The CDC’s Cognitive Dissonance on the Pertussis Vaccine

by Nov 8, 2015Health & Vaccines489 comments

Entrance to the headquarters of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Daniel Mayer)

The CDC advises everyone to get the pertussis vaccine to protect infants despite acknowledging facts that ought to at least be cause to question that policy.

I just scanned through the CDC’s FAQ page on the pertussis vaccine and an extraordinary illustration of cognitive dissonance leaped out at me.

Near the top of the FAQ, as a strategy to protect infants, the CDC says to “make sure everyone around the baby is up-to-date with their pertussis vaccines.” This “should reduce infection in babies”, the CDC claims.

Then, further down the page, the CDC states (emphasis added):

Many babies who get pertussis are infected by older siblings, parents or caregivers who might not know they have the disease. If pertussis is circulating in the community, there’s a chance that even a fully vaccinated person of any age can catch this very contagious disease. But if you’ve been vaccinated, your infection is usually less serious.

A little further down yet, the CDC acknowledges that “we can’t rely on herd immunity to protect people from pertussis” in part because “acellular pertussis vaccines may not prevent colonization (carrying the bacteria in your body without getting sick) or spread of the bacteria”.

So the greatest risk to infants is from family members who don’t know they are carriers of the disease, and vaccinated family members are more likely to be asymptomatic if they are infected.

On a related note, the CDC also admits that parents who choose not to vaccinate their children “are not the driving force behind the large scale outbreaks or epidemics” in recent years.

Indeed.

That’s not even the half of it. For more information, read my previous post, “The Ugly Untold Truth About the Pertussis Vaccine“.

Did you find value in this content? If so and you have the means, please consider supporting my independent journalism.

About Jeremy R. Hammond

About Jeremy R. Hammond

I am an independent journalist, political analyst, publisher and editor of Foreign Policy Journal, book author, and writing coach.

My writings empower readers with the knowledge they need to see through state propaganda intended to manufacture their consent for criminal government policies.

By recognizing when we are being lied to and why, we can fight effectively for liberty, peace, and justice, in order to create a better world for ourselves, our children, and future generations of humanity.

Please join my growing community of readers!

 

Download my free report 5 Horrifying Facts about the FDA Vaccine Approval Process.

Download my free report 5 Horrifying Facts about the FDA Vaccine Approval Process.

My Books

Related Articles

489 Comments

  1. Judith

    Sadly this cognitive dissonance is without scientific facts and it is selective because of the power of media and big corporations. If they had to argue their point with knowledgeable doctors such as Dr Gary Null and Sherry Tenpenny they would flounder and embarrass themselves. It is interesting that debate is not allowed, because it would show vaccination to be the farce that they are.

    Reply
    • Kathy

      Actually, Sheri Tenpenny bans anyone from her blog and social media accounts if they differ from her point of view. She would never debate a provaxer. Ever. But, it would be very simple to debate her because her ideas about Vitamin C are nonsense.

      I doubt Null would ever debate anyone at all. He is very busy selling supplements and powders that have no proven efficacy or science behind them at all. Busy, busy guy.

      Reply
      • Judith

        Gary Null has a standing offer to debate anyone about vaccines. He has never has anyone take up his offer. The offer is still open.

      • Kathy

        I will be sure to pass that along at the next team vax meeting.

      • Judith

        Please do – Gary has been calling for someone to debate him for decades without success. I for one would love to hear that debate..

      • Kathy

        I would not hold your breath. He’s not a scientist nor a doctor, he has an online degree from a dubious educational institution, sells supplements for a living, and is and AIDS denier. I cannot imagine anyone reputable wanting to debate a crazy person.

      • Graceds

        I suggest Senator Pan to debate him.

      • Kathy

        Why? Dr Pan has far better things to do. Null is a science denier. There is no reason to debate someone like that.

      • Graceds

        They seem well suited for that purpose.

      • Judith

        That is ALWAYS the excuse…but we know the real reason. Pan knows very little. When questioned by fellow Senator Joel Anderson on the use of aborted fetal cell lines in vaccines, Pan responded that it was “a myth”. He continued his fabrication by acknowledging the use of aborted fetal cells “in one or two vaccines” but said it wasn’t done that way any longer. Pan is toady of Big Pharma.

      • Kathy

        It is a myth that there are fetal cells or fetal tissue in vaccines. I watched the hearing live. I know what happened. Pan is correct. There are no fetal cells in vaccines. Viruses are grown on cells and then removed and purified for use in vaccines.
        Dr Pan was correct.

      • Graceds

        Fetal cell line MRC 5, Fetal cell line WI 38, Fetal cell line WISTAR RA27/3, used in vaccines.

      • Kathy

        As I stated, they are used in the manufacturing process. Viruses are grown on them, then removed and purified for use in a vaccine. There are no fetal cells INSIDE a vaccine.

      • Graceds

        “We know that the MMR II and the Varivax (chickenpox vaccine) (and Hep A and others) are manufactured using human fetal derived cell lines (the MRC-5 and/or WI-38 lines). The vaccines are heavily contaminated with residual fetal DNA and cellular debris.

        “The amounts are not infinitesimal…we know there is a high risk of harm, with both autoimmune and genetic (de novo mutations) damage.”
        Dr. Theresa Deisher, a PhD in Molecular and Cellular Physiology from Stanford

      • Judith

        You should know or are supposed to know that the Adenovirus, MMR-11 have W1-38 cells – also Pentacel has MRC-5 human diploid cells as have Havrix, Vaqta, Twinrix, MMRV, Imovax and Zostavax. Varivax contains both W1-38 and MRC-5.

        It might be worth you checking out the CDC website showing the vaccines that contain aborted cells and animal DNA. Yes it is clearly stated they contain both DNA and cells so please stop spreading lies.

        http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipient-table-2.pdf

      • Kathy

        Read the first line. The part where it says this table includes not only ingredients but also substances used in the manufacturing process. And then go back and reread my comments. Maybe it will finally make sense to you.

      • Judith

        Yes I read the first line -that they contain trace amounts. Of course they would only be trace amounts but trace amounts isn’t good enough – some people do not want these foreign animal and human cells in their bodies and should not be forced to have them.

      • Kathy

        $95,000 represents 2% of his total campaign contributions. Whoopdeedoo. Anderson got more campaign money from Merck and he voted no on the bill.

      • Judith

        Would I love to hear that…

      • Judith

        According to Wikipedia he holds an associate’s degree in business administration from the 2-year, for-profit Mountain State College in Parkersburg, West Virginia and a Bachelor’s degree from Thomas Edison State College in Trenton, New Jersey.

        Null holds a Ph.D. in human nutrition and public health sciences from Union Institute & University, in Cincinnati, Ohio.[Null’s doctoral thesis was entitled “A Study of Psychological and Physiological Effects of Caffeine on Human Health”

        Also – why would anyone fear debating him if they think they know more than he does. I would imagine they would relish making a fool of him if that is what they think they can do. The fact is, he knows a massive amount about vaccines and could demolish the arguments of the pharma toadies – this is why they do not want to debate him.

      • Kathy

        Whatever helps you sleep at night. Just remember that personal belief exemptions are being voted away. Because science supports vaccines.

      • Graceds

        While you are waving your pom poms,
        keep in mind, vaccination is a medical intervention, one that can cause profound injury and death.
        The science is not so advanced that we know who will be harmed or helped.

      • Kathy

        The science is advanced enough that we know that 99.999% of vaccinated Americans are NOT injured. We also know that the diseases cause injury and harm in a far greater percentage. That is risk analysis.

      • Graceds

        We do indeed know that diseases can cause injury and harm.
        We also know that vaccines can do the same.
        However, without an unvaxxed vs vaxxed study, and an independent safety evaluation,
        the true extent of vaccine damage is a work in progress.

      • Boris Ogon

        However, without an unvaxxed vs vaxxed study, and an independent safety evaluation,the true extent of vaccine damage is a work in progress.

        Once again, specify the CL, power, and signal threshold that would convince you to renounce your claim, and you will have your sample size.

        Failing to answer is precisely the same thing as stating that nothing would convince you otherwise and thus revealing the whole “unvaxxed vs vaxxed study” line as completely fraudulent.

      • Boris Ogon

        I take it that you concede the point made in the comment immediately below.

      • Graceds

        Boris, I did read the article. Cognitive Dissonance. Atypical Symptoms of infection in the vaccinated that don’t get diagnosed, and thus a nurse ends up infecting 4 neonates she’s caring for or a family member can infect the newborn or immunocompromised. It is an issue.

      • Boris Ogon

        I take it from your silence that you have gone for the default option regarding the comment I made earlier.

      • Graceds

        I answered.
        Elderly folks are sometimes earlier to bed.

      • VikingAPRNCNP

        Funny thing is I keep posting things on her Facebook pages and ghost blogs I directly challenge her cra and have yet to be blocked on facebook.

        Her latest ghostblog is an exercise in shared paranoid disorder….

      • Kathy

        I was blocked from her page years ago. All I ever do on pages like that I ask questions. Respectfully. And she blocked me.

      • VikingAPRNCNP

        Unfortunately she has indoctrinated enough people into her delusions that I think they miss my trying to educate her readers. I keep trying to provide accurate information to raise a question in at least one person a day.

      • Graceds

        I assume you were respectfully blocked.

  2. Kathy

    I think what you are missing is that if you are vaccinated and you get pertussis, you will have a much milder case. You might even never get pertussis. But, assuming you do, it will be milder. In fact, you may not have any symptoms to pass along. So, if you are not symptomatic, then how would you spread pertussis? “People with pertussis usually spread
    the disease to another person by coughing or sneezing or when spending a
    lot of time near one another where you share breathing space.” So, if you are not coughing or sneezing, you are not going to spread pertussis.

    That is the point.

    http://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/about/causes-transmission.html

    Reply
    • Graceds

      The 2013 FDA study did indicate there was transmission.

      “Animals that received an acellular pertussis vaccine had the bacteria in their airways for up to six weeks and were able to spread the infection to unvaccinated animals.”

      “This research suggests that although individuals immunized with an acellular pertussis vaccine may be protected from disease, they may still become infected with the bacteria without always getting sick and are able to spread infection to others, including young infants who are susceptible to pertussis disease.”

      http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm376937.htm

      Reply
      • Kathy

        And how did they spread it?

      • Graceds

        FDA didn’t specify in their press announcement.
        I provided the link.
        Ask them.

      • Kathy

        It was kind of a facetious question. Pertussis is spread by coughing or sneezing. To quote myself “So, if you are not coughing or sneezing, you are not going to spread pertussis.”

      • Graceds

        It was the conclusion of the FDA that suggested transmission to others, including young infants.
        Not mine.

      • Kathy

        Via coughing and sneezing. How else do you think it is being passed?

      • Graceds

        Kathy,
        Again,
        It was the FDA conclusions about transmission.
        “Animals that received an acellular pertussis vaccine had the bacteria in their airways for up to six weeks and were able to spread the infection to unvaccinated animals.”

        “This research suggests that although individuals immunized with an acellular pertussis vaccine may be protected from disease, they may still become infected with the bacteria without always getting sick and are able to spread infection to others, including young infants who are susceptible to pertussis disease.”

        http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/

        Perhaps you think the FDA would say that with no basis?

      • Kathy

        So, you use a study to make a claim but you are unwilling to quantify part of the claim yourself? And you expect me to agree with you? Prove it or move it.

      • Graceds

        I cited the FDA study.
        Are you disagreeing with the FDA?
        It would seem you are.

      • Kathy

        “FDA didn’t specify in their press announcement.
        I provided the link.
        Ask them.”

        No, the impetus is on you to answer questions to validate your own points.

      • Graceds

        I assume the method of transmission in the study would be similar, or the FDA would not have made the assumption about human transmission.
        Does that answer your question?

      • VikingAPRNCNP

        Worldwide, 90 percent of the 30 to 50 million annual cases of pertussis occur in developing countries. About 300,000 cases result in death [39], with mortality occurring predominantly in infants (who are too young to have received vaccination) and unvaccinated or undervaccinated children.

        Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Pertussis (Whooping Cough). Pertussis in Other Countries. http://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/countries.html.

        no abstract available

      • Kathy

        You don’t know. It’s clear.

      • Graceds

        You don’t want to admit the results of the FDA study.
        That is clear.

      • cabcabal

        Have you ever seen grandparents kiss their newborn grandchild? Or touch their little hands? Or cuddle them? You’re really that confused about how transmission might occur? You really think transmission can only occur through a cough or sneeze?

      • Kathy

        How did the germs get from the respiratory system of person A to their hands? They coughed or sneezed on their hands, that’s how.

      • VikingAPRNCNP

        PATHOGENESIS — B. pertussis is transmitted via aerosolized respiratory droplets. It produces a number of biologically active substances and virulence factors that promote cellular attachment, cause local tissue damage or systemic manifestations, and interfere with host defense mechanisms…..

      • VikingAPRNCNP

        Good use of broken record +5

      • AutismDad

        As usual, with a manure spreader.

      • Kathy

        They spread pertussis with a manure spreader? That is basically what you wrote.

    • cabcabal

      “In fact, you may not have any symptoms to pass along.”

      You do realize it’s not symptoms that you pass along, but a bacterial or viral infection, right?

      Reply
      • Kathy

        Brings to mind a saying from my childhood “no shit sherlock.”

  3. ione murphy

    We have larger outbreaks every year, with the majority of the cases among the vaccinated, and what is being done about it? Here is the only answers I could find in the media…

    “Until we understand the pertussis germ better it is going to be difficult to develop new vaccines,” CDC’s Skoff said. “That’s where the research is focused right now.”

    NIH is supporting a range of pertussis studies, and various companies are at the early stages of testing new vaccines, but the prospects of success are remote. To compare any new vaccine against the existing shots might require immense trials lasting years and costing hundreds of millions of dollars…”

    Pediatrician: Failure of pertussis vaccine “a matter of serious concern”

    Epidemics of the disease in 2005, 2010, and 2012 “suggest that failure of the DTaP vaccine is a matter of serious concern,” said Cherry, a professor at the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles who specializes in infectious diseases at Mattel Children’s Hospital.

    “ I believe that better vaccines are something that industry, the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research of the Food and Drug Administration, and pertussis experts should begin working on immediately,” he writes.

    According to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the booster shot to counteract waning immunity for pertussis came out five years ago. Now, there’s concern about how long the booster shot provides protection, because many kids who are up-to-date on immunizations, including the booster shot, still have contracted whooping cough. Public health officials agree on one thing: “We need a better vaccine for pertussis”, CDC spokesman Tom Skinner said.

    Reply
    • Kathy

      Well, in the last few years, the recommendations for vaccinating pregnant women have changed. That research proved it is okay to vax them and it can keep babies safe. So, there’s one thing people are doing.

      Where are you getting this? “the booster shot to counteract waning immunity for pertussis came out five years ago” You really should link to what you are quoting.

      I would like to see us go back to DTP. That seemed to work better and was found to not really be a cause of excess febrile seizures anyway.

      ETA: Interestingly, when I google, the only reference to that phrase about boosters is you. You have made that statement in comments online dozens of time. I checked out a few. Nowhere do you cite a source.

      Reply
      • ione murphy

        It took me 10 seconds to google the source for you, you’re welcome..

        http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/wisconsin-has-highest-rate-of-whooping-cough-1s6hdpb-166524046.html

        You do know the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program was created BECAUSE of the DPT vaccine ??? And you want to bring it back??? The Vaccine Injury Court lists claims for 696 deaths and 3,285 injuries from whole cell DTP

        From the IOM-
        DIPHTHERIA, TETANUS AND ACELLULAR PERTUSSIS …
        iom.nationalacademies.org/~/media/Files/Activity Files/Disease/…

        Lessons Learned
        The DTP legacy yields important lessons for the future, including the following:

        • Safety issues and especially public perception of safety have a profound effect on immunization coverage, production decisions, vaccine development and government policies and programs. Safety concerns about DTP from the mid-1970s through the mid-1990s impacted the number of manufacturers in the market; shaped the governments role in financing clinical trials and accelerating research; and led to new federal policies and programs providing liability relief for manufacturers and compensation for families. In addition, safety concerns brought new attention to a long-standing need for better coordination to assure the safety and availability of the nations vaccine supply.

        •The Goverments role in providing liability relief through the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program was crucial to retaining manufacturers in the U.S. market. Faced with mounting liability claims related to DTP, even the largest manufacturers announced they would withdraw from production of the vaccine. The Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is credited with retaining manafactures for pertussis as well as other vaccines in the U.S. market.
        The Act also mandated that the Secretary of Health and Human Services promote the development of childhood vaccines that result in fewer and less serious adverse reactions than those vaccines on the market…and promote the refinement of such vaccines (National Vaccine Injury Act of 1986)

        ” Concerns about the safety of whole-cell Pertussis vaccine date back to the 30s and (Mowery and Mitchell,1995).

        In 1947, the first reports of brain inflammation and chronic brain damage, including death, after pertussis vaccination began to be published (Brody, 1947; Byers and Moll, 1948, Low, 1955, Berg, 1958; Strom, 1960, 1967; Dick, 1967, 1974; Kuhlenkampff, 1974; Stewart, 1977, 1979). But it took more than 40 years of collective evidence before academic medicine decided it was true –1981 National Childhood Encephalopathy Study (NCES) and in 1991 and 1994 by the Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences

        BY THE 1950’S, concern about potential adverse events led some researchers to begin searching for a more refined, acellular version of pertussis vaccine that would confer immunity with less reactogenicity (Felton,1957).
        In the early to mid-1970s, the safety of whole-cell pertussis came under increasing scrutiny both in the U.S. and abroad. Newly heightened concerns were in part related to reports published in Great Britain and Germany linking whole cell Pertussis vaccine to long term neurologic effects. Consumer concerns translated into rapidly declining immunization rates in several countries, including Great Britain and Japan, among others (Gangarosa et al.,1998). Public concern about the safety of DTP reached a tipping point in Japan and Great Britain in the mid 1970’s. In 1975, in response to the deaths of infants within 24 hours after DTP vaccination, Japanese health authorities suspended the routine use of pertussis vaccine in infants, and soon after recommended that immunization against pertussis start instead at age two years. In Britain, while health authorities continued to recommend routine DTP immunization for infants, the public became increasingly wary of potential adverse effects, and many parents chose not to immunize their children.” source IOM

      • VikingAPRNCNP

        Routine immunization – Routine immunization of infants, children, adolescents, and adults (particularly pregnant women) is the most important preventive strategy [1].Recommended antimicrobial agents for the treatment and postexposure prophylaxis of pertussis: 2005 CDC Guidelines.
        AU
        Tiwari T, Murphy TV, Moran J, National Immunization Program, CDC
        SO
        MMWR Recomm Rep. 2005;54(RR-14):1.

      • Graceds

        A pediatrician who testified against sb792 in California stated there was a higher risk of miscarriage with tdap for pregnant women.

      • VikingAPRNCNP

        Again please cite original peer reviewed sources…..

      • Graceds

        I believe it was this study the doctor referenced in testimony.
        http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002937812005042
        “We identified 132 reports of Tdap administered to pregnant women; 55 (42%) described no adverse event (AE). No maternal or infant deaths were reported. The most frequent pregnancy-specific AE was spontaneous abortion in 22 (16.7%) ”

      • VikingAPRNCNP

        From your source

        During a time when Tdap was not routinely recommended in pregnancy, review of reports to VAERS in pregnant women after Tdap did not identify any concerning patterns in maternal, infant, or fetal outcomes.

        Besides this is a vaers review. It has the inherent problems of no systematized comparison to allow for detection of real problems.

        As the most famous apocryphal comment about va r s goes.

        The vaccination turned me into the incredible hulk……

      • Graceds

        “Besides this is a vaers review. It has the inherent problems of no systematized comparison to allow for detection of real problems.”
        That is one more reason why we need a vaxxed/unvaxxed study.
        The spontaneous abortions would be a significant data point for such a study.

      • VikingAPRNCNP

        Frankly it would be a waste of research dollars. The incidence of miscarriage of the population at large is a known value.

        The study you posted listed a rate for vaccinated patients that was not outside of the known rate for the population at large. It looks like it is just statistical noise in the data.

      • Graceds

        I think the Vaccine industry may be too cavalier with respect to vaccination and a possible association with miscarriage. What if the noise is coming from the vaccinated patients?
        There was an increased rate of miscarriage with the swine flu vaccine.
        There was a prime example of industry doublespeak on the subject from a safety hearing on the Lymerix Vaccine (from Pam Weintraub, The Bitter Feud over Lymerix):
        “Finally, the company touted a pregnancy registry with “no unexpected findings” and only 4 miscarriages out of 13. “You make it sound as though you find no consequences. I don’t consider that . . . no pattern of anything,” the Mayo Clinic’s Michael O’Fallon fumed. The comments “really disturb me,” he said. That was when a tall, well-dressed man swept up to the podium from somewhere in the back and motioned the presenting scientists away. It was time for damage control, and David Wheadon, vice president of regulatory affairs at GSK, took charge. “Certainly spontaneous abortion, within the context of pregnancy, in an overall population, is not something that is unexpected,” Wheadon told the panel, “and I think that was, indeed, what was intended to be said.”

      • Boris Ogon

        That is one more reason why we need a vaxxed/unvaxxed study.

        With the caveat (noted in a recent comment) that I’m just reviewing the comments and not really trying to necromance the joint, I’m pretty sure that I’ve previously said to you that when you state the confidence level, power, and – most importantly – lack of difference between the populations that would convince you that “there’s no there there,” then you’re talkin’ turkey. If you cannot or will not, you’re just sloganeering.

      • VikingAPRNCNP

        Roughly 50% of pregnancies spontaneously abort.

        Among 586 conceptions with a known outcome, 26 percent ended in preclinical loss, 8 percent ended in a clinically recognized loss, and 64 percent resulted in a live birth; the remaining 2 percent were induced abortions, ectopic pregnancies, molar pregnancies, and stillbirths.
        If preimplantation losses are considered, approximately 50 percent of fertilized oocytes do not result in a live birth [9].

        Recurrent miscarriage.
        AU
        Rai R, Regan L
        SO
        Lancet. 2006;368(9535):601.

        The spontaneous abortion rate in your source was no different than the universe at large. (16% falls pretty much in the range of 8 to 24% rate reported in up to date.)

      • Judith

        How can any pregnant woman trust vaccinations when the safety studies have not been done:

        Kinrix

        13 NONCLINICAL TOXICOLOGY
        13.1 Carcinogenesis, Mutagenesis, Impairment of Fertility

        KINRIX has not been evaluated for carcinogenic or mutagenic potential, or for impairment of fertility.

        https://www.gsksource.com/pharma/content/dam/GlaxoSmithKline/US/en/Prescribing_Information/Kinrix/pdf/KINRIX.PDF

        Pediarix

        8.1 Pregnancy

        Pregnancy Category C

        Animal reproduction studies have not been conducted with PEDIARIX. It is not known whether PEDIARIX can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman or if PEDIARIX can affect reproduction capacity.

        https://www.gsksource.com/pharma/content/dam/GlaxoSmithKline/US/en/Prescribing_Information/Pediarix/pdf/PEDIARIX.PDF

        Daptacel

        8 USE IN SPECIFIC POPULATIONS 8.1 Pregnancy

        Pregnancy Category C

        Animal reproduction studies have not been conducted with DAPTACEL vaccine. It is also not known whether DAPTACEL vaccine can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman or can affect reproductive capacity

      • Kathy

        Vaccine inserts are written after clinical trials. More research is done afterward but since it’s not done by the Pharma company it’s not in the insert. That’s why we provaxers highly recommend you read way more than inserts.

      • Graceds

        That vaccines are not tested for mutagenic, carcinogenic, and fertility issues is significant for everyone, and especially for a woman who is or may become pregnant.

      • Kathy

        Should we also test them to see if they cause balding? What about moles? Should we test vaccines to see if they cause moles? How about constipation? Incontinence? What else would you like us to test vaccines for? Everything under the sun?

      • ione murphy

        So you’re saying parents wanting to know if vaccines can cause cancer in their children is in the same league as having moles? Your statement makes you look very shallow. Why haven’t these tests been done already? Because they already know what the results will be.

      • Kathy

        I am saying that you are asking for vaccines to be tested for everything. What drug can you think of that is tested for everything? You are needlessly instilling irrational fear into people. And what makes you think cancer researchers have not studied vaccines or those ingredients? You are amazingly ignorant.

      • ione murphy

        Well all you have to do to reassure us that studies have been done showing vaccines will not cause cancer is point us to these studies you claim are out there. We will be waiting.

      • Kathy

        Nice logical fallacy there. Prove to me food doesn’t cause cancer. Oh wait, it does. You know what doesn’t cause cancer? Death. From vaccine preventable diseases.

      • ione murphy

        You know what does cause cancer? Formaldehyde…
        “In 1987, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classified formaldehyde as a probable human carcinogen under conditions of unusually high or prolonged exposure (1). Since that time, some studies of humans have suggested that formaldehyde exposure is associated with certain types of cancer. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classifies formaldehyde as a human carcinogen (2). In 2011, the National Toxicology Program, an interagency program of the Department of Health and Human Services, ….**named formaldehyde as a known human carcinogen in its 12th Report on Carcinogens*** (3)”…..http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/substances/formaldehyde/formaldehyde-fact-sheet#q4

        Based on both the epidemiologic data from cohort and case-control studies and the experimental data from laboratory research, NCI investigators have concluded that **exposure to formaldehyde may cause leukemia, particularly myeloid leukemia, in humans.**”…..http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/substances/formaldehyde/formaldehyde-fact-sheet..

        “Acute myeloid leukemia (AML), also known as acute myelogenous leukemia or acute nonlymphocytic leukemia (ANLL), is a cancer of the myeloid line of blood cells, characterized by the rapid growth of abnormal white blood cells that accumulate in the bone marrow and interfere with the production of normal blood cells. AML is the most common acute leukemia affecting adults”… source Wikipedia

        “This year (2014), an estimated 20,830 people of all ages (12,730 men and boys and 8,100 women and girls) in the United States will be diagnosed with AML. AML is the second most common type of leukemia diagnosed in both adults and children.

