VACCINES: Please read.

[february2003bride]

I have been following Jenny McCarthy''s cause for the last few years now and I want to point out that she herself at a rally for Green Vaccines & Autism in D.C. specifically said she is NOT anti-vaccine. Jenny McCarthy firmly believes we NEED vaccines. She is fighting for GREEN vaccines.

With every product, medical or otherwise, made in this world you will never find something that is 100% safe for everyone. I know a child you developed Stevens-Johnson syndrome when his mother have him Motrin for a fever. Should Mortin be banned? No. The side effects are clearly stated on the box. I''m allergic to penicillin. Should I fight for penicillin to be banned because I had an allergic reaction at the age of 3? No way. With every vaccine given at my pediatrician''s office, parents must inital on their child''s chart that they spoke to the dr. about the vaccine and it''s potential side effects. Maybe I''m lucky, but my pediatrician''s office has no problem spacing shots out as long as they are completed by the age of 2- 2 1/2 years old, whereas I know some prefer to have them completed by the age of 18 months.

Between 1 child with a drug allergy, 2 children that had life threatening food allergies, my best friend''s son has autism and 2 of my neighbors'' children, and a researcher by nature I feel that I am as well versed on vaccines as a parent can be. I do wish vaccines were totally green but we haven''t reached that point yet in the medical field. I hope that by the time my children have children, most if not all vaccines will be 100% safe.

I agree completely with Neatfreak that there are already areas of our country that are having outbreaks of diseases that are due to parents not vaccinating. My son''s preschool had a child come to school with typhoid fever two weeks ago! People travel in and out of this country overseas every single day. I remember reading a quote by an anti-vaccine parent who said something like "Whopping cough is non-existant now. Why vaccinate for it?" I''ve since read that several areas of the country (including Northern VA where I live) have seen the highest cases of whopping cough in children in years. Diseases can and do reemerge.

 

[february2003bride]

Date: 11/2/2009 1:09:46 PM
Author: neatfreak

Date: 11/2/2009 12:29:35 PM
Author: Ellen

Date: 11/1/2009 7:26:04 PM

Author: LtlFirecracker

Ellen, I will try to answer that question without breaking policy. There are some small sects of people, many of whom are associated by faith (although they are not the mainstream) who have been campaigning against immunizations long before Jenny McCarthy and the vaccine autism debate that has brought this into the mainstream. This physician is writing articles for that group, I am not sure what he personally believes.


Here is a great article given to me by one of my classmates. It is long, but it really does a nice job of showing how the anti-vacceine industry bends facts for their positions. One tactic they are using is scapegoating single physicians by saying they are only in this for fincicial incentives. This artcle constrasts the things that are being said by the anti-immunization industry with the true life of this physician and his real motivations for dedicating his life to the fight against disease in children.


http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/10/ff_waronscience/

This is a clear case of the fox gaurding the chicken house. The man co-invented a vaccine produced by Merk, and at one time (when his vac was voted in the first time, but quickly yanked, then was put back in circulation in 2006 apprently) sat on the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, among other things which could skew his motivation. Can we say conflict of interest?? I want the people who are deciding what I should put in my child to be unbiasesd. I don''t want them to have any kind of vested interest, whether it be the patenting of a vaccine, being an advisor to a Big Pharma company, sitting on a hospital board that receives funds from Big Pharma, etc. And really, that shouldn''t be that hard to do, but that''s not how it works.

You can throw out all the critics you like, there will just be more lined up to take their place, a large majority of which are doctors, with NO vested interest, (and mothers who know their kids better than anyone, and can see causal relationships). Why is that? That''s the question everyone should be asking.

Ellen with all due respect mothers can''t see causal relationships in these situations. Just because a child becomes sick shortly after a vaccine DOES NOT mean the vaccine is at fault. I wish you could see that.

And as for the fox-how about you read the article I linked to from the New England Journal of Medicine? There really isn''t a better resource for good information. And while you are at it I highly recommend that you see how the article is written. Notice all the numbers next to a sentence that lead you to OTHER reputable sources when the authors make a claim? It''s called a citation. And I really recommend that you look for them in the articles you are reading because they aren''t there-and if they are they are citing OTHER websites which don''t cite their claims.

The people you are believing are making baseless claims without backing them up-and believe me many of them do have vested interests. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.


Again, the link to the NEJM article on vaccinations:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/360/19/1981

And I wanted to say that I am so sorry you lost your first little one to SIDS. That must have been devastating.

Ditto to the highlighted. As I just posted, my best friend''s son has autism. His development stopped shortly after his 1st birthday, after his MMR vaccine. He was diagnosed at the age of 3 with autism. His mother blamed his vaccines, but the deeper she dived into the autism world, the more she doubted her anger towards it. Now, she doesn''t blame the MMR at all (and most of her Autism support groups don''t either, surprisingly), but rather genetics, possibly diet, and environmental triggers. She slowly came to this conclusion after months of conversations with her son''s specialists and doctors. That being said, she is not 100% sure that ONE of his vaccines (not specifically the MMR) didn''t trigger his autism to show itself or if it was a virus. She does believe that the autism would have showed itself eventually. I asked her what other parents in her autism support groups thought, and she said there will always be parents who believe that vaccines are the devil who cause their child(ren) to have autism. She said that the more research is done on autism, the more it shows that it''s genetic. It''s just a matter of when will the autism show itself and what was the trigger.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 11/2/2009 1:09:46 PM
Author: neatfreak

Date: 11/2/2009 12:29:35 PM
Author: Ellen

Date: 11/1/2009 7:26:04 PM

Author: LtlFirecracker

Ellen, I will try to answer that question without breaking policy. There are some small sects of people, many of whom are associated by faith (although they are not the mainstream) who have been campaigning against immunizations long before Jenny McCarthy and the vaccine autism debate that has brought this into the mainstream. This physician is writing articles for that group, I am not sure what he personally believes.


Here is a great article given to me by one of my classmates. It is long, but it really does a nice job of showing how the anti-vacceine industry bends facts for their positions. One tactic they are using is scapegoating single physicians by saying they are only in this for fincicial incentives. This artcle constrasts the things that are being said by the anti-immunization industry with the true life of this physician and his real motivations for dedicating his life to the fight against disease in children.


http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/10/ff_waronscience/

This is a clear case of the fox gaurding the chicken house. The man co-invented a vaccine produced by Merk, and at one time (when his vac was voted in the first time, but quickly yanked, then was put back in circulation in 2006 apprently) sat on the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, among other things which could skew his motivation. Can we say conflict of interest?? I want the people who are deciding what I should put in my child to be unbiasesd. I don't want them to have any kind of vested interest, whether it be the patenting of a vaccine, being an advisor to a Big Pharma company, sitting on a hospital board that receives funds from Big Pharma, etc. And really, that shouldn't be that hard to do, but that's not how it works.

