Fraud at the CDC uncovered

[Lady_Disdain]

Well I'm beginning to understand my vet making the comment that he wished all children were cared for as well as my dog is.

Yup! There are plenty of great parents but not every child is so fortunate.

One of the most chilling statistic I saw back when I worked for a hospital (I am not a doctor, I did project management): children's emergency room visits go up after the novela (soap opera) ends.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I'm all for life-saving vaccines, but I really think they should be spaced out more. For a 2 month old baby to get 4+ vaccines at once? Absolutely ridiculous. My kids are vaccinated but we are spacing them out a bit, to allow their tiny bodies to process the aluminum, formaldehyde, etc. a bit more effectively. It's NEVER a bad thing to question authority and to not just blindly listen to whatever a doctor tells us. A newborn baby one hour old born to a Hep B negative mother does not need a Hep B vaccine. Completely silly. It's scary how much blind faith some people put in their doctors and the CDC.

+100

Both of my daughter's children are doing alternate schedules with agreement from the pediatrician. Babies today get at least twice the vaccines their parents had or maybe more.

 

[momhappy]

As I said earlier, we spaced out vaccines too, but I do not believe that there any any valid studies to support that it provides any benefits (other than giving parents peace of mind). Studies indicate that an infant's immune system has the capacity to respond to an extremely large number of antigens (and T cells/B cells are being constantly replenished, so the immune system is never weekend and/or "used up" if multiple vaccines are administered at one time). I believe that children receive about 20 vaccines by the time they enter kindergarten, but I was actually surprised to learn that there are fewer antigens in today's vaccines vs. those administered 100 years ago (the small pox vaccine alone contained a very large amount of proteins). I guess that this is due (in part) to advances in chemistry over the years that have resulted in the use of fewer antigens. Perhaps someone here with a scientific/medical background could address this better? As parents, we do everything we can to protect our children, so it's only natural to want to protect them from what seems like an overwhelming amount of vaccines at any given time. We made the choice to space out the vaccines simply for peace of mind, but I believe that the standard schedule is safe & effective.

 

[partgypsy]

Yes I believe they have refined vaccines to give the least amount of exposure, for the most protection. Many previous vaccines used "live virus" which could actually infect a small subset of people. Most (maybe all) vaccines in US now use virus fragments that can't actually cause the disease/infection, but still prompt the body to produce antigens.
I would think the regular schedule of vaccinations is safe though to tell the truth I haven't done research on it, other than to know we and our kids are naturally exposed to multiple antigens on any given day. The only thing is I would discuss with doctor if there is a known reason your child naturally has a lowered immuned system or response, or if your child is showing cold symptoms the day they are due for shot (because they are already fighting an infection).
Studies have found that children who don't live in as sterile of situations (exposed to dirt) typically have a stronger immune system than those children who are living in more sheltered situations. Some things that seem intuitively better (like antibacterial soap) turn out not to be so good. I don't mean to start an argument with anyone. There are many things that I am pro personal choice and decision. However this is a public health issue. If the number of people who get immunized drops below a certain level, herd immunity doesn't work. An example is that if employees in a hospital don't get a flu shot (because they are an adult, healthy and don't think they will get the flu, or think it is a hassle) then it exposes frail, elderly and sick patients to the flu, where it can make them really sick or possibly kill them. You are not JUST getting the shots for your kids, but for EVERYONE.

 

[JaneSmith]

Even though the routine childhood schedule in 2012 contains several more vaccines than the schedule in the late 1990s, the maximum number of antigens to which a child could be exposed by age 2 years was 315 in 2012.

As opposed to a single DTP shot in the 90's that would have around 3000 antigens. 3000 in one vaccine in the 90's, 315 from multiple vaccines now.

Beginning at birth, an infant is exposed to hundreds of viruses and other antigens, and it has been estimated that an infant theoretically could respond to thousands of vaccines at once.

http://www.jpeds.com/webfiles/images/journals/ympd/JPEDSDeStefano.pdf
So there are more vaccines (yay! less horrible diseases to suffer from), and less antigen load (yay science, with all your progress and whatnot), and a slew of epidemiologists and physiologists and other educated people whose area of considerable expertise is figuring out how to safely offer maximum protection to vulnerable populations.

Delaying vaccines leaves a longer window of opportunity for these diseases to infect your children. It does not protect them from some imagined immune system overload.

This answers the hepB question:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/why-universal-hepatitis-b-vaccination-isnt-quite-universal/

The 'toxins' in vaccines question:
http://vaxplanations.wordpress.com/2014/04/11/is-the-aluminium-in-vaccines-a-dangerous-amount-is-it-toxic/
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/toxic-myths-about-vaccines/
There is more formaldehyde in a pear than in a vaccine, and babies get more aluminum from breast milk in 6 months than they do from vaccines.

 

[blackprophet]

Even though the routine childhood schedule in 2012 contains several more vaccines than the schedule in the late 1990s, the maximum number of antigens to which a child could be exposed by age 2 years was 315 in 2012.

As opposed to a single DTP shot in the 90's that would have around 3000 antigens. 3000 in one vaccine in the 90's, 315 from multiple vaccines now.

