"Forced" to be an antivaccinationist?

“Vaccines create artificial immunity, which damages the natural immune system and leaves children more susceptible to diseases of all kinds. Diseases strengthen the immune system and leads to natural immunity.”

Those 2 linked tropes right there are what have caused me to lose my temper with people buying the anti-vaccine hoax.

I particularly loathe the “natural infections give better immunity” trope.

WTF do people think the idea of having the immunity is, anyway? If it is so important to have strong, natural immunity to avoid a potentially serious infection, why go through the risk of having the infection first, just so you can…… develop the immunity, so as not to catch it????
Total schizoid thinking.

Oh, and natural immunity isn’t necessarily better than vaccine, or “lifelong”, two more misleading antivax myths.

Take tetanus as the most extreme example –
Natural immunity = 0 years, Vaccine immunity = 10 years+ (or typhoid which gives the same numbers, but isn’t a scheduled infant vaccine)

We didn’t vaccinate either of our high school aged children with the latest round of ‘mandatory’ pertussis vaccinations, simply because there was no empirical evidence that the vaccine actually worked, and for no other reason. They received all the rest of their state required vaccines growing up.

You are correct in that in CA, all we had to do was sign a piece of paper to personally exempt our children.

I really don’t understand why it is so terrible that vaccines are profitable. Who the hell would make them if they weren’t?

In particular cases, it may be true that the immunity of “natural” infection is stronger than the immunity of vaccines. Immunity from varicella vaccine fades over time, as does that of acellular pertusis vaccine. However, the risk of serious or fatal complications of the natural infections is substantial, and unvaccinated populations are prone to epidemics, while these risks from vaccines is non-zero but negligible.

Regarding measles outbreaks, at least in the U.S., recent outbreaks have been almost exclusively among the unvaccinated. The cases of vaccinated individuals getting measles have been, in both raw numbers and relative percentages, significantly lower than the cases of unvaccinated.

Forcing parents with religious beliefs against vaccines to vaccinate their children violates their First Amendment rights.

Really, perhaps Ms. Hutchinson legal eagle would like to explain how this is.

The lifetime cost to care for a person with autism is approximately $3 million.

Another load of bollocks that has the same blurry provenance and complete falsity that the meme, “parents of child autists have a divorce rate of 80%”. Ms. Hutchinson, repeating lies doesn’t make them true.

@David

In particular cases, it may be true that the immunity of “natural” infection is stronger than the immunity of vaccines. Immunity from varicella vaccine fades over time, as does that of acellular pertusis vaccine. However, the risk of serious or fatal complications of the natural infections is substantial, and unvaccinated populations are prone to epidemics, while these risks from vaccines is non-zero but negligible.

I agree, but just to pick up one point: Varicella vaccine immunity “fades” because there are so few cases of naturally occuring chickenpox that a vaccinee would encounter nowadays that there is no natural immune boosting by exposure to the virus.

You will find that “natural” varicella immunity was only “long lived” because of this phenomenon, and now adays you see that “natural” immunity fades as quickly as vaccine immunity for the same reason – few natural exposures to act as boosters.

Uh huh. Vaccines cost anywhere from 0 to 50.00 depending on what you want and where.
You know how much supportive care for a measles patient runs ? How about mumps or rubella ?
Have you looked at the negative outcomes of just those three ? of course you haven’t.
How much to bury a five year old ?

Part of the problem is that from the anti-vaccine perspective, evidence isn’t as important as something making sense to them. Natural immunity is better than artificial immunity, because that makes sense. Vaccines are just a way of making profit, because that makes sense. Here is what happens if you consider that philosophy: Think Logically

I think that “philosophical exemptions” would take a nose dive if they would just be published by the school. Put out a list of parents that request exemptions, and have them explain to their kids why the other parents don’t want them to play with their kids. Put a cost on mooching of the herd immunity.

@Mu

I suspect there may be some violations of patient confidentiality, there. Ethical issues that would take a bit more thinking through than I have time for at the moment.

Todd, I’m strictly talking personal belief exemptions, not medical.

Ellie:

I don’t quite understand. Is Jennifer Hutchinson saying that she regrets the rabies vaccine was given to her child? Is she saying that certain death would have been better?

From what it says on her website, I don’t believe her child was symptomatic. He received rabies prophylaxis (a series of rabies vaccinations) following suspected rabies exposure. Not all rabies exposures will result in disease, of course, and I don’t know what sort of suspected exposure he had; if he’d been bitten by a dog known to be rabid, that would be different than if he was just bitten by a random raccoon (which may not even have been rabid). So it’s not quite autism versus certain death. The third option (usually only exercised when nobody realizes there has been exposure) is to wait to see if symptoms manifest. It’s not definitely death; it has better odds than playing blackjack at the casino. But given that what you’re gambling is a human life, it’s not a risk I’d be willing to take. Rabies is too horrible an illness.

@ Calli Arcale

Thank you for the information. However, to the best of my knowledge, if someone has symptoms, it’s too late. There is no cure for rabies. It certainly isn’t a risk I’d be willing to take, either.

I remember when you first blogged about Jennifer Hutchinson Orac. It turned out that Jake and a bunch of other people in her family required post-exposure rabies prophylaxis, because they were sleeping in an area of her home where a bat was found.

http://www.cdc.gov/rabies/medical_care/index.html

Notice that HRIG and the first vaccine are given on the same day and three additional rabies vaccines are administered on a strict schedule. Jake and her family members received these expensive HRIG shots and vaccines free-of-charge, which disregarded her ability to pay.

Now Jennifer, ever the opportunist, claims that her grandson’s developmental delays were caused by the post-exposure prophylaxis and has written a book about the inherent risks of a child receiving post exposure rabies prophylaxis. What an ignorant POS she is…because suddenly she has received some minor stardom within the anti-vaccine world for the *expertise* she has about vaccines.

Orac, after your review of her book and website, you won’t be listed as a *critic* of her book, like these individuals are 🙂

http://unlockingjake.com/what-the-critics-are-saying/

Ellie: agreed. There are a handful of cases where people survived after intensive treatment. Most have serious lifelong impairments as a result. They are by far the minority — the death rate, with treatment, for symptomatic rabies is so high that it’s a testimony to the hope and optimism of humanity that anyone even tries to save victims. Nobody tries to save a symptomatic animal, of course; they’re euthanized as soon as possible.

lilady has posted more details now; sounds like the child was in a group where he would’ve had fairly good odds of surviving, as there was no confirmed exposure — most people who don’t know they were bitten by a bat whose rabies status is unknown probably haven’t been exposed. But probably isn’t the same thing as definitely, hence the recommendations for rabies prophylaxis. Rabies is *that bad*.

Heck, even tetanus is so bad that prophylaxis is recommended if there is the *possibility* of exposure and the person’s vaccination status is unknown. And that’s much more treatable.

@MatchesMalone:

We didn’t vaccinate either of our high school aged children with the latest round of ‘mandatory’ pertussis vaccinations, simply because there was no empirical evidence that the vaccine actually worked, and for no other reason.

Citation needed.

And you did not let them get a tetanus booster? That has definitely been shown to work!

You should read what Orac’s friend wrote on ScienceBasedMedicine blog on waning pertussis immunity. He discusses the latest study from Kaiser Permanente that shows the Tdap booster is working for pertussis. At least it works much better than not giving a booster!

demandabanana, that is exactly what the reports say. I thought I left a comment before leaving the house, but it is not there. So I repeated it, but without links.

The NY Times had an health blog posting that said that there might be an extra booster between five and eleven, and the ten year tetanus boosters will all be Tdap instead of Td.

Ooops, still getting my pertussis vaccines mixed up. The primary pertussis series is the TDaP vaccine.

I was once bitten by a Jewish dog.
I contracted Rabbis.

Sorry.

Peebs…make sure your doctor orders a CT Scan

http://www.cartoonstock.com/directory/c/cat_scan.asp

Okay…back on topic with an article from St. Lawrence County New York and their raccoon rabies problem:

http://northcountrynow.com/news/aircraft-drop-80000-rabies-bait-packs-areas-st-lawrence-county-starting-monday-064244

Last week my son saw a raccoon in the backyard. I opened the door to look for it and he said: “Mom! Don’t get rabies!”.

Because…he’s my son, and I’ve told him that raccoons (and skunks and bats) can give you rabies.

Age of Autism is ranting again that being FORCED to consult with a HCP about the risks/benefits of getting or not getting vaccines is TOTALLY UNFAIR.

Because getting educated by Big Pharma Shills is a violation of their civil rights.

I want to empathize with them. I really do. Posts like that make it hard.

Here is an article about rabies immunity:
http://www.virology.ws/2012/08/22/how-lethal-is-rabies-virus/

@ herr doktor:
I have been a fan of Luria’s for a while.. as if you didn’t guess.

Folks who decline vaccines should have the same appointment and fee schedule as the standard “well child” visits that the rest of us accrue, not less.

Which could also be seen as an argument that vaccines mandated for school attendance should be “free,” which is to say, provided by the taxpayers with effectively no effort by the recipient: 24/7 properly equipped and staffed vax vans, just call. Something tells me the AoA contingent might suffer conniptions were this idea actually to be floated.

@Narad, 7:44 PM

That’s a capital idea. If I ever get my share of “filthy evil pharma lucre” I’ll re-invest it in said subsidized vans for my town.

Mark, one page rebuttals are all very well, but pretty soon you’d have people saying ‘Yes, but…’ and ‘What about…’.

Something along the lines of One Page (Basic) , Intermediate and Advanced rebuttals for each topic the way it’s done for climate change at http://www.skepticalscience.com/ might be a good idea. The various entry points like Most Used Myths, Newcomers and Big Picture could be really valuable.

One advantage. There really aren’t that many myths for vaccines. You wouldn’t need the 170+ SkS uses for climate.

@ Denice Walter,

I hear you, maybe I should get going with AJW’s patent on his vaccine but I have a midterm next week and a very busy week presently.

Alain

Some of the posters on AoA have talked about how much their non-covered therapies and supplements cost.

My mind boggled when one mother listed her monthly outlay.

Maybe they could take a “supplement holiday” for a week to see if they notice a difference in their child, and use a fraction of it to go have a chat with a GP or a pediatrician to get their piece of paper signed? (I don’t think what they are wailing about is a law yet.)

@ Mark McAndrew: Check out Rational Wiki under “vaccines” for common anti-vaccine themes:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Main_Page

@ Alain:

You’re doing important work but exams first!

In brief, here’s something that reminds me that our task is not insurmountable: roundabout this time last year, Thomson Reuters polled American adults about vaccines- they found that 30% of parents with kids under 18 had *concerns* whilst older adults were much less worried. I’m sure that the figures in other ‘western’ countries are similar.

If we can assume that “concerned” runs the entire range of minor quibbles to out-and-out anti-vaccinationist fol-de-rol and that – like most things large- there is a normal distribution, thus true anti-vaxxers are not a large segment of the population- they’re just loud and angry. I don’t think that their arguments will hold water with most people.

I don’t for a moment believe that there will be a great paradigm shift wherein the present majority will ‘switch’ over – vaccination supporters to anti-vaxxers or SBM to alt med- that is wishful thinking from adamant supporters meant to rally their own spirits and those of their compadres ( commadres?) And I’ve been hearing about these pipe dreams for a LONG time. Haven’t happened yet!

Denice,
I don’t know how you stomach it.

Today at Natural News, Dr David Jockers discusses the possible “delayed reactions and long term health consequences” of flu vaccines.

I wonder what he has to say about the long term health consequences of death from fecking pneumonia? Or does he have a supplement to sell that miraculously prevents that? Of course he does!

This is probably off topic, but has anyone else noticed that antivax trolls are traveling in packs these days? Over at Patheos on Libby Anne’s blog Love, Joy, Feminism about six showed up on an old (March 2012) thread and posted about forty comments. They were pretty well debunked but the discussion is still going on. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/
Is this some new tactic?

Hi Machintellegence, there are a bunch of anti-vax Facebook pages, each nuttier than the previous. They post links to articles etc. that need comments, hence the packs.

@ Krebiozen:

Actually, I don’t really know how I can tolerate it either**- my own theory is that I have inherited an ability to withstand huge amounts of idiocy which has served my ancestors and relatives well in the business world.. where you have to listen politely to ridiculous nonsense on a daily basis.

I thought to put my talent ( perhaps it’s something like a high pain threshold) to good use whenever I can: I imagine that I am saving others from sufffering in some small measure. As they say, “Somebody has to do it.”

** and there is much, much worse out there.

always find it fascinating that some people seem to recognize the correlation between modern medicine and an increase in the diseases of old age, but fail to spot the obvious connection: Modern medicine makes people live longer, longer lives mean more old people, more old people means more Alzheimer’s and cancer.

“Yes, now that we’ve gotten you to the point where you’re not dying before 40, you’e getting neurodegeneration and cancer. We’re working on it.”

Because my fellow and sister sceptics are entirely worthy and deserving, I listened to Monday’s Gary Null show ( as archived at Progressive Radio Network; here we go at about 21-28 minutes into the noontime show):

Null discusses Ben Goldacre’s (!!!) recent Guardian article ( & book excerpt) that illustrates how pharma only published positive trials about a particular drug and left out those that showed no effects.

Oh my! Who would’ve thought that that might ever happen! I’m shocked! I might faint.

Null then jumps to various conclusions including that his own “research” ( sic) about vaccines has shown that studies ARE NOT TO BE TRUSTED and are merely what Pharma desires the public to know. Because the industry controls research, studies of drugs and vaccines are fraudulent and the federal agencies that oversee the industry are despicable and horrible.. beyond reproach.**

Indeed the entire edifice of medicine is corrupt and needs to be replaced by SOMETHING BETTER. Guess what.

Somehow I doubt that Dr G has arrived at a similar conclusion. I also doubt that he believes that we should toss everything and go back to the days of psychiatric hospitals without medications, to life prior to the 1950s or the brave new world of alt med solutions for SMI. Valerian, niaicin and prayer most likely.

In fact after reading the said article, I take back an entirely different message from Dr Goldacre..

Null tells his audience that he puts science and research into ‘lay language’ because the original material is too complex and dry for the general public.
Right.

** he actually doesn’t use language like that- I translated it into what I call ‘reasonably adult’ speech.

@ Calli Arcale:
You can also be immunized against plague. I was when I was working with prairie dogs, but it isn’t a fun experience. It doesn’t hurt at the time of injection, but the next morning you can’t raise your arm above your shoulder without your deltoid saying “oh no you don’t!

I just signed my name to Committing to Child Survival, A Promise Renewed at http://apr.nationbuilder.com/indiv_pledge

This was sent to me by the Facebook page “Informed Parents of Vaccinated Children” Anyone else care to pledge?

Pinkie: Short version, nope. See the other posts for the long version.

Calli Arcale: Bubonic plague is also endemic to the southwestern United States. I know there was a case in Colorado recently involving a seven year old girl who contracted it from a squirrel (well, former squirrel) that she was trying to bury.

@ Denice Walter: AoA has re-run one of their Six, Sixty, Six Hundred Degrees of Separation articles…in *honor* of Ben Goldacre’s New Book. Surprise, surprise…it is not one of Jake’s convoluted *Bob’s Your Uncle* masterpieces….

http://www.ageofautism.com/2012/09/best-of-aofa-whats-behind-ben-goldacre.html#more

Hello, Medicien Man/Mr. Smart/etc. You’ll not be here for very long.

Lilady: Thanks for the info. I didn’t know about the prairie dogs, but it makes sense that they’d be carriers.They are social animals, after all.
There seems to be a lot of nasty bugs that are expanding their range- last spring there was a hantavirus outbreak in northern Nebraska/southern South Dakota.

Rinderpest (which is very relevant as it’s related to rabies)

Nope. Related to measles, though.

@ lilady:

I know, I saw that yesterday. It is by John Stone, who was surprisingly civil to me.
I can’t figure that out.

When the antivax crowd drags out the improved-hygiene-and-nutrition nonsense, there is one answer that they can’t counter in any sensible way: rinderpest. Rinderpest was the second disease, after smallpox, that was deemed to be eradicated by mass vaccination; it was a disease of cattle. The last known cases were in Kenya and the last suspected ones were in Somalia. I doubt that anyone can argue with a straight face that cattle in Somalia and Kenya have had much in the way of improved sanitation and diet in the last few decades.

Old Rockin’ Dave,

By the way, and as to the reason.

Its called natural immunity, and natural disease cycles.

Rinderpest as well is a poor comparison to make, but none the less is no different. How do you explain polio and small pox disappearing in countries that had no vaccine or very little vaccine used? You only thought it through as far as they told you it was true; which means you have not thought it through at all.

Its called natural immunity, and natural disease cycles.

And what diseases have been eradicated via “natural immunity”?

And what diseases have been eradicated via “natural immunity”?

Black Death, probably. Surely several others. Basically, as Anj mentioned, any lethal disease without alternate reservoir will go through the population like forest fire and leave behind only dead and resistant.

For some reason anti-vaccinationist are always forgetting the “dead” part.

Lowell, read Lawrence@5:32 am.

Thats right puppygod. All the vaccinated for DISEASES ARE DEADLY. No one actually has a functional immune system, and we can not survive without endless toxic chemical, and poluted biological concoctions made by pharma and injected into our bodies. Are you and your body short of pharma chemicals and biologically altered antigens made from any animal from a monkey to a cow, to even made from an aborted human fetus, puppygod? Otherwise we are all going to be in iron longs, and whooping the whooping cough until we crock, correct? Measles and rubella and dipethria will everywhere? I haven’t been vaccinated for anything in over 4 decades and there are thousands if not millions in literally the same boat. Why are not all those HORRIBLE diseases coming back? We all as well broke the herd immunity, they said we HAD to have?

Here is a little study for you, on the issue of vaccine contamination in regard to the production of vaccines made with human diploid tissue. (On this page).

Vaccine Production With – Human Diploid Cells (aborted fetal cell tissue)
http://www.vacfacts.info/vaccine-production-with—human-diploid-cells-aborted-fetal-cell—tissue.html

The False Theory of Vaccine Derived – Herd Immunity
http://www.vacfacts.info/the-false-theory-of-vaccine-derived—herd-immunity.html

And what diseses can you prove have been eradicated by vaccination, and not natural immunity an/or diseasse cycles? Small pox vaccination rates were covering at best only 10% of the population. Both polio and small pox ended as well in countries with little to no vaccine ever used. Explain that?

Easy. You’re a moron.

@Darway

It all depends on what you accept for sources. If you go by your highly biased sources, you will never know the historical truth. Have you ever done any actual uinbiased research, Darway?

Do you actually think you can find historically the percentage of small pox vaccination, given in any peer reviewed journal? if you want to refute my statement and you require that be done by referencing a peer reviewed journal to prove it; I suggest that it is then thus you that needs to prove what the actual small pox vaccination rate percentage was; and to do it from a peer reviewed journal. Prove me wrong, by your own required methodlogy, Darway! Get right to it, and come back to us.

@Lowell – you don’t get to just choose which sources you will accept based on what you consider “biases.”

You make a statement that has no bearing on the smallpox eradication effort & then ask us to prove you wrong?

The eradication of the disease, plus the methodology used is public knowledge – you are an idiot.

Oh, so your name calling proves your point there, Science Mom? Wow, and thats all it takes?

Being you call yourself Science Mom??? Here is some real and unbiased science for you to review. I don’t expect you to be there long, because I know people such as yourself simply can not tolerate real science, and you must ignore it. You will be right back ranting some more insults, and selectively forget all about it; just watch.

