16 years ago, a doctor published a study, and it made us all sick

Nurses COVID

Published

"After years of controversy and making parents mistrust vaccines, along with collecting $674,000 from lawyers who would benefit from suing vaccine makers, it was discovered he had made the whole thing up. The Lancet publicly apologized and reported that further investigation led to the discovery that he had fabricated everything.

In the intervening years, millions have been spent on studying this further to see if there was anything that could connect autism and vaccines. This is what they found."

16 years ago, a doctor published a study. It was completely made up, and it made us all sicker.

Specializes in Anesthesia.

VAERS is a voluntary reporting system, not a mandated one, whose underutilization has been covered before.

That vaccines have their own system for adverse reaction compensation is precisely my point.

As for my belief, it was OR, not AND. Second time in this thread I've had to point out that distinction. But yea, let's critique my understanding, that's more fun.

Again, if you guys would rather not discuss (not debate, not fight, just talk) about the points and concerns I made and instead brow-beat me with studies and talking points, just let me know and I'll just drop the whole thing, seriously. :cool:

The VAERS is a mandatory and voluntary reporting system.

"The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) of 1986 requires health professionals and vaccine manufacturers to report to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) specific adverse events that occur after the administration of routinely recommended vaccines. In response to NCVIA, CDC and FDA established VAERS in 1990 (Chen, Vaccine, 1994)." https://vaers.hhs.gov/index/about/index

By your inference a medication is safer if it is provided at no profit and the manufactures can be sued directly. Can you provide any data besides "I believe" that supports these assumptions?.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Anesthesia.

"Correlation: the state or relation of being correlated; specifically : a relation existing between phenomena or things or between mathematical or statistical variables which tend to vary, be associated, or occur together in a way not expected on the basis of chance alone "

There has never been shown to be a statistical correlation between vaccines and autism.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Anesthesia.

[h=3]

References[/h]