        An estimated 10,460 deaths (6,110 men and boys and 4,350 women and girls) from AML will occur this year.”….http://www.cancer.net/cancer-types/leukemia-acute-myeloid-aml/statistics

        Mayo Clinic- “Acute myelogenous leukemia is caused by damage to the DNA of developing cells in your bone marrow. When this happens, blood cell production goes wrong. The bone marrow produces immature cells that develop into leukemic white blood cells called myeloblasts. These abnormal cells are unable to function properly, and they can build up and crowd out healthy cells.

        In most cases, it’s not clear what causes the DNA mutations that lead to leukemia. Radiation,** exposure to certain chemicals**and some chemotherapy drugs are known risk factors for acute myelogenous leukemia.”…http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/acute-myelogenous-leukemia/basics/causes/CON-20043431

        ‘Do we know what causes acute myeloid leukemia?’

        “Most DNA changes related to AML occur during a person’s lifetime, rather than having been inherited before birth. Some of these acquired changes may have outside causes like radiation or **cancer-causing chemicals**, but in most cases the reason they occur is not known.

        http://www.cancer.org/cancer/leukemia-acutemyeloidaml/detailedguide/leukemia-acute-myeloid-myelogenous-what-causes

      • Kathy

        If formaldehyde caused cancer in all doses, humanity would have died out long ago. Our own bodies make formaldehyde, naturally, as part of metabolism and it is in most of our food.

      • Graceds

        If carcinogenicity isn’t assessed for each of the vaccines, and for the schedule, one can’t assume cancer isn’t part of the risk of vaccination.

      • Kathy

        It is more productive to research the causes of specific cancers than to test everything under that sun for carcinogenicity. If that does not make sense to you then I would recommend you find a local oncologist and ask him or her to explain it to you.

      • Graceds

        Vaccines are not “everything under the sun”.
        They are a medical intervention that you want mandated.
        That deserves a reasonable amount of scrutiny.

      • Graceds

        It is another example of CDC cognitive dissonance, to offer the HPV vaccine to prevent viruses that may lead to cancer and yet not test the Vaccine for its own potential to cause cancer.

      • Kathy

        They already have more scrutiny than any drug on earth. You are being ridiculous.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        No, you are being ridiculous. The suggestion that vaccines have been adequately studied for safety is absolutely ridiculous.

      • Kathy

        This is not good enough for you?

        Studies Examining the Childhood Immunization Schedule and Safety

        “Safety of Vaccines Used for Routine Immunization of US Children: A Systematic Review.”

        Pediatrics, Maglione et al. (July 1, 2014)

        “Childhood Immunization Schedule and Safety: Stakeholder Concerns, Scientific Evidence, and Future Studies” – Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice (January 16, 2013)

        Study Examining the Reduction of Disease Burden

        “Historical Comparisons of Morbidity and Mortality for Vaccine-Preventable Disease in the United States” – Journal of the American Medical Association, Sandra W. Roush, MT, MPH and Trudy V. Murphy, MD (Volume 298, Number 18, November 14, 2007)

        Return to top »

        Measles-Mumps-Rubella (MMR) Vaccine and Autism Studies

        “Autism Occurrence by MMR Vaccine Status Among US Children With Older Siblings With and Without Autism”

        JAMA, Jain, et al. (April 21, 2015)

        “Safety of Vaccines Used for Routine Immunization of US Children: A Systematic Review.”

        Pediatrics, Maglione et al. (July 1, 2014)

        “Lack of Association Between Measles Virus Vaccine and Autism with Enteropathy: A Case-Control Study”

        PLoS One, Hornig M, Briese T, Buie T, Bauman ML, Lauwers G, et al. (September 2008)

        “Measles Vaccination and Antibody Response in Autism Spectrum Disorders”

        Archives of Disease in Childhood, Gillian Baird, F.R.C.Paed. (February 2008)

        “Pervasive Developmental Disorders in Montreal, Quebec, Canada: Prevalence and Links With Immunizations”

        Pediatrics, Eric Fombonne, MD (Volume 118, Number 1, July 2006)

        “MMR Vaccination and Pervasive Developmental Disorders: A Case-Control Study”

        The Lancet, Liam Smeeth, MRCGP (September 11, 2004)

        “Association of Autistic Spectrum Disorder and the Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccine”

        Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, Kumanan Wilson, MD, MSc, FRCP (July 2003)

        “Neurologic Disorders After Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccination”

        Pediatrics, Annamari Makela, MD (Volume 110, Number 5, November 2002)

        “No Evidence for a New Variant of Measles-Mumps-Rubella-Induced Autism”

        Pediatrics, Eric Fombonne, FRCPsych (Volume 108, Number 4, October 2001)

        Return to top »

        Thimerosal and Autism Studies

        Prenatal and Infant Exposure to Thimerosal From Vaccines and Immunoglobulins and Risk of Autism

        Pediatrics, Cristofer S. Price, ScM, William W. Thompson, PhD et al. (September 13, 2010)

        Continuing Increases in Autism Reported to California’s Developmental Services System
        Archives of General Psychiatry, Robert Schechter, MD, MSc and Judith K. Grether, PhD (January 2008)

        “Early Thimerosal Exposure and Neuropsychological Outcomes at 7 to 10 Years”
        New England Journal of Medicine, Thompson WW, Price C, Goodson B, et al. (September 27, 2007)

        “Lack of Association Between Rh Status, Rh Immune Globulin in Pregnancy and Autism”
        American Journal of Medical Genetics, Judith H. Miles and T. Nicole Takahashi
        (May 2007)

        “Comparison
        of Blood and Brain Mercury Levels in Infant Monkeys Exposed to Methylmercury
        or Vaccines Containing Thimerosal”

        Environmental Health Perspectives, Thomas M. Burbacher, PhD (April 2005)

        “Thimerosal
        Exposure in Infants and Developmental Disorders: A Prospective Cohort
        Study in the United Kingdom Does Not Support a Causal Association”

        Pediatrics, John Heron and Nick Andrews, PhD and Jean Golding, DSc (September 2004)

        “Neurotoxic Effects of Postnatal Thimerosal Are Mouse Strain Dependent”

        Molecular Psychiatry, M Hornig, MD (June 2004)

        “Safety of Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines: A Two-Phased Study of Computerized Health Maintance Organization Database”

        Pediatrics, Thomas Verstraeten, MD (November 2003)

        “Association Between Thimerosal-Containing Vaccine and Autism”

        Journal of the American Medical Association, Anders Hviid, MSc (October 2003)

        “Thimerosal and the Occurrence of Autism: Negative Ecological Evidence from Danish Population-Based Data”

        Pediatrics, Kreesten M. Madsen, MD (September 2003)

        “Autism and Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines: Lack of Consistent Evidence for an Association”

        American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Paul Stehr-Green, DrPh, MPH (August 2003)

        “Thimerosal and Autism?”

        Pediatrics, Karen Nelson, MD (March 2003)

        “Mercury concentrations and metabolism in infants receiving vaccines containing thiomersal: A descriptive study”

        The Lancet, Michael Pichichero, MD (November 2002)

        Return to top »

        Medical Community Statements

        “Study Fails to Show a Connection Between Thimerosal and Autism”

        American Academy of Pediatrics (Spring 2003)

        “Time to Look Beyond MMR in Autism Research”

        The Lancet (Volume 359, February 23, 2002)

        Return to top »

      • Judith

        Gish Gallop – none of these studies compare unvaccinated to non vaccinated which is the only true way to tell if vaccines are causing harm.

      • Kathy

        And how would you propose that be done? Would you be willing to submit your children or grandchildren to a long-term study where you would not know if they are vaccinated or not? You would have no control over their vaccination status.

      • Judith

        You keep repeating the same gambit that it would be unethical. You know that it would not be unethical to do retrospective studies on the thousands of already unvaccinated people and children. Retrospective cohort studies have been done in vaccine studies comparing those who have had one vaccine with another – but not with unvaccinated populations – the reason they refuse to do it is because those that have been done independently have shown that unvaccinated children are healthier.

      • Kathy

        Those kinds of studies have been done already.

        German study on lower rates of asthma among the vaccinated http://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749(13)01860-5/abstract

        Another German study: prevalence of allergic diseases and
        non-specific infections in children and adolescents was not found to
        depend on vaccination status. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3057555/

        Philippine study on cognitive benefits from vaccines: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00036846.2011.566203#.VM4Ni2TF8o

        Pregnant women who are vaccinated have better birth outcomes compared to non-vaccinated mothers, three studies: http://www.cmaj.ca/content/186/4/E157.long,

        http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f393.long

        and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20630123.

        A 2013 meta-analysis finds the flu vaccine may lower the risk of heart attack http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1758749

        Comparing unvaccinated and vaccinated people who do catch the flu
        – vaccinated people are protected from the most serious effects: http://www.atsjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1164/rccm.201401-0066LE#.VSfg-ZSUcoa

        “Vaccinated versus unvaccinated children: how they fare in first
        five years of life.” Nigerian study of 25 unvaccinated and 25 vaccinated
        children: one vaccinated child had a mild case of measles. Unvaccinated
        children: 3 dead, plus 11 non-fatal cases of measles. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2260220

      • Judith

        Just a start….The usual list – none of them hold any water. No studies looking at auto immune disease which is increasing exponentially. Looking at two of your “studies”:

        Re your PHILIPPINE study

        This study was funded by “Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization” and retrospectively picked a small region in a Philippines with only 85 vaccinated kids born in 1984. Google the study – Guess they didn’t pay the researcher enough money to at least make it look credible. It is a joke. For a start the number of vaccines kids received in 1984 was much less than they receive today. Also wealthy families are far more likely to receive medical care, better education and vaccinations. Malnutrition is rife in the Philippines and poorer families who receive less medical care, poorer education and fewer vaccinations would very likely score lower in mental tests. This is a rubbish study and sets a standard for the others your have listed.

        Your KIGGS study:

        Firstly, even though the sample size was extremely large, the unvaccinated represented a very small fraction of it, 94 children,which makes it impossible to do any meaningful statistics on things such as autism which has a prevalence rate of roughly 1 in 110. Secondly, it is possible that at least some of the children for whom no record of vaccination existed might have still received a vaccine which went unrecorded. Thirdly, a lot of the data was based on a survey, which relied on parent’s memories, thus it is possible that prevalence rates may have been under, or over, reported. Fourthly, the survey did not ask for date of disease onset, therefore some vaccinated children could have gotten sick before being vaccinated and still be included in the vaccinated prevalence data.

        The rate for unvaccinated asthma was 2.1% or 2 out of 94. The rate of asthma for the vaccinated was 4.7%. This is in Germany where vaccines are not mandated. The rate here in the land of vaccine mandates, 9.3% or 9.6% depending on the year of the report.
        And you are very clever. The 8.4% came from the fact that the 2 among the 94 unvaccinated subjects belonged in a subgroup of older children. The 2 was divided by the count of the subgroup of older children to get the 8.4%. The other two subgroups of unvaccinated that had no asthmatics were ignored and not included in any count.

        As for all your FLU studies:

        Cochrane Review 2012 had this to say about industry studies of the flu vaccine.

        “If immunisation in children is to be recommended as a public health policy, large-scale studies assessing important outcomes, and directly comparing vaccine types are urgently required. The degree of scrutiny needed to identify all global cases of potential harms is beyond the resources of this review. This review includes trials funded by industry. An earlier systematic review of 274 influenza vaccine studies published up to 2007 found industry-funded studies were published in more prestigious journals and cited more than other studies independently from methodological quality and size. Studies funded from public sources were significantly less likely to report conclusions favourable to the vaccines. The review showed that reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin but there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions and spurious notoriety of the studies. The content and conclusions of this review should be interpreted in the light of this finding.”

      • Kathy

        So, in other words, I give you what you ask for but it is not good enough.

      • Judith

        I didn’t ask for rubbish thanks

      • Kathy

        It’s rubbish because study could only find 94 unvaxed kids?

      • Judith

        Doubt it – but doesn’t hold water today. There are thousands of unvaccinated kids to study.

      • Judith

        Those confounding variables are there with all vaccine studies but it doesn’t stop pharmaceutical companies declaring their vaccines are safe and effective based on them.

      • Proponent

        By all means.. cite a study that falls in line with what you just stated, Judith. An example,

        … …

        Properly referenced, of course.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        Doesn’t seem like a meaningfully large cohort to me.

      • Kathy

        Are they supposed to fabricate unvaxed kids? What is that is all they found in that group?

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        No, they are not supposed to “fabricate unvaxed kids”, but they are supposed to use a meaningfully large cohort.

      • Kathy

        “The German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Children and
        Adolescents (KiGGS) was conducted from May 2003 to May 2006 by the
        Robert Koch Institute. The objective of the interview and examination
        survey was to collect representative data on the health status of
        children and adolescents aged up to 17 years. In total, 17 641 children
        and adolescents (8656 girls, 8985 boys) and their parents participated
        in the study (response rate 66.6%), who were randomly selected in 167
        German locations (8, 9). The study was approved by the Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin ethics committee.”

      • Kathy

        It’s very bad science to purposely load the cohort one way or the other.

      • Judith

        Just a start….The usual list – none of them hold any water. No studies looking at auto immune disease which is increasing exponentially. Looking at two of your “studies”:

        Re your PHILIPPINE study

        This study was funded by “Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization” and retrospectively picked a small region in a Philippines with only 85 vaccinated kids born in 1984. Google the study – Guess they didn’t pay the researcher enough money to at least make it look credible. It is a joke. For a start the number of vaccines kids received in 1984 was much less than they receive today. Also wealthy families are far more likely to receive medical care, better education and vaccinations. Malnutrition is rife in the Philippines and poorer families who receive less medical care, poorer education and fewer vaccinations would very likely score lower in mental tests. This is a rubbish study and sets a standard for the others your have listed.

        Your KIGGS study:

        Firstly, even though the sample size was extremely large, the unvaccinated represented a very small fraction of it, 94 children,which makes it impossible to do any meaningful statistics on things such as autism which has a prevalence rate of roughly 1 in 110. Secondly, it is possible that at least some of the children for whom no record of vaccination existed might have still received a vaccine which went unrecorded. Thirdly, a lot of the data was based on a survey, which relied on parent’s memories, thus it is possible that prevalence rates may have been under, or over, reported. Fourthly, the survey did not ask for date of disease onset, therefore some vaccinated children could have gotten sick before being vaccinated and still be included in the vaccinated prevalence data.

        The rate for unvaccinated asthma was 2.1% or 2 out of 94. The rate of asthma for the vaccinated was 4.7%. This is in Germany where vaccines are not mandated. The rate here in the land of vaccine mandates, 9.3% or 9.6% depending on the year of the report.
        And you are very clever. The 8.4% came from the fact that the 2 among the 94 unvaccinated subjects belonged in a subgroup of older children. The 2 was divided by the count of the subgroup of older children to get the 8.4%. The other two subgroups of unvaccinated that had no asthmatics were ignored and not included in any count.

        As for all your FLU studies:

        Cochrane Review 2012 had this to say about industry studies of the flu vaccine.

        “If immunisation in children is to be recommended as a public health policy, large-scale studies assessing important outcomes, and directly comparing vaccine types are urgently required. The degree of scrutiny needed to identify all global cases of potential harms is beyond the resources of this review. This review includes trials funded by industry. An earlier systematic review of 274 influenza vaccine studies published up to 2007 found industry-funded studies were published in more prestigious journals and cited more than other studies independently from methodological quality and size. Studies funded from public sources were significantly less likely to report conclusions favourable to the vaccines. The review showed that reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin but there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions and spurious notoriety of the studies. The content and conclusions of this review should be interpreted in the light of this finding.”

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        There is no legitimate reason why a study couldn’t be conducted comparing health outcomes for vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children. Most kids are vaccinated anyway, and parents of unvaccinated kids could volunteer them into the placebo group and since those parents wouldn’t be blinded, their observations wouldn’t be of any relevance to the study. Only those whose role it is to assess the health outcomes of all the children would need to be blinded as to which were vaccinated according to the CDC’s schedule and which were not.

      • Kathy

        Those kinds of studies have been done and I posted a bunch of them a few comments up.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        No, no study of that kind has been done.

      • Kathy

        Studies Examining the Childhood Immunization Schedule and Safety

        “Safety of Vaccines Used for Routine Immunization of US Children: A Systematic Review.”

        Pediatrics, Maglione et al. (July 1, 2014)

        “Childhood
        Immunization Schedule and Safety: Stakeholder Concerns, Scientific
        Evidence, and Future Studies” – Institute of Medicine of the National
        Academies, Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice
        (January 16, 2013)

        Study Examining the Reduction of Disease Burden

        “Historical
        Comparisons of Morbidity and Mortality for Vaccine-Preventable Disease
        in the United States” – Journal of the American Medical Association,
        Sandra W. Roush, MT, MPH and Trudy V. Murphy, MD (Volume 298, Number 18,
        November 14, 2007)

        Return to top »

        Measles-Mumps-Rubella (MMR) Vaccine and Autism Studies

        “Autism Occurrence by MMR Vaccine Status Among US Children With Older Siblings With and Without Autism”

        JAMA, Jain, et al. (April 21, 2015)

        “Safety of Vaccines Used for Routine Immunization of US Children: A Systematic Review.”

        Pediatrics, Maglione et al. (July 1, 2014)

        “Lack of Association Between Measles Virus Vaccine and Autism with Enteropathy: A Case-Control Study”

        PLoS One, Hornig M, Briese T, Buie T, Bauman ML, Lauwers G, et al. (September 2008)

        “Measles Vaccination and Antibody Response in Autism Spectrum Disorders”

        Archives of Disease in Childhood, Gillian Baird, F.R.C.Paed. (February 2008)

        “Pervasive Developmental Disorders in Montreal, Quebec, Canada: Prevalence and Links With Immunizations”

        Pediatrics, Eric Fombonne, MD (Volume 118, Number 1, July 2006)

        “MMR Vaccination and Pervasive Developmental Disorders: A Case-Control Study”

        The Lancet, Liam Smeeth, MRCGP (September 11, 2004)

        “Association of Autistic Spectrum Disorder and the Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccine”

        Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, Kumanan Wilson, MD, MSc, FRCP (July 2003)

        “Neurologic Disorders After Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccination”

        Pediatrics, Annamari Makela, MD (Volume 110, Number 5, November 2002)

        “No Evidence for a New Variant of Measles-Mumps-Rubella-Induced Autism”

        Pediatrics, Eric Fombonne, FRCPsych (Volume 108, Number 4, October 2001)

        Return to top »

        Thimerosal and Autism Studies

        Prenatal and Infant Exposure to Thimerosal From Vaccines and Immunoglobulins and Risk of Autism

        Pediatrics, Cristofer S. Price, ScM, William W. Thompson, PhD et al. (September 13, 2010)

        Continuing Increases in Autism Reported to California’s Developmental Services System
        Archives of General Psychiatry, Robert Schechter, MD, MSc and Judith K. Grether, PhD (January 2008)

        “Early Thimerosal Exposure and Neuropsychological Outcomes at 7 to 10 Years”
        New England Journal of Medicine, Thompson WW, Price C, Goodson B, et al. (September 27, 2007)

        “Lack of Association Between Rh Status, Rh Immune Globulin in Pregnancy and Autism”
        American Journal of Medical Genetics, Judith H. Miles and T. Nicole Takahashi
        (May 2007)

        “Comparison
        of Blood and Brain Mercury Levels in Infant Monkeys Exposed to Methylmercury
        or Vaccines Containing Thimerosal”

        Environmental Health Perspectives, Thomas M. Burbacher, PhD (April 2005)

        “Thimerosal
        Exposure in Infants and Developmental Disorders: A Prospective Cohort
        Study in the United Kingdom Does Not Support a Causal Association”

        Pediatrics, John Heron and Nick Andrews, PhD and Jean Golding, DSc (September 2004)

        “Neurotoxic Effects of Postnatal Thimerosal Are Mouse Strain Dependent”

        Molecular Psychiatry, M Hornig, MD (June 2004)

        “Safety of Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines: A Two-Phased Study of Computerized Health Maintance Organization Database”

        Pediatrics, Thomas Verstraeten, MD (November 2003)

        “Association Between Thimerosal-Containing Vaccine and Autism”

        Journal of the American Medical Association, Anders Hviid, MSc (October 2003)

        “Thimerosal and the Occurrence of Autism: Negative Ecological Evidence from Danish Population-Based Data”

        Pediatrics, Kreesten M. Madsen, MD (September 2003)

        “Autism and Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines: Lack of Consistent Evidence for an Association”

        American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Paul Stehr-Green, DrPh, MPH (August 2003)

        “Thimerosal and Autism?”

        Pediatrics, Karen Nelson, MD (March 2003)

        “Mercury concentrations and metabolism in infants receiving vaccines containing thiomersal: A descriptive study”

        The Lancet, Michael Pichichero, MD (November 2002)

        Return to top »

        Medical Community Statements

        “Study Fails to Show a Connection Between Thimerosal and Autism”

        American Academy of Pediatrics (Spring 2003)

        “Time to Look Beyond MMR in Autism Research”

        The Lancet (Volume 359, February 23, 2002)

      • AutismDad

        Gagbage

      • Kathy

        Summary of the studies comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated populations

        German study on lower rates of asthma among the vaccinated http://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749(13)01860-5/abstract

        Another German study: prevalence of allergic diseases and
        non-specific infections in children and adolescents was not found to
        depend on vaccination status. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3057555/

        Philippine study on cognitive benefits from vaccines: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00036846.2011.566203#.VM4Ni2TF8o

        Pregnant women who are vaccinated have better birth outcomes compared to non-vaccinated mothers, three studies: http://www.cmaj.ca/content/186/4/E157.long,

        http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f393.long

        and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20630123.

        A 2013 meta-analysis finds the flu vaccine may lower the risk of heart attack http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1758749

        Comparing unvaccinated and vaccinated people who do catch the flu
        – vaccinated people are protected from the most serious effects: http://www.atsjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1164/rccm.201401-0066LE#.VSfg-ZSUcoa

        Adding more studies as I find them:

        “Vaccinated versus unvaccinated children: how they fare in first
        five years of life.” Nigerian study of 25 unvaccinated and 25 vaccinated
        children: one vaccinated child had a mild case of measles. Unvaccinated
        children: 3 dead, plus 11 non-fatal cases of measles. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2260220

      • AutismDad

        Trash science.

      • Proponent

        Can you parse the following, Jeremy?

        “Specify the confidence level, power, and effect size that would cause you to concede that there is no connection, and you will have your sample size.”

        (Tip of the hat to Boris Ogon.)

      • Kathy

        That is not gish gallop. I am not drowning you in small BS arguments.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        This is not good enough for you?

        Most certainly not. Let’s just look at your first example, shall we, of a study you are claiming proves the safety of vaccines. Well, what does it actually say? It states that studies clearly show that some vaccines are associated with severe adverse events.

      • Kathy

        Rarely. Key is rarely. If we look at how many claims have been paid out in USA for severe adverse reactions to vaccines and compare to number of Americans vaccinated, we find vaccines are literally 99.999% safe.

      • Graceds

        You are assuming that the number of claims paid out represent the number of Vaccine injuries. False assumption.
        What the compensated claims do show, however, is how profound some of those injuries can be.

      • Kathy

        Even if you double the number of claims paid, and assume there are twice that many injuries, you still get 99.999% vaccinated Americans just fine.

        And diseases injured far more and killed far more, before vaccines. So, it’s about risk analysis. If we did not vax, far more would be injured or killed.

      • Kathy

        We have no other way of counting them. I even doubled them, to be generous.

      • AutismDad

        Due to narrow definition and orchestrated denial.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        It is astonishing to hear a person actually argue that vaccines shouldn’t be studied for safety with regard to the concern that they might be associated with an increased risk of cancer.

      • Kathy

        Please do not misconstrue my words. The causes of cancer should be studied. Vaccines do not need to be studied for everything under the sun. That is ridiculous. They are already studied for safety more strictly than any other drug on earth. If there is any evidence from cancer researchers that vaccines cause cancer, then they should be studied. As happened with SV40. That was studied quite in depth.

        This cancer argument is just a way to discredit vaccines. If we studied all vaccines for cancer, all ingredients for cancer, and found no link whatsoever, you would claim we had not studied them for a lifetime. If we studied them for 100 years, you would then move on to something else. You would say we have not studied vaccines for UTIs or hernias. This is a non-scientific diversionary tactic by antivaxers.

      • ione murphy

        And yet with all this scrutinizing you say goes on, we keep having vaccines being recalled because of serious adverse events or bacteria in the vaccine, or even infected with the live virus. How do all this unsafe vaccines keep getting released if they are so thoroughly tested first? Here is a small sample I have found..

        A common rabies vaccine for humans is being recalled in the United States and 23 other countries after a live strain of the virus was found in some other samples made at the same time.Testing of Aventis Pasteur’s IMOVAX vaccine uncovered the presence of a live Pittman-Moore strain of the rabies virus, when the drug “should not contain live virus,” the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said.

        Tainted flu vaccine could have been a health nightmare. Chiron’s Fluvirin vaccine was pulled after the potentially dangerous serratia bacteria was found in some lots. Congress is investigating the quality of oversight of the Chiron plant by the Food and Drug Administration. The Securities and Exchange Commission and federal prosecutors also are investigating whether Chiron downplayed its problem in public statements. Officials at Chiron, which is based in Emeryville, and the FDA have yet to provide details about how the bacteria infiltrated the vaccine at Chiron’s British manufacturing plant. Nor have they revealed how much of the live bacteria or its dangerous toxins were found in the huge inventory of vaccine doses. The company was preparing to ship at least 46 million doses of its product, Fluvirin, to U.S. distributors

        2007 — The CDC and FDA today announced the recall of 1.2 million doses of children’s Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine (Hib vaccine) due to concerns of product sterility, the concern is that the vaccine may be contaminated with bacteria

        2009—Alert: A meningitis C vaccine has been withdrawn because it was contaminated with a potentially lethal bacterium

        Thousands of doses of meningitis C vaccine were recalled after a contamination scare. The alert was sounded after tests found traces of the bacteria Staphylococcus aureus, which can cause blood poisoning. About 60,000 doses are being recalled, a third of which had already been delivered to GP surgeries and health clinics in the past month. It is not yet known how many have been given to babies.

