn’t exist yet.
            You obviously need another hobby or another job.

          • Tim Horita says:

            Still need more schooling from me. I may need to charge you. Each disease has a titer at which you are considered not immune, indeterminate, or immune.

            Example- measles
            Nonimminue titer 1.10

            This is basic immunology. After you take a class in it, then come back here and see how incredibly ignorant you were. Then maybe, if I’m in the mood, I’ll accept your apology.

          • Tim Horita says:

            I don’t know why she bothers… sad really.

          • Timbo says:

            Post a source, or shut it.

            For a person to have antibodies, they need to either have the antibodies given to them, or antigenic exposure to make their own. They teach this to high school students- sadly not you.

            Proof of immunity is determined by the specific titer for that antibody. Again, VERY BASIC stuff here, that somehow you’re ignorant of.

          • Laurie J. Willberg says:

            Oh. Wow. High school science. This explains why you’re so behind in theory. When you graduate to something more advanced let us know. In the meantime grow some manners bigmouth.

          • Timbo says:

            The difference between you and I is that I post sources to support what I say here.

            You haven’t.

            You can’t.

            Which is why you look so terribly silly when you try to argue with me.

            Which is just one of many reasons why anti-vaxxers fail this debate.

          • Timbo says:

            I’d also like to point out how people with no scientific education overuse and misuse the word “Theory”
            It’s a dead giveaway (like accusing someone of being part of a conspiracy instead of arguing toe-to-toe)

        • David Uhas says:

          Show me the evidence? Immunologists admit they do not know how the immune system works and all of the intricate details that goes along with developing lifelong immunity. They admit that the more they learn the less they know on how the immune system functions. So how can any one in the medical system, the government or pharmaceutical recommend a vaccine when they have no clue on how our immune system works? They do know that an antibody is a response to a foreign invader and that is all they are concerned with, whether are not the vaccine produces an antibody which has little to nothing to do with immunity. They are not concerned if the vaccine prevents clinical disease.They do know lifelong immunity only occurs with a naturally acquired disease and that it strengthens the immune system natural exposures to these benign diseases act as a booster to the immune system. They also know that vaccines weaken the immune system and each time you receive a vaccine that it throws off the TH1 and TH2 balance which causes the weakening of the immune system and is the reason why vaccinated children are much more sickly than unvaccinated children.

          • Chubby Rain says:

            What immunologists have you been talking to? The one’s teaching my medical school courses happen to believe they have some “clue” as to how the immune systems works. My “evidence” is the hours spent in lectures, reading immunology textbooks, and conducting literature sources as part of the standard allopathic medical school curriculum. Oh, not to mention working in labs which use antibodies for many different purposes, such as labelling and purification.

            As for the rest of you post, an antibody is simply a protein generated by the body that binds to a specific antigen. If that antigen happens to be influenza HA for example, it prevents a necessary part of the pathogenesis of a disease from occurring (HA binds to sialic acid-containing receptors on cell surfaces), and would then confer immunity (ignoring some of the nuance which is evidently over your head).

            Doctors and scientists DO care about the clinical manifestations of disease, which is why they conduct observational studies on populations who have and have not received a vaccination (or different types of vaccinations). The purpose of medicine is to focus on outcomes such as “not dying” or “not getting sick” – antibodies are a biological mechanism that contributes to those outcomes. To suggest otherwise is absurd and shows that you have no idea how evidence-based medicine works.

            Of course you get a stronger immune response to the active disease – the pathogen is running rampant throughout your body. THE ENTIRE POINT OF IMMUNIZATION IS TO GIVE IMMUNITY WITHOUT THE DISEASE. You ideally want to give people some protection against smallpox without the ~30% chance of dying.

            Alright, I’ll bite – how does “throwing off the TH1 and TH2 balance” lead to a weakened immune system? (this explanation should be good…). And there is no scientific support for your assertion that vaccinated children are “more sickly” than vaccinated children…

          • Gregory Miller says:

            One answer is that you are just flat wrong. immunologists and doctors do know how the immune system works. Do mysteries exist? Of course. But in general they do. Your writings are just nonsensical and laughable rants. You have your anecdotes which you love to bring as hard and fast researched evidence. The other people on here that actually DO have experience and education in those fields are left scratching their heads wondering where you come up with this stuff. Vaccines do not weaken the immune system and you won’t find a scientific study that concludes that.

          • MICHSTORIES says:

            Hello folks. I was not going to join in this conversation but I am caught up in all these interesting comments. I wish I knew the answer. I was concerned about this comment made by David Uhas “vaccinated children are much more sickly than unvaccinated children.” I was vaccinated as a child – back in the 1960’s – and both my children were vaccinated – back in the 1980’s. My children were always very robust and healthy (they still are to this day), they were never sickly and missed very little school, they were healthier than most other kids. I have made it, so far, to my 53rd year without too many health issues. We did not worry so much about vaccines – were we just ignorant back in those days? My sister-in-law has two teenage children, they were never vaccinated (she does not believe in vaccinations) – her children were sick all the time and missed most of their junior high school years because they were always ill. The comment made by Mr. Uhas “the reason why vaccinated children are much more sickly than unvaccinated children” is not true.

          • Gregory Miller says:

            Much like virtually everything he has said, this is not found in fact. It is an invention in his head in order to circle the wagons around his belief system.

          • Timbo says:

            Vaccines don’t weaken the immune system.
            Stop claiming to know what immunologists know and don’t know- the fact that you don’t understand things doesn’t mean scholars in this field don’t

      • Andrew Lazarus says:

        Ask your great-grandmother (who probably had measles) if any of her children had measles. Then admit you have confused short-term neonatal immunity with long-term immunity.

        • Laurie J. Willberg says:

          All my grandparents and great grand parents survived all sorts of common diseases along with millions of others and lived until they were in their 90’s with no vaccines. Neither of my parents had measles. My brother did and no one else in the household was affected. Better check that immunity THEORY.

          • Andrew Lazarus says:

            You know, I didn’t know I had an uncle who died in infancy until the census went online. My mother never spoke of him. So, my guess is there are a few skeletons in your closet. You might be that lucky, but I doubt it. It does explain your swollen head though. A visit to any old graveyard, or any actuarial data, shows that your experience, if true, wasn’t “common” at all.

          • Laurie J. Willberg says:

            You can doubt all you like. Headstones in graveyards don’t record causes of death so it’s pretty obvious you’re indulging in fantasy — anything to bolster your unfounded arguments.

          • Andrew Lazarus says:

            Sometimes headstones do. Anyway, actuaries and epidemiologists do. And they tell us kids died of diphtheria, pertussis, measles, a slew of these diseases. And the rich and well-fed as well as the poor. Now, it’s true we now have the medical skills to save many people who would have died 150 years ago, but, then, we also have vaccines.

            I realize the claim that Willbergs never get sick is good for your holistic health business, but it does raise the question of whether Alternative Pharma is as mendacious as Big Pharma when it comes to making profits.

            By the way, the immunization “theory” in caps reminds me of Creationists who talk about evolutionary “theory”. The consilience of the epistemology antivax, Creationist, Tax Protestor, and Holocaust Denial movements is one of the fascinating properties these forums display.

          • Laurie J. Willberg says:

            I have a “holistic health business”? News to me. Pharma outearns all the other Fortune 500 businesses combined. You really don’t have a leg to stand on with your mendacious arguments. Fortunately more people are “on” to the vaccine scam and aren’t buying it. You’re helping to further the point that vaccine shills are ill informed.

          • Andrew Lazarus says:

            Thy profile says “Holistic medicine research and writing”. DIdn’t realize you were a volunteer at it.

          • Gregory Miller says:

            I think that is to make Laura feel important.

          • Gregory Miller says:

            I love it when the crazies call us ill-informed shills! Yes, the entire medical and scientific community is ill informed. You, and a handful of people know the truth. No, actually you don’t. The mere fact that you believe that millions of people are involved in some sort of scam and everyone is on the take, including universities I must add, shows how incredibly delusional you are. If anything you people assert were true, it would be the biggest news story of the year. Why won’t ANY of the media pick it up? Nothing you people say is true or verifiable is the reason. You apply your lack of knowledge and try to read things you don’t understand. Of course, you will misunderstand the conclusions! Your arrogance and feelings up self importance that YOU and people like you know the truth and the rest of us are just shills to a THEORY that can’t be proven is astonishing.

          • r a says:

            Survivorship bias.

          • Tim Horita says:

            Anecdotes do not equal data. Multiple anecdotes do not equal data. Thank you for playing…

        • keir watson says:

          Hello Andrew, I wonder if you can comment of the following for me?
          Is it true that an unvaccinated measles survivor has a higher immunity to measles than does a fully vaccinated individual?
          If so, apart from the immediate ethics of increased child mortality, wouldn’t measles parties be more effective at eradicating the disease at a long term population level than attempting to immunise the whole of the rest of the world? (something that in the medium term appears doomed to failure)
          Also, on a similar line – if vaccination reduces the selection pressure on the species (by the more measles-vulnerable individuals not dying), could it not be that the vaccine programme might actually perpetuate the natural decline of measles long term?
          Of course, if we could be sure that a concerted world-wide-vaccine effort could actually wipe out measles globally that would be the best route. But can we be sure of that?

          • Andrew Lazarus says:

            My understanding is that for measles, the immunity of a twice-vaccinated individual is very high. There are occasional failures of disease-acquired immunity, too; for example from later health problems resulting in immune system compromise.

            We had a few thousand years to try your suggestion, and measles didn’t die out. The problem is babies. Neonatal immunity is temporary, and after that the disease has a nice, susceptible population. (You don’t even need parties: measles is so contagious that pre-vaccine, everyone was exposed. By adulthood, almost everyone was seropositive for exposure.)

            I do appreciate your explicit championing of the faux-Darwinian belief that measles deaths are a way of thinning the herd.

            We have eradicated smallpox and except for political problems that are hopefully transient, we can eliminate polio. Measles, like them, has no non-human host (not the case, e.g., with tetanus), so it is realistic to think we can eliminate it.

          • Tim Horita says:

            One dose of MMR vacccine is about 93% effective, the second booster raises that number to 97%

          • Tim Horita says:

            Giving more people the measles would not eradicate measles. It would give more people measles. Attempting to immunize the world would decrease measles- as it did for small pox.

    • Chubby Rain says:

      There is no apparent paradox – just a woeful ignorance of basic statistics. If the MMR vaccine was not effective, you would expect both students who were vaccinated and not vaccinated to contract the disease at the SAME rates. This is not the case as you quite clearly have a LOWER incidence of contracting the disease if you are vaccinated. The “paradox” is the vaccine working as intended and you ironically not understanding a relatively basic concept.

    • Dorit Reiss says:

      No, that is incorrect. Vaccine effectiveness and efficacy is not measured only in antibodies rates, but also in rates of infection – which are much higher in the unvaccinated.

      Second, notice you had to go back to the time we used a single dose of MMR – which is less effective, and does not prevent outbreaks well enough. Since the use of the two dose, we have seen almost no outbreaks.

    • Moi says:

      Your analysis would seem to be incomplete.

      “Of the 34 California measles victims whose vaccination history could be ascertained, 28 had not received the measles shot. The American Academy of Pediatrics and the Centers for Disease Control recommend that children first receive the MMR (Measles, Mumps, Rubella) vaccine at the age of 12-15 months and then again between their fourth and sixth birthdays.” – reuters.

      To me, and given the admittedly low rate of MMR vaccine exemptions, this is a telling statistic and is statistically significant.

      There are a very small number of children who, for medical reasons, are unable to receive the MMR vaccine. There are also a very very small number of children who suffer another medical issue as a result of a vaccine (curiously, autism doesn’t seem to be one of those related issues according to essentially ANY scientific study I can find), but that number is orders of magnitude smaller than the number of children who would suffer permanent damage and death should we refuse to vaccinate anyone.

      Those who refuse to vaccinate their children due to “personal beliefs”, anti-vaxxers and those who spread these misconceptions are all doing the few children who cannot be vaccinated a disservice. Herd immunity can help them only when the herd is well protected.

    • Laurie J. Willberg says:

      His only purpose here is to foment doubt and cast aspersions on people who do their own homework rather than fervently believe vaccine propaganda that’s spouted by alleged authority figures. In essence they are just cajoling you to “trust” them.
      People accept vaccines because they’ve become a social norm. Simply reading vaccine package inserts will inform you that you are not even being afforded the right of informed consent.
      The fact that the medical industry has been able to wangle immunity from legal liability is our first clue that something is wrong with this system, because no other industry qualifies for such preferential status. Second, people need to realize that their taxes and not the product manufacturers are paying for vaccine damage awards that have already gone into the $$ billions.

  4. inicholson says:

    So the article criticises those who believe editorials rather than data and repeats “correlation is not causation”.

    It then uses lack of correlation between vaccine exemptions and incidence of measles to suggest a lack of causation.

    No understanding of confounding factors, no attempt to supply any statistical evidence. Just the usual pseudoscience garbage advice “Do some research”; either the author should present the research he’s done (which he doesn’t) or he should go do it before hitting the keyboard.

    There’s nothing useful or informative in this article just some puff under a deliberately misleading title.

    • Gregory Miller says:

      Thank goodness someone else on here understands this.

    • Guest says:

      Do you realize that the CDC themselves admitted (I watched it live on C-span) just last year that there has never been a study done comparing the vaccinated to the non-vaccinated? So all that is out there that they have “proven the safety of vaccines” is not even based on actual facts or actual data looking at both sides.

      • Charity Hedge says:

        oops, I must have done something to post this twice…sorry

      • Mike Stevens says:

        You do realise to conduct a prospective randomised study of vaccination versus no vaccination would be unethical, since it would entail leaving kids unprotected?
        In addition, you need to define the outcome event. If you are looking at some rare longterm neurological outcome, in order to power a study for appropriate statistical significance you would need hundreds of thousands of subjects, probably millions.
        It is not feasible.
        And then when it doesn’t show what the antivaxers want, they will ignore it anyway.

        There is plenty of good evidence from existing studies comparing outcome in differing settings to conclude vaccines work and cause very little in the way of any serious long term side effects.

        • Charity Hedge says:

          Just so you know, I am one of many that have had a reaction to vaccines…so is my daughter who was forced to have several vaccines at the same time(one that she should Never have been given due to my family history). Not that anything Im saying will change your mind but maybe you will get the idea behind why I started questioning vaccines to begin with :)

          • Mike Stevens says:

            I get why people question vaccines, and understand the distress that having a child who has a reaction will bring. But I am a utilitarian, and try to consider the greater good – the tiny risk of suffering a reaction should be a small price to pay for the massive benefit that vaccines have brought. But I know that on an individual basis, that price isn’t small, but can sometimes be overwhelming.

        • sabelmouse says:

          there are plenty of unvaccinated who might be happy to participate in such a study.

    • Charity Hedge says:

      Do you realize that the CDC admitted, on live C-span just last year, that they have never done a study comparing vaccinated to the non-vaccinated? So all that they have out there to “prove the safety of vaccines” is not at all based on actual facts or actual data that compares the two.

      • inicholson says:

        I have no idea or interest in what the CDC have or have not done. Fortunately US healthcare does not exist in a vacuum; other governments and health charities around the world are constantly researching medical treatments of all kinds.

        Here in the UK all vaccines (like all healthcare) is paid for by the government so treatments are constantly assessed for safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

        Every treatment carries a risk; where the risk of harm from the treatment is greater than the benefits of the treatment of the risk of harm from the disease vaccinated against then treatments are withdrawn. As diseases becomes rarer the possible side-effects of a vaccine are more worthy of consideration.

        I am aware of several studies looking at autism amongst the unvaccinated and those who were given the MMR vaccine; they showed no difference if rates of autism between the 2 groups. Is that the kind of study that you think doesn’t exist?

        • Charity Hedge says:

          Here in the USA, the CDC is the one that everyone (including Dr.s ) looks to and bases their info off of yet the CDC has not done what they needed to in order to back up their clams of safety. I reacted to vaccines and so did my daughter who was given several at a time, behind my back and against my will do to a divorce. My daughter was given one vaccine that she should have never received due to my family medical history. Just so you all know where I am coming from in questioning vaccines, there are reasons that you should not believe everything the government says about the “safety” of such things as the dangerous chemicals that are in vaccines and even our foods …and the list could go on and on…

          • inicholson says:

            A randomised vaccinated v. unvaccinated study is unlikely to ever happen because it would be unethical to leave children/patients unvaccinated. However, that’s what epidemiologists do for a living; look at data to compare different groups. There is plenty of evidence to show that the vaccines currently in use are safe, but you’ll choose not to believe it.

            Yes there are risks of side effects with vaccines, the point is that vaccines are licensed and used where the risk of harm from the vaccine is significantly less than the risk of harm from the disease. For every tale of adverse reactions to vaccines there are several tales of damage or death caused by the disease being vaccinated against.

            Did your daughter suffer any long term harm from the vaccine she reacted to?

            I know one family whose oldest son reacted badly to a vaccine. There other children were vaccinated under controlled conditions – one vaccine at a time and waiting in the doctor’s surgery rather than leaving immediately after. But none reacted. We still need more research on why some people react to some vaccines, but that’s no different from any other medicine where some individuals are more sensitive (hence medicine doses have to be set very low – most cough medicines are pretty useless because the dosage is set low enough to prevent harm to a small number of hypersensitive individuals for whom they suppress the cough reflex so strongly that there is a risk of choking).

            While I understand your fear of vaccines if you have seen/experienced an adverse reaction to one, your response is no more logical than a person who is allergic to penicillin (like my sister in law) campaigning against antibiotics.

          • Charity Hedge says:

            I would have to disagree with your statement about my response being no more logical then someone who is campaigning against antibiotics…because antibiotics are not forced on people and vaccines are -they are trying to make it so no one has a choice to get or refuse vaccinations but that all will be vaccinated. Antibiotics aren’t really all that great for us either, although they have there place, they are used way to often and end up weakening our immune system responses. But like I said: Antibiotics aren’t being forced on us, we still have the right to refuse taking them.

          • inicholson says:

            “antibiotics are not forced on people and vaccines are..” – your argument is with the US Dept of Health not with vaccines; vaccines are not forced on me or my children because I do not live in the US. They are, however, offered to me for free based on evidence that they are safe and effective (data is constantly analysed by epidemiologists to ensure that vaccines are only offered where the risk of harm from the disease is significantly greater than the risk of harm from the vaccine). Who wouldn’t want that? There my be a principle at stake – that you have a right to refuse vaccines – but if a parent refuses to give a child a safe and effective vaccine and the child is then damaged by the disease, is that a fit parent?

            “Antibiotics aren’t really all that great for us either… and end up weakening our immune system responses” – I would be interested to see some evidence that antibiotics weaken our immune systems. Antibiotics are certainly overused all around the world (usually because patients demand them) which can lead to resistant pathogens, but that’s not a weakening of anybody’s immune system.

          • bean420 says:

            You assume that the vaccine is safe, and that’s not always true. So your generalization about what makes a fit parent is just an opinion based on that assumption. The CDC and plenty of other health orgs are the same people getting paid to sell those drugs. Fact. Assume whatever stance you think I may have on this topic, but you’re not doing your side any favors here…

          • inicholson says:

            I don’t assume anything; I rely on evidence from epidemiology to tell me that the risk of harm from the disease is greater than the risk of harm from the vaccine.

            If you have evidence to show that the risk of harm from any particular vaccine is greater than the risk from that disease I would be interested to see it.

          • sabelmouse says:

            there are enough unvaccinated for that study.

          • inicholson says:

            If you mean there are enough unvaccinated to compare their health to vaccinated – yes there are. If that’s the trial you want then it has been done. Repeatedly. In many different countries. That’s epidemiology and it tells us that vaccines are both safe and effective.

            What the CDC have not done (nor has anyone else) is a randomised, double-blind, controlled study. Are suggesting that the parents of unvaccinated children would be willing to take part in such a study? That would involve their children being given an injection which might be a vaccine, or might be salt-water. They would never be told which it was. Their health would be followed for the next to see if the vaccine protected them or had any negative effects on their health. I cannot imagine why anyone would agree to their child taking part in such a study (why not just get them vaccinated instead of mucking about with a 50:50 chance of having been vaccinated?) nor can I imagine an ethics committee anywhere in the world approving any such study.

            :Luckily for us studies comparing the health of vaccinated individuals and unvaccinated individuals have been done for many different vaccines. They’re safe and they work. We’ll continue to develop new ones which will only replace the old ones if we know they’re safer and/or more effective.

          • inicholson says:

            All chemicals are dangerous and everything is a chemical. Water has a LD50 (a dose which would be lethal for 50% of the population) of 90g/kg. So if you weigh 1kg and drink 90g of water you have a 50% chance of surviving. If you never drink any water you won’t survive.

            Safety is about reducing risk – the only medical treatment which is 100% safe is homeopathy, because it contains no active ingredients at all (except sugar and water!). It also has no benefits whatsoever. Everything else carries a small risk (and I include all complementary therapies in that). The question we have to ask is; does the benefit outweigh the risk of harm.

            In the case of vaccines, like all medicines, the benefits and risk or harm have been studied and it has been shown that the benefits are great and the risk of harm small. Where this is not the case vaccines and medicines either do not get a license or are withdrawn when new evidence becomes available. Paranoia about “dangerous chemicals” (presumably you are referring to such things as the tiny dose of mercury compounds present in flu vaccines?) is not helpful.

            Of course if you have an allergy to one of the ingredients in a vaccine that’s a different matter. Then “dangerous chemicals” such as eggs mean that some vaccines may not be suitable for you. In which case you rely on herd immunity – and the evidence shows this works less well in densely populated areas (as any high school biology student should know).

  5. Mike Stevens says:

    There are several factors involved in sporadic outbreaks of infectious diseases like measles.
    1. Requirement for an infectious index case.
    2. Sufficient opportunity for the case to expose others to the infection.
    3. The degree to which those individuals are susceptible to the infection, ie their immunity to the infection (measles in this case)
    4. Further opportunity for new cases to generate ongoing opportunity for further exposures and infections (ie go back to #2)

    Now if an infectious case (#1) doesn’t move into a susceptible population, no outbreak will occur. You could in theory have a city full of 100% unvaccinated people and they would never become infected as long as someone with measles never entered the city.
    For #2 there needs to be sufficient contact (time and opportunity) between the index case and other susceptibles. In any population there will be pockets of higher/lower susceptibility, different geographic and demographic factors come into play. If the only people the index case comes into contact with are a handful of immune individuals, infection will not become established.

    This is why some areas with apparently lower vax rates (or higher exemption rates) may escape outbreaks, at least initially. However, over time, the likelihood of exposure and spread will increase, and at some time in the future an outbreak will occur.