The Vaccine Damage Science
http://www.vacfacts.info/the-vaccine-damage—science.html

Vaccines Cause Autism and More – The Scientific Explanation
http://www.vacfacts.info/vaccines-cause-autism-and-more—the-scientific-explanation.html

Aluminum Vaccine Adjuvants
http://www.vacfacts.info/aluminum-vaccine-adjuvants.html

Gardasil -The Real Truth
http://www.vacfacts.info/gardasil—the-real-truth.html

Vaccine Production With – Human Diploid Cells (aborted fetal cell tissue)
http://www.vacfacts.info/vaccine-production-with—human-diploid-cells-aborted-fetal-cell—tissue.html

@Lowell – this one as well:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22188929

Oh, I almost glossed over this gem:

“Do you actually think you can find historically the percentage of small pox vaccination, given in any peer reviewed journal? if you want to refute my statement and you require that be done by referencing a peer reviewed journal to prove it; I suggest that it is then thus you that needs to prove what the actual small pox vaccination rate percentage was; and to do it from a peer reviewed journal.”

That’s not how it works – you make the claim, you provide the evidence.

You don’t want to have to search for it, because you’re:

A: Illiterate.
B: Lazy
C: Ignorant
D: All of the above.

I’m leaning towards option D.

@ Science Mom

Those two Pubmed studies do not show any percentages as I refered to. So you are and were asking for something from me, that you can not produce yourself? Imagine that?

Those two studies are not exactly both of them a story of success, if you actually read it. Polio is not small pox and were were as well talking about specifically small pox eradication worldwide. If you have so much faith in that polio eradication program that Bill gates has rolling, perhaps you have not been told about the cases of vaccine derived polio paralysis. What UNICEF and the WHO, etc. would never mislead anyone about their success, would they.

And guess what, my study comes right from Pubmed, too. This study is not any success story, by the way.

Indian J Med Ethics. 2012 Apr-Jun;9(2):114-7.
Polio programme: let us declare victory and move on.
Vashisht N, Puliyel J.

Source:Department of Paediatrics, St Stephens Hospital, Delhi 110054, India.

Abstract
It was hoped that following polio eradication, immunisation could be stopped. However the synthesis of polio virus in 2002, made eradication impossible. It is argued that getting poor countries to expend their scarce resources on an impossible dream over the last 10 years was unethical. Furthermore, while India has been polio-free for a year, there has been a huge increase in non-polio acute flaccid paralysis (NPAFP). In 2011, there were an extra 47,500 new cases of NPAFP. Clinically indistinguishable from polio paralysis but twice as deadly, the incidence of NPAFP was directly proportional to doses of oral polio received. Though this data was collected within the polio surveillance system, it was not investigated. The principle of primum-non-nocere was violated. The authors suggest that the huge bill of US$ 8 billion spent on the programme, is a small sum to pay if the world learns to be wary of such vertical programmes in the future.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22591873

@ Lawrence

Thats a good one there Lawrence. When you can not actually respond in any honesty to the information; just make some mindlessly silly accusations up that have no basis in fact, and call it good. Nice job.

@Lowell – your history of comments more than speaks for itself….I hear the Illuminati are looking for a few good men, perhaps you should sign up?

O_o Apparently they can also forgot the “resistant” part when it’s convenient for them. Lowell, have you ever tried to stop, take a breath and read something without instantly falling into “Gaargh monkey foetuses!” rage?

The problem with “natural cycle of disease” is that the alternative is:
a) you’re lucky, you get sick for couple of weeks but get better;
b) you’re less lucky, you got sick, permanently damaged but somehow survive;
c) you’re out of luck – proteins that were your body returns to great, all-natural nutrient cycle. That is, you die, naturally.
d) Nope. There is no d).

Frankly, none of the above is especially appealing. So thank you, I’ll take the very unnatural vaccine full of homeopathic doses of toxic materials and two days of sore shoulder over any of the above.

@ Lawrence

Vaccine. 2011 Dec 30;29 Suppl 4:D7-9. Epub 2011 Dec 19.
The eradication of smallpox–an overview of the past, present, and future.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22188929

That study does not prove asnything. All it is – is the same old WHO claim with nothing to back it up, as always, and that we have heard 100 times before.

Sure is funny how correlation in you peoples world, always equals and implies causation; however when you turn that around correlation never equals anything when it comes to autism, and the vaccine harm, ever.

@Darwy

“Furthermore, while India has been polio-free for a year, there has been a huge increase in non-polio acute flaccid paralysis (NPAFP)”

NPAFP is not polio. It’s not caused by the polio virus. Again, you don’t understand what you’re reading – or you just don’t care.

————-

NPAFP is paralysis caused by the polio strain in the vaccine, and shedding because it is a live virus being used in a country that has in areas, far less than acceptable if not deporable sanitation and little access to drinking clean and non contaminated water.

When the numbers of paralytic polio, and that is what it is; equal or exceed the previous numbers of polio cases, that is NOT a success story, by the way. Are you making denial that the vaccine was the cause of that paralysis? Any reputable scientist and/or immunologist would not be able to nor would ever deny that cause. It is simply and commonly known fact.

“same old WHO claim with nothing to back it up”

D. Henderson
Smallpox: the death of a disease
Prometheus Books, New York (2009)

[2]
F. Fenner, D.A. Henderson, I. Arita, Z. Jezek, I.D. Ladnyi
Smallpox and Its Eradication
World Health Organization, Geneva (1988)

Apparently the concept of references eludes you, Lowell.

@Gray Falcon

Does THIS look Like I know nothing about vaccines?

http://www.vacfacts.info/index.html

How many vaccines did those CDC funded epidemiological studies actually look at? Answer, one; the MMR vaccine. How many vaccines did they look at? Answer is one, thimerosal. So are you going to tell me in honesty that you beleive that all the needed scicne is in and has been looked at? And you are going to tell me that because what? Because they told you so, and you beleived it, right? Exactly.

Deny it all you want. You can stay a sheeple, or you can learn of the real science that they selectively ignore; and as well the facts and truth they must ignore; your choice.

Causes of non-polio acute flaccid paralysis: non-polio enteroviruses!

High irony coming from everyone’s favorite serial DUIeur.

Oh is this the same bloke? Oh this is rich; someone with multiple drunken driving offences, with obviously no regard for what excessive alcohol does to the body, no regard for anyone else’s safety going on about “toxic” and “ineffective” vaccines. Uneducable for certain.

And more enteroviruses!

Is this you Lowell Hubbs? http://vaccineconspiracytheorist.blogspot.com/2010/10/lowell-hubbs-self-medicating-criminal.html

Four DUIs in South Dakota; that ain’t easy to do.

Yes, Lowell–yes it does make you look like you know nothing about vaccines.

So now you are even making denial that those 47,500 new cases of NPAFP, actually happened? So you waht do you think is the real story; that they made it all up? They lied about it? Really? Why would they do that? Thats what you are telling me, quite obviously. Oh it is a success story because of what? Polio went down while vaccine caused and vaccine strain polio caused 47,500 new cases of NPAFP, in just the country of India alone. So, do you feel then that you can and should ignore all that, because such collateral damage is acceptable in the so called eradication of polio in those countries? Thats what you are telling me, correct?

What part of NPAFP and VDPV being different stats are you having trouble with? http://www.npspindia.org/Surveillance%20Strategy.asp

@ Todd W.

The study compared NPEV isolates AFP cases and were done in north and South America; what the study termed the Americas. India is a long way from there, and is an entirely seperate continent. There has been no refute of that India study as to the claims of it being exactly that new cases of NPAFP, vaccine polio strain derived. Like I said, the same thing has been found to be resulting from use of the live oral polio vaccine in Africa, etc.

Using vacfacts does make you look like an ignorant idiot.

Vacfacs-dot-info is Lowell.

Get started, as all you and several others here have done so far, is throw personally attacking and false discreditation mud and poo, like a child. What you have going on here is clearly not very impressive.

No you drunken sot; real peer-reviewed studies and reputable sites have been provided along with your stellar (factual) qualifications as a paragon of humanity and intelligence.

@ Science Mom

No actually that is not me, regarding your url.

This is me responding with the facts, right here; making the author of that blog look like the real fool that is is; and showing again and again the error in his false claims. Sorry, but your false, personally attacking, and intended false discreditation smoke screen won’t work. Not for anyone that is actually paying attention.

The Vaccine Truth Denialist

A blog describing the actions, lies, and continual hypocrisy of pro-vaccination denialists.

http://vaccinetruthdenialist.blogspot.com/

By the way, Science Mom. I no longer do any of the above; and has been 6 years. Your claim is entirely irrelevant. As well as being a very sick and desperate attempt at false discreditation. Do you have a problem in dealing with just the facts. One angry bird, aren’t you.

No actually that is not me, regarding your url.

Fuck you. Nobody but nobody cites the mess that is vacfacts.info except for Lowell Hubbs.

Lowell, Costner has physical evidence backing up his statements.

Lowell, would you trust a car salesman who had no idea what an “engine” is? This is why nobody believes you.

@ Grey Felcon

Unfortunately for you, and as a fact there are numerous people that believe me. Quite obviously as well there is not and never was in existence and any actual question of disbelieving me. The fact is, the entire vaccine issue is not even about me personally. You have alot of real science in front of you, showing the exact mechanisms and the processes of vaccine harm neurologically and to the brain; and as well directly related to ASD. If you had actually looked at it all it is an extremely damning expose on vaccines; like it or not; and deny it all you want. Are you making denial as well as to large the vaccin e truth movement has grown? People are fed up with these promoted as safe and effective endless vaccines, and so many children being vaccine damaged, and it all going on being denied as to the cause.

Just because you refuse to face the facts, and instead as all die hard vacine harm denalists do; choose to attack my personal credibility, instead of debating the information and science put forth itself; that certainly does not even come close in itself to any form of debate nor refute of the information.

@Gray Falcon

11:36 am
Lowell, Costner has physical evidence backing up his statements.

—————-

Physical evidence of what? A crime?

He Costner, is so sick that what he has done is put copies of legal documents up on his blog, that are nothing more than an eviction proceeding for non payment. At a property where the landlord conducted illegal and perverted surveillance and is not getting paid; he is likey going to be counter sued.

Those documents have not been in its matters even heard yet by a court. Those documents were hacked from the plaintiffs legal office, and the other document hacked from my word computer file I used to draw it up. Now, is any of this personal business any of your concern, Grey Falcon; and should it be? Were we not debating the issue of vaccines? So, how do you suggest it came to involve this matter? And you are fishing for some accusation as to something wrong with me, so hard; in the form of false discreditation here; that you will use any form of mud and poo you can grab onto. Am I right; of course I am. Sick stuff.

@ Gray Falcon

No, that was not my stance; that was your stance; at least get that much right. Vaccines cause immune system depletion, dysregulation; overactivation of the brains microglia, resulting brain inflammation, ASD, neurological damage and a whole lot of not good things. But by the time you figure that out hell will have liong froze over. Go check out my site if you think there is no scinece to back what I just stated. Or do I need to excerpt every study to you?

Vaccines work precisely because our immune systems function. They work on the same processes as natural immunity does: ‘Training’ the immune system to produce effective antibodies. We use vaccines because they produce immunity with little or no prospect of serious illness. Serious illness is exactly what we’re trying to prevent. Developing immunity isn’t the goal, it’s the means. The goal is preventing death and morbidity.

Vaccination is like basic training for soldiers: They’re not likely to die or be seriously injured on the training grounds. They get to study and perform target practice on dead/weakened viruses and find the best weapon (antibody) for that particular virus. When the real enemy attacks, they have a better idea of what to do. They don’t have to learn this part in the middle of a life-and-death struggle.

Natural immunity that comes from getting the disease is like throwing untrained soldiers directly onto the battlefield. Sure, the survivors are going to learn how to fight that particular enemy, but are the casualties really necessary? Diseases maim and kill. This is known. This is why we fight them. Natural selection works, but it’s an ugly, messy process, and we want something better. We’re not savage beasts. We care about the well being of our weaker brethren.

The people who crow about natural immunity from being infected have their means and goals reversed: They essentially want to use serious illness as the means to the goal of immunity.

No, that was not my stance; that was your stance; at least get that much right.

Your statement “no one has a functional immune system” was a direct quote from you. None of us said anything like it, you just act like we did.

Lowell uses the Monkey Method for ‘proof’.

Fling enough sh*t at the wall and hope some of it sticks.

People are fed up with these promoted as safe and effective endless vaccines, and so many children being vaccine damaged, and it all going on being denied as to the cause.

I’d say a helluva lot more are fed up with boozey losers like you getting behind the wheel of a car. You don’t get to advocate for anyone lush bucket.

For Lowell, that’s simple.

It’s always the fault of the vaccine, the CDC, Big Pharma, the FDA, the government and chemtrails – regardless of the issue. Exposure to or use of anything promoted, sold, marketed, or related to the above entities is always causative for anything which is ‘wrong’ with a person.

Did I leave anything out?

Narad, would you go to my blog and shoot me an email please? Top right “Contact us”. Thanks.

Narad, would you go to my blog and shoot me an email please?

The chair is against the wall.

@ Orac

You made the below and following comments.

Quote:
While it’s true that the latest pertussis outbreaks are mainly in vaccinated populations (as I discussed quit recently), unvaccinated children are still 23 times more likely to get pertussis. Unquote

Do you have any specific and actual data to make that false and clearly unproven claim?

————-

Sure thing. I blogged the study three years ago.

https://www.respectfulinsolence.com/2009/05/26/one-more-time-vaccine-refusal-endangers/

————-

Regarding your blog page presented as that said docmented proof, I would call your attention to the below article that is a mainstay to this said type of claim; which appears for the most part, the front line of your said blog article.

Did you by any chance actually read the well done expose by both Hilary Butler, and David S. Fostner, in the (Responses to this article) section? As a fact those analysis clearly blow that study in the dirt as near worthless and unreliable. The reasons are outlined very well, and you can deny it all you want.

You will find them on this page.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/123/6/1446.abstract/reply#pediatrics_el_44443

Article
Parental Refusal of Pertussis Vaccination Is Associated With an Increased Risk of Pertussis Infection in Children

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/123/6/1446.abstract

Just wait Orac

He’ll pull out Blaylock, King and Shaw too.

He seems to think that a published ‘response’ in a journal is more than a simple letter to the editor. It isn’t science – and in the case of dear Hilarious Hilary – he seems to think she’s qualified to discuss vaccinations.

Then again, he thinks HE’S qualified to discuss vaccinations.

Say Lowell…. are you still going on about two forms of CH2O?

@Science Mom

Quite clearly your little extended personally attacking expose above; quite obviously unknown to you, only exposes and outlines the nature of your own very unstable state of mind, Science Mom. Your attacking and angry state of mind is misdirected, and only redirects your persistent any denial of the vaccine facts, to a person who did not create those facts, nor the misguided and to much to lose vaccine promoting world you live in.

Quote:
The text is quite clear you filthy drunken loser; it contains your DUI indictment along with your own guilty plea. Unquote

Actually it apears that you did not even read what was there, and that was a jury trial in March of 2006. No one ever goes to actual trial on such a matter, if you know you were guilty. In fact I knew that charge was false for many reasons; and it turns out that it was a payoff done by someone I had never known was after me. The very sick and high dollar criminalized life he was leading provided him with major amounts of money that he had access to. It was a false charge, and is as well why I also went all the way to the federal court with it. Any previous charge to that was actually over 10 years ago. I have had 6 years go by since then; and thus your claims are misdirected and as I said irrelevant. You do not actually have a clue, nor could you. You simply assume and put forth whatever fits your needed agenda, no matter how obviously desperate.

People like you when you can not actually respond in honesty to the information and the science put forth; immediately go on to dig and grap for poo to throw, like a bratty child. It as well really does not speak well for the credibility of the pro vax side; because these are the continual tactics they use and are thus obviously put in a position where is follows through to that resulting outcome. This blog article is the perfect example of that occurance.

No, Narad – he really IS that crazy.

Did you by any chance actually read the well done expose by both Hilary Butler, and David S. Fostner, in the (Responses to this article) section?

Lowell, could you please tell us what their qualifications are?

Actually it apears that you did not even read what was there, and that was a jury trial in March of 2006. No one ever goes to actual trial on such a matter, if you know you were guilty. In fact I knew that charge was false for many reasons; and it turns out that it was a payoff done by someone I had never known was after me. The very sick and high dollar criminalized life he was leading provided him with major amounts of money that he had access to. It was a false charge, and is as well why I also went all the way to the federal court with it. Any previous charge to that was actually over 10 years ago.

Wow, that’s some grade-A craxxy right there.

People like you when you can not actually respond in honesty to the information and the science put forth; immediately go on to dig and grap for poo to throw, like a bratty child. It as well really does not speak well for the credibility of the pro vax side; because these are the continual tactics they use and are thus obviously put in a position where is follows through to that resulting outcome. This blog article is the perfect example of that occurance.

I have posted numerous sources for you to reject and your criminal record does, in fact, go to your (complete and utter lack of) credibility and sanity. AFP =/= VDPV and the onus is on you to prove otherwise if you don’t like how experts are conducting and reporting it. Not just sit on your drunken arse bitching about it. Yea, I don’t like drunks, not many do so suck it up buttercup.

@Orac

Thats right, Hilary Butler. But of course the first thing you do instead of actually adressing the information she put forth in that analysis, and debating it on an honest level; you simply and as always, simply proceed to a personal attack. Then as evidence of your claims you only then offer and promote another page of your additionally personally attacking and twisted nonsense. Why can you not actually address the specific analysis, Orac? Your blog is nothing but a twisted expose of what ifs and speculation, on every front. Is there anyone anywhere on earth that promotes alternative information, protocols; and as well alternative unbiased science and analysis; that you have not personally attacked that in your blog pages here?

In that blog page you created on Hilary Butler, all you did was another what if, and if they did that, or if this happened it means, and if this or that did or didnt happen, there i NO proof of anything. You simply made denial that the death of Jasmine Renata New Zealand, as due to Gardasil. Further you went on to attack the personal credibility of and as well the work of Mr. Sin Hang Lee and his testing device in the determination of existing HPV typing and as well regarding his finding of the said Gardasil HPV contamination. One thing you can not deny is how similar many of those young womens deaths are after the HPV vaccine; and as well how similar the unrecovered outcomes are. You can not deny that in any honesty if you actually of knowledge of the situation.

You are simply a denialist of all opposing claims and fact, Orac. A denialist with all your to much lose and following minions in tow. You are here to keep the sheeple being sheeple; but I can tell you from what I see and do see of it; the people that really want the truth do not and are not following you. Wake up and take a look at what is here. It is a literal snake pit of false personal attack on credibility, and denial on all, and on all fronts.

This is Hilary Butlers website. She does not appear to be misinformed whatsoever. In fact she appears to be very well educated regarding the facts and truth of vaccinations. You can hate it, deny it; talk your crap all you want. people that want the truth do not come to this blog; or if they do they do not stay long. What I think is so telling as well is how when the to much to lose vaccine promoters get stuck and with no way to find any science nor data to support their claims, they go straight to you and up comes one of your blog pages on the reply post. The most hilarious thing is that they actually beleive that your material actually contains factual data, and science to back their claim. Nothing is further from the truth. You are a fraud that just keeps leading the mislead.

