The Safe Vaccine Movement

Someone brilliant decided that by labeling parents who assert that vaccines damaged their children “Anti-Vaccine” he could divert the argument away from the issue of vaccine safety to the question of whether vaccines are beneficial. He did this because that’s an easier argument to win. The US government, pharmaceutical companies and doctors concede that all drugs, including vaccines, have side effects and that there is a threshold of damage beyond which a drug cannot be approved for use. But often side effects are not identified in small trial studies and within a short time frame.

Part of the debate over vaccine safety involves public relations and we have allowed ourselves to be labeled “anti-vaccine” rather than defining what we are actually advocating for. It’s inaccurate and polarizing to accept the label of “Anti-Vaccine.”

Is it anti-vaccine to call for safer vaccines?

Is it anti-vaccine to say that your child has been injured by one?

Is it anti-vaccine to ask the government to further test products, they mandate children receive, if questions about safety are raised?

Is it anti-vaccine to analyze the risks verses the benefits when deciding to vaccinate?

Is it anti-vaccine to point out America is a first-world country and thus risk factors are different here than they are in third-world countries?

If a vaccine causes severe life-long damage in a previously healthy, normal child, is it anti-vaccine to be angry and consider the “cure” more damaging than the disease you tried to prevent?

Is it anti-vaccine to point out that no one has studied the safety of giving multiple vaccines (polio, DTaP, Hep B, MMR) at the same time?

Is it anti-vaccine to notice that medical professionals rarely link adverse events to vaccines even if they occur within minutes or hours of the shot?

Is it anti-vaccine to notice that vaccines sometimes cause side effects? Or, is it just anti-vaccine to talk about them?

Inherent in the argument it is “anti-vaccine” to mention vaccines have side effects, or that some diseases are more dangerous than others or that risk factors differ between people is the premise that people are too stupid, ill-informed or irrational to make their own decisions and need to be told what to do. I disagree. I think people are smart enough to see value in vaccines. We deserve to be told the truth, especially the risks because ultimately, we as parents bear the responsibility of taking care of the child damaged by a vaccine.

I’ve noticed that parents who demand access to VAERS data, who question accepted “knowledge”, and parents or doctors who mention dangerous additives or bring up common reactions, become the enemy. The medical professions’ reaction is to metaphorically circle the wagons. They mention that the numbers of pharmaceutical companies are dwindling, implying that the shrinkage is due to the lack of profit in the manufacture of vaccines rather than to buyouts and mergers. They assert that making vaccines are unprofitable; well, yes, if one considers a product that is used only a few times in a lifetime to be less profitable than a drug that is used daily. The reality is vaccines are profitable for both pharmaceutical companies and doctors. The proponents of vaccinating at any cost combine first world disease statistics with third world statistics even though the risk factors are dramatically different. In the US, if a child contracted a disease such as measles their risk of serious injury or death is much less than a child who contracts measles in Sub-Saharan Africa. Thus the cost-benefit analysis is different. That’s reality. It’s intellectually dishonest, irrational, or ill-informed to imply differently!

The CDC seems to fear that a change in the vaccination schedule, a recall of a vaccine or an admission that further studies are warranted will lead to wide spread rejection of vaccinations. I don’t believe it will. Quite frankly, most people do not pay a lot of attention to vaccines. Many parents trust their child’s pediatrician. And people understand that drugs have side-effects.

The Safe Vaccine Movement believes that it is reasonable to consider risk factors when vaccinating and that size-one-fits-all strategies can be dangerous to individuals. When the medical profession chooses the “herd” over an individual child, parents have an obligation to their child to put their child’s individual needs first. We believe that when questions of additional risks or potential problems are raised the government and medical profession have an obligation to objectively study the safety of the products they recommend and require to be used.

Vaccines are not such a weak product that a problem with a few or the potential to trigger autism in a susceptible population will lead to the abandonment of vaccines as preventative medicine. Parents want to protect their children. We’d rather they receive a vaccine and have immunity from a disease then have them suffer from the disease, but not at any cost.

Penicillin has saved many lives since it was discovered but some people are allergic to it. It is still widely used despite its adverse effects on some people. Vaccines, like the antibiotic penicillin, would continue to be used even if the government and pharmaceutical companies concede that vaccines can trigger autism in a susceptible group.

The common reactions of denying there is a problem, covering up potential problems with faulty data and refusing to fund studies into environmental triggers have only led to acrimony and distrust. We have become increasingly effective at convincing our friends and family that vaccines are one of the environmental triggers for autism and, sadly, more families join our ranks daily. We raise our voices in alarm because the number of children developing autism has risen dramatically. We feel an obligation to warn others and protect children. And that is why you can’t shut us up.

And you can’t label us any longer either; well, at least not “anti-vaccine.” The time is past for us to choose our own label. A label that is coherent with what we are advocating for – and make no mistake, we are advocating for safer vaccines!

I just got a flu vaccine and haven’t become autistic yet!

I read versions of this comment on a couple “pro-vaccine” blogs in both comments and the body of the post. My first reaction was to mention that my grandma had Alzheimer's. My grandpa died from cancer. I’m allergic to bees and that my nephew died from a brain aneurysm a week after his thirteenth birthday; just in case they needed something else to mock.

I just got the flu vaccine and still not autistic.

The casual viciousness of it took my breath away and brought back memories of William’s regression. When Jacob regressed I didn’t understand what was happening. I just thought he wasn’t talking anymore and was channeling Mr. Hyde. I didn’t know he was autistic until more than a year later.

I just got the flu vaccine and still not autistic.

But William … William was normal, I didn’t have to worry about him; I was reassured less than two months before his regression. Then in the beginning of November 2000, he lost his eye contact. I knew what that meant but was helpless to stop it. I started working on improving his eye contact as if that would stop his regression. I forced him to sit on my lap and play peek-a-boo with me until he had better eye contact than my normal five year old. But I was helpless to stop the loss of babbling, language, sociability, and the cognitive loss of eight months of development. For the first time in my life I understood that heartache could actually be felt. I actually felt my heart breaking.

I just got the flu vaccine and still not autistic.

No one who has ever watched a child regress into autism would ever make a joke of it. Imagine watching your child being hurt and unable to stop it. Watching William become autistic was far more heartbreaking than Jacob being diagnosed. I watched him lose skill after skill helplessly. By the end of November, William had disappeared and I was left with a shell that was too impaired to even request a drink of water. The child that had sat on my lap and would listen to book after book a month sooner fought to leave after two pages. The child that a month sooner had to be in the middle of any activity left the room when other people were there. And my potentially brightest child regressed to the cognitive level of a nine month-old.

I just got the flu vaccine and still not autistic.

