doomsday,

Regarding Thimerosal, This has been discussed earlier, yet might have been to scientific for you to comprehend so here is the simple version.

Thimerosal was used as a preservative in multi-dose vials, there are multiple well-published studies that clearly state that thimerosal safe, thimerosal is also used in cosmetics and skin products.

Yet after the FDA began pushing for reducing any mercury due to potential safety concerns, thimerosal was removed from vaccines and the MMR shots are no longer multi-dose vials. Despite the studies indicating that thimerosal was safe, the CDC decided that it will accommodate the notion of reducing mercury and remove it from the MMR vaccine.

Also, has there been any change in any of the supposed disorders you suppose were caused by thimerosal since its removal? the answer is no, so why still hold on to this?

With regards to Vioxx, the FDA had a concern to its safety with regards to it elevating patients blood pressure, the controversy was about Vioxx withholding the risks in its marketing and patients not being advised of the risks, either case this discussion is not about Vioxx, it is about vaccines and autism.

the MMR shot has been around longer than 5 years, has been administered millions of times, extensively tested and is considered safe.

Doing my best,

If one takes a look at the cases that were compensated, mostly were anaphylaxis (allergic reactions), provider instigated injuries and children that should not have otherwise gotten any vaccines, such as right after chemo treatment or had signs of compromised immunity yet inappropriately were given vaccines.

There is risks with every action that we do, not every child that rides the bus to school will return back home alive and healthy, yet it is an accepted risk most of us take, its impossible to predict zero injury or potential adverse reaction to anything, yet its well below the acceptable level and is safer than most other actions we take in life.

Doomsday,

This is becoming silly, your just exposing yourself more and more.

A. No one admitted that vaccines trigger autism only that the age when autism is detected happens to correlate with the age we give vaccines. The fact that you and people like you have decided that this is evidence that vaccines causes autism is ridiculous and inappropriate.

B. Amis people, while they have a much lower vaccination rate (68%) as per a study in pediatrics, the ‘report’ that was reported in the newswire and is a source often cited has been shown to be inaacurate.

C. Using standard ASD testing, researchers have concluded there is about 1/271 individuals that fit the criteria if ASD.

D. Amish people in general have a bias against modern medicine, so to just compare then at face value without proper research cannot be taken as is.

You repeating numerous times that vaccines cause autism will not change fiction into fact, you would have to base it on evidence.

Josh18,

Would you mind detailing how you have been affected by a vaccine?

Detailed diagnosis and treatment. Otherwise its just old style scare tactics.

To understand the seriousness of the discussion:

June 1999. A religiously affiliated school in the Netherlands had a large measles outbreak, 160 cases of measles of school students.

Total cases of measles were 2961.
510 patients were hospitalized.
3 died as a result of the measles.
95% of affected patients were unvaccinated,
5% were vaccinated, with 80% (of the 5%) having received just the initial MMR shot, the rest were unknown if they have received a second shot or not.

This demonstrates the seriousness of the measles virus.

truthishidden
Participant

A. Maternal immunity does not last 12 months. regardless if the mother has immunity from measles or from the vaccine.
B. MMR shots are effective, as is evident from the very studies you have posted, it requires two for full immunity.
C. Please do not mix your personal assumptions in a fact-finding discussion,

truthishidden
Participant
Some information to debunk the herd immunity myth:
“1. Transmission of measles among a highly vaccinated school population–Anchorage, Alaska, 1998.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1999.”

You are guilty of hiding behind made up facts and made up conclusions, you are misrepresenting the facts and the data.

Being that you posted all these studies, does that mean that you value the results, or only if they support your position?
Is the position of yours based on facts, or you go fact hunting to find facts that will support your position??

Take time to read the studies that you post, otherwise, you are accusing us of being stupid and taking what you post at face value.

The study demonstrates that two doses of the MMR vaccine are necessary for immunity, as 95% of the measles cases had just one dose with some having none.