Lowell, Orac,

“You mean this Hilary Butler?”

I’m quite familiar with that woman’s output. For a sample, try my post Bad science: baking soda, fungi, cancer, nuclear fallout, rosacea. She believes baking soda will cure cancer, that cancer is a fungal infection, offers homeopathetic remedies radiation sickness, etc. (Oh, darn, I keep doing this Freudian thing and typing ‘homeopathetic’ for ‘homeopathic’, but it suits, eh?!) The whole nine yards, in other words. (She had a *lot* to say on the Jasmine Renata case at the time her mother filed the CARM report, too, but hasn’t strikingly said a single word around the time of the coroner’s inquest.)

Actually, looking at her comment I feel like writing to the editor of that journal.

Hilary has described herself as ‘freelance journalist/writer’ and declared no conflicts of interest.

She runs several anti-vaccine forums and was the founder of the Immunization Awareness Society. Doesn’t this have her lying to the readers there? (Or are running organsations/fora somehow except as COIs – I’d like to think not, but…)

@ Bronze Dog

3:09 pm
Important fundamental/epistemological question for anti-vaxxers: How do you establish causation?

I don’t mean vaccines, I mean causation in general. How would you prove with confidence that Cause A leads to Effect B, if we’re talking something medical/biological in complexity?

————————

How about the studies on this site that were put in front of you, and which you ingored? Would any of that equal causation in a rational mind; or should it? How much would be enough? Please provide me all of the aluminum adjuvant safety studies that you have, Bronze Dog! But of course Paul Offit and the CDC have not acknowledged the existence of those studies. Even so, for the sake of the children and the general public; can you come up with one single reason that those studies should not recieve serious consideration and follow up studies funded by the CDC and done with overight from independant scientists?

Being that the CDC clearly in their own documents, admits to the lack of aluminum and aluminum adjuvant safety data; should this not be imperative? Would anything less, be irresponsible; after 80 years of giving any form of aluminum at all an approval stap of (GRAS), generally regarded as safe. That has rating has existed as a fact since 1929, an no safety studies have been done and by the CDC’s own admission, no sufficient safety data collected. But you would not know that if you had never done any unbiased investigative research. If you never questioned anything as it stands by them as promoted to the public. But I am the person you must make look crazy and throw personal insults at here on this blog; and dig for any dirt on. Do the facts matter? How about for the endless numbers of families with vaccine damaged children, that trusted the CDC and FDA? Should the truth matter for them. They should continue to trust everything they were told about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines; even after their child with diagnosed ASD is healed and returned to them, by means of properly done biomedical treatment. If you all had you way, the child would remain on pharma drugs and without hope the rest of their life; because you must deny it. There is to much to lose, and in facing the truth. The CDC denies it all, and so can you…keep on rolling.

@ Bronze Dog

Check out the pages of that site, and see how much real and damning vaccine harm science is there. Now, as long as you have nothing to counter that with, for available safety science; or can come up with some; I suggest that it stands as is and as said should not be continued to be ignored by the CDC. Nothing is ever going to be enough; as there is simply to much for them to lose.

Vaccines Cause Autism and More – The Scientific Explanation
http://www.vacfacts.info/vaccines-cause-autism-and-more—the-scientific-explanation.html

@ Krebiozen

J Hyg (Lond). 1978 October; 81(2): 179–187. (your study)

Your data is irrelevant because you are appropriately supposed to be addressing the current data and situation in India, dated 2011; NOT the said and claimed to situation in 1978, 40 years ago.

You will recall that I put forth a pubmed study as well, in regard to those numbers.

@ Grant

You see, you have a just a bit of a significant problem yet here. You have yet to address specifically any of Hilary Butlers information that I put in front of you. Is there a reason that you are unable to do that, or to complete any of that?

Simply stating, [Actually, looking at her comment I feel like writing to the editor of that journal.]; that does not actually address any of the information that she put into that said analysis of the study. Now does it? All you are conducting is a dancing around the actual issue, frivilous, and nonspecific to the actual issue and information; nit picking at it all and her and anything as well unrelated, attack on her personally. Appearing all of it to be quite baseless at that.

If they can not address the message and information, they will attempt to discredit the messenger by whatever means they have. Better known as shooting the messenger.

@ Ren:

I find it useful to state that I would NEVER presume diagnosing someone over the internet but that perhaps I should instead allow his own unique expressions to speak directly on his behalf. I wouldn’t cut and paste but copy his exact words, blocking out the name, of course.

Because you are in a different profession, you have more leeway. Much more.

@ Grant:

I often stop myself from typing *homeopathetic* as well. Freudian slips speak volumes.

Sin Hang Lee? On ethics? There goes another irony meter…

You were lied to. And you bought the lies and misinformation they that have obviously to much to lose, told you and and fed you; you should get just a bit more honest, and face that.

Indeed. Just man up and blame it on the landlord’s “perverted surveillance.”

You have nothing here that I have not responded to; as a fact.

Au contraire; I asked you what Hilary Butler’s and David S. Fostner’s qualifications were and you haven’t answered.

You may also procede to answer how polio testing is conducted and the deficits of it. You can use big technical words too.

Anj above said:
“I can’t imagine NOT vaccinating a dog against rabies”

…there are people who refuse to vaccinate their pets, too.

Not just dogs, but also cats, horses. Can you imagine a rabid horse? I know someone who had to get post-exposure treatment for rabies in the 70’s because it wasn’t yet common to vaccinate horses against it. Yeeeesh.

@ Chris:

OMFG!
Obviously EFL/ESL; other cognitive stuff / dx Oh my.

Unfortunately the type of anti-vax rhetoric we hear all-too-often seems precisely targetted to people like her.
Also the anti-pharma message will certainly remain: if she’s ever prescribed apropro meds, she’ll refuse. Woo-meisters assist those with SMI to remain inviolate from pharmaceutical intervention. Keeping them as Nature intended.

@Krebiozen

September 28, 9:10 pm
Sin Hang Lee? On ethics? There goes another irony meter…

———————–

Just address and refute the information if you can.

Immediate and lame personal discreditation, without any basis for it, clearly looks like you are refusing to accept any reference to the truth. So be it.

Lowell,

*Try* – e.g. Orac has written about him – try the search box on the top-right of this page. There’s some on my blog too (see in Location; you’ll want to read the comments, too). It’s called looking for yourself. Putting up links and ‘demanding’ that others ‘answer’ to them is silly and asking everyone else do your work for you.

Here’s an interesting blog: http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/court-decides-parents-refusal-vaccinate-kids-free-exercise-religion/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+SkepticalRaptorsBlog+%28Skeptical+Raptor%27s+Blog%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher

Who do you think is going to be the first to start spamming this?

@ Lara Lohne

I was wondering about something; perhaps you have the answer? If vaccines are so good, then why are they having to force them on people by taking away even their religious exemptions? As well why are they so worried about the vaccine truth movement and when exemption rates still are often less than 5 %? The many misguided parents all hate and fear the non vaccinators; so what would they care if they think their said non vaccinated children are at risk? If the vaccines work so well, why would their be any need of herd immunity? I think it is that they just need a lame andb blaming it on anything else excuse, for why their vaccines have failed and those outbreaks occurr in the vaccinated.

Do you really believe in vaccine derived herd immunity? Do you have any actual science to support it. Oh, I know; vaccines create increases in antibodies, and thus herd immunity, right? The clinical trials have show those increases. End of story, thats all you need to know. Where is the specific science that shows why the vaccines failed, due to lack of a required percentage of vaccine uptake and thus herd immunity? Somebody just thought it up and said, hey yaa thats right, thats what we will say is true. Any time there is an outbreak we will find a way to blame it on the unvaccinated because you know they will never question it nor require any proof. I actually think there is an obvious and large hole in that theory.

The False Theory of Vaccine Derived – Herd Immunity
http://www.vacfacts.info/the-false-theory-of-vaccine-derived—herd-immunity.html

If vaccines are so good, then why are they having to force them on people by taking away even their religious exemptions?

There’s no right to a religious exemption for public-school attendance, Lowell, it falls under the plenary police powers of the states. I believe you’ve met them.

“You see you Grant, could care less how many young women are injured and end up with unrecovered outcomes and their lives destroyed, nor do you care how many die. Because in your state of being for whatever reason, this must be denied. You know that is a fact. ”

Wow. That was rude. And incorrect – of course.

My reading of is that your views feel so threatened that you’ve fallen to this. Over the years I’ve noted a pattern that when anti-vaccine people feel threatened or cornered they lash out with something like this. (I suspect this sort of wild answer from you that isn’t new or news to people here – ?)

So, you seem to be acting as shill for SANE Vax now?

Apparently, SANE Vax *hired* Lee’s services. They are an anti-vaccine organisation. Ergo, he does their anti-vaccine work for them.

You do realise that the article you point to ‘supporting’ Lee is a SANE Vax piece, right? It’s even penned by the SANE Vax president with her saying that right on the page.

They are not offering anything that would make their patients better, only gather ‘information’.

This statement “Dr. Lee was able to confirm the contamination of Gardasil® with recombinant HPV DNA firmly attached to the aluminum adjuvant contained in the vaccine.” assumes that Lee’s work is accepted as valid. Science doesn’t work by the hand of one man like that. It works in the context of review and criticism of others. I would suggest you read Orac’s article on this (he linked to it earlier). Or at at Riddled. Or by the IMAC staff.

Lowell: Is English your first language? Or are you typing on a cell phone? ‘Cause I can hardly get through the slaughtered punctuation and sloppy spelling to refute your point. Could you clean it up, just so I can stop wincing at your posts?

@Politicalguineapig

I believe “redneck” is his first language, followed by malt liquor.

Asking him to use proper English is about as likely to happen as the Pope jogging naked through the Vatican.

Lowell,

51 035 cases of AFP appear in this document (p 578) for India in 2011, and the in 2011.

I prefer to use the current data from the WHO which is available at the link I gave above, but let’s agree on 50-60,000 cases found by active surveillance. I assume you understand the difference between active and passive surveillance.

The figure of 86 638 was listed globally.

Let’s stick to India, shall we?

My point is and always was exactly this. Quite obviously they should not be using the live oral polio vaccine in countries with less than adequate sanitation, due to shedding. That should be obvious.

Not to me. In fact spreading the vaccine strain which prevents paralytic polio in areas where wild polio is endemic seems like a good idea to me. OPV causes about one case of paralytic polio for every 4.1 million doses of OPV. Wild polio leads to paralysis in about one in a hundred cases. In other words OPV is 40,000 times safer than wild-type polio.

Perhaps you feel that as long as you can show that polio cases dropped and at the same time you believe that AFP stayed, or at least if they can show that AFP stayed approximately at the same rate; that somehow that kind of collateral damage is ok, and worth it.

What collateral damage? I see a reduction of around a million cases of paralytic polio with no significant increase in non-polio AFP.

As if there is no other way. Why can not Gates and his chronies and with all of his money he is spending, help provide the killed or semi attentuated vaccine instead of the oral vaccine in these underveloped nations?

OPV is an attenuated vaccine. You have to balance risk against benefit. The OPV is a great deal easier to administer than the IPV, which is an important factor in places like India, where people have to go trekking into remote villages to vaccinate children. The IPV does not confer much intestinal immunity, while the OPV does, so OPV works better in areas where polio is endemic, and also help confer immunity to people who have not been vaccinated by shedding, which I think is a good thing. At some point, based on a risk/benefit analysis, the WHO will make a decision to switch to IPV in India. This is all <a href="http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/85/6/06-037457/en/"constantly discussed and debated in great detail and has been for years.

Does that make any sense?

Not really.

That is my point. Depending on the source, there is some reference to that both non polio AFP and AFP are somehow caused by the vaccine.

What evidence is there that non-polio AFP is caused by the vaccine? How can this possibly be true since the numbers of cases of AFP with any cause have fallen so dramatically since the introduction of the vaccine program in India? If we include polio and non-polio AFP, that Lucknow study found from 5-10 cases of AFP per thousand. The WHO last year found 16.1 cases per 100,000. This is an enormous reduction, isn’t it? You do understand that the non-AFP rates given by the WHO are per 100,000, don’t you?

It seems to me to be irresponsible to keep on claiming to want to eradicate polio, but yet remain using an oral vaccine. For the same reason that was discontinued in the US.

It was discontinued in the US when the risk of contracting the disease had fallen to around the same level as the risk of VAPP from the OPV. When those conditions apply in South Asian and West Africa, the same thing will be done there. Why on earth do you think you know better than epidemiologists and public health scientists who have spent their lives studying this?

@ politicalguineapig: Lowell is just an old troll with a “wet brain” who craves engagement. He will argue with you until you just ignore him.

See Narad’s comment at 1:22 AM. There is no “right” to claim a religious exemption and to have an expectation that your child has a “right” to attend public schools.

Trying to explain any science and surveillance of polio infections and non-polio AFPs is like trying to explain medicine to “medicien man”, “Dr. I. M. Smart” or any of his other sockies.

Politicalguineapig:

Right. Most of our abilities are based in genetics tempered by environmental influences. The ‘vaccines-cause-everything’ partisans have an awfully limited idea about what ‘environmental’ means.

I like to use an example to illustrate this:
we know that a serious mental illness has genetic and environmental causes but the environmental ones are not what early theories proposed ( parental choices, stress when adolescent et al) but are, instead, very early pre- and peri-natal factors that transformed development in conjunction with genetics.
( see schizophrenia.com/ causation). I think eventually a similar picture will emerge about ASDs.

Of course, the LATER environment is very important in shaping people’s abilities no matter how they start out . How we imagine ourselves to be has a very important influence on what we actually do as well. Abilities are changed by what we do with them.

lilady: I know, I know, I just get so tired of the ‘OMG learning disorders/spectrum disorders are teh end of the world’ line from the anti-vax nuts. In most cases, work-arounds can be found.
Darwy: Not redneck. South Dakota is wild-eyed religious fanatic/glibertarian territory. There are a few sensible people, but they tend not to stick around there for long.

Orac,

“I suppose that it’s possible that, like a stopped clock being right twice a day or a the proverbial squirrel finding a blind nut, but I consider the odds of that in this case to be too small to be worth my bother.”

I have similar sentiments (expressed earlier in the comments), but for what little it’s worth I recall having seen the main claims she makes there before. My recollection is that when I checked those back then I found that the kindest I could say was that she didn’t know how to properly read the scientific paper she referred to. (It’s possible her opinion may have been cited by Rutledge, the then spokesperson of IAS [that Butler founded] in a ‘defense’ to my critiquing her statements to media.)

Maybe I’m just a cynic but I’m still not very impressed at Butler not declaring her involvement in running anti-vaccine organisations in her declarations of conflicts in writing her response to the journal. (She offers that she has none.)

@ Grant

I have absolutely NO concern for anything in regard to that my views are threatened Grant; because they have not been threatened whatsoever, and those views stand on some very solid ground. Because you throw all your spin and refuse to get it at the computer screen here, does not in any way invalidate what I have put forth. You want to keep throwing at it it that it is all just opinion, but actually if you had the actual fortitude to get honest and look at the complete information, it is actually all in all the whole package of information available, a very damning account on vaccines, to include the issues surrounding Gardasil. It is so very easy to spew your provax in denial of all venom, and not need to back up your claims while disregarding the facts in front of you, when you do not need to use any real identity nor as well disclose you conflicts of interest. As I said, as long as you can throw your poo at any source of information anywhere that counters your claims, you will never in your mind, ever need to enter into any honest discussion nor debate on the matter; and thus you can remain in denial. Isn’t that how it works, and has always worked with you people? Of course it is. What do you see continually on this page? Exactly that.

You conduct absolutely no actual debate here, but to continue your personal attacks and throwing poo at the messengers of all counter information that does not support your agenda. That is all you people can ever do. And you have made the ridiculous claim that my views are threatened; and calling me rude, which is the only thing you could concoct to avoid addressing the matter of what I really put to you.
[They are not offering anything that would make their patients better, only gather ‘information’.]

Again you are either clueless by choice and uneducated on the matter regarding Mr. Lee’s work. You want to address the issue but you are not educated enough as to the facts, to actually even begin debating the issue at all. So, any efforts here essentially amount to a waste of a persons time. You as ell refuse to accept any information put in front of you. More poo ending up being thrown. So, what does that tell me? That you could care less what the truth is, just like I stated earlier. I was correct. Why should I attempt to educate you, when you refuse to accept any and all information? You have already educated yourself Grant, correct? But what source of information did you educate yourself from? So now I should be expected to form a debate, with someone that has only followed the false propaganda and chooses to be I nothing but denial while holding onto nothing but the false information he was fed; correct? And all of us vaccine truthers are just a bunch of misguided gullible idiots; right? Probably as well with a few mental and psychological issues; right? You must maintain and believe that; right? And you do not want to in any honesty review what I put forth, but you want to redirect me back to Mr. Orac’s, to much to lose tabloid style trash?

The testing to determine if a subject were HPV positive with having the vaccine targeted strain of HPV, was available at the time that Gardasil was approved. Mr. Lee applied to the FDA for that purpose, as to his equipment and protocol. The FDA ignored him because to do prior testing for existing HPV would draw to much attention to the negative aspects of Gardasil. Why would they need to do that testing? Because in the FDA preapproval document it clearly outlined the observation increased findings of precancerous indicators in those who received the Gardasil vaccine, while at the same time being HPV vaccine targeted strain – positive. The FDA allowed the vaccine to be approved with the requirement that Merck study it further, and report back at a later date. Do you know anyone that has seen that report document?

“PCR-based HPV detection device with provision for accurate HPV genotyping is more urgently needed now because vaccination with Gardasil of the women who are already sero-positive and PCR-positive for vaccine-relevant genotypes of HPV has been found to increase the risk of developing high-grade precancerous lesions by 44.6%, according to an FDA VRBPAC Background Document : Gardasil HPV Quadrivalent Vaccine. May 18, 2006 VRBPAC Meeting.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/Report_HPV_Vaccine_3.html#ixzz27tUUSoiD

It is all outlined right here, if you would care enough to follow it, rather than just throw more poo at it, Grant. The FDA VRBPAC preapproval document is as well provided a copy of; even though the FDA has since removed it from their site, (ask why).

The Great HPV Vaccine Hoax Exposed
http://www.naturalnews.com/Report_HPV_Vaccine_0.html

Here in this video, it details it for you verbally, Grant.

Gardasil HPV Vaccine Hoax Exposed

Gardasil – The Real Truth
http://www.vacfacts.info/gardasil—the-real-truth.html

Gardasil Vaccine rDNA Introduced at Coroner’s Inquest
http://vactruth.com/2012/08/09/gardasil-rdna-coroners-inquest/

Bombshell Interview Reveals DNA Fragments Discovered 6 Months After Vaccination
http://vactruth.com/2012/08/16/rdna-fragments-after-vaccination/

Actually, Grant; it certainly appears that Mr. Sin Hang Lee, MD has had it RIGHT, all along. The problem is that THEY have to much to lose in what he has exposed, and cared enough to learn and expose. Deny it all you want. In the fact that the FDA has now been exposed to this information through Sane Vax, that they themselves failed to find or even have any concern about; who are thus the real villians? Is it them and you, or is it the people like me that put the truth forward?

Sin Hang Lee MD: Why Ethics Don’t Pay

http://www.omsj.org/blogs/sin-hang-lee-md-why-ethics-don%E2%80%99t-pay

@ Krebiozen

Why on earth do you think you know better than epidemiologists and public health scientists who have spent their lives studying this?

