Evidence suggests vaccinations are a hoax

[devils advocate]

Originally Posted by Jasonew6

Can you cite the page and paragraph where they called vaccines a hoax? I read the first couple of pages and skimmed several more. All I was was that their regulatory agency was trying to downplay the safety concerns of certain vaccines.

Ive addressed this with Wingnut. I should've used a more accurate title. I wasnt deliberately attempting to mislead anyone. It was just a poor choice of word(s).

"Downplaying" the safety concerns, in my estimation is putting it mildly. They outright covered up and supressed data.

[Beaker]

Originally Posted by devils advocate

Your reluctance to address the topic

Originally Posted by devils advocate

you've replied to this one

Make up your mind.

[devils advocate]

Originally Posted by Beaker

Make up your mind.

[Wingnut]

Originally Posted by devils advocate

A conspiracy indeed!

Actually I dislike the term conspiracy. It carries with it a stigma that generally is difficult to overcome.

I've mentioned in the past, whether I'm right or wrong I just want the truth.

The stigma is well earned and in my opinion what you have presented is the stuff of conspiracy theories.

Just a poor choice of word(s) on my part, which I attempted make clear prior. In hindsight, I shoulda chosen a different title.

Fair enough. We agree vaccinations aren't a hoax and the author never claimed they were.

For all intents and purposes, Japan is included in the western world. Still, you are correct with the rest of this paragraph.

Ignoring the Eastern cultural issue, we agree countries with the highest rates of vaccine preventable diseases have the lowest rates of immunization. Why do you think that is?

I don't know what to believe, especially "trusted" sources in any field and particularly where government is involved ( CDC, JVCI...any alphabet group).

This topic is limited to child vaccinations, even though the title was chosen haphazardly, which I fully admit. However that doesnt decrease the validity of the arguments presented. So yes I would receive the immunizations you mention in this paragraph, but my son will not receive any more immunizations until or unless I am satisfied.

If you don't know who to believe how will you ever be satisfied?

The validity of what argument? Let's look at the author's first assertion on page 3, the JVCI didn't act appropriately in the face of adverse reaction reports. She cited a report of 60 patients since 1970 were reported to have encephalitis, encephalopathy, or sudden death shortly after receiving the measles vaccine. Okay, 1970 until when? Sixty patients out of a total of...? 60 out of a 100? 1,000? 10,000? 100,000? 1,000,000?

She throws out a raw number as a scare tactic without any incidence or prevalence data so we can't put those numbers into context. We don't know if the incidence rate is 1 in 100 or 1 in 1,000,000. A 1:100 incidence rate would dictate a much different response than a 1:1,000,000 incidence rate. Someone with a Ph.D. should know better. She does know better.

Even patients taking something as innocuous as amoxicillin die as a result of taking it. Are you going to deny your son amoxicilllin for an ear infection until or unless you are satisfied about antibiotics?

And encephalitis is a listed adverse reaction in the MMR package insert.

http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_.../mmr_ii_pi.pdf

And what is the difference between childhood immunizations and adult immunizations?

I considered individualizing each link, but you're intelligent enough to consider them on your own.

1. The Journal of Pediatrics November 1999; 135(5):559-63
2. The Journal of Pediatrics 2000; 138(3): 366-372
3. Journal of Clinical Immunology November 2003; 23(6): 504-517
4. Journal of Neuroimmunology 2005
5. Brain, Behavior and Immunity 1993; 7: 97-103
6. Pediatric Neurology 2003; 28(4): 1-3
7. Neuropsychobiology 2005; 51:77-85
8. The Journal of Pediatrics May 2005;146(5):605-10
9. Autism Insights 2009; 1: 1-11
10. Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology February 2009; 23(2): 95-98
11. Annals of Clinical Psychiatry 2009:21(3): 148-161
12. Journal of Child Neurology June 29, 2009; 000:1-6
13. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders March 2009;39(3):405-13
14. Medical Hypotheses August 1998;51:133-144.
15. Journal of Child Neurology July 2000; ;15(7):429-35
16. Lancet. 1972;2:883–884.
17. Journal of Autism and Childhood Schizophrenia January-March 1971;1:48-62
18. Journal of Pediatrics March 2001;138:366-372.
19. Molecular Psychiatry 2002;7:375-382.
20. American Journal of Gastroenterolgy April 2004;598-605.
21. Journal of Clinical Immunology November 2003;23:504-517.
22. Neuroimmunology April 2006;173(1-2):126-34.
23. Prog. Neuropsychopharmacol Biol. Psychiatry December 30 2006;30:1472-1477.
24. Clinical Infectious Diseases September 1 2002;35(Suppl 1):S6-S16
25. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 2004;70(11):6459-6465
26. Journal of Medical Microbiology October 2005;54:987-991
27. Archivos venezolanos de puericultura y pediatría 2006; Vol 69 (1): 19-25.
28. Gastroenterology. 2005:128 (Suppl 2);Abstract-303

