MMR

[Eos of the Eons]

Quackery:

Be paranoid of everyone except Quackery

I guess the MMR panic also plugs in to greater concerns about Big Drug Companies who put profit before consumer health (see, for instance, seroxat, medical "secrecy" and government ineptitude in general (see for instance, BSE/CJD, salmonella in eggs, foot and mouth disease [cue joke about Alistair Campbel] &c &c). How is anyone supposed to come to any kind of informed decision when the case is presented by these "bad guys"?

Yeah, the bad guys. That is what you're supposed to believe.

I've found the bad guys are the ones selling you the crap about vaccines. Who are they? Homeopaths, all of them. You look up any names that are 'quoted' as saying they are 'doctors' (not MD's, but have doctorate in homeopathy) and they are selling you 'remedies' for practically or completly non-existant health problems. Health problems supposedly caused by any number of things including vaccines.

I suggest anyone who thinks there are 'experts' on the non-vaccination side look at this page


Ignore any idiotic ads on the site, they are there because I get the space for free and I don't endorse any of it. I find one of the banners to be very ironic. It's annoying.


Please please also check this page for information about Quackery. The page is by an actual MD.

http://www.pathguy.com/antiimmu.htm

An example of a person calling themselves a doctor that is not an MD (has a phD in geology) is Scheibner

More on this 'expert'

http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/anti-immune.htm

The problem with the anti-vax side is that it is not credible. If there aren't blatant lies there are mis-quotes etc. just like the creaionists trying to debunk evolution. Science is not used, only words and the misuse of terms like 'doctor' and 'causes'.

 

[Prester John]

Agreed with Eon.

The statistical evidence for the effects of vaccines in preventing disease is simply enormous. This is is many forms, from risk of injury following vaccination compare to risk of injury from the disease. epidemiological evidence showing the virtual erradication of diseases in populations with high enough levels of vacciantion, and evidence of resurgence of diseases in areas with falling vaccination rates.


An irony of the situation is that many anti vaccination people derive protection from the fact that so many people are vaccinated , they (and their children) are at a very small chance of actually encountering the disease (herd immunity). How many anti vaccinators go round trying to give their children polio so the can gain some "natural" immunity. try getting some "natural"protection for ebola! roll on that vaccine please.

To advocate such a drastic change to public health with no evidence is irresponcible in the extreme.
I think the diseases are so rare these days that people do not realise the true dangers presented.

PJ

 

[Eos of the Eons]

How many anti vaccinators go round trying to give their children polio so the can gain some "natural" immunity. try getting some "natural"protection for ebola! roll on that vaccine please.

My friend will 'expose' her kids when other kids are 'freshly vaccinated' so that they will catch the vaccine or antibodies produced in reaction to the vaccine and get natural immunity that way


Uhm, that's not going to work, but try telling her that, sigh. I won't push the issue with her, I don't want to harrass my friends. I just hope someday they and other see the light. I don't think it's going to happen because they are too 'educated' on misinformation now.

If there is a sick kid with polio or anything, I'm sure my friend will use the same tactic, even if it is polio. She believes the proper diet and her trusty handy oil will prevent any damage to her kid's body.

She also believes now that HIV can be beat by the body because she 'has faith in her body' and natural anti-disease tactics to prevent the body from being harmed during infection.

I mean, there are books to educate you this way. The books include 'natural remedies or reference to them' for you to use instead.

There is enough crap information out there in various forms that you could teach a six month course on it. In fact, I think there are courses you can take on it. Scheibner gets people to come to her seminars and then presents you with information to buy in books or tapes so that you can learn to start preventing SIDS and shaken baby syndrome.

 

[BillyTK]

Please note also that it was the wish of the fathers that the children should recieve vaccinations and it was them that brought the case to court, not Alistar Campbell.