In fact, only one child had received the second MMR shot, this shows how effective the shot is, this was a large school and only one child with proper vaccination got infected. (below the 95-97% acceptable immunity rate).

truthishidden
Participant
“3. Outbreak of measles among persons with prior evidence of immunity, New York City, 2011. Report of measles transmission from a twice-vaccinated individual with documented secondary vaccine failure.
Rosen JB, et al. Clin Infect Dis. 2014”

Have you actually taken the time to read the study, or are you just posting whatever seems to support your cause even though it does not?

This actually SUPPORTS what we already know! that out of 88 Individuals that have contracted the Measles virus, only Two were vaccinated. (hmm, 2.2% I am sure that this is just a coincidence.. if vaccines are ineffective, how else would you explain that?)

In fact, 231 other individuals that were vaccinated and came in contact with the virus have not gotten the virus. (2/231 is below the acceptable percentage, there is an acceptable 95-97% immunity)

Does this support that vaccines does not work? No, it supports that it actually DOES work.

Can we now cross this myth off your list, vaccines do work and as you posted, there is data to support that.

Logical mom
Participant
2cents
“I don’t know why u keep referring to “proven fraudalent study”. Nothing was ever proven fraudulent about his study! Not in Any court…ever!”

Wow, you really thought that this the slam dunk argument?!

Courts do NOT decide if this is fraudulent or not, in fact courts use the data and studies that are published to arrive at a conclusion, the people sitting on the bench (judges) are not trained in conducting scientific research.

I am sure you knew all of this, yet you still decided to make this statement, because it makes you sound intelligent, you are just coming across as screwed up and willing to further the agenda regardless of the facts that are available to all.

So your a supporter of Andrew Wakefield?

Below is from the BMJ, this is why the rest of the world does not buy into your fear mongering, we want what is best for our children and refuse to accept garbage science and fraud.

Authored by Andrew Wakefield and 12 others, the paper’s scientific limitations were clear when it appeared in 1998.2 3 As the ensuing vaccine scare took off, critics quickly pointed out that the paper was a small case series with no controls, linked three common conditions, and relied on parental recall and beliefs.4 Over the following decade, epidemiological studies consistently found no evidence of a link between the MMR vaccine and autism.5 6 7 8 By the time the paper was finally retracted 12 years later,9 after forensic dissection at the General Medical Council’s (GMC) longest ever fitness to practise hearing,10 few people could deny that it was fatally flawed both scientifically and ethically. But it has taken the diligent scepticism of one man, standing outside medicine and science, to show that the paper was in fact an elaborate fraud.

In a series of articles starting this week, and seven years after first looking into the MMR scare, journalist Brian Deer now shows the extent of Wakefield’s fraud and how it was perpetrated (doi:10.1136/bmj.c5347). Drawing on interviews, documents, and data made public at the GMC hearings, Deer shows how Wakefield altered numerous facts about the patients’ medical histories in order to support his claim to have identified a new syndrome; how his institution, the Royal Free Hospital and Medical School in London, supported him as he sought to exploit the ensuing MMR scare for financial gain; and how key players failed to investigate thoroughly in the public interest when Deer first raised his concerns.11

Deer published his first investigation into Wakefield’s paper in 2004.12 This uncovered the possibility of research fraud, unethical treatment of children, and Wakefield’s conflict of interest through his involvement with a lawsuit against manufacturers of the MMR vaccine. Building on these findings, the GMC launched its own proceedings that focused on whether the research was ethical. But while the disciplinary panel was examining the children’s medical records in public, Deer compared them with what was published in the Lancet. His focus was now on whether the research was true.

The Office of Research Integrity in the United States defines fraud as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism.13 Deer unearthed clear evidence of falsification. He found that not one of the 12 cases reported in the 1998 Lancet paper was free of misrepresentation or undisclosed alteration, and that in no single case could the medical records be fully reconciled with the descriptions, diagnoses, or histories published in the journal.