  1. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological profile for mercury. Atlanta, GA: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry;1999.
  2. Axton JMH. Six cases of poisoning after a parenteral organic mercurial compound (merthiolate). Postgrad Med J 1972;48:417-421.
  3. Bakir F, Damlugi SF, Amin-Zaki L, Murtadha M, Khalidi A, Al-Rawi NY, Tikriti S, Dhahir HI, Clarkson TW, Smith JC, Doherty RA. Methylmercury poisoning in Iraq. Science 1973;181:230-241.
  4. Ball LK, Ball R, Pratt RD. An assessment of thimerosal use in childhood vaccines. Pediatrics 2001;1147-1154.
  5. Bernard S, Enayati A, Redwood L, Roger H, and Binstock T. Med. Hypotheses 2001, 56: 462-471.
  6. Bernier RH, Frank JA, Nolan TF. Abscesses complicating DTP vaccination. Am J Dis Child 1981;135:826-828.
  7. Blair AMJN, Clark B, Clarke, AJ, Wood, P. Tissue Concentrations of Mercury after Chronic Dosing of Squirrel Monkeys with Thimerosal. Toxicology 1975;3:171-1766.
  8. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Notice to Readers: Thimerosal in Vaccines: A Joint Statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Public Health Service. Morb Mort Wkly Rep 1999;48:563-565.
  9. Cox NH, Forsyth A. Thimerosal allergy and vaccination reactions. Contact Dermatitis 1988;18:229-233.
  10. Davidson PW, Myers GJ, Cox C, Axtell C, Shamlaye C, Sloan-Reeves J, Cernichiari E, Needham L, Choi A, Wang Y, Berlin M, Clarkson TW. Effects of prenatal and postnatal methylmercury exposure from fish consumption on neurodevelopment: Outcomes at 66 months of age in the Seychelles child development study. JAMA 1998;280:701-707.
  11. Fagan DG, Pritchard JS, Clarkson TW, Greenwood MR. Organ mercury levels in infants with omphaloceles treated with organic mercurial antiseptic. Arch Dis Child 1977;52:962-964.
  12. Federal Register, January 19, 1979;44;3990.
  13. Federal Register. November 19, 1999;64:63323-63324.
  14. Goncalo M, Figueiredo A, Goncalo S. Hypersensitivity to thimerosal: the sensitivity moiety. Contact Dermatitis1996;34:201-203.
  15. Grabenstein JD. Immunologic necessities: diluents, adjuvants, and excipients. Hosp Pharm 1996; 31:1387-1401.
  16. Grandjean P, Weihe P, White RF et al. Cognitive deficit in 7 year old children with prenatal exposure to methylmercury. Neurotoxicol Teratol 1997;6:417-428.
  17. Harada M. Minamata disease: Methylmercury poisoning in Japan caused by environmental pollution. Crit Rev Toxicol 1995;25:1-24.
  18. IOM (Institute of Medicine). Thimerosal-containing vaccines and neurodevelopmental disorders. Washington DC: National Academy Press; 2001.
  19. Lowell HJ, Burgess S, Shenoy S, Peters M, Howard TK. Mercury poisoning associated with hepatitis B immunoglobulin. Lancet 1996:347:480.
  20. Magos L, Brown AW, Sparrow S, Bailey E, Snowden RT, Skipp WR. The comparative toxicology of ethyl- and methylmercury. Arch Toxicol 1985,57:260-267.
  21. Mahaffey KR, Rice G, et al. An Assessment of Exposure to Mercury in the United States: Mercury Study Report to Congress. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protections Agency; 1997. Document EPA-452/R097-006.
  22. Mahaffey KR. Methylmercury: A new look at the risks. Public Health Rep 1999;114:397-413
  23. Matheson DS, Clarkson TW, Gelfand EW. Mercury toxicity (acrodynia) induced by long-term injection of gammaglobulin. J Pediatr 1980: 97:153-155Moller H. All these positive tests to thimerosal. Contact Dermatitis1994; 31:209-213.
  24. Pfab R, Muckter H, Roider G, Zilker T. Clinical Course of Severe Poisoning with Thiomersal. Clin Toxicol1996;34:453-460.
  25. Powell HM, Jamieson WA. Merthiolate as a Germicide. Am J Hyg 1931;13:296-310.
  26. Rohyans J, Walson PD, Wood GA, MacDonald WA. Mercury toxicity following merthiolate ear irrigations. J Pediatr 1994;104:311-313.
  27. Simon PA, Chen RT, Elliot JA, Schwartz B. Outbreak of pyogenic abscesses after diphtheria and tetorifice toxoids and pertussis vaccine. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1993;12:368-371.
  28. U.S. Pharmacopeia 24, Rockville, MD: U.S. Pharmacopeial Convention; 2001.
  29. Wilson GS. The Hazards of Immunization. New York, NY: The Athlone Press; 1967:75-84.
  30. World Health Organization. Trace elements and human nutrition and health. Geneva: World Health Organization;1996:209.

back to top

[h=3]Bibliography[/h]Studies on Safety and Effectiveness of Thimerosal:

  1. Batts AH, Narriott C, Martin GP, et al. The effect of some preservatives used in nasal preparations on mucociliary clearance. Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology 1989; 41:156-159.
  2. Batty I, Harris E, Gasson A. Preservatives and biological reagents. Developments in Biological Standardization 1974;24:131-142.
  3. Beyer-Boon ME, Arntz PW, Kirk RS. A comparison of thimerosal and 50% alcohol as preservatives in urinary cytology. Journal of Clinical Pathology 1979;32:168-170.
  4. Gasset AR, Itoi M, Ishii Y, Ramer RM. Teratogenicities of ophthalmic drugs. II. Teratogenicites and tissue accumulation of thimerosal. Archives of Ophthalmology 1975;93:52-55.
  5. Goldman KN, Centifanta Y, Kaufman HF, et al. Prevention of surface bacterial contamination of donor corneas. Archives of Ophthalmology 1978;96:2277-2280.
  6. Keeven J, Wrobel S, Portoles M, et al. Evaluating the preservative effectiveness of RGP lens care solutions.Contact Lens Association of Ophthalmologists Journal 1995;21:238-241.
  7. Naito R, Itoh T, Hasegawa E, et al. Bronopol as a substitute for thimerosal. Developments in Biological Standardization 1974;24:39-48.
  8. Wozniak-Parnowska W, Krowczynski L. New approach to preserving eye drops. Pharmacy International1981;2(4):91-94.