You can throw out all the critics you like, there will just be more lined up to take their place, a large majority of which are doctors, with NO vested interest, (and mothers who know their kids better than anyone, and can see causal relationships). Why is that? That's the question everyone should be asking.

Ellen with all due respect mothers can't see causal relationships in these situations. Just because a child becomes sick shortly after a vaccine DOES NOT mean the vaccine is at fault. I wish you could see that.

And as for the fox-how about you read the article I linked to from the New England Journal of Medicine? There really isn't a better resource for good information. And while you are at it I highly recommend that you see how the article is written. Notice all the numbers next to a sentence that lead you to OTHER reputable sources when the authors make a claim? It's called a citation. And I really recommend that you look for them in the articles you are reading because they aren't there-and if they are they are citing OTHER websites which don't cite their claims.

The people you are believing are making baseless claims without backing them up-and believe me many of them do have vested interests. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.


Again, the link to the NEJM article on vaccinations:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/360/19/1981

And I wanted to say that I am so sorry you lost your first little one to SIDS. That must have been devastating.

He did produce a prior vaccine, it's even listed on his wiki page, though in a more flattering light. However, there is also mention of it on the FDA site. (I'd love to give you nothing but "legitimate" sources, but the dissenters don't/won't get print like that) While I know what you're saying, that doesn't mean everything in print from other sources is wrong. (Wired)

5.5 Intussusception

Following administration of a previously licensed oral live rhesus rotavirus-based vaccine, an increased risk of intussusception was observed.1 The risk of intussusception with ROTARIX was evaluated in a safety study (including 63,225 infants) conducted in Latin America and Finland. No increased risk of intussusception was observed in this clinical trial following administration of ROTARIX when compared with placebo




Now, let's think about this, which is elaborated on in the link also. In clinical trials of the vaccine, gaurdians (besides hospital personel) are asked to fill out a diary card while observing the child after being vaccinated. I'm assuming they want to see/record any reactions/adverse reactions? That makes sense. Is that not causal effect? Am I to understand that during clinical trials, partents are to be believed, but not once it's been approved? Because that doesn't count?

Those are rhetorical.

I'm done.


p.s. Thank you to all who mentioned my little one. And btw, I do not mean to insinuate a vaccine may have caused his death. I have no idea. And I'm not one to want to always blame someone else. But we need to listen to parents more than we do. All I am saying, is that mercury, aluminum and formadehyde (plus God knows what else) can't be healthy, for anyone. And when those responsible for making vaccines for my childs health, stand to gain a billion dollar plus profit, I have to truly question their objectivity.

 

[Laila619]

I believe there are serious things we don't know about thimerosal yet. Just because nothing has been discovered/proven YET does not mean that thimersol vaccines are 100% safe. Remember when our homes used to contain lead-based paint?! Remember when kids didn't have to ride in car seats? In the future I think we will look back on thimerosal vaccines in the same way, horrified.

 

[ladypirate]

I knew 3 people who got mumps when I lived in England because of a vaccination gap when they were kids--it was pretty strange to see a disease that I thought of as eradicated.

I can understand spacing out vaccines, but I will certainly be vaccinating any future children I may have. Those who don''t are relying on other children''s vaccinations for their own health.

 

[zhuzhu]

I agree that no one knows it all - ALL the possible side effects of vaccines. Because no two children are exactly alike in the immunity department, not even MZ. However, what we DO know is the severe consequences of NOT vaccinate children. The consequences to parents, the children themselves, and to the society/community as a whole. The choice of not vaccinating your children is not a responsible one IMHO - from the public health point of view. Of course each parent has a choice. However I encourage those of you who are skeptical to please read up on facts, and weight very carefully what magnitude of harm your choice may cause to your family and the society.

 

[MonkeyPie]

Date: 11/2/2009 1:29:00 PM
Author: TravelingGal

Date: 11/2/2009 1:24:39 PM

Author: MonkeyPie

I don''t get the whole casual relationships thing - all that argument says to me is that you take offense because someone who was in the development of a vaccine makes too damn much money.

Actually, now that I''m married, I take offense to casual relationships in general.

LOL, smart a$$, that''s not what I meant!

 

[kama_s]

Date: 11/2/2009 4:26:13 PM
Author: Ellen

Is that not causal effect?

No. Correlation does NOT imply causation. It takes a sample size of hundreds and thousands to prove as much as simple correlation, so NO mothers can't see a causal relationship based on a sample size of one.

There is a reason why people with years of education do research and implement health policies, trust me, it involves a lot more than watching videos on YouTube and making assumptions based on absolutely no evidence.

 

[LtlFirecracker]

Ellen, it is clear that your mind cannot be changed on this subject, and that you will find articles to support your opinion on this matter regardless of the fact they are from questionable sources. However, I will continue to point out the flaws in these arguments to educate the rest of the people reading this who have small children and are undecided on this topic.

It is wrong for someone in this country who is an expert in infectious diseases to develop an immunization and make a profit from it? This man is a doctor in the very field we are debating. Dr. Offit, who holds the same professional degree as the other doctors you have cited, plus a general residency in pediatrics and a fellowship in infectious diseases. He created an immunization in an attempt to curb the number one killer of kids in the developing world, diarrhea. Is it wrong to make money on a product you invented? Aren't these anti-immunization "experts" profiting from their books and speeches? Did you not read the part where he opposed the small pox immunization after 9/11 because the risk of the immunization outweighed the benefit of immunization from small pox because the disease is non-existant and no one had any evidence that a terrorist had it and was going to use it?

The issue of intussicipion was just addressed a very recently. The immunization was quickly pulled off the market when a problem was found and fixed. The rate of intussicipition in kids who received the rota tech immunization is currently no different than the general population. I know the data was reviewed less than 2 years ago.

I am sorry your child died of SIDS, that is one of the most difficult things for a person to go through


To everyone else:

Please realize the anti-immunization industry is very organized. Their sites are the first to come up when doing a google search, and they use URL's to suggest they are balanced, when in-fact they are not. The information is not based on good science. The diseases that these immunizations protect against are downplayed.