Who perpetrated this fraud? There is no doubt that it was Wakefield. Is it possible that he was wrong, but not dishonest: that he was so incompetent that he was unable to fairly describe the project, or to report even one of the 12 children’s cases accurately? No. A great deal of thought and effort must have gone into drafting the paper to achieve the results he wanted: the discrepancies all led in one direction; misreporting was gross. Moreover, although the scale of the GMC’s 217 day hearing precluded additional charges focused directly on the fraud, the panel found him guilty of dishonesty concerning the study’s admissions criteria, its funding by the Legal Aid Board, and his statements about it afterwards.14

Furthermore, Wakefield has been given ample opportunity either to replicate the paper’s findings, or to say he was mistaken. He has declined to do either. He refused to join 10 of his coauthors in retracting the paper’s interpretation in 2004,15 and has repeatedly denied doing anything wrong at all. Instead, although now disgraced and stripped of his clinical and academic credentials, he continues to push his views.16

Meanwhile the damage to public health continues, fuelled by unbalanced media reporting and an ineffective response from government, researchers, journals, and the medical profession.17 18 Although vaccination rates in the United Kingdom have recovered slightly from their 80% low in 2003-4,19 they are still below the 95% level recommended by the World Health Organization to ensure herd immunity. In 2008, for the first time in 14 years, measles was declared endemic in England and Wales.20 Hundreds of thousands of children in the UK are currently unprotected as a result of the scare, and the battle to restore parents’ trust in the vaccine is ongoing.

Any effect of the scare on the incidence of mumps remains in question. In epidemics in the UK, the US, and the Netherlands, peak prevalence was in 18-24 year olds, of whom 70-88% had been immunised with at least one dose of the MMR vaccine.21 22 Any consequence of a fall in uptake after 1998 may not become apparent until the cohorts of children affected reach adolescence. One clue comes from an outbreak in a school in Essen, Germany, attended by children whose parents were opposed to vaccinations. Of the 71 children infected with mumps, 68 had not been immunised.23

But perhaps as important as the scare’s effect on infectious disease is the energy, emotion, and money that have been diverted away from efforts to understand the real causes of autism and how to help children and families who live with it.24

There are hard lessons for many in this highly damaging saga. Firstly, for the coauthors. The GMC panel was clear that it was Wakefield alone who wrote the final version of the paper. His coauthors seem to have been unaware of what he was doing under the cover of their names and reputations. As the GMC panel heard, they did not even know which child was which in the paper’s patient anonymised text and tables. However, this does not absolve them. Although only two (John Walker-Smith and Simon Murch) were charged by the GMC, and only one, the paper’s senior author Walker-Smith, was found guilty of misconduct, they all failed in their duties as authors. The satisfaction of adding to one’s CV must never detract from the responsibility to ensure that one has been neither party to nor duped by a fraud. This means that coauthors will have to check the source data of studies more thoroughly than many do at present—or alternatively describe in a contributor’s statement precisely which bits of the source data they take responsibility for.

Secondly, research ethics committees should not only scrutinise proposals but have systems to check that what is done is what was permitted (with an audit trail for any changes) and work to a governance procedure that can impose sanctions where an eventual publication proves this was not the case. Finally, there are lessons for the Royal Free Hospital, the Lancet, and the wider scientific community. These will be considered in forthcoming articles.

What of Wakefield’s other publications? In light of this new information their veracity must be questioned. Past experience tells us that research misconduct is rarely isolated behaviour.25 Over the years, the BMJ and its sister journals Gut and Archives of Disease in Childhood have published a number of articles, including letters and abstracts, by Wakefield and colleagues. We have written to the vice provost of UCL, John Tooke, who now has responsibility for Wakefield’s former institution, to ask for an investigation into all of his work to decide whether any more papers should be retracted.

The Lancet paper has of course been retracted, but for far narrower misconduct than is now apparent. The retraction statement cites the GMC’s findings that the patients were not consecutively referred and the study did not have ethical approval, leaving the door open for those who want to continue to believe that the science, flawed though it always was, still stands. We hope that declaring the paper a fraud will close that door for good

Mindful,

Protocols are based on evidence, hence the term evidence-based medicine. Unlike twisted anecdotal evidence that cannot be replicated, If you consider being open-minded when people fall for scare tactics spread by people that have nothing on what to base their scare tactics, this is actually called fear mongering and misinformation.

furthermore, as I have mentioned multiple times, the doctors and other providers have no monetary gain to follow the latest recommendations and evidence. The ‘alternative’ movement which defies evidence based medicine, has based its entire marketing and business module based on scaring people with made up garbage claims.