The deliberate cruelty of the statement floored me. Perhaps that’s what passes as humor for people who look forward to their child’s first date, prom, college, eventual marriage and future grandchildren. I look forward anxiously to a group home and hopefully a community center. They can hope that their children will become doctors. I worry that I won’t find a doctor that will accept adults with autism. And I worry that my son will be left to the mercy of their children.

I just got the flu vaccine and still not autistic.

Anyone who writes that or allows that comment on their blog without note has never watched someone they love disappear into the abyss of autism and the best part of me hopes they never do.

The Dark Side of the Internet

Recently I’ve looked at a few different blogs from the opposite side of the safe vaccine debate. Some post thoughtful and thought provoking insights. Some post vitriolic self congratulatory diatribes. Some post fluff tied up with a bow and presented as if it actually contained something more than lint. Some blogs reminded me, to some extent, of rabid partisan political websites I’ve read that were filled with twisted and massaged facts if not outward lies. I remember reading something horrible that was going around the internet about Sarah Palin’s son Trig. I don’t understand the mentality that would justify attacking a child because you don’t like his mother. And the comments, oh the comments were filled with objectionable things written about her son by people I could only assume were adults.

The dark side of the internet is the anonymity that gives people the freedom to spew ugliness because they don’t have to stand behind what they say up with their name. I understand people have reasons to blog anonymously; after all I do it myself. But I never say anything I haven’t said before and wouldn’t be willing to say to my friends and family. And I have a built in censor – my family. They read my blog.

What is it about the internet that brings out incivility? Is it that we are communicating with people we don’t know and thus have nothing personally to lose? It seems that with anything controversial people from both sides of the aisle seem to feel free to say anything they want, in any tone that they want as if with the assumption that vulgarity will overcome their enemy with “shock and awe” rather than winning over someone with rationality, thoughtfulness and logic.

I understand that someone from the opposite side of the vaccine debate could quote my first five sentences back to me with equal honestly. Ultimately, there are many issues that one side will not win over the other with logic, rationality or thoughtfulness. Politics and religion top that list. But surely in everything, even religion, politics and vaccine safety we can find common ground or at least agree to disagree with respect.

Fallout

After I commented on an article in Wired I was listed as a proponent of “safe vaccines” on a blog. It seemed to be dedicated to collecting links to bloggers who hate people like me and like to write objectionable things about anyone who dares question the safety of vaccines.

The whole wretched tale begins at I just called out Dr. Parikh! The comments led me on a road of personal discovery -- Embarking on a New Career and finally to Comments About My Email.

During this process I thought a lot about the irony of the “defenders of the herd’s” objections to name calling when directed towards the wrong side (do I even need to state that it appears to be applauded when directed towards the safe vaccine side). So, I wrote Unfortunately, the “Pro-Vaccine” Movement Regards Shrillness as More Effective than a Rational and Civil Discussion. Then I thought about branding. Why have we allowed ourselves to be labeled “anti-vaccine?” It doesn’t accurately reflect our position and the label allows our position to be marginalized.

Unfortunately, the “Pro-Vaccine” Movement Regards Shrillness as More Effective than a Rational and Civil Discussion.

Anti-vaccine, anti-vaxx, anti-science, anti-vaxx denialism, fear mongering, unreasonable, irrational, panicked, crusaders who tell long debunked lies, they kill children. You don’t have to search long on the internet or in the newspaper to find these labels among other unprintable ones.

At this point, I’m surprised that they still call us “anti-vaccine.” We seem only one small step away from the label – “pro-baby killers.”

People on both sides of this debate are guilty of calling people on the other side names, but only one side seems surprised by it. My question to the “pro-science” side is really? After you throw mud at someone you are surprised and complain that a “panicked parent” picked it up and threw it back?

I understand that name calling can be effective and secretly satisfying, if admittedly childish. So, if you do it – own it! Many “anti-anti-vaccine” proponents like to wrap themselves in the false security of the label “science and rationality” while flinging insults. But is an argument ever that simple? Do you win over anyone by calling them stupid?

I was surprised to find myself in the periphery of the recent Amy Wallace fray. I’d commented on Dr. Parikh’s article, The Ugliness of the Anti-Vaccine Movement. The next thing I knew I was listed as an anti-vaccine writer on the I Speak of Dreams blog. I decided to take a look at other bloggers’ writing.

What I found on the “pro-science” blogs didn’t surprise me.

Isis the Scientist’s wisdom includes calling J.B. Handley a “Colossal cockweaseldouchemonkey, genuine asshat, and founder of the ultimate denialist's association,” and accuses him of illegal and immoral acts [sic]. (Warning: her post is disturbing, nasty and inappropriate for viewing at work!)

Pal MD says, in his post The anti-vaccination movement is morally bankrupt, that “Fear and intimidation is the enemy of science. But the anti-vax crowd doesn't care about dialog; since they have no science to support their delusions, all they are left with vitriolic spittle. The anti-vaxxers are fundamentally immoral. They, like many fundamentalists, want us all to suffer for their faith, and heretics and apostates must burn.”

The Tethered Swimming blog article titled How To Kill Children Legally (Even Your Own) claims “not vaccinating your kids is like patrolling your neighborhood for panel vans while Cousin Steve, the thrice convicted child molester, stays home to babysit. Except it’s actually worse than that because every child that isn’t vaccinated raises the risk that other kids will become sick. So Cousin Steve isn’t just watching your kid, the whole play group is under his tender care.”

So, if I understand the arguments of some of the “pro-science” proponents: it’s really bad to call people names, I’m an immoral fundamentalist who is delusional and has a spitting problem, and I’m the equivalent of a procurer of victims for child molesters.

The pedestal upon which the “pro-science” movement is standing doesn’t seem very elevated, does it? But it’s very loud. It’s full of uninformed and ill-informed people who think vaccines are all that’s standing between us and death. They accept the government’s propaganda without critical thought or research. I understand this person all too well because I used to be one of them. I drank the Kool-Aid.

The “pro-vaccine” proponents are engaged in a purposeful and selective distortion of the “anti-vaccine” proponents’ argument.

Common tactics examined:

Label someone into irrelevance: Words have power. Labels matter. Witness the differences between the labels: pro-life, pro-choice and anti-choice extremists. This tactic also has the benefit of sometimes sidetracking the whole discussion to a label.

One of the anti-anti-vaxxers’ most effective arguments is that if someone questions the safety or necessity of any vaccine they are anti-vaccine. Many of us believe that vaccines are among the environmental triggers of autism. We question the safety of additives and preservatives in vaccines and propose spreading out the vaccine schedule. We believe some children are genetically predisposed to developing autism and we want the link between autism and vaccines studied. Somehow what they hear seems to be “vaccines are evil.” I don’t understand why the “pro-science” movement seems willing to believe half of what we say (when we question the safety) yet unwilling to believe the other half (we want them studied, so we can safely give them to our children). Anyone who claims vaccines triggered autism in their child obviously saw enough value in vaccines to vaccinate in the first place!