  6. Jon Yuhasz says:

    http://www.slideshare.net/db61/exposing-the-myth-of-vaccination-essential-information-you-need-to-know-to-be-fully-informed-30978670

    Pertussis Safety Study – “The number of children included in DTaP trials were insufficient to estimate the risk to severe reaction.”
    In other words all of our children and ourselves are guinea pigs for this vaccine.
    Reference: CDC: Epidemiology and Prevention. The Pink Book, 6th edition, Chapter 6: Pertussis pg. 79

    Pertussis Infection in Fully Vaccinated Children in Day Care Centers (2000)

    Many health professionals are adamant that vaccines protect against infection.
    Evidence from a field investigation in Israel challenges this belief. In 2000, a child died suspected of having pertussis. The baby received the first dose of DTP at two months of age – all family members were completely vaccinated with four doses of DTP. The day care centers that two siblings had attended during the child’s illness were investigated. All the children in the day care had been vaccinated in infancy with four doses of diphtheria-tetanus toxoid pertussis (DTP) vaccine, and a booster dose at 12 months of age. Five fully vaccinated children were found to be colonized with Bordetella pertussis.
    Conclusion: “Vaccinated adolescents and adults may serve as reservoirs for silent infection and become potential transmitters to unprotected infants. The whole-cell vaccine for pertussis is protective only against clinical disease, not against infection. Therefore, even young, recently vaccinated children may serve as reservoirs and potential transmitters of infection.” They re-emphasized again, “Our results indicate that children ages 5-6 years and possibly younger, ages 2-3 years, play a role as silent reservoirs in the transmission of pertussis in the community.”
    Vaccine coverage in daycare: 100%
    Reference: http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/6/5/00-0512_article.htm

    From 1997-2000 there were 79 pertussis deaths mostly in Hispanics in Southwest who live in close quarters with many populations in small quarters, poor and did not have a nutritional diet. By comparison there were a total of 57 deaths in 1998 reported to VAERS from Pertussis Vaccination (DTaP) and “only 1% of serious
    adverse reactions are actually reported to VAERS” estimated by Dr. David Kessler. so the real figure to deaths due to the DTaP shot could be at least 570 or more for one year.
    Reference: Kessler, David JAMA June 2, 1993 vol. 269; No. 22, p. 27-35
    Reference: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Safety/MedWatch/UCM201419.pdf

  7. Jon Yuhasz says:

    http://www.slideshare.net/db61/exposing-the-myth-of-vaccination-essential-information-you-need-to-know-to-be-fully-informed-30978670

    Mumps outbreak in 2009
    97% of vaccinated Jewish children between the ages of 13-17. 89% were vaccinated twice and 9% were vaccinated once.

    Conclusions from the study: “The epidemiologic features of this outbreak suggest that intense exposures, particularly among boys in schools, facilitated transmission and overcame vaccine-induced protection in these patients. High rates of two-dose
    coverage reduced the severity of the disease and the transmission to persons in
    settings of less intense exposure.” Another perfect example of how a play with words ignore the fact that little to no protection was provided by the vaccine and was explained away. This is as ridiculous as it gets. Why do we get vaccines if there is a so called “intense exposure” that will overcome the so called protection of a
    vaccine and what is an intense exposure?
    Reference: Albert E. Barskey, M.P.H., Cynthia Schulte, R.N., B.S.N., Jennifer B. Rosen, M.D., Elizabeth F. Handschur, M.P.H., Elizabeth Rausch-Phung, M.D., M.P.H., Margaret K. Doll, M.P.H., Kisha P. Cummings, M.P.H., E. Oscar Alleyne, Dr.P.H., Patricia High, M.H.S., Jacqueline Lawler, M.P.H., Andria Apostolou, Ph.D., M.P.H., Debra Blog, M.D., M.P.H., Christopher M. Zimmerman, M.D., M.P.H., Barbara Montana, M.D., M.P.H., Rafael Harpaz, M.D., Carole J. Hickman, Ph.D., Paul A. Rota, Ph.D., Jennifer S. Rota, M.P.H., William J. Bellini, Ph.D., and Kathleen M. Gallagher, D.Sc., M.P.H. N Engl J Med 2012; 367:1704-1713November 1, 2012DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1202865

    Examples of an outbreak in Mumps in Europe. Rural Mumps outbreak
    with 95% of the population vaccinated. A study comparing non vaccinated children with the Rubini mumps strain used in the vaccine showed NO detectable benefit. Three mumps vaccines-Rubini, Jeryl-Lynn and Urabe (the one withdrawn because it caused encephalitis) all produced excellent antibody levels but those vaccinated with the Rubini strain had the same attack rate as those not vaccinated at all, there were some who said that it actually caused outbreaks.
    Reference: BMJ 1999; 319:352 (7 August) Comparative efficacy of three mumps vaccines during disease outbreak in Eastern Switzerland: cohort study

  8. Jon Yuhasz says:

    http://www.slideshare.net/db61/exposing-the-myth-of-vaccination-essential-information-you-need-to-know-to-be-fully-informed-30978670

    Measles Outbreak in a Fully Immunized Secondary-School Population (1985)
    In 1985, an outbreak of measles occurred in a secondary school located in Corpus Christi, Texas. More than 99% had records of vaccination with live measles vaccine. The investigators concluded “that outbreaks of measles can occur in secondary schools, even when more than 99 percent of the students have been vaccinated and more than 95 percent are immune.”
    Vaccine coverage for school: 99%.
    Reference: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM198703263161303
    Reference: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00000359.htm

    An Outbreak of Chickenpox in Elementary School Children with Two-Dose Varicella
    Vaccine Recipients (2006) Have you ever noticed the answer to failed vaccination is more vaccination? In June 2006, a second dose of the chickenpox (varicella) vaccine was recommended for school entry. Shortly after school had begun, the Arkansas Department of Health was notified of a varicella outbreak in students.
    Vaccination information was available for 871 (99%) of the 880 children. Ninety-seven percent of the children had beenvaccinated for varicella! In this outbreak, 84 cases were reported.

    Vaccine coverage: 97%.
    Reference: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19593254
    Reference: http://www.nvic.org/downloads/49-doses-posterb.aspx

  9. Mike Stevens says:

    There are clearly some here who cannot comprehend why in some outbreaks of infectious diseases, you may see more vaccinated kids than unvaccinated kids who come down with infection.

    The answer is of course that no vaccine is 100% effective, most being between 90-99% effective at preventing infection. And in most populations the numbers of vaccinated people can greatly outnumber the small number of the unvaccinated.

    When an infection comes into town, it will affect both the vulnerable unvaccinated and the vulnerable vaccinated (in whom vaccine did not work). And because there are more of the latter, it appears as though the vaccine “doesn’t work”.

    Here is an example, using a highly infectious disease like measles, say.
    Take a population of 1000 people, of whom 98% were vaccinated. That leaves 20 unvaccinated people, all of whom would catch measles if exposed.
    But if vaccine is only 95% effective, then there are also 49 people in whom vaccine did not work, and they would get measles too. So over twice as many vaccinated catch measles! So vaccine is useless, no?

    Well, no, obviously. Looking at attack rates, 100% of the unvaccinated get measles, compared to only 5% of the vaccinated. (ie the unvaccinated kids are 20 times more susceptible to measles than the vaccinated)

    I know which group I want my kids to be in, thanks very much.

      • Mike Stevens says:

        Good. Welcome to rational reality.

        • sabelmouse says:

          surely you understand that we don’t mean the same group? :)

          • Mike Stevens says:

            Oh yes, I do.
            I never suspected you were rational, or that you could understand risk and probability.
            Sarcasm doesn’t translate well on the net.

          • sabelmouse says:

            i see! who doesn’t agree with you is irrational. a bit self centered, don’t you think?
            btw. i don’t think you understand the meaning of the word rational. it refers to a mode of information processing, not to a particular outcome of opinion.

          • Mike Stevens says:

            Those who don’t agree with overwhelming scientific evidence are irrational.

          • sabelmouse says:

            you are making me laugh. i so enjoy our banter.

          • Gregory Miller says:

            I’m pretty sure he does know that. Your irrational when you think you are as qualified as all of this scientists who actually work in the field and overwhelmingly affirm the science of vaccinations and think you know as much because your qualifications are that you own a computer and have internet. That is the pinnacle of self centered and arrogant

          • sabelmouse says:

            i don’t know what scientists affirm, really, as i’m sure that anything negative regarding vaccination has a hard time seeing the light of day.
            remember tobacco?

          • Gregory Miller says:

            Yes, I do. And after different congressman obstructing action against the tobacco industry, the Surgeon General (an office of the government) started requiring warnings on tobacco products after 7,000 reports were published by scientists, nearly all confirming each others findings. No conspiracy theory, no hidden information by the CDC, nada.

          • sabelmouse says:

            and how long did that take?

    • LauraCondon says:

      “most being between 90-99% effective at preventing infection”
      Two points:
      1. Vaccines do NOT prevent infection. They may (or may not) prevent symptoms of infection.
      2. 90% of the population will naturally have no symptoms to polio infection (per CDC) So the vaccine does nothing to increase natural immunity. All risk and no benefit.

      • Mike Stevens says:

        Are you being serious?
        Of course vaccines prevent infection.

        “All risk and no benefit”???
        I think you are attempting to say that because polio paralysis only afflicts 10% of those infected with the virus, then 90% of our kids will have undergone “unnecessary” vaccination.
        In a sense that is true. But….How do you know in advance which 10%?
        You don’t obviously.

        Seriously, would you honestly leave your kids unvaccinated against polio if they lived in Northern Nigeria?
        If communities fail to vaccinate their kids against polio, then an epidemic is only a plane ride away.

      • Gregory Miller says:

        This is a perfect example of someone who is not qualified in an area misinterpreting what is written. Thank you for a great example.

  10. Gregory Miller says:

    Actually, you are completely wrong. It is a bonafide category in vaccine science and is often referenced. Your cherry picking what you think is a weak comment doesn’t diminish the veracity of it.

  11. Gregory Miller says:

    You aren’t really making a point here. Humans, science and vaccines aren’t perfect. When it is discovered, corrections are made. You might be struggling with the fact that scientists aren’t dogmatically married to a particular point of view and are happy to make course corrections when indicated.

    • kelly says:

      Oh “aren’t perfect”. In other words, they are ineffective.

      • Gregory Miller says:

        No, not “in other words”! Not being 100% perfect is not even similar to not effective. Especially sine they are in fact anywhere between 80 to 97% effective, depending on the vaccine

        • kelly says:

          @Gregory Miller , define “80 to 97% effective”?

          • Tim Horita says:

            97% percent of those exposed to the pathogen do not acquire the disease. Simple.

          • Kevin Watson says:

            Then why are they worried about catching it? It should make no difference at all if the vaccines actually work.

          • Tim Horita says:

            Are you really this dense? If a vaccine is only 97% effective it should then be abandoned? Do you wear seatbelts? They don’t guarantee you will survive a car accident- why bother. This is how simple (and wrong) your logic is, kid…

        • David Uhas says:

          Gregory Miller The definition for effectiveness is that the body
          produces an antibody in response to the foreign invader which is not
          immunity. This is termed research efficacy. Clinical efficacy is the
          proof that vaccines prevent disease and this is never done. You speak
          with immense generalities and no specifics, details or valid research
          only parroting what you have heard or learned, You have a brain, so use
          it for good and not to promote the deadly ineffective vaccines

          • Gregory Miller says:

            I will use my brain to understand that your sense of superiority and arrogance won’t doesn’t allow you to understand that the vet, very vast majority or doctors, epidemiologists and the medical community does understand that vaccines work and you have neither greater knowledge or education than they do. That is probably a better use of my brain.

          • Raf says:

            Yes, they do. They have to prove efficacy and safety according to the regulation before they can release the vaccines in public. Example is swine flu vaccine – they use ferrets as a model, which is the closest they can get to a human model without using primates. They immunize the ferrets, they have proper controls, and then they infect them with the virus. They compare the clinical symptoms, survival, they rate the progression and severity of the disease compared to the control group. They also do lot of testing to make sure it’s safe to release it for general public use.

            It is similar with lot of other drugs that are released. You first go in simple system like cell culture in vitro, move on to animal models, then if that works they go to Phase I, Phase II and Phase III clinical trials in humans.

            You know how antibodies work, right? Being able to type on a public forum and insulting someone else’s intelligence (Gregory’s) doesn’t necessarily mean that you’ve got the brains either.

            “Deadly” vaccines? Just do a research on the mortality rate caused by vaccines and compare that to the mortality rate of the virus if you don’t get vaccinated. You know that 2-3 million children still DIE every year just because they don’t have access to vaccines? Just google mortality rate of viruses, go to wikipedia (it’s nice and simple website FYI) and just scroll down through the list. See what’s the % of deaths if the disease is untreated.

          • Gregory Miller says:

            Thanks for picking this up. I am trying to ween myself from responding to trolls and conspiracy theorists. They take too much energy.

          • Louise_Chanary says:

            What I don’t get is that you would rather expose children to diseases of which they will certainly suffer and a certain percentage will die, than give them a vaccine that could prevent that. How is it that not knowing whether the vaccine helps of not (we do know, but ok….let’s go with what you say for the moment) can be an argument against using it, if you do know that when you don’t use it children will certainly suffer and die.

            You choose certain suffering and death over uncertain success in preventing suffering and dying. That is very strange.

          • KrisTal_K says:

            Prove it! Prove that the vaccines work. Prove that they in themselves do not cause harm. Its very simple: MMR is an attenuated (weakened) live
            virus vaccine

            when you get the vaccines
            (NOT immunizations) you have now become a walking petri dish. You are
            contagious.

          • Louise_Chanary says:

            Like I said: “… than give them a vaccine that could prevent that. How is it that not
            knowing whether the vaccine helps or not (we do know, but ok….let’s go
            with what you say for the moment)…”
            I argue from the assumption that the vaccines may not work.

            The vaccines expose people to a typeof the virus that is not harmful, but that tells the body to make antibodies that can be used against the real, harmful disease.
            So no, you are not contageous when you are vaccinated.
            As for a walking petri dish: I’d rather be a walking petri dish for a vaccine than for the real disease.

          • Kevin Watson says:

            If it’s really a disease, it IS the vaccine. Partially dead germs are still alive and can EASILY be an infection source.

          • Gregory Miller says:

            Which shows how much YOU know about vaccines. Learn what attenuated is

          • Louise_Chanary says:

            ‘Partially dead germs’…? Really?

          • Gregory Miller says:

            Nope, you are not. And this has already been proved over and over again throughout the past 100 years of medical history. if the overwhelming success of vaccinations isn’t enough to convince you, how the heck would anyone here? You clearly are ignoring all of the medical information available to the average person.

          • Tim Horita says:

            Prove it. Show me a double blind, controlled, longitudinal study that MMR makes you contagious and spreads ANY of the disease it’s given for. You made the ignorant statement- you back it up with science. I’m confident you can’t.

          • keir watson says:

            Dear Louise,

            You are not comparing equivalent situations.

            If you have the vaccine you are gaining an uncertain benefit at the cost of an uncertain risk.

            However, If you do not have the vaccine you only run the risk of the disease IF you get the disease.

            If, say, 90% of a population take the vaccine they have ALL exposed themselves to the risk.

            The 10% who do not take the vaccine only have any risk IF they get the disease at some point. With cases of vaccine treatable diseases in the USA measured in only hundreds per year, very few of those unvaccinated 10% will even be exposed to it.

            – – –

            The best strategy to adopt, from a Darwinian perspective, is to encourage everyone else to vaccinate their children, but not to vaccinate your own. Not ethical, but then evolution doesn’t care about ethics.

          • Gregory Miller says:

            No you are not gaining an uncertain benefit. Their is a mathematical number associated with that and it ranges between 75% and 97% depending on the vaccine. for example, you are between those ranges of not getting measles with the vaccine and only a 1:1,000,000 chance of complications whereas you stand a 90% chance of getting measles and a 1:1,000 chance of serious illness or death. That is not insignificant.

            Your strategy is idiotic too. If your suggestion took root then we would drop below that 95% range needed for herd immunity and you or yours would run a greater chance of getting it. I guess that is the Darwinism you don’t want; the stupid die off.

          • keir watson says:

            Gregory, You are missing the point again (deliberate misdirection?)

            The point is that you cannot directly compare the (small) risk of vaccine damage with the (larger) risk of harm from the disease, without accounting for the following:

            Everyone (100%) who is vaccinated is exposed to the vaccine risk, but only a small percent of the unvaccinated (5% ?) will ever get the disease.

            Because the vast majority of the unvaccinated never get the disease they are not exposed to the complications/death associated with the disease.

          • Gregory Miller says:

            I am not sure what your point is. Because what you wrote earlier is so broad and oversimplified without any basis in fact. And your numbers are not correct in this response. You are inventing them. The fact is that a very small minority of people are exposed to vaccine risk because the very, very vast majority will not react to them and many who might are screened out before they receive the vaccines. So they are not 100% at risk statistically to having a reaction if the number of people who react to a vaccine is something on the order of under 1%. In contrast, You have a 95% of contracting measles if you are are exposed to it. If more people shared your attitude then a lot more people would be at risk. Literally MILLIONS of people are vaccinated annually and they suffer no ill side effects. Your less than optimal understanding of statistics doesnt serve you well. Your position is substantial over simplified and your statistics are deliberately skewed just so you can win the argument. But your attitude puts people at risk who might listen to you.

          • Tim Horita says:

            When people stop vaccinating against an infectious disease- the disease returns. You seem unable to grasp this very simple concept in public health. Measles and pertussis are recent examples of this (due to ignorant anti-vaxxers such as yourself)

          • George says:

            Where is typhus then Tim Hordita?

          • Gregory Miller says:

            Southeast Asia as well as other parts of the developing world. It also starting showing up in Germany a few years back.

          • Timbo says:

            Son, we don’t vaccinate for typhoid or typhus in the US. Were you trying to make a point, or are you just more background noise?

          • keir watson says:

            I’m not arguing for lower vaccination rates. Where have I done that? I am saying that when you get to about 90%+ vaccine coverage, the disease rates fall so low (as they now are in the US and EU) that the stats in favour of vaccination start to look less clear cut. This might explain why statistical arguments fail to increase vaccine uptake beyond a certain point.

            I am saying that the statistical arguments peddled by the anti-anti-vaccers on this site are flawed, so anyone who can follow basic probability calculations will spot the argument is flawed. It shows a basic misunderstanding. Defending it hardly does your case any good does it?*

            Also, the extreme polarised position (pro/anti-vaccine) of many of the debaters is unhelpful. It leads to reactionary and hostile mud slinging – as is evident in many of the comments. Is it not possible to discuss the actual points courteously and intelligently?

            * similar stats used to appear on the NHS website in the UK, as part of their reasons for having the MMR but following** a complaint by me to the authorities they were removed. Why do you think they removed them?

            ** ‘following’ as chronological sequence; I’m not claiming causation here!

          • keir watson says:

            oh wow! I’ve only just noticed that you are claiming that non vaccinated individuals have a 90% chance of catching measles – rubbish!

            There are only a few hundred cases of measles in the USA each year, so over a lifetime only tens of thousands. That gives a lifetime chance of getting measles for an unvaccinated person of 0.1%. Not 90% – LOL!

          • Gregory Miller says:

            I love the English. Your built in sense of superiority and dedication to the language gives you no upper hand on comprehension apparently.

            If you are exposed to the measles virus, you have a 90+ percent chance of infection. That is extremely high and is currently the concern at exactly this time in California where over 100 people have contracted measles in Disneyland in the past few weeks. Your lies and obfuscations about your chance of encounter are spurious and irresponsible. And if you had a medical license whilst giving out that kind of advice, might lead you to have it suspended or revoked, much like Andrew Wakefield. You are not a statistician and you are not a doctor or a public health official. As I’ve said before, you are not just suggesting you know better than me. That, in and of itself, would not have me outraged. But you are claiming that you know better than all of the public health care organizations of the entire industrialized world, the entire medical community and the entire scientific community. You and your special lot have the information and everyone else is mistaken. Your sense of superiority and arrogance are astounding to me. And of course, isn’t it convenient that you also have some snake oil to peddle.

          • keir watson says:

            I can overlook the personal attacks. It’s to be expected from a cornered animal.

            Ok, I accept you meant 90% chance of infection IF EXPOSED to measles, but that isn’t what you said. Play fair.

            My point still stands: your stats give an over-inflated impression that suits your storyline.

            The truth will be that the risk of not vaccinating is lower than you are implying, possibly still in favour of vaccinating, but not by as huge a margin as you suggest.

            Enjoy your mission – I’m not sure what it is, but you are clearly passionate and like spending time writing on this forum. I trust your practice continues to serve your clients well.

          • Gregory Miller says:

            Oh really? Our entire interaction started off some time ago with your pithy nasty personal attacks, which in your smarmy way you tried to congratulate yourself for having such impeccable manners while being quite the opposite. I guess you must have been a cornered animal first then by your logic. Or perhaps you are simply projecting.
            The fact of the matter is that there is virtually no downside of risk for the vaccines and the science is nearly 100 years old with countless reviews, studies and watchdogs for safety all along. These are all governmental, industry or academic. The entire job of an epidemiologist is to crunch these statistical numbers. They have spent many, many years becoming educated so that they do it well. You would have one believe that your oversimplified narrative of the statistical probabilities is more trustworthy and accurate than theirs. Educated people in any field should find that assertion outlandish. And that is my ultimate point. People such as you are helping these very preventable diseases to make a resurgence because of what you want to pass off as legitimate science. It is not. Again, I will trust those who are actually qualified in that field. I am not. But I am also quite certain that you are not either.

          • keir watson says:

            “Our entire interaction started off some time ago with your pithy nasty personal attacks”

            Not true. If you go back and have a look at the first couple of replies I posted to your comments you will see that they contained no personal attacks, only polite challenges to some of your points. You will also see that the tone of your initial responses to me were rude, abrasive and dismissive. I therefore replied that I would never be so rude, whilst at the same time ‘giving as good as I got’ – in the UK we call that irony.

            My exasperation with you was that you kept failing to address the substance of my comments, e.g. in one of my comments, I gave the example of the potential vCJD contamination of measles vaccines in the UK that was kept secret from the public. This is an historical fact. It challenges your basic position that we should unquestioningly accept the ‘authorities’ on these matters, as we are “not clever enough to understand the issues”. You still have not addressed that point.

            Similarly, you still do not seem to understand the basic maths of risk comparison (probability). I am not pointing it out because I think your statistics are wrong – I don’t claim to have a reliable source of those stats, and am happy to accept yours for the purpose of argument. It is the way you are using them that I object to.

            The relevant probability tree for this argument is like this:

            1. Vaccinated + never get measles

            2. Vaccinated + get measles

            3. Unvaccinated + never get measles

            4. Unvaccinated + get measles

            Your encephalitis stat of ‘only 1 in a million for vaccinated’ covers groups 1 and 2; Whereas your stats for measles causing encephalitis of 1 in 1000 only applies to group 4 above.