————

Because 51 035 cases of AFP listed for India in 2011, and the figure listed as 86 638 globally; are far to many.

Krebiozen,

It’s a bizarre complaint alright. One thought though, the absolute count (51,035) is large, but it has to be compared against India’s huge population – 1,241,491,960 in 2011, according to World Bank. 51,035 / 1,241,491,960 = 0.000041107797428 – about 4.1 in 100,000.

Lowell, I suggest you might like to read the articles more carefully before you present them as evidence. Let’s take the letter from David S Foster, IT Engineer as an example. Now if David S Foster was a biologist rather than an IT Engineer he might have made fewer mistakes. In fact, if David S Foster was able to pass reading comprehension he might make fewer mistakes. David S Foster waxes lyrical about PCR being insufficient on its own for diagnosing pertussis and moves on from there to criticise the study results. Sadly for David S Foster, a reading of the paper itself shows that 0 diagnoses were made on the basis of a PCR test alone.

So when you claim David S Foster nailed it quite correctly, can I suggest that the nail was the one on his thumb? He managed to completely miss the intended target.

@ Politicalguineapig:

I don’t think that it was ‘programmed’ but shows up later because of how the nervous system develops and transforms as a person grows up ( and other factors). Yes, it isn’t detected ( or suspected) until early adulthood so puberty may have already occured, etc.

@ Antaeus Feldspar

Actually Feldspar, I did give you an actual argument against the concept of VACCINE DERIVED herd immunity. Being that you have ignored that infrmation; you thus have created a situation where I obviously need to excerpt it to you, as is was on the page. There was NO valid arguement there? Really?

______

Here.

If vaccine derived herd immunity were a realistic and proven theory; then there would be some scientific evidence behind it. After reviewing numerous studies that were claimed to represent and show the vaccine derived herd immunity theory to have a scientific basis; I conclude that there is NO scientific backing for the claim. Correlation equals causation, simply can not and should not be applied only where it benefits the intended promotional agenda, and then at the same time the same principal is disregarded, where it does not produce a conclusion favorable to the intended and thus promoted agenda. You can not have it both ways, and not lose major credibility, as to the level of existing bias.

What we can find is the backing for is the premise of natural herd immunity, because the majority of those thus becoming immune, have life long immunity. Any even 3rd grade science student, could comprehend the obvious validity of that basic concept.

The huge hole in the obviously incorrect concept of vaccine derived herd immunity, is exactly this. Vaccines do no provide increased vaccine derived antibody production, for life. Vaccines only provide relatively passive immunity, if and when they provide protection at all; and providing as well that over time the targeted pathogen has not mutated or changed to a point that the vaccine has become increasingly ineffective. This is what is happening currently in regard to the pertussis vaccine. As well in the use of the DPaT or whatever vaccine in the past was or currently is; other similar pathogens tend to because of the vaccine, as well become more commonly seen, dominant; and at times even more virulent. In regard to the known and current pertussis outbreaks, that non vaccine targeted pathogen is B.parapertusis; with B. pertussis of course being the existing vaccine targeted pathogen.

The second phase as to the understanding of why vaccine derived herd immunity is a myth, is to realize that thousands and if not millions of adults exist with having had no vaccines in decades. What are the odds that their childhood vaccines still protect them from polio, small pox, pertussis, diphtheria, measles, rubella, etc??? Agreed, there is a big push in the recent past to give tetanus boosters to adults, which often includes the entire, DTaP. But think of all the decades that have gone by where the ONLY people in that vaccinated herd, were the infants, and school children. In the recent past more of the CDC directive has gone to vaccination boosters for teens and college students, for certain, but limited numbers of vaccines.

http://www.vacfacts.info/the-false-theory-of-vaccine-derived—herd-immunity.html
___________

To get to your question as quoted here.

I’d like you to show some evidence that you actually understand the theoretical basis of herd immunity, so I’m going to pose the following thought experiment: suppose there is a particular disease, which spreads by human-to-human contact, and there is a non-vaccine treatment which reduces a treated individual’s chances of contracting the disease if exposed by 90%. In your opinion, would a sufficient number of people in the population using that treatment create a herd immunity effect, or not? Whatever your answer is, explain why you think it’s the correct answer.

Answer.

If 90% of the population were exposed to the said disease and as well the said preventative and there were to claim there were a 90% reduction in the disease; you would first need to prove that 90% of the population would have acquired the disease, if not for the preventative. You are attempting to prove a negative. To have your scenario stand as correct, you would have to believe that the vacines worked as advertised. Given the known outbreaks in fully vaccinated children, and as well the known decline in several of the vaccine targeted illneses long before a vaccine was available; leaves a huge hole in the and any such claim. You deny this; so we are back to square one, proving a negetive. Get it? There is no win.

Argument from ignorance

It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is “generally accepted” (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Argumentum ad Ignorantiam: (appeal to ignorance) the fallacy that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false or that it is false simply because it has not been proved true. This error in reasoning is often expressed with influential rhetoric.

http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/ignorance.html

@ Krebiozen

Excerpts from your reply.

I have been looking at Hilary Butler’s comment, and see no such nailing. I see no refutation or even attempt at a refutation of the conclusion that unvaccinated children are 22.8 times more likely to contract pertussis than the vaccinated.

( It was my request that Mr. Orac prove that claim, so are you thus saying that there was no proof of his claim?)

This is either ignorant or extremely dishonest of her. She may be correct that the “bit of colonization” allows some people to have a subclinical infection that reduces the herd effect a bit, but if everyone was vaccinated, this wouldn’t be a problem. Anyway, those who oppose vaccination seem to embrace natural infection as the ideal way of acquiring immunity that prevents natural infection (any strangulated logical hernias in that statement are not my responsibility).

( The problem in that statement is clearly in the fact that the know average vaccine exemptions rate is at an average of 55 or less. So you are telling me that simply adding 5% to the uptake rate to make a 100% vaccination rate, will solve the said problem? I guess you haven’t read my – The False Theory of Vaccine Derived – Herd Immunity page, either.
http://www.vacfacts.info/the-false-theory-of-vaccine-derived—herd-immunity.html

Butler hypothesizes that because those vaccinated against pertussis may not produce antibodies against ACT, this may explain why, “vaccinated adolescents and adults are unable to clear the bacteria, because their bodies learned the antibody immunity the wrong way, and therefore they also have no cellular immunity. The result is that they do spread frequent asymptomatic infections far and wide”.

This is utterly ludicrous, as original antigenic sin regarding ACT does not prevent the production of antibodies to the other components of the vaccine, the pertussis toxin and bacterial adhesins I mentioned, which prevent both the worst effects of the illness and its persistence. There is work being done on ACT as a possible component of future pertussis vaccines.

(Original antigenic sin regarding ACT does not prevent the production of antibodies to the other components of the vaccine, the pertussis toxin and bacterial adhesins I mentioned, which prevent both the worst effects of the illness and its persistence.

Do you have any scientific proof of that – your said claim?)

You do know as well that there have been several outbreaks of pertussis in the fully vaccinated? The majority of those outbreaks have been said in the fully vaccinated, and the CDC has this time not denied it. The CDC then continues to mindlessly fear monger that the unvaccinated are the causation and to keep up and up the vaccination rates and all the boosters. They even promoted the cocoon style vaccinating of whole families, and still the outbreaks occurred. Would it be any streach at all to tell you that the vaccine targeted strain of pertussis has mutated, and possibly because of the vaccine? Pertussis is a form of bacteria. If that mutations can happen due to antibiotics, then why not vaccines?

As well it currently it appears that B. parapertussis has become a far more prevelant pathogen than it previously was, and is at times indistinguishable as to visual diagnosis, from vaccine strain pertussis; which is of course B. pertussis.

Acellular pertussis vaccination enhances B. parapertussis colonization

An acellular whooping cough vaccine actually enhances the colonization of Bordetella parapertussis in mice; pointing towards a rise in B. parapertussis incidence resulting from acellular vaccination, which may have contributed to the observed increase in whooping cough over the last decade.

http://www.cidd.psu.edu/research/synopses/acellular-vaccine-enhancement-b.-parapertussi

Thats right!

Mr. Hubbs, can I ask you again for your answer about whether a non-vaccine protective measure that reduced a treated individual’s chances of contracting a disease upon exposure by 90% would create a herd immuniy effect in a population where enough people received that treatment? Why or why not?

If you actually understand herd immunity as well as you claim to, well enough to be able to declare as fact that vaccine-derived herd immunity does not exist, this should be a very easy question for you to answer.

Lowell,
Foster states that, “PCR by itself is generally considered insufficient for diagnosing pertussis”. He doesn’t seem to understand that this means it can be used for diagnosis in combination with “the clinical symptoms and epidemiological information”. Culture is only really useful during the first two weeks, when pertussis may not be suspected. As Glanz et al state:

The abstractor recorded pertussis PCR and culture results, clinical diagnoses of pertussis, duration of cough, presenting symptoms (paroxysms, post-tussive emesis, whoop), sequelae of pertussis (apnea, pneumonia, seizures, encephalopathy), and previous exposures to close contacts infected with pertussis.

As ChrisP stated, Foster is an engineer so he can’t be expected to understand how clinical diagnoses are made. Speaking as someone who worked in diagnostics for a couple of decades I suggest he sticks to his area of expertise instead of blundering about in unfamiliar areas making foolish statements like this.

Actually, he did nail it!

No, he succeeded in making himself look like a victim of the Dunning Kruger effect.

@ Darwy

“A medical chart VERIFIED positive PCR test”

Again Lowell… what you think you read and what’s actually written – two different things.

——————-

How dumb does it get. Just because you do not like the correct answer, does not mean anyone misread or misunderstood anything. They are one and the same. Amazing denial, and refuse to be wrong!

Cases of Pertussis
We identified 439 patients with a diagnosis of pertussis in the automated databases. Of these, 178 (41%) had a medical chart–verified positive PCR or positive culture for pertussis,

READ IT!

Another reply comment at 8:13 am, CST and is still awaiting moderation, and is a reply to the Krebiozen, regarding Hilary Butlers side of that analysis. I don’t suppose there would be any censorship going on? Who knows.

Because 51 035 cases of AFP listed for India in 2011, and the figure listed as 86 638 globally; are far to many.

I find it cute that Lowell cannot be bothered to assemble coherent prose but takes care to not risk radix confusion in his adoring worldwide audience.

@ lilady

Just because the CDC proposed that, does not mean that it is correctly accurate.

[10] It is important to note that the outbreak case definition should be used for the epidemiologic investigation and not for reporting purposes”

The CDC is a complete joke. We are talking about the same CDC as well that quit testing for H1N1 before even 60 days had passed into the flu season outbreak, and then for the most part used the quick test in every clinic in the country, and proclaimed everything as H1N1 that came through the door with a sniffle. Even though that quick test can not differentiate between common flu and H1N1.

Ok, I am going to attempt to republish these two replies that show they have not yet received moderation.

7:19 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

@ Antaeus Feldspar

Actually Feldspar, I did give you an actual argument against the concept of VACCINE DERIVED herd immunity. Being that you have ignored that infrmation; you thus have created a situation where I obviously need to excerpt it to you, as is was on the page. There was NO valid arguement there? Really?

______

Here.

If vaccine derived herd immunity were a realistic and proven theory; then there would be some scientific evidence behind it. After reviewing numerous studies that were claimed to represent and show the vaccine derived herd immunity theory to have a scientific basis; I conclude that there is NO scientific backing for the claim. Correlation equals causation, simply can not and should not be applied only where it benefits the intended promotional agenda, and then at the same time the same principal is disregarded, where it does not produce a conclusion favorable to the intended and thus promoted agenda. You can not have it both ways, and not lose major credibility, as to the level of existing bias.

What we can find is the backing for is the premise of natural herd immunity, because the majority of those thus becoming immune, have life long immunity. Any even 3rd grade science student, could comprehend the obvious validity of that basic concept.

The huge hole in the obviously incorrect concept of vaccine derived herd immunity, is exactly this. Vaccines do no provide increased vaccine derived antibody production, for life. Vaccines only provide relatively passive immunity, if and when they provide protection at all; and providing as well that over time the targeted pathogen has not mutated or changed to a point that the vaccine has become increasingly ineffective. This is what is happening currently in regard to the pertussis vaccine. As well in the use of the DPaT or whatever vaccine in the past was or currently is; other similar pathogens tend to because of the vaccine, as well become more commonly seen, dominant; and at times even more virulent. In regard to the known and current pertussis outbreaks, that non vaccine targeted pathogen is B.parapertusis; with B. pertussis of course being the existing vaccine targeted pathogen.

The second phase as to the understanding of why vaccine derived herd immunity is a myth, is to realize that thousands and if not millions of adults exist with having had no vaccines in decades. What are the odds that their childhood vaccines still protect them from polio, small pox, pertussis, diphtheria, measles, rubella, etc??? Agreed, there is a big push in the recent past to give tetanus boosters to adults, which often includes the entire, DTaP. But think of all the decades that have gone by where the ONLY people in that vaccinated herd, were the infants, and school children. In the recent past more of the CDC directive has gone to vaccination boosters for teens and college students, for certain, but limited numbers of vaccines.

http://www.vacfacts.info/the-false-theory-of-vaccine-derived—herd-immunity.html
___________

To get to your question as quoted here.

I’d like you to show some evidence that you actually understand the theoretical basis of herd immunity, so I’m going to pose the following thought experiment: suppose there is a particular disease, which spreads by human-to-human contact, and there is a non-vaccine treatment which reduces a treated individual’s chances of contracting the disease if exposed by 90%. In your opinion, would a sufficient number of people in the population using that treatment create a herd immunity effect, or not? Whatever your answer is, explain why you think it’s the correct answer.

Answer.

If 90% of the population were exposed to the said disease and as well the said preventative and there were to claim there were a 90% reduction in the disease; you would first need to prove that 90% of the population would have acquired the disease, if not for the preventative. You are attempting to prove a negative. To have your scenario stand as correct, you would have to believe that the vacines worked as advertised. Given the known outbreaks in fully vaccinated children, and as well the known decline in several of the vaccine targeted illneses long before a vaccine was available; leaves a huge hole in the and any such claim. You deny this; so we are back to square one, proving a negetive. Get it? There is no win.

Argument from ignorance

It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is “generally accepted” (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Argumentum ad Ignorantiam: (appeal to ignorance) the fallacy that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false or that it is false simply because it has not been proved true. This error in reasoning is often expressed with influential rhetoric.

http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/ignorance.html

Just so you and anyone else here knows, I refuse to respond to that kind of pointless stupidity.

If everybody took that attitude you’d have nobody to talk to, Lowell.

“Just because the CDC proposed that, does not mean that it is correctly accurate.”

Perhaps Lowell ought to write to the CDC to “correct” the epidemiological pertussis case criteria. I’m *certain* they would be interested in the *opinions* of an ignorant, uneducated, drunk with a criminal record.

Only 40?

At any rate perhaps *les mamans pensants* might scare up a few more after they read yesterday’s rant:
Ms Cupcake shrieks to high heaven about what was taken from her when the vaccine-medical cartel destroyed her child. While she must step back to gather her forces, she asks others to “fight” for her.

These people desperately need some kind of real help and it’s not the kind that AJW and their own cohorts supply.

Error:

I posted in response to Narad on the thread about “rallying the troops”.

Sometimes the links go a bit crazy here, but I haven’t had that happen before. Never mind. For those interested this is the paper in question. So let us start with the bit Lowell quoted:

“We identified 439 patients with a diagnosis of pertussis in the automated databases. Of these, 178 (41%) had a medical chart–verified positive PCR or positive culture for pertussis, and 165 were between 2 months and 18 years of age.”

Now we should see what Foster said about the paper

“PCR by itself is generally considered insufficient for diagnosing pertussis”. What Foster (and Lowell) have done is failed to read. The phrase “medical-chart verified” used is there for a reason.

A reading of the methods explains this further:

The medical charts of potential cases were then reviewed by a trained abstractor, who was blinded to vaccination status. Details from the pertinent medical encounter and all records up to 14 days after this encounter were abstracted. The abstractor recorded pertussis PCR and culture results, clinical diagnoses of pertussis, duration of cough, presenting symptoms (paroxysms, posttussive emesis, whoop), sequelae of pertussis (apnea, pneumonia, seizures, encephalopathy), and previous exposures to close contacts infected with pertussis.

Lowell wrote:

Why is nobody studying vitamin C in whooping cough? – Conventional medicine’s hypocrisy. by Suzanne Humphries, MD

Far out. Vitamin C for pertussis. You are dredging the bottom of the barrel here Lowell. This idea was debunked as long ago as 1938..

Not much more to say really. Although I did WTF at this comment by Suzanne Humphries

It seems very odd to me how viciously vitamin C has been attacked given that it is both safe and easily available. Could it be because vitamin C is not patented and because it leads to an improvement in overall health that FDA HAS COME DOWN SO HARD AGAINST ITS INTRAVENOUS USE?

Does this woman have any idea of how things work?

Oh and Lowell, you have failed to provide any useful evidence once again.

ChrisP,

For me, your URL as appended stuff that breaks it. Trimming that off, I get:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2210412/

I’ve seen this claim and the reference you mention before. It’s one of the things I brought up in a still-unpublished response to IAS spokesperson Michelle Rudgeley responding to a post I wrote, where I gave it an initial poke.

Chris,

Does this woman have any idea of how things work?

Evidently not. All sorts of non-patented IV fluids, including high doses of ascorbate, are given to patients. In the treatment of burns high doses of ascorbate are part of standard care, as an ICU nurse told me a few years ago, to my surprise. She didn’t report any miraculous cures though, sadly.

@ ChrisP

Far out. Vitamin C for pertussis. You are dredging the bottom of the barrel here Lowell. This idea was debunked as long ago as 1938..

Not much more to say really. Although I did WTF at this comment by Suzanne Humphries

It seems very odd to me how viciously vitamin C has been attacked given that it is both safe and easily available. Could it be because vitamin C is not patented and because it leads to an improvement in overall health that FDA HAS COME DOWN SO HARD AGAINST ITS INTRAVENOUS USE?

Does this woman have any idea of how things work?

Oh and Lowell, you have failed to provide any useful evidence once again.

—————————

Really?

There are 23 scientific references at the bottom of this article, and as was reply posted for you. Nothing would be enough, would it? During the H1N1 (far less than a pandemic); there were as well cases that were obviously near to deaths door that were recovered by implementation
of IV Vitamin C. So why would the FDA then condemn and ban the use of that treatment? Only a drug can cure or prevent disease- FDA. Anything else requires millions in clinical trial testing funding. If that is not affordable nor feasible due to the balance sheet showing a less than profitable outcome even if you could acquire a patent; the substance and/or protocol will never make it to full scale use, nor be allowed to. You do not compete with pharma, all to obviously; a complete and manintained monopoly.

Vitamin C for Whooping Cough. Updated Edition. Suzanne Humphries, MD
http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2012/09/07/vitamin-c-for-whooping-cough-updated-edition-suzanne-humphries-md/

If pharma’s science is so good, and as well all the knowledge and so called improvements in and of their protocols and technology; then why does modern medicine remain in well done studies, as determined to be over-all a leading cause of death in the US?

Death by Medicine
http://www.vacfacts.info/death-by-medicine.html

Lowell, you should really stop before you make a bigger fool of yourself.