I'm aware that the fathers brought the court case against the children's mothers. Please note, it's not the fact that the children are being forced to have MMR that I object to, it's the way authority is being used to deny parent's choice that I'm concerned about, and particularly the way this contributes to the general air of suspicion wrt MMR and which hinders any kind of rational debate about the subject.

Billy, also bear in mind what you are saying-

You dont trust MMR because:

No, I'm not saying I don't trust MMR. What I am saying is that I want to come to an informed view on it, but it's difficult considering the general climate wrt MMR, and when you've got the government on the one hand (who I don't trust) saying MMR is completely safe (which it isn't; no drug is) and the various elements on the other side who have their own agendas (and though being anti-government, this is no guarantee these agendas coincide with mine).

 

[BillyTK]

Yeah, the bad guys. That is what you're supposed to believe.

I've found the bad guys are the ones selling you the crap about vaccines. Who are they? Homeopaths, all of them.
[...]

And this is what I mean about the way the debate has been polarised; "Don't trust them, they're bad guys and they're all homeopaths/animal torturers/communists/fascists/sheep-fanciers/paediatricians. Trust us, we're the good guys!"

Originally posted by Prester John

The statistical evidence for the effects of vaccines in preventing disease is simply enormous. This is is many forms, from risk of injury following vaccination compare to risk of injury from the disease. epidemiological evidence showing the virtual erradication of diseases in populations with high enough levels of vacciantion, and evidence of resurgence of diseases in areas with falling vaccination rates.

This is the kind of information I want to see!

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Ack! MMR is not a drug. Anyone that calls MMR a drug is either just using the term drug wrong or trying to make vaccines even more scary.

You did say you wanted information. Please check out the links I provided. The anti-vaccination arguments are not credible.

Agendas? Please read up on Quackery.

I'm not saying that people should all of a sudden trust drug companies and such, but look at the sources of anti-vax information.

It's like me trying to tell you that strawberries are poison and the stores are pushing them to make money. Then I write that this agenda makes all grocery stores suspect. Then I dig up quotes to play with or add erroneus information to in my books to sell you.

That is classic quackery.

I could cut and paste information from sources until the cows come home, but I think going to the web pages and reading everything in context is far more beneficial.

Thanks

 

[Eos of the Eons]

was asked to comment on three issues: the number of vaccines children receive, combination vaccines and diabetes. I am not concerned about the number of vaccines children receive, and I look forward to the availability of several other vaccines that will help us prevent serious infections and cancer. The human immune system is remarkable in its capacity to respond to millions of different antigens. Children are exposed to many thousands of bacteria, fungi and viruses beginning at the moment of birth. In the first few months of life the human immune system responds to many foreign antigens from these organisms. Each bacterium contains hundreds of different antigens including carbohydrates, fatty substances, proteins, RNA and DNA. Children develop antibodies to 17 different proteins in one common bacterium (Moraxella catarrhalis) and a strep throat infection results in immune responses to 25-50 different antigens.1 Some new highly effective vaccines are made using only one or two bacterial antigens. For example, Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccines, or Hib as they are commonly called, contain only a single bacterial antigen attached to a protein. Children immunized with these vaccines are protected against meningitis and sepsis caused by the Haemophilus influenzae type b organism. Therefore, the immune systems of children who receive this vaccine are exposed to far fewer antigens than children naturally infected with the bacterium. Since all children would be exposed to the bacterium if they were not immunized, the use of the Hib vaccine actually reduces the burden on the immune system.

We do know that encephalitis is one of the factors that pre-disposes children to autism. All three of the diseases prevented by the MMR vaccine, measles, mumps and rubella, can cause encephalitis. We would not want to leave children unprotected against these diseases for even a short period of time. The routine use of MMR has resulted in the prevention of many thousands of cases of congenital rubella syndrome, a recognized cause of autism. I support the continued use of the combined measles, mumps and rubella vaccines as the safest and most effective means to protect children against these diseases.