            You have not taken account of group 3 – by far the largest group among the unvaccinated. It is possible to calculate the combined risk of the whole unvaccinated group (group 3+4) if we know what the proportion of the unvaccinated fall in each sub group (3 v 4). So, if for example, only one in ten unvaccinated children ever get measles in a lifetime then the true risk of encephalitis is not 1 in 1000, but 1 in 10,000. I am not aware of the data, but I can do a back-of-the-envelope calculation based on current measles prevalence in the US or UK and extrapolate. Whatever it is, the risk is lower than you say.
            Because this is just basic maths, anyone reading your comments will see that you don’t get it, and it undermines your credibility.

            In the end you may still be right (probably are) that encephalitis is more likely in unvaccinated v vaccinated, but the implication of your stats it is 1000 times more likely and this is simply false.
            The NHS in England made the same mistake on their website a few years ago (it’s easily done), and following a complaint I made to them, the statistics have been removed.

          • keir watson says:

            Also,

            Your argument that the risk/benefit of vaccines is ‘settled science’ is naïve because it suggests there is no controversy among leading scientists or their peer-reviewed papers.

            Granted the debate is not as ludicrous as the anti-vaccers and conspiracy theorists’, but neither is it as settled, clear cut or unambiguous (and frankly, boring) as you imply.

            Your position would be far more tenable, and your arguments more compelling, if you could grasp these uncertainties and not sweep them under the carpet. To do so would not make you an anti-vaccer (the debate is only as polarised as you want it to be), but it would make your position more respectable.

            Examples of the kinds of uncertainty currently being discussed in the peer reviewed literature:

            Cochrane review, 2012: Vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella in children.

            In this paper the team lists the risk (over and above unvaccinated) caused by the shot, which includes increased risk of aseptic meningitis, febrile seizures, and thrombocytopenic purpura, but found no probable increased risk of autism, asthma, leukaemia, hay fever, type 1 diabetes, gait disturbance, Crohn’s disease, demyelinating diseases, bacterial or viral infections.

            They conclude:

            “The design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both pre- and post-marketing, are largely inadequate. The evidence of adverse events following immunisation with the MMR vaccine cannot be separated from its role in preventing the target diseases.”

            i.e. safety outcomes (risks) of MMR are not well known, but must be viewed in the context of disease prevention (benefits) of MMR.

            Another paper, Vaccination in elite athletes, Gartner and Meyer, 2014, looks at which vaccinations “benefit/risk” for elite athletes, coming down in favour of some vaccines, but not others – i.e. they recommend tetanus, diphtheria, pertussis, influenza, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, measles, mumps and varicella; provisionally they were against pneumococci and Haemophilus influenzae type b, Rubella and papillomavirus; And clearly against cholera,
            rabies, herpes zoster, and Bacille Calmette-Guérin (BCG).

            i.e. some vaccines carry more risk than benefit. The risk/benefit ratio (and hence recommendations) may vary among some population sub-groups.

            Another interesting piece of research is Waning of maternal antibodies against measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella in communities with contrasting vaccination coverage. Waaigenborg et al, 2013. They found that compared to an unvaccinated population, the vaccinated majority had a higher susceptibility to measles before age 1 (the very age when measles is most likely to cause harm). The editorial commentary in the Journal of Infectious Diseases ascribes this increased vulnerability, paradoxically, to the effectiveness of widespread measles vaccination.
            Just to be clear – I am not citing these studies as if they are anti-vac, or as if they overturn the consensus position on vaccines, rather to point out that the science is more nuanced (and interesting) than the emphatic, polarised and confrontational position you seem to adopt.

            I could go on, but I won’t as I feel you are likely to dismiss me out of hand anyway. After all, who am I to read and interpret the academic literature? Still, if anyone can be bothered to read our dialogue they can make up their own mind can’t they?

          • Gregory Miller says:

            You may recall that I took Exception with someone referring to the vaccine ingredients as “funny stuff” and suggesting they would rather have the measles than “fight off” the “funny stuff”. You thought I should be more sympathetic to that notion and attempted to mislead by listing the ingredients as though there was some validity to that argument. I counted back and suggested that you are not a scientist. Had you been a scientist you would have been accurate in your response and pointed out that most of those ingredients are either inert, too small a quantity to be “toxic”, or are safer for the vast majority of people. So by our own admission, by challenging your qualifications to understand that information amount dot a personal attack. In response you decided to attack my decision to have tattoos, spoke as to how you usually dismiss anyone with tattoos as having a low IQ and then you decided to attack my typo. I challenged your lack of credentials in this area and your response was to try take irrelevant, below the belt shots. You thought this was rude and abrasive. I thought it was direct, calling a spade a spade. However, I will own that perhaps I came across as more aggressive than I am. I will own that I probably lumped you with the anti-vaccers in my mind and came at you strongly. I will apologize for that, certainly. Lesson learned for future passionate responses so thanks for pointing that out. However, I also feel that you decided to take it a step further and you were personal and condescending where I was aggressive. And then when we hadn’t interacted in months, you do it again with your pithy comment about how tattoos are growing out of fashion. When you decided to suggest I was a pharma shill, not only did I further lump you in with those anti-vacc people, but decided to respond in kind as well. I will admit to being a bit in your face, but you decided to descend to the school yard.

            as it relates to the vCJD conversation, I didn’t have a response to it because I didn’t have any knowledge about it. you were asking me to respond to something and using an example that was foreign to me. Having said that, since then I have done a lot of reading and I find nothing, other than anti-vacc sites, that suggests that anything was “hidden” from the public. According to all the reading I’ve done since then suggests that the risk of it is quite low and I haven’t been able to find anything (other than conspiracy theory sites) that cites anyone getting it from a vaccine.

            As it relates to your repeating your statistics and probabilities, I continue to take exception to those. I think they are inaccurate, oversimplified and misleading. Statistical modeling is simply not as simple as you would have everyone believe. While your “basic math”, as you call it, might appeal to those who have no education in statistical analysis, more informed people understand that the variables are greater. I am also not a statistician but I certainly was required to take statistics and required to calculate probabilities and your basic math and modeling don’t fit. For example, you absolutely don’t account for probability modeling if people should actually accept that you are right and more people stop taking the MMR. You don’t account for international travel, density of population, religious exemptions. So when you say “Because this is just basic maths, anyone reading your comments will see that you don’t get it, and it undermines your credibility”, what that means to me is that you are experiencing dunning-kruger effect as might others who accepts your modeling and finds it credible.

            You call me naive because I accept that the relevant disciplines of science and medicine have finished debating this and have concluded that the benefits of immunizations far outweigh the risks. You wrongly suggest that I think “that there is no controversy among leading scientists or their peer-reviewed papers.” I accept that a controversy exists. It’s widely publicized. It exists. But I think the controversy is the fact that the consensus is that vaccination benefits far outweigh the risks and a small minority of those people in said disciplines do not and they are treated as though they are more valid. To put it simply, I would want a doctor to treat me using treatments that is agreed by their profession to me more likely to work than the one or two doctors who think you should do something else.

            As far as the boringness of the discussion, that is something I can sink my teeth into; a broader discussion of the benefits,etc. I found your comments interesting about to moral conflict of not vaccinating because you know everyone else will. These are topics that I am interested in because we can all understand them. My biggest point is that one can discuss the pros and cons of an approach but when it comes to people thinking that they know more about a subject than the people who have spent years and years in an academic environment learning about it and then spend the rest of their lives trying to perfect it, the rest seem like armchair quarterbacks to me. I accept the fallibility of science and think it will improve. But it won’t happen because people like you and I might disagree with the very limited information we have before us, it will happen within those disciplines as they learn more and advance. That is, after all, how science works. the reason I found your initial comments about the “funny stuff” infuriating is I feel that you were validating something where someone had unspecified information about an unspecified risk and then she thought she knew better than the people who actually make that their life’s work. I find that validating that kind of thinking perpetuates ignorance. That individual has been reinforced to not use critical thinking skills and to engage in conspiracy theorizing.
            I understand and accept that science is in fact nuanced and less absolute. I completely accept that. Which is why if I were to be damaged at some point by a medical treatment, vaccine or otherwise, I would probably not purse legal avenues unless someone behaved recklessly. Because science isn’t exact. I think we agree more than we disagree on that. The difference is, perhaps or perhaps not, I don’t think you can educate yourself to the level of a scientist or doctor by reading papers on the internet. It is important to have the educational background to be able to interpret the information and apply it to the world. That is what universities are for, after all. In my field as an executive, I have to be able to know what I know and know what I don’t know. I have to rely on experts all the time. That is the interdisciplinary approach. Having that experience allows me to know where I am the expert and where others are the expert. I have no problem with asking tough questions and don’t follow blindly. But I also understand the limits of my knowledge and lack of background to other disciplines.
            I appreciate your thoughtful response and the time you took to put it forward and look forward to reading the citations you sent me when I have more time.

          • Kevin Watson says:

            Ah you recognize the Troll for what he is…. good for you.

          • Tim Horita says:

            There is NO controversy among scientists with regard to the safety and efficacy of the measles vaccine. There hasn’t been for a long time. Feel free to cite any recent JAMA, New England Journal of Medicine, American Family Medicine, or Pediatrics article that indicates any disagreement on this. We’ll wait…

          • keir watson says:

            I gave several citations above. e.g. Cochrane review, 2012: “Vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella in children.” – they concluded that “The design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both pre- and post-marketing, are largely inadequate.”

            Are you saying that this conclusion indicates that the risks of MMR are “unambiguous” and “settled science”? Surely, it means more surveillance and studies of the risks needs to be done.

            Granted, I think it is unlikely that there will be any large-scale-side effects to discover, as they would have shown up by now. One of the problems with side effects is that they are often variable, unpredictable and individual. It is difficult to know what to look for, or to reach the statistical power necessary to detect low levels of multiple effects.

            Contrary to what many commenters on this site believe, at this level anecdotes become significant. These appear in the surveillance programmes as case reports and yellow card (UK) adverse events reporting – they are taken seriously, informing research.

            Working at this level, the unrecorded anecdotes from parents become significant, yet many anti-anti-vaccers dismiss them as worthless unless they were ratified by the reporting system. Yet it is those very reporting systems that the Cochrane review calls “inadequate”.

            I call this a controversy. If you don’t that’s up to you.

          • Gregory Miller says:

            Except that is the outcome of a study and the opinion of the scientists who conducted it. Study outcomes often ask questions and speculate. Then you have a review and others will try to duplicate the results. I wouldn’t call that a controversy, per se. It seems that a controversy is when you have split opinions, not research that brings new information or speculation that may ultimately improved the safety of the vaccines or provide more information. It seems to me the semantics matter and controversy suggests that this issue is more polarized in the scientific community than it really is.

          • Tim Horita says:

            It is indeed >90% if you’re exposed- it’s well documented. Measles is one of the most contagious viruses known to mankind. It’s 0% if you’re not exposed. Did you have a point?

          • keir watson says:

            Yes Tim. The point is obvious if you read the preceding comment stream.

            I’m happy to accept a 100% infection rate if you like. It doesn’t change the point I was making. Which is…(sigh)

            The lifetime chance of getting measles, based on the last 5 years measles numbers in the UK is 0.1%

            Of course this can change. If vaccination rates fall and the number of annual cases increase, then the risk for non vac kids will increase. However, if you wish to understand why some people choose not to vaccinate it is because currently, 999 out of 1000 will never get measles. So the small risk of vaccination appears (rightly or wrongly) to be avoidable.

          • George says:

            And I have just posted some evidence that the risks of vaccination are very under-reported, according to scientists doing and logging such reports. See my post of a few minutes ago with a link to an article in The Telegraph, with quotes from two of these scientists.

          • Tim Horita says:

            The people who are against vaccination are relying on them not being exposed to the disease (which is ignorant and self-absorbed) and they’re hiding behind the VACCINE PROGRAM that has been quite successful until idiots stopped vaccinating their kids. Now archaic diseases like measles are returning with alarmingly increasing rates. In essence people who are not vaccinating are hoping that the vaccine program (which they vilify) will protect them.

          • MICHSTORIES says:

            Dear Mr. Miller. I was not going to respond to any comments but I feel I need to say something. You obviously are enjoying yourself here and have many great bits of advice for everyone; but, could you please respond to folks in a kinder manner and be considerate when expressing your thoughts. These comments should be to help readers understand matters at hand, not a place to be unkind, to judge a person or be critical with words – this gets nowhere and can make people upset. Maybe I am wrong and should not interfere, is this what folks want – to bash one another instead of having a normal conversation? I am searching for facts regarding the measles issue at hand.

          • Gregory Miller says:

            Thank you for your comments. This particular person has been particularly antagonistic toward me for many, many months. She started her interactions with me starting with nasty comments about the way I look and it descended from there. from my point of view, I stay civil so long as the respondents do. But if I start getting called names, if I start being accused of moral degradation because of trying to provide information or refuting junk science, if someone decides that I have a privat agenda (Pharma shill) then I feel that an in kind response is appropriate. Not always productive, but you should never expect to change conspiracy theorists minds. Lastly, I work in healthcare and I care for people who have been disabled sometimes by these diseases. I live in an area where they have a high non-vaccination rate because of misinformation. I do feel that it is important to not let this misinformation stand without response because it is bad for our community. Bad information and maligning the entire medical profession is a serious matter.
            Thank you for your very thoughtful comments. I will take them into consideration in the future.

          • MICHSTORIES says:

            Thank you. I hope I was not being too harsh. I am of English background so was probably a little upset by that comment. Wonderful that you help people. I understand how tough it must be to work in the health industry, more and more people are becoming sick these days – so many diseases – and our doctors (and nurses) are over-worked trying to fix things. I am grateful for my doctors and nurses here, they saved my life two years ago – I cannot give them enough praise for their kindness, expertise and support.

          • Gregory Miller says:

            Not in the slightest. You are a lovely man and are clearly very kind. I appreciated your request to become nicer. It is quite easy to descend into the same behavior and I have no problem having someone ask me to uphold higher integrity. Sorry to hear about your situation with something life threatening. Most everyone goes into healthcare because of the undue charlie desire to serve humanity. So I become quite passionate when people who have no experience claim that we are participating in some evil empire that preys on people’s illness and misfortune. By the way, the English comment had little to do with my real feelings. I am a miller, Holleman, and Youman by lineage. I am as racially Anglo as can be. And my husband and his family (full disclosure, I am a gay male) are Scottish and I love them all very much. The fam lives in Montrose, a tough scrabble town in Angus and we are quite close. I am nothing but proud of my heritage. But at the same time, some undeniable negative cultural attributes exist as well, and that individual seemed to possess all of them,

          • George says:

            I had a feeling you were English Michtories. A bit of decency in a sea of ill informed bigots. Here’s to English intelligence!!

          • Gregory Miller says:

            That wasn’t bigoted at all, George! Irony

          • George says:

            Ooh! He’s learning!

          • Kevin Watson says:

            You’re not a doctor or statistician either, so what’s the basis of your statements? And now, suddenly, you’re the chair of the local medical board, judging on revocation of medical licences. You get harder to believe every time you say something.

            And then start calling names….

          • Gregory Miller says:

            The basis of my statement is from generally available public health information. And I didn’t at I was anything of the sort. You are just being a troll

          • Tim Horita says:

            Doesn’t matter what qualifications a person claims to have. This is the internet. However, if you can back any statement of yours with peer-reviewed evidence, then you get to play. You haven’t. Run along now while the grown ups talk…

          • George says:

            Grown up…? I think not.

          • George says:

            Yup, the English are all superior to you Gregory Miller. Every single one of us.

          • Gregory Miller says:

            Speaking of grown ups. Ahem.

          • MICHSTORIES says:

            What are your thoughts for unvaccinated folks who would like to travel to other countries? This is a concern I have for my niece and nephew, they were never vaccinated.

          • keir watson says:

            Travelling to Europe? They would be hard pressed to find any cases of measles – the risk would be similar to the USA. Same for other childhood diseases.

            Africa? There are dozens of endemic diseases, only a small fraction of which are covered by US vaccine programme anyway. You would need to do your research about the diseases in the country in question, and make an informed choice.

            Personally I think its irresponsible to take kids to a country where there is an outbreak of a communicable disease.

          • Tim Horita says:

            Hard pressed to find cases of measles in Europe? Seriously? So you don’t follow public health statistics- let me guess, they’re part of some conspiracy?

          • keir watson says:

            The latest figures for the 30 EU countries combined indicate one case per 45,000 people per throughout 2013. With an infectious window of about 2 weeks that means on any day the actual chances of randomly coming in contact with measles is 1 in 1,125,000 person-contacts. However, the risk would be even less as many of those measles cases would be at home in bed. In the context of taking non-vac kids on holiday that is way down the list of worries. They are more at risk of being mugged, killed by a car, or drowning.

            So yes I am aware of the statistics – I’m just not paranoid to the point of delusion as you appear to be. Seeing conspiracy theorists where there are none.

          • Tim Horita says:

            “Hard pressed to find Measles in Europe” (your words)
            Lets see: 2013: 6,356 cases 2012: 8,230 cases 2011: MORE THAN THIRTY THOUSAND CASES.

            Source: European Center for Disease Control and Prevention.

            Guess what they’re doing about this? (hint: MMR Vaccine)

          • keir watson says:

            Yes I know Timbo. That’s how I came to the figure of 1 per 45,000 people per year.
            You said 30,000 over three years, that’s 10,000 per year isn’t it?
            As there are 500 million people in the EU, that gives 500 000 000 / 10 000 = 1 case per 50,000 people per year.
            However, if you visit Europe, they won’t all happen to be contagious at once. The infectious window is about two weeks, so the number of contagious individuals on any one day will only be 1/25th of this, i.e. 1 in 1.25 million.
            So yes, if a non-vaccer visits Europe they have only a very small chance of contracting the disease.

          • Kevin Watson says:

            Maybe you should ask a couple of ACTUAL DOCTORS, instead of an admitted amateur.

            Besides, if you get the passports, you WILL be TOLD what vacc.s they have to have… simple as that.

          • Kevin Watson says:

            I recall you saying you’re not a scientist and didn’t have the numbers. In the case of a direct conflict, one has to wonder “which is the lie?”…..

          • Gregory Miller says:

            There is no conflict with disclosing when you are not a scientist but still being able to understand how the scientific community came to a conclusjon.

          • George says:

            Look, virtually everyone used to get measles in childhood, and the race did not die off. That’s evidence that it is simply not that bad a disease, OBVIOUSLY. Those that died from it were the weaklings. Better to weed them out early I say, so that they don’t breed the race down to feeble status.

          • Gregory Miller says:

            Unless it were you or yours. What a gem of a person you are

          • George says:

            Thanks. A gem is what I and my progeny are, thanks to the fact that my parents did not have me vaccinated and I didn’t have my children irresponsibly injected with things that I am not an expert in. Trusting other people with one’s children has all too often been shown to be a disaster, and I was not planning to put my most precious possessions in harms way. If you chose to do that to your kids you were outrageously irresponsible. You have admitted that you are not an expert in that area, and yet you let them inject a fluid of unknown ingredients into your child! Shame on you and shame on anyone else that does that. What are you thinking?

            A message to all those kids who have been vaccinated: I am sorry that your parents knew no better. They were conned and you pay the price.

          • Gregory Miller says:

            On that note. I think I’ll just leave that as it is. No reason to refute you. You’ve made your insanity apparent.

          • Louise_Chanary says:

            Ah, you want your children (If you have ‘m) to not be exposed to the illness, and not to the vaccine. That is a clear explanation, thanks. I thought that the anti-vaccination ‘movement’ was a movement….

          • keir watson says:

            Umm,

            What about the main point I raised? You know – the bit that was challenging your false comparison?

            – – –

            Both you and Gregory Miller seem to deliberately be deflecting attention away from the key points I (and others) make, and focussing on secondary issues instead, or even willfully misinterpreting the thrust of the argument. It’s so clear throughout these discussions that it appears to be a deliberate strategy. It seems to reinforce the opinion of some commenters that you/he are paid trolls!

            I’m sure I’m not the only one who has spotted this.

          • Louise_Chanary says:

            Ha, way to see a conspiracy everywhere! The thing is, you people here are all nuts. Gregory is the only one hre who is not talking nonsense. I am a philosophy graduate student. I wish people would pay me to comment on websites.

          • keir watson says:

            You still have not addressed the substantive point I made.

          • Louise_Chanary says:

            Using the word ‘substantive’ and ‘point’ does not make anything you say more interesting.

            I reply to you with this: “Ah, you want your children (If you have ‘m) to not be exposed to the
            illness, and not to the vaccine. That is a clear explanation, thanks. I
            thought that the anti-vaccination ‘movement’ was a movement….”

            I make an effort to understand your reasoning. Should I not have done that? Do you really want me to say something like ‘equivalent situations’….there is nothing equivalent about any of this. What are you talking about when you say ‘comparing equivalent situations’? Wat are those situations that are supposed to be equivalent, en why are they equivalent? I am simply trying to understand the point that you are making (the one about why you choose to not take the vaccine, the point which you are supposed to care about) but you talk with me about equivalence and comparison?

            And basically what you’re saying is that you simply hope that you are not the one who gets the disease. Well, a certain number of unvaccinated people will get the disease. There is no IF about that. Actually, you are hoping not your children will get the disease, but someone else’s.
            The point is that thjere is a clear risk of getting the diseas and then of having complications from the disease, when there is no clear risk from taking the vaccination. So yes, you choose to expose your children to a certain risk, in order to avoid an uncertain risk (one that lives mostly in your head).

            If you want to talk about the art of reasoning, or the rules of logic, I am not the one who has the patience to teach you.

          • Kevin Watson says:

            They probably would if a philosophy paper conferred any kind of practical education. ROFLAMO!!!!

          • Louise_Chanary says:

            Practical, like the immense wisdom you bring wherever you go. You manage to misspell ‘ROFLMAO!!!!’.

            Watch out for those germs you keep going on about when you’re rolling on the floor.

          • Gregory Miller says:

            So, Kevin, you enjoy trashing people with who you disagree and talking about your imagined superiority and denigrating their qualifications. What are your qualifications on this subject that make you so arrogant and make you think that you know better than the scientific and medical community? After all, you trash us for relying on the experts. Ought you not be a better expert then?

          • George says:

            I’ll pay you to shut up forever. You are such a brainless fool!

          • Kevin Watson says:

            Frankly, I’m starting to think Mr. Gregory has several personalities here…. MICH read like a pre arranged interview….

          • Gregory Miller says:

            Kevin, you’re an idiot. You cannot possibly conceive that you are such a hateful troll that more than one person finds you deplorable? ROFLMAO!

          • Tim Horita says:

            Clinical efficacy is measured with research. I think you’re confused, sport. Clinical efficacy of vaccines is abundant and has been for many decades. Maybe go read some peer-reviewed scientific journals before you try any of that nonsense.
            “Promoting vaccines”? Seriously? The science is there whether you believe in it or not.

          • George says:

            And I don’t believe it. The oldest trick in the book is to fiddle statistics in a study. Only the gullible believe all that crap. Even Ben Goldacre bangs on about this major problem in the ‘scientific literature’!