The decision to use in immunization is made by an analysis of risk benefit ratio. There are lots of immunizations in existence that we do not give in the US routinely because the diseases are not endemic here or the risk/benefit ratio does not favor the immunization. For example, the US doesn't give the TB immunization (like many other countries do) because it is not very effective, and makes our standard test (a PPD) invalid.

I really don't want to see children die because of this anti-immunization campaign, but as others said, I am afraid that is what will happen.

 

[iheartscience]

Date: 11/2/2009 6:12:53 PM
Author: kama_s

Date: 11/2/2009 4:26:13 PM

Author: Ellen

Is that not causal effect?

No. Correlation does NOT imply causation. It takes a sample size of hundreds and thousands to prove as much as simple correlation, so NO mothers can''t see a causal relationship based on a sample size of one.

There is a reason why people with years of education do research and implement health policies, trust me, it involves a lot more than watching videos on YouTube and making assumptions based on absolutely no evidence.

Ditto. One of my statistics teachers actually had my entire class recite just that- "correlation does not imply causation"-over and over again so that we wouldn''t use the term "cause" when writing up the results of our statistical analyses.

 

[niccia]

Ellen, thanks for posting this. I agree with you 100%. My mother didn't vaccinate her children even though this info was not available to her back then. I won't be vaccinating any of my (future) children either, and I keep my pets as vaccine-free as possible also.

 

[AmberGretchen]

Date: 11/2/2009 6:16:42 PM
Author: LtlFirecracker



Ellen, it is clear that your mind cannot be changed on this subject, and that you will find articles to support your opinion on this matter regardless of the fact they are from questionable sources. However, I will continue to point out the flaws in these arguments to educate the rest of the people reading this who have small children and are undecided on this topic.



It is wrong for someone in this country who is an expert in infectious diseases to develop an immunization and make a profit from it? This man is a doctor in the very field we are debating. Dr. Offit, who holds the same professional degree as the other doctors you have cited, plus a general residency in pediatrics and a fellowship in infectious diseases. He created an immunization in an attempt to curb the number one killer of kids in the developing world, diarrhea. Is it wrong to make money on a product you invented? Aren''t these anti-immunization ''experts'' profiting from their books and speeches? Did you not read the part where he opposed the small pox immunization after 9/11 because the risk of the immunization outweighed the benefit of immunization from small pox because the disease is non-existant and no one had any evidence that a terrorist had it and was going to use it?


The issue of intussicipion was just addressed a very recently. The immunization was quickly pulled off the market when a problem was found and fixed. The rate of intussicipition in kids who received the rota tech immunization is currently no different than the general population. I know the data was reviewed less than 2 years ago.


I am sorry your child died of SIDS, that is one of the most difficult things for a person to go through



To everyone else:


Please realize the anti-immunization industry is very organized. Their sites are the first to come up when doing a google search, and they use URL''s to suggest they are balanced, when in-fact they are not. The information is not based on good science. The diseases that these immunizations protect against are downplayed.


The decision to use in immunization is made by an analysis of risk benefit ratio. There are lots of immunizations in existence that we do not give in the US routinely because the diseases are not endemic here or the risk/benefit ratio does not favor the immunization. For example, the US doesn''t give the TB immunization (like many other countries do) because it is not very effective, and makes our standard test (a PPD) invalid.


I really don''t want to see children die because of this anti-immunization campaign, but as others said, I am afraid that is what will happen.

Bravo to this and all of your other thoughtful, well-researched posts LtFirecracker.

I have a PhD in Immunology, and I couldn''t agree more with everything you have said. Yes, pharmaceutical companies and doctors make money off of vaccines, but no more than they make off of any other drug. And I can''t imagine some of those who so vehemently condemn vaccines denying drugs produced by these companies to their loved ones for medical conditions.

By refusing to vaccinate your children, you are essentially doing the same thing to the loved ones of others - exposing other children, elderly people, and others with compromised immune systems to significant risks for potentially fatal diseases.

I''ve refrained from chiming in here, because I didn''t want to offend anyone, but I just had to lend my years of study and (don''t want to sound conceited, but here I think it is justified) expert opinion to say that I 100% agree with everything Lt Firecracker, icekid, and other medical professionals have contributed to this thread. Trust these people - they have seen these diseases, and are better qualified than any of us to understand the massive risks of failing to vaccinate. They have no hidden agenda - I used to work with a great many MDs - these people dedicate years of their lives to trying to make other peoples'' lives better, most of them are not in it to make money (and if they were there are much better choices...). Surely so many smart doctors and scientists at least deserve a fair hearing?

 

[movie zombie]

Date: 11/2/2009 5:09:42 PM
Author: zhuzhu
I agree that no one knows it all - ALL the possible side effects of vaccines. Because no two children are exactly alike in the immunity department, not even MZ. However, what we DO know is the severe consequences of NOT vaccinate children. The consequences to parents, the children themselves, and to the society/community as a whole. The choice of not vaccinating your children is not a responsible one IMHO - from the public health point of view. Of course each parent has a choice. However I encourage those of you who are skeptical to please read up on facts, and weight very carefully what magnitude of harm your choice may cause to your family and the society.

i have made only one post re this topic back on page 1. given that i made no claims re my immunity or anyone''s immunity and obviously not being psychic, i have absolutely no idea what you are referencing, implying, or really wishing to state in singling me out with this statement. an explanation/clarification would be insightful to say the least.

mz

ps more fuel to a fire that obviously has not yet gone out: i heard this woman WHO HAS A MEDICAL RESEARCH BACKGROUND on the radio this a.m. and this is the article she has written for The Atlantic, December 2009 issue:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200911/brownlee-h1n1

 

[neatfreak]

Date: 11/2/2009 11:33:47 PM
Author: movie zombie

Date: 11/2/2009 5:09:42 PM

Author: zhuzhu

I agree that no one knows it all - ALL the possible side effects of vaccines. Because no two children are exactly alike in the immunity department, not even MZ. However, what we DO know is the severe consequences of NOT vaccinate children. The consequences to parents, the children themselves, and to the society/community as a whole. The choice of not vaccinating your children is not a responsible one IMHO - from the public health point of view. Of course each parent has a choice. However I encourage those of you who are skeptical to please read up on facts, and weight very carefully what magnitude of harm your choice may cause to your family and the society.

i have made only one post re this topic back on page 1. given that i made no claims re my immunity or anyone's immunity and obviously not being psychic, i have absolutely no idea what you are referencing, implying, or really wishing to state in singling me out with this statement. an explanation/clarification would be insightful to say the least.