        GlaxoSmithKline has recalled a lot of its H1N1 swine flu vaccine Pandemrix in Canada following complaints of adverse reactions from the vaccine, reports said.GSK has asked that the October batch of H1N1 swine flu Pandemrix be taken out of circulation because it produced serious and immediate anaphylactic reactions

        An increased risk of narcolepsy was found following vaccination with Pandemrix, a monovalent 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccine that was used in several European countries during the H1N1 influenza pandemic. Narcolepsy is a chronic neurological disorder caused by the brain’s inability to regulate sleep-wake cycles normally. There were over 800 children in Sweden and elsewhere in Europe who developed narcolepsy, an incurable sleep disorder, after being immunised with the Pandemrix H1N1 swine flu vaccine made by British drugmaker GlaxoSmithKline.

        2011—Baxter Healthcare Corp. has announced it is recalling around 300,000 doses of its Preflucel flu vaccine due to an ‘excessive’ amount of adverse reactions. Recalled from thousands of pharmacies and surgeries across Europe, the 300,000 units are to be immediately withdrawn.

        2012—The typhoid vaccine called Typhim Vi made by Sanofi Pasteur was recalled this week (October 8), due to insufficient potency in 88 percent of its stock. Anyone immunized after January 2011 could have received the weaker vaccine that may not protect against infection, reported BBC News

        The ‘Infanrix Hexa’ vaccine which is given to babies under 6 months old for diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis (whooping cough), hepatitis B, poliomyelitis (polio) and Haemophilus influenza type b (Hib) has been recalled due to a potential contamination by Bacillus cereus a bacterium which is known to be toxic to humans. GSK has stated that ‘there is no need to worry’ about health risks associated with the vaccine although they admit most of the 115,000 dosages had already been administered to infants throughout Australia.

        2014—A pharmaceutical company has voluntarily recalled a batch of vaccines for Hepatitis A due to quality issue, according to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).The affected product lots present safety risk and potential adverse health consequences,” the FDA said. The affected lot numbers are 3000060.08, 3000144.03, 3000144.06, 3000502.02, 3000734.02, and 3000734.04. The FDA instructed distributors, retailers, hospitals, pharmacies or clinics with the affected lots to discontinue further distribution, sale and use. Adverse reactions from the use of the recalled products may be reported to the FDA.

      • Proponent

        Repeating and regurgitating your walls of copy pasta, Ione Murphy.. will not and does not lend any more credence to your rather obvious attempts at.. and for the most part.. baseless fear-mongering.

        But.. thanks for bringing up the important point that there is active surveillance and ongoing monitoring occurring.

      • ione murphy

        Shall we have a look through your comments and see how many are repeated copy and paste? But that would just show what a hypocrite you are.

        Fear mongering? Are you saying these recalls of vaccines, that were supposed to have been tested for live viruses or bacterial contamination BEFORE being released to the public , is made up?

      • Proponent

        I see you’ve moved past your erroneous formaldehyde talking point, Ione Murphy.

        Think that’s a good thing.

        But..

        Am wondering, though.. if you are going to try to resurrect it in a future discussion? Even though.. it’s now (and has been before) been proven conclusively as bunk to you?

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        Please do not misconstrue my words.

        I didn’t. You did in fact argue, as anyone can plainly see, that vaccines shouldn’t be studied for safety with regard to the concern that they might be associated with cancer.

        Simply astonishing.

        And why bring SV40 into the discussion? It doesn’t exactly support your view, given the fact that people were exposed to it via vaccines.

      • Graceds

        “I do not think vaccines should be studied for cancer because there is no evidence they cause cancer.”
        Totally circular logic.

      • Kathy

        No, if there was evidence they caused cancer, they should be studied. As SV40 was studied.

      • AutismDad

        No we don’t want to create EVIDENCE do we? Hell we’d go back to the days when vaccine makers were being litigated out of business based on the very same evidence.

      • sabelmouse

        they shouldn’t be studied because there’s no evidence? how do we know that there is no evidence unless we study them?

      • sabelmouse

        cancer rarely happens on the spot.

      • sabelmouse

        you CAN be funny!

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        You’re begging the question.

        Our study is aimed at investigating the association between common childhood infectious diseases (measles, chickenpox, rubella, mumps and pertussis) and the risk of developing leukaemia in an adult population….. Our results pointed out a protective role of childhood infectious diseases on the risk of CLL in adults. Although a specific antioncogenic effect of some infectious disease, especially measles, cannot be ruled out, the observed decrease of risk with increasing number of infections suggests that a more general “hygiene hypothesis” could be the most likely explanation of the detected association. The protective role of pertussis remains to be elucidated.

        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.28205/full

      • Kathy

        How do you weigh the risks associated with these diseases against that? The wiley link will not open so I cannot see if they discuss it there. Yes, I tried it multiple ways. Also, if you do not survive childhood, your risk of adult leukemia is zero.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        Link works for me.

        Allow me to reiterate the point: you said there is no evidence vaccines cause cancer. Yet there is evidence that prevention of childhood diseases like measles (for which the risk factors of complications are well understood, eg, vitamin A deficiency) may in fact increase the risk of cancer.

        Thus, even by your own fallacious logic, the association between vaccines and cancer ought to be further studied.

      • Kathy

        You want to put children thru the misery of childhood diseases that can kill them and cause severe complications just to possibly have a lesser change of cancer later in life?

        Vitamin A is only suggested with measles, none of the other diseases on your list, and study results are mixed.

        http://www.who.int/elena/titles/bbc/vitamina_pneumonia_children/en/

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        I’ve no interest in debating idiotic strawman arguments and so will refer you to my previous comment. Furthermore,

        The epidemiological association between measles mortality and malnutrition, especially vitamin A deficiency, is well recognized.

        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4266374/

      • sabelmouse

        huge miserly! i ,like,itched!

      • Kathy

        Is that a nonsense poem?

      • sabelmouse

        as opposed to a sense poem?

      • Kathy

        exactly

      • Kathy

        Link works this morning. Interesting that the vaccination rate for this study group was very low. So, they really could not say if vaccinated individuals have any lesser or greater potential for adult leukemia. Further, they only clarified a potential protective factor with measles, no other infection.

        So, where is the study on vaccinated adults and whether their risk of leukemia increases if they had measles vax instead of wild measles?

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        Interesting that the vaccination rate for this study group was very low.

        Naturally.

        So, they really could not say if vaccinated individuals have any lesser or greater potential for adult leukemia. Further, they only clarified a potential protective factor with measles, no other infection.

        “Our results pointed out a protective role of childhood infectious diseases on the risk of CLL in adults.”

        If you wish to read that as

        “Our results pointed out a protective role of [measles infection] on the risk of CLL in adults.”

        It still supports what I said (especially since it was the protective effect of measles that I mentioned specifically).

        More:

        There was evidence of association between a negative history of measles, exposure in early life, and development of immunoreactive diseases, sebaceous skin diseases, degenerative diseases of bone and cartilage, and certain tumours.

        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2856946

        A reduced risk of Parkinson’s disease was associated with most childhood viral infections. The negative association was statistically significant for a history of measles prior to college entrance.

        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4061437

        Measles and mumps, especially in case of both infections, were associated with lower risks of mortality from atherosclerotic CVD [Cardiovascular Disease].

        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26122188

        In the 1970s, measles infections were observed to cause regression of pre-existing cancer tumors in children.

        http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061030143318.htm

      • Kathy

        So, you are in favor of advocating children suffer and possibly die from preventable disease to possibly prevent infection/disease in old age?

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        I’ve no interest in debating idiotic strawman arguments. You are welcome to respond to what I’ve actually written.

      • Kathy

        When people are opposed to vaccines, I always assume they are in favor of disease rates rising and children suffering more. That is what would happen if we stop vaccinating. If I am wrong, please tell me what your plan is to keep the public safe from these diseases. Why criticize vaccines unless you have a plan?

      • AutismDad

        So dumb. The needle on the dumbometer flew right off.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        Like I said, I’ve no interest in debating idiotic strawman arguments, akin to me arguing that since you favor vaccines, you must favor damaging children with their side effects. Banned for trolling.

        please tell me what your plan is to keep the public safe from these diseases

        To start with, stay healthy. Eat right. Get sunshine. Exercise. Build a robust immune system. Our bodies were designed to be perfectly capable of keeping diseases at bay, and it never ceases to astonish me how people like you seem incapable of comprehending that elementary truism.

      • Kathy

        Children in the usa don’t suffer from SAM.

      • AutismDad

        No its SIDS

      • Proponent

        “Infections as a risk factor for Parkinson’s disease: a case–control study”

        (Abstract)

        “Objectives: The etiology of Parkinson’s disease (PD) is unknown. The aim of the study was to test the hypothesis that some infectious diseases are related to the occurrence of PD. Methods: The case–control study, conducted in Belgrade during the period 2001–2005, comprised 110 subjects diagnosed for the first time as PD cases, and 220 controls chosen among patients with degenerative joint disease and some diseases of the digestive tract.

        Results: According to logistic regression analysis, PD was significantly related to mumps [odds ratio adjusted on occupation and family history of PD (aOR) = 7.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 3.77–16.36], scarlet fever (aOR = 12.18, 95% CI = 1.97–75.19), influenza (aOR = 8.01, 95% CI = 4.61–13.92), whooping cough (aOR = 19.90, 95% CI = 2.07–190.66) and herpes simplex infections (aOR = 11.52, 95% CI = 2.25–58.89). Tuberculosis, measles and chicken pox were not associated with PD. Other infectious diseases we asked for were not reported (12 diseases), or were too rare (four diseases) to be analysed.

        Conclusion: The results obtained are in line with the suggestion that some infectious diseases may play a role in the development of PD.”

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        So a study with 110 subjects and 220 controls found no association, yet the study with a cohort of 50,000 found a statistically significant negative correlation. Seems that shouldn’t be dismissed so easily.

      • Proponent

        “The association between a negative history of measles in childhood and certain diseases later in life was investigated by a historical prospective method, based on school health records combined with self-reporting in adulthood, and tests for specific IgG measles antibody.”

        “Self-reporting”? “Historical prospective method”?

        Hardly a robust approach/methodology, Jeremy.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        I didn’t argue it was a robust approach; merely that it shouldn’t be dismissed. Worthy of further study, surely.

      • Kathy

        And SV40 was studied. When there are reports of adverse events, those are studied. For example, autism and vaccines has been studied at great length. SV40 was studied and not found to cause cancer in humans. That is exactly the kind of research on vaccines that should be done. Not what you are suggesting, which is abstract cherry picking.

      • ione murphy

        It seems there has already been several studies on cancer and vaccines done already over the years…Bichel, “Post-vaccinial Lymphadenitis Developing into Hodgkin’s Disease”, Acta Med Scand, 1976, Vol 199, p523-525.

        Stewart, AM, et al, “Aetiology of Childhood Leukaemia“, Lancet, 16 Oct, 1965, 2:789-790. [Listed under Vaccine Adverse Reactions.]

        Glathe, H et al, “Evidence of Tumorigenic Activity of Candidate Cell Substrate in Vaccine Production by the Use of Anti-Lymphocyte Serum”,Development Biol Std, 1977, 34:145-148.

        Bolognesi, DP, “Potential Leukemia Virus Subunit Vaccines: Discussion”, Can Research, Feb 1976, 36(2 pt 2):655-656.

        Colon, VF, et al, “Vaccinia Necrosum as a Clue to Lymphatic Lymphoma“, Geriatrics, Dec 1968, 23:81-82.

        Park-Dincsoy, H et al, “Lymphoid Depletion in a case of Vaccinia Gangrenosa”, Laval Med, Jan 1968, 39:24-26.

        Hugoson, G et al, “The Occurrence of Bovine Leukosis Following the Introduction of Babesiosis Vaccination”, Bibl Haemat, 1968, 30:157-161.

        Hartstock, , “”Post-vaccinial Lymphadenitis: Hyperplasia of Lymphoid Tissue That Simulates Malignant Lymphomas”, Apr 1968, Cancer, 21(4):632-649.

        Allerberger, F, “An Outbreak of Suppurative Lymphadenitis Connected with BCG Vaccination in Austria- 1990/1991,” Am Rev Respir Disorder, Aug 1991, 144(2) 469.

        Omokoku B, Castells S, “Post-DPT inoculation cervical lymphadenitis in children.” N Y State J Med 1981 Oct;81(11):1667-1668

      • ione murphy

        Show me one study on the safety of injecting even residual amounts of formaldehyde….and there is no “if” it causes cancer. It’s listed as a known human carcinogen

      • Kathy

        I would highly recommend you study toxicity before you go making claims about it. Nothing is toxic in all doses. Toxicity is always dependent on dose.

      • ione murphy

        Reproductive and Developmental Toxicity of Formaldehyde: A Systematic Review

        “Formaldehyde, the recently classified carcinogen and ubiquitous environmental contaminant, has long been suspected of causing adverse reproductive and developmental effects, but previous reviews were inconclusive, due in part, to limitations in the design of many of the human population studies. In the current review, we systematically evaluated evidence of an association between formaldehyde exposure and adverse reproductive and developmental effects, in human populations and in vivo animal studies, in the peer-reviewed literature. The mostly retrospective human studies provided evidence of an association of maternal exposure with adverse reproductive and developmental effects. Further assessment of this association by meta-analysis revealed an increased risk of spontaneous abortion (1.76, 95% CI 1.20–2.59, p=0.002) and of all adverse pregnancy outcomes combined (1.54, 95% CI 1.27–1.88, p<0.001), in formaldehyde-exposed women,"….http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3203331/

      • Kathy

        As with anything, exposure to toxic levels can cause health issues. That is what your link shows. It does not say that all levels of formaldehyde are toxic. If they were, most living creatures would have died out eons ago. Many species, including humans, make and eat formaldehyde. It is a natural byproduct of metabolism

        And we come full circle to me recommending you take some science courses.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        As with anything, exposure to toxic levels can cause health issues.

        And how do we know that the exposure to a known carcinogen in vaccines in even very small amounts will not cause harm in at least some children? Not everyone’s body has the same capacity to eliminate toxins or render them harmless.

        And you keep saying it’s in our food and we eat it. Surely someone who condescends to others to “take some science courses” must understand he difference between ingesting and injecting toxins?

      • Brian

        Your ignorance of chemistry is not a valid argument.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        What’s not a valid argument is your statement, “Your ignorance of chemistry is not a valid argument.”

        You are, of course, welcome to actually reply substantively to my previous post. You’re on notice for trolling.

      • ione murphy

        Ok, so what is the safe level of formaldehyde or formalin used in vaccine production? Can you show me these studies on what’s considered a safe dosage of a know human carcinogen, that also has been shown to cause ‘Reproductive and Developmental Toxicity’?

      • Kathy

        Epidemiology of chronic occupational exposure to formaldehyde: report of the Ad Hoc panel on health aspects of formaldehyde. Toxicol Ind. Health. 1988;4:77-90.

        Goldmacher VS, Thilly WG. Formaldehyde is mutagenic for cultured human cells. Mutat. Res. 1983;116:417-422.

        Heck H, Casanova-Schmitz M, Dodd PB, et al. Formaldehyde (CH2O)
        concentrations in the blood of humans and Fischer-344 rats exposed to
        CH2O under controlled conditions. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 1985;46:1-3.

        Huennekens FM, Osborne MJ. Folic acid coenzymes and one-carbon metabolism. Adv Enzymol. 1959;21:369-446.

        Natarajan AT, Darroudi F, Bussman CJM, van Kesteren-van Leeuwen AC.
        Evaluation of the mutagenicity of formaldehyde in mammalian cytogenetic
        assays in vivo and in vitro. Mutat. Res. 1983;122:355-360.

        Ragan DL, Boreiko CJ. Initiation of C3H/10T1/2 cell transformation by formaldehyde. CancerLett. 198113:325-331.

        Til HP, Woutersen RA, Feron VJ, et al. Two-year drinking-water study of formaldehyde in rats. Food Chem Toxicol. 1989;27:77-87.

      • ione murphy

        see that’s the thing..there are plenty of studies done showing inhaling formaldehyde will cause cancer, and studies on absorption through the skin, or in the water,….but where are the studies done showing if it’s safe to INJECT formaldehyde?

      • Kathy

        All the studies showing that certain amounts of formaldehyde can cause cancer refer to toxic doses. They do not indicate that all amounts of formaldehyde cause cancer if you inhale it or come into contact with it. And, since there is more formaldehyde already in your body than in a vaccine, and the toxic doses are much higher, why do you keep harping on this issue? It is totally clear that there is far too little formaldehyde in vaccines to cause any health concerns.

        Again, for the umpteenth time, toxicity is based on dose.

      • ione murphy

        Where does it show how much formaldehyde is in a vaccine??? How much is a toxic dose???

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        I would like to see you answer Ione’s question, personally.

      • Kathy

        I answered her question already, in the link.

      • Brian

        Wow! how many times must you move the goalposts?

        Anti vaccine myth: “Vaccines causes cancer because they contain formaldehyde”
        Reality debunking myth: “There’s a hundred times the formaldehyde in a pear”
        Anti vaccine mentality: “… but ingestion vs injection”
        Reality: “Nope. There’s far more formaldehyde circulating in your blood right now.”
        Anti vaccine mentality: “… but not all people are the same”
        Reality: “Even an infant has more formaldehyde circulating in their blood right now.”
        Anti vaccine mentality: “… but when combined with (intentionally unnamed mystery chemical), it’s dangerous”
        Reality: Argument from ignorance logical fallacy

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        I would still like to see you answer the question.

      • Brian

        What question? The amount of formaldehyde in vaccines is orders of magnitude below the lowest observable adverse effect level. Neither “injection” nor “synergistic effects” are even relevant because the dosages are so low.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        How do you know? Has a study been done taking those factors into consideration?

      • Brian

        Yes. There have been tons of studies.

      • Graceds

        Not…just…the dose.
        The synergy of the vaccine antigen(s) and the other vaccine ingredients may be in play as well.

      • Proponent

        Incorrect and/or specious.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        It is not incorrect. Synergistic effects have to be taken into consideration.

      • Proponent

        Merely reiterating the same.. not convincing.

        Back that stuff up.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        You are seriously arguing that synergistic effects ought not to be taken into consideration?

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        You are overlooking the fact that different people have different tolerances to different substances, that one person might be fine if exposed to a certain substance at a certain dosage, while another person might be severely damaged by the same dosage of the same substance.

      • Kathy

        No I am most certainly not. Having had a moderate reaction to MMR and a serious reaction to sulfa drugs, I am acutely aware of what you are stating.

      • Proponent

        “Formaldehyde”

        “Formaldehyde from an injected vaccine would immediately
        start to be taken up by surrounding cells. Some of it would reach the bloodstream, but it is quickly broken down. The amount in a vaccine would be metabolised in ~10 minutes. Our bodies and cells are very familiar with formaldehyde. Every cell in the human body produces formaldehyde and the average adult produces between 50 and 55 g, or 50-55 000 000 micrograms every day.

        Formaldehyde is already present in our blood and cells and the amount from a vaccine is so miniscule that the blood does not even register a difference. There is 120 times more formaldehyde in a pear than in a vaccine. But small amounts of ingested formaldehyde are not harmful either because the gut breaks it down. The most harmful route for formaldehyde is inhalation, and it can be toxic where there is chronic, long term exposure eg. factory workers breathing in daily fumes.”

        (Source: Vaxplanations | “Injection vs Ingestion. Myths and Facts.” )

        … …

        Your.. erhm.. ‘research’ and ‘research skills’.. leave quite a bit to be desired, Ione Murphy.

        Something very relevant, where you are concerned.. another concept that you seem to be unfamiliar with … confirmation bias.

      • Judith

        There are some children and adults with the MTHFR gene. Their methylation pathways are not working properly which means they have trouble breaking down certain toxic substances and heavy metals. These are the ones that often suffer from vaccination.

      • Proponent

        Arguing by assertion only.. and particularly given your commenting history, Judith.. is not convincing.

        At.. all.

        Back that stuff up (and please.. attribute your sources).. or. go fish.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        How ironic you accuse others of confirmation bias while arguing that the formaldehyde in vaccines is safe because there is more in a pear while overlooking the distinguishing factor Ione Murphy has repeatedly pointed out to you, ingestion and injection are not the same thing.

      • Proponent

        Get back to me when you’ve read through the entire linked article.

        As your post stands, Jeremy.. you’ve offered nothing to refute anything mentioned in the post your are responding to as it is.

        And.. may I add.. arguing by assertion only (being kind and to keep it simple).. is not convincing.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        I would highly recommend you respond to what is actually said. Ione Murphy did not say formaldehyde is toxic “in all doses”. He asked you to show him one study on the safety of injecting even residual amounts of formaldehyde” and observed the fact that it is a known carcinogen. Shall we assume from your non-response that you can’t produce such a study?

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        Show us the studies that show vaccines do not increase the risk of cancer. We’ll be waiting.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        Nobody is saying vaccines need to be tested “for everything” — just those things where there is a recognized potential risk that ought to be evaluated.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        Let’s please not be ridiculous. Graceds notes a serious concern about the lack of safety studies.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        We do read “way more than inserts” (in case you hadn’t noticed). But we also advise other parents that the inserts are a good place to start.

      • Kathy

        I do not consider them a good place to start because so many people misread them. They think everything therein is actually caused by vaccines and they panic.

      • Judith

        An insult to the intelligence of people who choose to know about a medication they or their children are about to receive.

      • Kathy

        Again, I don’t care if you want to read the insert but you all misread them. That is a problem. You all think adverse events listed are actually side effects caused by vaccines. You are 100% wrong but you all don’t seem to care. You perpetuate the lie that everything listed in the insert is caused by vaccines. That is a problem.

        If you want to know about vaccines, a better place to start is the pink book.

        http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/index.html

      • ione murphy

        Australia ends free pertussis vaccines for adults because ‘cocooning’ is ineffective in protecting kids):

        “PARENTS across Australia will no longer receive free whooping cough vaccinations because it is not effective in protecting newborns from the potentially deadly illness, a parliamentary committee has heard.” “The PBAC, which is totally independent and very expert, has determined that there is no clinical effectiveness of this strategy,” Professor Brook said. He said this had made it clear the cocooning strategy should not be continued. “So all jurisdictions who have been in this program will be effectively ceasing the cocooning strategy as of the end of June this year.” “There has been a national committee meet to look at this and to make decisions on the basis of the best scientific evidence available … the evidence is that the strategy has not been effective.”

        http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/states-ending-free-parent-whooping-vaccine/story-e6frfku0-1226350174856

      • Graceds

        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26320420
        The impact of parental postpartum pertussis vaccination on infection in infants: A population-based study of cocooning in Western Australia

        “In our setting, vaccinating parents with dTpa during the four weeks following delivery did not reduce pertussis diagnoses in infants. “

      • Kathy

        Thank you for sharing. Does that mean something that tells you not to vaccinate?

      • Graceds

        My vaccination choices are not of interest.

      • Kathy

        So, that pertussis study from Australia is meaningless? Because you do know they are having a pertussis problem there, just like we are in certain US states?

  4. VikingAPRNCNP

    I strongly encourage people to read vaccinated by Paul offitt, the panic virus by Seth mnookin and influenza by John barry.

    The thing that is getting lost here is that wild pertussis has a serious adverse event rate of about 5%.

    I think what has gotten lost is that whole cell DTP was withdrawn at least in part d/t pressure by. Barbara low fisher.

    The authors of the baboon study just published an article showing effectiveness of whole cell vaccines.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26561389

    Reply
    • Judith

      I strongly recommend people do their research into Dr Offit for Profit – he is a mouthpiece for big pharma and profits hugely from vaccines. He famously said a child could get 10,000 vaccines at once and not suffer ill effects.

      Wyeth’s “RotaShield” was approved for use as a rotavirus vaccine – but intussusception for 1 in 5,000 was detected post-release. It was pulled from the market. About 100 cases came up during “RotaShield”‘s brief licensing carrer that are attributed to the vaccine: 50 operated on, 1 died.

      Intussusception was detected among some subject in the pre-licensing trials. Whether this should have caused a delay or rejection of the license is the main factual point at issue.

      Offit was a member of the ACIP committee – part of the CDC, and one of the two main bodies making decisions on vaccine approval (the other being the VRBPAC, part of the FDA).

      In his capacity as a member of the ACIP committee Offit voted in favour of Rotashield, while developing a rival vaccine – Merck’s “RotaTeq”.

      Nowadays both “RotaTeq” and another rotavirux vaccine, GSK “Rotarix”, are in use. They have around 1/10 of the “RotaShield” risk, eg about 1 in 50,000, and this is viewed in health policy as an acceptable risk/reward tradeoff.

      Offit has profited to the tune of tens of millions of dollars from his share of the patent rights on “RotaTeq”.

      Both Rotarix- and Rotateq – current vaccines in use -have been found to be contaminated with pig viruses.

      Reply
      • VikingAPRNCNP

        Actually you are misquoting the 10000 vaccines statement. The actual statement was in regards to the number of sntigens. See

        Evidence of adverse effects related to exposure to multiple antigens is lacking. In a cohort of 1047 children who were exposed to an average of >10,000 antigens by age 24 months (predominantly through whole cell pertussis vaccine), there was no association between increasing antigen exposure and adverse neuropsychologic outcomes (eg, general intellectual function, speech and language, verbal memory, attention and executive function, tics, achievement, visual spatial ability, and behavior regulation)
        Number of antigens in early childhood vaccines and neuropsychological outcomes at age 7-10 years.
        AU
        Iqbal S, Barile JP, Thompson WW, DeStefano F
        SO
        Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2013;22(12):1263.