          • Gregory Miller says:

            It doesn’t make you special or brilliant because you think that the medical and scientific communities are involved in some conspiracy theory to dupe the rest of us. It actually just makes you crazy. Do some research on dunning kruger effect so you understand your crazy a bit more.

      • Tim Horita says:

        Seat belts aren’t perfect in preventing a fatal car accident. That doesn’t mean they aren’t effective and shouldn’t be worn. Your logic sucks.

    • Vienta76 says:

      Gregory, the only point you make here that I will argue, is that humans “aren’t perfect” now, I can’t argue that we are perfect, however we are born (if we are lucky enough to be untampered with in-utero) completely ABLE to fight disease naturally, as our bodies are designed to do!! We all have the ability to fight disease, in fact, allowing our bodies to fight disease is the only way to gain true immunity. Simple human biology. However, the more we tamper with our biology, the weaker we become as a species. You don’t have to be a scientist to SEE this happening, especially in our children!! I don’t understand how this can be argued? To say that vaccinating is the only way to protect children from childhood disease is asinine, parents can easily care for their sick children if they understand the illness. But sadly, in this day and age, parents are not encouraged to understand how the human body works, or how disease works, they are scared into believing that their child will die from the measles. Scare tactics are used for the weak by the weaker.

      • sabelmouse says:

        excellent points!

      • Peter Panic says:

        This is one of the dumbest things on this post.

      • Tim Horita says:

        Parents can easliy take care of their kids if they understand the illness? Now that, my friend is profoundly ignorant- how did that work with Smallpox, Polio, Diphtheria, H. Influenza, bacterial meningitis? We all have the ability to fight those? Wow, buddy. Wow.

        • Kevin Watson says:

          More apples, more oranges… fruity one, ain’t ya?

          • Gregory Miller says:

            That isn’t mixing apples and oranges. He is referring to other viruses that can kill or maim and no amount of parent skill can fix it. If you catch these you can’t nurture your way out of it. You might die and it doesnt mean your parents just didn’t do it right.

      • Kevin Watson says:

        Makes you wonder how we avoided extinction in the first few hundred thousands of years we came up from, doesn’t it?

      • Gregory Miller says:

        We are not born with that immunity. Human kind has been brought to the brink of extinction in Europe and it was only when so many people died off that it stopped because there were not enough people left to sustain the epidemic. That is a highly romanticized person of history. The FACT is, and is verifiable, that our infant mortality is lower than historically speaking, children are far healthier, they are better nourished than any time ever. Humans are stronger and healthier than at any time in history. We die of heart disease less and cancer more because people are simply living longer. That is actually the fact.

    • keir watson says:

      True, but they are navigating a supertanker that takes many years to turn round. It is widely acknowledged that it takes ten to twenty years for scientific breakthroughs to make there way into mainstream ‘accepted’ science. Especially in medical / nutritional science.

      For example h.pylori link to stomach ulcers, zonulin and gut permeability’s link to autoimmune disease, non-coeliac gluten sensitivity.

      Virtually none of the GPs in the UK are fully up with these (especially the latter two), yet we treat patients in our clinic very successfully on the basis of this current research.

      If you were suffering with stomach ulcers 10 years ago almost no GP would have given you antibiotics, yet a little bit of your own research would have enabled you to cure yourself.

      Today, many people with autoimmune diseases and NCGS are able to read the academic papers on the subject and sort themselves out (hopefully with the oversight of a medic who keeps up to date with the research)

      • Gregory Miller says:

        Virtually nothing you have written is correct. Their is no rule of thumb for how long it takes to gain better information in medicine or science. And there is no efficacy for gluten related to h pylori. It is linked to ulcers and that is widely known. We treat H. pylori all the time successfully in our agency. It is also not true that an average person can interpret research papers correctly. This is the arrogance of the individual who doesn’t work in that field of study. As though all a scientist has to know can be found on Google.

        • keir watson says:

          For Pete’s sake – learn to read! I didn’t say gluten was related to h.pylori. I didn’t say h pylori’s link to stomach ulcers is unknown – I specifically said 10 years ago it was virtually unknown among medics but was there in the research literature. i.e. it takes many years for research to lead to changes in the mainstream medical profession, but non- professionals can read the literature and take action.

          E.g. Almost no GPs in the UK do coelac testing when they are dealing with a woman who is having problems conceiving, yet there is plenty of evidence that Coeliac disease can cause these problems. (it is even in the government guidelines that unexplained fertility issues should be tested for coeliac – but our GPs dont even read that it seems) consequently, almost anyone with reasonable education can put in a learn more about infertility and Coelic than their GP will ever know, and treat themselves successfully to boot.

          Don’t be so arrogant. Hundreds of women suffer unnecessary heartache because of their doctor’s ignorance – you are adding to this situation by stating that individuals are unable to research for themselves – speak for yourself.

          • Gregory Miller says:

            I will take your last point first: Actually, aren’t you being the arrogant one? You are claiming to have the background education to be a researcher and you are calling googling and reading on the internet research, which it is not, in fact. I, on the other hand, defer to people who ARE actually researchers and physicians. People like you are saying that the medical and scientific community are wrong. Seems you are the arrogant one.

            As far as telling me to learn to read, I know how to and quite well. However, your writing is nonsensical, tangential and you have poor grammar and syntax. So, I suggest you should learn to write.

            As far as infertility and celiac disease screening, I can’t account for that except that studies have been done suggesting it, but it is not conclusive and only explains a small percentage of those fertility issues. As far as people learning and treating themselves successfully, I don’t think there is any evidence of that. But I have no dog in that hunt, really.

          • keir watson says:

            “I will take your last point first…”

            That’s a good way to avoid my first point/paragraph – which was, in fact, the main challenge to your previous post wasn’t it?

          • Gregory Miller says:

            It’s as though you cannot pay attention to three paragraphs. I did respond to your queries, noting that you are tangential then responding to the points. You apparently want to make a case of the order in which I responded. As I mentioned to you at the end, I have no dog in that hunt. And it is completely irrelevant to this discussion. Most of your first paragraph is a complete non-sequiter and incorrect. It is not accurate as a blanket statement that it takes many years of research to make changes in mainstream medication. sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn’t. Non-professionals are not usually privy to new treatments more than doctors are. There, I have elaborated. But your statement is still a non-sequiter and really quite irrelevant.

          • George says:

            People like you, Gregory, make my blood boil. You try to tell other people what they should do, when they might have very good experiential reasons for deciding that vaccines are dangerous. I know one woman who’s baby died the day after the DPT vaccine, fully accepted by the GP and everyone else, as it was completely obvious that this was the reason for the death. There are dozens, nay thousands of other people, educated or not, I could’t care less which they are, who have directly witnessed their children suffer major neurological harm within hours or days of a vaccine. I even know of an 18 year old girl, the daughter of a friend, who was hospitalised with partial paralysis following travel jabs for going to Cambodia. And she had not been vaccinated in baby or childhood. Others that I have only read about have either died or been severely harmed by the Gardisil/cervarix jab, one of which was here in England and she died the day after the jab which was done at school at the age of about 14. Only a fool would fall for the vaccinators promises and ‘science’. What rot. You are despicable.

          • Gregory Miller says:

            And you have the same effect on me. Your inability to understand basic science is astounding. While it is true that on occasion someone will react to a vaccine, those incidences are low. I would say that you are quite a unique individual to know so many people to have had reactions to the vaccines. I can’t say why that would be since I have never known anyone in my whole life who has had these reactions and yet, I work in health care and work with developmentally disabled adults as well as have a qualifications in child development. It is possible that you either don’t understand the basic difference between causation and correlation or something else more nefarious. As far as telling others what to do, I haven’t done that. I just won’t sit by while people think they have greater knowledge about this subject than the very scientists who know this subject matter best. Public health officials tell people what they should do based on that science, which is established as scientific consensus. You don’t know me so you don’t know whether I am despicable or not. As a matter of fact, I am rather upstanding guy. You just don’t like the facts. You own your own emotions.

        • MICHSTORIES says:

          What are your thoughts on kefir (made with real kefir grains, not the already-made kefir in cartons) for h pylori ? Apparently this wonderful source of probiotics does help – and can help with other issues of the gastrointestinal tract. Drinking kefir every day cleared up my acid relux, which I had for many years.

          • Gregory Miller says:

            I am no expert but as I understand it, the efficacy of the traditional three antibiotic treatment in conjunction with kefir improves notably for resolving H. Pylori. H. Pylori is a tough bacteria and kefir alone won’t resolve it, however. In general, although we have always understood the use of fermented products to be generally good for our gut, more attention is given to this than ever and a number of products are good to consume on a regular basis because they can treat and resolve a number of chronic digestive related issues. A wealth of information out. There confirms your experience.

          • MICHSTORIES says:

            Thanks for replying. What are your thoughts on Dr. William Davis ‘Wheat Belly’. He has some very interesting thoughts on how the GMO wheat is causing so many health-related problems. I am no doctor or scientist but feel he has hit a nail on the head with his research.

          • Gregory Miller says:

            A little background on me is important at this point. I am a bit of a fitness nut. I workout regularly (about 5 days a week) with weights and run. I also practice yoga as much as possible and have a rather wholesome diet, though I live in a magropolitan city and am also a foodie and love my cocktails. My diet consists of a balanced diet to support my workouts. I have usually protein in the morning with my carbohydrates coming from fruit, a low fat lunch, and usually balanced dinner with 8 ounces of animal protein, whole grains only and vegetables. By most measures my diet is quite healthy. Having said this, I find the Wheat Belly notion the newest version of Atkins. The bulk of scientific svidence shows that inflammation in the gut is more likely created by animal products than by wheat. The author uses really very broad experiences to suggest this point as being better. But his before diet I find pretty ghastly. So the fact that he changed it so drastically I’m sure made him feel better and he lost weight with. As someone who eats mostly whole grains, I have a slightly similar experience when I eat white, highly processed wheat or carbohydrates. For example, my strength and stamina suffer with white rice as compared to brown rice. This phenomenon is well founded in science since whole grains uptake into your system slower and do not cause the insulin spike that white, processed grains do. But I think ultimately, this will go the way of almost all fad diet books. A reasonable and sensible diet is what one needs. And the theories about GMO wheat somehow irritating our gut is simply folly. That is not found in any studies and is more of this scared of GMO trend. And if you have a moral objection to GMO for some reason, I say that is a reason to avoid them, if that is your belief. But in terms of pure nutrition and taste, study after study has shown no difference,
            by the way, the exception to all this is people with celiac. However recent studies show that a fraction of people who identify as celiac actually have the disease. In a double blind study, most people did not react to gluten who self identified as having celiac disease. It is a very specific diagnosis and a lot of folks are now diagnosing themselves. These nutrition fads come and go. I’ve seen numerous of them. A good diet is rather easy to achieve with some basic information.

          • MICHSTORIES says:

            Oh yes. Diet is very important. We are what we eat. We live in an rural community where most of us strive to eat local organically grown foods and veggies. We also grow our own in spring/summer, fall (and into winter) and we share with our family/neighbours. We buy our heritage seeds from locally trusted organic farmers who have years and years of experience and knowledge on the dangers of GMOs (not only to our health but our environment and crops). Fortunately, there are many countries where GMO’s have been removed and are now banned.

          • George says:

            Your brain has, clearly, been addled. I wish you’d stop writing as though you know anything at all. You are probably the most stupid person on earth.

          • Gregory Miller says:

            A good way to resolve that is to stop reading and stop being a troll. On the contrary, I know my subject matter and most importantly, I know several fields of science are more credible than are you.

          • George says:

            Ooh, several fields of science eh? Have you got an ‘ology’? What do you know Greg Miller. Tell me, I really want to know.

          • Gregory Miller says:

            The mere fact that you should need to ask shows your ignorance. How about we just stick to epidemiology and immunology and all of the specialty subset fields. Now stop trolling and go put your tin hat on and read more by your own countryman, the discredited Andrew Wakefield, who started all of this nonsensical hysteria.

          • Gregory Miller says:

            Well, not if you are still alive, you British troll.

          • Tim Horita says:

            H. pylori causes gastritis but not really acid reflux. Not treating H. pylori appropriately can be either a bad thing, or a VERY bad thing.

          • Kevin Watson says:

            You DO realize that this guy is just SOME GUY posting on the web, right? Do you always seek medical advice on the web from laymen. See a f***king doctor, all right? They’re free over there, ya know…

        • Kevin Watson says:

          You work for a mysterious medical facility, deny having any scientific credentials, and post about 3,000 words of your OPINION here, but carefully avoid any mention of the key element – your actual position…. I would wager, janitorial services.

    • KrisTal_K says:

      Are you kidding me!? When does science apologize? They cover up their mistakes with more mistakes. Its very simple you inject a body with a LIVE virus you become contagious. They KNOW this. But there is entirely to much money to be had to stop now.

      • Gregory Miller says:

        Science doesn’t apologize because it is a field of study, not a conscious person. And no one should consider anything else you say because of course live virus isn’t injected into the body. That is simply not true.

      • Tim Horita says:

        More conspiracy theory. Yet no peer-reviewed scientific citations to bolster your argument. Quite typical of the anti-vaxxer cult. Show me a double-blind, longitudinal study showing people contracting measles from an indirect vaccine exposure. If you’re going to try to argue- at least try to be a grown up.

    • PappyYokum says:

      I agree that vaccines and their makers are not perfect. However, many scientists are dogmatically married to a particular point of view and vaccination is one of them.
      The problem, as I see it, is the government has removed the feedback loop that requires a defective product either be improved or removed from the market. The Vaccine Injury Compensation Program takes away all incentive for vaccine makers to make safe and effective products. They can simply ignore any damage their products do rather than being forced by the market into fixing the problem.
      The result is they have lost credibility; Parents can’t trust what they are told by people pushing a product for which they accept any responsibility. So, some parents have decided to accept it themselves and risk the disease rather than the vaccine.
      The problem is not “anti-vaxxers.” The problem is what is called “moral hazard” when government intervenes in free markets.
      There is a problem with the current vaccination regimen in the U.S. That is obvious. If that was not the case, the VICP would not be needed to protect manufacturers from being sued out of business. So, rather than scapegoat people who recognize that fact, expend as much energy to fixing the problem.

      • Gregory Miller says:

        Actually, I think junk information from alternative sites and rumor mongering has created this suspicion of government and the entire medical field. The fact is that the feedback loops are very much intact. Vaccine efficacy is a matter of world concerns and is reviewed by not just us, but by every industrialized country on the planet as well as the UN. we have NUMEROUS sources of feedback, both governmental and private.
        The VICP exists specifically as a no fault court so that vaccine manufacturers are incentivized to continue monitoring and reporting problematic vaccines while providing a no fault, no litigation resource for those people who truly are injured by vaccines. One needn’t prove culpability of the manufacturer, only that they in fact were injured by the vaccine. 38% of people that claim to have a vaccine injury, according to 2014 statistics, actually have a compensable claim. We still have issues with too much peer reinforced information from non scientists and non medical providers which is poorly sourced. Such is the case with your theory of the VICP and manufacturers.
        Lastly, I am vexed by your statement of the “moral hazard of the government intervening in “free markets”. This isn’t a matter of free market, except that grants from the government and private sources are given for research in this area to private companies. But that is the American way. Our government typically monitors and provides incentives for private companies to develop. We do very little of that through the actual government. But this is a matter of public health and it is the issue created by junk information from anti-vaccers. Let’s put it this way, there is no debate on this in the medical or scientific communities. This is settled science.

  12. Gregory Miller says:

    The fact that the Mumps part of the MMR has a lower success rate doesn’t mean that all vaccines are wrong or bad. THe science is still firm. In the New York case, a third does was given but it was too late in the game to know whether or not it effected greater protection. However, you will note that since the mumps vaccine was introduced, infections are less severe and fewer complications. This is also because of the vaccine.

    • Carol says:

      Merck was fined for falsiying mumps efficacy numbers. And their mumps strain is decades upon decades old and no longer matches what people are contracting. Good science? Sounds more like junk and their time will soon be up on the whole charade.

      • Gregory Miller says:

        Except the only problem with what you are saying is that ITS NOT TRUE! You are referring to a story that was nothing but a press release by a group that is against vaccines and was likely planning a lawsuit. This is very typical of law firms seeking settlements . They issue one sided press releases which are published. New organIzations will give credit at the end of the report to whomever issued the press release as they did with that story. Remember not everything you read is true!

  13. AndIthoughtIwascrazy says:

    I think the worst argument about this topic is the fact that most people think that measles (by any definition -wild or imported,) was eradicated. Wild measles was eradicated but not imported measles.
    Same virus, different point of origin.

    The fact that there were 86 cases of measles in the US the year it was eradicated gives no argument that this is a problem caused by the anti vaccine movement.

  14. Patrik Johansson says:

    It is true that correlation is not causation, and it is true that non-vaccination does not _cause_ measles. In the same way, any correlation between the distribution of vaccines and an increase in autism is not proof of any causal relation between the two. It is no more than a correlation. On a related issue, however, the text is fundamentally flawed because it completely overlooks the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions. (I know that no vaccine is 100% effective, but bear with me while I make the argument.) While non-vaccination is not a cause of a measles outbreak, it is a necessary condition – in order to contract the measles it is necessary that you are not vaccinated, and the more people in an area that are not vaccinated the more likely that the disease will spread. But it is not a sufficient condition – not being vaccinated does not ensure that you will be ill, and having a large group of non-vaccinated people in one area does not make it more likely that an ill person from outside will visit the area an start spreading the disease. It is therefore no surprise that the measles do not spread evenly in different areas with low vaccination rates, which the text tries to make a big point of. Putting on a helmet when you skate will not prevent you from falling, but in most cases it will protect your head when you do. Taking off the helmet does not mean you will immediately fall, but if you do you are more likely to hurt your head.

  15. Patrik Johansson says:

    It is true that correlation is not causation, and it is true that non-vaccination does not _cause_ measles. In the same way, any correlation between the distribution of vaccines and an increase in autism is not proof of any causal relation between the two. It is no more than a correlation. On a related issue, however, the text is fundamentally flawed because it completely overlooks the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions. (I know that no vaccine is 100% effective, but bear with me while I make the argument.) While non-vaccination is not a cause of a measles outbreak, it is a necessary condition – in order to contract the measles it is necessary that you are not vaccinated, and the more people in an area that are not vaccinated the more likely that the disease will spread. But it is not a sufficient condition – not being vaccinated does not ensure that you will be ill, and having a large group of non-vaccinated people in one area does not make it more likely that an ill person from outside will visit the area an start spreading the disease. It is therefore no surprise that the measles do not spread evenly in different areas with low vaccination rates, which the text tries to make a big point of. Putting on a helmet when you skate will not prevent you from falling, but in most cases it will protect your head when you do. Taking off the helmet does not mean you will immediately fall, but when you do you are more likely to hurt your head.

  16. MelodyRN says:

    You speak about science, yet use a band website to support your views. #irony

    • Francois Arseneau says:

      nice try… because they formed a band, I guess that means they don’t know anything. Great judgment call there. The irony is if you read their articles, they`re spot on. Vaccines are a massive failure. Their time is done, people are waking up and moving on.

  17. Mike Stevens says:

    Err, no.
    You may be confusing that with pertussis vaccine, which lasts 4-10 years.
    The protection from measles vaccine is likely to be lifelong.

    • Heather Rhodes White says:

      Err, no….

      Currently the CDC recommends
      two doses before the age of six and two additional doses (boosters)
      before the age of fifty-five. Further recommendations are made for
      additional boosters to college students whose antibody titers
      come up negative (2 additional doses). So respectively a patient the
      age of 55 should be injected four times (possibly six) to be considered
      immune.

      Post Vaccination Titer Levels

      Titer levels are a
      laboratory measurement of antibodies in a blood sample. This determines
      the strength of an immune response to the measles virus. It is
      interesting that according to the Immunization Action Coalition, “We often see college students whose titer results show they are not immune to some combination of measles…” (Immunization Action Coalition, n.d.).
      They recommend two more boosters of the vaccine in order to be in
      compliance with college requirements. In a study published in the
      Pediatric Infectious Disease we see a rapid decline in measles antibody
      titers over a 5 to 6-year period (Whittle et al, 1999).
      In another review of blood tests that were taken of children who
      received the MMR vaccine the scientists found 50% “had zero or very low
      immunity against mumps and measles” (BBC News, 2001).

      • Mike Stevens says:

        Errr…definite NO.

        CDC adult vaccination requirements are as follows for measles:
        (Check the CDC site, it’s simple)

        Measles component:
        For all persons in this category who meet the age requirements (up to 57 years of age) and
        who lack documentation of vaccination or have no evidence of previous infection;
        (ie NOT required in adulthood if people can verify they were infected or vaccinated)

        There are the following provisos:

        A routine second dose of MMR vaccine, administered a minimum of 28 days after the first dose, is recommended for adults who:
        – are students in postsecondary educational institutions;
        – work in a health care facility; or
        – plan to travel internationally.

        Persons
        who received inactivated (killed) measles vaccine or measles vaccine of unknown type during 1963–1967 should be revaccinated with 2 doses of MMR vaccine.

        Health care personnel born before 1957:
        For unvaccinated health care personnel born before 1957 who lack laboratory evidence of
        measles, mumps, and/or rubella immunity or laboratory confirmation of disease, health care
        facilities should consider vaccinating personnel with 2 doses of MMR vaccine at the appropriate interval for measles and mumps or 1 dose of MMR vaccine for rubella.

        (PS: I have little faith in your math ability anyhow, if you thought 2 doses of vaccine spanning the 40 odd years from teenage to mid 50s amounts to “a booster every 5-7 years”)

        • Heather Rhodes White says:

          Spin…. Confirmatory bias….

          MMR 1st Dose: 12 mo
          MMR 2nd Dose: 4 y

          College students whose antibody titers come up negative (2 additional doses).

          4 in Total so far….

          Two more doses if documentation is lost after the age 21….

          Total possibility is 6….

          My origional comment “So respectively a patient the age of 55 should be injected four times (possibly six) to be considered immune”

          Further, In a study published in the Pediatric Infectious Disease we see a rapid decline in measles antibody titers over a 5 to 6-year period (Whittle et al, 1999).

          1. You made an error thinking that MMR affords life-time immunity.
          2. You made an error in comprehension of my post.

          • Mike Stevens says:

            But the overwhelming majority of people will be immune and not need the further vaccine doses you describe.

            The scenario you paint is exceptional, and contingent upon people meeting several concurrent preconditions – never vaccinated, never infected naturally, no proof of infection, low titres, special occupations etc. The reason for those is precautionary, obviously health care institutions cannot ever take the risk of their staff being non-immune to such a potentially dangerous disease for patients, so they ask for boosters if titres are low.

            Stop trying to pretend this is “routine” for everyone. It only applies to those who, as the CDC says “lack documentation of vaccination or have no evidence of previous infection.”

            In addition, despite drop in titres to measles, people respond with an anamnestic response with exposure to measles virus anyway.

            You are the one who is wrong, and trying to pretend that adults need boosters every 5-7 years when maybe 99%+ of them need none whatsoever is deliberately deceptive and highly devious of you.