A few studies showing the safety of thimerosal.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Anesthesia.

thimerosal autism - PubMed - NCBI

Here is 176 more articles if the first set wasn't enough to end the thimerosal/vaccine and autism/adverse reactions debate.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Anesthesia.

Why the vaccine injury compensation program exists.

"On October 1, 1988, the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-660) created the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). 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."

Without this program vaccines either wouldn't be readily available and/or be so expensive most people could not afford them.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Anesthesia.

It is the same with vaccines. We talk in certainties about vaccines because most people don't understand what absolute actually means in science. We have shown that 100% of the time vaccines haven't shown a correlation with autism rates in a few million cases.

That's simply not true.

You can count for yourself, but scientists have looked at more than a 2 million children that received the MMR vaccine for increased ASD rates and no statistical significance was found between the two.

https://www2.aap.org/immunization/families/faq/vaccinestudies.pdf

Up Vote Up Vote ×

wtbcrna and FNP - thanks for all the great statistical information. That takes time and dedication and it is appreciated!

I love skeptic.com and read this today. Thought of you elkpark.

Dr. Harriet Hall, MD, the SkepDoc, is a retired family physician and Air Force Colonel living in Puyallup, WA. She writes about alternative medicine, pseudoscience, quackery, and critical thinking. She is a contributing editor to both Skeptic and Skeptical Inquirer, an advisor to the Quackwatch website, and an editor of Sciencebasedmedicine.org, where she writes an article every Tuesday. She is author of Women Aren't Supposed to Fly: The Memoirs of a Female Flight Surgeon. Her website is www.skepdoc.info.

Fact-Checking Vaccine Statements in the GOP Debate

BY HARRIET HALL, M.D., THE SKEPDOC

Skeptic » eSkeptic » September 23, 2015

Scroll down to "Feature" article.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Vaccines have been demonstrated to be safe and effective more times than studies I am willing to take the time to cite. The safety and efficacy of vaccines has never been in question to anyone that reads and understands the current data.

First off, you're kind of making my whole point about "the science has spoken crowd" with a response like that. Secondly, I made that statement in response to yours wherein you suggested that it was more important to produce cheap vaccines, something I disagreed with since the companies are bearing little to nothing in the form of responsibility for when something goes wrong. You keep hiding behind datasets as some way of justifying a questionable ethical partnership between the government, for-profit manufacturers and healthcare consumers. Sorry, I have a moral objection to that, not to mention concerns about the aforementioned company's motivation to provide a quality product or improve upon one.

Vaccines make up little more than a rounding error in the pharmaceutical market. If you are talking about ROI being high, that's the ROI of employers vaccinating workers to avoid lost productivity.

Billions of dollars is billions of dollars. You completely avoided my point which quite clearly showed manufacturer's motivations (profit via the use of multi-dose vials and preservatives) and the government's willingness to defer to such judgement.

Not sure where you're getting the idea that ROI for employers is significantly increased through vaccinations. Don't bring the flu into this, because we both know that the CDC's numbers are based on "flu and flu-like symptoms", so...

Thimerosal has been demonstrated a myriad of times to be of no significant risk at the doses used. This, again, is well documented. It contains ethylmercury which is cleared by the body far faster than the methylmercury found in the diet.

Thimerosal, AFAIK, is still being looked at for various neurological syndromes. As for the ethyl vs methyl argument, both can cross the BBB, which is concerning enough, but as you said, methyl is ingested. Route matters, always...