Many hypotheses about causal factors have been offered to explain the increasing incidence of autism and diabetes. Statements made about hepatitis B vaccines before Congressman Mica's subcommittee on May 18,1999 have been refuted by letters submitted to the committee by the State Epidemiologist of New Hampshire and the Director-General of Health of New Zealand. Also, the study in Finland referred to by Dr. Classen was published in the British Medical Journal and reveals no evidence of any effect from Hib vaccination on the risk of diabetes
most effective means to protect children against these diseases.

See, MMR can prevent autism. Kids that are immunized have less of a chance of getting autism.

These are quotes from Neal A. Halsey, MD

He was misquoted in anti-vax literature.

 

[Jon_in_london]

I'm aware that the fathers brought the court case against the children's mothers. Please note, it's not the fact that the children are being forced to have MMR that I object to, it's the way authority is being used to deny parent's choice that I'm concerned about, and particularly the way this contributes to the general air of suspicion wrt MMR and which hinders any kind of rational debate about the subject.

I dont understand.

You accept that the fathers have won the right to have their children protected from diseases like polio and tetanus but in the next sentence you accuse 'authority' of denying parents any choice.

wtf??!?!?

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Definition of Drug:

a substance used to treat or cure an illness.

A substance used to make a person sleep or to lessen pain.

a narcotic or other substance that is habit forming and is taken to make one intoxicated.

***************************************************

Vaccines don't treat or cure illness. The body treats the vaccine as an actual infectious causing microbe and builds up its own immunity to it.

That sounds very natural to me. It's not a drug that stays in the body to attack microbes.


____________________________________________________

If you put aside all the paranoia and propoganda and look at anti-vax information, you see the problems with it. When looking into it you can retain all suspicions of drug companies and governments. Question both sides, yes. BUT do not believe misquoted and erroneus information on either side.

It's not about sides here. It is about the misinformation. Ignore drug companies and doctors and governments when you look into how vaccines work. Break it down to that simple level.

I learned about vaccines in school, not from doctors or drug companies, or the government. It's just a vaccine and I learned how it works. I don't even need to listen to doctors or drug companies or the government, and I don't listen to them. I learn about how diseases attack the body and about the body's immune system.

The nonsense about all the information taught to students is brainwashing is simply more quackery. It's not taught by the government or drug companies.

We can see how viruses work in a petri dish. It's not a mysterious process. We also observe how the body deals with the virus. It's not propoganda.

We know why HIV is so darn frustrating. It's not lack of nutrition or whatever junk that causes the body to be unable to fight it.

IT's how HIV replicates and the cells it uses that makes it so darn hard to fight.

Put misinformation, anti-vaxxers, the gov't, the drug companies and doctors aside and learn the basics.

Again, it's not about sides. It's about misinformation disguised as 'facts'.

 

[BillyTK]

Ack! MMR is not a drug. Anyone that calls MMR a drug is either just using the term drug wrong or trying to make vaccines even more scary.

A drug is "any substance used to diagnose, prevent or treat disease or aid recovery from injury"? Wouldn't that definition include vaccines? Maybe it's a cultural thing?

You did say you wanted information. Please check out the links I provided. The anti-vaccination arguments are not credible.

Agendas? Please read up on Quackery.

I'm not saying that people should all of a sudden trust drug companies and such, but look at the sources of anti-vax information.

It's like me trying to tell you that strawberries are poison and the stores are pushing them to make money. Then I write that this agenda makes all grocery stores suspect. Then I dig up quotes to play with or add erroneus information to in my books to sell you.

That is classic quackery.

I could cut and paste information from sources until the cows come home, but I think going to the web pages and reading everything in context is far more beneficial.

Thanks

I will read your links (and thanks for providing them) but my skeptical alarm bells go off as soon as anyone presents a polarised view (maybe it's a simple issue of presentation). If I agree with you, it's because of the evidence which supports your claim, not your claim alone.

And don't get me started on supermarket strawberries...

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Excellent!! And yes learn, don't agree with me. Make up your mind with actual information.