Admit it; you don’t understand statistics. You don’t understand relative risk. You have no idea what you’re trying to swim in, and you can barely tread water.

As for Humphries’ references

1: Nothing to do with Vitamin C curing pertussis.

2: Nothing to do with Vitamin C curing pertussis.

3: Nothing to do with Vitamin C curing pertussis.

4: Nothing to do with Vitamin C curing pertussis.

5: Nothing to do with Vitamin C curing pertussis.

6: Nothing to do with Vitamin C curing pertussis.

7: Nothing to do with Vitamin C curing pertussis.

8: Nothing to do with Vitamin C curing pertussis.

9: Nothing to do with Vitamin C curing pertussis.

10: Nothing to do with Vitamin C curing pertussis.

11: Not even a correct cite of a reference. If it’s the same reference as above (then you just use the same reference number in the text – you don’t need to make a new entry for it.)

12: Nothing to do with Vitamin C curing pertussis.

13: Nothing to do with Vitamin C curing pertussis.

14: Nothing to do with Vitamin C curing pertussis.

15: Nothing to do with Vitamin C curing pertussis. (It is the first source that mentions Vitamin C though – so you’re getting closer!)

16: Another improper cite.

17: Nothing to do with Vitamin C curing pertussis.

18: Nothing to do with Vitamin C curing pertussis.

19: Nothing to do with Vitamin C curing pertussis.

20: Another improper cite.

21: Nothing to do with Vitamin C curing pertussis.

22: Nothing to do with Vitamin C curing pertussis

23: Nothing to do with Vitamin C curing pertussis.

Congratulations. You’ve referred us to a ‘referenced’ article whose references do nothing to support the claims made.

What a piece of garbage – and that includes Humphries.

“If 90% of the population were exposed to the said disease and as well the said preventative and there were to claim there were a 90% reduction in the disease; you would first need to prove that 90% of the population would have acquired the disease, if not for the preventative.”

Methinks this idiot has no idea how epidemiology works.

@Lowell: Any specific complaints, or do you just have to hope people actually believe your vague taunts?

“No, I actually understand it completely”

Nah, you have proven beyond reasonable doubt that you have no idea what you are talking about. It’s okay, though. Idiocy has been tolerated on this blog for a really long time.

@Darwy

Yup, I tried reading about the guy and even some of the references he’s been citing. I’m afraid I have to disagree about him being in need of psychiatric help, but only because saying he needs psychiatric help is an insult to psychiatric patients everywhere.

/popcorn

@Lara

Meryl is the Queen of the AVN .. the “Australian Vaccination Network” a rabid bunch of anti-vaccination folks who will bomb any poll or questionnaire on the internet.

She’s been caught in so many lies, it boggles the mind.

@Grant

Lowell only knows how to cherry-pick and misinterpret science. He has no grasp of the concept of ‘research literature taken as a whole’.

He sees research he doesn’t agree with, because it doesn’t conform to his bias, and ignores it. Or calls it ‘pharma paid’ or ‘government funded’ or some other conspiracy that’s in his mind.

@ Lara: It’s a great Facebook page…I refer to it often.

@ Darwy: FWIW, I bear lurkers in mind when I write 😉

@lilady, Lara: have to admit it’s the first counterpart of the likes of the AVN, IAS, VFFNZ, etc., Facebook pages I’ve seen. But then, it’s not as if I look for them.

Lowell, you really are dense aren’t you. Did you have a look at the references? I did and I was unconvinced by the argument based on them. Darwy has already been through them and explained their significance for Humphries’ argument.

Allow me to sum up Humphries’ argument as I saw it:

“More vaccinated people get whooping cough than unvaccinated; that children who contact whooping cough naturally can become immune to the bacterium; I don’t understand how the immune system works, so I can just make it up; pertussis bacterium produces toxins; anti-oxidants are supposed to be good at removing toxins; therefore Vitamin C will stop symptoms of whooping cough.”

The argument is as nutty as a box of frogs.

You claim modern medicine is the leading cause of death in the US? I don’t think so.

@ Antaeus Feldspar

So I’ll give you yet another chance. I’ll skip over the percentages math that you find so difficult, and phrase it this way: in our hypothetical world, whatever an untreated individual’s chance would be of contracting the disease when exposed to it, a treated individual’s chance of contracting the disease under the exact same exposure conditions are one-tenth of that. Now, would a sufficient number of people in a community receiving that treatment create a herd immunity effect, or not? Why, or why not?

—————————

Again, first you have to prove that a treated individual’s chance of contracting the disease under the exact same exposure conditions are one-tenth of that of an untreated person. You are loading a loaded question, and you should know that. If the effect of being treated is no more than 1/10th more effective than not being treated, I would say that likely herd immunity could never be achieved. Herd immunity only speaks of naturally acquired illness and that in almost every case gives long term immunity which is as well most often life long and complete immunity. Temporary immunity provided for some but not all persons, leaves holes all over the place for the pathogen to work its way back in, especially when an equally as large adult population is often never even vaccinated again. Clearly any vaccine derived immunity may only last a relatively short time in years. This as said blows the entire vaccine derived herd immunity claim to literal dust.

Now that I have addressed that, and after you spun it all 4 different ways and while still coming up empty; please provide me with some vaccine aluminum adjuvant safety studies. These are the studies you will need to counter with them. http://www.vacfacts.info/index.html

ANTI anti-vaxers?…TAKE NOTE …here is some truth you likely will deny….but as Ayn Rand suggests:
You can ignore reality, but you cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality——*

HERE…you will take note: In the discussion section—scroll hard right and open the location to read—you will see 119 genes on the human genome with 535 “hotspots” where “residual DNA” (what is this?….the DNA from insects, animals, yeast, mold, viral forms, bacteria, and even ABORTED BABIES) that can cause autism and other neurodegenerative diseases..etc.

Computational Detection of Homologous Recombination Hotspots in X-Chromosome Autism-Associated Genes
http://www.cogforlife.org/SCPIIMFARHR.pdf

@ Grant

Lowell,

Regards the vitamin-C treatment of pertussis, I’ve previously looked into this in response to claims make to media by the then IAS* spokesperson, Michelle Rudgeley. Yes, there are some studies, but research literature must be taken as a whole – you can’t cherry-pick. The literature does not support it’s use. (There is more than on my blog; I never published an examination of a further rebuttal that Rudgeley wrote.)

————–

What 23 scientific references were not enough for you in regard to treating pertussis with vitamin C. And because none of them supported your agenda, you call them all cherry picked? If 100 studies had been selected, would you as well call them as well all cherry picked? Who is actually doing the cherry picking, here? But yet you can not refute any of the studies? Imagine that.

http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2012/09/07/vitamin-c-for-whooping-cough-updated-edition-suzanne-humphries-md/

@ ChrisP

October 1, 8:27 pm

Lowell, you really are dense aren’t you. Did you have a look at the references? I did and I was unconvinced by the argument based on them. Darwy has already been through them and explained their significance for Humphries’ argument.

Allow me to sum up Humphries’ argument as I saw it:

“More vaccinated people get whooping cough than unvaccinated; that children who contact whooping cough naturally can become immune to the bacterium; I don’t understand how the immune system works, so I can just make it up; pertussis bacterium produces toxins; anti-oxidants are supposed to be good at removing toxins; therefore Vitamin C will stop symptoms of whooping cough.”

The argument is as nutty as a box of frogs.

You claim modern medicine is the leading cause of death in the US? I don’t think so.

————————–

The only that is nutty is a person who can not comprehend that removing toxins is essential to staying healthy and in recovery from illness. Vitamin C is an antioxidant, and detoxifier, and you actually deny that? If you do not like Humphries 23 studies, then go to pubmed and check out some more; maybe you will find one you can’t reject? If it doesn’t fit your agenda, no amount of studies would ever be enough. Nice going.

And to counter what I put forth regarding two studies, one in 2000 and one in 2003, the first one which was actually published in the AMA Journal (later removed, no reason given), showing that over-all modern medicine was the 3rd leading cause of death in the US. The second study in 2003 showed the same said pharma system to be the leading cause of death. To counter those to studies and as well all of this information, Death by Medicine http://www.vacfacts.info/death-by-medicine.html you give me an actually dead link at the CDC site? That surely was impressive.

Lowell,

You’ve clearly not read what I have written, yet “demand” I respond to what you write. Can you see the double standard in writing that?

You’ve also misrepresented me. (Which reminds me of another troll, incidentally.) My reference to cherry-picking was to what Michelle Rudgeley wrote – as I said.

What I wrote that the literature does not support it’s use – i.e. taken as a whole.

(Darwy addressed these paper earlier, pointing out what they show; your response was an empty dismissal, suggesting you are not really interested in what the papers do or not show, just in asserting what you would like to be true.)

The reason I wrote at all was that you kept making out others haven’t looked into this, but I have and I found that the literature does not support it’s use.

So what we have here is a vaccine that has mutated the pertussis pathogen, and as well caused B. parapertussis, (not in the vaccine) to become a more common and if not dominant pathogen, which literally indistinguishable from B pertussis. Add to that the lack of testing and possible unreliable PCR testing, even when used. We have the CDC saying nothing about the problem but to further fear monger about getting the in recognition of the clearly now often failed vaccine. We have outbreaks in fully vaccinated groups. And we have an exemption rate in the schools said to be at 5% or less. And the CDC keeps on blaming the unvaccinated while neglecting to inform the public of the real problem. Top that off we have Hilary Butler promoting the use of vitamin C, and she is considered as only a snake oil salesman. I see the problem.

Whooping Cough Outbreaks Are 10 Times More Deadly Because of the Vaccine
http://gaia-health.com/gaia-blog/2012-08-04/whooping-cough-outbreaks-are-10-times-more-deadly-because-of-the-vaccine/

Acellular pertussis vaccination enhances B. parapertussis colonization

An acellular whooping cough vaccine actually enhances the colonization of Bordetella parapertussis in mice; pointing towards a rise in B. parapertussis incidence resulting from acellular vaccination, which may have contributed to the observed increase in whooping cough over the last decade.

http://www.cidd.psu.edu/research/synopses/acellular-vaccine-enhancement-b.-parapertussi

Potential Hazards of Modern Whooping Cough Tests; False positive results, unnecessary antibiotics, and inaccurate statistics, by Hilary Butler
http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2012/06/20/potential-hazards-of-testing-for-whooping-cough-false-positive-results-unecessary-antibiotics-and-inaccurate-statistics-by-hilary-butler/

But oops, whats this? Its happening with the polio vaccine too? Imagine that?

Mutant Polio Virus Spreads in Nigeria
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-204_162-5242168.html

Mutated Polio From Vaccine Is Spreading in Africa
http://www.gaia-health.com/articles51/000078-Polio-Caused-By-Vaccine.shtml

Nigeria Sees Polio Outbreak from Mutated Vaccine Virus
A mutated virus from the oral vaccine used to prevent the spread of polio in Nigeria has paralyzed at least 124 children in the West African country this year.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/health/july-dec09/polio_08-24.html

Polio in Nigeria Traced to Mutating Vaccine
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/11/world/africa/11polio.html?_r=0

Mutated virus confirms polio vaccine fears. New Delhi
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1101024/jsp/nation/story_13094132.jsp

Polio vaccine suspected as cause of fatal mutant form of encephalitis
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2047-mutant-polio-vaccine-regains-virulence.html

Mutant polio vaccine regains virulence
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2047-mutant-polio-vaccine-regains-virulence.html

LOL at Lowell being ‘punk’d’ by a fake Facebook page.

Then again, he’s complained about the FBI, ICE and ‘black hat hackers’ have hacked his Facebook and website.

He’s certifiable.

@Krebiozen,

[bows, grovels]
I am not worthy!

This is elegant:

“You seem to forget that there is constant influx of non-immune people into the population: babies. In non-vaccinated populations contagious diseases go in cycles. As the number of non-immune people increases, and as soon as there enough of them, and one of them gets infected, an outbreak occurs. The outbreak ends when there are too few people to maintain the exponential spread. That’s why childhood diseases used to occur in childhood.

You also seem to forget that natural lifelong immunity is won at the cost of most children getting the actual disease, with the burden of death and disability that comes with it. That’s the whole point of vaccination.”

So I’ll give you yet another chance. I’ll skip over the percentages math that you find so difficult, and phrase it this way: in our hypothetical world, whatever an untreated individual’s chance would be of contracting the disease when exposed to it, a treated individual’s chance of contracting the disease under the exact same exposure conditions are one-tenth of that. Now, would a sufficient number of people in a community receiving that treatment create a herd immunity effect, or not? Why, or why not?

Again, first you have to prove that a treated individual’s chance of contracting the disease under the exact same exposure conditions are one-tenth of that of an untreated person.

As anyone can verify by reading the thread above, Lowell, you were already gently alerted to what an educated person would already have known: you can’t demand “proof” of the premises of a thought experiment. No person with half a clue would listen to Einstein say “Suppose we had a train that traveled at the speed of light” and demand that Einstein “prove” that his imaginary train is really going that speed. No person with half a clue would demand that Schroedinger “prove” that the imaginary isotope and imaginary vial of poison he’s putting in an imaginary box have exactly 50/50 chances of killing an imaginary cat within a specified time frame.

It’s been spelled out for you before; it can’t be spelled out any plainer. In a thought experiment, you accept the premises that are given, and then ask “What would follow from those premises, in an imaginary world where the premises are true?” Anyone who can’t deal with a thought experiment is intellectually crippled, because planning for the future requires just that sort of thinking about “I haven’t made this choice yet, but if I made it this way, what would be the consequences of that choice?”

You are loading a loaded question, and you should know that.

I’ll demonstrate how a thought experiment works. Suppose we have an Oracle, whose pronouncements are known to be absolutely true. And suppose that Oracle said “Believe it or not, Lowell actually was trying to communicate something he believed with the phrase ‘You are loading a loaded question.'” Then I would have to take it as true that you actually had a meaning in mind, and would have to guess at what the meaning could possibly be.

In this case, I think the most likely meaning is “If I do what an educated, responsible adult would do and follow your thought experiment to its logical conclusions, I don’t like the conclusions. Therefore, I’ll pretend that there’s something wrong with the thought experiment, and also that I don’t even know what a thought experiment is.” Now of course, that’s a dishonest, fallacious response, because whether an argument is valid or not is in no way determined by whether you like its conclusions.

If the effect of being treated is no more than 1/10th more effective than not being treated, I would say that likely herd immunity could never be achieved.

And once again, you demonstrate an impressive non-grasp of both math and reading comprehension. “If the effect of being treated is no more than 1/10th more effective than not being treated” means that if an untreated person’s chance of contracting the illness upon exposure is 50%, a treated person’s chance would be no lower than 45%. That is, quite blatantly, a lot different from the actual premise, in which a person whose chance of contracting the disease would be 50% if untreated would have just a 5% chance if treated. Since I gave you exactly those sample percentages and more besides to demonstrate exactly what our premise of the treatment’s effectiveness meant, the only possible conclusions are: you can’t read with comprehension beyond a second-grade level, or you aren’t even making a good-faith effort. Or, of course, both.

Herd immunity only speaks of naturally acquired illness

Now, did you pull that out of your own @ss, or some other antivaxxer’s? We’re talking about a thought experiment where we only know that immunity is acquired by some means; it’s special pleading to introduce an unfounded assumption that it matters whether the immunity is “natural” or not.

and that in almost every case gives long term immunity which is as well most often life long and complete immunity.

Irrelevant to our thought experiment. Do you really have no better response than a desperate attempt to change the subject?

Temporary immunity provided for some but not all persons, leaves holes all over the place for the pathogen to work its way back in, especially when an equally as large adult population is often never even vaccinated again.

Irrelevant to our thought experiment. Do you really have no better response than a desperate attempt to change the subject?

Clearly any vaccine derived immunity may only last a relatively short time in years.

Irrelevant to our thought experiment, especially as from the very beginning and as I’ve already explained to you once, our hypothetical treatment is not a vaccine. Do you really have no better response than a desperate attempt to change the subject? Of course you don’t, and I guess at some level you understand that, that if you were to answer these questions honestly it would show your position up for the mass of contradictions it is.

This as said blows the entire vaccine derived herd immunity claim to literal dust.

@ Antaeus Feldspar

Isn’t that just a bit of over-kill on herd immunity? That is the most mindless expose I have ever seen, Feldspar! You call that a thought experiment? I would call it far more; how about an experiment in mind control, at best. And with all that you still pointed out nothing. Amazing. What I had put in front of you was in such simplified terms, that even Paul Offit could understand it . And you go and waste the time to put a kackbunkled and bent sideways expose of literal trash like that. LOL.

How absolutely desperate are you people, and how desperate do you actually look. You should be embarrassed; but you apparently never are, because you are so deep in your denial, that anything goes; no matter how ridiculous.

This as said blows the entire vaccine derived herd immunity claim to literal dust.

That of course should have been blockquoted. Not only do I not possess the delusion that the mathematical consequence called herd immunity stops working if the individual immunities it is based on are achieved through vaccination, I know what the freaking word “literal” means.

@ Anj

8:22 am
@Krebiozen,

[bows, grovels]
I am not worthy!

This is elegant:

“You seem to forget that there is constant influx of non-immune people into the population: babies. In non-vaccinated populations contagious diseases go in cycles. As the number of non-immune people increases, and as soon as there enough of them, and one of them gets infected, an outbreak occurs. The outbreak ends when there are too few people to maintain the exponential spread. That’s why childhood diseases used to occur in childhood.

You also seem to forget that natural lifelong immunity is won at the cost of most children getting the actual disease, with the burden of death and disability that comes with it. That’s the whole point of vaccination.”

———————-

So you are claiming that illness/disease outbreaks are dependant on the disease cycles of and in the incoming number of babies. You also claim that the outbreak ends only when there are too few people to maintain the exponential spread. Why aren’t the outbreaks ever ending then Anj, because they have continued, and as well in mostly the vaccinated? But you will of course deny that.

That’s why childhood diseases used to occur in childhood, and not adulthood? That would be a real long shot, to claim to that, as there is no direct correlation. Diseases (illnesses) occur in childhood because there has been no prior exposure. They also occur and build and prime the immune system response properly, if allowed to happen through natural illness. You can fear monger all day and all night about the potential for disability and death in regard to non vaccinating, but I would take my chances with an entirely non dysregulated by vaccines immune system any day, over that of vaccinating over and over again with potentially contaminated and chemical filled and toxic. however if you do not know nor admit to the risk of vaccinating and the odds of ending up with a vaccine injured child, then you can NEVER properly evaluate any form of the benefits verses risks. You are denying the risks. Thats the whole point of learning how to keep a person healthy by naturopathic means.

@ Antaeus Feldspar

[Not only do I not possess the delusion that the mathematical consequence called herd immunity stops working if the individual immunities it is based on are achieved through vaccination, I know what the freaking word “literal” means.

————

mathematical consequence

if the individual immunities it is based on are achieved through vaccination]

I suggest talking in other than alien mind control language, Feldspar. 10 times reading it and it still shows nor proves nothing. That is and would incule an as well an assumption that the vaccines work as advertized

Lowell 8:04 am (and again at 9:02 am), Oct 2:

So what we have here is a vaccine that has mutated the pertussis pathogen,

Please be so kind as to explain how this can happen. The vaccine, after all, is destroyed and excreted by normal physiological processes, long before the pertussis pathogen is present. It has left behind only the antibodies to the pathogen — antibodies that have been created by normal physiological processes, and that are the same antibodies that a “natural” infection would cause.
If the pathogen has been mutated as a result of these antibodies, why would the “natural” infection’s antibodies fail to generate the same mutations? Do you claim some magic in the physiological processes?

and as well caused B. parapertussis, (not in the vaccine) to become a more common and if not dominant pathogen, which [is?] literally indistinguishable from B pertussis.