          • Heather Rhodes White says:

            Pardon? According to a titer study of measles antibody response there is a rapid decline over 5 to 7 years (Whittle et al, 1999). In another review of blood tests that were taken of children who received the MMR vaccine the scientists found 50% “had zero or very low immunity against mumps and measles” (BBC News, 2001).

            Further… It is interesting that according to the Immunization Action Coalition, “We often see college students whose titer results show they are not immune to some combination of measles…” (Immunization Action Coalition, n.d.).

            Based upon the “science” and titer observation the majority of MMR recipients only have a 5-7 year titer…. Now you can go off a belief system that’s fine but don’t make health decisions for me or pass judgement because you are enthralled with a faith based system.

            Fact is the MMR is not life-long as you claim…

            References

            Whittle et al. (1999). Poor serologic responses five to seven years after immunization with high and standard titer measles vaccines. Pediatr Infect Dis J.

            BBC News. (2001). Row over MMR effectiveness. Health

            Immunization Action Coalition. (n.d.). Ask the Experts: Measles, Mumps, and Rubella.

          • Mike Stevens says:

            Ok, now we are drifting away from the topic of what the CDC guidelines say (which are what I stated, and not what you said)

            Whittle et al: A study done using a type of MMR vaccine not in use in the USA, conducted in African children and with acknowledged interference of results because of underlying immune abnormalities from malaria infection.
            Transferability to the situation in the USA? Zero.

            BBC News story: A NEWS report, not a published study. 25 kids from a clinic which makes its money from giving private single measles vaccines (as opposed to MMR, in the UK where all vaccinations are free) supposedly had poor responses to MMR vaccination. Talk about vested interests and conflicts of interest? Just follow the money, Heather.

            Fact is you are scraping the bottom of the internet barrel in utter desperation to conjure up some “evidence” measles vaccine immunity is not life long. The overwhelming majority of valid scientific evidence disagrees with you.

          • Heather Rhodes White says:

            Conformation Bias…. Merck is the only manufacture making the measles vaccine, with is the exact same vaccine given to U.S. children. Titer study of measles antibody response shows there is a rapid decline over 5 to 7 years ~ it is transferable because we see the same low titer effect when conducting measurements in individuals who are entering college.

            I never claimed the BBC story was a “published study”… I said it was a “review of blood tests that were taken of children who received the MMR”. The blood tests were taken by scientists who were looking at titer response and go figure… their finding was not surprising and correlates with other known studies that MMR has a poor long-term titer response.

            The IAC was answering “General information on MMR vaccination”. No one posed that question, it is a recurrent *problem* which is seen because of the low-yielding effectiveness of the MMR.

            I get it… you love vaccines and you think total health is through a needle, and you can have that opinion… I don’t care just do not make decisions for my family because it is apparent you are an ideologue basing claims on faith not science. There is ample evidence that the MMR is short lived and carries significant risk ~ so shoot up I don’t care but I will never consent to this vaccine again based upon the data.

            Now I have important work to do and will end this conversion here because I am fully aware that people who conduct their opinions based on more of a religious stance are not reasonable and reject the science, which makes me loose interest in debate.

          • Mike Stevens says:

            You claimed your comments represented the “science”. Clearly that is not the case, and I am very glad you admit the news report from a private company pushing for single measles vaccines through scaremongering about MMR was “not a published study”.

            The study on titres was a small study in African children who had malaria, and this was felt to have affected their immune responses. It is not applicable to MMR vaccination in the USA.

            The IAC information you cited was from their FAQ section. It is posed as a hypothetical question (which is what the Q in FAQ stands for, as you well know and should not try and pretend you don’t). What the statement does not represent is their official view of what the vaccine does. They specifically go on to say that MMR vaccination is only recommended if students have low/no titres AND no history or evidence of previous measles or vaccination. This is evidence, from a website on vaccination that you have quoted to support your view, that immunity is life long.
            How you can sit there and try and weasel out of this patent truth is beyond me. You are full of deliberate misdirection.

          • sabelmouse says:

            from what i’ve seen of mike he’s a troll.

          • Gregory Miller says:

            From what I’ve seen, you are a troll.

          • Andrew Lazarus says:

            I’m sure it’s an accident that the paper on waning measles coverage was examining results of one high-titer immunization at five months, as opposed to the usual schedule, and was conducted in Senegal. You couldn’t possibly be copy-and-pasting from random crank web sites without bothering to check the original?

            Individuals’ response can vary—for some the MMR doesn’t take at all—but the current schedule provides long-term immunity for most of the people who take it. And that’s enough to keep measles at bay.

            I can’t even find an “Ask the Experts” page at IAC. I realize Disqus hates links, but I suspect your crank source is misquoting.

      • LauraCondon says:

        Where did the CDC come up with their outrageous and non-scientific “recommendation” that adults born in 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, and 1962 be injected with six vaccines (measles, mumps and rubella, 2 each) when the measles vaccine was not even brought to market until 1963? Virtually everyone before that had natural exposure. But since measles is a mild childhood illness, none of our parents took us to the doctor and there is no “medical record” of our natural, life-long immunity. Why is the CDC such vaccine pushers when it is not necessary?

  18. Yvette Le Lorier says:

    To use statewide data to make any type of argument is absurd without knowing exactly where in each state the vaccinated and the unvaccinated live and how they interect.if the 6% unvaccinated in Vermont live miles from each other and never come into contact then the likely hood of an outbreak negligible. If they all live in the same small town and go to the same school then the opposite is true. It is well known that the unvaccinated benefit from the protective effect created by the vaccinated as long as the ratio of these two (in close proximity) remains in the zone of 20:80. It is only when this ratio goes off kilter that pocket outbreaks occur. This is what is widely know as heard immunity and has been extensively studied.

  19. Gregory Miller says:

    critical thinking cap,as you do? It is made of tinfoil and you provide no evidence or citations. Just wackadoodle, no science. The facts of decreasing measles outbreaks since introducing the vaccination are legion.

  20. Gregory Miller says:

    That is the most idiotic thing and so fundamentally flawed as to not deserve much more consideration.

  21. Gregory Miller says:

    No it doesn’t.

  22. Gregory Miller says:

    Were you in on the discussions where they decided the criteria for that category? Didn’t think so.

  23. Gregory Miller says:

    There is no such thing as shedding. And if you don’t DIE or suffer other horrible complications, yes, you are immune but that still isn’t 100%. Why do you think you know more than the leading scientific organizations? They spent YEARS learning what they know, in a real school. Your qualifications?

    • Sammi10 says:

      Why don’t you look at a pamphlet insert? It is right on the CDC website! Good Lord, you are making yourself look so foolish! You clearly have not done any research at all!

      • Gregory Miller says:

        Why don’t you tell me what it says, troll

      • kelly says:

        Gregory Miller to Alisa Terry: As I pointed out, I am not a scientist and so I do not have that data.

        Gregory Miller to Sammi10: Your qualifications?

        If we need qualifications for a civil debate, we don’t need scientists and doctors.

        Again, just trying to show how typical it is for Greg Miller, to use “academies” to pull people down. Should be voted “Most polite and intelligent Disqus commenter of the year”! LOL

  24. Gregory Miller says:

    Alisa, you are just ignorant! No, I don’t admit I have no evidence. Like your other conclusions, this is based on NOTHING. The fact is that every single governmental and private healthcare authority DOES in fact attest and endorse vaccinations. You have shown me nothing different. And I love how you argue with me about the point that by and large, people who contract measles are not vaccinated against it and then you point out those people who WERENT vaccinated against it getting measles! Doesn’t matter whether they are too young or anti-vaccers; point is most weren’t vaccinated. Can you actually follow your own arguments! LOL!

  25. Gregory Miller says:

    You said nothing at all that bears responding to. The very mere fact that you say “I’m my own authority. I am more than qualified to read the research data and inform myself and make up my own conclusions and own mind” Shows how arrogant you are. As though your googling things makes you better qualified than scientists. Enough said.

    • Sammi10 says:

      Why is it, do you suppose that the medical establishment has never done one study on vaccinated vrs. unvaccinated? Do you think it might prove something? If they are so confident in their vaccines they would do this don’t you think?

    • keir watson says:

      But scientists google things. So do MDs. My doctor googled ‘restless leg syndrome’, printed it off and handed it to me. He hadn’t even read it himself. Good job I don’t just accept what the ‘experts’ say!

      Ah, I know what we have here… Projection.

      It’s YOU Gregory, who do not know how to use google, so you rely on what your selected experts tell you. If you can’t evaluate the quality of the information on the Internet without looking for the ‘official expert’ logo, why should anyone believe you are capable of deciding who the experts are in the first place?

      • Gregory Miller says:

        Kier, you tiresome English hag. go away. You are just a troll with a superiority complex. I do know how to use google and I actually run a healthcare agency here in the USA. The problem is that you are so self important that you can’t see the folly of your statements. You do indeed think that you can become an expert by googling. Of course you have to protect that point of view, your snake oil business is based on that level of ignorance and hubris. And please stop throwing around psychological terms that you don’t understand either.

  26. Gregory Miller says:

    God help is if you ever complete medical school. You know why a double blind study has not been conducted on the efficacy of vaccines? ETHICS, you arrogant school kid! We would never do a double blind study on this using unvaccinated children as a control group, you first year med student! You are laughably arrogant. And tell me what science degree you have, since you want to argue education? Maybe you should be aware that there are other ways to study science than just through double blinds. Statistics and data are not dubious.

  27. Gregory Miller says:

    They are not toxic or filthy and your reasoning is seriously flawed. Have you considered all the people you likely have contact with all the time who are vaccinated WITHOUT issues?

  28. Heather Rhodes White says:

    Your point of lifelong immunity through the MMR is not based on the science… see above.

    • Gregory Miller says:

      So when Mike and others challenge the veracity of your assertions because you so clearly just google what you want to find, you accuse THEM of confirmation bias? I see it very clearly in you. Take a look in the mirror.

      • Heather Rhodes White says:

        Actually my research skills include peer-review, which I guess you can find through a google search. Fully vaccinated individuals still get measles, it is a scientific fact….

        • Gregory Miller says:

          It is also a scientific fact that they get measles at a much lesser rate than people who are not vaccinated. See any scientific literature for that one. By the way, reading stuff on the internet is NOT research. It’s reading. In order to research, you have to be a researcher and have a stronger understanding of statistics than apparently you are capable of.

          • Heather Rhodes White says:

            Actually I am a health science major and have taken statistics, and medical research course material as well as pathology, biology, physics etc, as well as having over a decade of clinical experience. Acquiring a measles infection in the U.S. is benign. Most pro-vaccine people use third world statistics to scare monger parents into vaccinating because the morbidity and mortality rates are much higher when there is a lack of nutrition, clean water and sanitation. Further natural acquired immunity produces higher titer levels that are then passed via maternal antibodies to infants. Having a benign infection with positive lasting outcomes is much better then the risk of vaccination that circumvents nature and the protection of infants.

          • Gregory Miller says:

            I have been running a health care organization for 20 years and while you might be a “health science major” you are poorly informed. You don’t strike me as a clinician based on your tangential arguments. Firstly, acquiring measles in the USA is not benign and no one is using “third world” statistics. The FACT is that you have a 1 or 2 in 1,000 chance of developing dangerous encephalitis in the USA, and a 1 in 20 chance of getting pneumonia as a complication of measles. This is not benign. You have a 1 in 1,000,000 chance of getting encephalitis from the vaccine. This is a no brainier. Your chance of morbidity is higher without sanitation, clean water and nutrition. diseases notwithstanding and simply confuses the point that the vaccines do work and also work in third world countries. This is the part that makes me think you are not quite the practitioner you say you are; those are just typical anti-vac talking points. But if you did well in stats, the numbers speak for themselves. And back to my earlier comment, which you deftly sidestepped. You are at more than an order of magnitude at greater risk of contracting measles without the vaccine than you are with it.

            And in your reply to Mike Stevens, I see that you did a lot of cutting and pasting. Google war much? The fact is that only two doses of the MMR vaccine are recommended unless you were immunized with a live, instead of attenuated vaccine. Period. Their is not schedule for a “booster”. However, out of an abundance of caution, they do recommend that you should be re-immunized if your status is unknown or if you were immunized in the years they were using dead vaccine instead of attenuated, which is less effective.

          • Heather Rhodes White says:

            According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) the rate of the most
            serious side effects of measles in the United States is 1:1000 for
            encephalitis and 2:1000 for death (CDC, 2012).
            These statistics are not referenced by the CDC, but it appears that
            they are going off populations from developing countries and not what we
            find in the United States and Britain. Looking at the disease
            statistics from the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR)
            they seem to contradict themselves. If you look at the statistics you
            see that there were “No cases of encephalitis and no deaths were reported” in the United States during that year of surveillance (CDC, 2011).

            In the “Editorial Note” we can see what is happening in the “European
            Region, which reported >30,000 cases of measles, including 27 cases
            of measles encephalitis, a complication that often results in permanent
            neurologic sequelae, and eight measles-related deaths in 2011” (CDC, 2011).

            So in reality we have a 1:1111 risk of encephalitis and 2:7500 risk of
            death. So the over all statistical risk of death or life-long
            disability relating to the infection is 0 to 0.1% or very low. If the
            CDC’s original numbers were correct than 60 deaths should have been
            reported not 8.

            I would also like to add that the CDC states with unsupported reference that “measles has been known (cautionary language) to kill as many as one out of four people” (CDC, 2011).
            That would mean 25% of those who contracted the desease would have a
            fatal outcome. This is contradicted by Helsey et al who studied the
            mortality rates in developing countries and found only 9.7% had fatal
            outcomes (Halsey, N., 2006).

          • Gregory Miller says:

            Heather, you show a remarkable lack of understanding of statistics. The fact that we had no deaths for the limited number of measles cases in the USA does not change or make those statistical probabilities not true. You just don’t seem to grasp how it works. It is also clear from your little website that you are not a scientist or a physician but rather some person with a blog and platform to boost your own self importance. I am not a “pro-vacc” person, I am a pro-science person. People like you, who think they have the acumen and ability to second guess the scientists who work on disease eradication day in and day out are dangerous. you are spreading pseudo-science, calling your reading of articles on the internet “research” when it is not, and still standing by your ludicrous position that vaccines cause autism. Your site is poorly written and contains numerous spelling, contextual and syntax errors. If you can’t manage to author your website with correct English and spelling, what makes you think you know better than every leading health organization on the planet and the entire medical field? I am all too familiar with people like you and your pseudo-science articles and your arrogance thinking that you can sit and read articles and poke holes in the science, even though you are not a scientist. This is what I suspected from your first utterances and you simply confirmed it. By the way, the health care organization that I run serves the developmentally disabled population, of which we have a number of autistic people ranging from Asperger’s to severe autism in dual diagnosis with other mental health disorders. Many of our client’s were not vaccinated at the onset. We in the health care field know how crazy you people are and the half information that you bring to the table and your conspiracy theories. Not a single study has ever linked autism to vaccines. And please don’t try to cite that dreadful Wakefield study.

          • Heather Rhodes White says:

            Ad homonyms without any substance toward the topic. Well that is typical. And I had European statistics listed detailing a significant cohort. You failed to support your claims which I have taken apart with the CDC own data. Vaccines do not cause all autism, but they do cause some. They did cause the brain injury in my son which lead to his autism diagnosis. You are standing in the way of progress, but the flood is coming to clear you out of the way. Best of luck to you and your quack company that has not stalled the epidemic.

          • Heather Rhodes White says:

            Throughout my career in medicine I have heard many times that vaccine
            adverse events are short lived and not serious. The neurological
            effects of vaccination can be broad, and long-lived (Sienkiewicz et al., 2012).
            Further, there is a “positive and statistically significant
            relationship” between vaccines and autism despite the CDC’s large
            epidemiological studies (Delong, G., 2011).
            Vaccine induced autism risk (0.6%) has even been calculated against the
            risk of natural measles mortality (0.1-0.3%), which demonstrates undue
            risk through the overuse of vaccines (Ewing, G., 2009).

          • Tim Horita says:

            You went from “I’m a health science major” to “Throughout my career in medicine” This usually isn’t the same thing. Suggesting there is a vaccine-Autism risk is pretty telling you really haven’t had any career in medicine…

          • Heather Rhodes White says:

            To major in health science at the graduate level one must have a lengthy career in medicine and hold a current federal license.

            Aluminum adjuvants induces “neurotoxicity”. Now, in this study there was a direct correlation between the number of aluminum containing vaccines and the rate of autism (Shaw et al., 2013). We know that patients with autism have neurotoxic brains because cadaver studies show chronic inflammation, and other research demonstrates high glutamate, and cytokines (Rose et al., 2012; Shimmura et al., 2011; Katsuaki et al., 2011). There have been duplicating studies that show aluminum containing vaccines induce nerotoxicity creating the pathophysiology of autism (Shaw, C., Tomljenovic, L., 2013; Seneff et al., 2012; Tomljenovic et al., 2011; Kumar, S., 2002). Further, aluminum interacts negatively with mercury, lead, and glyphosate (GMO herbicide), and is implicated for neurological disease (Shaw et al., 2014).

            Aluminum adjuvants create “induced macrophage activation… resulting interlukin 1, interleukin 6, and TNF production”, which is seen in both type 1 diabetes and autoimmune autism, both of which are epidemic in our pediatric population. Here are two studies that show autoimmune disease correlating with vaccine adjutants (Tomlijenovic, L., Shaw, C., 2012; Israeli et al., 2009). Further research shows aluminum adjuvant induced immunological disorders (Tomlijenovic, L., Shaw, C., 2011; Gherardi et al., 2001). The New York Times wrote a great article that plainly explains autoimmune autism, which is a very lengthy topic that you can explore (Velasquez-Manoff, M., 2012). Autoimmune autism is also described as immunoexcitotoxicty and a mechanism in chronic encephalopathy. Immunoexcitotoxicity causes increased glutamate, oxidative stress, mitochondrial suppression etc. all of which are seen in autism spectrum children (Blaylock et al., 2011).

            In another study that used radiotracers to track the path and endpoints of vaccine aluminum adjuvants from inter muscular injections, which traveled into the brain and accumulated in neurological cells, like the microglia (Khan et al., 2013). Now isn’t it interesting that the microglia is described as a ‘helper cell’ of the innate immune response, and is also found to be abnormally active in patients with autism (Hughes, V., 2013). This arm of the immune response (innate) is never part of the clinical trial work up, therefore this toxicology is ignored by those in support of vaccination. Further, there are other chronic diseases that have over active microglia like AIDs dementia, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, some even say chronic depression. Microgial cells are immune cells that secrete poisons in order to kill microbes that invade the brain. You know when you are sick with the flu (or other infections) and feel foggy — that is why, your microglia are working hard to clear the infection. The trouble starts when you have overactive microglial cells. This study demonstrates that vaccine adjuvants that are known neurotoxins, which are accumulating in these cells that happen to be a biomarker for autism (Khan et al., 2013).

            Several studies show vaccine aluminum adjuvants cause oxidative stress, which is seen in the autism population (Bernardo et al., 2012; Chia-Yi Yuan et al., 2012; Rose et al., 2012).

            Aluminum has been described as the “disease aetiology” in Alzhimer’s (Exley, C., Vickers, T., 2014). If you look at the biomarkers (cytokine, microglia, glutamate) in Alzhimer’s disease you will find direct correlation in the biomarkers in autism. Excitotoxicity and Immunoexitotoxicity triggered by epigenetic factors are at work in both disorders but the presentation of symptoms are not similar, which is to be expected due to the variations in brain development in these comparative populations.

            This ends the summation all the relevant data demonstrating vaccine induced autism in relation to aluminum adjuvant injection.

            That of course is but one vaccine ingredient. I have a lot more research regarding the interplay between vaccine autism correlation. You honestly do not believe the propaganda that the old Wakefield “paper” had anything to do with my decision process regarding vaccines did you? Or for that matter opinions by playboy bunnies?

          • Timbo says:

            No. To major in “Health Science” has absolutely nothing to do with graduating from Medical School. There’s a big difference, missy. Getting a masters degree still has no bearing on the fact that you have not been accepted to, enrolled in, graduated from, or are board certified in a Medical Subspecialty. You’re a poser and a fraud. Admit it! Like a Chiropractor or naturopath that insists that people call the “Doctor” you are a complete fraud. Sorry if this is news to you…

          • Heather Rhodes White says:

            I never said I went to medical school. You can hold a professional license in the field of medicine and not go to medical school. My clinical profession and experience is in CT Trauma, my educational career in Health Science is in research, healthcare management, and education. My education is beyond a masters degree… to apply you must have at least 5+ years in a profession of medicine.

          • Timbo says:

            You don’t have a medical licence. To have one, not only do you need to go to medical school, but you need to complete internship and pass a 3 step board exam. You don’t have a “lengthy medical career” you’re not a “medical provider” or a “clinical profession” so stop pretending to. You’re a fraud if you make claims to have such training and experience.

            Trying to bend words to make you sound like you’ve completed such training is deplorable, fraudulent, and intellectually dishonest.

          • Timbo says:

            To get a graduate degree in some vague “Health Science” does not require clinical experience. You only need to take the GRE and have a 4 year degree. Studying “Health Science” does not make you a clinician.

          • Heather Rhodes White says:

            You are incorrect….

          • Timbo says:

            I’m incorrect?

            HERE ARE YOUR WORDS:
            “Lengthy career in medicine”
            “Throughout my career in medicine”
            “having over a decade of clinical experience”

            YOU said these things, Missy. To try and give the fraudulent impression that you are a board certified practitioner of Medicine. Yet, you don’t have a “career in medicine”, you’ve not diagnosed and treated disease- hence you have no clinical experience.

            If you wheel patients to Xray, sweep floors in a hospital, run lab equipment- you cannot claim this as a career in Medicine you poser.

          • Heather Rhodes White says:

            I am copy and pasting from my work on my webpage because your argument is the same pro-vaccine argument that has been touted for over a decade. It is not science based. AutismRawDatadotNet

          • keir watson says:

            Why are you still using theses stats?

            I’ve already shown you that they demonstrate equal risk of encephalitis whether you vaccinate or not, as only 1 in 1000 unvaccinated people will catch measles over a lifetime, based on the last 10 years measles incidence rates in the USA.

            Continuing to quote these stats demonstrates (1) you don’t understand them, and (2) that the point you are trying to make is false.

          • Gregory Miller says:

            You haven’t shown anything. You’ve made assertions based on your poor understanding of statistics. Your statements are spurious and unfounded. Answer me a question, why is it that you have contrary information to the entire field of epidemiology? Is it because you are better informed or are blissful in your ignorance? How arrogant does one have to be in order to think they are more correct than an entire field of science. Ultimately, it is not me you have an issue with, it is the entire scientific and medical community. But then again, as stated before, you are a representative of “big alterna” medicine. You have a vested interest in furthering your nonsense because it is your bread and butter.