Twisting anything that seems on the surface as if it furthers their cause, regardless if the true facts point to the direction they want or not, is not called being open-minded. In fact, this is the way a lot of people view this, the scientific community bases everything based on scientific evidence, regardless of what the results show, even if it means admitting that what they thought all along, was not fully accurate.

On the other hand, the alternative movement is hanging on to their beliefs, now they just have to find facts that support their belief, as each ‘fact’ gets uncovered and shows other than what they stand for, they move on to the next twisted fact. Yet the bottom line is, regardless of the scientific evidence the end result must always be that the medical community is wrong and that they are right.

This is the opposite of being open-minded, this is fraudulent and dishonest. completely inappropriate to be advising people and scare them into their belief.

Mindful,

As noted, the ‘alternative’ world has a lot to gain from spreading false claims and scaring people into buying their services.

Otherwise, why are you bringing up OB doctors, the lithotomy position has been practiced for a very long time and is the most accepted approach for many reasons, there is not much data to recommend any other position, there are other positions that are used for certain situation.

With regards to encephalitis, not sure if this is in response to the Hannah Poling story, encephalitis and encephalopathy are not the same.

So now its that people ‘detox’ from vaccines, what toxins are you referring to, and what people have not been able to ‘detox’?

All of this is based on assumptions, including the assumption that doctors just have booklets that guide them on step by step, same is with the police and CPS, they have it in their protocol to omit any reference to vaccines associated with killing the SIDS babys.

At least understand why the vast majority refuse to play along with this theory of yours.

Another point, the immediate death or seizures is nonsense, the immune system does not immediately react.

Furthermore, if this causes death and lifelong disability, why are only a select few affected by the vaccines?

Besides, this would mean that all EMS personnel, ER staff (doctors, nurses, technicians, and other staff) together with the parents and primary care physicians are all in with the conspiracy.

Oh, also the medical examiner, police officers, and detectives and child protective services.

All these people get involved with each SIDS case.

How are the payouts to all these people done? is Hatzoloh also involved, do each of their members get a handout or just the people on top?

So many people involved in each and every single SIDS case, yet we still have to believe you that the real cause was vaccines.

fyi, the majority of cases in the vaccine court that were successful, were provider error or allergic reaction.

To add to what DY said, you also need to stop making up reasons as to why certain stuff were done.

While you are free to accept conspiracy theories as to why there is a vaccine court, don’t be perplexed when the rest of the world just doesn’t buy it.

Anonymous,

I agree with you that there is room for people to exercise their free will.

However, I strongly disagree with you about the notion that there is this conspiracy pushing vaccines. In fact, I will argue that the ‘following’ and cult-like anti-vaccine movement makes it seem like it is the other way around.

In fact, the false scare tactics seem to support this notion, If all this is, is some people questioning and hesitations about the evidence based medicine, why make a movement with hotlines, why not just do what you believe is the right thing to do and move on?

To me it seems pretty straightforward, there is a huge industry that is completely dependant on spreading false information against evidence-based medicine, this is the only way they are able to further their ‘alternative’ practices, these people have their entire livelyhood built based on the idea of convincing people that evidence based medicine is a problem and they offer a solution.

Once again, I ask you, for the sake of having an honest discussion to disclose what the life threathaning event your child had, what the diagnosis and treatment were. How else can we take you seriously?

Anonymous,

A. Would you mind posting the discharge summary provided by the hospital of your child that “almost diesd” from a vaccine shot?

B. Can you quote the exact language of the letter quoting Reb Chaim?

A. Its rabbonim that called them these names.

B. What rabbonim have come out in writing in support of defying accepted medical opinion?

Not heard the interview yet i have personally researched the topic and have come to the conclusion that vaccines are effective and safe.