I don't think she meant you. I believe she was referring to monozygotic twins (MZ). Otherwise known as identical twins. I think she was making the point that even their immune systems are not the same.

 

[zhuzhu]

Date: 11/2/2009 11:33:47 PM
Author: movie zombie

Date: 11/2/2009 5:09:42 PM

Author: zhuzhu

I agree that no one knows it all - ALL the possible side effects of vaccines. Because no two children are exactly alike in the immunity department, not even MZ. However, what we DO know is the severe consequences of NOT vaccinate children. The consequences to parents, the children themselves, and to the society/community as a whole. The choice of not vaccinating your children is not a responsible one IMHO - from the public health point of view. Of course each parent has a choice. However I encourage those of you who are skeptical to please read up on facts, and weight very carefully what magnitude of harm your choice may cause to your family and the society.

i have made only one post re this topic back on page 1. given that i made no claims re my immunity or anyone''s immunity and obviously not being psychic, i have absolutely no idea what you are referencing, implying, or really wishing to state in singling me out with this statement. an explanation/clarification would be insightful to say the least.


mz


ps more fuel to a fire that obviously has not yet gone out: i heard this woman WHO HAS A MEDICAL RESEARCH BACKGROUND on the radio this a.m. and this is the article she has written for The Atlantic, December 2009 issue:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200911/brownlee-h1n1

Movie Zombie,

My goodness I was not referring to you or singling you out in any way. I was saying that even monozygotic (MZ) twins, who share 100% of their DNA, can react differently to vaccinations. Sorry about the misunderstanding.

Zhuzhu

 

[movie zombie]

ah, now that makes a lot of sense!

thanks for the explanation!

mz, not MZ......

 

[Kaleigh]

Ellen,
I read your thread so quickly and missed where you said you lost a son to SIDS. I am very sorry for your loss. I have "known" you for years and yet never knew you suffered this loss.

To All,
We are all educated, intelligent women. I think we can take the info, digest it and make our own decisions....

I am not anti vaccines.. Vaccines are very necessary, but be informed is all.

If you have a child who has severe allergies, and is allergic to the ingredients of the vaccine... Due your homework and ask questions. I didn''t have the ability to search online, the internet wasn''t here... It wasn''t even close to being a reality for me..

 

[kenny]

Ellen, I too am so sorry to hear of this loss.
Loosing a baby is the ultimate tragedy a person can experience.

Big hug to you.

 

[hawaiianorangetree]

Date: 10/31/2009 11:17:17 PM
Author: justginger
As someone sorta involved in the medical field, and having worked at a children''s hospital, I also agree that children need to be immunized.

Just curious ginger but where do you work? I too work in the ''sort of medical field'' very close to a childrens hospital.


I had the H1N1 vaccine yesterday (before i saw this thread) and all my friends freaked out. No bad side effects, just a really weird one that my co worker experienced too.

 

[ksinger]

Just a few observations on a fascinating thread.

One problem I see here is a vast distrust of authority that impedes people''s ability to assess the relative weights of the arguments pro and con. If the mindset you work out of is one of distrust - if a deeply held paradigm of reality for you is that authorities are venal and arrogant and don''t really have your interests at heart, you might be inclined to summarily dismiss evidence that would otherwise sway you.

Emotion, or vested interest in the answer can also cloud judgement. I see this quite clearly in many of the most rabidly antivac people. They are clearly on a MISSION. When you have suffered the loss of a child or the inexplicable happens - like autism - many people, being human, search desperately for WHY. When why is not easily found, they dogmatically hold to whatever shred of an explanation they find, rendering them pretty impervious to reason. For example, I have an uncle who has spent his entire adult life adhering to the idea that just about every ailment can be treated with diet - specifically, supplements. As the evidence mounts that not only are supplements NOT effective in staving off the diseases they purport to, and that they can in fact exacerbate some conditions, he becomes more and more personally defensive and clings harder: "Well, these studies are funded by big pharma"(conspiracy mind), and "they just haven''t found the evidence YET"(if I want it hard enough, I''ll eventually have my position vindicated) and so on. Other than being a topic we can no longer discuss rationally, it is a pretty fascinating glimpse into what happens when you have too much of an emotional investment in an idea.

I also see adherence to this recent idea of "balance" and "respecting another''s position". When the weight of evidence on one side is overwhelming and accepted by the vast majority in that field, it is NOT balance to give the same "airtime" if you will, to every wild opposing idea in the interests of "fairness". It is confusing to people and gives those without a solid background in (at least) what constitutes the scientific method this idea that all positions carry equal weight and thus deserve equal time. Not so. Of course you may hold any position you like, but if you want it to leave the realm of mere opinion and supposition, and to enjoy the cache of good science, with all the empirical evidence, predictive power, and repeatability that implies, then you''d better be able to cough up well-designed, peer-reviewed research to support your position. As for respecting a position, no, that is not required. If your position is based on reality and not wishful thinking I will respect it. This area is not like politics or religion, where interpretation is all-powerful. If you reject mountains of empirical evidence simply because you have an emotional attachment to a particular outcome, you''re a fool. And you may even be a dangerous fool.

Most of the scientists I know are really tough-minded people. They don''t expect "respect" and don''t get their FEEEEEELINGS hurt when someone calls their positions into question. They support them, and when the weight of evidence goes against that position, they amend it. Emotional attachment to an outcome is an impediment.

In a similar vein, a few years back I followed the Dover ID trial quite closely. (This will NOT become a discussion of religion I promise)
I did in fact read the entire 139 page decision and transcripts of much of the testimony. It was fascinating. But what was most interesting, was watching Michael Behe''s (the star scientist witness for the defense) complete evisceration - by quite literally MOUNTAINS of evidence refuting his supposedly "scientific" arguments proving ID as a valid "scientific" conclusion. It was a good day for the scientific method and a bad day to STOP thinking (which he clearly had) 20 years earlier when he developed a vested interest in a particular answer.

To all the amazing medical professionals who have chimed in here with "mountains" of evidence and first-hand education in medicine and immunology, I thank you. You restore my sometimes ragged belief that humans CAN be rational, and remind me in these times of angst about the medical profession, that most of the people within it are quite decent and even idealistic. Again, thank you.