Another effective argument from the “zealots of one size fits all medicine” is: “the anti-vaxx movement is anti-science.” They claim that science has closed the door on any link between vaccines and autism. “Asked and answered!” They say, sandwiched between sentences calling us stupid and immoral. But science doesn’t actually work like that. Just ask any pure scientist. (They wax on poetically while you regret asking them anything.) The history of science is littered with accepted “facts” that actually were later proven false by other scientists. Our knowledge of the physical world builds upon itself. As more information is gathered and tested, established “facts” are discarded and new facts emerge.

Dr. Bernadine Healy the former head of the National Institutes of Health has publicly stated that she found credible published, peer-reviewed scientific studies that support the idea of an association between vaccines and autism. And she said in a interview with CBS that a memo went around the NIH in 2004 saying, “Do not pursue susceptibility groups. Don’t look for those patients, those children, who may be vulnerable.” If our public health organizations are actively avoiding doing this research, it is not our side that is anti-science!

The “anti-safe vaccine” movement seems to believe that since vaccines are good and save lives, it is inexcusable to say anything bad about them. This leads to convoluted arguments such as a mercury containing compound can be safely injected in babies. How do I even respond to that? If someone claims mercury isn’t harmful they’ve chosen irrational, selective ignorance over science.

Autism is 100% genetic. Then why are the numbers increasing and why don’t both of all identical twins have it? The hidden horde doesn’t exist. “Desperate mothers” do believe that autism has a strong genetic component – that’s why many of us don’t have more children. But it is not possible to have a genetic epidemic – period.

We’re the experts! The “anti-vaxx” movement is full of hysterical parents who don’t know anything. This is colloquially known as “shut up and sit down.” This approach is used when “anti-safe vaccine” proponents claim that we don’t understand: herd immunity, correlation does not imply causation, diseases kill people, and so on. The experts also told us that refrigerator mothers caused their children to develop autism and that the only cure for autism was psychotherapy. Then they told us that autism was lifelong and to institutionalize our children. It was a parent that debunked that idea. All good science is based on observation. Parents, untrained as they are, spend countless hours observing their children from necessity. To dismiss this observational data set is arrogant and anti-science.

The medical profession castigates us for trying alternative medicine. Using that as proof that we are ignorant of science and irrational dupes who unknowingly harm our children. Well, conventional medicine has failed our children. They seem to only offer our children drugs. Then more drugs to combat the side effects caused by the first drug. They say that we’re desperate, willing to try anything regardless of harm. There is no doubt that many of us are willing to try wild sounding treatments. I learned to be more open-minded after putting my son on the gluten and casein free diet. The behavior improvement caused by a dietary change shut me up and opened my mind to other alternative treatments. A gluten and casein free diet is far less risky than powerful anti-psychotic drugs!

The “weak must perish to protect the herd” movement likes to play with statistics. At first they claimed that the number of children diagnosed with autism wasn’t increasing, it was due to a change in diagnostic criteria or to misdiagnosis. They admit a few people are injured by vaccines, but won’t release VAERS data for independent replication of the analysis. Figures don't lie, but liars figure. - Samuel Clemens

“Jab them all Darwinian warriors" state that side-effects are unfortunate and wholly unpredictable. Medical professionals know that some people shouldn’t be vaccinated including those with: immune deficiencies, seizure disorders, neurological problems, certain food allergies and drug sensitivities. We argue that our children have genetic predispositions to developing autism and that vaccines are one environmental trigger. Thus it is predictable that vaccines trigger autism in a susceptible population.

The “anti-parental choice” movement links the “anti-vaccine movement” to pseudo-sciences such as “reincarnation, channeling, and extraterrestrials.” Brilliant redirection! Thus mentioning that vaccines have side effects becomes equated with alien abduction.

And my favorite “Darwinian Fundamentalist” argument: Jenny McCarthy posed for playboy! Alright, I concede! She did. The “pro-vaxx” movement felt compelled to get their modesty impaired “spokesmodel” to compete -- Amanda Peet. Who looks better naked has no bearing on the issue!

“Champions of the herd,” when you’ve run out of arguments you can always ask the children who’ve been injured by vaccines to speak up for themselves.

Note: The labels are used to make a satirical point, not to widen the divide or offend anyone.

Lifeasthemotherof4 unknowingly embarked on a new career as an “anti-vaccine writer.” In my spare time I search for UFOs and spit on science. I can be sarcastic but usually try to be respectful of others. I'm calling for a civil and label-free discussion.

Comments About My Email

I’ve been engaged in a back and forth in my comments on I Called Out Dr. P. It was getting kind of long so I brought it over here. I wasn’t thrilled to have to back up some of my assertions but I have to thank him for keeping me honest and compelling me to try to put my money where my mouth was.

****

I’d never heard of any relationship between carrots and HIV so I googled it and I can assure you that there is more evidence supporting a link between vaccines and autism than there is between carrots and HIV.

But taking your point seriously, the onus is on drug companies to prove that their products are safe. In the US, vaccines and other drugs have to be approved by the FDA. And unfortunately, that doesn’t always weed out unsafe products. The rotavirus vaccine approved in 1998 was withdrawn from the market about a year later because of serious reactions. I’m sure you’ve heard of the recalls of Vioxx and Meridia. Pharmaceutical companies, too, concede that their products cause harm. They try to downplay risks but list side effects on their packaging materials.

“The VICP was established to ensure an adequate supply of vaccines, stabilize vaccine costs, and establish and maintain an accessible and efficient forum for individuals found to be injured by certain vaccines. The VICP is a no-fault alternative to the traditional tort system for resolving vaccine injury claims that provides compensation to people found to be injured by certain vaccines.”

Consumers pay a little extra for every shot, that money is collected. If you’re interested in finding out more here is a link. http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/

Thus pharmaceutical companies and the American government both agree that vaccines can cause harm. I think the real question is how much disability/deaths are acceptable based on value provided/lives saved.

I’m grateful that when someone is sick often there is an antibiotic or medicine that can potentially save their life. One of my friends would have died last Sunday without antibiotics and first world medicine. But the opposite sometimes happens, the drug or vaccine, given with good intentions, causes damage or death.

I don’t see vaccines as an either/or issue. Vaccines are not good OR bad. I see more value in some vaccines than others. I live in Massachusetts. Malaria vaccines aren’t needed here but they are desperately needed in other parts of the world. On certain islands 93% of the population has or has had hepatitis B. The risk factors for children developing hepatitis B are very high. In the US, it is spread primarily though sexual activity and drug use. Risk factors are different. Is it logical to treat children in both places identically?