The "taxpayers" are only the people being vaccinated. They pay a small set tax to provide financial support for any adverse effect. This is a much smaller cost than the pharmaceutical industry would tack on to the cost of vaccines if there were no system in place. So yes, I am ok with limiting the cost of vaccines while providing financial support if applicable.

It's still a tax burden, one that seeks to absolve billion-dollar companies from having to pay out. That's not just about lowering costs (R&D costs for the most part have seen ROI many times over already), it's supposedly to protect against unwarranted litigation, which leads me to...

Show me some numbers of confirmed serious adverse effects linked to vaccines. Please, enlighten us with the hard numbers.

The truth of the matter is the risk of a serious adverse effect, while present, is very small on the range of

...if it's so small, why not keep the current system in place and have the manufacturer pick up the bill in the event that there is evidence of harm? Seems to me that would be the best of both worlds, given that the Special Masters have been so adept at mitigating these cases with such impartiality.

As for the rest, you keep harping on deaths, while I've stated adverse reactions including deaths. Measles hasn't killed anyone in the past 10 years either, but I understand that it can do more than that (to say nothing of how highly contagious it is). While I acknowledged that, both now and previously, you chose to cherry-pick my comment and ignore the entire point I was making, that the majority must be protected in the face of something while the minority suffers (your cited

The truth is an individual is far more likely to die of have a serious complication from a preventable illness than from the vaccine for that illness. If you disagree, please share your data.

Ok, I'll take your word for it. I have no data for either, TBH, nor am I inclined to hunt a bunch down. Diseases are bad, vaccines, for most people, are good. Really not sure why you felt the need to make that statement.

Yes I am waiting for my shill bucks to come in. The elegant response of the pseudoscientist: everyone involved in any data against your preconceived notion is a shill.

Post some data to support your position.

Yea, I never even intimated that you were a shill, so let's put aside the e-outrage. You're staunchly pro-vaccine, I have no problem with that. I simply stated that given that position you were more than familiar with those quotes from those sources, something I do have a problem with, and something you assured me was quite incorrect as far as scientific stances go.

What data shall I post, and for what position? That I have a moral objection to how the vaccine program is handled in the USA? That I believe there should be more done to improve vaccines and make them safer? If there's data about how that's being done, please let me know. I'm not as ensconced in the topic as some here.

MMR was the only vaccine to ever be questioned as it relates to austim. Please cite some sources otherwise.

So, you're saying that the MMR was the only vaccine ever looked at as causative for autism? But all vaccines are in the clear? Hmph, I'm confused. Again, I'm not a buff, but I think there may have been a study on Hep B, but I think the source wasn't peer-reviewed. Still, that really doesn't speak well for the whole "question has been asked and answered" crowd.

wtbcrna likely misspoke there. There is no causal relationship demonstrated by the science. There is a correlation, just like there is a correlation to drinking water, the sales of organic foods, the membership of allnurses, to increased autism diagnosis.

That's being a bit disingenuous when you put it that way, but fine, statistics rule. Keep in mind though, this isn't mathematics (even though some treat it that way), and statistics and epidemiological studies as the sole source of support is kind of like calling a code while looking at a Tele monitor as opposed to checking the patient first.

As for wtbcrna, I don't believe that to be the case. In our previous exchanges she has demonstrated an unwillingness to concede any reasonable points or critique anything that put her "side" in a bad light (yes, there are a few). Her responses are continuously dogmatic with walls of data thrown in to overwhelm/exhaust the reader (like me!). Again, I have no real time to delve as deeply as some of you do into this topic. That you have lives that allow for this, kudos. Mine is not as forgiving. That is why I ask to discuss, not debate.

Cite your concerns. Show us some peer-reviewed studies to support your statements. The listed studies were independent studies save for 2 meta-analysis studies.

My concerns about the DeStefano paper are that there was reportedly data sets that were excluded and subsequent studies relied on the included data. I know you know what I'm speaking about, but you are instead asking me to jump through hoops while pretending to be obtuse? That's very nice.