A drug is "any substance used to diagnose, prevent or treat disease or aid recovery from injury"? Wouldn't that definition include vaccines? Maybe it's a cultural thing?

No, it's not a 'substance' that prevents or treats disease. It's more like a catalyst for the body to arm ITSELF against disease. MMR does not fight viruses. MMR does not prevent viruses from entering the body or replicating. MMR simply causes the body to do that on its own AFTER exposure to the vaccine.

If you learn how vaccines work, then you'll see what I mean.

Thank you for having common sense and the intelligence to question and learn.


One last reference to anti-vax information. Some will agree that the stuff in vaccines that the body reacts to is harmless. BUT other chemicals included in the vaccines are the actual poison. One poison implicated was thimersol for containing mercury.

This was removed from vaccines, but the cases of autism did not drop.

Also, there is no epidemic of autism. There are more people with schizophrenia than autism. Other 'disorders' have now been put under the umbrella of autism, raising the cases of people with autistic symptoms included in stats.

 

[BillyTK]

I dont understand.

You accept that the fathers have won the right to have their children protected from diseases like polio and tetanus but in the next sentence you accuse 'authority' of denying parents any choice.

wtf??!?!?

No, I didn't say anything about accepting "that the fathers have won the right to have their children protected from diseases like polio and tetanus". What I did say is that I'm aware that the case was brought by the children's fathers, and to note that it's not the fact that the court case is about MMR per se that I object to. In that respect my statement is entirely consistent, in that it's the mothers who are bringing up these children (they are separated/divorced from the fathers) and the mothers' wishes are being over-ruled, which doesn't exactly contribute to a climate of open debate on the subject.

 

[BillyTK]

Eos of the Eons,

Here's a more general definition of a drug form the Oxford Dictionary:

a medicine or other substance which has a marked physiological effect when taken into the body. ¨a substance with narcotic or stimulant effects

Would you agree that stimulating the production of antibodies would be considered a "marked physiological effect"?

But like I said, maybe it's a cultural thing; I don't see describing vaccines as drugs as particularly emotive (chocloate contains a drug; coffee is a drug, my attitude is kind of, "so what?"), but it is a useful way of differentiating between medicines and "supplementary foods" like homeopathic preparations; because if the latter were as effective as is claimed, they'd be regulated like the former and you wouldn't be able to buy them off-the-shelf the way you can now.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

There is no forum for debate on the subject. Vaccines are not killing kids and they protect them from disease. The earth is round. There is nothing to debate. There is just the fight against misinformation.

What we are seeing here is not a battle between two legitimate sides of an argument about vaccine safety and effectiveness, but the expression of a deep-seated suspicion of science and modern medicine combined with a need to blame something for poorly understood diseases.

"Anti-immunisationists have sought to blame immunisation for almost every conceivable disease, especially those where the cause is poorly understood. Some of them even blame the crime rate on immunisation.

"In recent years we have seen an increase in their efforts to get their dangerous views publicised in mainstream media," Professor Champman said.

They believe any or all of the following: that the immunisation program is an exercise of the power of medicine and the government authorities in society, and strongly oppose any infringement of civil liberties such as compulsory vaccination through schools; that drug companies are greedy multinationals who pay to have things covered up; that there is a conspiracy between drug companies, doctors, and the government; and even WHO receives funding from pharmaceutical companies, so it can’t be trusted; that the drugs themselves contain poisons and impurities and cause new diseases because they go against nature and are essentially evil; and that safe alternatives exist that are not being researched for financial reasons. They make emotional appeals that are difficult to oppose because they feed into common parental anxieties and mount strong community campaigns against vaccination. These are the parents for whom the “conscientious objectors” ACIR forms were made.

Unfortunately they are good at spreading their message: Gangarosa et al, Lancet 1998, looked specifically at the effects of the anti-vaccination movement on rates of pertussis vaccination and disease. The evidence was clear that pertussis incidence was 10-100 times higher in countries where immunisation programs were compromised by anti-vaccine movements, than in neighbouring countries where high vaccine coverage was maintained.