Saying that you personal vaccinate, seems like your trying to come across as credible, however you are trying (very hard) to spread doubt and confusion regarding vaccines.

Crone
Participant

Appreciate your efforts yet not sure to the reason on why you have posted the article from BMJ, It does not question the efficacy or safety of vaccines, it merely puts it in perspective, and in the authors perspective.

To summarize:

Anti vaxxers have this ‘belief’ that.

a. Measles is beneficial.
b. vaccines do not really help.
c. Components in the vaccines are dangerous.
d. Vaccines cause autism.
e. The entire vaccine business is a multi trillion dollar business, the entire world aside from them are involved and are being paid large sums to be part of the conspiracy.
f. Measles is not dangerous.

While the above has been proven to be incorrect, It is important to point out the hypocrisy of the Anti-Vaxx movement, the people involved are guilty of precisely what they accuse others.

The majority of people pushing the anti-vaxx movement have a huge interest in pushing this agenda, they are usually involved in ‘alternative’ (read: unproven and unable to withstand clinical trial) medicine.
By capturing audiences that will buy into their agenda, using scare tactics against established evidence based medicine and misrepresenting the data, they gain followers and monetize from it.

Why else are so many people emotional about this topic, this should be scientific fact finding discussion, instead of a fundamentalist religion style arguments which makes no sense.

If this issue is so confusing to you, why don’t you consult with your daas torah, why are you resorting to hotlines and conspirators?

chan56
Participant

Regarding your claim to aluminum in vaccines, I will not enter your premise and what you have posted, You do not need any studies to tell you that Hi levels of aluminum are detrimental to humans (and sheep).

However, this might come as a shocker, MMR vaccine does not contain any aluminum, despite what the anti-vaxxers have been preaching, the MMR vaccines do not require an adjuvant.

The other vaccines that do contain aluminum have been extensively studied in many clinical studies and trials. If you were to compare the exact amount of aluminum those vaccines contain, you would notice that they are far less than what is in baby formula and even in breast milk.

But I am sure that you already knew that, based on your ‘knowledgeable’ claims.

Medicine is bad, but being sick and unhealthy is worse.

Its not even a troll topic, most would agree with what you posted.

Wow, Using misinformation to come across as educated, is dishonest and instead of accusing the ‘medical establishment’ of lying, I will accuse the posters and the ‘anti-vaxxers’ of the very same accusation as well as fear mongering.

a. Dr. Marcia Angell, to use this as an argument against vaccines is silly, she is a big believer in science, in the very same claim against published data she also makes the claim that alternative medicine has gained popularity yet, in reality, we should not acknowledge them, as only pure science should play a role, her concern was that we no longer use pure science in medicine to the extent that we should use.

If this makes you say that the science that we have on vaccines and immunology is not there, you are reading this wrong.

b. William Thompson, this is a big one, he ‘admitted’ that there is a cover up.. in fact its the other way around, the mere fact that this was taken out of context and used as if this is an admission to covering up the that there is an association between vaccines and autism, is simply dishonest and shows on what the entire religion of the anti-vaxxers stand.

What he said, was while there have been many attempts to recreate the suspected conclusion, yet no correlation was able to be found, (check PubMed 14754936) yet what he said was that after slicing the data, there seems that African American children with autism seem to have received vaccines earlier, this does not mean there is a correlation, nor is there an explanation why among a specific race children with autism have received vaccines at a younger age.

They came up with explanations that are plausible, yet in no way does the data suggest that there is a correlation, which has been proven to be non-existent.

Ubiquitin,

I gave my opinion. Not the facts. The real truth is that i do not know. The rest of what i have written, just disregard.

ubiquitin – For now I will try to refrain from responding, I do not want to get caught up with this back and forth, seems like you were trying to score some points. not sure what the agenda is.

“Though sadly there are a few anecdotes in the reverse (admitedly far less)”
I guess its an alternative way of saying that they are not a perfect agency, They are just a bunch of humans after all.

“This may or may not surpirse you but Ive met patients brought in by EMS who survived”
Thanks for the awareness.