You think a free and easily accessible system that results in only 3% valid claims is underutilized?

HHS says it's underutilized. Anecdotally, I know for a fact my pediatrician didn't report my daughter's AE. But hey, she took one for the team, so don't worry.

They have their own system out of an abundance of caution, which one would think you'd support.

Why would I support a system that protects a manufacturer? How is that "out of an abundance of caution?"

Please, discuss. Share your data. Cite your sources. Let's discuss.

I don't think you're being particularly sincere. Your response feigning(?) ignorance to what my concerns were about the DeStefano paper lead me to believe I'm right. Am I?

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Anesthesia.
First off, you're kind of making my whole point about "the science has spoken crowd" with a response like that. Secondly, I made that statement in response to yours wherein you suggested that it was more important to produce cheap vaccines, something I disagreed with since the companies are bearing little to nothing in the form of responsibility for when something goes wrong. You keep hiding behind datasets as some way of justifying a questionable ethical partnership between the government, for-profit manufacturers and healthcare consumers. Sorry, I have a moral objection to that, not to mention concerns about the aforementioned company's motivation to provide a quality product or improve upon one.

Billions of dollars is billions of dollars. You completely avoided my point which quite clearly showed manufacturer's motivations (profit via the use of multi-dose vials and preservatives) and the government's willingness to defer to such judgement.

Not sure where you're getting the idea that ROI for employers is significantly increased through vaccinations. Don't bring the flu into this, because we both know that the CDC's numbers are based on "flu and flu-like symptoms", so...

Thimerosal, AFAIK, is still being looked at for various neurological syndromes. As for the ethyl vs methyl argument, both can cross the BBB, which is concerning enough, but as you said, methyl is ingested. Route matters, always...

It's still a tax burden, one that seeks to absolve billion-dollar companies from having to pay out. That's not just about lowering costs (R&D costs for the most part have seen ROI many times over already), it's supposedly to protect against unwarranted litigation, which leads me to...

...if it's so small, why not keep the current system in place and have the manufacturer pick up the bill in the event that there is evidence of harm? Seems to me that would be the best of both worlds, given that the Special Masters have been so adept at mitigating these cases with such impartiality.

As for the rest, you keep harping on deaths, while I've stated adverse reactions including deaths. Measles hasn't killed anyone in the past 10 years either, but I understand that it can do more than that (to say nothing of how highly contagious it is). While I acknowledged that, both now and previously, you chose to cherry-pick my comment and ignore the entire point I was making, that the majority must be protected in the face of something while the minority suffers (your cited

Ok, I'll take your word for it. I have no data for either, TBH, nor am I inclined to hunt a bunch down. Diseases are bad, vaccines, for most people, are good. Really not sure why you felt the need to make that statement.

Yea, I never even intimated that you were a shill, so let's put aside the e-outrage. You're staunchly pro-vaccine, I have no problem with that. I simply stated that given that position you were more than familiar with those quotes from those sources, something I do have a problem with, and something you assured me was quite incorrect as far as scientific stances go.

What data shall I post, and for what position? That I have a moral objection to how the vaccine program is handled in the USA? That I believe there should be more done to improve vaccines and make them safer? If there's data about how that's being done, please let me know. I'm not as ensconced in the topic as some here.

So, you're saying that the MMR was the only vaccine ever looked at as causative for autism? But all vaccines are in the clear? Hmph, I'm confused. Again, I'm not a buff, but I think there may have been a study on Hep B, but I think the source wasn't peer-reviewed. Still, that really doesn't speak well for the whole "question has been asked and answered" crowd.

That's being a bit disingenuous when you put it that way, but fine, statistics rule. Keep in mind though, this isn't mathematics (even though some treat it that way), and statistics and epidemiological studies as the sole source of support is kind of like calling a code while looking at a Tele monitor as opposed to checking the patient first.