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/hepatitis-b/DS00398/DSECTION=risk-factors

This is the part of the discussion that I think gets drown out. We know that certain members of society have genetic predispositions to developing Tay Saks, Wilsons Disease or other genetic disorders. I think there is very strong evidence that autism has a genetic component.

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/dca-dea/publications/healthy_dev_partb_8-eng.php

Based on genetic differences in individuals it is logical to assume that people will react differently to drugs, toxins, foods, vaccines, etc. I argue that a small subset of the population because of genetic factors and other environmental influences react differently to vaccines than typical children. Parents began suspecting vaccines when children began regressing into autism shortly after receiving them. (I understand coincidence and that correlation doesn’t equal causation.) But I’ll also say that for both my sons to become autistic two weeks after the same series of shots is one hell of a coincidence! It’s also interesting that their cousins reacted to vaccines (developed ASD) and both the doctor and parents agreed they shouldn’t get that vaccine again.

As for Bernadine Healy former head of the NIH stating that she found credible published, peer-reviewed scientific studies that support the idea of an association between vaccines and autism. In listening to her again I think she may be referring to the mice study out of Columbia University and Burbacher’s primate study.

Neurotoxic effects of postnatal thimerosal are mouse strain dependent.

“Autoimmune disease-sensitive SJL/J mice showed growth delay; reduced locomotion; exaggerated response to novelty; and densely packed, hyperchromic hippocampal neurons with altered glutamate receptors and transporters. Strains resistant to autoimmunity, C57BL/6J and BALB/cJ, were not susceptible. These findings implicate genetic influences and provide a model for investigating thimerosal-related neurotoxicity.”

Here’s the link. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15184908

Comparison of Blood and Brain Mercury Levels in Infant Monkeys Exposed to Methylmercury or Vaccines Containing Thimerosal

“There was a much higher proportion of inorganic Hg in the brain of thimerosal monkeys than in the brains of MeHg monkeys (up to 71% vs. 10%). Absolute inorganic Hg concentrations in the brains of the thimerosal-exposed monkeys were approximately twice that of the MeHg monkeys. Interestingly, the inorganic fraction in the kidneys of the same cohort of monkeys was also significantly higher after im thimerosal than after oral MeHg exposure (0.71 ± 0.04 vs. 0.40 ± 0.03). This suggests that the dealkylation of ethylmercury is much more extensive than that of MeHg.”

Update: To Further explain the study:

This study shows that yes, as expected, ethyl mercury leaves the blood stream sooner. But where does it go? It’s not all excreted. The interesting part of the study is what happens to the mercury within the body. Within the body thimerosal is broken up and turns into inorganic mercury in the brain! The proportion of inorganic mercury in the brain is up to 71% in the monkeys who received thimerosal vs. 10% in the monkeys that received methyl mercury. This means that thimerosal left the bloodstream sooner and more of it changed into inorganic mercury in the brain. The study also mentions the inorganic fraction in the kidneys of the same cohort of monkeys was also significantly higher after im thimerosal than after oral MeHg exposure (0.71 ± 0.04 vs. 0.40 ± 0.03). This suggests that the dealkylation of ethylmercury is much more extensive than that of MeHg.” (Dealkylation refers to the process of removing the ethyl or methyl chain thus transforming it to its inorganic form.) The monkeys are excreting more of the methyl mercury than the ethyl mercury. More of the mercury from the thimerosal is deposited in the brain and kidneys.

“Although the initial distribution volume of total Hg is similar for the two groups, a biphasic exponential decline in total blood Hg is observed only after im injections of thimerosal. This suggests continual distribution into and localization in tissue sites over time. It is relevant to note that the kidney-to-blood concentration gradient of total Hg is much higher in the thimerosal monkeys than in the MeHg monkeys (mean ± SE, 95.1 ± 10 vs. 5.8 ± 0.6). The second slower phase of washout could also represent the gradual biotransformation of ethylmercury (the presumed principal organic form of Hg after thimerosal administration) to Hg-containing metabolites that have a different tissue distribution or are more slowly eliminated.”

Once the thimerosal has changed into inorganic mercury it is deposited in tissues. Where it remains to causes damage. Once in the inorganic form it cannot cross the blood brain barrier.

This is very important because humans cannot excrete inorganic mercury once it is deposited in the brain tissue. We can only excrete organic. Thus because ethylmercury (thimerosal) leaves the bloodstream more quickly than methlmercury less of it can be excreted before attaching as inorganic mercury to the brain, nervous system, wherever. Most studies on mercury have been done on methlmercury rather than ethylmercury.

Link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1280342/

An explanations of inorganic and organic mercury:

The distinction is the type of chemical bonding. Inorganic mercury refers to mercury that is in the metallic state or is a charged ion (a ‘salt,’ such as mercury chloride). Organic mercury is mercury that is chemically bonded to a carbon chain molecule – methylmercury and ethylmercury being the simplest organic mercury compounds (which also include thimerosal). Inorganic mercury forms (metal, vapors, mercury salts) are less toxic than organic mercury because it doesn’t absorb easily into the body – if ingested most passes through the digestive tract. Organic mercury is readily absorbed by tissues and transported around the body.

I don’t know that these were the studies Dr. Healy was referring too, but I suspect they might be among them. Did you notice that Dr. Healy said in the interview that a memo went around the NIM in 2004 saying, “Do not pursue susceptibility groups. Don’t look for those patents, those children, who may be vulnerable.”? She takes issue with that, as do I. She said that the NIH believed that parents would be scared away from vaccination if they were found to cause autism in a group. I guess I don’t sound like as much of a crackpot for saying studies looking into the connection between autism and vaccines really haven’t been done if the former head of the National Institutes of Health agrees!

And for your question of if I intended to use the paper as evidence that there are safety concerns with vaccines. No, I think you proved your point. I knew from the beginning it wasn’t the one I was looking for but I got lazy.

And I will check out the website you recommend. http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=466

If you are honestly interested in finding out more read David Kirby's Evidence of Harm.

Embarking on a New Career

After I read Dr. Parikh's article The Ugliness of the Anti-Vaccine Movement I was struck by his hypocrisy. To call a group out for name calling and "smearing" while engaging in it yourself is at best illogical and at worst dishonest. And I sent him a personal email asking him to reflect on his article. All I hoped for was a moment of personal reflection.

Earlier this year, I read another article written by him and sent him an email about that article as well. He wrote me back – twice. The difference in tone between the two articles is, for me, a little sad. The Dr. Parikh I briefly corresponded with was respectful. (Perhaps I like him because he called me “smart and civil.”) But he seems to have moved in a different direction.

And apparently, I have as well. I noticed that on I Speak of Dreams Blog I am listed as an anti-vaccine writer. I giggled at first, and then I wondered if I should send an email thanking the author for including me. But it also caused to reflect on whether I truly am anti-vaccine; because, after all, if I call on others to reflect on their position I should do the same.