In my experience, the larger group of “non-vaccinators” are parents who have been influenced by these views without having the time to fully research the (mis)information themselves, and this is the group you can help the most time-efficiently by “reality checking” their beliefs.

It should be realised that, like many cult groups, anti-vaccination organisations can make themselves sound appealing and may not be obvious in their intent. The Australian national body used to list itself under “Medical Practitioners” in the phone book, and has also advertised itself as being a hotline to collate information about adverse reactions to vaccines.

http://www.geocities.com/healthbase/vaccination.html

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Eos of the Eons,

Here's a more general definition of a drug form the Oxford Dictionary:

Would you agree that stimulating the production of antibodies would be considered a "marked physiological effect"?

But like I said, maybe it's a cultural thing; I don't see describing vaccines as drugs as particularly emotive (chocloate contains a drug; coffee is a drug, my attitude is kind of, "so what?"), but it is a useful way of differentiating between medicines and "supplementary foods" like homeopathic preparations; because if the latter were as effective as is claimed, they'd be regulated like the former and you wouldn't be able to buy them off-the-shelf the way you can now.

No, the MMR doesn't cause the physiological effect. It would be like saying viruses and bacteria are drugs because they cause the exact same response from the immune system. Or calling food a drug because it causes the pancreas to release enzymes.

I'm not opposed to homeopathy. I'm opposed to misinformation. I use primrose oil because it helps my exzema. It could be that my allergic reactions milk that result in exzema is lessened. I'm not sure which. I hear the oil is good for the skin and hair too. It doesn't hurt a person.

Just like there are bad doctors, there are bad quack homeopaths.

Chocolate contains a drug. Not enough to cause much reaction in the human body. Chocolate kills dogs though. Chocolate does not cause an immune reaction like viruses do. IT's actually the chemical within that is acting.

If you isolate the drug from the chocolate and concentrate it, then you'd have a drug that can't be sold as food.

Good questions!

I'll go out on a limb here and put in this link to vaccination information on here

http://www.acsh.org/publications/reports/vaccines2001.html

It outlines the benefits of vaccines.

http://www.acsh.org/publications/booklets/vaccinations2001.html

 

[BillyTK]

No, the MMR doesn't cause the physiological effect.

I'm confused--you said it's a catalyst? it causes the body to produce an immunological response (albeit that it doesn't change in the process)? Isn't that a physiological effect?

It would be like saying viruses and bacteria are drugs because they cause the exact same response from the immune system.

If the viruses or bacteria are being used as a form of therapy then I'd say they were drugs. Wouldn't you class, say, antibiotics as a drug?

Or calling food a drug because it causes the pancreas to release enzymes.

Perhaps the definition needs to include some notion of intent (although food "cures" my hunger, and cream makes me high as a kite )

I'm not opposed to homeopathy. I'm opposed to misinformation. I use primrose oil because it helps my exzema. It could be that my allergic reactions milk that result in exzema is lessened. I'm not sure which. I hear the oil is good for the skin and hair too. It doesn't hurt a person.

I'm not opposed to homeopathy either--I think that the placebo effect is a wonderful and powerful thing. Maybe this is a problem with definitions again, but strictly speaking I wouldn't consider primrose oil as homeopathy; maybe herbalism or something like that?

 

[Eos of the Eons]

I'm confused--you said it's a catalyst? it causes the body to produce an immunological response (albeit that it doesn't change in the process)? Isn't that a physiological effect?
If the viruses or bacteria are being used as a form of therapy then I'd say they were drugs. Wouldn't you class, say, antibiotics as a drug?