As for wtbcrna, I don't believe that to be the case. In our previous exchanges she has demonstrated an unwillingness to concede any reasonable points or critique anything that put her "side" in a bad light (yes, there are a few). Her responses are continuously dogmatic with walls of data thrown in to overwhelm/exhaust the reader (like me!). Again, I have no real time to delve as deeply as some of you do into this topic. That you have lives that allow for this, kudos. Mine is not as forgiving. That is why I ask to discuss, not debate.

My concerns about the DeStefano paper are that there was reportedly data sets that were excluded and subsequent studies relied on the included data. I know you know what I'm speaking about, but you are instead asking me to jump through hoops while pretending to be obtuse? That's very nice.

HHS says it's underutilized. Anecdotally, I know for a fact my pediatrician didn't report my daughter's AE. But hey, she took one for the team, so don't worry.

Why would I support a system that protects a manufacturer? How is that "out of an abundance of caution?"

I don't think you're being particularly sincere. Your response feigning(?) ignorance to what my concerns were about the DeStefano paper lead me to believe I'm right. Am I?

1. "Science has spoken crowd", what other crowd is there besides the vaccine conspiracy crowd. There is no evidence to even suggest that vaccines are anything other than what is stated in the scientific literature.

2. You keep saying there is something wrong with the VCIP without any proof other than "I believe". VCIP was invented to ensure a consistent supply of vaccines for everyone in this country. There are similar programs in other countries for the same reason. Vaccine-Injury Compensation in Other Countries - Vaccine Supply and Innovation - NCBI Bookshelf It is not considered unethical and hasn't stopped new vaccines from being invented or vaccines with less adverse reactions from being invented. The rotovirus is good example of this.

I guess you can believe that people will spend decades (yes decades is correct) researching and developing new and safer vaccines without a relatively small profit incentive (approximately 2% of pharmaceutical sales are vaccine related), but most people realize that the most effective way to develop new vaccines is to allow for some profit. Also, the VCIP helps defray the cost to the consumer and gives the government the ability to have a say so in the final price of vaccines unlike any other medication.

3. You keep implying profit=vaccine conspiracy. Can you provide any proof of that? Do you work for free just because you provide medical services? Do you give back all the money you don't use for expenses every paycheck, if not does that mean your nursing care is questionable? Does it only matter after a certain amount money is made? Where is this fuzzy grey line where X profit equals conspiracy?

4. Thimerosal in vaccines causes damage is a dead argument unless you can provide any evidence to the contrary. There are hundreds of articles and millions of vaccines cases reviewed showing just the opposite.

5. Just for clarification WTBCRNA is the XY type not XX.

6. There cannot even be a discussion when only one side brings evidence and the other side just keeps saying well I believe. The "discussion" on vaccines is over. The only thing left is people that want to believe in conspiracy theories about vaccines versus people that have critically evaluated the scientific literature on vaccines. You can believe anything you want, but that doesn't negate thousands of scientific articles refuting that vaccines are not safe.

7. The DeStephano controversy is anything but. Analysis and Reanalysis: The Controversy Behind MMR Vaccinations and Autism, part 2

A person trying to hide statistical analysis of something they supposably falsified does not voluntarily release their data sets to other scientists to use in further research. The way Dr. Hooker got his results were statistical manipulation of the data set in order to come to the conclusion he wanted. That isn't the way science works and that is why is analysis is different than every other scientific study done around the world.

8. Being able to sue manufactures has never shown to prevent malfeasance. The people that are pushing the hardest for being able to sue drug manufactures over vaccines are the ones that would profit the most i.e. attorneys. The end result would do nothing but raise the cost of vaccines and threaten the supply. Propofol and droperidol are perfect examples of this.

9. Just because your pediatrician didn't report a AE doesn't have any bearing on the safety of vaccines. It is statistically insignificant when there are routinely hundreds of millions of vaccine doses given.

Everything you have stated about vaccines has been refuted, so now we are back to here is the evidence and I believe as the basis of this "discussion" about vaccines.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Community, OB, Nursery.