 

[Porridge]

Date: 11/3/2009 6:38:59 AM
Author: ksinger

Just a few observations on a fascinating thread.

One problem I see here is a vast distrust of authority that impedes people''s ability to assess the relative weights of the arguments pro and con. If the mindset you work out of is one of distrust - if a deeply held paradigm of reality for you is that authorities are venal and arrogant and don''t really have your interests at heart, you might be inclined to summarily dismiss evidence that would otherwise sway you.

Emotion, or vested interest in the answer can also cloud judgement. I see this quite clearly in many of the most rabidly antivac people. They are clearly on a MISSION. When you have suffered the loss of a child or the inexplicable happens - like autism - many people, being human, search desperately for WHY. When why is not easily found, they dogmatically hold to whatever shred of an explanation they find, rendering them pretty impervious to reason. For example, I have an uncle who has spent his entire adult life adhering to the idea that just about every ailment can be treated with diet - specifically, supplements. As the evidence mounts that not only are supplements NOT effective in staving off the diseases they purport to, and that they can in fact exacerbate some conditions, he becomes more and more personally defensive and clings harder: ''Well, these studies are funded by big pharma''(conspiracy mind), and ''they just haven''t found the evidence YET''(if I want it hard enough, I''ll eventually have my position vindicated) and so on. Other than being a topic we can no longer discuss rationally, it is a pretty fascinating glimpse into what happens when you have too much of an emotional investment in an idea.

I also see adherence to this recent idea of ''balance'' and ''respecting another''s position''. When the weight of evidence on one side is overwhelming and accepted by the vast majority in that field, it is NOT balance to give the same ''airtime'' if you will, to every wild opposing idea in the interests of ''fairness''. It is confusing to people and gives those without a solid background in (at least) what constitutes the scientific method this idea that all positions carry equal weight and thus deserve equal time. Not so. Of course you may hold any position you like, but if you want it to leave the realm of mere opinion and supposition, and to enjoy the cache of good science, with all the empirical evidence, predictive power, and repeatability that implies, then you''d better be able to cough up well-designed, peer-reviewed research to support your position. As for respecting a position, no, that is not required. If your position is based on reality and not wishful thinking I will respect it. This area is not like politics or religion, where interpretation is all-powerful. If you reject mountains of empirical evidence simply because you have an emotional attachment to a particular outcome, you''re a fool. And you may even be a dangerous fool.

Most of the scientists I know are really tough-minded people. They don''t expect ''respect'' and don''t get their FEEEEEELINGS hurt when someone calls their positions into question. They support them, and when the weight of evidence goes against that position, they amend it. Emotional attachment to an outcome is an impediment.

In a similar vein, a few years back I followed the Dover ID trial quite closely. (This will NOT become a discussion of religion I promise)

I did in fact read the entire 139 page decision and transcripts of much of the testimony. It was fascinating. But what was most interesting, was watching Michael Behe''s (the star scientist witness for the defense) complete evisceration - by quite literally MOUNTAINS of evidence refuting his supposedly ''scientific'' arguments proving ID as a valid ''scientific'' conclusion. It was a good day for the scientific method and a bad day to STOP thinking (which he clearly had) 20 years earlier when he developed a vested interest in a particular answer.

To all the amazing medical professionals who have chimed in here with ''mountains'' of evidence and first-hand education in medicine and immunology, I thank you. You restore my sometimes ragged belief that humans CAN be rational, and remind me in these times of angst about the medical profession, that most of the people within it are quite decent and even idealistic. Again, thank you.

Exceptionally well said ksinger

 

[ksinger]

BTW - since autism is inextricably tied to this discussion, do our medical folks have any comment on the recent publication of a study about autism and paternal age?

Autism Risk Rises With Age Of Father
Large Study Finds Strong Correlation

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/04/AR2006090400513.html

On it''s face it would seem compelling and reasonable: People waiting later to have kids, BOOM! increase in autism. (I do realize that this is just at the compelling, good-avenue-for-more-research stage right now)

Any thoughts?

 

[sba771]

Date: 11/3/2009 8:19:38 AM
Author: ksinger
BTW - since autism is inextricably tied to this discussion, do our medical folks have any comment on the recent publication of a study about autism and paternal age?


Autism Risk Rises With Age Of Father

Large Study Finds Strong Correlation


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/04/AR2006090400513.html


On it''s face it would seem compelling and reasonable: People waiting later to have kids, BOOM! increase in autism. (I do realize that this is just at the compelling, good-avenue-for-more-research stage right now)


Any thoughts?

While this isn''t science and has no basis- my FI''s mom teaches nursery school and has been for 20 years and she says she has also noticed this trend as her students'' parents are getting older every year. This is also why she is pressuring us and has told my FI he has old sperm.

 

[Mara]

Date: 11/3/2009 8:37:35 AM
Author: sba771

Date: 11/3/2009 8:19:38 AM
Author: ksinger
BTW - since autism is inextricably tied to this discussion, do our medical folks have any comment on the recent publication of a study about autism and paternal age?


Autism Risk Rises With Age Of Father

Large Study Finds Strong Correlation


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/04/AR2006090400513.html


On it's face it would seem compelling and reasonable: People waiting later to have kids, BOOM! increase in autism. (I do realize that this is just at the compelling, good-avenue-for-more-research stage right now)


Any thoughts?

While this isn't science and has no basis- my FI's mom teaches nursery school and has been for 20 years and she says she has also noticed this trend as her students' parents are getting older every year. This is also why she is pressuring us and has told my FI he has old sperm.

I wonder if this is more because there are simply MORE parents having kids at later ages than there used to be. So if there are more older men having kids later, and there's an increase in diagnosis of autism, then potentially the link is being created.

I remember reading that article and going OH CRAP because my husband is 41, heck we're doomed now! But someone else in a previous thread discussing autism pointed out also re: rise in autism that it could simply also be that there is just more diagnosis of it NOW, which leads to people thinking it's on the rise. Might it have always been there?

My friend's pedi is sure that there are more environmental factors at play now for autism than anything else. If you google, that sentiment is highly echoed on the internet and in articles (studies, etc). Other dr's say that it's more genetic. Go figure. This is another area of discussion that I find extremely confusing.

Lastly, and maybe I need a lesson in biology but I don't quite get how men can get labeled with having old sperm. Isn't it flushed out all the time (umm for lack of a better term)? Women are the ones who are born with all the eggs they will have!