Perhaps the definition needs to include some notion of intent (although food "cures" my hunger, and cream makes me high as a kite )

I'm not opposed to homeopathy either--I think that the placebo effect is a wonderful and powerful thing. Maybe this is a problem with definitions again, but strictly speaking I wouldn't consider primrose oil as homeopathy; maybe herbalism or something like that?

Now you have to define 'physiological effect'. We have 'physiological effects' to light, temperature, etc. by too broad a definition. Those aren't drugs for sure.

Antibiotics are drugs because they ARE:

"a substance used to treat or cure an illness."

I don't know about herbalism or anything. I just take the oil on the advice of a parent

 

[Chris Haynes]

...
Some quotes from the appeal court judges:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
............I should record that Dr Donegan {the mothers 'expert' and homeopath}, in supporting the mothers' objections, had not argued that the MMR vaccination was in any way to be linked with autism, nor had she argued that there was any heightened risk from giving those immunisations as one rather than three separate procedures, nor that the MMR vaccination as used in the United Kingdom contained any element of mercury.........

I am just passing through... but I would like to clarify that if the MMR contained any mercury, thimerosal or any preservative it would be rendered useless. It is a live virus vaccine that comes as a freeze-dried powder and must be reconstituted in sterile preservative-free water.

It is easy to figure out that someone does not know what they are talking about when they say "the thimerosal that is in the MMR...".

I pointed this out on a listserv I am on after one parent tried to claim thimerosal was to blaim in an MMR vaccine message. She was livid (she accused me of not using good science, ROFL! ... I putting that in the catagory of the loon who told me through a private email that she had it on good authority from the Mayo Clinic that vaccines cause cerebral palsy!)... but after a bit of reasoning with the moderators my message was posted.

Unfortunately the moderators of that listserv are too quick to pick up the "alternative" bit... but there are enough real medical folks to keep them straight. One of the new members is epidemicologist (oh, shoot, I forgot how to spell it, or even say it) who made a great post on herd immunity. Apparently afterward her emailbox was flooded with anti-vax rantings from those who are so sure that the vaccine caused their child's disability. sigh

 

[Eos of the Eons]

I am just passing through... but I would like to clarify that if the MMR contained any mercury, thimerosal or any preservative it would be rendered useless. It is a live virus vaccine that comes as a freeze-dried powder and must be reconstituted in sterile preservative-free water.

It is easy to figure out that someone does not know what they are talking about when they say "the thimerosal that is in the MMR...".

I pointed this out on a listserv I am on after one parent tried to claim thimerosal was to blaim in an MMR vaccine message. She was livid (she accused me of not using good science, ROFL! ... I putting that in the catagory of the loon who told me through a private email that she had it on good authority from the Mayo Clinic that vaccines cause cerebral palsy!)... but after a bit of reasoning with the moderators my message was posted.

Unfortunately the moderators of that listserv are too quick to pick up the "alternative" bit... but there are enough real medical folks to keep them straight. One of the new members is epidemicologist (oh, shoot, I forgot how to spell it, or even say it) who made a great post on herd immunity. Apparently afterward her emailbox was flooded with anti-vax rantings from those who are so sure that the vaccine caused their child's disability. sigh

It's weird how mad they get. I did see someone post that "finally, after all these years, we have information on how harmful vaccines are. It's been so unfair that the truth has been kept under the lid until now. Now we have to FIGHT for our rights!...blah bla about conspriracies and other unfounded paranoia"

Sigh. They take it to heart as most Quackery aims for that. Quacks say "I care about you, not like those horrible money mongering drug companies. I know how you feel, how hard it is to stand up to doctors and the gov't. We must not let them intimidate us! Be strong and stand your ground."

Kind of reminds me of pep talks before games or wars..fight fight fight!

 

[Prester John]

Are vaccines a drug?

hmmm

Well my first response would be for the majoritory No, because they are living organisms (viruses living? close enough for this point) or killed organisms. I would suggest that a drug refers to a single chemical compound that causes a physiological effect upon the body. A vaccine is a far more complex substance , that may contain drugs.

its late!