Do people in developing countries have discussions like these?

I'm not trying to be snarky here, but in a place where the gen pop is a lot more likely (for a myriad of reasons) to contract and die from a vaccine-preventable disease, do people have the luxury of weighing a miniscule number of immunization complications vs. disease risk and burden? Refer to earlier posts about QI also, of course we should be looking for safer ways to do everything, but it seems like a bit of a first-world discussion that we're having here.

Anecdotally (which means zero statistically, I know), my husband grew up in the sticks of Mexico. I mean WAAAAY out in the boonies. He may have gotten the OPV because if there's one thing Mexico was good at in the 70s, 80s, and 90s it was mass polio immunization campaigns. (Not kidding, I have seen Mexican immunization records with 10+ OPVs.) But beyond that, nothing. He got his first Td in 2002 when I dragged him kicking and screaming to the clinic I worked in. Now I realize how very very lucky he is. Whether it was herd immunity (though I doubt it because they were all out in the sticks), pure dumb luck, or geographical isolation that protected him, he managed to escape childhood without a serious illness. Of course, that meant he got varicella as an adult (early 20s), which nearly killed him.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Anesthesia.

FYI: Vaccines conspiracy theories are universal. The conspiracy differs by country. Examples: Vaccines cause infertility, tracking devices in vaccines, HIV from vaccines etc.

There is a long history of vaccine conspiracies starting with the small pox inoculations. History of Anti-vaccination Movements — History of Vaccines

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Adult Internal Medicine.
You keep hiding behind datasets as some way of justifying a questionable ethical partnership between the government, for-profit manufacturers and healthcare consumers. Sorry, I have a moral objection to that, not to mention concerns about the aforementioned company's motivation to provide a quality product or improve upon one.

Yes. I absolutely "hide" behind the datasets. To be totally honest, the datasets are all that matter to me. Objective trumps subjective. If the data changed to show vaccines were dangerous than I would support ceasing vaccination.

Billions of dollars is billions of dollars. You completely avoided my point which quite clearly showed manufacturer's motivations (profit via the use of multi-dose vials and preservatives) and the government's willingness to defer to such judgement.

Vaccines make up less than 2% of pharmaceutical revenue, but it is still billions of dollars, that's true. Its true that there are new entries to the vaccine market, which drives the innovation you discussed previously. The fact remains that vaccines are about 5% less profitable than other types of pharmaceuticals. They are far less profitable than "supplements".

Multi-dose vials have been demonstrated to be safe for decades. That being said there is increasing evidence to support the use of single-dose vaccines from a financial perspective and my clinic uses only single-dose. Again, this is a financial issue not a safety issue, but it has nothing to do with manufacturer profit: they make more money on multi-dose vials.

Not sure where you're getting the idea that ROI for employers is significantly increased through vaccinations. Don't bring the flu into this, because we both know that the CDC's numbers are based on "flu and flu-like symptoms", so...

I asked you to share your citation, please do. I haven't seen any studies linked to support any of your claims.

Nichol, K. L. (2003). The efficacy, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of inactivated influenza virus vaccines. Vaccine, 21(16), 1769-1775.

Thimerosal, AFAIK, is still being looked at for various neurological syndromes. As for the ethyl vs methyl argument, both can cross the BBB, which is concerning enough, but as you said, methyl is ingested. Route matters, always...

Of course it is still being investigated, it will continue to be investigated, because that's what science does. What we know is that no study has ever demonstrated statistical significance of adverse effects with thimerosal.

The assumption the mercury can result in neuropathology is based on methylmercury and dietary exposure, which bioaccumulates. Studies have not shown ethylmercury to cause the same deficits.

It's still a tax burden, one that seeks to absolve billion-dollar companies from having to pay out. That's not just about lowering costs (R&D costs for the most part have seen ROI many times over already), it's supposedly to protect against unwarranted litigation, which leads me to .... if it's so small, why not keep the current system in place and have the manufacturer pick up the bill in the event that there is evidence of harm? Seems to me that would be the best of both worlds, given that the Special Masters have been so adept at mitigating these cases with such impartiality.