          • Gregory Miller says:

            I think a review of the Dunning-Kruger effect is probably a better use of your time than this topic. It certainly explains very clearly to me why it is you think you know better than the scientific and medical communities.

          • Tim Horita says:

            Feel free to cite a peer-reviewed medical journal to support your claims here. You can’t, can you. Now run along little girl…

          • keir watson says:

            hi Heather
            Gregory Miller keeps giving these stats and saying they speak for themselves. I have shown him in another comment above, that he is using the stats wrong, but he keeps on. Perhaps you can explain it better to him?

            My point is that his stats do not refer to comparable situations. The 1 in a million risk for the jab applies to everybody who gets the jab, but the 1 in a 1000 for people who get the disease will only apply to a small percentage of the unvaccinated as the disease incidence in the USA is so low.

            I calculated that over a lifetime, an unvaccinated person in the USA has only a 0.1% chance of catching measles (based on the last 10 years of cases in the US), hence as things stand the encephalitis risk for them is also 1 in a million.

            He keeps using his stats as if they win the argument. All they do is show he doesn’t understand what he is saying!

          • Gregory Miller says:

            1:1,000 developing complications up to and including encephalitis, pneumonia and death is not benign by any definition.

          • Guest says:

            Fact:
            According the this graph provided by the CDC, by 1960, death rates
            from Measles was virtually ZERO per 100,000 individuals infected in the
            U.S. The vaccine was introduced in 1963 following 10+ years of <1
            death rate per 100,000.

            Fact: when the CDC explains to you that
            1 out of every 1,000 children infected with measles will die, they are
            including data from children living in impoverished nations. Children
            who are starved (and lacking in vitamin A particularly), children who
            lack access to clean water, nourishing foods, and an environment
            conducive to healing. Read the inserts for yourself and pay very close
            attention to the verbiage.

          • Heather Rhodes White says:

            Fact: According to the graph provided by the CDC, by 1960, death rates from Measles was virtually ZERO per 100,000 individuals infected in the U.S. The vaccine was introduced in 1963 following 10+ years of < 1 death rate per 100,000.

            Fact: when the CDC explains to you that 1 out of every 1,000 children infected with Measles will die, they are including data from children living in impoverished nations. Children who are starved (and lacking in vitamin A particularly), children who lack access to clean water, nourishing foods, and an environment conductive to healing. Read the inserts for yourself and pay very close attention to the verbiage.

          • Tim Horita says:

            No one is dying of polio now- should we stop vaccinating for that? How about H. influenza? Your logic is lacking here. The goal of the vaccine program isn’t limited to just preventing death- it’s to prevent diseases’ morbidity AND mortality. Because modern medicine is doing such a good job with infectious disease doesn’t mean we should pick and choose from it- that’s quite ignorant (and one of the foundations of the anti-vaxx movement)

          • Heather Rhodes White says:

            Actually I am not afraid of contracting a vaccine preventable disease in the U.S. because I know that risk or morbidity and mortality is extremely rare. I also know I will gain natural immunity and pass maternal antibodies to my offspring, or my to young to be vaccinated. I am also not ignorant on the subject. I am a science major and have specifically studied this topic for over 10 years. So you are presuming a lot here.

          • Tim Horita says:

            So because you’re confident in modern medicine to keep you healthy (because we provide a longer life spine, better treatment for infectious diseases, pro-active preventative care) do you think we should abandon routine vaccinations (recommended by the same modern medical field) to high risk populations?

          • Heather Rhodes White says:

            I think modern medicine is very good in the acute care setting but lacks a lot in prevention, and chronic disease management. I would never say I am confident in modern medicine to keep me healthy. Optimal health has more to do with the individuals natural environment and their proactive nature in sustaining well-being. I believe in integrative medicine which is a mix of needed allopathic care in the acute setting but when thinking of prevention and long term goals I look more to the whole body approach using clean water, nutrition, suppliments (if needed), and exercise to stay healthy. Further we in the U.S. are actually decreasing our life expectancy for the first time in our history, and we are not as healthy as in previous generations because of chronic disease epidemics (cancer, diabetes, dementia, autism etc). Also our infant mortality rates are the worst among the developed world yet we spend more per capita in healthcare. I used to support vaccination, but now after reading the science and the disease process I could never responsibly do so again.

          • Tim Horita says:

            Modern medicine isn’t pick and choose because science isn’t pick and choose. The health of our nation is indeed poor- I have a long list of reasons and public health ideas, but this is beyond the scope of this thread (largely nutrition oriented). But you’re wrong about prevention: colonoscopies PREVENT- not just diagnose- colon cancer. Mammography saves lives. Proper treatment of diabetes prevents amputation, blindness, stroke, kidney failure, heart attacks- not from just drinking clean water or sucking on wood chips and herbal teas.

          • Heather Rhodes White says:

            Modern medicine is but one arm of the healthcare landscape… Modern medicine is associated with a paternalistic allopatic approach that is largely being rejected by the patient population when thinking of prevention and chronic disease management. I think you lack knowledge in integrative medicine and once again are jumping on the propaganda band wagon.

          • Timbo says:

            “Modern medicine is but one arm of the healthcare landscape” says the person who is not educated in Modern Medicine…

          • Heather Rhodes White says:

            Inflammatory rhetoric with nothing intelligent to say.

          • Tim Horita says:

            It’s a common misconception that Western/Allopathic Medicine is only for acute care. Melanoma is not an acute illness. Porphyria is not an acute illness. Multiple sclerosis is often a chronic debilitating disease. I think what you mean to say is “Real Illness” not “Acute”. If you have a medical problem you should be seen by someone who has studied medicine. If you’re healthy (read: no medical problems) and want to go to some Homeopathy/Voodoo nonsense, be my guest.

          • Heather Rhodes White says:

            No I understand the difference between acute and chronic. And I do believe in an integrative approach when managing diseases like melanoma, MS etc….. Many integrative medical doctors are M.D.’s so once again you are following the propaganda bandwagon here. You should read Mark Hyman M.D.’s work on functional integrative medicine. He is the Clinton’s personal M.D. too.

          • Tim Horita says:

            You may not die from pertussis, but if you get it and give it to an infant- they could definitely die from it (especially if they’re young, premature, etc). As a healthy adult, you may not die from a Haemophilus Influenza infection, but is much more virulent in children in the form of meningitis or epiglottitis. Same story for diphtheria, meningococcus. So, you’re” not afraid”, but you are most certainly ignorant to how all this works…

          • Heather Rhodes White says:

            Actually I am not…. I realize that pertussis is particularly deadly among our infants. And I also know that the science shows the circulation of B parapertusis is the cause of the recent serge in the outbreaks… Further, that strain is not covered by the vaccine, YET the public is told, mostly through propaganda that the resurgence is due to the unvaccinated, which is a very dishonest statement. I also know through reading the science that the vaccinated become asymptomatic carriers of the B parapertusis infection and unknowingly infect those around them ~ like the to young to be vaccinated…. So here again we see the vaccinated given a false sense of security and putting infants in harms way.

            If you look at the statistics of HIB morbidity rates and or mortality rates you will see prior to the vaccination those occurrences were extremely rare. Further if you look at the incidence of vaccine adverse events from HIB you see a much higher incidence in negative outcomes then you did from the disease itself…. This is about risk verses benefit here.

            I understand how this stuff works….

          • Tim Horita says:

            You’re also completely ignoring the natural history of these diseases and exactly how we were able to keep them at bay- Polio, Smallpox, etc. You can say, “we don’t need a polio vaccine because nobody is dead from polio today” but saying it would be safe to let polio return is asinine. Same thing for Rubella and what it does in pregnancy to the fetus. Have you even read about these?

          • Tim Horita says:

            And, I call bullshit that you have a career in Medicine…

          • Heather Rhodes White says:

            Well that is bold…. lol

          • Heather Rhodes White says:

            The measles infection for those in the United States is a 3 day viral infection that progresses with fever, runny nose, cough and rash. It is extremely uncommon for a healthy child in a developed country to suffer from lasting effects due to the infection. Once a patient has contracted measles they will be provided with permanent immunity and mothers will pass maternal antibodies to their offspring not like what is seen from vaccine derived presumed immunity. This is the evolutionary cycle that has sustained us and made us stronger.

            Further, there are nearly 30 measles genotypes (that we know of) and the MMR only vaccinates for ONE; genotype A. Anyway if you notice when the term “foreign measles” is used I would bet money that is outside genotype A and therefore the MMR vaccine is even more totally worthless at prevention of infection.

            I have seen you use it here in this comment section, but declined to correct your error, because frankly you obviously worship at the alter of vaccination.

          • Gregory Miller says:

            Actually we survived as a species despite diseases like that and because we can reproduce faster as well as a number of other factors. If our evolution sustained us then we would not be catching this disease any more.

            As far as your last comment, I don’t worship at the alter of vaccination. I just know the obvious: the world’s scientists, doctors and their respective fields know better than I do, and better than you do, about these issues.
            I believe that you, as well as a number of other anti-vaccers suffer from Dunning-Kruger effect.

          • Heather Rhodes White says:

            I would suggest you read about viral mutations as a starting point. Our very survival proves that evolution has sustained us.

            You seemed to have glossed over a lot of facts that I have laid out with supportive statistics. You also seem to compare 2015 to the 1800s. You also seem to think that health is delivered through a needle, and that EVERYONE agrees with you. Of course your points are dishonest. And since you started it I belive that you, as well as a number of pro-vaccers suffer from cognitive dissonance….

            In the age of information ignorance is a choice.

            Fact: According to the graph provided by the CDC, by 1960, death rates from Measles was virtually ZERO per 100,000 individuals infected in the U.S. The vaccine was introduced in 1963 following 10+ years of < 1 death
            rate per 100,000.

            Fact: when the CDC explains to you that 1 out of every 1,000 children infected with Measles will die, they are including data from children living in impoverished nations. Children who are starved (and lacking in vitamin A particularly), children who lack access to clean water, nourishing foods, and an environment conductive to healing. Read the inserts for yourself and pay very close attention to the verbiage.

          • Heather Rhodes White says:

            CDC Graph

          • Gregory Miller says:

            The fact that mutations exist and occur and that in many cases we adapt does’t mean that this is the case with everything or measles. With a 90% infection rate and the results of measles being completely devastating to many people’s health without the intervention of modern medicine, it is misleading to suggest this scenario as an example of an “evolutionary cycle that has sustained us and made us stronger”. Not when prior to vaccination efforts many people suffered, which is why the vaccine was developed in the first case.
            I didn’t gloss over any “facts” that you laid out. I simply pointed out that your assertions are not up to statistical muster because we, for the most part, have been successful in preventing measles. That appears to be changing now thanks to misinformation hacks and people such as yourself claiming better knowledge and understanding than the very vast majority of epidemiologists and immunologists.
            The FACT of the matter is that the statistics and reference I sent you do not include world wide statistics. You assert that but I see that is not the case.
            Another fact to question is your assertion that the measles is tantamount to the sniffles. It is not, in fact. And it is far more virulent than a common cold. There are real reasons why the medical and scientific community is no longer debating this issue. It is settle science. Your phony qualification claiming that you are a scientist is a very irresponsible position to take. You are contributing to the problems.

          • Heather Rhodes White says:

            Well thank you for at least admitting that measles can be devastating to people’s health without the intervention of modern medicine; that at least is a refreshing post made by you. Many people suffered because they were drinking water they bathed their cows in, and were malnourished, so yeah again you are comparing the 1800s to today.

            I guess you have also been successful at preventing scarlet fever too? That was a viral infection that died out the same time measles did but we did not have a vaccine for it. Just like with MRSA when you challenge a microbe you change the disease. It is very arrogant that many folks like yourself think you can outsmart nature. Not to mention vaccines are contaminated with all sorts of things. The technology is “bargain basement” < which is coined from a vaccine maker from MERCK…. We haven't come very far from the days they were scraping the pox from dairy cow utters and digging holes in milk maids arms… The process is and gained exposure(s) are very risky especially when you yourself say infection in the developed world not devastating because of modern medicine.

            Actually my summary of the measles infection came from the emergency medicine page and is supported by science. But don't let that stop you from gaining any insight.

          • Gregory Miller says:

            Yes, the intervention of modern medicine, which is the opposite of what you are arguing.
            Scarlet fever is not a virus nor is MRSA. It is a bacterial infection and it still exists to this day, though it is easier to treat after the advent of antibiotics. the function and response of bacteria to antibiotics is not the same as comparing them to vaccines. Different type of treatment and different response.
            Vaccines being “contaminated” with “all sorts of things”?
            I think we are done here. Dunning-Kruger is all I have.

          • Heather Rhodes White says:

            The 1 in 1000 statistic that you used in measles mortality death is also referenced on the World Health Organization as a “world” statistic of occurrence. You yourself said measles CAN be devastating to people’s health without the intervention of modern medicine. Measles is a benign infection in the U.S.

          • Gregory Miller says:

            Again, you spoke of mortality, not me. You are twisting things. I referred to complications, up to and including death. This is the second time I have corrected that misquote from you

          • Tim Horita says:

            The fact that no one has died recently from something is not the same as it being benign. Typical anti-vaxxer rhetoric… The complication rate will increase as the number of outbreaks increases- which is now the case thanks to people not vaccinating. We had measles under control 15 years ago- now it’s on its way back.

          • Heather Rhodes White says:

            According to science measles is predicted to come back because of a shift in epidemiology due to vaccination. Vaccines wane and do not cover newborns and those born after 1940 in particular do not pass naturally aquired antibodies to their offspring. Because of this and due to viral gene mutations we will see a predicted spike in infectious disease, but not due to the unvaccinated, who typically are much healthier then the vaccinated populations. The very good news is vaccine preventable diseases are benign in the U.S. not because we vaccinate but because we have resources that can successfully support the individual through the infection process decreasing morbidity and mortality… we are not living in the 1800s…

          • Tim Horita says:

            Measles wasn’t coming back until the most recent anti-vaxx movement. In 2000 we were doing quite well. Now, in these areas where affluent white self-absorbed women are forming tiny cults the disease is poking back through. Orange County California. Marin County California. Saying Measles, Rubella, Pertussis are benign makes me think you have limited knowledge or experience in infectious disease. Now, your lack of information is your own business, not mine. Your claiming that these diseases are benign is inaccurate and irresponsible.

          • Heather Rhodes White says:

            Actually the “anti-vaxx” movement has been here since the small pox vaccine was invented. There has always been ebs and flows in disease. I assume you are talking about the most recent outbreak of measles and the propaganda from the mainstream? What I wonder is the irrational fear people have over the measles infection. Read the statistics for yourself and see how many people who have contracted measles in the U.S. have died lately? Or for that matter who have suffered lasting damage…. According to the CDC ZERO! That is because measles is a 3 day infection that is benign or favorable for recovery.

            Pertussis: Did you know that the virulent strain of pertussis (B parapertussis) is not covered by the vaccine, YET the unvaccinated are being blamed for the B parapertussis infections now circulating. Further, individuals are told to vaccinate themselves with the DTaP to prevent infection to the to young to be vaccinated YET they are actually giving these individuals a false sense of security… I find this very dishonest. This is a marketing scheme and has little to do with infectious disease prevention.

            I am very responsible with my ~ and my families health and well being. I base my consented decisions upon painstaking research in all areas of the subject.

          • Tim Horita says:

            Vaccinating against pertussis is a marketing scheme now? You know, when anti-vaxxers throw around conspiracy theories, it doesn’t add to credibility. It got old 10 years ago. Now, would you like me to teach you about pertussis and how the pertussis vaccine prevents propagation through a community and is one of several ways of preventing further outbreaks?

          • Tim Horita says:

            Here’s what you’ve said- (correct me if I’m misquoting)
            “Did you know that the virulent strain of pertussis (B parapertussis) is not covered by the vaccine”

            Do I know about pertussis? Yes.

            Do I now that you’re wrong about parapertussis being more virulent? Yes.

            B parapertussis is actually a MUCH MILDER infection and is of SHORTER duration. So your nonsense about a “marketing scheme” looks to me like unsubstantiated ill informed typical anti-vaxxer conspiracy theory.

          • Heather Rhodes White says:

            B parapertussis is found to be so among the vaccinated population, but not so in the to young to be vaccinated…. That is why I said the vaccinated are asymptomatic carriers of B parapertussis…..

          • Tim Horita says:

            You can back peddle all you want. You were WRONG about the virulence of parapertusis- it’s not a significant threat, and your anitivaxx”Marketing scheme” you suggested was silly

          • Heather Rhodes White says:

            Oh my goodness… just because B parapertussis is asymptomatic in the vaccinated doesn’t not mean it is not a significant threat. The reason why we vaccinate for pertussis is because it is deadly in the to young to be vaccinated. Our infants! B parapertussis is deadly in that population. Now I ask you why in the world are we using a useless vaccine that is not protecting the very population that it was designed to protect? Use some critical thought here. Cheers

          • Timbo says:

            “Asymptomatic” your words. Previously you described parapertussis as a “more virulent strain” – then added in some marketing/conspiracy bullshit.

            You just got caught talking about things you know nothing about, cupcake. Run along now, I think they’re serving Vegan Cheeseburgers somewhere…

          • Heather Rhodes White says:

            Virulent to those to young to be vaccinated ~ newborns. The exact cohort we are trying to protect. Pertussis or B parapertusis is benign in older populations ~ the vaccinated populations… the populations that are asymptomatic carriers of the disease, which are spreading the strain to the newborn that are most at risk.

            Critical thought escapes a pro-vaccine zealous once again..

            Further, I am a omnivore…..

          • Timbo says:

            I’m going to let you dig yourself deeper for us all to watch.
            The Pertussis vaccine does not cover parapertussis (as I stated, parapertussis is very mild).
            1. Are you claiming we should also develop an additional vaccine against Parapertussis?

            2. How many infants die of Parapertussis versus Pertussis?

          • Timbo says:

            1. Adult pertussis is not benign! REAL B pertussis produces a specific toxin (B parapertussis does not). B pertussis causes a very prolonged illness (B parapertussis does not) B pertussis causes an elevated white blood cell count (B parapertussis does not). This is one of many reasons why adults should get the vaccine as many adults HAVE NOT BEEN VACCINATED. In addition, if you’re going to be around infants, you should definitely get your pertussis vaccine (and not be distracted with your nonsense about parapertussis)
            2. B parapertussis is not even NEARLY as harmful in adults OR children. Your claiming that this is a clinically relevant issue is further evidence that you have ZERO clinical experience.
            3. There is no cross immunity between REAL pertussis and this B parapertussis you seem so excited about.

          • Timbo says:

            You’re now starting to use doublespeak to cover up your blatant error that I called you on.
            1. Parapertussis is not a deadly pathogen- regardless of vaccine status it is a mild form (not the “virulent strain” you claimed it to be)
            2. Your claiming this is all a “Marketing scheme” fits with your line of paranoia which is clearly tied to ignorance- common in anti-vaxxers
            3. The pertussis vaccine absolutely protects from pertussis which is the ACTUAL pathogen that can kill babies.

            So, do you recommend people get their pertussis shot if they’re going to be around infants?

          • Timbo says:

            Parapertussis is often so mild 40% of case have NO SYMPTOMS AT ALL.

            Here’s the irony: You claim Measles is benign (it isn’t, and any legitimate health care practitioner would know this) but Parapertussis is some scary disease (it really isn’t)

            Thank you for playing ***ushers you to the door****

          • Tim Horita says:

            Maternal immunity passed to infants is quite temporary. You should know that if you claim to have a career in medicine. This is why the MMR vaccine is delayed for 12 months.

          • Heather Rhodes White says:

            Actually the MMR is delayed after a year because of titer level studies. And actually better titer levels are seen at 15 months not 12. Maternal immunity lasts six months to a year, during a period of critical development. Childhood diseases were given that term for a reason, because they typically occurred during the period of three to seven years. The vast majority of those infected made a full recovery passing on immunity to their offspring, not like we see today. Today, we have a very vulnerable population of infants not because of the unvaccinated, but because of the vaccine policy itself.

  29. mcfilmmakers says:

    Two words: Population density.

  30. Brent Thoma says:

    This is a terrible article: (1) they say they are not taking sides, but in not taking sides they are implying that both sides have legitimate evidence – this is a common problem in journalism called false equivalence and the non-expert, opinion-supported side (anti-vax) benefits from it (2) it is HUGELY ironic that they point out how correlation does not equal causation so explicitly and then (seemingly unaware that they are doing so) build their entire argument around correlations of outbreaks with vaccination rates (3) the fatal assumption that this correlation-dependent article makes is that vaccination rates are the ONLY thing that leads to outbreaks. There are many other factors involved in this that play into this. Again ironically, they mention some of them in the article without noting that it invalidates the core of their argument.

    They can throw around as many anecdotes and as much CDC data as they want and it won’t prove their point. The bottom line is that vaccines have been proven to work and the more people that are unvaccinated the more likely it will be that outbreaks (and bad ones) happen. This is complete pseudoscience.

  31. fizbanic says:

    Hold on their whole theory and stance is based on the percentage of people that are vaccinated vs not and then comparing how many people are infected? Sorry that is not a study, that is just speculation and no one should make any decisions based on something so unproven. The fact that numbers can be presented in a way to bolster either side. Something that can be manipulated to give a false impression is absolute bull.

  32. Mike Stevens says:

    OK, say only half the vulnerable catch it.
    Then there will be 10 unvaccinated with it, and 24 vaccinated with it.
    Understand now?

  33. Gregory Miller says:

    No your not. The state still has a high population comparatively.

  34. LauraCondon says:

    Isn’t it unethical and immoral to vaccinate against viral infections such as measles and mumps when the science shows that natural viral exposure provides both life-long immunity against reoccuring illness AND a robust immune system that protects against cancer but that vaccination prevents this strong immunity against cancer? Isn’t it time to repeal the mandates?

    • Andrew Lazarus says:

      Except for the hundreds or thousands of people who died from these diseases. I guess, snicker, they got lifetime immunity too. Plus the ones who were deafened, blinded, crippled, or brain-damaged.

      Don’t join the cult of the Badass Immune System. It’s nonsense.

    • Chubby Rain says:

      That kind of defeats the purpose of vaccinating them in the first place…

  35. Steven Rogers says:

    This is explained quite clearly in the CDC release: the cases involve primarily unvaccinated individuals who have traveled abroad or who have been exposed to people who have traveled abroad. That’s why they don’t track percentages of those unvaccinated: if a state has a high percentage of unvaccinated individuals but a low percentage of those individuals travel, they will not be initially affected, though they likely will be as the outbreak spreads. CA has a large number of cases despite a relatively low percentage unvaccinated because more people there travel or are exposed to those who travel. In particular CA has a large concentration of Filipinos, who often travel home, resulting in high exposure in a country where measles has become common. Of course the disease will show up first nearest its entry point, and of course it will spread from there. Weak argument in this article and a totally incorrect heasdline.