 

[sba771]

Date: 11/3/2009 10:53:30 AM
Author: Mara

Date: 11/3/2009 8:37:35 AM

Author:



I wonder if this is more because there are simply MORE parents having kids at later ages than there used to be. So if there are more older men having kids later, and there's an increase in diagnosis of autism, then potentially the link is being created.


I remember reading that article and going OH CRAP because my husband is 41, heck we're doomed now! But someone else in a previous thread discussing autism pointed out also re: rise in autism that it could simply also be that there is just more diagnosis of it NOW, which leads to people thinking it's on the rise. Might it have always been there?


My friend's pedi is sure that there are more environmental factors at play now for autism than anything else. If you google, that sentiment is highly echoed on the internet and in articles (studies, etc). Other dr's say that it's more genetic. Go figure. This is another area of discussion that I find extremely confusing.


Lastly, and maybe I need a lesson in biology but I don't quite get how men can get labeled with having old sperm. Isn't it flushed out all the time (umm for lack of a better term)? Women are the ones who are born with all the eggs they will have!

Nope, you are 100% right, she is just a little over zealous and gets things in her head and decides they are truths, re: old sperm. I just roll my eyes. He also has decided it can't be 'drunk sperm' either. Don't ask...

 

[kama_s]

Date: 11/3/2009 6:38:59 AM
Author: ksinger

I also see adherence to this recent idea of ''balance'' and ''respecting another''s position''. When the weight of evidence on one side is overwhelming and accepted by the vast majority in that field, it is NOT balance to give the same ''airtime'' if you will, to every wild opposing idea in the interests of ''fairness''. It is confusing to people and gives those without a solid background in (at least) what constitutes the scientific method this idea that all positions carry equal weight and thus deserve equal time. Not so. Of course you may hold any position you like, but if you want it to leave the realm of mere opinion and supposition, and to enjoy the cache of good science, with all the empirical evidence, predictive power, and repeatability that implies, then you''d better be able to cough up well-designed, peer-reviewed research to support your position. As for respecting a position, no, that is not required. If your position is based on reality and not wishful thinking I will respect it. This area is not like politics or religion, where interpretation is all-powerful. If you reject mountains of empirical evidence simply because you have an emotional attachment to a particular outcome, you''re a fool. And you may even be a dangerous fool.

Most of the scientists I know are really tough-minded people. They don''t expect ''respect'' and don''t get their FEEEEEELINGS hurt when someone calls their positions into question. They support them, and when the weight of evidence goes against that position, they amend it. Emotional attachment to an outcome is an impediment.

Very well said, Ksinger.

 

[iluvcarats]

Date: 11/3/2009 10:53:30 AM
Author: Mara

Date: 11/3/2009 8:37:35 AM

Author: sba771

Date: 11/3/2009 8:19:38 AM

Author: ksinger

BTW - since autism is inextricably tied to this discussion, do our medical folks have any comment on the recent publication of a study about autism and paternal age?



Autism Risk Rises With Age Of Father


Large Study Finds Strong Correlation



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/04/AR2006090400513.html



On it''s face it would seem compelling and reasonable: People waiting later to have kids, BOOM! increase in autism. (I do realize that this is just at the compelling, good-avenue-for-more-research stage right now)



Any thoughts?

While this isn''t science and has no basis- my FI''s mom teaches nursery school and has been for 20 years and she says she has also noticed this trend as her students'' parents are getting older every year. This is also why she is pressuring us and has told my FI he has old sperm.

I wonder if this is more because there are simply MORE parents having kids at later ages than there used to be. So if there are more older men having kids later, and there''s an increase in diagnosis of autism, then potentially the link is being created.


I remember reading that article and going OH CRAP because my husband is 41, heck we''re doomed now! But someone else in a previous thread discussing autism pointed out also re: rise in autism that it could simply also be that there is just more diagnosis of it NOW, which leads to people thinking it''s on the rise. Might it have always been there?


My friend''s pedi is sure that there are more environmental factors at play now for autism than anything else. If you google, that sentiment is highly echoed on the internet and in articles (studies, etc). Other dr''s say that it''s more genetic. Go figure. This is another area of discussion that I find extremely confusing.


Lastly, and maybe I need a lesson in biology but I don''t quite get how men can get labeled with having old sperm. Isn''t it flushed out all the time (umm for lack of a better term)? Women are the ones who are born with all the eggs they will have!

Mara, you are correct that men are constantly making sperm. The older a man gets, the less testosterone he produces, so he makes less sperm. This can be why older men have infertility troubles. (Not as many swimmers in the bunch) Also as men age, the sperm can develop mutations which can cause infertility issues, as well as birth defects.

 

[kenny]

One thing I'll mention about autism.

The numbers are rising at an alarming rate.
Nobody is sure why.

One factor is this.
There is funding to help families pay the bills for the care of their autistic child.
This is great but. . . .

There are also several "autism-spectrum" conditions.
These kids do NOT have an autism diagnosis so they cannot qualify for that funding.

Parents pressure doctors to give these kids an autism diagnosis so they can qualify for funding.
This increases the number of autism diagnoses but nobody knows by how much because doctors are not rushing to admit they misdiagnose.

My source for this was a broadcast on NPR about a month ago.
It may have been Terry Gross interviewing the author who has a kid with an autism-spectrum condition and wrote a book about it.

 

[LtlFirecracker]

I think a separate thread should be started for autism if people want a discussion of current diagnosis, understanding, and controversies about the diagnosis.

The diagnostic umbrella for what defines autism has indeed broadened, but that is not the same as a mis diagnosis.

ETA: Thank you to those who made the nice comments about my posts as well as the post from the other health care providers.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 11/2/2009 11:33:47 PM
Author: movie zombie


mz

ps more fuel to a fire that obviously has not yet gone out: i heard this woman WHO HAS A MEDICAL RESEARCH BACKGROUND on the radio this a.m. and this is the article she has written for The Atlantic, December 2009 issue:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200911/brownlee-h1n1

This made me laugh, more for the caps than anything else.

This is exactly what I needed mz, thank you.

I was truly done with this thread, but the link revived me, so you're all stuck with me some more.

I don't know if any of you bothered to read this link by mz, but I ask every one of you to do so if you haven't. It backs up exactly what I have been trying to get across. And it's backed up in part by a Dr. Thomas Jefferson. He is an epidemiologist, trained at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. I think he qualifies. He is saying the same things the other doctors are saying about the flu/vaccine in the videos/articles I linked. And I think a lot of this could/can very well apply to other vaccines.