I am willing to bet the system won't change when 97% of the reported ADRs are found to not be vaccine related. How much would litigation for those 97% cost the healthcare system? Lets be honest here, I think we can all agree, that if pharmaceutical companies had to set aside that kind of litigation cost it would be tacked right onto the cost to the consumer. Would you be ok with increasing the cost of vaccines if the manufacturer was responsible?

As for the rest, you keep harping on deaths, while I've stated adverse reactions including deaths. Measles hasn't killed anyone in the past 10 years either, but I understand that it can do more than that (to say nothing of how highly contagious it is). While I acknowledged that, both now and previously, you chose to cherry-pick my comment and ignore the entire point I was making, that the majority must be protected in the face of something while the minority suffers (your cited

There have been 10 deaths from measles (listed on death certificate) from 2000 to 2015. But we all know that the reason there are so few deaths is vaccination.

Yes vaccines have side effects and the risk of serious side effects, they are not 100% safe. But I am not sure how that is an issue of protecting the majority at the cost of the minority, that's a tough argument to make. Peanut butter has been banned from schools so the majority suffers to protect the minority; are you suggesting that the majority should get a potentially fatal illness to protect the minority from a small risk of vaccination? No one dies if a kid can't bring a PBJ to school. If vaccination ceases to exist, people will die.

You're staunchly pro-vaccine, I have no problem with that. I simply stated that given that position you were more than familiar with those quotes from those sources, something I do have a problem with, and something you assured me was quite incorrect as far as scientific stances go.

Again, you misunderstand. I am not "pro-vaccine". I am "pro-science". If the data changes so will I. See your opening statement.

If there's data about how that's being done, please let me know. I'm not as ensconced in the topic as some here.

Vaccines

So, you're saying that the MMR was the only vaccine ever looked at as causative for autism? But all vaccines are in the clear? Hmph, I'm confused. Again, I'm not a buff, but I think there may have been a study on Hep B, but I think the source wasn't peer-reviewed. Still, that really doesn't speak well for the whole "question has been asked and answered" crowd.

The vaccine-autism association is all related to a retracted paper from Andrew Wakefield in 1998, which he later admitted to falsifying the data on. Since that time, other vaccines (including HiB) have been examined and none have demonstrated vaccine (or vaccine component) causation in autism.

That's being a bit disingenuous when you put it that way, but fine, statistics rule. Keep in mind though, this isn't mathematics (even though some treat it that way), and statistics and epidemiological studies as the sole source of support is kind of like calling a code while looking at a Tele monitor as opposed to checking the patient first.

Outcome-based medicine is not always ideal on the patient-level. But on the population level, at least in my view, is the only way to make effective decisions.

My concerns about the DeStefano paper are that there was reportedly data sets that were excluded and subsequent studies relied on the included data. I know you know what I'm speaking about, but you are instead asking me to jump through hoops while pretending to be obtuse?

To be honest, based on your comments above, it is clear what sources you have invested your limited time in reading, and I am willing to bet that mercola.com and NVIC.org are included. The reason I say that, and the reason you feel that was have predetermined responses, is that many of the things being discussed her are on the list of talking points from those sites.

The concerns raised about the DeStefano paper have been demonstrated many times to be falsified by Dr. Thompson and Dr. Hooker and their paper has also been retracted.

HHS says it's underutilized. Anecdotally, I know for a fact my pediatrician didn't report my daughter's AE. But hey, she took one for the team, so don't worry.

I am sorry he/she didn't, did you change provider and find someone to report the ADR?

I don't think you're being particularly sincere. Your response feigning(?) ignorance to what my concerns were about the DeStefano paper lead me to believe I'm right. Am I?

I am giving you a chance to cite your concerns in case they are different from what I might assume they are. If they are related to Thompson & Hooker, then we can discuss those.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Add a Comment