        Furthermore the vaccines in use today have far fewer antigens.

        300 antigens today vs 3000 in 1980.
        Addressing parents’ concerns: do multiple vaccines overwhelm or weaken the infant’s immune system?
        AU
        Offit PA, Quarles J, Gerber MA, Hackett CJ, Marcuse EK, Kollman TR, Gellin BG, Landry S
        SO
        Pediatrics. 2002;109(1):124.

        The infant immune system can respond to multiple antigens (conservative estimates suggest thousands) simultaneously Simultaneous administration of childhood vaccines: an important public health policy that is safe and efficacious.
        AU
        King GE, Hadler SC
        SO
        Pediatr Infect Dis J. 1994;13(5):394.

        AD
        National Immunization Program, Centers for Disease Control, Atlanta, GA 30333.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        Here is a statement from the Children’s Hospital of Philedelphia:

        Compared to what they typically encounter and manage during the day, vaccines are literally a drop in the ocean.” In fact, Dr. Offit’s studies show that in theory, healthy infants could safely get up to 100,000 vaccines at once.

        You know how asinine that is as well as anyone.

      • VikingAPRNCNP

        Reputable peer reviewed sources for contamination claims?

      • VikingAPRNCNP

        NVIC is NOT a reputable source.
        It is a secondary source at best.
        Peer reviewed means articles indexed and retrievable through pubmed or cinahl or up to date.
        I did a little reading today. One of the reasons that bordatella has been cultured in different cell lines is that it is notoriously difficult to culture in traditional media. Another reason for culturing across species is that the infectious organism is attenuated when grown in cells from species that it did not originally evolve in to infect. IOW pathogenicity of any given organism tends to be species specific. viruses that evolved to attack pigs tend to be rather poor at infecting humans because competitive pressures favored the physiology of the pig not humans. The virus retains antigens but it is less infective when later used to develop a vaccine for humans. (See John Barry The Great Influenza 2004 and Vaccinated 2007 by Paul Offitt for an excellent explanation of these issues.) SV40 is not considered to be a public health threat at least in part because of this phenomenon of being species specific.)

      • ione murphy

        Did you really just say “SV40 is not considered to be a public health threat at least in part because of this phenomenon of being species specific.”??

        “SV-40 infection is now widespread within the human population almost certainly as a result of poliovaccine produced in rhesus monkey kidney cells during the 1950s. A recent study showed infection in 23% of blood samples from normal individuals.

        The virus can also be detected in sperm fluid and is likely to be passed congenitally to future generations (Martini et al. SV40 Early Region and Large T Antigen in Human Brain Tumors, Peripheral Blood Cells, and Sperm Fluids from Healthy Individuals. Cancer Research 56: 4820-4825, 1996).

        It is well known that SV40 was administered to humans through contaminated vaccines, mainly anti-polio vaccines between 1955 and 1963 (3,4).”

        “The possibility of a human-to-human transmission of SV40 was taken into consideration only recently (5). Indeed, SV40 DNA sequences were detected in normal and neoplastic tissues of persons too young (1 to 30 y) or too old (60 to 85 y) to have been vaccinated with SV40-contaminated polio vaccines (2). This finding may also explain the lack of difference in cancer incidence between individuals vaccinated with SV40-contaminated and SV40-free polio vaccines (6). SV40 sequences were detected in blood and sperm specimens of normal individuals and blood samples of patients (reviewed in [2]) while SV40 virions were found in urine samples (7), indicating that blood, sperm, and urine may represent routes/vehicles of transmission of SV40 horizontal infection in humans. Support to the diffusion of SV40 in the human population is provided by the presence of SV40 sequences in human brain tumors, other neoplasms, and normal tissues of children and adults (reviewed in 2;8–11); specific SV40-neutralizing antibodies in human sera (12,13); and SV40 large T antigen (Tag) antibodies in sera of mesothelioma patients (14). A scientific panel recently established the importance of assessing the ways of contagion and the mechanisms of SV40 transmission in humans (5).

        How SV40 may establish a persistent infection in human cells is poorly understood.”…http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1431373/

        ‘Significant association between human osteosarcoma and simian virus 40’- Dated 2014

        “The data from the current study indicate an association between OS and SV40. These data could be transferred to clinical applications for innovative therapies to address SV40-positive OS. Cancer 2014. © 2014 American Cancer Society”…http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25377935

        ‘Association between SV40 and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.’

        “Millions of people worldwide were inadvertently exposed to live simian virus 40 (SV40) between 1955 and 1963 through immunization with SV40-contaminated polio vaccines. Although the prevalence of SV40 infections in humans is not known, numerous studies suggest that SV40 is a pathogen resident in the human population today. SV40 is a potent DNA tumor virus that is known to induce primary brain cancers, bone cancers, mesotheliomas, and lymphomas in laboratory animals.

        We conclude that SV40 is significantly associated with some types of Non Hodgkin Lymphomas and that lymphomas should be added to the types of human cancers associated with SV40.”

        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15202523

      • VikingAPRNCNP

        I just spent some time looking at pubmed. It is true that there have been some associations found. There is also at least one article arguing that it may be a cofactor issue with 2 or more viruses involved simultaneously.

        SV40 as far as I know is no longer a concern for current stocks of polio vaccines. The incidence of cancer was studied over at least 2 decades after the issue was identified and there was no significant difference between sv40 and no. SV40 groups. The virus was found in feces but as far as the researchers could determine it caused no adverse effects. The sabin opv was a live virus vaccine ingested on a sugar cube. The Salk vaccine was a killed virus.

        Probably the most honest thing that can be said is that the question has not been definitively answered.

        If a linkage is clearly established than the answer will require development of an attenuated vaccine. Hep b vaccination has already shown some downward pressure on liver cancer. HPV will probably start showing the same effects on cancer incidence over the next decade. Cancer vaccines have shown effectiveness in animals. (For example feline leukemia.)

      • VikingAPRNCNP

        Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2005 Jun;14(6):1448-52.

        Markers of past infection with simian virus 40 (SV40) and risk of incident non-Hodgkin lymphoma in a Maryland cohort.

        Rollison DE1, Helzlsouer KJ, Halsey NA, Shah KV, Viscidi RP.

        Author information

        A
        “Antibodies specific for SV40 (not cross-reactive) were identified in only 1.8% of cases and 1.6% of controls (OR, 1.51; 95% CI, 0.41-5.52). Our findings suggest that past infection with SV40 is not associated with an increased risk of developing NHL.”

        Also see
        http://m.jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/96/18/1368.abstract

        Conclusions: In persons born before 1963, the presence of SV40-specific antibodies, although rare, could reflect exposure to SV40-contaminated vaccines. Nevertheless, NHL risk was unrelated to serologic evidence of SV40 exposure or infection.

      • Boris Ogon

        I’m just going over these comments after the thread has died down, but there’s something very important here:

        “Antibodies specific for SV40 (not cross-reactive)….”

        Stock Ab’s for SV40 are well known to cross-react with those for the ubiquitous BK virus, so any paper based on such measures has to be read with an eye to whether this has been appropriately dealt with.

      • VikingAPRNCNP

        Thanks for pointing that out

      • Boris Ogon

        My pleasure. It’s not all that different from the handful of papers that purport to show measles disease as a result of vaccine shedding: if you don’t rule out parvovirus B19 or actually have documentation of Koplik spots, you’re on pretty shaky ground.

      • VikingAPRNCNP

        In contrast to recent studies that have reported the detection of SV40 DNA in a large proportion of NHL samples from patients in the United States (1,2), we failed to detect SV40 DNA in any lymphoid sample examined. This is the largest study to investigate the association between SV40 positivity and lymphoid malignancies by PCR among patients in the U.K. We previously surveyed a panel of 26 Epstein–Barr virus-negative Hodgkin’s lymphoma samples for the presence of SV40 DNA by Southern blot analysis and detected no positive samples

        At http://m.jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/95/13/1001.long

      • ione murphy

        PLoS One. 2013 Apr 25;8(4):e61182. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0061182. Print 2013.

        Serological evidence of an early seroconversion to Simian virus 40 in healthy children and adolescents.

        “Anti-viral capsid protein 1-2-3 SV40 IgG antibodies were detected in 16% of the study participants. The prevalence of antibodies against SV40 VPs tended to increase with age in children, up to 10 year old (21%). Then, in the cohort of individuals aged 11-17 years, the prevalence decreased (16%). A higher prevalence rate (23%) of SV40 VP antibodies was detected in the cohorts of 1-3 year and 7-10 year old children, than in children and adolescents of the other age groups”….http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23634207

        Oncol Rep. 2009 Feb;21(2):289-97.

        Evaluation of SV40 in osteosarcoma and healthy population: a Hungarian-German study.

        We detected SV40 in 52% (143/277) of the OS samples analysed. In detail, we saw differences in the distribution of SV40 between the two countries. Of the Hungarian OS samples, 74% (114/154) showed high amounts of SV40 (>100 copies), whereas only 22% (29/123) of the German OS samples harbour small amounts of SV40 ( approximately 10 copies). SV40 was detected in 8 of 60 German tumour samples (14%) and 21 of 63 German blood samples (33%) from OS patients.”….http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19148498

        Brain cancer and SV40-

        Neuro Oncol. 2014 Apr;16(4):513-9. doi: 10.1093/neuonc/not217. Epub 2013 Dec 4.

        Significant prevalence of antibodies reacting with simian virus 40 mimotopes in sera from patients affected by glioblastoma multiforme.

        RESULTS:

        “Our data indicate that in serum samples from GBM-affected patients (n = 44), the prevalence of antibodies against SV40 viral capsid protein antigens is statistically significantly higher (34%, P = .016 and P = .03) than in the control groups (15%), represented by healthy subjects (n = 101) and patients affected by breast cancer (n = 78), respectively.

        CONCLUSION:

        Our data indicate that SV40, or a closely related yet undiscovered human polyomavirus, is associated with a subset of GBM and circulates in humans”…..http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24305701

        Mesothelioma and SV40-

        Inhal Toxicol. 2006 Nov;18(12):995-1000.

        The role of SV40 in malignant mesothelioma and other human malignancies.

        “To date, over 60 reports from 49 different laboratories have shown SV40 sequences in tissues from human cancer patients. Six studies, however, have failed to detect evidence of virus in similar tissues”…http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16920674

        Cancer Res. 2005 Apr 15;65(8):3049-52.

        SV40 enhances the risk of malignant mesothelioma among people exposed to asbestos: a molecular epidemiologic case-control study….http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15833832

        Carcinogenesis. 2014 Feb;35(2):407-14. doi: 10.1093/carcin/bgt322. Epub 2013 Oct 15.

        Long-term exposure of mesothelial cells to SV40 and asbestos leads to malignant transformation and chemotherapy resistance….http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24130165

        Tumori. 2012 Mar-Apr;98(2):210-4. doi: 10.1700/1088.11931.

        Asbestos and SV40 in malignant pleural mesothelioma from a hyperendemic area of north-eastern Italy….http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22677986

        Cancer Res. 2007 Sep 15;67(18):8456-9.

        SV40 multiple tissue infection and asbestos exposure in a hyperendemic area for malignant mesothelioma…http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17875683

      • VikingAPRNCNP

        “The high prevalence of SV40 antibodies in sera from GBM patients is not proof of cause/effect in inducing human tumors by SV40
        …..
        At present, there is not a direct proof that SV40 plays a role in the onset/progression of human malignancies. 
        …..if SV40 is a tumor agent in humans, new antiviral strategies could be applied with drugs or vaccines, which should be administered very early in life””

        Mazzoni, E., Gerosa, M., Lupidi, F., Corallini, A., Taronna, A. P., D’Agostino, A., … Martini, F. (2014). Significant prevalence of antibodies reacting with simian virus 40 mimotopes in sera from patients affected by glioblastoma multiforme. Neuro-Oncology, 16(4), 513–519. http://doi.org/10.1093/neuonc/not217

        Note the third paragraph. It is calling for intervention in early life such as VACCINATION.

      • ione murphy

        Vaccination with an antiviral, which has been proposed over 15 years ago already…but that would require the gov to admit that SV40 does indeed cause cancer..

        From the Article Rogue Virus in the Vaccine San Francisco Chronicle-

        “More than 60 scientists gathered on a warm weekend at the University of Chicago’s downtown conference center. Despite numerous faxes and certified letters inviting him, Strickler declined to attend. (NCI Scientist)

        Carbone opened the conference by confronting the question of whether SV40 is present in humans.

        “Sixty-two papers from 30 laboratories from around the world have reported SV40 in human tissues and tumors,” he said. “It is very difficult to believe that all of these papers, all of the techniques used and all of the people around the world are wrong.”

        For two days, scientists from as far away as China and New Zealand presented the results of their studies, with almost every speaker concluding that SV40 was present in the tissues they examined.

        One of the newest discoveries came from Dr. Jeffrey Kopp, an NIH scientist who reported finding SV40 in a high percentage of patients with kidney disease. The virus was also present, he said, in 60 percent of a new “collapsing” type of renal disease that was unknown before 1980 but has since increased rapidly in incidence.

        ***There were also reports on efforts to develop a vaccine, recently funded by the NCI, that would allow the immune system to target and eliminate SV40.***(2001)

        “Dr. Michele Carbone of Loyola University Medical Center in Maywood, Ill., told the paper he believed the virus was carcinogenic in humans.

        ***”We need to be creating therapies for people who have these cancers, and now we may be able to because we have a target – SV40,” he said.***

        Others say the few government studies regarding the potential link have been flawed.

        “The government has not sponsored any real research. Here’s something possibly affecting millions of Americans, and they’re indifferent,” Dr. Adi Gazdar, a University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center cancer researcher, said. “Maybe they don’t want to find out.”

        Despite ongoing denials, an increasing number of researchers continue to maintain that not only is there a bona fide link between Salk’s SV40-tainted vaccines and cancer, that federal government officials and agencies responsible for ensuring the safety of such vaccines – then and now – are loathe to admit it, perhaps because they fear the fallout in terms of lawsuits and lost credibility.” The Atlantic- The Virus and the Vaccine

        Simian Virus 40 in Polio Vaccine-
        In July 2002, the National Academy of Science Institute of Medicine (IOM) Immunization Safety Committee convened a study into SV40 and cancer which culminated in a report published in October 2002. According to the IOM report “SV40 Contamination of Polio Vaccine and Cancer”:
        The committee concludes that the biological evidence is strong that SV40 is a transforming [i.e., cancer-causing] virus, . . . that the biological evidence is of moderate strength that SV40 exposure could lead to cancer in humans under natural conditions, [and] that the biological evidence is of moderate strength that SV40 exposure from the polio vaccine is related to SV40 infection in humans”

      • VikingAPRNCNP

        RESULTS:

        After 69.5 million person-years of follow-up, individuals exposed to SV40-contaminated poliovirus vaccine as infants (i.e., born 1955-1961) or children (i.e., born 1946-1952) had lower overall cancer risk (age-adjusted relative risk [RR] = 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.81 to 0.91 and RR = 0.79, 95% CI = 0.75 to 0.84, respectively; P<.001 for both) than unexposed individuals (i.e., born 1964-1970, after the vaccine was cleared of SV40 contamination). Specifically, SV40 exposure was not associated with increased incidence of mesothelioma, ependymoma, choroid plexus tumor, or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. After 19.5 million person-years of follow-up, incidence of all cancers combined, of intracranial tumors, and of leukemia among children aged 0-4 years was also not associated with SV40 exposure. Ependymoma incidence was higher during the exposed period than during the unexposed period (RR = 2.59, 95%CI = 1.36 to 4.92; P =.004 versus the period before contamination); however, incidence peaked in 1969, after the vaccine was cleared of SV40.

        CONCLUSION:

        Exposure to SV40-contaminated poliovirus vaccine in Denmark was not associated with increased cancer incidence.

        Comment in
        J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003 Apr 2;95(7):532-9.

        Cancer incidence in Denmark following exposure to poliovirus vaccine contaminated with simian virus 40.

        Engels EA1, Katki HA, Nielsen NM, Winther JF, Hjalgrim H, Gjerris F, Rosenberg PS, Frisch M.

      • ione murphy

        What were the SV40 levels in the vaccines used in Denmark? Because as you can see, not all lots were infected with SV40..and that would have an outcome on your study, don’t you think?

        “According to the National Institutes of Health, high levels of SV-40 were identified in polio vaccines in Washington, Oregon, Wyoming, Utah, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Washington DC, Maryland, Delaware, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont and New Hampshire.

        Low levels of SV-40 were found in California, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Texas, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, Missouri, Louisiana, Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, and West Virginia.

        Polio vaccines in the other states show no SV-40 present.”

        Simian virus 40 in human cancers – Summary of report

        American Journal of Medicine 1 June 2003, Volume 114, Issue 8 Pages 675-684

        Regis A. Vilchez MD

        Key: OR means odds ratio | CI means confidence interval

        ODDS RATIO Of SV40 INFECTION IN CANCERS
        =====================================
        bone cancer OR = 25; 95% CI: 6.8 to 88
        mesothelioma OR = 17; 95% CI: 10 to 28
        NHL OR = 5.4; 95% CI: 3.1 to 9.3 *
        brain cancer OR = 3.9; 95% CI: 2.6 to 5.8)

        Translation: This means that specimens from patients with NHL were 5 times more likely to have evidence of SV40 infection than were the controls. Confidence range: 3 to 9 times more likely.

        * NHL results based on three studies with 301 cases and 578 control samples.

        Conclusion from report: These results establish that SV40 is associated significantly with brain tumors, bone cancers, malignant mesothelioma, and non-Hodgkins lymphoma. Studies are needed to assess current prevalence of SV40 infections.”

      • VikingAPRNCNP

        Abstract for Reference 62

        62
        TI
        Case-control study of simian virus 40 and non-Hodgkin lymphoma in the United States.
        AU
        Engels EA, Viscidi RP, Galloway DA, Carter JJ, Cerhan JR, Davis S, Cozen W, Severson RK, de Sanjose S, Colt JS, Hartge P
        SO
        J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004;96(18):1368.

        BACKGROUND: Recent studies have reported detection of simian virus 40 (SV40) DNA in tumor tissues from 15%-43% of U.S. non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) patients. SV40 accidentally contaminated U.S. poliovirus vaccines that were widely administered from 1955 through 1962. However, epidemiologic data linking SV40 with NHL are lacking.
        METHODS: We obtained serum samples from 724 incident NHL case patients and 622 control subjects from a population-based U.S. case-control study. SV40 serostatus was analyzed by two independent laboratories (designated A and B) using similar virus-like particle (VLP) enzyme immunoassays. Associations with serostatus were assessed with logistic regression, adjusting for sex, race, birth year, and study site. VLPs for the human polyomaviruses BK and JC were used in competitive inhibition experiments to assess the specificity of SV40 reactivity. Statistical tests were two-sided.
        RESULTS: SV40 antibody results from thetwo laboratories were correlated (R = 0.59; P<.001). Laboratories A and B detected SV40 seropositivity in 7.2% and 9.8% of NHL case patients, respectively, and in 10.5% and 9.6% of control subjects, respectively. SV40 seropositivity was not associated with increased NHL risk (laboratory A: adjusted odds ratio [OR]= 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI]= 0.46 to 1.00; laboratory B: adjusted OR = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.71 to 1.47). SV40 seropositivity was not associated with NHLs of any specific histology or site. Among subjects born before 1963, 1.0%-1.6% showed SV40-specific reactivity, i.e., SV40 reactivity confirmed in competitive inhibition experiments, whereas (based on limited data) none born subsequently demonstrated SV40-specific reactivity.
        CONCLUSIONS: In persons born before 1963, the presence of SV40-specific antibodies, although rare, could reflect exposure to SV40-contaminated vaccines. Nevertheless, NHL risk was unrelated to serologic evidence of SV40 exposure or infection.
        AD
        Viral Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Department of Health and Human Services, 6120 Executive Blvd., EPS 8010, Rockville, MD 20892, USA. [email protected]
        PMID
        15367569

      • VikingAPRNCNP

        However, the variations in incidence patterns across the birth cohorts did not fit with the trends that would be expected if a SV40 contaminated vaccine did play a causative role. Thus, our data do not support the hypothesis of an association between the vaccine and any subgroup of lymphoproliferative diseases.
        Int J Cancer. 2006 Apr 15;118(8):2035-9.

        Is there an association between SV40 contaminated polio vaccine and lymphoproliferative disorders? An age-period-cohort analysis on Norwegian data from 1953 to 1997.

      • VikingAPRNCNP

        All of the samples tested contained amplifiable DNA, but none contained amplifiable SV40 sequences with any of the primer sets used.

        CONCLUSIONS:

        Our results demonstrate absence of SV40 in the lymphoid tissues of our study population in Tasmania, Australia. SV40 does not explain the increasing incidence of NHL in our population.
        Pathology. 2005 Apr;37(2):157-9.

        Absence of simian virus 40 (SV40) DNA in lymphoma samples from Tasmania, Australia.

        Sui LF1, Williamson J, Lowenthal RM, Parker AJ.

      • VikingAPRNCNP

        Interestingly, all 10 humans with T antibody responses also showed antibody responses to BK capsid. We found no association between the presence of T antibody and NHL, arguing against SV40 as a cause of NHL. Infrequent and low-level T antibody responses among humans could represent cross-reactivity to BK virus T antigen
        NCBISkip to main contentSkip to navigationResourcesHow ToAbout NCBI Accesskeys

        Sign in to NCBI

        PubMed

        US National Library of MedicineNational Institutes of Health

        Search databaseAll DatabasesAssemblyBioProjectBioSampleBioSystemsBooksClinVarCloneConserved DomainsdbGaPdbVarEpigenomicsESTGeneGenomeGEO DataSetsGEO ProfilesGSSGTRHomoloGeneMedGenMeSHNCBI Web SiteNLM CatalogNucleotideOMIMPMCPopSetProbeProteinProtein ClustersPubChem BioAssayPubChem CompoundPubChem SubstancePubMedPubMed HealthSNPSRAStructureTaxonomyToolKitToolKitAllToolKitBookUniGene

        Search term

        Search

        AdvancedHelp

        Result Filters

        AbstractSend to:

        Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2005 Feb;14(2):521-4.

        Antibody responses to simian virus 40 T antigen: a case-control study of non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

        The evidence is inconclusive as to a causal relationship between sv40 and etiology of cancer. The causal linkage just hasn’t been established. If the cofactor theory has any validity it may be that the offending vitus can only gain a foothold in the presence of sv40.

      • Proponent

        “Simian virus 40 efficiently infects human T lymphocytes and extends their lifespan”

        “The relevance of viral infections to the onset and progression of human hematologic malignancies and other blood diseases is still a matter of active investigation. Purified human T lymphocytes isolated from the peripheral blood mononuclear cells of healthy blood donors were experimentally infected with simian virus 40 (SV40), a small DNA tumor virus. SV40-positive T lymphocytes extended their lifespan up to day 80 postinfection (PI). Expression of viral antigens, such as the large T antigen and the viral capsid protein VP1 from the early and late regions, respectively, was detected up to day 40 PI. SV40 viral progeny were continuously produced from day 10 to 40 PI.”

        “Our investigation provides a simple model for studying the interactions
        of human T lymphocytes with this small DNA tumor virus and it might
        represent an experimental tool for investigating new biomarkers and
        targets for innovative therapeutic approaches.”

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        The presence of SV40 in monkey cell cultures used in the preparation of the polio vaccine from 1955 through 1961 is well documented. Investigations have consistently demonstrated the oncogenic behavior of SV40 in animal models. Early epidemiologic studies were inadequate in demonstrating an increase in cancer incidence associated with contaminated vaccine. Recently, investigators have provided persuasive evidence that SV40 is present in human ependymomas, choroid plexus tumors, bone tumors, and mesotheliomas, however, the etiologic role of the virus in tumorigenesis has not been established.

        MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using data from SEER, we analyzed the incidence of brain tumors, bone tumors, and mesotheliomas from 1973-1993 and the possible relationship of these tumors with the administration of the SV40 contaminated vaccine.

        RESULTS: Our analysis indicates increased rates of ependymomas (37%), osteogenic sarcomas (26%), other bone tumors (34%) and mesothelioma (90%) among those in the exposed as compared to the unexposed birth cohort.

        CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that there may be an increased incidence of certain cancers among the 98 million persons exposed to contaminated polio vaccine in the U.S.; further investigations are clearly justified.

        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10472327

        According to another paper in the Journal of Virology titled “Simian Virus 40 Infection of Humans“, oral polio vaccines were contaminated with SV40 until 1963. As a result of receiving the vaccine, 100 million people were potentially exposed to this monkey virus, which can infect humans and was shown to induce tumors in lab animals, e.g., “Hamsters inoculated with SV40 develop lymphomas, brain tumors, osteosarcomas, and mesotheliomas”. Human tumors “frequently associated with SV40” include mesotheliomas (cancer of lung tissue), osteosarcomas (bone tumor), and other bone tumors. The paper goes on to note widespread “skepticism and controversy about the role of SV40 in human cancer”, but that “Gradually, however, the case for SV40 infecting humans and contributing to cancer has become more compelling, supported by both experimental and circumstantial evidence”.

        http://jvi.asm.org/content/77/9/5039.full

        Another study titled “Association between simian virus 40 and non-Hodgkin lymphoma” and published in The Lancet medical journal found that “SV40 is significantly associated with some types of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. These results add lymphomas to the types of human cancers associated with SV40.”

        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11897278

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        NVIC is NOT a reputable source.

        Please reread Graceds comment (I’ll emphasize for you):

        This nvic article has numerous citations, many from FDA…

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        SV40 is not considered to be a public health threat…

        What an asinine statement.

        Read the medical literature. The association between the SV40 contamination in polio vaccines and increased risk of cancer is well recognized and uncontroversial.

      • Judith

        You pretend to be unaware of this contamination issue. Your ignorance surprises me.