If B. parapertussis is actually indistinguishable from B . pertussis, how is its presence detected, and why does it have a name that is distinguishable from the other’s name? If the one is actually indistinguishable from the other, how are they detected separately? Hint: ‘literally’ is a synonym for ‘actually’ of ‘in fact’.
Or maybe it’s just the case that you are as confused and/or ignorant of physiology and immunology as you have shown yourself to be of epidemiology and science in general.

@Shay

9:36 am
Lowell: I’ve heard of Pubmed; and unlike you, I can actually read. And the three studies you cite are full of qualifiers like “may,” “possibly,” and “mild.” In none of them do I find any kind of ringing endorsement. At best the second one states that prescribing Vitamin C does no harm.

—————

Really, let me excerpt it for you so you can read it again. I see no such thing. As well there are several more studies as you go down the list and the pages. You people will obviously and repeatedly lie your way out of anything.

J Int Med Res. 2012;40(1):28-42.
A combination of high-dose vitamin C plus zinc for the common cold.

Maggini S, Beveridge S, Suter M.
Source: Bayer Consumer Care Ltd, Peter-Merian-Strasse 84, Postbox 4002, Basel, Switzerland.

Abstract
Vitamin C and zinc play important roles in nutrition, immune defence and maintenance of health. Intake of both is often inadequate, even in affluent populations. The common cold continues to place a great burden on society in terms of suffering and economic loss. After an overview of the literature on the effects of the separate administration of either vitamin C or zinc against the common cold, this article presents data from two preliminary, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials, conducted with a combination of 1000 mg vitamin C plus 10 mg zinc in patients with the common cold. In both studies, a nonsignificant reduction of rhinorrhoea duration (range 9-27%) was seen. In pooled analyses of both studies (n=94), vitamin C plus zinc was significantly more efficient than placebo at reducing rhinorrhoea over 5 days of treatment. Furthermore, symptom relief was quicker and the product was well tolerated. In view of the burden associated with the common cold, supplementation with vitamin C plus zinc may represent an efficacious measure, with a good safety profile, against this infectious viral disease.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22429343

Can Fam Physician. 2011 Jan;57(1):31-6.
Complementary and alternative medicine for prevention and treatment of the common cold.

Nahas R, Balla A.
Source: Seekers Centre for Integrative Medicine, Ottawa, ON.

Abstract
OBJECTIVE:
To review the evidence supporting complementary and alternative medicine approaches to treatment and prevention of the common cold in adults.

QUALITY OF EVIDENCE:
MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from January 1966 to September 2009 combining the key words common cold or influenza with echinacea, garlic, ginseng, probiotics, vitamin C, and zinc. Clinical trials and prospective studies were included.

MAIN MESSAGE:
For prevention, vitamin C demonstrated benefit in a large meta-analysis, with possibly increased benefit in patients subjected to cold stress. There is inconsistent evidence for Asian ginseng (Panax ginseng) and North American ginseng (Panax quinquefolius). Allicin was highly effective in 1 small trial. For treatment, Echinacea purpurea is the most consistently useful variety; it was effective in 5 of 6 trials. Zinc lozenges were effective in 5 of 9 trials, likely owing to dose and formulation issues. Overall, the evidence suggests no benefit from probiotics for prevention or treatment of the common cold.

CONCLUSION:
Vitamin C can be recommended to Canadian patients for prevention of the common cold. There is moderate evidence supporting the use of Echinacea purpurea and zinc lozenges for treatment. Ginseng and allicin warrant further research.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21322286

None here, either.

Am Fam Physician. 2012 Jul 15;86(2):153-9.
Treatment of the common cold in children and adults.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22962927

Wow. This idiot is just as stupid as Thingy.

Even more stupid, if such a thing is possible.

@Shay

You may recall as well that you made this below statement.

I’m not aware of any evidence supporting its efficacy against anything except, possibly, scurvy.

Obviously you had never looked.

The words “may,” “possibly,” and “mild.” do not discredit a study in itself as to the validity claims of effectiveness and benefit; and would you still disagree with that? How about the pharma clinical trials then where they take a 3% benefit and through use of multiple end point numbers spin that into a 30% or more benefit? But that is ok for you?

If a study stated, Vitamin C may also increase production of interferon, a natural antiviral substance produced by your body; then it can be automatically discredited as worthless, correct?

Will or would this be of any additional help to you as to your denial in regard to the validity as to the claim that vitamin C indeed helps fight viral and bacterial infections. And you yet deny that?

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, December 3, 2009

Vitamin C As An Antiviral:
It’s All About Dose

http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v05n09.shtml

In Vivo. 2008 Jul-Aug;22(4):471-6.
Antiviral, antibacterial and vitamin C-synergized radical-scavenging activity of Sasa senanensis Rehder extract.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18712174

Injectable Vitamin C: Effective Treatment for Viral and Other Diseases, (a list of multiple more studies)
http://injectablevitaminc.com/download.html

The Use of Vitamin C as an Antibiotic
FRED R. KLENNER, M.D. (List of again 26 ref. studies)
http://www.seanet.com/~alexs/ascorbate/195x/klenner-fr-j_appl_nutr-1953-v6-p274.htm

Publications/studies by Archie Kalokerinos
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archie_Kalokerinos#Publications_by_Archie_Kalokerinos

VITAMIN C: LABORATORY TESTS INDICATE ANTIVIRAL EFFECT
http://www.aids.org/topics/vitamin-c-laboratory-tests-indicate-antiviral-effect/

@Lowell – Paranoid conspiracy theorists imagining threats and fearing for their lives? Quelle surprise!

And pfft – I’m pretty sure the admin of the EC page welcomes legitimate legal action from PPoUC – who’ll be like the guy who calls the police because his weed was stolen.
I’m sure he’s salivating for a legitimate charge of harassment – the PPoUC admin will have to drop the terribly brave anonymous moniker to reveal their name -nicely leaving an opening for EC admin to charge for defamation of character. They’ve has publicly accused him with quite the laundry list of imaginary crimes.

So yeah, don’t think he’s holding his breath waiting for that knock on the door. I ‘ll bet no lawyers, nobody is suing anyone. It’s just a ploy to make them appear more powerful than they really are.
Pretending to be powerful is a great way to influence the gullible and intellectually lazy over to your side, and once you play the game long enough, you can actually become somewhat powerful.

As long as you keep appealing to the gullible and intellectually lazy, anyway.

@ janerella

Don’t know, don’t care. All I said was that PPoUVC had stated on their page earlier that they had received threats, and some strange stuff had gone on with their page. And now that page is gone, and replaced with an attacking and fake page. You really have a lot to talk about and deny don’t you; concerning you knowledge of it. But then if you had any decency and facts to stand on, you people would not need to resort to the child like accusations of craziness, name calling, and poo throwing that you do. You would just debate the facts as they stand.

@ Krebiozen

Herd immunity as in speaking of naturally acquired illness in almost every case gives long term immunity which is as well most often life long and complete immunity.

Temporary vaccine derived immunity, lets say and presume provides the majority of but likely not all vaccinated persons, with temporary immunity. Now as well typically we have additionally a large adult population that is often never again vaccinated. You can not deny that for decades we have had that being the case.

Clearly any vaccine derived immunity may only last a relatively short time in years. Thus we have always had a large group of the population with obviously little to no vaccine protection left existing.

How do you explain the existence of that large group of people not being a large hole in that vaccine derived herd immunity? Even if you factor in that some of those people may have acquired natural immunity? How do you explain that the only people in that herd in need of vaccination to acquire herd immunity at the percentage of uptake they the so called authorities have specified, are only the infants and school children – students? On your terms and as for the terms the CDC puts forth in this theory, the entire population would need to maintain vaccine derived herd immunity for it to work. There would be no way you could say, oh ok now we can just forget about anyone that is 21 years of age and older. Not all people go to college and require their minimum of vaccines, so that clearly leaves a large part of the population without any vaccine derived immunity, and thus a large hole in that theory.

Do you have anything to say about that which I have just put forth here, Krebiozen?

All your bullcrap regarding your said thought experiment, can not address that which I have just put forth, nor explain it away.

You can read more on that right here.

The False Theory of Vaccine Derived – Herd Immunity
http://www.vacfacts.info/the-false-theory-of-vaccine-derived—herd-immunity.html

I had laid out my analysis on vaccine derived herd immunity vs natural immunity perfectly;

If you are referring to your webpage on herd immunity, that’s not an analysis, that’s a joke. You claim that the only evidence for herd immunity is “correlation equals causation” which is not true, as herd immunity is part of a mathematical model that makes very accurate predictions.

You mistakenly claim that natural infection provides lifelong immunity while vaccines only provide “relatively passive immunity”, which is not true.

You claim that vaccines cause pathogens to mutate, which is not true.

You state that, “thousands and if not millions of adults exist with having had no vaccines in decades” and ask, “What are the odds that their childhood vaccines still protect them from polio, small pox, pertussis, diphtheria, measles, rubella, etc???”. This is good evidence that vaccines do offer protection for decades and in most cases for life – see my link above.

You mention tetanus boosters in connection with herd immunity when herd immunity only applies to contagious diseases.

Finding that the overwhelming evidence does not support your claims you are forced to resort to conspiracy theories, “we have been mislead and lied to about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, for the past 100 years”, but present no evidence to support that at all.

Then you claim that, “the CDC refuses to acknowledge the bulwark of existing scientific evidence, as to the harm of vaccines; as well as to the vaccine connection to the current major increases in cases of ASD”. What “existing scientific evidence” is this? You fail to provide any at all, despite your claim that, “The real science has existed front and center, the whole time.” You link to blogs and other websites that are even more moronic than yours.

Lowelll,

Do you have anything to say about that which I have just put forth here, Krebiozen?

Yes, the evidence you put forth contradicts your premises. You are arguing that since people who were vaccinated years ago must have lost their immunity, but we haven’t seen massive epidemics, herd immunity must not exist. Has it not occurred to you that a more reasonable explanation is that vaccine-induced immunity lasts, in most cases, for decades or for life? Perhaps you missed what I posted above. I repeat, as we accumulate more evidence it’s looking more and more likely that the immunity from most vaccines is similar to that gained from natural infection, and when it isn’t a booster can be given, without the risks associated with the actual disease.

@ Denice Walter

Not all people are able to participate in a thought experiment: you need to be able to think hypothetically and make use of other characteristics of formal operations. There are additional reasons why someone might refuse to accept the premises of a particular thought experiment that I won’t go into although I’m sure you might guess.

I think it’s really just a case of Dead Men DO Bleed Syndrome; he knows the conclusion he wants to come to, and he’ll throw everything else out the window, no matter how stupid it makes him look, rather than admit that his conclusion is unsound.

To actually watch the desperation, though, is quite something. I’m reminded of the scene in Zoolander where the title character angrily swipes the architect’s model of the proposed school that will bear his name onto the floor, asking how any child could possibly learn there when they couldn’t even fit through those tiny doors.

@ Lowell

I had laid out my analysis on vaccine derived herd immunity vs natural immunity perfectly; and he could not even address it on those common sense terms. Don’t even begin to tell me that was not acceptable, and thus required the eight way spin on of his ridiculous thought experiment.

As anyone can confirm by reading this page, I asked you to give an answer to my very simple thought experiment before you gave your “perfect” “analysis” of “vaccine derived” vs. “natural” immunity. You did not give an answer; you did not even demonstrate that you had the elementary-school knowledge necessary to comprehend the question. You still have not answered the question. Your “perfect” “analysis” is, like your allegations of “alien mind control,” just an attempt to distract people from noticing that you either can’t or don’t dare answer the question.

I really wonder who you think you’re fooling.

@lowell – I’m pretty sure that isn’t English, at least not in any sensible frame of wording that represents a coherent thought.

You must be getting angry – I can imagine you hovering over the keyboard with literal spittle flying from your mouth as you madly type out your rants – because you are becoming more and more incoherent as time goes on. Perhaps you should lay off the sauce a bit too…..

As for everything else, I schooled your sorry behind on Herd Immunity a while ago – since you cannot grasp history, mathematics, or basic science / biology, I can only assume that the years of alcoholism have damaged your brain to the extent that you can no longer form rational or coherent thoughts.

I feel sorry for the people that have to interact with you, in person, on a daily basis.

@lowell – here’s a few questions for you:

What is the natural host / disease reservoir for measles?

What happens when you remove the ability for this disease to infect its natural host?

If a disease cannot infect its natural host & has no other known hosts or means to replicate itself, where does it go?

@ Krebiozen

First, it would really be helpful to the situation if you actually put forth only what I have stated and not add claims that were not made; and as well stop putting forth only your twisted and incorrect interpretation of what I stated.

For you to to attempt to explain that way by now claiming that because we haven’t seen epidemics in years now, that it must mean that the vaccines last for long periods of time, and that its looking more and more likely that immunity gained from vaccines, is similar to that gained from natural infection, simply flies in the face of all previously known data and facts about vaccines and vaccine derived antibodies. I know that, and you should know that is a claim that is completely bullcrap.

As for the time estimates in your link, those would all be a best case scenario; and across the board may actually be much lower. Even if every person acquired that actual vaccine derived protection, and as it states; how many people as said does that leave unprotected by a vaccine. That number could be yet be literally millions. But you must deny it. Then spin into the mix the false claim across the board that natural immunities do not last for life, and all of a sudden vaccines are to be perceived as the same thing as natural immunity. Boy it doesn’t get any more bogus than that.

Then lets go to this flat out either lying and/or or never actually looked b.s filled claim of yours right here, Krebiozen.
What would I have to do, list each study that is there? That site is there so you can use it for that purpose, and thus I do not have to list it all on a site or blog reply post. But as long as that is not done right in front of yo of course, you can yet deny that any studies were ever there, as you just did in your comment below. You will find those studies right here, and you still claim there are no such said studies on that site? Are you entirely blind? Or entirely in denial, which is it? Nothing would ever be enough, as always for a must deny it denialist like yourself, Krebiozen.

Should those autism an aluminum adjuvant studies be important studies to consider, when as well the CDC admits to having no adequate data on safety, and no safety studies in existence?

————
Quote:

Then you claim that, “the CDC refuses to acknowledge the bulwark of existing scientific evidence, as to the harm of vaccines; as well as to the vaccine connection to the current major increases in cases of ASD”. What “existing scientific evidence” is this? You fail to provide any at all, despite your claim that, “The real science has existed front and center, the whole time.” You link to blogs and other websites that are even more moronic than yours. Unquote

————–

And you have the audacity to claim that the real science concerning vaccine safety and effectiveness has been there all along. How in denial and delusional is the reality of that claim, Krebiozen? Get to producing for me some aluminum adjuvant safety studies then Krebiozen! You said it is all there? Provide me some counter studies that perhaps the CDC or Paul Offit have, to counter all that??? Lets see you actually do it? Any actual studies to counter that at all. get started and prove it. They do not exist, I know it and you should know it.

You can start right here with what you are going to need to match up studies with; and you can provide all that science which you claim has existed front and center, the whole time. You either have never looked at anything there, or you are being entirely dishonest, which is it? I suggest you get started. Five titled pages exist there with that said causation and harm science on each one.

http://www.vacfacts.info/the-vaccine-damage—science.html

Even if every person acquired that actual vaccine derived protection, and as it states; how many people as said does that leave unprotected by a vaccine.

And we are you call that said and with. Would be right and dared poo than an actually in itself as a way you can not the correct; answer one, single vaccine. I fear walked around the pages, of learning how less.

@ Bill price

If B. parapertussis is actually indistinguishable from B . pertussis, how is its presence detected, and why does it
have a name that is distinguishable from the other’s name?
If the one is actually indistinguishable from the other, how are they detected separately? Hint: ‘literally’ is a synonym for ‘actually’ of ‘in fact’.

Or maybe it’s just the case that you are as confused and/or ignorant of physiology and immunology as you have shown yourself to be of epidemiology and science in general.

——————

Well, as long as you misrepresent what I have stated, you can twist it around and pretend that to be true. Do you do that intentionally? Of course you do. You have zero basis for any such claims. What was being referred to is of course that B pertussis it symptomatically similar to B. Parapertussis. However somewhat related, it was NOT referred to as the same bacterial pathogen. You are asking me, how it is detected, and you claim to understand physiology, immunology, and epidemiology. You have got to be kidding. PCR test is what they use; if and when they actually test for it; ever heard of it? Nice try and trash filled expose though. Here is a question for you, does your twisted expose discredit how an antibiotic causes a bacteria to mutate and change to the point it evades an antibiotic, too? Thats not real nor ever happened either, right.

@Krebiozen

Your answer is in moderation but to add to that, I am pretty darn sure that naturally acquired immunity, does NOT require additional herd immunity, to work!!! Agree, or disagree?

@Krebiozen

My condolences on your friend. I vividly remember every time.

@lowell – neither measles, mumps nor rubella are currently circulating in the United States, how would you supposed an outbreak is supposed to occur (regardless of vaccination status), unless it is brought in from the outside?

And since we can easily identify “patient zero” and at minimum vaccinate all of those that may have come in contact with the infected individual(s), there will be no further reservoir or hosts for the disease to continue…..

You argue against “herd immunity” – I think communal immunity is a better term, when the proof is right in front of you.

I am pretty darn sure that naturally acquired immunity, does NOT require additional herd immunity, to work!!! Agree, or disagree?

Not only do I agree, but I would like to point out that naturally acquired immunity is only acquired when herd immunity fails. Of course, it should also be pointed out that vaccine acquired immunity doesn’t require herd immunity to work.

@lowell – does vaccine status matter is a disease has been eliminated?

If everyone (or a sufficient number to break the chain of infection) is vaccinated or naturally immune, doesn’t that mean the population as a whole is now “immune” to a particular vaccine-preventable disease?

As such, does that not constitute “population / herd” immunity?

Come on, this is basic logic and science fella…..if you can’t grasp that one single point, then are you definitely suffering from some kind of mental deficiency.

@Lowell, what part of what I said before are you finding to be a put down? I’ve lived the anti-vaccine lifestyle, grew up in an anti-vaccine family where the family business was chiropractics. My grandparents and my parents believed chiropractic care was the only thing we needed to be healthy and strong, believed it could ‘cure’ by older brother’s cerebral palsy. But as I grew up and was able to think for myself, there were too many things about what I had been told about vaccines that just didn’t make any sense. I did my research, the hard way, when I was expecting my first child, because I wanted to do what was best for her and for all my children to come. This was years prior to the Internet being available. Let me tell you, when you are reading through references books and scientific research in the library for hours at a time every day, you can learn a lot, and what I learned is science knows a lot more then you think they do, and the anti-vaccine myths, are exactly that, myths, as in made up, unable to be substantiated with science and meant to just scare people. The fact that I knew first hand how damaging VPDs can be, and the real truth I learned after reading about them convinced me it is by far safer to vaccinate my children then to leave them vulnerable to these diseases. I don’t think that anti-vaccine people are uneducated. On the contrary, they are very well educated, which gives them an arrogance to think they know more about science then scientists and more about medicine and disease then medical professionals who have studies it for years. If I have a tooth ache, I don’t try and fix it myself, I go to a dentist who has been schooled on how to fix it properly, when I am ill I see a doctor, I don’t believe that I know more then a doctor does simply because I read something on the Internet, because there is a lot of misinformation on the Internet. My mom believed she found a cure for diabetes on the Internet, fell for it and died just a few years later from renal failure, congestive heart failure and multiple massive strokes because she believed the things she read on the Internet gave her more knowledge about diabetes and treating it then doctors who told her she needs to eat properly, take her insulin and exercise regularly. She wasn’t even 62 years old. That to me is just one example of how devastating the myths and misinformation, that is rampant on the Internet, can be.