  36. Gregory Miller says:

    Jon, everything I have asserted is verifiable via every single scientific medical organization in the world. You have. Tied nothing. Just more links to axe grinding sites. Now I suppose you want to tell me that you have better information than all those organizations. I’m familiar with people like you and your conspiracy nonsense where you think you know things that the real scientists don’t. I’m not going down your rabbit hole of lunacy

  37. keir watson says:

    I posted two very relevant and well researched responses, but neither has appeared. Why?

  38. Gregory Miller says:

    Nice! A reference to Mercola, as though that should be the basis of any impartial review. Mercola has his own snake oil to peddle.

  39. Gregory Miller says:

    I don’t know what you mean about the titers being “falsely boosted” this is not grounded in science. And frankly, if Natural News is your frame of reference, then I think maybe look at sources that are less biased and not slanted so much.

  40. kelly says:

    Stacey Nicole Doan , that is really common sense and Greg Miller could not get it!

    • Louise_Chanary says:

      No. It’s flawed reasoning.
      “86% were unvaccinated or had unknown vaccinated status” means that a number were unvaccinated (of which we are sure), and of a number we don’t know their vaccination status. They have a certain number of unvaccinated people, of which they are sure. How many exactly is not stated in that sentence, but they do know for sure so it is either mentioned in whatever paper that came from, or you could give those authors a call and they could tell you.
      But Stacey does not know that number, because she did not do that research. That is Greg’s point.

  41. kelly says:

    I also find it laughable that you’d quickly jump into conclusions that only doctors and scientists can talk or debate about this, Greg Miller. So typical of you.

    • Chubby Rain says:

      Doctors and scientists are done debating based on current evidence. What Greg Miller is doing is simply relating the conclusions of doctors and scientists…

    • Louise_Chanary says:

      Researching is not the same as debating. Research provides evidence, not
      debatable opinions. Scientists have had years and years of training in
      doing research, so they are definitely better equipped than someone who
      did not have this training (a non-scientist). Scientists also have up to
      date knowledge of the results of research that they themselves did not
      do, because they read many scientific journals in which the latest
      results from other researchers are reported. Non-scientists do not have
      access to these journals (they are behind a pay wall), and if they did
      they would not understand most of the articles because non-scientists
      did not have years and years of relevant education.
      Non-scientists
      only have access to whatever journalists write about in non-specific
      language. This is enough to just go day to day through life, but it is
      not enough to base medical decisions on.

    • Sick of Infobull says:

      Research shows anti-vaxers to be wrong, and costing hundreds of thousands of lives, enjoy your high horse, eventually you’ll realize your riding a donkey backwards.

  42. James M. Barber says:

    Wow, there are still a solid crowd of anti vaccination monday morning scientists here. This internet thing really took off, usually you had to troll business school parking lots and music festivals to hear this kind of awesomely bad science denial.

    • Gregory Miller says:

      Yes, thanks for that. I’m am constantly astounded as to the lack of understanding of basic science and statistics and the nearly religious devotion to conspiracy theories. I worry about the future of our society when this sort of nonsense seems to rule soceity more and more.

    • David Uhas says:

      The grass roots movement of vaccine damage awareness is growing unfortunately because of the thousands of children injured or killed by vaccines and witnessed by their parents. Sheeple are waking up and will continue to do so.

      • Sick of Infobull says:

        See the problem with that argument is theirs no evidence that I ever seen put forward, vague refrences to ‘killed/injured’ children, while ignoring hundreds of thousands of deaths from previously eliminated diseases which have come back since the anti-vaxers said “Who cares that the research was bad and the researcher so unethical his career as a research scientist ended with his pile of lies.”

        Anti-vaxers are killing children.

        • Bobsbride2 says:

          Sick of Infobull, it’s spelled “there’s” not “theirs.” 😉

          And since you’ve never seen any evidence (so you think) then the evidence doesn’t exist. I think there’s a logical fallacy for that.

          • Sick of Infobull says:

            I’ve tried to find the evidence, and I’ve tried to verify citations etc provided by anti-vaxers. It goes nowhere, either the ‘citations’ are just echo chambered BS.(Meaning everyone just cites each other and no one actually has any empirical evidence.0 Or no evidence is offered and i’m told to do my own research.

            I have done my own research and the anti vaxer arguments are empty and fallacious.

          • Sue Rogers says:

            There is evidence of vaccine injury and death. This is a reality. They are not completely safe. Yes, the majority of people immunized come away with no adverse reactions. But for some the benefits do not outweigh the risks. There is a Vaccine Injury Compensation Program in which the US courts have awarded over 2 billion dollars to vaccine victims for their catastrophic injury. This is a fact. They have admitted that vaccines can cause death and disability. You cannot deny this. The way I see it, it is a risk to vaccinate, and a risk to not vaccinate. Life is dangerous business. By the way, I am NOT an antivaxer. I just believe in knowing all the facts, not just the ones that the CDC and the pharmaceutical companies give us.

          • Gregory Miller says:

            Th VICP was developed to be no fault so that the scientists and the companies that develop vaccines can be free to find the faulty areas and improve them, by the way. And they may have spent 2B to date, but as a numerical value, very few pele actually attempt compensation and only about 34% of those who try get compensation. In other words, the rest are not harmed as a result of the vaccine. Remember, it is no fault, so it’s not as though the vaccine companies are sending lawyers to defend a lawsuit. And the other point is that virtually everything that we do medically has risks. But the risks are minuscule as compared to getting the disease being vaccinated against.

          • Sick of Infobull says:

            I am not claiming there are no risks associated with vaccines. The risks of vaccinating individually are outweighed by the risks of a non vacinated society, to society and in many ways the individual as well.

            There are risks to everything; antibiotics can be lethal, and will put your system through the ringer either way. Should we not use them for major infections anymore?

            There are more than risks with the vaccine-deniers movement there are realities. Since the start of the movement diseases which were more or less eliminated domestically have made major resurgences, anti-vaxing has already contributed to hundreds of thousands of deaths.

            All arguments to attribute quantifiable danger to vaccines fall far short when it comes to standing up to critical analysis.

            So were dealing with hundreds of thousands versus some maybe.

            But let people cling to bad science, it’s their right to jeopardize others children.

          • George says:

            And you think you are capable of critical analysis!? ‘Anti-vaxing has already contributed to hundreds of thousands of deaths’. What? This is 100% drivel. Let’s just make up numbers and ideas and spout them! I want you to cling to your idiotic world view so that we can be rid of you the sooner. What a waste of space….

          • Gregory Miller says:

            Speaking of idiots; the person who thinks that Andrew Wakefield is a respectable source of information. Sick of Infobull might have somewhat exaggerated numbers as it relates to the numbers in resurgence groups but the point remains the same and it is verifiable from virtually every bloody private health care and governmental oversight organization on the planet. To ignore this must be quite an effort. Probably easy to do in your basement with your tin hat on. Dunning-kruger effect is your issue.

          • George says:

            And yet you name yourself ‘Sick of Infobull’. How ironic!

            I suggest you read the book ‘Callous Disregard’ by Andrew Wakefield. You will have some idea of history then. Reactions to vaccines have been common and severe and noted as such by genuine doctors since the first vaccine. Don’t buy the book, don’t spend money on it but borrow it from the library. It is a great read. Names, dates, quotes from letters, insight into the world of lies, deception, turncoats and more are all in there. Oh, and the corruption of medical journalism. I recommend it.

          • Timbo says:

            Andrew Wakefield is a fraud and his fraud is now well known.
            He fabricated data to promote a vaccine he was trying to develop. He took money from lawyers who were building a case against the MMR vaccine in England. When this was made public (and it is quite public now, all of it) he was rightfully banished.
            You suggesting we read a book by someone as shameful as he, is idiotic.

          • George says:

            But you really cannot say that if you have not read the book. It means nothing. Actually Wakefield (who I have no reason to support, especially as he still promotes vaccines, albeit single shots rather than multiples, and I don’t support any, apart from the rabies shot if bitten by a rabid dog as you have nothing to loose at that point as rabies is 100% fatal and the shots may conceivably save you) Wakefield is a perfectly normal gastroenterologist. He didn’t lead any research, just worked in a team that had patients come their way, in the normal way of things in a busy hospital department, and they all acted properly in regards to the investigations they performed on the patients that were sent to them. Really you should be careful what you say, as you might find you are trotting out things others want you to believe which are not the truth at all. That is why you need to read Callous Disregard (borrow it from the library, don’t spend your own money on it, obviously) as it goes in great depth into just what the set up was at the Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine in London at the time that the infamous case series paper was published in The Lancet. The consultant (John Walker Smith) in charge of the team studying inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) was internationally highly regarded, and together the team had published extensively for over a decade, so they were the obvious choice for doctors all over London to send their paediatric IBD to.
            I won’t try to precise the book here, but please read it rather than comment on it when you know nothing about it. The devil, as they say, is in the detail, so the details must be read in order to know what this story was really all about.

          • Sick of Infobull says:

            O.K. I’ll read that if you’ll read the actual science around vaccines… but I know you wont…

          • George says:

            Of course I read the science on vaccines, and have done for over 20 years! This has been a strong thread of interest since my realisation of corruption around this subject in the 1994 MMR push which was found to be due to the vaccines reaching their sell by date, and not due to a likely measles epidemic, as the dire warnings stated with as much alarmism as they could muster. And (not sure if you picked up my earlier comments on this) but of massive significance, the batch that they were pushing on people was known to be contaminated by bovine nerve tissue from BSE infected cattle.

            If you have a particular paper or series of papers or texts about a vaccine or anything related that I may have missed please do pass it on to me. I WILL read it, I WANT to be informed. Only the truth is worth having, anything less is trouble and I am not interested in trouble.

          • Gregory Miller says:

            Good for you! You can pick on someone’s tip! Big guy, you are. The logical fallacy is actually that you think because you say the evidence exists that it simply does or that the evidence says what the anti-vaccers say it does. Because in fact, a ton of evidence does exist. And it shows what the people whose job to study that evidence says it does, which is save lives and works for the vast majority of people.

        • KrisTal_K says:

          MMR is an attenuated (weakened) live virus vaccine
          What they aren’t saying is when you get the vaccines (NOT immunizations) you have now become a walking
          petri dish. You are contagious.

          • banananaaaaa says:

            citation needed
            and if you can vaccinate people by just being around them after being vaccinated isn’t that a good thing?

          • Gregory Miller says:

            Actually, that’s the other part of it. it is in fact a food thing.

          • Gregory Miller says:

            Not exactly. They are weakened and designed to not reproduce well. And the ATTENUATED form is transmittable, which can affect immunocompromised people or their family. This is why they screen before giving. In some cases where the individual or a family member is immunocompromised, and a dead virus version is available, they will use that. If one isn’t available, you just don’t get it and rely on herd immunity to avoid the disease, which is why people should be vaccinated.

          • Laurie J. Willberg says:

            The public has been duped that “attenuated” viruses exist. Viruses are comprised of DNA/RNA which are completely inactive outside a living host. It doesn’t matter whether they claim they’re “alive” or “dead” or “weakened”. But once you’ve been infected with them through injection you can now shed them around your environment for others to pick up.

          • Gregory Miller says:

            That is not entirely accurate. You can technically shed the attenuated virus, that being the weakened and ineffective strain. It will not affect the average person but could impact people with immunity diseases and disorders. This is why they screen; so they don’t give attenuated vaccines to people who live with immunocompromised persons. Dead virus is not an issue. Though those vaccines are less effective but a booster is usually warranted in this cases. See, the truth is a whol lot more reasonable than the half truth. Also, the public hasn’t been duped into thinking that attenuated viruses exist. Millions of scientists and doctors, worldwide, know they do. It’s only people without scientific training or knowledge that make this claim.

          • Laurie J. Willberg says:

            You keep persisting with your empty appeal to authority and still quoting pop-culture memes. You should probably give up the paid pharma shill game and find something ethical to do.

          • Gregory Miller says:

            I realize that your sense of superiority won’t let you see this, but your defense mechanisms are now bringing you not only to the point that you think you know some secret about the millions of scientists and doctors in those respective communities, but you don’t. Your re inventing these things in your head because it makes you feel more relevant in the world. The fact is that I’m not quoting pop culture memes, just scientific fact. Actually, I have no idea what that even means, since the very beginning of your “pop culture” jihad or my “empty appeal to authority”. Both of those statements are non-sequiturs.. But please don’t explain. Your closing comment about the “paid pharma shill” speaks volumes about how out of touch with reality you are.

          • Gregory Miller says:

            And you should do some “research” on the Dunning-Kruger effect. It has real world implications for you and your attitudes about how “informed” you think you are about these “theories”

          • Chubby Rain says:

            Greg, can you send some of those Big Pharma dollars my way? I’ve got rather large student loans to pay off.

          • Gregory Miller says:

            Ii only have about 100,000 in US dollars. Happy to give it to you. If you need more I will have to tap into my “big alternative ” account which has a bit more disposable cash in it since they aren’t accountable to anyone. Let me know how much you want.

          • Timbo says:

            Think about this for a second (which may be your maximum capacity) If someone were paid by a pharmaceutical company, wouldn’t you expect them to promote something from that company- at least once by now? We’re going to just add this to your list of things you haven’t considered and don’t understand.

          • Chubby Rain says:

            Attenuated viruses DO exist – the first was developed by Pasteur in 1885. He took rabies-infected cow brains and inoculated rabbits – over several generations this lead to an “attenuated” version of rabies that caused mild disease in cows but produced immunity to wild-type rabies. We have better ways of doing this currently. Again, your medical knowledge appears to be over 100 years out of date…

          • Laurie J. Willberg says:

            LOL You’re going to have to do a lot better than pop-culture articles about Pasteur. Viruses were not actually discovered until years later, so the info. you found on his supposed attenuation of them is a load of nonsense. If you really do your homework you’ll find that his erstwhile vaccine killed 100s of people and was hyped through a falsified notion of an epidemic of rabies that never existed.
            But this is all besides the point.
            Measles is not Bubonic Plague and most people are getting fed up with the childish rhetoric people like you are riding on.

          • Chubby Rain says:

            The info came from my virology textbook, Principles of Virology: Molecular Biology, Pathogenesis, and Control of Animal Viruses, 2nd ed (hardly a pop culture article). The discovery of the virus was not necessary to create attenuated strains – it was an adaptation of previous techniques with smallpox that had been used for years. The effectiveness and safety of the vaccine from the 1800’s is not relevant to the discussion – as I said we have much better techniques for this currently. What is relevant is that you declared attenuated viruses do not exist. That is factually wrong and has been for 130 years. Measles may not be the bubonic plague but in the decade that preceded vaccination 3-4 million people in the US were infected each year with ~50,000 hospitalized, 1000 chronically disabled from encephalitis, and 400-500 dead. That isn’t rhetoric – those are statistics from the CDC. The only one riding on childish rhetoric is you as you have neither evidence or scientific backing for your claims.

          • Timbo says:

            Bubonic plague is now treatable (and essentially obsolete)
            Measles is far more serious, relevant, contagious, and there aren’t great treatments.
            How’s that for rhetoric?

          • Laurie J. Willberg says:

            So blame the vaccine manufacturers for producing a defective product that promotes a false sense of security. Measles has never been more lethal than Bubonic Plague. Now you’re being ridiculous. Measles is not a serious health problem in developed countries. Stop pretending that it is.

          • Timbo says:

            Anti-vaxxer love to promote pseudoscience instead of facts. “Measles is no big deal” is one of them now that “The MMR vaccine causes autism” has been debunked, after “Thimerosal causes Autism” was debunked.

            Not long ago, in California, there were 16,400 reported cases, 3,390 hospital admissions, and 75 deaths. California is supposedly in a developed country.

            Globally:
            In 2013, there were 145 700 measles deaths globally – about 400 deaths every day or 16 deaths every hour.

            So you have catch-phrases from the internet, I have actual science…

          • redhead67 says:

            Actually Dr. Wakefield’s assistant was fortunate enough to have the money to go back to court and get a reversal on that. So no it’s not debunked anymore!

          • Timbo says:

            No reversal. Do you even read the Lancet?

          • Timbo says:

            I already know the answer to that, just pointing out that you’re not really informed on this issue.

          • Gregory Miller says:

            Not true. an assistant did not get the article “reversed” and a court has no power to force a publication to re-print the article. Nor did they.

          • Timbo says:

            “We should blame vaccine companies” (you’re quoting Jenny McCarthy here, good job on that)

          • Gregory Miller says:

            No one suggested that measles was more dangerous than the plague. You threw that up as a straw man to confuse the point. But the fact is that measles is a significant health concern is people stop vaccinating. The reason it is not more prevalent, and thus more damaging, is because of the MMR.

          • redhead67 says:

            There aren’t good treatments for rash and fever?

          • Timbo says:

            There aren’t good treatments for viral encephalitis, blindness, deafness and death. Measles can cause all of these

          • George says:

            Measles is rarely severe in well nourished children, and is treated by normal supportive nursing, sufficient fluid intake and avoidance of opportunistic infections. In the sub or frankly malnourished it can is treated with vitamin A injections along with better more nourishing foods. This is standard treatment for measles in many countries where malnutrition is common, and even in the west there are a great many malnourished children, such as those fed a vegetarian diet, as the beta-carotene in vegetables cannot be converted into retinol (full active vitamin A) in kids. Even adults find this conversion difficult, i.e. most women cannot convert beta-carotene to vitamin A. All the more reason to ensure women eat liver when pregnant, and to reinstate this traditional highly nutritious food for all, including little children, which would also ensure that they got a taste for it, rather than trying to introduce it later in life.
            Anyway, this is from the WHO site, in case you don’t believe me:

            “Severe complications from measles can be avoided through supportive care that ensures good nutrition, adequate fluid intake and treatment of dehydration with WHO-recommended oral rehydration solution. This solution replaces fluids and other essential elements that are lost through diarrhoea or vomiting. Antibiotics should be prescribed to treat eye and ear infections, and pneumonia.
            “All children in developing countries diagnosed with measles should receive two doses of vitamin A supplements, given 24 hours apart. This treatment restores low vitamin A levels during measles that occur even in well-nourished children and can help prevent eye damage and blindness. Vitamin A supplements have been shown to reduce the number of deaths from measles by 50%.”

            I would go so far as to say that most diseases/medical conditions are, in essence, due to poor dietary choices or options. For a foetus to form fully the mother must be well nourished, and for the resultant child to thrive it must feed on good milk, again dependant on the mum’s diet. And once on solid foods these must not be low on nutrients but rich in things like choline, fats, B vitamins (very high in liver), and fully formed proteins which are only found in animal products. Poor people eat poor foods, like cereals, pulses and root vegetables, so no wonder their children are less strong and more vulnerable to all sorts of illnesses.
            If we spent half as much money on ensuring good nutrition of pregnant women and infants and young growing kids across the world as we do on vaccinating them, we’d all be richer and happier as a result.

          • Timbo says:

            Show me a citation (a real one) or SHUT IT…

      • Gregory Miller says:

        “sheeple are waking up”… I love it when you conspiracy wackos do that. THAT is convincing…… that you are a lunatic and a troll.

        • Erasure 25 says:

          You chastise others for name calling then you turn around and do the same? Obviously, you are too emotionally involved to have a scientific perspective on the matter. This rant puts everything you have stated before in questionable light.

          • Gregory Miller says:

            Like the fact that I believe the scientific and medical community for which this is not a debatable topic since it can all be demonstrated? If my growing tired up this guy’s character assassination and conspiracy theories and finally calling him out for what he is makes you question that, then you need a reality check.

          • Erasure 25 says:

            Clearly you are not a scientist, but play one on the internet. You have lost all credibility.

          • Gregory Miller says:

            Is that right? Well, I have a suspicion neither are you, since you are trying to displace the argument. The fact is, I am not. My entire argument has been that since the entire medical and science community sees this issue as settled science that us non-scientists don’t know better and cannot “research” like a medical researcher. We can only read. The fact is that this is not an argument within those communities. It is settled science and one is very arrogant if they the ink as a non-scientist that they know better. All of that is verifiable. It’s up to you. The fact that you can cherry pick these comments and come up with a conclusion that serves your bias is your issue, not mine.

  43. FACTS says:

    99% vaccinated population in china has high level of measles outbreaks.. do your own research!

    • Chubby Rain says:

      China’s population is over 1.3 billion and it’s estimated vaccine coverage is about 97.52% (in 2010), which means about 32 million people have not been vaccinated or more than the populations of every state EXCEPT for California. Current outbreaks are occurring primarily in young, unvaccinated children brought in from rural areas by their parents who are looking for work. This has lead to the recent upswing in measles cases HOWEVER such cases are still down 80% from the beginning of the vaccine initiative in 2008. I did do my own research…

  44. Laurie J. Willberg says:

    Why are there 2 mammoth ads for (useless) flu shots on this page?

    • Chubby Rain says:

      I got two ads for Glade and one for the rather rare neurodegenerative disease Huntington’s chorea of which I have no family history and almost certainly do not have. Nevertheless, I’m sure Google’s ad-service will read this comment section and use these comments to improve their advertising algorithm.

  45. Francois Arseneau says:

    So the less people that get the vaccine, that shows how great they are. Wow, you’re a nice piece of work. Propaganda and spin must have been your main courses in university. How about, vaccines don’t really work in the real world and people are now finding this out. So, the only way pharma and it’s puppets can get people in the vaccine lines is with fear.

    • Dorit Reiss says:

      No, you misunderstood me. My point was that a small percentage of a large number is a large number: and yet here, the absolute numbers are higher in the vaccinated. Let me use an example: let’s say 1000 people went to Disney, and 92% were vaccinated with MMR – pretty realistic, though some would have only had the less effective one dose. That’s 920 vaccinated, 80 unvaccinated. Let’s pretend all are exposed. 90% of the unvaccinated get measles: 72. 1-5% (depending if they got one dose or two) of the vaccinated get measles – let’s say 5%: 46. It looks like there are a lot of people vaccinated that got the disease – but that’s because a small percentage of a large number is a large number.

      The fact that in spite of the large number we still have more cases in the unvaccinated shows how effective the vaccine is.

      I would say those spreading fear are those suggesting vaccines have risks that they are not, not those pointing out the correct facts about the diseases.

    • Gregory Miller says:

      I guess your study was conspiracy theories for nut jobs? Maybe take a stats class. Then you might understand.

  46. T M says:

    Have you considered the fact that population density influences whether or not someone can pass on the virus? New York has a population density of 417.0/square mile, California – 246.1/square mile. Michigan’s population density is 175.0/square mile, a third of that of New York.Vermont – 68.0/square mile, less than a quarter of that of New York. In Oregon – 40.9/square mile, less than 1/8 of that of New York. This means that even though a smaller percentage of the population is vaccinated, the chances of the infected person getting into contact with other unvaccinated people is much smaller. Unvaccinated people living in close proximity to each other, as it happens in highly populated states, are more likely to pass on the disease. For someone who goes on and on about how correlation does not imply causation, you sure weren’t very eager to go beyond the obvious with your research. I’m in no way implying my argument is infallible, but at least I am not conceited enough to think that I know better than the immunologists and virologists that study epidemics and their causes for a living.