        L’Express, Agence France Presse and other media in France report that two oral vaccines now recommended for newborns — Rotarix and RotaTeq — may be pulled from the country’s list of recommended vaccines following two deaths and more than 500 adverse events, 200 of them termed “serious.” These vaccines are thought to be causing intussusception, a serious condition in which the bowel folds on itself, causing a blockage and sometimes death. Despite having significant levels of porcine cirovirus contamination – these vaccines continue to be given to babies all over the world.

        “Significant levels of porcine cirovirus 1 were found in Rotarix. The entire viral genome sequence was deduced from 6344 sequence reads, comprising over 40% of the reads done for that vaccine.

        The avian leukosis virus sequences found in the measles vaccine are in intact virions, as DNA treatment of the vaccines did not prevent their detection by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). However simian retrovirus DNA was not detected by PCR after DNAse treatment of Rotateq. Therefore the viral DNA detected in Rotateq vaccine most likely originates from host DNA present in the vaccine preparation. The cells used to produce Rotateq are Vero cells – African green monkey kidney cells. A defective form of simian retrovirus DNA, called proviral DNA, is integrated into Vero cell DNA.

        How did a porcine virus contaminate Rotarix, which is produced in Vero cells? The answer is not known, but the authors speculate that the culprit might be porcine trypsin, which is used during the propagation of Vero cells. Over 100,000 porcine circovirus 1 DNA molecules were detected in each vaccine dose, fully 10 times higher than the amount of rotavirus present. However, it’s not known if the porcine circovirus present is infectious.”

        http://www.virology.ws/2010/03/29/deep-sequencing-reveals-viral-vaccine-contaminants/

        “Despite known contamination with porcine circovirus type 1 (PCV1), an FDA advisory panel recently agreed that Rotarix (GlaxoSmithKline) and RotaTeq (Merck), two approved vaccines to prevent rotavirus infection, should continue to be used. “

      • VikingAPRNCNP

        See subsequent comment…

      • Graceds

        Intussusception was added to the Vaccine Table Injury for Rotavirus Vaccine.

      • VikingAPRNCNP

        Which illustrates the point about biological plausibility becoming a test to establish a compensate injury.

      • ione murphy

        Lets not forget about BVDV in the MMR vaccine now either..

        “Pestiviruses are ubiquitous pathogens of cattle and frequent adventitious viruses in biologicals. Furthermore, it has been suggested that these agents might be related to infantile gastroenteritis and microencephaly. Since the virus is highly prevalent in fetal bovine serum, the risk of contamination is high in most laboratories. Thus, the implementation of detection methods in all laboratories is of worth. Despite continuous surveillance, these agents have been detected in cell lines, fetal bovine serum, live and inactivated animal and human vaccines and interferon for human use.”PubMed 18395415…http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/

        Evidence of Pestivirus RNA in MMR Vaccines
        http://jcm.asm.org/content/32/6/1604.abstract?cited-by=yes&legid=jcm;32/6/1604

        Genotypes of pestivirus RNA detected in live virus vaccines for human use.

        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu

        Virus contaminations of cell cultures – A biotechnological view

        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm

        Bovine viral diarrhea disease (BVDV) associated with a contaminated vaccine.This suggests that BVDV RNA detected in human live viral vaccines represents passive carry over of BVDV from contaminated FCS rather than active virus replication in human diploid cells. Our results indicate that contamination with BVDV of FCS used in vaccine production does not appear to be of immediate concern to human health. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu

      • VikingAPRNCNP

        Did you even read what you posted?

        “This suggests that BVDV RNA detected in human live viral vaccines represents passive carry over of BVDV from contaminated FCS rather than active virus replication in human diploid cells. Our results indicate that contamination with BVDV of FCS used in vaccine production does not appear to be of immediate concern to human health.”

        1. Passive carryover indicates that it is not actively replicating in humams.

        2. Not of immediate concern is a polite way of saying no there is probably there.

      • ione murphy

        Infantile gastroenteritis associated with excretion of pestivirus antigens.
        Abstract

        Faeces from children under 2 years old who had gastroenteritis that could not be attributed to recognised enteric pathogens were examined with a monoclonal-antibody-based immunoassay for Pestivirus antigens. Such antigens were detected in 30 of 128 episodes of gastroenteritis. The diarrhoeal disease in children excreting Pestivirus antigens resembled that in other children except that it was more commonly associated with signs and symptoms of respiratory inflammation

        http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(89)90066-4/abstract

        Biologicals. 2011 Jul;39(4):242-8. doi: 10.1016/j.biologicals.2011.06.001. Epub 2011 Jun 30.

        Methods to select suitable fetal bovine serum for use in quality control

        “Production of biological products, especially vaccines, usually requires materials derived from animals, and there are always risks that animal pathogens derived from these materials could contaminate the final products. Detection of adventitious agents is performed by quality control tests. In these biological assays, animal derived materials are also used and another problem arises, as fetal bovine serum (FBS) is used as an ingredient in tissue culture media. FBS contaminated with bovine viral diarrhea virus (BVDV) or other bovine pathogens, as well as antibodies against these pathogens may lead to false results in quality control assays. In this study, in order to determine the actual status of commercial FBS, we performed quality tests on various FBS samples. As a result, in 28 of 49 FBS samples (57.1%), pestivirus genes were detected by pan-pestivirus reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction assay. Furthermore,** two samples contained infectious BVDV**”

        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21719306

        Genotypes of pestivirus RNA detected in live virus vaccines for human use.

        “In conclusion, these preliminary results confirmed the previous observations obtained in Japan and indicated that the occurrence of pestivirus contamination in biological products for human use seems to be an actual problem with
        unknown effect on human health.

        The importance of these findings rely on the evident contrast with the general rules on the safety of pharmaceutical products for human use, which clearly excludes any kind of contamination. Therefore, monitoring for pestivirus con-tamination should be recommended on biologicals for human use.”

        http://www.researchgate.net/publication/11840878_Genotypes_of_pestivirus_RNA_detected_in_live_virus_vaccines_for_human_use

        ‘Bovine viral diarrhoea virus antigen in foetal calf serum batches and consequences of such contamination for vaccine production.’

        “A protocol to test foetal calf serum (FCS) for contamination with bovine viral diarrhoea virus (BVDV) is described. Following this protocol, which combines cell culture methods and detection of pestivirus RNA, seven batches of FCS were tested. **Infectious BVDV was detected in four of those batches.**One of the remaining batches contained a relatively high number of non-infectious BVDV particles. Our data stress that detection of BVDV RNA is not sufficient for a complete risk assessment on FCS. Discrimination between infectious and non-infectious BVDV is essential. This can only be achieved by cell culture methods.”

        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12935809

      • VikingAPRNCNP

        No conflict of interest when he voted in favor of another companies vaccine.

      • Graceds

        Actually, there was conflict of interest in 3 of the votes he participated in on rotavirus vaccines.

        ACIP Members are Allowed to Vote on Vaccine Recommendations, Even When They Have Financial Ties to Drug Companies Developing Related or Similar Vaccines

        “Members of the ACIP are allowed to vote on a recommendation for one company’s vaccine even if they have financial ties to a competing firm developing a similar vaccine. For example, in the case of rotavirus vaccine, the vaccine before the advisory committee was developed by Wyeth-Lederle. However, Merck and Smithkline-Beecham had rotavirus vaccines under development. A recommendation for Wyeth-Lederle’s vaccine would help pave the way for future recommendations for the products of Merck and Smithkline-Beecham.

        “While ACIP members with ties to Wyeth-Lederle were not allowed to vote on recommendations for the rotavirus vaccine, those with ties to Merck and Smithkline-Beecham were allowed to vote. This stands in stark contrast to the policies of the FDA.”
        Conflicts of Interest in Vaccine Policy Making Majority Staff Report Committee on Government Reform U.S. House of Representatives June 15, 2000

      • VikingAPRNCNP

        I m correcting myself. Dr. Offit recused himself from the vote for the competing rota virus vaccine. See http://lizditz.typepad.com/files/conflicts_of_interest_aug_21_2000.pdf

        Dr. Offit did not receive 10s of millions of dollars. He and the codevelopers of the vaccine split a roughly 10% share of the patent value. (90% was owned by Children’s hospital)

        “CHOP sold its patent for $182 million. This information was made publicly available and was published in the Philadelphia Inquirer at the time. The inventors, Fred Clark, Stan Plotkin, and me split 10 percent of that three ways. This means that we each received about $6 million.” at http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2009/12/22/paul-offits-mythical-millions-v-2/

        If anything he was undercompensated for work that has saved thousands of lives and prevented hundreds of thousands of illnesses.

        Actual quote about antigens at http://lizditz.typepad.com/i_speak_of_dreams/2011/09/did-paul-offit-md-publish-a-study-proving-the-100000-vaccines-at-once-claim.html

        See also http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/debunking-myths-dr-paul-offit/

      • David Foster

        Offit regularly claims he did not participate in the votes on rotavirus vaccines, but the truth is, the only vote he abstained from was the vote to take RotaShield off the market.

      • Proponent

        Incorrect.

        And in case you missed the post in this discussion, here you go..

        “Debunking myths about Dr. Paul Offit MD”

        “Malcolm Gladwell, in his book, Outliers: The Story of Success, wrote about the “10,000-Hour Rule”, claiming that the key to achieving world class expertise in any skill, is, to a large extent, a matter of practicing the correct way, for a total of around 10,000 hours. If you’re cruising the internet trying to learn about vaccines for a couple of hours every day, you’d need 5,000 days, around 15 years, to get close. And I would bet if you actually did that, you would educate yourself to the point that you would know the Big Lies about Dr. Offit and about vaccines, and would be a solid vaccine supporter.”

        How many more hours do you have to go, David Foster? Are you close yet?

      • David Foster

        You type and all I see is blah blah blah…ad hominem attack…irrelevant points…blah blah blah.

        So you substantiate your claim that I was “incorrect” about Offit participating in ACIP rotavirus vaccine votes despite the fact that he was developing a competing rotavirus vaccine, by citing a random blogger Mr. Pseudo-Skeptical Raptor?

        Notice how he chooses his words very carefully. He does so because he doesn’t want to outright lie, but he wants to leave the reader with the impression that Offit did the honorable thing by recusing himself from ACIP vote on the competing rotavirus vaccine. Offit did no such thing, but Mr. Pseudo-Skeptical Raptor is technically telling the truth, Offit did in fact recuse himself from precisely one vote, he just conveniently neglects to tell the reader which one. This is a very common tactic used to argue for a point of view when the facts are not on your side <>.

        Which vote did Offit actually recuse himself from? Why the vote to take RotaShield vaccine off the market after it was found to cause intussusception and killed several babies, of course.

        Dr. Offit never met a vaccine he didn’t like.

        QED

      • Proponent

        David Foster: “So you substantiate your claim that I was “incorrect” about Offit participating in ACIP rotavirus vaccine votes despite the fact that he was developing a competing rotavirus vaccine, by citing a random blogger Mr. Pseudo-Skeptical Raptor?”

        You’re right, I should have linked to an article on a blog that I managed to get my own nonsense (read; ‘your nonsense, that is’) published on.. like you, David Foster.

        Any -ways..

        Arguing by assertion only.. and particularly where you are concerned.. is not.. convincing.. at.. all.

      • David Foster

        So how exactly was your post NOT arguing by assertion? All you did was cite a random blogger who himself argued by insertion. And to make matters worse, the author not only left out very important information, but he actively misleads the reader.

        As to your claim that I was arguing by assertion, I plead guilty. I don’t always have the energy to try to educate you properly, please forgive me.

        You can make it up to me by citing something definitive which proves that Offit indeed recused himself from votes to put rotavirus vaccine on the ACIP’s recommended schedule.

        Good luck with that.

    • ione murphy

      My favorite article by Dr Offit..[ Small market for vaccines compared with drugs. By Paul Offit 2005]…where he lets you know that drug companies are a business and they are out to make money, and vaccines don’t make them much money and we need to cut them some breaks if we want them to make us our vaccines.

      “Pharmaceutical companies could be encouraged to make vaccines if the federal government provided more assurances that the VFC entitlement program was robust, allowed for a mechanism to increase the fixed price of certain vaccines, and offered tax breaks to companies that chose to make vaccines. The cost of making vaccines for pharmaceutical companies could be reduced by strengthening weaknesses in the NVICP—specifically, disallowing opt-out of the program when scientific studies do not support a claim; ..covering all vaccines…; …*covering the unborn child when a vaccine is given to a pregnant woman*; …and indemnifying academic medical centers (AMCs) that test vaccines prior to licensure.

      http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/24/3/622.full

      Reply
      • VikingAPRNCNP

        Those proposals are good public policy. I personally don’t have a problem with these types of programs because they advance the interest of public health and preventative medicine for all of us.

      • ione murphy

        And how does giving legal indemnity to pharmaceutical companies, for harm caused to an unborn child, who’s mother received a vaccine she was told was safe during pregnancy…advance the public interest?

      • VikingAPRNCNP

        Making the issue a shared responsibility is good policy. If the evidence of biological plausibility is there to establish a table injury it will be automatically compensated.

        In effect the copensation fund is a self insurance pool.

      • ione murphy

        Reported Net profits for 2014:

        Merck, U.S. division $ 11.9 billion NET profit
        Novartis, Switzerland $ 9.4 billion NET profit
        Roche, Switzerland $ 9.4 billion NET profit
        Pfizer, U.S. division $ 9.1 billion NET profit
        Sanofi, France $ 5.2 billion NET profit
        GlaxoSmithKline, UK $ 4.3 billion NET profit

        (Financial Times Global 500 list, 2015)

      • VikingAPRNCNP

        How much of that comes from vaccinations? Vaccines are not huge moneymaker sin the same way that a prescription medication for fill in the blank chronic illness.

      • ione murphy

        I will fill in the blanks with Paxil and Bextra…

        “GlaxoSmithKline agreed to pay a fine of $3 billion to resolve civil and criminal liabilities regarding its promotion of drugs, as well as its failure to report safety data. This is the largest health care fraud settlement in the United States to date.”

        ‘Medical Research Fraud: Professors Go Unpunished in Glaxo $3 Billion Guilty Plea Over Paxil’

        ‘GlaxoSmithKline pleaded guilty to criminal charges and agreed pay $3 billion in fines for promoting its bestselling antidepressants for unapproved uses. The heart of the case was an article in a medical journal purporting to document the safety and efficacy of Paxil in treating depression in children. The article listed more that twenty researchers as authors, including UCLA’s Feinberg, but the Department of Justice found that Glaxo had paid for the drafting of the fraudulent article to which the researchers had attached their names.

        British regulators warned against prescribing Paxil to children, after a study reported that children taking Paxil were nearly three times more likely to consider or attempt suicide. Then the US FDA issued a similar warning. Paxil sales totaled more than $11 billion between 1997 and 2005.

        The journal that published the fraudulent research has failed to retract it, and editor-in-chief Andres S. Martin, a professor of psychiatry at Yale, told the Chronicle he had no comment on the options the journal might take.

        Although Glaxo pled guilty and paid $3 billion in fines, none of the academics have been disciplined by their universities for their roles in perpetrating research fraud. Moreover, according to the Chronicle, several continue to receive federal grants from the National Institute of Health”…http://www.thenation.com/article/medical-research-fraud-professors-go-unpunished-glaxo-3-billion-guilty-plea-over-paxil/

        Pfizer was fined $2.3 billion, then the largest health care fraud settlement and the largest criminal fine ever imposed in the United States. Pfizer pled guilty to misbranding the painkiller Bextra with “the intent to defraud or mislead”, promoting the drug to treat acute pain at dosages the FDA had previously deemed dangerously high. Bextra was pulled from the market in 2005 due to safety concerns.

        ‘A New Low in Drug Research: 21 Fabricated Studies’

        “We’ve followed plenty of controversies around drug trials, from ghostwriting, to keeping quiet about unflattering results. But the latest news is particularly eye-popping: A prominent Massachusetts anesthesiologist allegedly fabricated 21 medical studies involving major drugs. The Wall Street Journal reports that he also falsified information about Pfizer’s Bextra and on Merck’s Vioxx.

        “Anesthesia & Analgesia” had to retract 10 papers Reuben wrote and medical experts say at least 21 journal articles by the anesthesiologist appear to be fabricated,….http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2009/03/11/a-new-low-in-drug-research-21-fabricated-studies/

      • Graceds

        Data from 2013 article
        “The global vaccine industry comprises primarily human vaccine production. The annual revenue of this industry is forecast to reach an estimated $41.85 billion by 2018, with good growth over the next five years. Pfizer entered the top five player list in 2012 replacing Wyeth. Sanofi Aventis, Novartis AG, Merck Company, and GlaxoSmithKline are the other players in the top five players list.”
        http://www.researchandmarkets.com/research/g6vjj2/global_human

      • Judith

        Licking their lips in joy as they watch severe penalties being imposed all over the world. They can enjoy their product being forced on children all over the world without the threat of being sued and their global profits going sky high.

      • Proponent

        Oh, dear..

        Even in these e-backwaters Ione Murphy still resorts to offtopic spamming and gish galloping.

        Ok.. will see your copy pasta and raise you some rational food for thought..

        The Atlantic | “Vaccines Are Profitable, So What?”

        “While the main fixation of anti-vaccine groups is an old, discredited study linking vaccination to autism, another is a conspiracy theory circulated online that both doctors and pharmaceutical companies stand to profit financially from vaccination—which supposedly leads to perverse incentives in advocating for the public to vaccinate.

        But that argument is historically unfounded. Not only do pediatricians and doctors often lose money on vaccine administration, it wasn’t too long ago that the vaccine industry was struggling with slim profit margins and shortages. The Economist wrote that “for decades vaccines were a neglected corner of the drugs business, with old technology, little investment and abysmal profit margins. Many firms sold their vaccine divisions to concentrate on more profitable drugs.”

      • ione murphy

        You want to be off topic, I don’t think Jeremy will mind, as he saw what happened with the imposter accounts

        Lets talk about the disqus account with the same name and avatar Proponent, as you have now, who was banned from disqus five months ago and lost their over 2500 comments. This happened at the same time my friends and I were being harassed by someone who was making imposter accounts with our names but using them to say very vile things to other commenters. There was someone posting very disturbing commentary having to do with children, incest, torture, etc.

        And a few weeks after the “first” Proponent was banned and kicked off Disqus for what we can only assume was for the offenses listed, you show up thanking someone who has ties to Disqus for “resurrecting you”. Would you care to expound on this for us?

        https://disqus.com/home/discussion/wired/anti_vaxxers_are_using_twitter_to_manipulate_a_vaccine_bill/#comment-2109923285

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        Please keep it relevant to the post.

      • ione murphy

        aye aye captain…I had no expectation of getting an honest answer anyway.

      • Cathy

        May I suggest that if you’re not going to allow a reply, that off-topic comment should be deleted.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        Yes, you may suggest. I’ll decline, however. It seems more fitting to me to let the comment remain along with my warning to keep it relevant — which goes for everybody.

      • Cathy

        Okay. Well, the supposed “impostor accounts?” Still there. As a matter of fact, a mod at another site outed suz norkan as being her own impostor.

        Oh, and I have no more “ties to Disqus” than any other user.

        Now let me think. Pertussis vaccine? Yeah, sign me up. I don’t know the effectiveness rate, but still better than sick little kids.

        I read a story the other day about a really, really super smart mom who let her three children suffer through whooping cough for 6 months, and nope. That doesn’t work for me.

        Have a happy =)

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        Letting a child suffer through whooping cough is certainly not a wise thing to do.

        Vitamin C works wonders.

      • Cathy

        Ounce of prevention, pound of cure.

        I’ve read Suzanne Humphries’ opinion on Vitamin C, thanks.

      • suz norkan

        From: Disqus Terms of Service
        Date: Thu, May 7, 2015 at 6:50 PM
        Subject: Re: proof of stalking, hacking and slander

        Hi Suz,

        Thanks for reaching out and sorry to hear you’ve been having trouble with another user on Disqus.

        Although users may have the same display name, impersonating other users maliciously is against our basic rules and can be reported.

        More information on our basic rules is available here:
        https://help.disqus.com/customer/portal/articles/1753105-basic-rules-for-disqus-powered-profiles-and-discussions

        If someone is impersonating you as described in the basic rules, please let us know by reporting the account through their profile and also providing the following information in a reply to this email:
        – a direct link to a comment the account being impersonated has posted
        – a direct link to a comment from the person who is impersonating that account

        For more information on how to get a direct comment link, please visit: https://help.disqus.com/customer/portal/articles/1590129-how-to-get-a-direct-comment-link

        Thank you for any additional information and please let us know if you have any other questions.

        The Disqus TOS Team
        ———————————
        You can view our terms of service HERE.

        [[6d508813d0eb11fedf48b988706b5c14f0dd9ab2-437105429]]

      • Cathy

        “If someone is impersonating you as described in the basic rules, please let us know by reporting the account through their profile”

        This email doesn’t show it was ever actually reported. Here’s the account, still active https://disqus.com/by/realsuznorkan/

        As I remember, you confirmed that is the “impostor” 4 months ago in a comment on Patch, before you were banned there.

        Since the offending account itself is still active, I’m not following how anyone can assume Proponent “was banned and kicked off Disqus … for the offenses listed.”

        In fact, that seems kind of defamatory to me.

        And here’s the “impostor” account for ione murphy, also never deactivated https://disqus.com/by/ione_murphy/

      • suz norkan

        Apparently my detailed reply to you is being held in mod.

        However, several quickies for you Cathy!

        I never said there was only ONE incident involving impostor/parody accts.

        I only sent official complaints involving the graphic chiId expIoitation in c.f.; not the less harmful posts which came after the c.f. deletions.

        The pages I’d reported were deleted accordingly.

        This was certainly NOT the only exchange between disqus and me, but why would I report myself, should as you and others illogically claim, if I was the impostor!

        However, I’m certainly not obligated to share any specifics, especially to those who I feel may be associated with one who lost over 2500 posts during a disqus powerwash, at about the timing of my complaints.

        You imply that I’m tec savvy enough to create dummy accounts, yet neglect to delete the offending acct. afterwards. Illogical! We CAN’T delete the accts., because we can’t access them. They’re not ours.

        Again, take your erroneous allegations up with disqus admin. This is not the time and place to bring up the c.f. chiId abuse again!

      • Cathy

        “You imply that I’m tec savvy enough to create dummy accounts

        I don’t need to imply. You previously admitted using proxy IPs and creating new accounts to get around mods. Need a screenie?

        “The pages I’d reported were deleted”

        The comments on crimefeed were deleted by the user that posted them, not Disqus Support, a mod, or the FCC, which you’ve also claimed. Disqus API is open source. There are sample scripts on the API page which anyone can use to confirm.

        “take your erroneous allegations up with disqus admin”

        Umm, no. You take them up with Disqus.

        We’re supposed to assume Proponent “was banned and kicked off Disqus … for the offenses listed.” Yet the offending impostor account, the one that you say posted comments “involving the graphic chiId expIoitation,” is still active. Why didn’t Disqus Support deactivate that one? Your story doesn’t make sense.

        Here’s what does make sense. You and Ione are lying.

        Oh and again, I have no more ties to Disqus than any other user.

      • suz norkan

        If smart enough to know about ip proxies, why would I be stupid enough to let the offensive acct. stand as evidence, if as you claim, I was my own impostor! I couldn’t delete the acct. since it’s not mine!

        How do you not get that because these 2 accts. stand, that 3 more weren’t banned?

        I know what pages that I copied to disqus admin. This latest acct. involving the minor parody issues, while NOT involving the c.f. sexuaI expIoitation of chiIdren, was NOT one of them.

        You again LIE! I never stated that the acct. you, Brookie, Ivan, and the rest of your gang, love to show, was the exact acct. that committed the illegal and deleted comments. I said that it was an impostor/fake/ parody acct., and it IS. It says ‘suz’ but it is NOT ME!

        I’d hardly take the word of you, Ivan and Borings, over disqus admin.!

        No logical and moral person would deem ione and myself to be liars, after the obscene vulgarities you and your shameless consorts distort and belie all over the internet.

        And to reiterate for you illiterate, feel free to direct your further inquiries on this matter with disqus admin.!

      • Cathy

        “I know which pages I copied to disqus admin”

        Oh okay. You confirmed “realsuznorkan” was the impostor account at crimefeed in July, so…

        Your story keeps changing, Suz. First it was Disqus Support that deleted the comments. Nope, that wasn’t it. Then it was the FCC. Now this isn’t the impostor account that was posting “very disturbing commentary having to do with children, incest, torture, etc.” at all. It was three others. Yeah, right.

        On a related note

        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9afea26fbffe845ef1b9f0ddad1e23dd9c29e6f2b4cf319dd18aa89c73fae597.jpg

        Too clever by half.

      • suz norkan

        Was *an* impostor acct., sweetie! NOT *the*!

        We don’t ‘change’ any story. You’ve wrongly misconceived and then misrepresented our statements as usual, Cathy and friends.

        I also stated [since yall have such difficulty comprehending context] that ‘it WAS reported to the fcc; but I never claimed to have done so myself. In fact, elsewhere I’d mentioned that someone else took on that responsibility.

        I’ve said before that I can only assume that either c.f., fcc or disqus deleted the illegal smut, but could not ascertain which entity; and added that all I know is that complaints were filed and the abuse was deleted.

        Case in point; I assumed you’d come back ‘crybabying’ about 3 accts., while I merely showed that there could have been MORE than 1 acct., and used 3 [but could have chosen any number]. But neither did I now ‘claim’ that there were 3 impostor accts.

        To remind you, c.f. is several blogs down and THIS is certainly not the venue for discussing c.f.

        Disqus admin. is available by an easy click or so on your dashboard. Please take your ‘off topic’ crap OFF this blog, and refer your queries to disqus admin.

        I hope someone is taking what Cathy calls ‘screenies’ of her remarks, as her comments have a habit of being edited into cya posts and/or near deletion.

        You’re not clever enough by the square root of zero!

      • Cathy

        “filthy abuse.”