Since it doesn’t seem to have been done,

HERE…you will take note: In the discussion section

It’s a poster presentation, Lowell.

—scroll hard right and open the location to read—

Beg pardon? Most people don’t need instructions on how to read a single page, Lowell, much less ones that include nonsensical directives to “open the location.”

you will see 119 genes on the human genome with 535 “hotspots” where “residual DNA” (what is this?….the DNA from insects, animals, yeast, mold, viral forms, bacteria, and even ABORTED BABIES) that can cause autism and other neurodegenerative diseases..etc.

OH MY GOD, YEAST DNA. I’M GOING TO FERMENT FROM THE INSIDE OUT.

Anyway, this is none other than Tracy Deisher, who has already been addressed by our host.

OH MY GOD, YEAST DNA. I’M GOING TO FERMENT FROM THE INSIDE OUT.

Nah. This is homologous recombination we’re talking about. You’re a guy, right? You’ve got a handy release valve to get those cells out of your body. And if you’re a lady, well, those cells will be gone in a few weeks anyway (or 40).

Lowell,

compare YOUR available science collected, to my collection

I have been working my way through your collection, and none of it supports anything you say so far, apart from the antivaccination websites that make stuff up, and cranks like Blaylock, Tenpenny, the Geiers, and Chris Shaw.

Most of the citations have nothing to do with vaccines at all. Just because autism may have immunological aspects or inflammatory aspects doesn’t mean that vaccines cause it. Most illnesses have inflammatory and immunological aspects.

Studies on rats subjected to oxidative stress that have dopamine imbalance, or brain cancer cells in culture spiked with vast amounts of mercury that show damage don’t support any of your claims.

There’s even a citation of a study that does not refer to vaccine adjuvants but to microbial byproducts that act as adjuvants, which you have completely misunderstood. You clearly don’t understand a lot of scientific terminology and several of your citations actually say the opposite of what you seem to think they do.

By the way, you mentioned aluminum adjuvant safety studies. We know how much aluminum is toxic, from premature babies on TPN and kidney patients. We know what blood concentrations are associated with aluminum toxicity, and we know that vaccines with aluminum adjuvants do not elevate blood levels above the normal range. In fact the increase in blood levels is so small it is difficult to measure, and is a small fraction of the concentration required to cause toxicity.

Unless aluminum can magically travel from muscle to brain without passing through the blood (from where it would be rapidly excreted by the kidneys) I don’t see how aluminum in vaccines could possibly cause neurotoxicity. Even if that much aluminum was injected intravenously a child could excrete it without any harm. Adults taking aluminum antacids absorb more aluminum in a day than a vaccinated infant does in six months. There is no plausible reason to think the risks of aluminum adjuvants exceed their benefits, which are to reduce the amount of antigen required in vaccines.

A study by the FDA last year concluded:

The risk to infants posed by the total aluminum exposure received from the entire recommended series of childhood vaccines over the first year of life is extremely low, according to a study by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This study is important because it provides additional scientific information confirming that the benefits of aluminum-containing vaccines administered during the first year of life outweigh any theoretical concerns about the potential effect of aluminum on infants.

@ Lawrence

3:22 pm
@lowell – neither measles, mumps nor rubella are currently circulating in the United States, how would you supposed an outbreak is supposed to occur (regardless of vaccination status), unless it is brought in from the outside?

And since we can easily identify “patient zero” and at minimum vaccinate all of those that may have come in contact with the infected individual(s), there will be no further reservoir or hosts for the disease to continue…..

You argue against “herd immunity” – I think communal immunity is a better term, when the proof is right in front of you.

—————–

ZERO PROOF of anything you stated, you just talk anything that comes to your head, and think everyone is to believe it as fact and as if everything you state just because you assume it is so. As long as it sounds like provaccine politically correct statement anything goes and it is assumed to be correct; just like all these other posts. There is so much crap written here that has no basis in provable fact, and in these replies that it is beyond disgusting.

I come back in here 2 hrs later and I have 11 posted replies for 6 people, and you actually expect me to get all that garbage responded to? What a sick, sick, and in denial bunch of people and blog. But that has always been known.

WTF are you talking about? Nobody has complained about the timeliness of your replies.

3:23 pm
I am pretty darn sure that naturally acquired immunity, does NOT require additional herd immunity, to work!!! Agree, or disagree?
—
Not only do I agree, but I would like to point out that naturally acquired immunity is only acquired when herd immunity fails. Of course, it should also be pointed out that vaccine acquired immunity doesn’t require herd immunity to work.

——————–
Vaccine derived immunity doesn’t require herd immunity to work?

Isn’t that a little contradictory to the typically promoted pro-vaccine message on herd immunity? That claim is entirely opposite of what the CDC claims to.

Natural immunity is only acquired when herd immunity, fails??? Natural immunity leading to herd immunity would still occur in those to young to have been exposed, as you can not get immunity without acquiring the pathogen and likely the illness, or at least a sub clinical silent infection from it. I am actually debating this little mind game trivia stuff like this?

Ya, thats right, add ten more reply posts here directed to me; before I can get even two more replied to; it all looks real good then, for you.

Oops. Stupid iPhone. Just pointing out that Lowell still doesn’t understand basic biology or what “facts” ate.

Ah herd immunity. Nope it does not exist.

Thats right Lawrence, you guys again get two more questions added and loaded onto the screen here directed to, before I can get to the 8 more that you posted before that. Sick. You guys are awesome.

@ Krebiozen

3:25 pm
Lowell,

Your answer is in moderation but to add to that, I am pretty darn sure that naturally acquired immunity, does NOT require additional herd immunity, to work!!! Agree, or disagree?

You really don”t have a clue what ‘herd immunity’ actually means, do you? When babies are born, they do not have any immunity. Once enough babies have been born, the percentage of immune people will fall to a level below the herd immunity threshold. Surely you can understand that!

——————

I definitely have ALWAYS understood that, Lawrence. It is perfectly understandable and common sense in regard to natural immunity. However, in relation to vaccine derived herd immunity there are far more variable factors involved which turn the whole thing into a subject of an entirely different nature.

You only make a fool of yourself posting immature and DINGY questions like that. But that is mostly definitely not at all knew for you, and is your standard trademark. No matter what article it is on. Why don’t you just stick with the vaccine safety science, which is actually the most important issue? But you know you can’t do that, can you.

@ Lawrence

No, in fact what I have done is quite obviously, is to outline and point out your own insane and irrelevant ramblings, Lawrence; something that you keep completely wasting my time with. Are you filled with much hypocrisy, Lawrence? No, not at all, right?

@ Lawrence

I can answer any question you have Lawrence, and make you look like ignorant of fact fool that you repeatedly are, and do that on any article you are on, and any day of the week I choose to. Face it. And I have done that on every article you have ever been on.

Just because you throw onto the screen 9 dumb questions before even two can be answered, proves only what desperate moron you really are. It doesn’t prove anything. And do you really think I should need to sit here and answer to 20 question or comments put to me in a row. How many questions are you actually answering? Answer – none. That while and when all the while all you are doing is avoiding the real issue, which is that of the lack of vaccine safety science, which is the biggest elephant in the room that you all choose to repeatedly ignore.

How are these children, so many of them being damaged; and as well ending up with ASD, and all those disorders and end up across the board with the nations children in a state of being sicker than they have ever been in history, all parallel. All coincidence, right; with no answers; but you know its not vaccines, because they did a CDC funded epidemiological studies on one vaccine and one ingredient, and called it good.

But you know you Lawrence can’t be bothered with any minor details like that, as you have a pharma shill job to do. The CDC and Paul Offit deny it all and so can all of you. There is always another Orac/Gorski article you can spin off of and throw a link or two on the screen, with nothing else provided to back your claims. Think you don’t see that, that is all you people ever have.

@ Lawrence

Correlation for you, equals causation, when referring to where did measles go, no science nor actual proof needed. Correlation does not equal causation if anyone anywhere is asked for the proof that vaccines cause ASD, and no amount of unbiased science directly showing vaccines causing ASD and far more than ASD, will ever be enough nor do. When you ask you for proof of vaccine derived herd immunity, again correlation will always equal causation. When you put in front of you the information that shows biomedical treatment works, and why; and that many children were healed that mainstream had no answer for but more pharma drugs, you say again that correlation does NOT equal causation, no matter what, and you ask for the peer reviewed studies on it all as proof; and that you yourself can not produce to show any real safety data on the vaccines. This is classic hypocrisy, that you all deny.

let me give you an easy example, the more natural immunity acquired by a population, be it human or animal, the better chance you have of driving out the pathogen. Is that even debatable.

Funny how that didn’t work with measles, isn’t it, Lowell?

@ Lawrence

Nope, just diet coke here. But keep proving your own level of denial and childish immaturity, and your limited ability to only throw irrelevant poo at the screen and anyone that disagrees. I wouldn’t want anything to change with you, because you make such a good wiping post to get my points across.

Lowell,
I’m honestly trying to understand why you believe what appears to me to be nonsense in the face of what appears to me to be large amounts of evidence that contradicts it.
I simply don’t understand how you can make a statement like, “the more natural immunity acquired by a population, be it human or animal, the better chance you have of driving out the pathogen”. When in human history has any pathogen been “driven out” in this way? How could this possibly happen, since the only way of acquiring natural immunity to the kinds of contagious diseases we are discussing is to get the disease, and become contagious, thus spreading it to others?

This is like suggesting that if you burn your house down it will be fire-proof. Do you really want to go back to the days when thousands of children died or were permanently disabled by vaccine-preventable diseases (links to PDF), just so that the survivors acquire natural immunity? Really?

Why do you think why chicken pox has practically disappeared in the US, but in the UK about 90% of people still get it in childhood? Why do you think there have been tens of thousands of cases of measles in Europe this year (also links to PDF), with over 12,000 hospitalized?

I’m honestly trying to understand why you believe what appears to me to be nonsense in the face of what appears to me to be large amounts of evidence that contradicts it.

I was wondering about the same thing while taking a stroll. The most convincing explanation I could come up with is that he genuinely thinks it might get him laid.

Vote for Obama! You will see real science denial if R&R
win (in addition to other catastrophes)!

Narad

October 2, 8:11 pm
let me give you an easy example, the more natural immunity acquired by a population, be it human or animal, the better chance you have of driving out the pathogen. Is that even debatable.

Funny how that didn’t work with measles, isn’t it, Lowell?
————-

Like I just said, and I will say it again; it certainly works regarding natural immunity; that that is common sense because it results in long term solid and natural immunity.
Vaccines no matter how much you want to deny it, and claim otherwise; do not provide the same thing. Once a said pathogen is on the earth Narad, and causing or has caused 1000’s of cases of illness, does that pathogen stay actively causing illness until the end of time, historically speaking, is that what you actually conclude? And you are absolutely correct about that, and in no way are anything but vaccines responsible for any declines in disease, correct? How scientific is that, they said they have all the science, right? Vaccines equal more antibodies, and thus is proof of immunity; nothing more needed, right?

And lets say for an example, that vaccines all work exactly as they have been advertised for decades. Just exactly as Paul offit claims to, and its all good. Now, if those same vaccines were causing lets say hypothetically the 1 in 88 ASD figure.

What if as well the aluminum adjuvant content in the multiple and repeat vaccines were in some children causing over-activation of the brains microglia, and as well resulting chronic levels of brain inflammation. After all an aluminum adjuvant works by causing inflammation, multiple studies on that right in Pubmed, although they say the exact mechanism is poorly understood. Would that be an issue that the CDC should rightfully address and do more follow up studies, and to determine exactly what is going on, and confirm it on their own? Let me tell you that is exactly what is happening. This is no longer actually even an argument about if the vaccines work, but one of what have the vaccines done, and are there to many of them. There is where the real focus needs to be.

What if Dr Wakefield was right, and they covered it all up to discredit him. In fact he was right, and as well the recoveries in biomedical treatment clearly show that. Why has not the CDC addressed all these supporting studies, they say do not even exist?
http://www.callous-disregard.com/research.htm

How about this little girl right here, that recovered, and while main stream gave her no chance. She is not alone as there are so many of them that now have. That doesn’t point directly at the vaccines, detox and healing; not at all does it?

http://regardingcaroline.com/

I think you need to reset your debate subject priorities to something more highly relevant, Narad. But never mind me; what do I know, right?

@lowell – are you at a keggar this evening or just drinking by yourself?

I’d like to make a statement in this regard. It is indeed I who first mentioned Lowell’s track record. However, I do not fault him for having (one hopes) had an alcohol problem. I absolutely fault him for getting behind the wheel so frequently that he got busted four times, though, and now having the hypocritical gall to style himself some sort of defender of public safety by virtue of advancing semiliterate, sanctimonious, and incoherent antivaccine performances.

@Narad – perhaps he has gotten over his drinking problem. Obviously, his past history has not done much to improve either his intelligence, ability to form rational thoughts or analyze actual facts presented that utterly demolish his theories.

@ Narad

That was now nearly 7 years ago, dude. It is irrelevant. Your false accusations and current insinuations are entirely sick and quite obviously very desperate. Angry cause you can’t win here; it sure shows.

Think twice? What’s next, pray tell? Janine Roberts?

Your throwing 8 reply posts at a time made by 4 people, and you all want your questions answered right away, right? And then 6 more after that, right? And 4 more by three more people after that, right? And if I missed any you are pissed off and claiming it wasn’t and couldn’t be answered, right. Why haven’t you ever answered more than about one of my questions, as to what I put forth??? Sick tactics and stuff. Thats getting a little old, yaa think?

Good grief. Is this guy a full-time troll?

Speaking of vitamins—and horribly self-promoting (yes, I know I must get out the habit…)—I’ve written covering the research paper that came out today testing if vitamin D reduced the severity and duration of colds: http://http://bit.ly/Vrs8K8 (It didn’t. This research is led by researchers from my local university.)

@lowell

Too late, you didn’t answer the question in time, and your “facts” don’t directly answer the questions stated at all.

You struck out again.

But hey, at least I can show my fellow classmates and workers a perfect example of Dunning-Kreuger at work by pointing to your supposed “webpage” of facts. At least then can see what the damage chronic alcoholism can do to critical thinking skills.

Thank you for the entertainment, lowell, got any more idiocies to spit out?

Get to finding some aluminum adjuvant safety studies to counter the damage that all these studies show

Where are the studies proving broccoli is safe? It contains immunodulating chemicals like diindolylmethane, so it must cause autism.

By the way, a serving of mussels contains more aluminum than the entire vaccine schedule.

Measles was already in a major decline before the vaccine existed; do you need to know more?

More lies. Nearly 100% of people got measles before vaccination was introduced, just as they had for centuries before. Improvements in hygiene and medical care make no difference to the incidence of a highly contagious disease like measles that is spread by aerosol droplets, though fewer people die of it .

@ Lawrence

[@Lowell – how about just answering the simple questions instead of going off on tangents (or better yet, lay off the rants)?

Do you know the difference between mortality & incidence?

Which one went down due to better medical care & treatments, but didn’t effect the other?]

————

Lawrence, when a person can prove that so called modern medicine is currently the leading cause of death in the US, you obviously do not need to prove nor show anything else. You can accept the information or you can without cause deny the information, its all up to you.

Death By Medicine
http://www.vacfacts.info/death-by-medicine.html

The False Foundations of Modern Medicine
http://www.vacfacts.info/the-false-foundations-of-modern-medicine.html

The Modern Paradigm of Medicine is Deeply Flawed Because Western Medicine Promotes and Causes Disease
Hippocrates – The Body Can Heal Itself
http://www.healingourchildren.org/hippocrates-father-of-western-medicine-the-body-can-heal-itself/

Modern medicine is not the cure we were brought up to believe.
http://www.goodsamiam.com/modern_medicines_secret.htm

Like I said, your questions are irrelevant, Lawrence; for these reasons.

————–

[Which one actually resulted in the reduction of the incidence of VPDs from 95 – 99.5%?]

It doesn’t matter Lawrence, because the figures and graphs you are using are not the same figures and graphs I am using, and I believe mine are unbiased and correct.

[Also, what happens when you insert a large number of un-vaccinated individuals into a naturally immune population with actively circulating diseases (let’s say, “hypothetically”, the birth of a new generation of children)?

Now, compare that to today – what’s the difference Lowell?]

You are extremely confused Lawrence, as you believe that those diseases are all highly damaging and deadly. An unvaccinated child today that has not had all the endless vaccines, if you actually knew; clearly has in all cases I have ever known of, superior health to that of an unvaccinated child. In knowing specifically all the protocols and proper diet to keep the immune system functional and working correctly parents today would rather take their chances of natural infection and recovery with acquired immunity, than risk the chronic ill health and conditions that many vaccinated children now have, due to excessive repeat vaccination. You do not want to face the facts, Lawrence; and you never will. I don’t expect to change your mind.

[If you can’t answer these questions….well, actually what makes me think you’ll answer them. You can’t answer them without refuting your own illogical persona & self.]

Really Lawrence? looks like you are full of and spewing a bunch of twisted crap, to me? The provax side needs a guy like you. How is your search for those aluminum adjuvant safety studies coming along?

Somehow that link got mangled, it ought to be: http://bit.ly/Vrs8K8 (See also my Location.)

Denice Walter,

A local author has a book out espouses it as a miracle cure too. Ian Wishart is the author, if you know the name. I’ve asked my readers in my post if he covers colds in it as I haven’t read it (nor am inclined to!)

@ Narad

Thats pretty sick and hateful, Narad. And any such unrelated to this subject matter, personal attack like that and as well is obviously very desperate. You have no idea about me, nor have you ever met me; nor have you ever talked to me, relating to any such matters. Your claims are entirely without merit, and they are not an appropriate nor obviously relevant subject matter for discussion here. That is extremely sick and uncalled for!

————-

Your reply is there Lawrence, just wait for it to come up.

Thats pretty sick and hateful, Narad. And any such unrelated to this subject matter, personal attack like that and as well is obviously very desperate. You have no idea about me, nor have you ever met me; nor have you ever talked to me, relating to any such matters. Your claims are entirely without merit, and they are not an appropriate nor obviously relevant subject matter for discussion here. That is extremely sick and uncalled for!

Lowell, my concern for your apparently delicate sensibilities is the same as your concern for other people. Now, please try to pick your strongest, most bestest antivax talking point. Focus, dude.

@ ChrisP

You can yourself try having the insanity of endless reply posts thrown at you, that I have had here; and then come back and tell me about it what a simple deal that is to address every question in an adequate matter. Do you actually know how many reply posts that would take? I would be here all night, and likely still never get to the end of it. Wake up. And most it is the same old senseless and repeated dont get it, don’t want to get it, and refuse to get it and trash, that has been dealt with over and over before.