Interesting. That looks like a bibliography. But, to what I wonder?

Is this supposed to be a list of others who have duplicated Wakefield's research?

Well, unless someone has invented a time machine to travel back to 1971 and 1972 to reproduce his research over two decades before he published his results, # 16 and 17 are off the list without even reading them.

Moving on to article #1...

http://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3...052-1/fulltext

It cost $30.00 dollars to read the article. Since you suggested I consider it, I'm sure you must have already considered it in order to recommend I consider it.

Since you've already paid your $30 to consider it, I'm not going to pay $30 dollars to consider it. You can just cut and paste your copy for me...as evidence you actually considered it.

Oh, the abstract didn't mention anything about vaccines causing autism. Maybe you can show me where I missed that nugget?

I am by far no expert on this or any medical topic and it could be my reading comprehension is questionable. With that said, the key phrase or word to me in this paragraph is 'uncertainty'. Im simply presenting evidence that what we think and who we trust, be it medically or otherwise, shouldnt be a given.

You're right. Trust is earned, not given. If you need a major surgery, it would be wise to seek more than one opinion and to research your doctor before consenting because there are no guarantees with surgery. Just like there are no guarantees with vaccines. Or even amoxicillin.

I work in the medical field as a physician assistant. I treat approx. 5,000 patients a year. The CDC and the NIH are trusted sources of information to me. If you don't think you can trust the CDC then I don't know what to tell you.

As to uncertainty, the list of things we are uncertain about is infinite. Does Streptococcus pyogenes cause autism? Don't know. Do cell phones cause autism? Don't know. Does sitting too close to the TV cause autism? Don't know. Does the increased use of antibiotics cause autism? Don't know. Does high fructose corn syrup cause autism? Don't know. Do artificial sweeteners cause autism? Don't know. Does red dye #9 cause autism? Don't know. Does breathing second hand smoke cause autism? Don't know. Does the small amount of depleted uranium in your diet cause autism? Don't know. Has anyone ever done research to prove any of these don't cause autism? Don't know. Has anyone ever done research to prove any and all combinations of the these don't cause autism? Don't know. As you can see, the list of things for you to be afraid of are infinite. There was no link between vaccines and autism until Wakefield. The Lancet retracted his research and 10 of 12 co-authors issued a retraction.

I would suggest researching Brian Deer. Of course I dont claim to know all there is to know, just that he has an agenda and is backed by limitless money, big pharma among other interested parties whose purpose would be to supress any conflicting data regarding their interests ie child vaccinations.

Of course you would suggest that. Brian Deer is an investigative reporter for the largest newspaper in London. Since you claim to be presenting "evidence," please show me the evidence to support your claim Deer is back by Big Pharma.

Wakefield was backed by lawyers involved in an MMR lawsuit to discredit the vaccine for their litigation. Wakefield was also involved in developing and marketing test kits to diagnose autism as well as applying for a patent for a vaccine to replace the MMR vaccine he was attempting to discredit for his own personal gain. He is scum.

Suggesting Wakefield is "merely controversial" while the CDC is untrustworthy is truly comical and worthy of derision.

Wakefield will always have his share of devoted, irrational followers like Jenny McCarthy who claims vaccines gave her child autism, but was once so high on drugs she tried to have sex with a tree. Look it up.