        Boy, the projection is strong with this one. Four months ago you weren’t disputing “realsuznorkan” was THE impostor account, but whatevs. Thanks for admitting you have nothing to show there was ever more than 1.

        On the topic of pertussis. I found this little blurb somewhere:

        Before the availability of pertussis vaccine in the 1940s, more than 200,000 cases of pertussis were reported annually.

        Wow. The vaccine today isn’t as effective as the one used until 20 years ago or so, but still. This used to be a leading cause of death for infants and children.

        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/546398813a9e2f49d4dc6e3f3cb3dac3629a1821bd491f0c01831a77fda966aa.jpg

      • suz norkan

        Yes! Such ‘filth’ was garnered from yet another vulgar character, Hans, who also appears to have gone the way of parrot Pro!

        However, when you speak of suz, it’s more accurate to say that ‘the truth is strong with this one!’

        And there I was, face to face with yet another obscene bully trying to smite the timid and innocent. I was surrounded by the likes of hans and jenns. What to do! I suited up, roared a resounding ‘oorah’ & attempted to confront the jenn beast with the only communication she’d discern; her native language!

        Suz has always truthfully admitted that when the gracious need to incessantly deal with the ungracious, that ‘one should get what the give’ and ‘fire with fire’ is appropriate recourse when ‘they/you’ continue to ‘draw first blood!’ And YOU should certainly know what I mean, Cathy!

        However, I’ll not link such vulgar sites and readers can research jenn at her rh site and hans at c.f. or his prior ‘raw’ site, on their own.

        Unlike you, I have the conscientious discretion to know which sites are more p.g. and family friendly, like this one and a.s.! It’s a shame that you mucked up yet another site with your distasteful links, merely in attempts of your own puerile payoffs.

        Thank you, however, for your directive to my archived comment that shows I was unclear who did the deleting, c.f., disqus admin., [though I hadn’t mentioned f.c.c at the time].

        I’ve also made notation to Jeremy, that I’m fine with his deletion of this whole ‘off topic’ facade; but only asked that he also delete your initial, deceptive post about ‘suz ever being outed by a mod!’

        Not sure what guttural tones you pursue near the end of your comment, but I certainly agree with cia and Jeremy, in that vitamin c is key in pertussis treatment.

      • Cathy

        If the accusation that “Proponent was banned and kicked off Disqus for what we can only assume was for the offenses listed” is to remain, might as well show how your ever changing story is chock full o’ holes. Only seems fitting, and all.

        > “the only communication she’d discern; her native language”

        Odd, I don’t see Jennifer using that language toward you anywhere.

        “So she basically wants to blather on pointlessly while offering nothing of substance. A waste of space, really.” — Jennifer Starr

        > “yet another obscene bully”

        Yep. That’s why you were banned from RawStory and what is it now … 7, 8 other sites? You are just an obscene little bully.

        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7e869a30f55c00702172d57382a8c2667cbee7a9ac9911e6023f8c561c52bb24.jpg

      • suz norkan

        If a well thought out theory, followed by assertions of valid observations to prompt further investigation into correlations of an event, constituted an official and legal ‘accusation’ and/or proof, we wouldn’t be here arguing about the causation of vax injuries, now would we, Cathy!

        I’ve ‘accused’ parrot Pro no more than I’ve ‘accused’ you, Ivan, Brookie, Zogby, Hans, et al. It’s just quite coincidental that I’ve noticed, along with several others, that the timing of Pros disqus powerwash coincides with the registering of official complaints. And I think that we all know by now, from seeing the type of posts that disqus seems ‘ok’ with, that one would almost have to break the law, [as in the expIoitation of chiIdren via the internet] to be completely banned from ALL disqus sites where one has ever posted and loose a comment accrual of 2500+ posts.

        You must not have looked very hard at r.h., should you be claiming that you’ve not seen daily obscene language and vulgar insults on their site, inflicted by jenn and other regulars.

        It also speaks to the fact that she LIED about my violation of their tos! This is why she would not show my posts which were deleted and subsequently ended in my being prejudicially censored from yet another site where I’d ended up in a snake pit to support an ally, by way of the disqus piggy back/back door! Needless to say, there is NO love lost between me and jenn!

        Pffft! Your ‘show of hans’ ;) is merely my repetition of what he’d frequently ask of ione and other opponents at ‘raw’ and then again, another site where he could get away with the vulgarity; when he found me posting at c.f.

        All true, straight from their VERY OWN sites, posts and links. You remember what that’s about, don’t you Cathy!

        Take your concerns up with disqus admin. instead of continuing to muck up all these other sites with your deceptive spam!

      • Boris Ogon

        From: Disqus Terms of Service

        Date: Thu, May 7, 2015 at 6:50 PM
        Subject: Re: proof of stalking, hacking and slander

        Hi Suz, you don’t understand how any of this works

        FTFY.

      • suz norkan

        More ‘off topic’ parody from persona non grata! How neoteric! ;)

      • Kiko

        Since the Hill deletes the responses I make to you I will post here and see what happens, The names Kiko, are you suffering from paranoid schizophrenia? You pickin up what I am putting down is a common gaming term. The lines of reality must become blurred when you post multiple accounts. Who is Jeff? I don’t see him in your comments. Primary and Secondary Encephalitis: Encephalitis can develop shortly after an initial viral infection, or it can develop when a virus that was lying dormant in the body suddenly reactivates. There are two ways that viruses can infect brain cells and cause encephalitis: Primary encephalitis is when the virus directly affects the brain or spinal cord. The resulting inflammation can occur in one area (focal) or can occur throughout the brain (diffuse). Secondary encephalitis,also called post-infectious encephalitis, is when the virus first attacks another part of the body and the infection then spreads to the brain. Viral causes of encephalitis include enteroviruses, adenoviruses, and viruses associated with childhood diseases such as measles, mumps, and rubella.Hmmmmmmm, if a child was not naturally exposed to measles , mumps, and rubella then how would they end up with an unexplained encephalitis? Maybe a west nile virus mosquito bit them minutes after the vaccination. Funny how autistic children have behavioral flare ups huh? Maybe a virus lying dormant that is reactivating? Night and day is how parents describe it, but you wouldn’t know would you? Can you tell me that you know for sure that regressive autism is not attributable to a virus reactivation directly affecting the brain? Just spit balling here.

      • VikingAPRNCNP

        Hannah Poling wasn’t healthy. She had an underlying genetic disordet. ANY febrile illness would have eventually activated her genetic defects. Literally a billion to one event.

        150,000 children die from measles every year. About 17 every hour of every day. Another 350000 are left with a permanent cognitive or sensory defect.

        400 children died every year from measles before the vaccine was developed. Since about 1969 that means that about 18000 children never developed a case of measles that would have killed them. The reason. Vaccination.

        In 1964-65 there were 12 million cases of rubella and 20000 cases of congenital rubella that usually resulted in cataracts hearing loss developmental disability or cardiovascular problems. Since 2004 the Americas are rubella free. Think about that. 200000 children were not born in the United States with congenital birth defects because of primary prevention through vaccination.

        Sourced world health, cdc and up to date.

        Literally millions of people are alive today because of vaccination programs.

        Your formula is more accurately stated as healthy, develop the illness and die or become disabled.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        Vaccines are “profitable” in no small part because the government has granted legal immunity to Big Pharma and enacted public policy mandating their use for parents to give their children a public education.

        Let’s instead have a free market and see just how well vaccine manufacturers do….

      • ione murphy

        This is a few years old, so I’m sure it’s increased a bit since then. Gardasil averages over a Billion in sales each year. What do you think our gov, who mandates this vaccine, and leases the patent they own for technologies used to develop the vaccine, what do you think their cut is each year?

        Merck (+ 50% Sanofi Pasteur MSD)
        2012 Vaccine revenue: $5.27 billion

        Merck’s ($MRK) shining star is easily human papillomavirus vaccine Gardasil. The product far outweighs its competition–Cervarix from GlaxoSmithKline ($GSK)–having hit the market in 2006, three years before Cervarix. The product brought in $1.63 billion last year, compared to the $416.44 million Cervarix earned. EvaluatePharma projects Merck will hit $5.91 billion in vaccine revenue come 2018

        GlaxoSmithKline
        2012 Vaccine revenue: $5.26 billion

        GlaxoSmithKline ($GSK) is projected to become the largest seller of vaccines in the next 5 years, with revenue forecast at $8.8 billion. The company is responsible for Cervarix, a human papillomavirus vaccine that trails behind Merck’s ($MRK) Gardasil in sales but still may be the fourth best selling vaccine by 2018, EvaluatePharma forecasts”

        http://www.fiercevaccines.com/special-reports/merck

        NIH Technology Licensed to Merck for HPV Vaccine

        “A new cancer vaccine developed by Merck makes use of a novel disease prevention strategy to protect against cervical cancer. The vaccine is based on research conducted at the NIH.”..http://www.ott.nih.gov/nih-technology-licensed-merck-hpv-vaccine

        Self-assembling recombinant hpv16 papillomavirus capsid proteins
        EP 1538209 A3ApplicantTHE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, as represented by THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

        https://www.google.com/patents/EP1538209A3?cl=en&hl=en&dq=ininventor:%22Douglas+R.+Lowy#legal-events

        Dna-protein vaccination protocols
        WO 2011106705 A3

        Abstract

        This invention provides a method of co-delivery of combination DNA and protein immunogenic compositions to enhance protective or therapeutic effects

        ApplicantTHE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, as represented by THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

        https://www.google.com/patents/WO2011106705A3?cl=en&dq=inassignee:%22THE+GOVERNMENT+OF+THE+UNITED+STATES+OF+AMERICA,+as+represented+by+THE+SECRETARY+OF+THE+DEPARTMENT+OF+HEALTH+AND+HUMAN+SERVICES%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAGoVChMIouG3zv7YyAIVAkQmCh2Y7QPz

      • Graceds

        It is concerning that HHS has refused FOIA requests to release data on revenue from those patents.

      • ione murphy

        Dept. of Health and Human Services owns the royalty rights to patent they lease to Merck, what else does this dept do?

        “The Department of Health and Human Services oversees 11 agencies including the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Center for Disease Control (CDC), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Administration for Children and Families (ACF) and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).[7]

        The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) consists of 15 experts in immunization and related fields, selected by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, to provide advice and guidance on control of vaccine-preventable diseases

        In the United States, development of immunization policy is accomplished through interactions among federal and state government agencies”

        I asked Dorit awhile back ago how the gov can make money off a vaccine they mandate and here was her answer..

        Dorit Rubinstein Reiss;

        “I assume you are asking whether it’s a violation of due process for the government to hold a patent and also pass laws about the vaccine. Three points:

        A. The federal government does not mandate immunizations. Immunization mandates are generallly a state level law or executive order, for example for health care workers – and under our federal system, these are two completely different actors.

        B. The CDC recommends vaccines. But the CDC is a different agency from the NIH. Not the same.

        C. Under our system one agency can both pass rules, investigate, prosecute and give penalties. That’s not a violation of due process or separation of powers. So multiple agencies having different roles in the same area certainly isn’t.

        In fact, it’s the norm that different parts of government – sometimes even the same agency – have a variety of roles and functions related to an area.”

      • Graceds

        The lack of transparency points to potential conflict of interest in policy.

      • ione murphy

        I’ve always wondered if the billions of dollars held by the treasury for the NVICP, was earning any interest somehow..

        “The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) established this system, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP), in 1988. NVICP is funded by a tax of $0.75 per vaccine dose, collected from vaccine manufacturers by the U.S. Department of the Treasury.”

        The HHS is also part of NVICP, so they help decide what goes on the injury table, who will get a settlement or denied, what vaccines will be approved and mandated, and get to turn a tidy profit off of their patent on a mandated vaccine

      • Graceds

        The US General Fund has been receiving $0 .19 out of the $0.75 excise tax, per section 9602b IRS code for managing the Vaccine injury trust fund.

      • ione murphy

        Thanks for the info..I’ve posted about the patents and what I believe is a conflict of interest before, and you are the only one who has given me some great answers, most of the pro-vax tend to shy away from this subject, as you would notice Proponent has done.
        So is it almost 3.B awarded already and around 3.B now in the Vaccine Injury Compensation fund? That sounds like a nice chunk of change for the General Fund. What does that interest earned go towards I wonder.

      • Graceds

        In Wayne Rhode’s book, The Vaccine Court, he said “DOJ officials have refused to respond to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests by this author regarding how much money is being spent per petition on DOJ attorney fees, outside contracted medical expert fees and costs, and internal medical review, by stating that this information is legal privilege and would disclose their legal strategy in prosecuting claims in the program.”
        I don’t know if the funds are being misused, but refusing disclosure on the use of administrative funds is worrisome as well.

      • Proponent

        Conjecture and speculation.. dismissed.

        Please try again.

      • Graceds

        It is not speculation that the FOIA requests are denied.
        Financial Transparency is a public benefit that can and should be provided.
        To avoid speculation.

      • David Foster

        This was not conjecture or speculation and you know it. The information being requested is incredibly relevant. And what harm could possibly come from disclosing it, since the NVICP is so “plaintiff friendly”?

      • Proponent

        Once again, your lack of ‘research skills’ is showing, Ione Murphy.

        And once again.. found hiding in plain sight (albeit, this is an older document)..

        “The VICP trust fund has historically received more in vaccine excise taxes than it has paid out for claims and related administrative costs. Since the program began, the Treasury reported it has collected over $1.6 billion in vaccine excise taxes: $.4 billion of this amount went directly to the general fund to offset income and payroll taxes lost to the general fund as a result of the excise tax.

        The remaining $1.2 billion went to the VICP trust fund for claims payments and related administrative costs. Because the trust fund has spent only about $290 million of the $1.2 billion received, the remaining $948 million was loaned to the Treasury and used for other federal programs and activities. In exchange, the trust fund received Treasury securities to be redeemed if needed to pay future claims.

        Interest on these Treasuries held by the trust fund totaled about $374 million by the end of fiscal year 1998. This $374 million in interest and the $948 million loaned to the Treasury comprise the $1.3 billion trust fund balance existing as of the end of fiscal year 1998.”

        (Source: United States General Accounting Office | Report to the Chairman, Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Penisions, U.S. Senate | HEHS-00-8 Vaccine Injury Compensation Program Challenged to Settle Claims Quickly and Easily )

      • Proponent

        Citation required.. thanks.

      • Graceds

        Wayne Rhode lists this source from his book The Vaccine Court
        Http:www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GAOREPORTS-HEHS-00-8/html/GAOREPORTS-HEHS-00- 8/htm
        Vaccine Injury Compensation: Program Challenged to Settle
        Sorry, the link has a problem Prop. Here’s the quote from the book:
        “As provided in section 9602(b) of the Internal Revenue Code for management of trust funds in general, the US General Fund has been receiving $.19 out of the .75 excise tax for every dose sold.”
        From Vaccine Court by Wayne Rhode

      • Proponent

        Not looking for a quote from a book, graceds.

        … …

        ‘Sides.. I already posted the source for your “broken” link..

        Source: United States General Accounting Office | Report to the
        Chairman, Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Penisions, U.S. Senate | “HEHS-00-8 Vaccine Injury Compensation Program Challenged to Settle Claims Quickly and Easily”

        … sheesh.

        Do try to keep up.

      • Graceds

        Edited the post to include the supporting text from the gov site above.
        You’re welcome.

      • Proponent

        You posted the following, graceds..

        “As provided in section 9602(b) of the Internal Revenue Code for
        management of trust funds in general, the US General Fund has been receiving $.19 out of the .75 excise tax for every dose sold.”

        … quoting from a book.

        A request was made to provide a citation to back this claim up.. you still have not provided one.

        And your edit still does not do this, either. Nor does it clarify anything.

      • Graceds

        I reedited to include the actual text from the GAO report.

      • Proponent

        Do you interpret the following two sections.. such that the first is supported by the second, graceds?

        “As provided in section 9602(b) of the Internal Revenue Code for
        management of trust funds in general, the US General Fund has been receiving $.19 out of the .75 excise tax for every dose sold.”

        “The 25-percent factor is the standard offset used when excise tax provisions are scored for budget purposes during the legislative process. Budget estimating conventions are that gross domestic product and the price level are fixed. Therefore, any increase in excise taxes must reduce payments to labor and capital (such as wages and rents) and, therefore, reduce income and payroll taxes deposited to the general fund.”

        If you do.. please explain in your own words how the second section.. right above.. relates to that of the first. Thanks.

      • Graceds

        Since you have a different understanding, please share it with us.

      • Proponent

        Non-response and evasion.. duly noted.

      • Boris Ogon

        Sorry, the link has a problem Prop. Here’s the quote from the book:”As provided in section 9602(b) of the Internal Revenue Code for management of trust funds in general, the US General Fund has been receiving $.19 out of the .75 excise tax for every dose sold.”
        From Vaccine Court by Wayne Rhode

        I’m impressed that nobody seems to have bothered to actually read I.R.C. § 9602(b), which doesn’t mention the General Fund at all.

      • Graceds

        As I understood Rhode, and the document he referenced, the irc code allows the 25 percent fiscal offset factor to be executed.
        Do you understand it differently?

      • Boris Ogon

        I simply stated that there’s nothing relevant in the section cited. That’s what the link was for.

      • Boris Ogon

        Let me put it this way: Would you invest in a mutual fund that carried a 25% load? I’m starting to suspect that the confusion is that the fund has to invest in Treasuries. This doesn’t mean that the money goes “poof.”

      • Graceds

        “Since the program began, the Dept of Treasury reported it has collected over 1.8 billion in vaccine excise taxes. Of this amount, 456 million went directly to the general fund to offset income and payroll taxes lost to the general fund as a result of the excise tax.(9)

        (9) A 25% factor is the standard offset used when excise tax provisions are scored for budget purposes during the legislative process. Budget estimating conventions are that the gross domestic product and the price level are fixed. Therefore, any increase in excise taxes must reduce payment to labor and capital (such as wage and rents) and therefore reduce income and payroll taxes deposited to the general fund.”

        The remaining 1.37 billion went to the VICP trust fund to be available for claims payments and related administrative costs. Because the trust fund had spent only about 347 million of the 1.37 billion received, the remaining 1 billion was loaned to the Treasury and used for other federal programs and activities. In exchange, the trust fund received Treasury securities to be redeemed if needed to pay for future claims.(10)

        (10)Such arrangements are provided for under section 9602 b of the Internal Revenue Code.

        GAO/HEHS-00-67
        Vaccine Injury Trust Fund page 9

        Hope this clears up any confusion from the earlier post, my apologies.

      • Boris Ogon

        In exchange, the trust fund received Treasury securities to be redeemed if needed to pay for future claims.

        That’s what I just said. Investing in Treasuries doesn’t mean that the money is somehow going bye-bye.

      • Graceds

        That was true for the unused administrative funds under footnote 10.
        That didn’t apply to the 25 percent offset, under footnote 9. It goes bye bye.

      • Boris Ogon

        Are you referring to the TFMA58004200 line item?

      • Boris Ogon

        Regarding the previous comment, if you’re actually referring to, e.g., this, the case hasn’t been made that it actually means anything. The revenue from the excise tax hasn’t vanished into the æther; this is overall federal budget scoring.

      • Proponent

        Specious and speculative.. dismissed.

        Please try again.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        I like how you use the euphemism “shared responsibility” to describe granting legal immunity to vaccine manufacturers and shifting the financial burden for vaccine injuries away from the pharmaceutical industry onto the consumers. That’s very Orwellian of you.

      • David Foster

        The true libertarian ethos. Hey, if a vaccine causes injury or death no biggie, if it’s bad enough it’ll get added to the NVICP Injury Table. No need to punish the manufacturer…if it gets bad enough the Magical Market will fix everything.

      • Graceds

        I have seen arguments that revolve around Vaccine manufacturers making very little money. That giving a few victims some compensation equalizes the safety issues. But the argument should focus on what is an acceptable “cost of doing business”.
        When it is you or your family member affected it can shift the equation.

      • VikingAPRNCNP

        We all benefit from primary prevention of disease. The true adverse event rate for vaccinations is 1 in a million or less. The insurance premium is about 75 cents per dose.

        Over 30 years the fund has compensated about 4000 people. Which works out to just about 1 per million vaçination events. The system isn’t perfect but it does give people access to court. The fund pays legal fees win or lose to claimants.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        The true adverse event rate for vaccinations is 1 in a million or less.

        Source, please.

      • David Foster

        It’s always amusing to watch how vaccine apologists cherry-pick data from the NVICP, apparently data from this program is only valid when it seems to support their views.

        The government just recently stopped posting quarterly reports on NVICP claims compensations, because folks concerned about vaccine safety were citing them as evidence that vaccines do more harm than the public is led to believe.

        Case in point, until these reports stopped they showed that on average about 120 plaintiffs, and up to 140 in some periods, were awarded compensation during each 3 month period, and there were generally about 6 deaths during each period as well. This amounts to upwards of 500 claims were being compensated each year.

        Wait, what happened?? If the NVICP is 30 years old and they have only compensated 4000 people…

        “From 2006 to 2014, over 2.5 billion doses of covered vaccines were distributed in the U.S. according to the CDC. 2,975 claims were adjudicated by the Court for claims filed in this time period and of those 1,876 were compensated.”

        Your 1 in a million statistic is absurd and doesn’t even comport with peer-reviewed studies. To get to that statistic you must assume that all those who have been injured by vaccines submitted a claim to NVICP, and this is definitely not the case. And even if you ASSUME that this were true, you must remember that for a vaccine reaction to be compensated using a relaxed standard of proof, that vaccine injury must be added to the NVICP’s Injury Table of “accepted” vaccine injuries. This table is woefully inadequate, there are no injuries listed for flu vaccines even though this vaccine accounts for the vast majority of reports to NVICP. There are no injuries listed for HPV even though it accounts for an inordinate percentage of serious adverse reactions. In fact, there have been no new injuries added to the table for FIFTEEN YEARS.

      • VikingAPRNCNP

        Adverse events — Adverse events related to vaccines must be put into context. Most vaccine-associated adverse events are minor and self-limited (eg, local skin reactions, transient low-grade fever). Serious adverse events from an individual vaccine occur rarely [106], but these should be weighed against the risks associated with the natural infection. As examples:

        ●The risk of acquiring measles during an outbreak may be 35 times higher in an unvaccinated than in a vaccinated person [72].
        ●The risk of measles-associated encephalopathy or subacute sclerosing panencephalitis following natural measles is 1000 times higher than the risk of encephalopathy from measles vaccine (1 in 1 million) [107].

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        The proper context for looking at adverse events to vaccines is that long term health outcomes are not well understood and public policy is one-size-fits all that puts individuals who may have a predisposition to having an adverse outcome at risk.

      • sabelmouse

        ”The risk of acquiring measles during an outbreak may be 35 times higher in an unvaccinated than in a vaccinated person”

        isn’t that the minimum of what you should be able to expect from a vaccine?
        why are pro vaxers always tooting this as some sort of special achievement?
        why even bring it up?
        not getting infected is the main rationale behind vaccination!

      • VikingAPRNCNP

        Obviously there are problems with reading comprehension on your part. I encourage you to review the following.

         This means for every 1 million doses of vaccine that were distributed, 1 individual was compensated.

        Since 1988, over 16,452 claims have been filed with the VICP. Over that 27 year time period, 14,245 claims have been adjudicated, with 4,333 of these determined to be compensable, while 9,912 were dismissed. Total compensation paid over the life of the program is approximately $3.2 billion.

        At http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/data.html

        The flu vaccine does carry risks but there is evidence that flu vaccination is actually protective against guillanebarre. The most common cause of gbs is infection by campylobacter disease followed by a case of influenza.

        Adverse events following HPV vaccine are compared with background rates following other immunizations. Between June 2006 and March 2013, approximately 57 million doses of quadrivalent HPV vaccines were distributed in the United States. Reports of adverse events to VAERS have been consistent with the pre-licensure data:

        ●From 2006 to 2013, VAERS received 21,194 reports of adverse events following HPV immunization among females [93]. The vast majority (92 percent) were considered mild. The proportion of events reported as serious peaked in 2008. Among serious events, headache, nausea, vomiting, fatigue, dizziness, syncope, and generalized weakness were the most frequently reported. There is no increased risk of Guillain-Barré Syndrome compared with other vaccines in similar age groups [87].

      • transportjohnny

        ione, Viking is a commie. This is how all communist policies are put in place. Collectivist BS is the path the hell.

    • Judith

      Dr Profit hates wholistic medicine and is an advocate for the orthodox approach of drugs, vaccination.

      “There’s no such thing as conventional or alternative or complementary or integrative or holistic medicine. There’s only medicine that works and medicine that doesn’t,” writes Offit, chief of the Division of Infectious Diseases and director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “The best way to sort it out is by carefully evaluating scientific studies.” The problem, he says, is that the alternative medicine industry is not federally regulated. So companies don’t have to back up the claims of their products.”

      Strangely though his orthodox medicine is a massive profit machine and killing people on a massive scale.

      July 26, 2000, the Journal of the American Medical Association published Dr. Barbara Starfield’s review, “Is US Health Really the Best in the World?”

      In it, Starfield, who was a respected public health expert working at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, stated that:

      * The US medical system kills 225,000 Americans a year.

      * 106,000 deaths per year from FDA-approved medical drugs.

      * 119,000 deaths per year from error-ridden treatment in hospitals.

      So if you want to take Offit as your health guru ask the hard question – why are so many people dying and sick in one of the most expensive sick care systems in the world.

      Reply
      • Proponent

        How many times.. Judith.. do you have to be reminded/chastised.. for not properly attributing your sources?

        Continuing in this very disingenuous and dishonest vein is not acceptable conduct and/or behavour.

        Flagged.

        … …

        @Mr. Hammond..

        Please remove these posts of Judith’s that are not properly attributed.

        It’s academically dishonest, for one.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        If you would like to know Judith’s sources for her information, just ask her.

      • Proponent

        You don’t wish to enforce any kind of integrity? Respect copyrights?

        Your forum, your rules.. I suppose.