Beginning at birth, an infant is exposed to hundreds of viruses and other antigens, and it has been estimated that an infant theoretically could respond to thousands of vaccines at once.

http://www.jpeds.com/webfiles/images/journals/ympd/JPEDSDeStefano.pdf
So there are more vaccines (yay! less horrible diseases to suffer from), and less antigen load (yay science, with all your progress and whatnot), and a slew of epidemiologists and physiologists and other educated people whose area of considerable expertise is figuring out how to safely offer maximum protection to vulnerable populations.

Delaying vaccines leaves a longer window of opportunity for these diseases to infect your children. It does not protect them from some imagined immune system overload.

This answers the hepB question:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/why-universal-hepatitis-b-vaccination-isnt-quite-universal/

The 'toxins' in vaccines question:
http://vaxplanations.wordpress.com/2014/04/11/is-the-aluminium-in-vaccines-a-dangerous-amount-is-it-toxic/
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/toxic-myths-about-vaccines/
There is more formaldehyde in a pear than in a vaccine, and babies get more aluminum from breast milk in 6 months than they do from vaccines.

Jane you forgot the picture!
Let me do the honours:


I will probably get flamed to H3ll for this but Imma say it anyways.

I actually see a parallel between the Anti-Vaxxer issue and the Gun Control issue. American culture has cultivated a healthy amount of skepticism towards the "government", which has also bled into other high level bodies, such as the CDC. A number of people in this thread and the ebola thread says that the CDC shouldn't be trusted and that people should make up their own minds. Similar to other threads that don't trust the government to appropriately manage their tax dollars, or don't trust the police to be truly defending people and not trying to turn the county into a police state. Or even the constitutional right to own a gun to defend yourself from too much government control (preventing a return to a monarchy or some other autocratic rule). That level of paranoia is baked into American society. I don't see this as a negative thing, but I do think that it is a very American thing.

I'm Canadian and here it is very different. We like big government, we are ok with higher taxes, and are more accommodating to government oversight and regulation. But the way we became a country was vastly different to the US and the way we have evolved as countries shows it. Although a certain part of our population is shifting towards a value system that is closer to America. But even our most Radical Right wing conservative agenda politicians would still probably be left for most of your left wing politicians.

I find it fascinating. For the non-Americans who want greater insight to where these values come from, if you ever get a change visit Philadelphia, take the guided tour of Independence Hall. I've done it 3 times, and its is amazing and very informative.

 

[msop04]

I will probably get flamed to H3ll for this but Imma say it anyways.

I actually see a parallel between the Anti-Vaxxer issue and the Gun Control issue. American culture has cultivated a healthy amount of skepticism towards the "government", which has also bled into other high level bodies, such as the CDC. A number of people in this thread and the ebola thread says that the CDC shouldn't be trusted and that people should make up their own minds. Similar to other threads that don't trust the government to appropriately manage their tax dollars, or don't trust the police to be truly defending people and not trying to turn the county into a police state. Or even the constitutional right to own a gun to defend yourself from too much government control (preventing a return to a monarchy or some other autocratic rule). That level of paranoia is baked into American society. I don't see this as a negative thing, but I do think that it is a very American thing.

I'm Canadian and here it is very different. We like big government, we are ok with higher taxes, and are more accommodating to government oversight and regulation. But the way we became a country was vastly different to the US and the way we have evolved as countries shows it. Although a certain part of our population is shifting towards a value system that is closer to America. But even our most Radical Right wing conservative agenda politicians would still probably be left for most of your left wing politicians.

I find it fascinating. For the non-Americans who want greater insight to where these values come from, if you ever get a change visit Philadelphia, take the guided tour of Independence Hall. I've done it 3 times, and its is amazing and very informative.

Very interesting perspective, blackprophet... Thanks for posting.

 

[ksinger]

Well, well, WELL. Why am I so NOT surprised at this new info?

This is a prime example of the unnecessary froth generated by people with a stubborn conspiracy mindset and an axe to grind.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/27/health/irpt-cdc-autism-vaccine-study/index.html

"A study published earlier this month concluded African-American boys are more at risk for autism if they're given the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine before the age of 2. The study author says researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention knew about the link in 2004 -- and covered it up.

CDC researchers are standing by their original findings: that there is no link between autism and vaccination schedules.
The new study was funded by the Focus Autism Foundation, which says it is dedicated to exposing the causes of autism, "focusing on the role of vaccinations."

The study has since been removed from the public domain pending further investigation, according to Translational Neurodegeneration.
In an online statement, the scientific journal said the paper had been removed "because of serious concerns about the validity of its conclusions."
.
.
.
...study by Hooker has been publicized by groups like Focus Autism, which say vaccines have contributed to the "current autism epidemic and rise of chronic illness in children." Hooker is a scientific adviser for the Focus Autism Foundation. He also has a 16-year-old son with developmental delays who he said is "vaccine injured."

 

[partgypsy]

Yes, it's a rehash of an earlier study, and the earlier study already discussed the flaws of the study (vaccine giving schedule and amount confounded with admission to headstart program). They re-analyzed the same data, but without going into the caveats that the earlier study discusses.

Interestingly the earlier study only wanted to look at children who had birth certificates, so they could analyze and control for various factors. Including the fact that the group who later developed autism had a lower body weight at birth.

 

[vintagelover229]

I've read every reply with a lot of interest I don't have anything useful to add (I'm far from an immunologist) but I'm thankful for time and effort each of you put into contributing to this post (and remaining civil lol). PSers sure are a knowledgeable bunch!