I started motherhood firmly in a pro-vaccine, anti “anti-vacciner” position. I actually had the gall (to my embarrassment) to call people out for not vaccinating their children. But after a long painful period of questioning and study, I realized that something I had done had permanently damaged my children.

I believe that vaccines have and do benefit mankind. I never had to have the smallpox shot because it was eradicated before I was old enough to get it. I’m grateful my children aren’t at risk from polio. But I believe that the benefits of vaccines tend to be overstated. Rates of disease drop dramatically once people have consistent access to clean water, soap and good sanitation! As for the “herd immunity” argument – I address that here. I live in a first world. Therefore, my risk factors are different than they would be in a third world country. It convinces no one to use fear based reasoning when they have an understanding of actual risks.

Vaccines are size-one-fits-all medicine. There is no allowance for genetic factors, immune problems, etc. Cancer treatment is based on a patient’s symptoms and needs. Why are vaccines so different from how medicine is generally practiced? Answer: money, both because of the cost of testing individual children and the profits made by the pharmaceutical industry and the profits the doctors themselves make from vaccinations. Pharmaceutical companies are for profit. It’s dangerous and foolish to assign more morality to this industry than you would the banking industry.

So, am I anti-vaccine? Well, my youngest child received a vaccine in October. Thus, I cannot be opposed. Calling someone who questions the safety of vaccines anti-vaccine is a "straw man" argument.

I’m careful about which vaccines my children get. I no longer let anyone bully me about vaccines. I tend to know more about vaccines than your average person and probably even more than your average doctor. Doctors rely on the CDC and NIH to tell them if vaccines are safe. Pediatricians are generalists. That’s their job. We need them to know enough about a lot of things to know if there is a problem. The weakness with a generalist is that there are holes in knowledge. If they are getting questionable information from government agencies and pharmaceutical companies they probably won’t know it.

For someone not in my position it’s hard to understand the enormity of the betrayal of governmental entities charged to protect us. The CDC investigated thimerosal in 2000. The CDC published a study in late 2003, repudiating any possible link between thimerosal and autism. However, though the Freedom of Information Act the American public found out that they had “massaged” the data. Their original data “showed a 2.48% increased risk of neurodevelopmental disorders in children who had received the mercury laced vaccines.” But after adding younger children and eliminating children born prematurely, the CDC was able to release a lower percentage.

http://www.safeminds.org/government-affairs/foia/simpsonwood.html

One of the doctors, Dr. Johnson actually said (pg 198), “My gut feeling? It worries me enough. Forgive this personal comment, but I got called out at eight o'clock for an emergency call and my daughter-in-law delivered a son by C-section. Our first male in the line of the next generation, and I do not want that grandson to get a Thimerosal containing vaccine until we know better what is going on. It will probably take a long time. In the meantime, and I know there are probably implications for this internationally, but in the meantime I think I want that grandson to only be given Thimerosal-free vaccines."

Dr. Johnson didn’t want his grandson to receive a vaccine with thimerosal but my son received a thimerosal containing vaccine the day after he was born. He didn’t get the same chance Dr. Johnson’s grandson did. He didn’t warn me.

There’s not enough space to go through the flaws in the studies commonly cited to prove vaccines don’t cause autism or to read the studies supporting vaccines triggering autism. Check here, here, here and here (if you're interested in more Martha Herbert here is her website). Start reading the Schafer Autism Report, a collection of articles, studies, etc. dealing with autism. It is an unbelievable collection of information that goes back years!

Frankly, I don’t think anyone could write any article that would prove to anyone else that vaccines trigger autism. It requires a lot of time and energy to even delve into the subject. I'm still waiting for a vaccinated vs. unvaccinated study. The closest we have now is a phone survey from California.

I just called out Dr. Parikh!

I just read Rahul K. Parikh's article The Ugliness of the Anti-Vaccine Movement and, of course, I had to send him an email.

Dear Dr. Parikh,

I just read your article and while I do not doubt that Amy Wallace was called inappropriate and vicious names, I find your position disingenuous. I assure you that people in the "anti-vaccine movement" have been called by vicious names as well. The ugliness that you refer to attaches to almost everyone -- governmental agencies, doctors, journalists and parents. Most people I've talked to and read who have concerns about vaccines take pains to state that they are not anti-vaccine but pro-safe vaccines. But I understand. If we are labeled "vaccine rejectionists" who believe in "junk science" and use "fear-mongering rhetoric" it's easier to marginalize, mock and ignore us.

I had two boys become autistic two weeks after routine vaccinations -- one at 13 months, the younger at 17 months. The same professional who told me Jacob was on the spectrum said that I didn't need to worry about William, he was fine. This was less than two months before he regressed into autism. Since that time I've spent thousand of hours reading studies, abstracts, and basically anything I can get my hands on about vaccines. And I am not unique!

We know too much about this topic to be patted on the head and sent away. It's frustrating to read articles written by journalists who clearly know little about their topic, and then they call us fools and parasites. It's unbelievable to read that Paul Offit is considered an expert on the causation of autism. These things are asserted in print as gospel truth and unassailable. And those of us who have delved into the subject call out ... but we are marginalized and mocked.

Are you elevating the discussion?

Update:

I was surprised to find myself listed as an "anti-vaccine writer" on a website with a link to this entry. So, I addressed that here.

Without Vaccine, Australia Shrugs Off Swine Flu.

I read a article in the Age of Autism about Australia. Here's the first part of the article. Finish it here.

"With no vaccine available for H1N1 flu, Australia recently ended its 2009 "Flu Season" (their Winter in our Summer), with 186 flu-associated fatalities of 36,991 Aussies confirmed having H1N1.

The Australia 2009 stats for regular 'seasonal flu' are not final yet, but their Health Dept literature cites annual flu-associated mortality historically has been between 2,500 and 3,000 in spite of universal vaccination programs for regular flu long being established."

Hummm.

Well, if only 186 people died from swine flu and over 2,500 people usually die from a regular flu strain. Does that mean that swine flu, so far, is a mild strain of flu? No, of course not! I must be wrong, after all government agencies all over the world have created mass hysteria and a special vaccine. They surely wouldn't have done that without a good reason!

Would they?

H1N1 Is Everywhere! A Collection of Statistics

I can't get away from this topic! It was a discussion on a school's yahoo group. I received an email today from a parent at Will's school. I heard that someone who's kids have already recovered from the school is going to vaccinate them anyway. (Not everyone understands that having an disease and recovering means that your body has already produced the antibodies necessary to fight off the same disease.)

I'll start off by saying that no one knows how dangerous the swine flu will be this season. (I'll be able to say how bad it was around next April with a lot of accuracy -- but that doesn't help now.)