      • Brian

        It gives you an idea of his standard of integrity…

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        Copyright? You’ll have to explain.

      • Brian

        Still repeating the same debunked lies, I see.

        My grandfather is included in that dubious and deceptive “US medical system kills 225,000 Americans a year” claim.

        His life was saved and extended several times through modern medicine, and lived into his nineties. However, while suffering from multiple cancers, one operation didn’t go as well as planned, leading to complications and his eventual death. Fraudsters now pretend he was killed by modern medicine.

      • Judith

        Everyone to their own Brian. There is no doubting that emergency medicine for instance is excellent in first world countries. Your grandfather was allowed to choose his form of medicine. Paul Offit for instance would like to shut down the natural health industry and allopathic medicine is trying to force their medicine upon us. This is what angers people who advocate for greener and safer vaccines and those who do not want to vaccinate should have that choice as well.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        Nobody is denying that the medical industry saves lives.

        But it’s equally stupid to deny that it also kills a lot of people.

      • Brian

        Do you believe that the “US medical system kills 225,000 Americans a year”?

        Do you believe that my grandfather was killed by the US medical system?

        If I get in a car accident and doctors fail to revive my stopped heart, would it be appropriate to claim I was “killed” by the US medical system?

        If you believe the answer is no to any of the above questions, do think it is appropriate for Judith to make these types of comments?

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        I don’t know the number of people killed by the medical system each year, but it certainly unacceptably large.

      • Brian

        Do you think it is appropriate for Judith to make these types of comments- that my grandfather and hundreds of thousands of others are “killed by the medical system”?

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        She didn’t. Banned for trolling.

      • andy

        Lots of banning,hey tiger!

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        Since you seem so intent on trolling to provoke me to ban you, your wish is granted.

    • Jeremy R. Hammond

      I strongly encourage people to not listen to anything vaccine industry insider Paul “Children Can Receive 10,000 Vaccines at Once” Offit has to say about the subject.

      Reply
      • Brian

        You could at least quote him correctly…

      • Judith

        Why would we trust scientists without question. Have your forgotten Thalidomide, remember when doctors recommended smoking? The following drugs created by “experts” and scientists have proved to be killers:

        Pfizer was fined $2.3 billion, then the largest health care fraud settlement and the largest criminal fine ever imposed in the United States. Pfizer pled guilty to misbranding the painkiller Bextra with “the intent to defraud or mislead”,The government alleged that Pfizer also promoted three other drugs illegally: the antipsychotic Geodon, an antibiotic Zyvox, and the antiepileptic drug Lyrica.

        Merck agreed to pay a fine of $950 million related to the illegal promotion of the painkiller Vioxx, which was withdrawn from the market in 2004 after studies found the drug increased the risk of heart attacks. Over 60,000 people are believed to have died from Vioxx. No Director went to jail.

        2012 GlaxoSmithKline agreed to pay a fine of $3 billion to resolve civil and criminal liabilities regarding its promotion of drugs, as well as its failure to report safety data. GlaxoSmithKline also pled guilty to failing to disclose safety information about the diabetes drug Avandia to the FDA.

        2013 Johnson & Johnson agreed to pay a $2.2 billion fine to resolve criminal and civil allegations relating to the prescription drugs Risperdal, Invega and Natrecor. T

        2009 Eli Lilly was fined $1.42 billion to resolve a government investigation into the off-label promotion of the antipsychotic Zyprexa. The government also alleged that Lilly targeted primary care physicians to promote Zyprexa for unapproved uses and “trained its sales force to disregard the law.”

        2010 AstraZeneca was fined $520 million to resolve allegations that it illegally promoted the antipsychotic drug Seroquel.

        2012 Abbott was fined $1.5 billion in connection to the illegal promotion of the antipsychotic drug Depakote.

      • Graceds

        The well written article you cited is about false promotion of a product, as are the pharma fines Judith mentions.

      • David Foster

        Proponent rarely seems to actually understand what he cites.

      • Proponent

        graceds.: “The well written article you cited is about false promotion of a product.. ”

        And that product is.. cigarettes.

        You know.. that product that is combusted/consumed during.. smoking.

      • Brian

        When reality doesn’t agree with anti-vaxxers’ viewpoint, they simply deny reality.

      • transportjohnny

        Does everyone have the same reality????? How about the truth!!!!??

        If your a 12-24month old predisposed to having an adverse reaction getting the MMR and you have that vaccine…..your screwed. If not no big deal.

        Again, very complex, individualized issues…..with immune system, history of infections, genetic susceptibility…..and we could go on. This begs the question…….WHY DO WE HAVE THE ONE SIZE FITS ALL APPROACH TO THE SCHEDULE?????

      • Brian

        “Does everyone have the same reality?????”

        By definition, yes. If you think truth and reality aren’t in agreement, then you have bigger problems to take care of.

        If your a 12-24month old predisposed to having an adverse reaction getting the MMR… then you get a medical exemption. Considering serious adverse reactions are less than one-in-a-million, this approach has been hugely successful.

      • ione murphy

        Do you consider GBS a serious adverse reaction? Because the odds for that with the flu vaccine is less than 1 in 100,000. How about a serious anaphylactic reaction to Hep B vaccine? Again, odds are 1 in 100,000. Same with the MMR. So if your child was to get these three vaccines at once, their odds are 1 in 33,000 of a serious reaction.

        “Hepatitis B vaccination carries a very low risk of anaphylactic reactions (estimated incidence less than 1 case per 100,000 injections…http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15612143

        Pediatric anaphylactic adverse events following immunization in Victoria, Australia from 2007 to 2013.

        ” The estimated incidence rate of anaphylaxis for DTaP vaccines was 0.36 cases per 100,000 doses, and 1.25 per 100,000 doses for MMR vaccines”…http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25698493

        “Another example of confirmed autoimmune adverse effects after vaccination is idiopathic thrombocytopenia, which might arise after administration of the measles-mumps-rubella vaccination.51–55 The reported frequency of clinically apparent idiopathic thrombocytopenia after this vaccine is around one in 30,000 vaccination.”

        Source http://www.thelancet.com/…/PIIS0140-6736(03…/abstract…

      • Proponent

        ione murphy: “So if your child was to get these three vaccines at once, their odds are 1 in 33,000 of a serious reaction.”

        Clearly you don’t understand the concept of incidence rate and/or probability.

        Here’s a hint.. the outcome of one event does not influence the probability of the next event.

        … …

        Anti-vaxxers are bad at math.

      • Jonathan Graham

        It’s hard to say what Ione is trying to say but if we are talking about at least one serious event. Then the likelihood is 1 – the likelihood of no adverse events.

        Assuming the odds were 1 adverse event in 100 000. Then the odds of no events at all would be (99 999/100 000)^3. Therefore the odds of at least one would be 1-(99 999/100 000)^3. Which is ~1 in 33,334.

        Where Ione is insane is the odds of GBS and anaphylaxis following vaccination. The overall incidence rate of GBS is 1 in 100 000. This paper – using VAERS and from an antivaccine site no less – pegs it at 9.5 per ten million http://thinktwice.com/gbs.pdf

        For Hep B the article Ione cites says “less than 1 in 100 000” but here we see that it’s much closer to less than 1 in a million http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1995783/

        So getting three vaccines at once would have one of these events in less than 1-(999 999/1 000 000)^3 or about 1 in 333 334.

      • Proponent

        This nagged me pea brain at the time of my posting.

        As I knew it could be clarified much better and I was struggling to do just that in my response.

        Going to make a note for future reference, and on that note.. thanks for taking the time to dig this one up, Jonathan. Muchly appreciated.

      • Jonathan Graham

        No worries. Probability is counter-intuitive. If you ever need a more detailed or theoretical or generalized answer don’t hesitate to ask. I understand the fundamentals well enough.

      • Jonathan Graham

        Yes, which is why 1 in 100 000 is way too high. That value includes all the flu sequelae and every other post-infection case AS well as the post-vaccination cases.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        Scientists are only just beginning to understand the risk factors for adverse reactions to vaccines, and this is most certainly not something taken into consideration with the CDC’s one-size-fits-all schedule. For example, having a family history of autoimmune disease will not get you a medical exemption. Having a mitochondrial disorder will not get you one. Having dysbiosis will not get you one. And so on.

      • transportjohnny

        So what your saying is before every vaccination for the last 30 years 100% of doctors have asked about previous reactions, protein allergies, recent or current infections when administering a vaccine…..you are 1) seriously on some good mind altering wackytobacky 2) You don’t have any children…….3) Both…..this is my guess.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        You wanted an exact quote:

        Compared to what they typically encounter and manage during the day, vaccines are literally a drop in the ocean.” In fact, Dr. Offit’s studies show that in theory, healthy infants could safely get up to 100,000 vaccines at once.

        That’s Offit’s Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

        Certainly, I encourage people to familiarize themselves with Offit’s viewpoints in order to gain insights into the absolute insanity of the media’s go-to vaccine proponent.

        I’m convinced Offit is a psychopath. He bears the characteristics.

      • Brian

        Keep reading! by quantities of antigens, yes.

      • Proponent

        Whom or what, exactly.. are you attributing this quote to, Jeremy?

        Can you provide a link?

      • Cathy

        Oh, allow me

        10 Vaccine Myths – Busted

        Myth 1: Getting so many vaccines will overwhelm my child’s immune system.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        I just told you. That’s from the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. I could dig up the link, but why? Do you think I just made that up?

      • Proponent

        A cursory search did not bring up the Chidren;s Hospital of Philadelphia.. rather.. a list of well known crank/quack sites.

        That is why I asked and am asking again.. link, please?

      • Graceds

        Jon Poling, neurologist and father of Hannah Poling, said this in response to a Offit article in NEJM:
        “Offit is frequently cited regarding the “biologically plausible” theory that simultaneous administration of multiple vaccines is safe. His opinion is unsupported by clinical trials, much less investigations in potentially susceptible subpopulations.”
        http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc086269

      • Boris Ogon

        That’s Offit’s Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

        Nope.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        “Compared to what they typically encounter and manage during the day, vaccines are literally a drop in the ocean.” In fact, Dr. Offit’s studies show that in theory, healthy infants could safely get up to 100,000 vaccines at once.”

        Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (Boris Ogon’s willfully ignorant denial notwithstanding)

      • Boris Ogon

        Boris Ogon’s willfully ignorant denial notwithstanding

        Waiting for you to finally dig up a 10-year-old item from the Wayback Machine is “willfully ignorant denial”?

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        Making the willful decision to assert that the quote was not from the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia despite your ignorance about it is “willfully ignorant denial”, yes.

        Banned for trolling.

  5. ione murphy

    Clin Infect Dis. 2015 Jan 15;60(2):223-7. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciu788. Epub 2014 Oct 9.

    Pertactin-negative Bordetella pertussis strains: evidence for a possible selective advantage.

    CONCLUSIONS:

    The significant association between vaccination and isolate pertactin production suggests that the likelihood of having reported disease caused by PRN(-) compared with PRN(+) strains is greater in vaccinated persons. Additional studies are needed to assess whether vaccine effectiveness is diminished against PRN(-) strains

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25301209

    JAMA. 2014 May 7;311(17):1760-9. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.3633.

    Safety and immunogenicity of tetanus diphtheria and acellular pertussis (Tdap) immunization during pregnancy in mothers and infants: a randomized clinical trial.

    DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:

    Phase 1-2, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, clinical trial conducted from 2008 to 2012. Forty-eight pregnant women aged 18 to 45 years received Tdap….Further research is needed to provide definitive evidence of the safety and efficacy of Tdap immunization during pregnancy.”…http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24794369

    PLoS Curr. 2015 Feb 25

    Factors Associated with Intention to Receive Influenza and Tetanus, Diphtheria, and Acellular Pertussis (Tdap) Vaccines during Pregnancy: A Focus on Vaccine Hesitancy and Perceptions of Disease Severity and Vaccine Safety

    CONCLUSIONS:

    Results from this baseline survey suggest that while pregnant women who remain unvaccinated against influenza within the first three months of the putative influenza season may be aware of the risks influenza and pertussis pose to themselves and their infants, many remain reluctant to receive influenza and Tdap vaccines antenatally”…http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25789203

    Reply
  6. ione murphy

    These two studies done by the same researcher are from 2004 and one is about the whole cell DTP vaccine, anyone else see the connection?

    HINT: DPT vaccine + “proinflammatory cytokines down-regulate gene expression of major cytochrome P-450 enzymes ”

    Am J Ther. 2004 Sep-Oct;11(5):344-53.

    Urinary tract diseases revealed after DTP vaccination in infants and young children: cytokine irregularities and down-regulation of cytochrome P-450 enzymes induced by the vaccine may uncover latent diseases in genetically predisposed subjects.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15356430

    And …”It is suggested that the whole-cell pertussis present in DTP vaccine, acting as an excessive stimulus in these patients, produced symptoms reminiscent of biologic responses to circulating proinflammatory monokines such as IL-1beta, TNF-alpha, and IL-6 because earlier it was reported that in vitro the whole-cell vaccine induced significantly more such cytokine production than did the acellular pertussis or diphtheria-tetanus-only vaccine

    Am J Ther. 2004 Nov-Dec;11(6):517-46.

    Possible pathomechanisms of sudden infant death syndrome: key role of chronic hypoxia, infection/inflammation states, cytokine irregularities, and metabolic trauma in genetically predisposed infants.”

    SIDS infants, during chronic hypoxia and times of infection/inflammation, several proinflammatory cytokines are released in large quantities, sometimes also representing a potential source of tissue damage if their production is not sufficiently well controlled, eg, by pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating polypeptide (PACAP) and vasoactive intestinal polypeptide (VIP). ***These proinflammatory cytokines down-regulate gene expression of major cytochrome P-450 and/or other enzymes ….”

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15543094

    Reply
    • Graceds

      Interesting studies, Ione thanks.

      Reply
      • ione murphy

        Happy to share, DPT and SIDS are a subject I am interested in. Speaking of sharing info, it seems disqus is having glitches again, as I’m getting a detected as spam notice on some of my comments here. That’s been happening to some of my posts on other sites too, where I only post a couple of original sentences in my own words, strange huh?

        It does make it unfair in a debate though, when you cant show a rebuttal to your opponents statements.

        Did you know that SV40 was in two other vaccines besides the IPV and OPV polio vaccines? I knew about the adenovirus vaccine given to “volunteers” in the army, but I was unaware of the HEP A vaccine.. this link has some interesting stuff..

        “A source of human exposure to SV40 occurred between 1955 and 1963, when inactivated and live anti-polio vaccines, prepared from polioviruses grown in
        naturally SV40-infected simian cell cultures, were administered to hundreds of millions of people in the United States, Canada, Europe, Asia and Africa [63].

        Soon it was shown that children vaccinated with
        contaminated oral polio vaccines (OPV) shed infectious SV40 in stools for at least 5 weeks after vaccination [64]. However, some children, who received the same OPV, did not develop neutralizing antibodies even though they may have received large doses of live SV40, compared with the potentially inactivated SV40 in inactivated polio vaccine (IPV). Further, SV40 human contamination occurred in experimental infection with live respiratory
        syncytial virus to adult volunteers and a neutralizing antibody response in about two thirds of the volunteers was shown [65].

        Inactivated vaccines against adenoviruses [66] and hepatitis A [67] virus also exposed humans to SV40, although the amount of infectious SV40 was almost certainly lower then that administered with OPV or
        live respiratory syncytial virus.”

        http://www.infectagentscancer.com/content/2/1/13

        and here’s my link that I will try for a third time to post..http://www.sv40foundation.org/NIH-Patent.html

      • ione murphy

        testing…testing. because all my previous replies to you saying I’m being accused of spam.

      • Graceds

        I appreciate your posts, Ione.

      • ione murphy

        And I really have learned a lot from you, and appreciate the info you pass along as well. I was trying to reply earlier about SV40 and two very interesting links I found. I had never posted them before so why it was considered spam? Let’s see if this post will be allowed through before I try more…

      • Proponent

        “Why are my comments marked as spam or removed?”

        “Comments marked as spam

        Comments are removed from public view (or “disappear”) when they are filtered as spam, whether manually by a site moderator or automatically by our system.

        The following commenting behavior can cause comments to be marked automatically as spam:

        Including a signature in multiple comments. For example,appending a name or website link to the end of multiple comments;

        Bad or strange syntax. For example, excessive paragraph breaks, bad punctuation, double-spaced comments;

        Posting the same comment multiple times to the same page, or across sites;

        Using multiple links in one or multiple comments.

        Continually posting similar messages can also reinforce the spam
        filter to become more sure of its actions and flag such more aggressively.”

        (Source: Disqus | Home | Commenting )

        … …

        Rather fitting where your incessant copy pasta walls of text are concerned, Ione. You shouldn’t be surprised.

    • Cathy

      “anyone else see the connection?”

      Joseph Prandota, lone author of both studies, is also one of the signers at

      We Support Andy Wakefield
      http://www.wesupportandywakefield.com/

      Is that the connection you meant?

      Reply
  7. Brian

    Anti-vaxxer math: If something isn’t 100% effective, then I choose the option that is 0% effective.

    Reply
    • Jeremy R. Hammond

      Depends on what outcome one is referring to when one uses the word “effective”. Vaccines are also not 100% effective in causing, e.g., febrile seizures, but that doesn’t mean it’s 0% effective in doing so.

      Reply
      • Brian

        Thanks for illustrating the other side of anti-vaxxer logic:

        If something is not 100% free of side effects, then I’ll choose the option with greater risk of harm! (e.g. measles infection is much more likely to cause febrile seizures than the vaccine)

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        You are arguing in favor of the unknown risks from vaccines in favor of the known risks from the disease.

        Measles doesn’t scare me, personally. It’s a well understood disease and we have a firm understanding of the risk factors.

      • Brian

        “You are arguing in favor of the unknown risks from vaccines”

        Nope. I’m familiar with them. They’re way lower than the risks of the disease.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        You can’t be familiar with what isn’t yet known.

      • Brian

        Another argumentum ad ignorantiam

        Literally BILLIONS of vaccines have been administered. How many more data points would satisfy you?

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        Billions of vaccines administered doesn’t belie the fact that proper long term safety studies have not been conducted.

      • Boris Ogon

        Billions of vaccines administered doesn’t belie the fact that proper long term safety studies have not been conducted.

        Define “proper,” and you will have moved away from begging the question.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        For example, well-designed prospective studies with large cohorts comparing long-term health outcomes in children vaccinated according to the CDC’s schedule and unvaccinated children.

      • Boris Ogon

        Billions of vaccines administered doesn’t belie the fact that proper long term safety studies have not been conducted.

        Define “proper,” and you will have moved away from begging the question.

        For example, well-designed prospective studies with large cohorts comparing long-term health outcomes in children vaccinated according to the CDC’s schedule and unvaccinated children.

        That’s not a definition of “proper,” and it goes without saying that a prospective study isn’t going to happen. (Strangely, this follows directly from the seemingly popular invocations of the Nuremberg Code.)

        But set that aside, and consider it as a Gedankenexperiment. Specify a single hard endpoint (multiple comparisons can be added later), the confidence level, the power, and the lack of difference between the two populations that would cause you to concede that there’s no reason to reject the null hypothesis.

        Then you will have your sample size.

        I’m frankly weary of asking this over and over again and getting nothing in response.

    • Graceds

      The false claims suit brought by virologists Stephen Krahling and Joan Wlochowski against Merck suggests that your math may be a little off.
      Forbes said this about it in 2012
      “If the accusations are true — thus far Merck has denied wrongdoing — the case would lend credence to the perception held by many that pharmaceutical companies are more interested in pursuing profits and preserving their market share than in protecting consumers’ health.”

      Reply
      • Brian

        Pharmaceutical companies… who certainly want to make money… do much better at it when they make products that protect consumers’ health.

      • Graceds

        Except when they can’t be sued.

      • Brian

        They can be sued.

        Considering that I showed you exactly where the NCVIA explicitly states this, and you continue to repeat the lies, I assume you have no desire in being honest.

        Want me to show you again, or would you like to read it yourself?

      • Graceds

        “When the NVICP was first established, injured parties were required to file petitions with the program and then, if not satisfied with the outcome, they could exit the program and file civil tort-related suits in state or federal court. However, since 2011, the US Supreme Court, ruling in Bruesewitz v Wyeth Labs, eliminated that option, as established by Congress, to exit the program and file suit against the Vaccine manufacturer.”
        Wayne Rhode The Vaccine Court

      • Graceds

        “Vaccine manufacturers have long been subject to a legal duty, rooted in basic principles of products liability law, to improve the design of their vaccines in light of advances in science and technology. Until today, that duty was enforceable through a traditional state-law tort action for defective design. In holding that section 22(b)(1) of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (Vaccine Act or Act), 42 U.S.C. section 300aa-22(b)(1), preempts all design defect claims for injuries stemming from vaccines covered under the Act, the Court imposes its own bare policy preference over the considered judgment of Congress. In doing so, the Court excises 13 words from the statutory text, misconstrues the Act’s legislative history, and disturbs the careful balance Congress struck between compensating vaccine-injured children and stabilizing the childhood vaccine market. Its decision leaves a regulatory vacum in which no one ensures that vaccine manufacturers adequately take account of scientific and technological advancements when designing or distributing their products. Because nothing in the text, structure, or legislative history of the Vaccine Act remotely suggests that Congress intended such a result, I dissent.”
        Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sotomayor dissenting

      • Proponent

        (*sigh*)

        Another quote/cite.. not properly attributed.

        And no.. I am not going to guess and/or search for this, graceds. Nor.. should you expect the readers to do so, either.

        It’s.. dishonest.. and.. disingenuous conduct and behaviour on your part.

      • Boris Ogon

        Another quote/cite.. not properly attributed.

        Aside from the part where it was copied and pasted from a slapdash version of the actual opinion, it’s a reasonable facsimile of the dissent in the opinion (PDF). One might, however, also note that Scalia addresses the dissent in what goes before.

        I’m not in a position to continually be addressing misrepresentations and miscontextualizations of Bruesewitz. What I can say with confidence, though, is that when one comes across someone trying to cherry-pick it, an understanding of the source material goes a long way.

        [Edit.—Added the blockquote at the top.]

      • Proponent

        Danke, sir.

      • Proponent

        See comment/response to Jeremy above.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        Both the law and the SCOTUS ruling are quite clear in the matter.

        “NO vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death … if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unvaoidable…” — NCVIA

        “”[T]he Act expressly eliminates liability for a vaccine’s unavoidable, adverse side effects” — SCOTUS

      • Boris Ogon

        “”[T]he Act expressly eliminates liability for a vaccine’s unavoidable, adverse side effects” — SCOTUS

        Does this have anything to do with the trivially incorrect “unavoidably unsafe” mantra? I mean, the Bruesewitz opinion isn’t hard to find:

        “Contrary to petitioners’ argument, there is no reason to believe that §300aa–22(b)(1)’s term ‘unavoidable’ is a term of art incorporating Restatement (Second) of Torts §402A, Comment k, which exempts from strict liability rules ‘unavoidably unsafe products.’ ‘Unavoidable’ is hardly a rarely used word, and cases interpreting comment k attach special significance only to the term ‘unavoidably unsafe products,’ not the word ‘unavoidable’ standing alone.”

        It was the Bruesewitzes who advanced (and lost) this argument, because it would have allowed a case-by-case analysis, that is, a remand to the state court. Scalia’s opinion is based on a textual analysis, but the fact remains that federal preemption is nothing new.

        Simply repeating the word “unavoidable” has nothing to do with the price of tea in China. To argue against Bruesewitz, one has to argue in favor of a scattershot state-tort “system” that will leave most plaintiffs holding the bag.

        P.S. I seem to have had a comment deleted. If anyone can point me to where it was, I’d appreciate it. I don’t much care for having to take screenshots of everything.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        Are you unfamiliar with the Supreme Court’s ruling?

      • Proponent

        Vaccines and “Unavoidably Unsafe Products”

        Let’s have a look..

        “What Did the Supreme Court Actually Say?

        Regardless of the real meaning of the term “unavoidably unsafe,” it
        is understandably disturbing to parents to hear that the Supreme Court described the vaccines given to their children using that scary term. Fortunately, it didn’t.

        In a case from 2011, Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, the Supreme Court discussed whether the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (NCVIA) preempts tort suits for product design defects at the state level. In other words, they were trying to determine whether the NCVIA prevented consumers from being able to sue manufacturers for harm caused by their products – if it did, that would be something new in the way law was applied. The NCVIA created an administrative compensation scheme, in many ways quicker and easier than a court procedure. The question was whether a plaintiff who claims that she was injured because the vaccine was designed in an unsafe manner is limited only to the special compensation scheme, or whether she could also sue in state courts. (Specifically, the plaintiff claimed that she should have been given the shot with the acellular pertussis vaccine, rather than the whole cell pertussis vaccine).

        While section 402A did not distinguish between types of defects
        directly, the thinking in today’s law regarding product liability is
        that the law distinguishes between three types of defects a product
        might have: manufacturing defects, warning defects, and design defects.”

        … …

        “Conclusion: Comment k does use the Pasteur rabies vaccine to illustrate what it means by “unavoidably unsafe,” and the dissenters in Bruesewitz v. Wyeth do rely on comment k to argue that Congress meant for plaintiffs to have a chance to prove that an alternative design would have made a vaccine safer. But the majority ruling means that courts do not even have to give a plaintiff the chance to petition the court regarding a design defect of a vaccine.

        Meanwhile, what the vaccine critics have missed – as Justice Breyer’s concurring opinion in Bruesewitz explains – is the principle behind comment k. If a product – like a vaccine or a drug – is “unavoidably unsafe,” the product is NOT defective, and the product’s manufacturer is not liable for the product’s inherent risks (though the plaintiff may still be eligible for compensation through the administrative program). “Unavoidably unsafe” products are products that are so valuable – have so many benefits – that the risk associated with their use is justified. If the Supreme Court had applied this term to vaccines, it would have reaffirmed what most scientists and doctors know: the benefits of vaccines far, far outweigh their small risks.”