Does the Vaccine Matter? (Here are some excerpts from mz's link, it's too long to post the whole thing.)

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200911/brownlee-h1n1


Vaccination is central to the government’s plan for preventing deaths from swine flu.

But what if everything we think we know about fighting influenza is wrong? What if flu vaccines do not protect people from dying—particularly the elderly, who account for 90 percent of deaths from seasonal flu? And what if the expensive antiviral drugs that the government has stockpiled over the past few years also have little, if any, power to reduce the number of people who die or are hospitalized? The U.S. government—with the support of leaders in the public-health and medical communities—has put its faith in the power of vaccines and antiviral drugs to limit the spread and lethality of swine flu. Other plans to contain the pandemic seem anemic by comparison. Yet some top flu researchers are deeply skeptical of both flu vaccines and antivirals. Like the engineers who warned for years about the levees of New Orleans, these experts caution that our defenses may be flawed, and quite possibly useless against a truly lethal flu. And that unless we are willing to ask fundamental questions about the science behind flu vaccines and antiviral drugs, we could find ourselves, in a bad epidemic, as helpless as the citizens of New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina.

The estimate of 50 percent mortality reduction is based on “cohort studies,” which compare death rates in large groups, or cohorts, of people who choose to be vaccinated, against death rates in groups who don’t. But people who choose to be vaccinated may differ in many important respects from people who go unvaccinated—and those differences can influence the chance of death during flu season. Education, lifestyle, income, and many other “confounding” factors can come into play, and as a result, cohort studies are notoriously prone to bias. When researchers crunch the numbers, they typically try to factor out variables that could bias the results, but, as Jefferson remarks, “you can adjust for the confounders you know about, not for the ones you don’t,” and researchers can’t always anticipate what factors are likely to be important to whether a patient dies from flu. There is always the chance that they might miss some critical confounder that renders their results entirely wrong.


Yet in the view of several vaccine skeptics, this claim is suspicious on its face. Influenza causes only a small minority of all deaths in the U.S., even among senior citizens, and even after adding in the deaths to which flu might have contributed indirectly. When researchers from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases included all deaths from illnesses that flu aggravates, like lung disease or chronic heart failure, they found that flu accounts for, at most, 10 percent of winter deaths among the elderly. So how could flu vaccine possibly reduce total deaths by half? Tom Jefferson, a physician based in Rome and the head of the Vaccines Field at the Cochrane Collaboration, a highly respected international network of researchers who appraise medical evidence, says: “For a vaccine to reduce mortality by 50 percent and up to 90 percent in some studies means it has to prevent deaths not just from influenza, but also from falls, fires, heart disease, strokes, and car accidents. That’s not a vaccine, that’s a miracle.”


When Lisa Jackson, a physician and senior investigator with the Group Health Research Center, in Seattle, began wondering aloud to colleagues if maybe something was amiss with the estimate of 50 percent mortality reduction for people who get flu vaccine, the response she got sounded more like doctrine than science. “People told me, ‘No good can come of [asking] this,’” she says. “‘Potentially a lot of bad could happen’ for me professionally by raising any criticism that might dissuade people from getting vaccinated, because of course, ‘We know that vaccine works.’ This was the prevailing wisdom.”

Jackson’s findings showed that outside of flu season, the baseline risk of death among people who did not get vaccinated was approximately 60 percent higher than among those who did, lending support to the hypothesis that on average, healthy people chose to get the vaccine, while the “frail elderly” didn’t or couldn’t. In fact, the healthy-user effect explained the entire benefit that other researchers were attributing to flu vaccine, suggesting that the vaccine itself might not reduce mortality at all. Jackson’s papers “are beautiful,” says Lone Simonsen, who is a professor of global health at George Washington University, in Washington, D.C., and an internationally recognized expert in influenza and vaccine epidemiology. “They are classic studies in epidemiology, they are so carefully done.”

The results were also so unexpected that many experts simply refused to believe them. Jackson’s papers were turned down for publication in the top-ranked medical journals. One flu expert who reviewed her studies for the Journal of the American Medical Association wrote, “To accept these results would be to say that the earth is flat!” When the papers were finally published in 2006, in the less prominent International Journal of Epidemiology, they were largely ignored by doctors and public-health officials. “The answer I got,” says Jackson, “was not the right answer.”



The history of flu vaccination suggests other reasons to doubt claims that it dramatically reduces mortality. In 2004, for example, vaccine production fell behind, causing a 40 percent drop in immunization rates. Yet mortality did not rise. In addition, vaccine “mismatches” occurred in 1968 and 1997: in both years, the vaccine that had been produced in the summer protected against one set of viruses, but come winter, a different set was circulating. In effect, nobody was vaccinated. Yet death rates from all causes, including flu and the various illnesses it can exacerbate, did not budge. Sumit Majumdar, a physician and researcher at the University of Alberta, in Canada, offers another historical observation: rising rates of vaccination of the elderly over the past two decades have not coincided with a lower overall mortality rate. In 1989, only 15 percent of people over age 65 in the U.S. and Canada were vaccinated against flu. Today, more than 65 percent are immunized. Yet death rates among the elderly during flu season have increased rather than decreased.


Majumdar says, “We keep coming up against the belief that we’ve reduced mortality by 50 percent,” and when researchers poke holes in the evidence, “people pound the pulpit.”

The most vocal—and undoubtedly most vexing—critic of the gospel of flu vaccine is the Cochrane Collaboration’s Jefferson, who’s also an epidemiologist trained at the famed London School of Tropical Hygiene, and who, in Lisa Jackson’s view, makes other skeptics seem “moderate by comparison.


“Tom Jefferson has taken a lot of heat just for saying, ‘Here’s the evidence: it’s not very good,’” says Majumdar. “The reaction has been so dogmatic and even hysterical that you’d think he was advocating stealing babies.” Yet while other flu researchers may not like what Jefferson has to say, they cannot ignore the fact that he knows the flu-vaccine literature better than anyone else on the planet. He leads an international team of researchers who have combed through hundreds of flu-vaccine studies. The vast majority of the studies were deeply flawed, says Jefferson. “Rubbish is not a scientific term, but I think it’s the term that applies.” Only four studies were properly designed to pin down the effectiveness of flu vaccine, he says, and two of those showed that it might be effective in certain groups of patients, such as school-age children with no underlying health issues like asthma. The other two showed equivocal results or no benefit.