A pandemic, while a very scary word, merely means worldwide. Thus I say with accuracy, chicken pox is a pandemic.

Here is preliminary data from the CDC 2009-2010 Influenza Season Week 40 ending October 10, 2009.

*There were: Eleven influenza-associated pediatric deaths reported. Ten of these deaths were associated with 2009 influenza A (H1N1) virus infection and one was associated with an influenza A virus, for which subtype is undetermined.

*Cumulatively since August 30th there have been 43 pediatric deaths nationwide.

*From August 30 – October 10, 2009, 4,958 laboratory-confirmed influenza associated hospitalizations, 292 laboratory-confirmed influenza associated deaths, 15,696 pneumonia and influenza syndrome-based hospitalizations, and 2,029 pneumonia and influenza syndrome-based deaths, were reported to CDC. (This includes all influenza strains not just H1N1.)

2009 H1N1 Flu: Situation Update

*Since April 2009, there have been 86 confirmed pediatric 2009 H1N1 deaths; 39 of these have been reported to CDC since August 30, 2009.

*Almost all of the influenza viruses identified so far are 2009 H1N1 influenza A viruses. These viruses remain similar to the virus chosen for the 2009 H1N1 vaccine ...

World Health Organization Pandemic (H1N1) 2009 - update 70 Other Updates
*As of 11 October 2009, worldwide there have been more than 399232 laboratory confirmed cases of pandemic influenza H1N1 2009 and over 4735 deaths reported to WHO. As many countries have stopped counting individual cases, particularly of milder illness, the case count is significantly lower than the actually number of cases that have occurred. WHO is actively monitoring the progress of the pandemic through frequent consultations with the WHO Regional Offices and member states and through monitoring of multiple sources of data.

* U S population over 304,059,724 (July 2008)

* World Population 6,706,993,152 (estimated July 2008)

*World Health Organizations Weekly Epidemiological Record on Pandemic H1N1 2009

US Census Bureau: The total number of children under age 5 was 21 million in 2008, or 6.9 percent of the total population, compared with 19.2 million and 6.8 percent in 2000.

86 pediatric deaths from H1N1 in the US out of a population of 21,000,000.

4735 reported deaths worldwide out a population of over 6,700,000,000.

Now, Let's all take a relieved deep breath! While recognizing that it's early in the flu season, H1N1 looks to be a mild influenza strain. I hope it doesn't mutate into a deadly strain, but if it does the vaccine would be useless anyway. (Many people who had the earlier strain of the Spanish flu caught the mutated strain and died even though they had antibodies for the first strain. Read the book, if you have a few hours.)

I'm not getting the vaccine.

But just to play with your mind -- here's a report that the CDC overestimated Swine Flu cases.

Flu Season and the Dreaded N1H1

Update: Statistics for week 43

Update: New statistics for week 42 (October 18-24, 2009) U.S. and Worldwide statistics

Update:

If you're interested in statistics both worldwide and in the US I spent some time and gathered some from the CDC and WHO. I was interested that CBS reported that the CDC was significantly over estimating people who had swine flu. On one hand, I'm glad it's milder than reported. On the other hand, that's ridiculous! Isn't it the CDC's job to gather statistics? But definitely check out the article in the Atlantic Monthly regarding flu vaccinations and statistics Does the Vaccine Matter?

Australia's flu season is over. N1H1 sounded pretty mild.

*****

Last Saturday night I went to Marcy's synagogue to hear a lecture on Buddhism. The speaker was a little dry and my mind wandered but on the positive side I now have intelligent questions to ask Sean.

After it ended we talked to one of Marcy's friends. There was joy and happiness around while we talked politics even religion, mine and theirs. Then she brought up vaccines. She said (since we seemed so reasonable), "You don't believe vaccines cause autism," as a prefix to her next topic. And my head started nodding up and down like a bobble-head doll. She went on to say that people who didn't get flu shots or other vaccines were basically ridiculous. She was actually pretty well informed of the party line. And she mentioned that her husband worked with vaccines and epidemiology at which point I said, of course, you are correct and I bow to your superior knowledge. (Do I even need to say that was a joke? Didn't think so.)

When I mentioned I had two sons who became autistic two weeks after routine vaccinations she countered with a "wasn't that around 2 years" statement. Which I countered with a 13 and 17 months and the same person who told me my oldest was ASD said "you don't have to worry about William, he's fine;" less than two months before he became autistic. Oh. She had nothing to say to that and moved on to her next attack.

She said studies have proven thimerosal doesn't cause autism. I said no those studies haven't been done yet. I brought up a specific study and mentioned serious flaws. She said she hadn't read the study (I knew that). She mentioned a vaccinated vs, unvaccinated study had been done. I said no. That's the study we want done! The CDC and NIH refuse to do that study!

She went on to talk about how dangerous N1H1 is. I said that the last statistics I read said that 400 people have died from it world wide. During the same time 13,000 people have died from a regular flu strain. She tried to bring up statistics but Marcy crushed her by bringing up the US population and applying it to her statistics making it a wash.

I'm sure she left angry and frustrated, knowing we were wrong but unable to prove it! And probably distressed that we knew more than she did but, of course, safe in the knowledge naturally we knew less than her husband.

Today I found a really interesting article in the Atlantic, Does the Vaccine Matter?

It asks the question, "But what if everything we think we know about fighting influenza is wrong? What if flu vaccines do not protect people from dying—particularly the elderly, who account for 90 percent of deaths from seasonal flu? And what if the expensive antiviral drugs that the government has stockpiled over the past few years also have little, if any, power to reduce the number of people who die or are hospitalized?"

After "comb[ing] through eight years of medical data on more than 72,000 people 65 and older. . . . . Jackson’s findings showed that outside of flu season, the baseline risk of death among people who did not get vaccinated was approximately 60 percent higher than among those who did, lending support to the hypothesis that on average, healthy people chose to get the vaccine, while the “frail elderly” didn’t or couldn’t. In fact, the healthy-user effect explained the entire benefit that other researchers were attributing to flu vaccine, suggesting that the vaccine itself might not reduce mortality at all."

"The history of flu vaccination suggests other reasons to doubt claims that it dramatically reduces mortality. In 2004, for example, vaccine production fell behind, causing a 40 percent drop in immunization rates. Yet mortality did not rise. In addition, vaccine “mismatches” occurred in 1968 and 1997: in both years, the vaccine that had been produced in the summer protected against one set of viruses, but come winter, a different set was circulating. In effect, nobody was vaccinated. Yet death rates from all causes, including flu and the various illnesses it can exacerbate, did not budge. Sumit Majumdar, a physician and researcher at the University of Alberta, in Canada, offers another historical observation: rising rates of vaccination of the elderly over the past two decades have not coincided with a lower overall mortality rate. In 1989, only 15 percent of people over age 65 in the U.S. and Canada were vaccinated against flu. Today, more than 65 percent are immunized. Yet death rates among the elderly during flu season have increased rather than decreased."