  47. Nathan Crause says:

    I can’t tell if you’re pro or against vaccines with your point here. Using your own text, I would like to point out “reduced the severity of the disease”, which seems to me a perfectly valid reason to have vaccines. Couldn’t that alone make the difference between a virus killing you and your body being able to fight it off, even if infected?

  48. HealthyAmerican says:

    “If the measles outbreaks in California, and particularly in and around
    Orange County, as well as New York City are because of non-vaccinators,
    then why aren’t we seeing outbreaks of everything not being vaccinated
    for?”

    I thought you had actual data instead of logical fallacies. Please don’t write articles like this again, some of the more gullible amongst your readership might actually take you seriously, and the morons/sheep who took Jenny McCarthy seriously have already done enough damage to the public health system.

  49. Maggie P. Kane says:

    “What actually confirms the veracity of this limited single study, I don’t know and don’t care to fine out.” That right there confirms you aren’t interested in hearing all sides of the discussion, and seem to be in support of anti-vaxxers since you found one pretty picture that, at first glance, proves their opinion.

    Additionally, “And the reason is that it doesn’t matter to people like you who think they are “researching” by reading and because you can read and come up to your own conclusions without the background of understanding statistical analysis or the appropriate education in health to the topic, then you feel that you know more than the experts. Me, I know that I don’t know. You are just arrogant.” …. aren’t you doing the exact same thing? He knows he doesn’t know, either. Or he may, oh I don’t know, actually have an educational background on the matter? You don’t know that for sure. You are being purely accusatory.

    And, as a little FYI: This is not basic science. If it were, all the moronic anti-vaxxers would realize how dumb it is to not protect their children from diseases that should not be causing this much of a problem. If this were a case of not letting folks be because “it’s their choice and doesn’t harm anyone but them,” I wouldn’t be commenting on this. It in fact DOES harm others, and we shouldn’t be expected to stay indoors, secluded from the world, JUST to try and stay healthy. It’s not realistic, and certainly not how to live life.

    P.S. – If an author of an article posts a response, I would assume said author would proof read said response. I assume you meant “find” instead of “fine” in that first quote of yours.

  50. Meah Burstein says:

    YOUR CHILDREN SHOULD BE TAKEN AWAY FROM YOU ASAP. Not only do you not vaccinate them but you also let them linger with people who have highly transmittable diseases! THAT IS LITERALLY NUTS. That’s like saying “I never put a seatbelt on my kid and look… I’ve gotten into like countless car accidents! But no worries! My kid hasn’t died yet hahahaha hehehehe”

    Poor kids :( I feel so bad for them.

    • daughterofsnape says:

      Are you for real?

      We weren’t aware that the kids had measles. They were diagnosed with 5th disease and told it was common and not a big deal. I would not intentionally expose them to measles.

      Also, my child had life threatening reactions to the vaccines. It is not safe for my kids to be vaccinated.

      Man, you are one judgemental person. Sad.

  51. Kristine Kelley Bailey says:

    Yeah, here we go again. My children had all of their vaccines in the 70’s and 80’s. All of my children contracted chicken pox, the oldest also contracted mumps and measles. Now… my two grandson’s by my youngest daughter are not vaccinated and are fine. My second daughter Vaccinated her two sons. One has aspergers and the other ADHD. It is up to each parent to decide whether to risk vaccines or not. Those of you that are so sure they are safe and effective…. have nothing to worry about then do you?

    • T M says:

      Anecdotal evidence does nothing to convince me of a certain argument, as a)this is the internet and I have no way to check your story and b)people that this has happened too, even if they represent an overall minority, are more likely to comment here and than those whose children were fine. Also, certain antibodies can be passed in from parent to child, so your vaccinated children MIGHT have passed on antibodies to their non-vaccinated children.

  52. GeneralObvious says:

    Simple answer to your posed questions. No one visits Oregon. People love to congregate in places like New York and CA. This current year’s measles outbreak had a huge number of cases in Orange County, specifically because Disneyland is there. According to the news, the majority of people affected by the outbreak were people who were not vaccinated due to age restrictions or personal life choices. Care to rethink your position?

  53. Peter Panic says:

    What a stupid bunch of nonsense? Did you put some bad food into your brain before spewing this diarrhea?

  54. Louise_Chanary says:

    “Why do we get vaccines if there is a so called “intense exposure” that will overcome the so called protection of a
    vaccine and what is an intense exposure?”

    Well, that means ‘an unusually large amount of exposure’. So, the vaccine works, but if there is an unusually large amount of exposure, it may not work.

    So…it does work in cases with a usual amount of exposure. That is why we use it.

  55. Louise_Chanary says:

    Ummmm….acquiring measles causes sickness and death.

    • David Uhas says:

      JUST HOW DEADLY IS MEASLES?

      From physician, Dr. Bob Sears

      What makes measles so scary? What is
      it about measles that spreads fear and dread through our population? Three things, in my opinion, set it apart from most infectious diseases that make us afraid: 1. It’s untreatable, and it has a high rate of complications, so we are at it’s mercy, 2. It’s been virtually eliminated from the U.S., so we aren’t used to it anymore, and 3. It’s potentially fatal.

      Now, let’s play two truths and a lie. Two of these statements are true, and one is not. Well, the one that is not is technically true, but it’s not true in all practical terms.

      1. Untreatable? Correct. There is no anti-viral medication that will help, so we just have to stand by as the disease runs its course. We are powerless, and that creates fear. We don’t want to take a risk with something which we have no way to mitigate or control. The only thing that may make measles less severe is high dose Vitamin A therapy
      (which is approved by the WHO). But that’s not an anti-viral med; it just helps us fight it off a little better.

      Complications? Ear infection is the most likely complication – treatable. Pneumonia is next – also treatable. Ya,you don’t want those things to happen, but they are treatable. Encephalitis? That’s much worse. Fortunately it’s extremely rare in well-nourished people (see below).

      So, the lie is that measles has a high rate of serious complications. It doesn’t. It CAN, but it rarely does.

      2. Eliminated? Virtually. Over the past 20 years we’ve sometimes only had 50 cases a year. Sometimes 150. Nobody knows measles anymore, and when we are ignorant of something unfamiliar, we fear it until we understand it.

      Ask any Grandma or Grandpa (well, older ones anyway), and they’ll say “Measles? So what? We all had it. It’s like Chicken pox.” Ask a twenty-five-year-old mom with two young kids, and she’ll scoop up her kids and run away from you for even mentioning the M word.

      If you understand measles, you wouldn’t fear it. Respect it.

      I do acknowledge that it’s a public health nightmare in that it takes a lot of effort and money to contain these
      outbreaks. And it causes a lot of people to get tested, quarantined, or treated with preventive immune globulin shots. It’s no joke. But, those efforts are largely because we are trying to contain it, not because it’s going to kill
      everybody. So, not fear – respect.

      3. Potentially fatal? Technically true, but herein lies the lie. It’s been publicized as “the deadliest of all childhood fever/rash illness with a high rate of complications.”
      Deadly? Not in the U.S., or any other developed country with a well-nourished population. The risk of fatality here isn’t zero, but it’s as close to zero as you can get without actually being zero. It’s 1 in many thousands. Will someone
      pass away in the U.S. from measles one of these years? Tragically yes. That will likely happen to one person. It hasn’t happened here in at least ten years (or more – I don’t even know how many years we have to go back to find one). When that happens, it will be extremely tragic.

      But will it spread through the U.S. and kill people left and right? No. Does measles do that in underdeveloped
      countries? Sadly, yes. It kills countless people worldwide every year. So, that’s how health officials can accurately say it’s so deadly. They don’t have to tell you the whole truth, just the part of the truth that they want you to believe.

      Measles can also be serious for young infants, just as many diseases can. It can also be serious for
      immuno-compromised people, just as all illnesses. It can also cause pregnancy complications, just like many infections can. Measles isn’t unique in these risks. But they
      are risks nonetheless.

      So, fear measles? No. Not in the U.S.. Respect measles? Yes. Take appropriate precautions with it. But don’t let
      anyone tell you, you should live in fear of it. Let’s handle it calmly and without fear or blame.

      data cdc
      reports was 222 cases in 2011… 90% imported, and zero deaths. Yeah, zero. just google measles death rates united states and the cdc page that has all the info will show up. It’s pretty sad when even the company who wants us to
      vaccinate data shows up against vaccinating. you just have to actually go look at the disease and vaccine injury numbers.

    • sabelmouse says:

      how can you be so ill informed?

    • Kevin Watson says:

      Ummm…. no – it doesn’t. Sickness, yes, death, not so much.

  56. ShaunRKilroy says:

    California and New York are much more densely populated than some of the areas with a higher non-vaccination rates. Understanding data requires much more than knowing the difference between correlation and causation. You have to think critically about the question being asked. Think about how diseases spread and why non-vaccination might affect SoCal and NY differently than Vermont.

    I’m not saying non-vaccinated people definitely led to this, but your entire argument is basic and flawed.

  57. DTL says:

    These articles prove that those that “CHOSE” to travel should be quarantined at “THEIR” expense . “It’s up in California which likely is accounted for by the fact that there is so much travel in California from abroad ” . LOL , why didn’t they just say what they meant ,

  58. Dorit Reiss says:

    Your analysis is incorrect, and the data reveals nothing of the sort.

    A. Why is measles coming back and not other diseases? Because, as asking an infectious disease doctor would have shown you, measles is a very, very contagious disease. The most contagious come back first.

    B. Rates fo exemption: California has 3.5% exemption rates, but it’s not evenly distributed. There are pockets where it’s much higher – like Orange County. Notice that most of these cases are in Orange County. With very high non-vaccination rates. The state average is not a sufficient measure here.

    C. The outbreak is not over, by the way, so do not assume these other states will be spared.

    D. You are glossing over the fact that most measles outbreak starts with an unvaccinated individual and most cases are in the unvaccinated.

    In short, the problem is not with the claims that it’s the unvaccinated driving this: those are well supported. The problem is with the way you handled the data.

  59. blackhawk mom says:

    That makes absolutely no sense. Measles outbreaks can only happen in places where people are not immune to measles, e.g. people who have not been vaccinated. If 100 people who have been vaccinated for measles and are immune are exposed to the measles virus, none of them will get it. If 100 people who have not been vaccinated and are not immune to measles are exposed to the measles virus, somewhere around 90 of them will get it (since measles has an infection rate of roughly 90%). The measles virus may have originated out of the country, but the outbreaks in the US only happen in non-immune populations, e.g. non-vaccinated people.

  60. Andrew Lazarus says:

    Over and over and over again, antivaxers have trouble with the 7th-grade arithmetic that if a very large majority of the population is vaccinated, even an effective vaccine may leave a (smaller) majority at risk through vaccine failure. Let’s run some real numbers. Take a 95% vax rate (that’s approximately correct), and let 60%—still a majority—of the sick people be vaccinated. Then the 5% who are not vaccinated comprise 40% of the sick cohort (ouch!), which works out to relative risk of (40/5)/(60/95)=12.67. That, in turn, goes to an efficacy rate over 90%.

    Why would you take scientific advice from people who don’t know fractions?

    • Louise_Chanary says:

      Yes, and below there are comments of antivaxers accusing others of ‘logical fallacy’ …by making mistakes in logical reasoning themselves. I think that this type of thing happens because it is true that the American government, and the American health professionals often can’t be trusted because they run on making profits. The funny thing is though that people do not know when they can and when they can’t trust them. And in this case they can (this becomes clear when you see that in other countries with very different systems of government, and where the health profession is not funded by pharmaceutical companies, the children are also vaccinated and the government/docters agree with those in the USA).
      On top of that the educational system in the USA is rather poor in several ways, so lots of people do indeed not know basic arithmetic and reasoning…..but still they are critical (which is great)….it’s only that their poor ducation did not help them to know good criticism from bad criticism.
      What clearly needs to be done is to change the way the government, and the health service runs on money from large corporations….who are only interested in profits…not in ethics and keeping people healthy. But then there are also enough uninformed people to shout ‘commies!’ whenever you say such a thing.
      The country seems to be doomed really. I am sure its wealth and power will decline in the coming decades because the ‘keep people dumb, poor, but still patriotic’ policy backfires.

  61. Cera3 says:

    Measles outbreaks happen wherever someone with measles goes. Simple as that. If someone travels out of the country, contracts measles, then goes to California, an outbreak will happen in California if enough are not immune. It would spread farther if the CDC didn’t spend a ton of time and money attempting to contain it. Besides that, it is the fact that there are areas in which there are a higher number of antivaxers together. It matters less if antivaxers are spread out and doesn’t matter if no one with measles visits there to expose anyone.

    How would you propose a causational study be designed since we cannot give people measles? Correlation from epidemiologic studies still provide good data. The rate of antivaxers getting measles is much higher than the rate of the vaccinated. The fact that a small percentage of vaccinated people and those who cannot be vaccinated get sick is proof to why we need high vaccinated rates. Sometimes you see a higher overall number of the vaccinated get the disease, but if five times as many people get vaccinated, then there should be five times as many vaccinated get sick compared to unvaccinated. Because the MMR is so effective against measles, we still see far fewer vaccinated get sick despite the majority being vaccinated.

    The fact that we have eradicated diseases is the evidence for vaccination. Measles still must come from out of the country originally and then spread through mostly unvaccinated people. The fact that parts of India have terrible sanitation, but no polio, is good evidence that polio eradication was not from better sanitation.

    The idea that all diseases should go up is preposterous. We have already seen pertussis increase until we started vaccinating more pregnant women (thanks to others who won’t). We saw mumps go through hockey players. But measles is so highly infectious that it is expected to be the main one. If vaccination rates decline, we will see others.

    We are on par to have a large increase in measles this year over last which means increased hospitalizations, possible death or possibly lifetime disability in some of our most vulnerable. Please vaccinate.

  62. Koustav Pal says:

    I wonder though….what do you find when you normalise the data by the mean geographical temperature of the region or state…..just saying….

    • Gregory Miller says:

      A very good question. What do you suspect would be the outcome? You seem more educated in this area than I am.

      • Koustav Pal says:

        I cannot really say without looking at the data itself….what I suspect though is that it is closely linked to the climate condition in the region and also population densities play a role here….it would be fun to look at it…..maybe I will…I guess I’ll find the data on the CDC’s portal….if you can suggest another portal that would be really helpful!

  63. Alanor Vuylsteke says:

    I don’t see any source of information cited here except those somebody else put in the pictures used in this article. Nice try

  64. Alanor Vuylsteke says:

    Also, youtube “George Carlin – Fear of germs”

  65. ToArmsMeHearties says:

    Pretty simple answer, really… you’re using a percentage of the population rather than numbers of people. The population of California is about 39 million, whereas Michigan is just 9 million. Population density is a large consideration, as well. Also of note is climate; the temperature affects human activity. Further, there are people hemorrhaging across the border between California and Mexico who are largely unvaccinated (and with no good means by which to receive them), so the opt-outs don’t tell the whole story.

  66. Cat says:

    You people make my damn head hurt.
    When my grandparents were young it was common for people to get these diseases. It compromised their immune systems, sometimes caused blindness, deafness, sterility, deformity, and killed significant numbers. My grandparents insisted that their children be vaccinated when they still did it in a way that left a giant scar. My parents knew enough about history to insist that I and my siblings were vaccinated. And I listened to enough stories and learned enough from history (books, lots of damn history books on everything from war to religion, the effect of disease and the fall off of it here is plain to see) to insist that my kids get vaccinated.
    There are a few different things at work in a largely immunized populace that consequently offer protection to those few who aren’t immunized. Most of them have been covered by the people here who are obviously in the medical field. This isn’t new. It’s covered in science class in high school, granted on a limited scale. One point covered by high school and by the doctor when you get the frigging shot is that there ARE risks associated with the vaccine (just as much as aspirin, sugar, peanuts, or any other substance, some people react adversely) and it doesn’t mean you won’t EVER get the disease. It does substantially lower the risk.
    I have YET to see ( even after years of asking, researching, poking around in study after study) ANY proof that vaccines cause autism.
    If my child gets sick with a disease she doesn’t have to suffer from because the SPREAD of disease is higher in a population that isn’t vaccinated, and I find it’s because an ignorant parent did NOT vaccinate their child and said child did NOT have any medical reason to not receive said vaccine, I will seek criminal and civil charges.

  67. Eric says:

    “If the measles outbreaks in California, and particularly in and around Orange County, as well as New York City are because of non-vaccinators, then why aren’t we seeing outbreaks of everything not being vaccinated for?” — Because people from other states are traveling here, to Disney, that’s why.

  68. Ben says:

    Recent spike in measles as anti-vaxxers take up international travel. I think we can safely say that causation does equal causation. Anti-vaxxers carrying diseases that were eradicated in the US into the US means anti-vaxxers caused the outbreak.

  69. Erasure 25 says:

    This article speaks nothing to population densities. It speaks of statewide average anti-vaccination rates and yet, speaks nothing to the effect of population densities at places like Disneyland and such. Oregon and Vermont have low densities and I am not aware of either state having major, very high density resort areas like Disneyland that attract children to the same degree. It is one thing to speak of generalities. But unfortunately, as we have seen with ebola, outbreaks occur in hotspot areas, based on very localized conditions, not based on statewide averages.

  70. Phil Braica says:

    This is a pretty bad article. For example, the math is bogus. VT has 2x the non-vaccinated than CA, BUT 1:80th the population so it should have 2x (adjusted by population) not simply 2x! Thus since CA has 15 cases in 2013, VT should have 15 * 2 / 40 or zero, which it did. Thus the main thrust of the article is based on really bad math.

  71. Chubby Rain says:

    Not disputing how contagious measles is but, the correct answer is that we are NOT only seeing measles outbreaks. Pertussis in particular has been on the rise over the last decade or so. Measles likely gets more press because it was eliminated (i.e. all cases/outbreaks originated from outside the US) in 2000 and the increase in measles cases (644 in 2014; typically < 100) have quite clearly been linked to vaccination trends both here in the USA and abroad (despite the incredibly poor analysis and conclusions by the author of this article).

  72. Datascientist says:

    I would like to point out that this article completely lacks in what it preaches: to use scientific data to form conclusions. A ‘trend’ is a tendency or movement; i.e. something that changes in time. The figure for ‘Rate of Nonmedical Vaccine Exemptions by State’ does not show a trend and is very misleading. It simply shows the percentage of non-vaccinated kindergartners that year. The argument for the outbreak is that non-vaccinations have *increased*, meaning you must show how this percentage has *changed* over time. Also, you fail to note that CA has the highest population of any state – to support your argument, it would be important to know how many TOTAL kindergartners exist in each state, not only the percentage. These are only a few crucial points that need to be addressed if you are using scientific data for your argument.

    I am not for or against the cause, simply stating that this article has not used data properly in its argument.

  73. Tim Horita says:

    LOL. Did you just say children receive 2.2 pounds of mercury? Way to spread pseudoscience there.

    • Kevin Watson says:

      No – way to spread ignorance there – you really don’t understand the dose/KG notation? Why are you on here, then?

      Please, learn to read, learn what the funny numbers and words mean….

  74. Tim Horita says:

    No. Getting measles is not a very good scenario- that is a very ignorant statement.

  75. baruchzed says:

    Here is what doesn’t make sense to me. If the nonvaccinated kids get sick that makes sense. If the vaccinated kid get sick, how can the nonvaccinated kid possibly be responsible? Seems the problem is that the vaccine doesn’t work as touted.

    • Louise_Chanary says:

      It is very easy for the disease to spread if there are many non-vaccinated people. The more it spreads, the more risk everybody, including vaccinated people, will have to get it. The vaccine is very good, but it does not work in all cases. This is no secret. Nothing works always and perfectly.

  76. Kevin Watson says:

    The part I like best is when they claim “reduce severity” I wonder how they know that? Do they have a clone or a subject from another universe to compare to?

    How could they possibly know if the “reduced severity” exists? Strikes me as double talk.

    • Tim Horita says:

      So you don’t understand how vaccine studies work– you’ve established that. Most smart people then seek to learn instead of giving up and criticizing. I worry you’ll still be equally as stupid this time next year…

  77. Kevin Watson says:

    I thought this was a discussion, not a preview of your upcoming book….

  78. Gregory Miller says:

    Why would you have even the most basic understanding of those ingredients and the safety studies when you don’t understand the difference between Ethyl Mercury and Methyl Mercury? They are quite different in that one doesnt accumulate in the body. Secondly, only the flu vaccine contains Thimerasol anymore, so your claim isn’t really true. And since you don’t understand the difference between mercury, why bother further. A better answer for your plea for studies is to go talk to a immunologist. These scientists have those answers and know better than you, me or any other self claimed “researcher” one, here, including yourself. And you will find consistent information because your information is not correct.

  79. redhead67 says:

    I’m moving to Oregon!

  80. Andrew Newton says:

    There is a HUGE problem with your logic. No thinking person will argue your point that correlation is not the same as causation. I think you would do well to recognize some basic concepts in medical geography and spatial epidemiology. The main factor in the spread of disease is the population present that is susceptible for contraction of the infection. Many of the old-world diseases we have eradicated in the Western world need a constant urban population of around 150,000-200,000 hosts to proliferate. Small pox, for example, needs 200,000. That is why you have historically seen these diseases come in waves. Once small pox spreads through a population and the number of susceptible human hosts falls lower than that threshold, the disease will fade away. Several years later once the population of “infectable” people (those without immunity) rises back to around 200,000 you see a resurgence once again.

    You erroneously state, “And where are Vermont’s cases at 6% non-vaccination?” The population of Vermont’s largest city, Burlington, is just 42,000. It doesn’t even support a total population capable of proliferating diseases on its own. Your map is showing 6% non-vaccination among only kindergarteners. That population simply can’t support an epidemic.

    The problem is that once a large enough susceptible population becomes available in places like L.A., Chicago, or NYC a disease like measles can sweep through. Once this happens these infectious diseases then sweep through smaller populations too, like in Burlington. An epidemic does not classically start in a small population. They begin in large urban centers and once they are virulent enough they spread by acts of trade, tourism and migration.

    And further to your question of why other diseases have not spread it, in part it’s because we have had tremendously successful public health campaigns. Many do not exist endemically in America. You had better believe though that people traveling to the USA from places where other diseases are still endemic will bring these with them. And if populations are high enough among the non-vaccinated, there is the potential for infection.

    There is no sound science against vaccination. Efficiently regulated public health is critical to any society that has a hope to survive.

  81. Terra James says:

    What about the population in relation to geography? Of course unvaccinated in urban areas are not going to spread MMR as easily as those in compacted cities, such as those found in California and New York. Limited socialization would limit contagion statics; statisticians should know to observe outlying variables (such as geography)…

  82. Kevin Watson says:

    Don’t hold your breath – this guy is in pharmo marketing or something. Probably a group effort.

  83. boonfrisker89 says:

    Thank you for writing this. Of course it just gets the lynch mob angrier.

  84. Navy Corpseman says:

    It’s coming from our southern border

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.