SMALL POX WAS NOT ERADICATED BY THE VACCINE- PERIOD. Did you read that? NOT! I have a website, why have you not just gone there and read the answer I would give you there, and with the referenced to material. Why do you think I have a website? You don’t want to learn of any of it; then DON’T learn. Rinderpest. That is the lamest comparison to anything related as reference information, that you could make. Oh, Rinderpest was eradicated, it all was eradicated by a vaccine. Go on believing it all, and when your children are damaged by 49 doses of 14 vaccines by the age of 6, I told you so. Just keep doing what your doing; your choice. The information is there is you want it.

Lowell, So your proof that smallpox was not eradicated by the vaccine is based on your website? Really, I think you should look at some other literature. Rather than “repeatedly ignoring and limiting the data you are willing accept”, don’t you?

Here is a long read all about the eradication of smallpox and the essential role vaccines played in that eradication

Here is a shorter read

Damn, the blog software has done it to me again. This is the long read

whqlibdoc.who.int/smallpox/9241561106.pdf

Measles was already in a major decline before the vaccine existed; do you need to know more?

No, it was not. And if you refuse to believe the data at the link Chris posted, just go ask anyone with children born between 1955 and 1980.

As for your claim about smallpox not being eradicated by vaccines, you’ll need to do more than type in all caps.

Dang…that should have been 1960.

Some of us are old enough to remember getting the measles, having all of our siblings get the measles, and all of our friends and classmates get the measles.

Janerella: I tend not to debate facts.

I think you just won the thread.

@Narad

I would take it that your reluctance to accept anything that hasn’t been put forth by the CDC, the WHO, and Paul Offit, is off your list of acceptable references. So, what would it matter, it all gets swiped off the table before it even gets on the table, or barely on the table so what would it matter.

Now thats an Narad’s arse hole full of in denial spewing volcano. Talk all the smack and crap you want.

Well, thanks PGP, but the collective pwning of the Lowltroll has been achieved most bodaciously by commentators far more eloquent and knowledgeable than me.

Vaccine derived immunity doesn’t require herd immunity to work?

Isn’t that a little contradictory to the typically promoted pro-vaccine message on herd immunity? That claim is entirely opposite of what the CDC claims to.

Goofus is, to no one’s surprise, completely incorrect about what the CDC claims. No, vaccine-derived immunity doesn’t require herd immunity to work. They are two complementary approaches to disease prevention, just like two complementary approaches to “not getting hurt by flying projectiles” would be “wearing padding” and “doing something to reduce the number of projectiles flying around.”

Increasing one’s own individual resistance to disease through vaccination is the equivalent of “wearing padding”; it’s a way that even if you do get hit by a flying projectile, your chances of being hurt by the projectile are much lower.

Herd immunity is “reducing the number of projectiles flying around.” If you catch a disease like measles, how did you catch it? From someone else who had it. How did they catch it? From someone else who had it. And so on, and so on, and so on, as far back as you want to trace.

Now, what would have happened if the person before you, let’s call her Alice, had been vaccinated? Even if the vaccine was only 80% effective, if Alice had been vaccinated, that means that there’s an 80% chance she wouldn’t have gotten the measles. You definitely couldn’t have caught the measles from Alice if she didn’t have them! What if the person who gave the measles to Alice, Bill, what if Bill had been vaccinated when he ran into the person who infected him? Then there’s an 80% chance that he never would have caught the measles from that person. If he never caught the measles, Alice couldn’t have caught it from him, and then she couldn’t have passed it on to you – and so on, and so on! If both Alice and Bill are vaccinated, there’s only a 4% chance of the infection even reaching you by that route.

If even a vaccine which is only effective 80% of the time can break chains of infection so well, you may well ask, “then why haven’t diseases like measles died out completely since we got vaccines for them?” Well, notice that we said that if both Alice and Bill got vaccinated with an 80% effective vaccine, your chance of being exposed was only 4%, by that route of infection. You might completely avoid being exposed to measles by Alice and Bill in the morning, and then get exposed to the pathogen by Quentin in the afternoon.

So, when only a handful of people in the population get vaccinated, it helps them, but not necessarily others. As more and more people get vaccinated, however, the more chains of infections get broken. Your chance of catching a disease starts to go down just because people you might have caught the disease from are getting protected from it. The phenomenon of people getting protected because other people have been protected from it is called herd immunity – which is why, if you read someone saying “Oh, naturopathic/homeopathic/dietary methods are much better than vaccines at warding off infections; vaccines don’t work and neither does herd immunity,” you know you’re listening to someone who doesn’t know what they’re talking about. If those naturopathic/homeopathic/dietary methods actually did work to significantly reduce people’s vulnerability to disease, enough people in a population using them would have a herd immunity effect. Likewise, anyone who says “vaccine-derived immunity needs herd immunity to work” is badly misinformed; herd immunity can complement vaccine-derived individual immunity, but it’s not a foundation of vaccine-derived individual immunity.

@ Narad

Did you want to speak to me personally about it and your earlier said accusations, and you know before you go spewing all that B. S., about me personally? You know, you should have done that first. You should actually know someone before you accuse falsely that kind of trash. I can tell you all about why it is not true. Or otherwise give me your identity and I can see what kind of dirt I can actually dig up on you.

@ Antaeus Feldspar

You know I read about half way through all that twisted nonsense and concluded that you clearly haven’t an actual clue. Alice, Bill, and Quentin where do they live? I need to go show them some aluminum adjuvant not so safety studies, and inform them about the contamination in vaccines, and as well the human diploid cell contamination linked to autism. I think they will listen better than you do. I’m going to try. LOL!

Oh, for crying out loud, that has a splice-out at 4:50.

Lowell,

You managed to not present a single piece of substance in your rant opposing my linked article, only rather silly personal attacks. Entertaining, perhaps, but silly.

(Lowell obviously hasn’t read what I wrote, as their research is placed in context with earlier, which I note in my article. I also point out some of the limitations, too.)

@ Narad

Do you have alzheimers. That B.S. you lied about because you know what I have is actually the truth, and you need to and have to throw any false mud and poo you could find.

That song seemed a little extra dumb, to me?

Don’t forget about all that vaccine harm science as to and regarding aluminum adjuvants, that the CDC has refused to acknowledge, Narad. That is irresponsible to have that information available and to never have done any safety studies in the entire history of the CDC. Giving the substance aluminum an FDA approval rating of (GRAS) generally regarded as safe, in 1929; and then never considering doing aly safety studies even though aluminum adjuvants have beens used for nearly 80 years; would you call that irresponsible and reckless? A neurological poison, and remains generally regarded as safe to inject in a vaccine? Just as reckless as they were with Thimerosal and continue to be.

And that study on human diploid cells contamination and its connection as well to autism. Sure is something how the FDA has covered-up all the issues on vaccine contamination, while clearly knowing the potential for what that can do, as to causing chronic illness and autoimmune disease. Gardasil, what a dangerous vaccine, and now as
well with thousands of young women left with unrecovered from neurological conditions and what they call new medical conditions. Again, denial of all and that there is any proof. They are not looking but they actually know, without acknowledging all those said problems are there. They can’t as it would cause potentially the whole vaccine program to crumble at the foundation, as it actually implicates the problems with all vaccines.

Did you know that Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s study was actually replicated more than once with the same findings. Thats right, the case against him was built on their own fraud. They know what that vaccine has done, and they aren’t actually that stupid. To much to lose. Wakefield and his primate studies, it all had to be discredited; and with money and power and hidden pharma connected conflict of interest, they got away with it all.

Research References
http://www.callous-disregard.com/research.htm

Don’t forget this site, Narad! I know you actually want to educate yourself to the facts.

Vac Facts.info
http://www.vacfacts.info/the-vaccine-damage—science.html

And when you get some spare time, you will want to go through this presentation video by Dr. Russell Blaylock. Wow, I wonder why the CDC never investigated that information and considered doing any further studies to confirm or deny that all that was true. Seems like they are in the dark ages, and all their crank telephones must fallen off the walls in 1959, and no call to the actual science department has been made since.

THE CENTRAL ROLE OF IMMUNOEXCITOTOXICITY IN ALUMINUM AND MERCURY-CONTAINING ADJUVANT-TRIGGERED NEURODEVELOPMENTAL AND NEURODEGENERATIVE DISORDERS

Published Papers – Dr. Russell Blaylock
http://www.russellblaylockmd.com/

And they actually call this guy a quack, just because he sells a newsletter and a product which in reality does more good in healing than pharma has or could ever do.

Dr. Russell Blaylock is a board certified neurosurgeon, author and lecturer. He attended the Louisiana State University School of Medicine in New Orleans and completed his general surgical internship and neurosurgical residency at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston, South Carolina. During his residency training he worked with the eminent neurosurgeon, Dr. Ludwig Kempe. Together they developed the transcallosal removal of intraventricular tumors, a technique still used today. For the past 25 years he has practiced neurosurgery in addition to having a nutritional practice. He recently retired from his neurosurgical duties to devote his full attention to nutritional studies and neuroscience research.

Sure am glad I could use you for a sounding board, Narad. However, actually a blog like this as to all this denial and refuse to get; it is not something you can stomach every day. Actually, I would rename it, As the Stomach Turns.

@ Lara Lohne (AKA: Venna)

You aren’t able to answer the questions as they are posed to you, either you lack the ability to answer or you don’t understand the questions are they are being asked. You could ask for clarification if the latter were true, but my guess is you’re just getting angry and defensive because you can’t answer them because your huge collection of data just doesn’t have answers to those questions.

————————

What amazes me is just how baseless, delusional, in denial you are as to your comments. It seems to be more than a bit contagious here. If they could find a vaccine for that, then we would be getting somewhere.

Lowell,

Thank you for confirming that you have not read my article (http://bit.ly/Vrs8K8) or the research paper :-

You wrote “they only used the standard RDA of 400 IU per day”.

They did not.

They used 100,000 IU, given monthly.

This is stated quite clearly in the their abstract and quoted near the top of my article. Let me quote it here for you:

“monthly administration of 100 000 IU of vitamin D did not reduce the incidence or severity of URTIs in healthy adults.”

If you read my article or the research paper you can verify this for yourself.

Lowell , October 2, 2:20 pm, full of sound and fury, dignifying nothing (sorry, Wm):

@ Bill price

If B. parapertussis is actually indistinguishable from B . pertussis, how is its presence detected, and why does it have a name that is distinguishable from the other’s name?
If the one is actually indistinguishable from the other, how are they detected separately? Hint: ‘literally’ is a synonym for ‘actually’ of ‘in fact’.
Or maybe it’s just the case that you are as confused and/or ignorant of physiology and immunology as you have shown yourself to be of epidemiology and science in general.
——————

Well, as long as you misrepresent what I have stated, you can twist it around and pretend that to be true. Do you do that intentionally? Of course you do.

(My questions for Lowell to answer are bold and/or underlined, if either of these basic html features are supported by this blogging software.)
How did my direct quote of your words misrepresent what you stated? How is my direct quote of your own wording “twist[ing] it around and pretending [something] to be true?” My attempt to make some sense of your statements was, indeed, intentional. I posed some questions, in that attempt: do you now attack me for questioning your “truth” (or is it your troof?).

You have zero basis for any such claims.

The only claims I make are “‘literally’ is a synonym for ‘actually’ or ‘in fact’”. What problem do you see in these claims that give you a basis for contesting them? Do I need to do your basic dictionary work for you? Hint: I not volunteering — you get to do your own basic dictionary work. Keep the dictionary handy as you read further: I’m going to use some big words like ‘mutagenicity’, which is a topic you bring up without naming.

What was being referred to is of course that B pertussis it[sic] symptomatically similar to B. Parapertussis. However somewhat related, it was NOT referred to as the same bacterial pathogen.

Your original words, which I quoted earlier, were that the pathogens B. pertussis and B. parapertussis are “literally indistinguishable”. You are now misrepresenting what you said earlier when you claim them to be merely “symptomatically similar”. Do you do that intentionally? Of course you do.
You now claim that, in an Alice in Wonderland fashion, “literally indistinguishable” means “symptomatically similar”, “somewhat related”, but not “the same pathogen.” Can you explain, as I asked before, how, being “literally indistinguishable”, one can determine that they are not “the same pathogen”. If, as you claim, there’s no way to tell them apart (“literally indistinguishable”) then just how does one tell them apart? Or are you just contradicting yourself to defend your faith?

You are asking me, how it is detected,

Yes. That’s the question just above: if, as you claim, they cannot be distinguished, how can they be distinguished? (The question is rewritten so that maybe one of versions will make sense to you.) I know full well, as do most of the rest of us here, that B. pertussis and B. parapertussis are distinct organisms. It is you who has claimed them to be identical. I asked you to support your claim of identity, in light of your other claims about their differing antibody responses. If you have now contradicted your earlier claim of “literally indistinguishable”, presumably for good reason, then the question’s basis is removed. Your public self-contradiction is sufficient answer to my original question.

and you claim to understand physiology, immunology, and epidemiology.

I have made no claims. I point out that any understanding that I may or may not have should be apparent from my writing, regardless of any claims I make or which are made for me. I will make one multi-part claim now: “I have a basic lay understanding of physiology, immunology, and epidemiology, among other subjects. I read, understand and write English. I have sufficient understanding that I am sometimes able to spot nonsense in these areas, and ask potentially appropriate questions concerning the nonsense.” What I claim to be able to do is exactly what I have done.

You have got to be kidding. PCR test is what they use; if and when they actually test for it; ever heard of it?

Of course I have: Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) is used to amplify a tiny genetic sample to the point where it suffices for subsequent DNA testing. PCR is not, itself, a DNA test. (That came from my own understanding, with no recourse to Google of Wikipedia. I did watch the OJ trial in 1994 or so, where PCR played a big rôle.)

Nice try and trash filled expose[sic] though.

(In order to make sense of this, I’ve read ‘expose’ as ‘exposée’ in both places, and rendered it properly in my reply. If that is incorrect, please let me know.)
What, pray tell, might my “trash filled expos[ée]” have exposed? I noticed that your claims made no sense to me, and I asked you to explain how your claims might have merit. Your response has been an attack on me for daring to question you.

Here is a question for you, does your twisted expose[sic] discredit how an antibiotic causes a bacteria to mutate and change to the point it evades an antibiotic, too? Thats not real nor ever happened either, right.

Short answer: the question isn’t even wrong, but I’ll address it anyway as if it were a valid question with a valid basis.
When I asked for clarification of your seeming nonsense, I asked you to justify your claim that a vaccine-induced antibody could be mutagenic, while the identical infection-induced antibody would not be mutagenic. Not only do you refuse to address that question, but you add to that seeming nonsense with this question.
You do, don’t you, understand enough basic biology (evolution, in particular) to distinguish between mutagenicity and selection? If you don’t so understand, you’re in the wrong discussion.
I would ask you, like I asked concerning antibodies, how “an antibiotic causes a bacteria to mutate and change to the point it evades an antibiotic”. I am aware, of course, with my basic lay understanding of biology, how an antibiotic can (when it’s improperly used) select for pre-existing resistant strains in a bacteria population. But that’s not what you’re asking. I know of no instances where an antibiotic has caused a mutation for antibiotic resistance in any bacterium. Can you point to such an instance?
Of course it’s possible for antibiotic resistance to occur as a mutation: the Lenski experiment shows that a sufficiently large population of bacteria, after a sufficiently large number of of generations, can spontaneously produce interesting mutations. In the Lenski experiment, it took about 33000 (IIRC) generations for the glucose-dependent bacteria to come up with a population that could thrive in citrate-rich, glucose-deprived environment. On the other hand, Lenski and crew didn’t report any mutagenic substances in the bacteria’s foodstuffs. His experiment design would not be appropriate for testing antibiotics for mutagenicity. That would have to be a different design.

Bill Price, a good explanation, but sadly wasted on Lowell.

This could be an entertaining discussion, but whatever software Lowell is using to translate into English, it isn’t working.

I closed that bold tag, I checked it, and the damnable thing has vanished. Grrr.

You know I read about half way through all that twisted nonsense and concluded that you clearly haven’t an actual clue. Alice, Bill, and Quentin where do they live? I need to go show them some aluminum adjuvant not so safety studies, and inform them about the contamination in vaccines, and as well the human diploid cell contamination linked to autism. I think they will listen better than you do. I’m going to try. LOL!

If there’s anyone out there (other than the Goofus who can’t understand the concept of “thought experiment”) who tried to understand my explanation of herd immunity and couldn’t, please, let me know what you found confusing and I’ll try even harder.

GALLANT asks respectfully for clarification when someone gives a polite explanation and he doesn’t follow it all. GOOFUS sneers and tries to change the subject to something else he thinks he can “win.”

I actually had to open another window so I could reply and yet not miss anything!

@Lowell

“No complaint was ever made that ICE or FBI had hacked my facebook nor my site”

http://torrentfreak.com/feds-seize-new-domain-add-to-bat$hit-conspiracy-theories-110608/

(replace the $ with an s if you use the above link. Hate getting caught up in the profanity filter)

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/06/no-the-feds-didnt-seize-your-domain-youve-just-been-punked/

http://vaccineconspiracytheorist.blogspot.dk/2011/06/lowell-hubbss-personal-website-seized.html

“Hacked by a known individual”

Really, you make me laugh.. especially when you try to use Natural News, Mercola, Blaylock, Gaia Health as ‘evidence’

B. parapertussis is not the same thing as B. pertussis. There’s a reason why the names are different – because they’re different species.

If they were the same organism, they’d have the same damn name.

Congratulations on failing 5th grade biology.

@Beamup

Lowell can’t tie his shoes unless he checks with Blaylock or Mercola.

He’s incapable of being rational, he’s incapable of thinking critically. He exists on the pablum put out by Natural News, Gaiahealth and the healthy home economist.

Again, he’s so dense that light bends around him.

Lowell is starting to make me miss Thingy’s pithy quips.

@Edith Prickly
Thingy sneaked one in under a sock puppet known as INF-b yesterday evening. It’s been banned from yet another blog and has shown up there using the same nym demanding that Th1Th2 be unbanned. Of course that isn’t going to happen and I believe it has been banned again, from its new nym, on that blog since I’ve not heard from it in a couple of days.

Thingy sneaked one in under a sock puppet known as INF-b yesterday evening.

It still hasn’t figured out how to make a beta? It used an Eszett when deploying this name at MDC.

I find the reactions of people who adamantly believe what appears to the rest of us to be obviously untrue being confronted with inconvenient facts, as Lowell has been above, oddly fascinating. Last night I watched a BBC documentary called ‘Conspiracy Road Trip’. It featured a British comedian taking a group of British 9/11 Troofers across America to be confronted with evidence that contradicted their beliefs. It’s the same phenomenon we see here so frequently, of people who adopt a belief and then collect evidence that fits it and either discard or discredit everything else, or distort or misinterpret it so it does fit.

Particularly interesting to me was when they talked to an air traffic controller who told then that on 9/11 the various agencies didn’t communicate with each other properly, and that it was all a horrible screw-up. The conspiracy nuts came away thinking he had told them it was a government cover-up. Any of you curious about the psychology of this stuff, as displayed above, might enjoy it if you get the chance.

Matt,

I agree. Incidentally, Hilary Butler pushes the baking soda cures cancer and cancer is a fungal infection lines too (and being me, I’ve written about that too).

One more thing – good nutritional status plus plentiful UV exposure leads to high D3 levels. Many people in countries with a lot of sunshine do not have good nutritional status. My suggestion above that people in sunnier climes should have high D3 levels fails.