It a very good article and poses interesting questions, please read the whole article rather than relying on my excerpts. Also, check out the Atlantic's Facts about Swine Flu page.

HPV Vaccine Side Effects

Watch CBS Videos Online

Other Facts:

The Food and Drug Administration licensed the vaccine in 2006 to help women protect against four types of HPV. The vaccine, Gardasil, is recommended for females between the ages of 9 and 26. reference

Information on types of HPV viruses.

Gardasil Researcher Speaks Out

"Dr. Diane Harper says young girls and their parents should receive more complete warnings before receiving the vaccine to prevent cervical cancer. Dr. Harper helped design and carry out the Phase II and Phase III safety and effectiveness studies to get Gardasil approved, and authored many of the published, scholarly papers about it. She has been a paid speaker and consultant to Merck. It’s highly unusual for a researcher to publicly criticize a medicine or vaccine she helped get approved. . . She says data available for Gardasil shows that it lasts five years; there is no data showing that it remains effective ... According to Dr. Harper, assessing the true adverse event risk of Gardasil, and comparing it to the risk of cervical cancer can be tricky and complex. 'The number of women who die from cervical cancer in the US every year is small but real. It is small because of the success of the Pap screening program.' ... The rate of serious adverse events on par with the death rate of cervical cancer. Gardasil has been associated with at least as many serious adverse events as there are deaths from cervical cancer developing each year." reference

Horrifying blog posting on side effects women and girls experienced.

Gardasil and Paralysis

"About 4 reports per day were filed with VAERS in December 2006 for the HPV vaccine," said NVIC Health Policy Analyst Vicky Debold, RN, Ph.D. "Some of these girls are being injured when they collapse after getting the vaccine and others are complaining of neurological symptoms that should not be ignored. Doctors and nurses should take note of the patient safety issues related to giving this vaccine. Giving GARDASIL simultaneously with any of the 18 vaccines Merck did not study in combination is not an evidence-based guideline and should involve informed consent and a signed patient release. To avoid unnecessary injuries, teenage girls should be vaccinated laying down, not be left unattended and probably should not walk or drive themselves home from the doctor's office after they get vaccinated."

The FDA staff also questioned whether the “HPV types not contained in the vaccine might offset the overall clinical effectiveness of the vaccine.” There are more than 15 types of HPV associated with cervical cancer but GARDASIL only contains HPV types 16 and 18. It is unknown whether non-vaccine HPV types will become more dominant in the future. However, there are indications this could occur because some of the seven strains of pneumococcal contained in Wyeth’s PREVNAR vaccine, which was recommended by the CDC for universal use in all babies in 2000, have been replaced by some of the more than 80 other pneumococcal strains not contained in the vaccine. reference

MERCK'S GARDASIL VACCINE NOT PROVEN SAFE FOR LITTLE GIRLS

Bottom Line: The vaccine would definitely be 100% effective in the resulting paralyzed or dead girls.

My Open Letter to Michael Lynton the Chairman & CEO of Sony Pictures Entertainment

Dear Mr. Lynton,

Today I saw Julie & Julia. I really enjoyed it, but before it started I saw a preview for the movie 2012. It looked exciting. I would like to see it, but because it stars Amanda Peet I will not. I use to like her. In fact, I was one of the few people who watched Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip before it was canceled.

But I didn’t like how Ms. Peet inserted herself into the debate over whether vaccines cause autism. Ms. Peet, like everyone else, is entitled to her opinion; but speaking as a so called “parasite” I’d like to respectfully suggest that she has no place in this discussion. Speaking with a pediatrician even “every five minutes” doesn’t guarantee accurate information about autism or vaccines. Pediatricians, like other doctors, rely on the CDC (which has an inherent conflict of interest as it is responsible for both the promotion and safety of vaccines) for information relating to vaccines. And why even speak to Paul Offit about autism? Writing a book about something in which he has no expertise doesn’t make him an expert in autism. And Dr. Offit is by no means an unbiased observer in this discussion since he’s made millions in royalties from the Rotateq vaccine.

Autism affects at least 1 in 150 children. That's a lot of families. I am not implying that all of those families will choose not to see her movies or that all of those families believe that there is a link between vaccines and autism. However, a significant number of us do, perhaps as many as 2/3. Some of those families will join me in deciding never to watch one of her movies or TV shows again. I choose this not because I hate her, but because she only has the platform and power that the public gives her, and I choose to give her neither. As the mother of two boys who became autistic two weeks after routine vaccinations I ask you not to give her power or a platform either.

Children Who Get Flu Vaccine Have Three Times Risk Of Hospitalization For Flu, Study Suggests

Children Who Get Flu Vaccine Have Three Times Risk Of Hospitalization For Flu, Study Suggests

Well, I'm Surprised!

On Monday, I read Parents, don't be immune to vaccine truths by Rahul Parikh in the Los Angeles Times. I sent the author an email about it and he responded to me. I was really surprised. We, of course, disagreed with each other but I’m happy that he read my email.

Dr. Parikh,

I read with interest your recent article. I appreciate your interest in this subject. I have four children, two of whom became autistic two weeks after routine vaccinations.

I hope you have interest in a parent's perspective on the link between autism and vaccines and why we no longer trust the medical profession to always have our children's best interests at heart.

It was interesting that you started your article with a heartbreaking story of a child dying from a vaccine preventable disease in a third world country. Even if every parent in the US stopped vaccinating their children, mortality rates would not be similar to those in the third world because we have access to clean water, soap, sanitation and first world medicine. But I understand that a child sick in a hospital bed in the US hooked up to antibiotics, that probably will recover, does not present as visual an image even if it is more accurate.

I read that you believe that “doctors like me haven't been very good at communicating with you.” On the contrary, you are extraordinarily good at communicating! I never considered not vaccinating. The problem is that once I started doing my own research rather that accepting everything the medical profession said; I realized the medical profession was lying to me. Fewer than 10% of vaccine adverse reactions are reported. Even as severe, in the case of my own niece, as seizures. When her parents expressed concern to their daughter’s pediatrician he told them a seizure wasn’t a serious reaction and gave her the next shot in the series. This time she seized again and stopped breathing. The risks are understated and the benefits are overstated.