In the flu-vaccine world, Jefferson’s call for placebo-controlled studies is considered so radical that even some of his fellow skeptics oppose it. Majumdar, the Ottawa researcher, says he believes that evidence of a benefit among children is established and that public-health officials should try to protect seniors by immunizing children, health-care workers, and other people around them, and thus reduce the spread of the flu. Lone Simonsen explains the prevailing view: “It is considered unethical to do trials in populations that are recommended to have vaccine,” a stance that is shared by everybody from the CDC’s Nancy Cox to Anthony Fauci at the NIH. They feel strongly that vaccine has been shown to be effective and that a sham vaccine would put test subjects at unnecessary risk of getting a serious case of the flu. In a phone interview, Fauci at first voiced the opinion that a placebo trial in the elderly might be acceptable, but he called back later to retract his comment, saying that such a trial “would be unethical.” Jefferson finds this view almost exactly backward: “What do you do when you have uncertainty? You test,” he says. “We have built huge, population-based policies on the flimsiest of scientific evidence. The most unethical thing to do is to carry on business as usual.”


Late last spring, as headlines and airwaves warned of a possible pandemic, patients like Newman’s began clogging emergency rooms across the country, a sneezing, coughing, infectious tide of humanity more worried than truly sick, but whose mere presence in the emergency room has endangered the lives of others. “Studies show that when there is ER crowding, mortality goes up, because patients who need immediate attention don’t get it,” says Newman, the director of clinical research in the Department of Emergency Medicine at the hospital, which is affiliated with Columbia University. In an average year the ER at St. Luke’s, a sprawling 1,076-bed hospital on 113th Street, takes in 110,000 patients, some 300 a day. At the height of the summer swine flu outbreak, that number doubled. The vast majority of panicky patients who came in the door at St. Luke’s and other emergency departments didn’t actually have the virus, and of those who did, most were not sick enough to need hospitalization. Even so, says Newman, when patients with even mild flu symptoms show up in the hospital, they vastly increase the spread of the virus, simply because they inevitably sneeze and cough in rooms that are jammed with other people.

(herein lies another problem. the minute the first case of swine flu was diagnosed, the media went nuts as it does with so many things, perpetuating mass hysteria. Imo, it was uncalled for. There were only a handful of cases worldwide, and yet to listen to them (and later the Pres. admin.) yelling pandemic, you'd think we were staring 1918 in the face. I'm not saying don't report it, but keep it real)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


I'll quit here, but hopefully it peaks the interest enough to read the whole thing, it's excellent. And it proves my points/accusations. There IS flimsy data, people ARE biased, there IS monetary incentive to be less than truthful. We need more studies, more thorough studies, preferably NOT JUST by the very people selling the drugs, or at least with more oversight. I'd love to see an independant middleman between the drug makers and the FDA. And speaking of, quite by accident I came across some very helpful info on them (FDA). It also gets my points across.

This first one is from a report on the FDA in regards to a drug released without proper trials, fraudulent data, etc. It's from Senetor Chuck Grassley, whose committee headed the investigation. I believe this will qualify as official? It's even got citations, and they go to really official places.

http://finance.senate.gov/press/Gpress/2005/prg050106.pdf

Grassley slams FDA for citing fraudulent safety study

WASHINGTON — Sen. Chuck Grassley today released information about his ongoing

investigation of the Food and Drug Administration regarding the drug-safety agency’s initial

approval and post-market surveillance of the antibiotic Ketek.

Grassley, who chairs the Senate Committee on Finance, said he is concerned about the

FDA’s complicity with the drug maker and subsequent failure to ensure the integrity of a pivotal

study about the benefits and risks of this drug. He said he is also alarmed at the FDA’s continued

reliance on the study as evidence of Ketek being safe, despite the FDA’s own determination that

the study is riddled with fraudulent information. Finally, Grassley said the stakes continue to

grow when it comes to overseeing this antibiotic, since it is being studied in children as young as

six months old.

Notice he warns that retaliation against any coming forward with information will not be tolerated. Notice he also warns that info better not be destroyed/modified/removed, etc. There is a reason for that. It happens, all of it. I could easily link you to a whistleblower, but I know you nay sayers won't accept/believe it. But just because you won't see it/don't believe it, doesn't mean it isn't true.

You can find articles on this doing a search, proving that it doesn't have to be official, to be true.

And you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out there are drugs that are fast tracked and released before they should be/with insuffient data/etc. Vioxx anyone? And there's more where that came from.

Some of my misgivings are not even from things I've read, they are from my own life experiences with the medical profession and the govt. Sometimes, all you need is a little common sense.

We are a medicated nation, that's all we do. We don't try to find the cause/cure, we slap another prescription on you. We don't let our natural immune system have a chance, which is a shame, it was built really well. And our kids are being medicated to death. As miracles asked, how many vaccines are enough??? where does the insanity stop?? We've got some messed up kids running around. This country has been seriously brainwashed to think drugs are the answer for everything, but they're not. And in many cases, they are making us sicker.



Here's a link for anyone interested in finding out about drugs/lawsuits/etc. I knew about this a long time ago, but had forgotten about it til I came across it today. They have often called for a drug to be taken off the market long before the drug company does, if ever. Helpful site, but again, only for those that really are interested. It's a sad statement a site like this even exists, it shouldn't be our job....

http://www.worstpills.org/



I also wanted to apologize and clarify. When I was referencing causal effect, I didn't mean with just one person. I meant if tons of people were seeing the same thing in their kids after a med, should it not be considered a possiblity. Sorry for not being clearer. And I still appreciate the explanation.



In conclusion, this is not about a conspiracy theory, this is about the truth, that we do not get as we should. Reporters fail miserably, people are intimidated and won't come forward, people are fired for blowing the whistle, greed has taken over. No wonder we can't pull up some official link every time, it is NOT being reported on like it should. That's why you find every day citizens and doctors taking on the machine, that's how many things of importance get done when it involves the govt. They will not do it on their own, they will not do it without a lot of shouting from the little people/grass roots movements. And ya know what? That's our right to question them on things that affect us. It's in the constitution, it's called being a Patriot. Look it up if you don't believe me.

And the day may well come when many of you finally understand what mz and miracles (thanks gals!) and I do, now.




p.s. Thank you all for your comments and the hug! on my little one. I sincerely appreciate it.