You mentioned the “more than 30 studies vouching for the safety of vaccines.” The problem with the studies is that if one has the motivation to look into them they find tremendous flaws. For instance, through the Freedom of Information Act we found out that in the study the CDC did on the correlation between thimerosal and autism. Initially, they found children who received thimerosal in their vaccines were 2.6 times more likely to be diagnosed with autism. They added 30,000 more 1 year-olds to the study and brought the number down to 1.6. They released the later number. In the frequently mentioned Danish study, two flaws I’m most concerned with are that it was a pharmaceutical company that studied the safety and that the study did not last long enough. There were 3 cohorts in the study. The average age of diagnosis for autism in Denmark over 4 years and over 5 years for Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD); only the oldest cohort reached the average age of diagnosis and the youngest group was the most likely to not have been vaccinated with the MMR because of a widely viewed TV program that linked the MMR with the development of autism. Most doctors read the press releases and look no further.

The CDC has a conflict of interest. They are in charge of promoting vaccines and ensuring they are safe. I read many years ago in the Boston Globe that the AAP recommended that infants receive the Hep. B at 6 months rather than at birth unless their mother is infected. A spokeswoman for the CDC said they were not changing the schedule because they didn’t “want to undermine parental confidence in the vaccination schedule.” My children’s pediatrician was unaware of either statement and was offended when I told him.

Many parents, unfortunately, have the motivation to invest hundreds of hours of study into vaccination.

I believe that pediatricians become doctors because they love children. I understand having a natural aversion to accepting that something you did with the best intentions caused significant harm to a child. I struggled with my guilt that I let my children be vaccinated and thus have life-long disabilities. What’s done is done. Moving forward --let’s first cause no harm.

Pediatricians do make money off vaccinations. That’s ok. I don’t expect you to treat my children for free. I appreciate your education. I appreciate that I can bring my child in for treatment. An article in the Boston Globe mentioned that in the average doctor’s office, proceeds from vaccines pay for the salary of a nurse. In many states, doctors also receive money for having their patients vaccinated. There are financial incentives.

As a parent, I am no longer willing to be patted on the head and sent on my way. That didn’t work out well for me the first time and it won’t happen again. The first step is to open up intellectually honest dialogue. We’ll try to tone down the anger if the medial profession will start taking an honest and independent look at the safety of vaccines.

Fourteen Studies

I just ran across this website detailing problems with studies that are often quoted relating to autism and vaccines.

Fourteen Studies

What we don't know can hurt us.

Taking One For The Herd

Spend any time at all reading about vaccines and you’ll hear over and over again about Herd Immunity. You’ll read that your children should be vaccinated for the benefit of “the herd.” The herd is a fancy way of saying “everybody else”. You hear people say vaccination choice is a first world luxury. It is. That’s why I live here. If I didn’t, I’d exert every effort to get to the first world! The reason vaccinations are a first world luxury is because #1. We have access to clean water, soap and good sanitation! Rates of disease drop dramatically once people have consistent access.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/359/8/784

http://www.iom.edu/Object.File/Master/59/278/Tauxe.pdf

#2. Modern medicine: I have access to hospitals, trained doctors and specialists, lab tests and antibiotics. In the comments posted after that “Momversation” I read over and over again the comment “vaccinate or die.”

Really? . . . That’s your argument? At best, that argument shows a lack of understanding over what spreads disease and what modern medicine can do to treat it. In many third world countries that lack access to clean water, medical treatment, and sanitation that is the case. But in the first world it’s different. Even under the unlikely scenario that every single person in the US stopped vaccinating their children our rates of death would not approach the rates in third world countries because conditions here are different.

Regardless of what we hear about vaccine rates dropping the CDC director of the immunization services division Lance E. Rodewald, MD “says vaccination rates are still high among young children in the United States. ‘Coverage has never been higher, and we want to keep it that way.’"

But what happens when someone is damaged by a vaccine? I’ve read the "sad but necessary” newspaper articles. They reference the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program but that program tends to be more theoretical for most injured people.

I’ll tell you what happens after your child takes one for this herd. After your child is damaged to benefit the herd, the herd complains about how much this damaged member’s education and care costs them. They complain that you want to much and that you’re inconvenient. They like to give you disapproving looks in stores if you have the nerve to take your child out in public. And their children are cruel to yours.

No one from the herd has ever stopped by my house and said “thanks” before dropping off a check.

Collection of Articles

Here is a link to various articles relating to vaccines and mercury. It even touches on the MMR and Wakefield.

Vaccines

Someone asked for more information concerning my views on the link between autism and vaccines. I wrote one post shortly after the government conceded that vaccines caused Hannah Polling to become autistic. Clearly, I wrote it in the moment and was too optimistic.

There are at least three major theories regarding the link between autism and vaccines. I believe that it is generally accepted by the "vaccines as trigger" groups that there is a genetic component or predisposition to develop autism in a susceptible child after an environmental trigger.

1. Autism is caused by exposure to thimerosal. Evidence of Harm is a great book that clearly sums up a lot of the controversy and evidence supporting a link between thimerosal and autism.

2. Another theory is that the MMR shot causes autism. That is pretty controversial because it caused rates of vaccination with the MMR to plummet in England. Andrew Wakefield is currently in court over the issue. I follow the issue at The Age of Autism and I subscribe to the Schafer Autism Report.

3. Autism is caused by some combination of both thimerosal and the MMR.

The reason this issue has not died is that up to 2/3 of the parents of children with autism believe it was triggered by vaccines. Independent and honest studies have not yet been done. What has generally happened is that some research is thrown together, the media, the CDC, the NIH, et al. announce that yet another study definitively proves there is no link. Parents, doctors, researchers look at the studies and see lack of independence, faulty criteria, etc. and reject the study because of multiple flaws. It convinces no one who was not already convinced; yet, the average person, doctors, professionals, who don't even give it a cursory look, assume it was a well designed and valid study.

I'm going to have to break this down further because I didn't even touch on genetics and that's a huge issue. Nor did I get to which theory I believe triggered it in my kids.

Let Me State This As Clearly As I Can

I listened to a "momversation" on a blog that I read, Dooce (my comment is #360). I don't usually watch the momversations because they're often dull (meaning they're usually about something I don't care about) and come with a commercial and if I want to watch a commercial I can walk downstairs and turn on the TV. But, of course, because this one said the magic word "vaccination" I was compelled to watch it even though I knew it would make me crazy!

It didn't. But that's because the moms were respectful and thoughtful, which quite frankly, is as much as I can expect. The comments were full of foolish and uninformed statements like Wakefield's data was made up. Actually ... his case is in court right now. That means that it hasn't been. At least not yet ... wink. And someone brought up the Danish Study. Yes, that one. The study that was done by a pharmaceutical company that surprisingly enough cleared a pharmaceutical product. The study that the 2 of the 3 cohorts didn't reach the average age of diagnosis for autism and unexpectedly found that there weren't very many autistic kids in their study. Go figure.

Just to be clear: Vaccines are one of the environmental triggers that cause autism in genetically susceptible children.