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        “NO vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death … if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unvaoidable…” — NCVIA

        “”[T]he Act expressly eliminates liability for a vaccine’s unavoidable, adverse side effects” — SCOTUS

      • Boris Ogon

        Considering that I showed you exactly where the NCVIA explicitly states this

        I missed this earlier, but simply quoting from the statute ignores the case law. In the post-Bruesewitz era, design defect claims are wholly preempted. After the OSM, the appeal path is perfunctory review by the Court of Federal Claims proper, then the Federal Circuit, and then the Supreme Court. That’s it.

  8. Brian

    One of the most amusing arguments made by anti-vaxxers is the
    “There’s never been a study about ____” claim

    This is especially mystifying when (1) the topic has been studied for a long time and (2) the person making the claim asserts that they have “done their research”. It’s like claiming to be an expert on ancient Greek history, and in the same breath claiming ancient Greeks never existed.

    As an example, I recently was reading an old review article about vaccine safety.

    [www dot ncbi dot nlm dot nih dot gov/books/NBK234363/pdf/Bookshelf NBK234363 dot pdf]

    This article reviews literally hundreds of vaccine safety studies. Even though it was published about 25 years ago, it includes many things that anti-vaxxers pretend don’t exist (safety of ingredients, comparisons of unvaccinated vs vaccinated, studies that have no ties to financial institutions, etc.)

    This is only one example, and there have been thousands of studies since that time, but it’s easy proof that the “There’s never been a study about ___” talking point is nonsense.

    Reply
    • transportjohnny

      I am not going to get into a big argument with you. The entirety of this issue is very complex. It really is about a calculating the risks vs. Benefits (real and perceived either way)
      1) “Omitted Statistically significant data” was not said by anti-vaxxers. But a top CDC scientist going back several years.
      2) There is an obvious rise in ASD and other issues over the last 20-25 years…..WITH NO REAL ANSWERS OTHER THAN “THERE IS NO LINK”
      3) Immune dysregulation is coupled with ASD. Manipulating the immune system has to be contributing.
      These are just three facts that are not in dispute. When more and more evidence is arising with regard to immune system issues coupled with brain, cognitive, behavior or other neurological issues….it is silly to just say vaccines aren’t part of the problem.
      When calculating any risk, you should know what can potentially happen. With the rise over the last 2-2.5 decades, main stream medicine has put their head in the sand and said “There is no link” There has been NO sense of urgency to fix this problem. Most pragmatic people agree vaccines have their place…..but we are wondering if we have gone too far.

      To argue about 100% safe vs doing 0% is just disingenuous at the very least.

      Reply
      • Brian

        “The entirety of this issue is very complex.” True, the entirety of the issue is complex, but certain details are simple and verifiable. For example:

        When an anti-vaxxer claims that studies have never been performed on a topic, and if it’s false, it is very easy to prove it. If an source continues to repeat the claim after being proven wrong, you can know with certainty that they aren’t concerned with honesty.

        And your claims:
        1) The “Omitted Statistically significant data” claim was investigated and
        found to be false. The data was neither statistically significant nor was it destroyed, and the paper reporting as such was found to be fraudulent and retracted.

        2) There has been an obvious rise in ASD diagnoses, but not in ASD itself. What was defined as autism 25 years ago isn’t the same thing as autism today. In fact, when using the same diagnosis criteria, the rate of ASD in 1990 was the same as 2010.
        [Baxter et al. The epidemiology and global burden of autism spectrum
        disorders]

        3) The unvaccinated develop autism at the same rate as the vaccinated, so it’s silly to continue insisting that vaccines are part of the problem.

      • transportjohnny

        So your saying neuro inflammation cannot and does not come from vaccines?????

    • Judith

      Brian – when you say hundreds of studies you have to be specific about what particular study proves your point. Generalising does not prove anything. I can say to you there are hundreds of studies that show mercury and aluminium are toxic but it is better to point to one good study.

      The following is a sampling of studies that have not been done:

      Safety of simultaneous vaccination vs. placebo

      Mixing of vaccine adjuvants (for example, thimerosal and aluminum)

      Follow up study of the higher rate of seizures from MMRV vs. MMR

      There have been no studies of the remaining vaccines on the childhood schedule (beyond MMR and Hepatitis B) for associations with autism. This would include the following vaccines: Rotavirus, DTaP, Hib, PCV (pneumococcal), IPV (polio), Influenza, Varicella, and Hepatitis A.

      There have been no studies of ingredients in childhood vaccines (besides thimerosal) for associations with autism.

      Reply
      • VikingAPRNCNP

        It’s a waste of research dollars to run any of the studies you propose. Sodium chloride, water and albumin are abundantly present in the human body as part of normal metabolic processes.

        Today’s vaccines are actually cleaner than those used in 1980. They have far fewer antigens today since removal of the smallpox virus.

        See

        With manufacturing advances and discontinuation of smallpox immunization, children are exposed to fewer antigens today than they were in 1980 [42]. The currently recommended immunizations for children younger than two years in the United States (figure 2A-B) contain approximately 300 bacterial and viral protein or polysaccharide antigens, compared with >3000 such antigens in the seven vaccines administered in 1980 [111-113].

        Addressing parents’ concerns: do multiple vaccines overwhelm or weaken the infant’s immune system?
        AU
        Offit PA, Quarles J, Gerber MA, Hackett CJ, Marcuse EK, Kollman TR, Gellin BG, Landry S
        SO
        Pediatrics. 2002;109(1):124.

        Increasing exposure to antibody-stimulating proteins and polysaccharides in vaccines is not associated with risk of autism.
        AU
        DeStefano F, Price CS, Weintraub ES
        SO
        J Pediatr. 2013;163(2):561.

        Number of antigens in early childhood vaccines and neuropsychological outcomes at age 7-10 years.
        AU
        Iqbal S, Barile JP, Thompson WW, DeStefano F
        SO
        Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2013;22(12):1263.

      • Judith

        Thanks for your list of research articles but do you really think that the public has confidence in Paul Offit who has massively profited from the sale of vaccines or De Stefano leading author of two of the studies you quoted.

        “And finally, I want to say this: Dr Frank DeStefano, who runs the vaccine division and orchestrated this corruption [as revealed by Dr William Thompson, the ‪#‎CDCWhistleblower‬], Dr DeStefano is a criminal and he committed scientific research fraud and he is guilty of injuring all these people. I’m saying that and I am using his name. If what I’m saying is untrue, it is an act of slander and I want him to sue me. If he didn’t do it, he ought to sue me. He ought to file a suit this afternoon and enjoin me from ever saying that again. If someone said that about me I would sue them IMMEDIATELY.

        I’m saying to you, Frank DeStefano, if you didn’t poison these children, you need to sue me right now and shut me up because what I’m saying to you is damaging your career.

        Let’s see what he does on Monday.”

        Robert F. Kennedy, Jr
        October 24, 2015
        Atlanta Georgia
        CDC Truth Transparency Freedom Rally

      • VikingAPRNCNP

        Rfk jr? Please cite his credentials as an immunologist. An ad hominem attack is hardly legitimate.

        Dr offitt was fairly compensated for 25 years of work. Children benefited directly and indirectly from his work. Directly from reduction of morbidity and mortality from rotavirus. Indirectly as children’s hospital of Philadelphia added to its endowment from its portion of the proceeds from sale of the rotate patent.

      • Judith

        RFK jr does not need to be an immunologist to understand De Stefano committed scientific research fraud. Interesting he did not raise a whisper at JFK’s allegations for the simple reason the less publicity the better.

      • VikingAPRNCNP

        Febrile seizures are usually benign. That said an age a dusted vaccination strategy minimizes the risk. SE up to date.

        For the first doses of varicella and MMR vaccines:
        -We suggest separate varicella and MMR vaccines for children 12 through 47 months of age (ie, administered at the same visit, but at different sites)
        -We suggest MMRV for children 48 months through 12 years of age
        •For the second doses of varicella and MMR vaccines in children 15 months through 12 years of age, we suggest MMRV
        The immunogenicity of MMRV is similar to that when varicella and MMR vaccines are administered at separate injection sites [43]. However, the risk of febrile seizures is increased when MMRV is administered for the first dose in young children. In several large postlicensure studies, administration of MMRV at age 12 to 23 months was associated with an approximately twofold increased risk of febrile seizures one to two weeks after immunization compared with separate injections of varicella and MMR (approximately 1 in 1250 versus 1 in 2500) (table 2) [44-48]. In another large postlicensure study, neither MMRV nor separate injections of MMR and varicella vaccine was associated with an increased risk of febrile seizures at age 4 to 6 years [49]. (See ‘Local and systemic reactions’ below.)

  9. ione murphy

    I would like to post what I wanted to the other day, when I was unable to post. It is continuing the discussion we were having about SV40

    SV40 is in the blood, and body fluids of at least 25% of the population. It can be transmitted through sex, organ transplants and blood transfusions, It’s passed from parents to children. BUT there is no testing for SV40 at blood banks, ask a Dr. if you can get tested for the STD SV40 and they most likely will not know what you’re talking about, or be able to provide you with that test.

    SV40 can lie latent in your body, it’s site to do that is the kidneys, and then it can become an active infection when you are immunosuppressed or have other carcinogenic co-factors such as asbestos with SV40 in causing mesotheliomas

    “SV40 sequences were detected in blood and sperm specimens of normal individuals and blood samples of patients (reviewed in [2]) while SV40 virions were found in urine samples (7), indicating that blood, sperm, and urine may represent routes/vehicles of transmission of SV40 horizontal infection in humans. A scientific panel recently established the importance of assessing the ways of contagion and the mechanisms of SV40 transmission in humans (5).

    How SV40 may establish a persistent infection in human cells is poorly understood.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1431373

    In 1999, the NIH patented a technology for inactivating SV40 to kill cancer…caused by SV40….

    “Here is an example of the NIH making available for licensing a government owned invention that treats SV40 cancers by inactivating SV40. We would suggest that this demonstrates that at least some scientists in the government are aware that SV40 is a cause of these cancers. For if SV40 were not a cause, how would its destruction treat “all cancers that express SV40 T antigen?”

    http://www.sv40foundation.org/NIH-Patent.html

    Reply
    • Proponent

      ione murphy: “I would like to post what I wanted to the other day, when I was unable
      to post. It is continuing the discussion we were having about SV40.”

      Let’s not.. and say you did.

      Save everyone some time and wear and tear on their eyes by not having to read your nonsense.. and then, refuting it.

      A -gain.

      Reply
  10. ione murphy

    Also, another item I would like to share.. this link has some interesting stuff..SV40 in OPV and IPV and found in experimental RSV vaccine, adenovirus vaccines, and a Hep A vaccine

    “A source of human exposure to SV40 occurred between 1955 and 1963, when inactivated and live anti-polio vaccines, prepared from polioviruses grown in
    naturally SV40-infected simian cell cultures, were administered to hundreds of millions of people in the United States, Canada, Europe, Asia and Africa [63].

    Soon it was shown that children vaccinated with
    contaminated oral polio vaccines (OPV) shed infectious SV40 in stools for at least 5 weeks after vaccination [64]. Further, SV40 human contamination occurred in experimental infection with live respiratory
    syncytial virus to adult volunteers and a neutralizing antibody response in about two thirds of the volunteers was shown [65].

    Inactivated vaccines against adenoviruses [66] and hepatitis A [67] virus also exposed humans to SV40, although the amount of infectious SV40 was almost certainly lower then that administered with OPV or
    live respiratory syncytial virus.”

    http://www.infectagentscancer.com/content/2/1/13

    Reply
    • VikingAPRNCNP

      From your source…..

      These studies showed that SV40 seroprevalence is similar between cancer patients compared with controls (ranging from 5% to 10%) and suggest that no association exists between SV40 seroprevalence and either immunization with poliovirus vaccine or cancer incidence [99,100,104].Engels EA, Chen J, Viscidi RP, Shah KV, Daniel RW, Chatterjee N, Klebanoff MA:Poliovirus vaccination during pregnancy, maternal seroconversion to simian virus 40, and risk of childhood cancer.

      Am J Epidemiol 2004, 160:306-316.PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 

       Engels EA, Chen J, Hartge P, Cerhan JR, Davis S, Severson RK, Cozen W, Viscidi RP:Antibody responses to simian virus 40 T antigen: A case control study of non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

      Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2005,14:521-524. PubMed Abstract |Publisher Full Text 
      Engels EA, Viscidi RP, Galloway DA, Carter JJ, Cerhan JR, Davis S, Cozen W, Severson RK, de Sanjose S, Colt JS, Hartge P: Case-control study of simian virus 40 and non- Hodgkin lymphoma in the United States.

      J Natl Cancer Inst 2004, 96:1368-1374.PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 

      Return to text

      Reply
      • ione murphy

        Well if the few gov scientists are saying there is no connection to SV40 and cancer , then it must be so..
        But let’s just suppose it was all true, and the gov introduced a cancer causing virus that can spread sexually and through tainted blood products, through contaminated vaccines to millions and millions of people…do you really believe the gov will ever admit to that?

      • VikingAPRNCNP

        Ione

        It is far from established that SV40 is a cancer causing virus. At most it may be a cofactor for inducing some types of tumors. Iow it may be implicated as a factor needed for a process to start. In and of itself it does not cause problems but if present in the face of a known carcinogen it might lead to a oncogenic process. Asbestos is a definite carcinogen. SV40 might make the body more susceptible to the effects of the asbestos. Absent the carcinogen it has little to no effect.

        Think of the fire triangle. We need three things fuel, oxygen and heat. Remove any one of the three and fire cannot exist. See the following:

        Although it may seem somehow a premature effort, the conviction that SV40 is implicated as a cofactor in the etiology of some human tumors has prompted programs to prepare a vaccine against the main viral oncoprotein, the SV40 Tag [177

        At http://www.infectagentscancer.com/content/2/1/13 .
        Vaccination will remove the cofactor and reduce the risk of an oncogenic process.

        This is the principle behind gardasil and hep b vaccinations. Remove the agent and you prevent the process from starting.

      • Boris Ogon

        Well if the few gov scientists are saying there is no connection to SV40 and cancer , then it must be so..

        SV40 is a moldy oldie. Merely bringing it up is tantamount to dumping a garbage pail over one’s head. It’s at the level of advancing the video that purports to show Maurice Hilleman chortling over building HIV into vaccines.

      • Proponent

        ione murphy: “Well if the few gov scientists are saying there is no connection to SV40 and cancer , then it must be so..”

        Might be helpful for you, Ione.. to actually check the authors information of the study provided:

        Viral Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Department of Health and Human Services, 6120 Executive Blvd., EPS 8010, Rockville, MD 20892, USA

        And there are other studies as well:

        “Antibody responses to simian virus 40 T antigen: a case-control study of non-Hodgkin lymphoma”

        “Cancer incidence in Denmark following exposure to poliovirus vaccine contaminated with simian virus 40”

        “Poliovirus vaccination during pregnancy, maternal seroconversion to simian virus 40, and risk of childhood cancer”

        Want the whole story, neatly compiled and sourced?

        Sure.. here you go..

        “Polio vaccine causes cancer – myth debunked”

        “And polio vaccines have been SV40 free since 1963 in most advanced countries, although Soviet bloc vaccines were contaminated until the 1980’s.”

      • VikingAPRNCNP

        Actually it is his….. (Given that nursing is dominated by women I ubderstand the pronoun possessive shift…. :) )

      • Proponent

        Corrected and edited.. and duly noted.

        … …

        Erhm.. wanna a beer? I’m buying?

        :P

      • VikingAPRNCNP

        Yes….

      • AutismDad

        Don’t you think you’ve had enough already?

      • sabelmouse

        no government would, of course not.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        “SV40 footprints in humans have been found associated at high prevalence with specific tumor types such as brain and bone tumors, mesotheliomas and lymphomas and with kidney diseases, and at lower prevalence in blood samples from healthy donors.”

    • Proponent

      Article title; “The CDC’s Cognitive Dissonance on the Pertussis Vaccine”.

      Has this discussion become a free-for-all for any and all comments/posts by anti-vaxxers now?

      So that they can go through their list of misleading/deceitful/fear-mongering ‘talking points’?

      Reply
      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        Your own comment adds nothing of value to the discussion. Shall I delete it?

        You are on notice for trolling.

    • Boris Ogon

      Also, another item I would like to share.. this link has some interesting stuff..

      Perhaps you could coherently describe the “stuff” in your own words. The word “sequences” seems to be used rather freely, and the aside about mesothelioma is a big honking flag.

      But you’re the one who’s evaluated in detail. Right?

      Reply
  11. ione murphy

    I will just address the onslaught of various replies here….Well, I certainly know what pushes you guys buttons now, Any talk of vaccines and cancer, brings you running. Whenever someone tells me to leave a subject alone, (SV40, Formaldehyde, etc) I know I am touching a nerve, and should just keep pursuing it.

    I find it funny that three different people answered my posts and not one person touched the comment about the patent owned by the United States Gov, for an invention to cure cancer caused from SV40..Skipped right over that part.

    Not one person addressed the part about there are no blood tests to screen out those with an active SV40 infection from donating blood, although there is clear evidence it is circulating in the population today.

    Instead I hear that SV40 isn’t proven to cause cancer, although the IOM has concluded that it has..

    “The National Academy of Science Institute of Medicine (IOM) Immunization Safety Committee convened a study into SV40 and cancer which culminated in a report published in October 2002. According to the IOM report “SV40 Contamination of Polio Vaccine and Cancer”:
    The committee concludes that the biological evidence is strong that SV40 is a transforming [i.e., cancer-causing] virus, . . . that the biological evidence is of moderate strength that SV40 exposure could lead to cancer in humans under natural conditions, [and] that the biological evidence is of moderate strength that SV40 exposure from the polio vaccine is related to SV40 infection in humans”

    And…

    “In 2002, three leading SV40 experts (Drs. Gazdar, Butel and Carbone) who have been involved in studying SV40 for a number of years wrote:

    “[1]t is our opinion that SV40 should be included in the list of group 2A carcinogens – that is, those that are probably carcinogenic to humans.”
    — Gazdar AF, Butel JS, Carbone M., SV40 and human tumours: myth, association or causality? Nat Rev Cancer. 2002 Dec;2(12):957-64.

    This group (2A) is part of the classification scheme provided by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which is part of the World Health Organization. IARC’s mission is to coordinate and conduct research on the causes of human cancer, the mechanisms of carcinogenesis, and to develop scientific strategies for cancer control. IARC also publishes a monograph series that provides a ranking system for carcinogenic substances.

    Group 1: The agent (mixture) is carcinogenic to humans. The exposure circumstance entails exposures that are carcinogenic to humans.

    Group 2A: The agent (mixture) is probably carcinogenic to humans. The exposure circumstance entails exposures that are probably carcinogenic to humans.

    Group 2B: The agent (mixture) is possibly carcinogenic to humans. The exposure circumstance entails exposures that are possibly carcinogenic to humans.

    Group 3: The agent (mixture, or exposure circumstance) is not classifiable as to carcinogenicity in humans.

    Group 4: The agent (mixture, exposure circumstance) is probably not carcinogenic to humans.”

    http://www.sv40foundation.org/Experts-opinion.html

    I hear that SV40 is a ‘moldy oldie’

    Cancer (Impact Factor: 4.89). 11/2014; 121(5). DOI: 10.1002/cncr.29137

    “CONCLUSIONS
    The data from the current study indicate an association between OS and SV40. These data could be transferred to clinical applications for innovative therapies to address SV40-positive OS. Cancer 2014. © 2014 American Cancer Society

    Bradford-Hill Criteria and Mesothelioma

    In the article SV40 and Human Tumours: Myth, Association or Causality? the authors, Drs. Gazdar, Butel, and Carbone include a table in which they applied the Bradford-Hill criteria to SV40 and human papillomavirus (HPV). The HPV comparison is included because it represents a relationship that is universally accepted. This Table supports the position that the SV40 association with some human mesothelioma cancers is causative.

    Several studies have found evidence of SV40 in ~50% of human mesotheliomas, both in the United States and in some European countries

    .At least 30 studies have reported SV40 in human mesotheliomas using a variety of techniques, whereas four have failed to find an association

    SV40 is present in a highly specific group of human tumours. Furthermore, injection of the virus into hamsters produces the same tumours. In human mesotheliomas, SV40 is found only in tumour cells and not in the surrounding non-malignant tissue. Little is known, although the virus has been found in preneoplastic lesions. The tremendous increase in the incidence of mesotheliomas over the past several decades was preceded by the administration of SV40-contaminated poliovirus vaccines, as well as by an increased exposure to asbestos. SV40 is a powerful carcinogen that, in vitro, transforms human mesothelial cells. It induces mesothelioma development in hamsters. SV40 also expresses the oncogenic protein T Ag in human mesotheliomas, which inactivates p53 and RB. Definitive epidemiological studies are lacking.”http://www.sv40foundation.org/Bradford-Hill.html

    Reply
    • Judith

      Thank you for your excellent research Ione – this is profoundly disturbing but the public are mostly entirely ignorant

      Reply
      • ione murphy

        Sv40 in vaccines is the gift that just keeps on giving, as we pass it to others and our offspring. The gov will not acknowledge that SV40 causes cancer in humans, no matter how many other researchers say it does. Rather than admit it and work towards a cure, they made the choice to cover it up and let more people die

      • Boris Ogon

        The Hep A vaccine according to the second link I posted was also contaminated with SV40, but when did that happen?

        Could you point me to that link?

      • ione murphy

        You already replied to my comment that contains the link, your brain failed to register it I guess…that two people would upvote your comment is comical to say the least.

      • Boris Ogon

        You already replied to my comment that contains the link, your brain failed to register it I guess…

        Apparently. Now, would you do me the kindness of pointing back to where it actually is?

      • ione murphy

        Its right under your nose, if you can’t look down and see it, then maybe you should hang up your hat and retire.

      • Boris Ogon

        Apparently. Now, would you do me the kindness of pointing back to where it actually is?

        Its right under your nose, if you can’t look down and see it, then maybe you should hang up your hat and retire.

        No, it’s right under your nose. I’m attempting to take it seriously, but I have little patience with people who can’t even be arsed to reproduce their own comments.

      • ione murphy

        You took the time to reply to my post with the ‘elusive’ link you now so desperate need, but didn’t take the time to actually read my comment or notice the link then. Now you think I should bow and scape as I hurry to provide you with the link, while you tap your foot with impatience….You are a funny little man.

    • Boris Ogon

      Not one person addressed the issue of there are no blood tests to screen out those with an active SV40 infection from donating blood….

      Now, that’s a proper Yosemite Sam moment.

      Instead I hear that SV40 isn’t proven to cause cancer, although the IOM has concluded that it has..

      This will no doubt come as a surprise to the authors and readers of your actual source:

      “The committee concludes that the evidence is inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship between SV40-containing polio vaccines and cancer.”

      Reply
      • ione murphy

        You ‘forgot’ once again to address the patent owned by the United States Gov for a cure for cancer caused by SV40…
        “The present invention describes a method of treatment of cancer by administering a replication-deficient recombinant adenovirus comprising a nucleic acid that encodes an antisense rebonucleic acid to the SV40 T antigene. In addition, it provides methods for reducing the level of expression of SV40 T antigen, induction of apoptosis, effecting cell growth arrest, reducing the levels of proto-oncogene expression, unregulating pro-apoptotic proteins, maintaining normal levels of functional p53, and maintaining normal levels of functional Rb, p107, and p130. The types of cancers contemplated by this invention include.

        Federal Register: October 6, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 193)][Notices]
        [Page 54336-54338]From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov][DOCID:fr06oc99-109]

        DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
        National Institutes of Health Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for Licensing

        AGENCY: National Institutes of Health, Public Health Service, DHHS.

        ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The inventions listed below are owned by agencies of the U.S. Government and are available for licensing in the U.S. in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 207 to achieve expeditious commercialization of results of federally-funded research and development. Foreign patent applications are filed on selected inventions to extend market coverage[[Page 54337]]for companies and may also be available for licensing.

        ADDRESSES: Licensing information and copies of the U.S. patent applications listed below may be obtained by writing to the indicated licensing contact at the Office of Technology Transfer, National of Health, 6011 Executive Boulevard, Suite 325, Rockville, Maryland 20852-3804; telephone: 301/496-7057; fax: 301/402-0220. A signed Confidential Disclosure Agreement will be required to receive copies of the patent applications.

        Adenoviral Vector Expressing a SV4OT Antigen Antisense RNA David S. Schrump, Z. Sheng Guo, Ishrat Wahseed (NCI) Serial No. 60/124,776 filed 17 Mar 1999 Licensing Contact: Richard U. Rodriguez; 301/496-7056 ext. 287; e-mail: [email protected]

        Desired nucleic acid sequences with therapeutic potential may be introduced into mammalian cells using appropriate vectors. Antisense technology is well known in the art and describes a mechanism whereby a nucleic acid comprising a nucleotide sequences, which is in a complementary, “antisense” orientation with respect to a coding or “sense” sequence of an endogenous gene, is introduced into a cell, whereby a duplex forms between the antisense sequence and its complementary sense sequence. The formation of this duplex results in inactivation of the endogenous gene. The present invention describes a method of treatment of cancer by administering a replication-deficient recombinant adenovirus comprising a nucleic acid that encodes an antisense rebonucleic acid to the SV40 T antigene. In addition, it provides methods for reducing the level of expression of SV40 T antigen, induction of apoptosis, effecting cell growth arrest, reducing the levels of proto-oncogene expression, unregulating pro-apoptotic proteins, maintaining normal levels of functional p53, and maintaining normal levels of functional Rb, p107, and p130. **The types of cancers contemplated by this invention include all cancers that express SV40 T antigen**”

      • Boris Ogon

        You ‘forgot’ once again to address the patent owned by the United States Gov for a cure for cancer caused by SV40…

        I didn’t “forget” anything. I made specific comments; if your response is randomly throwing things against the wall, it’s of no interest to me. Moreover, in my experience, argument-from-patent represents nothing other than a failure to understand an additional, extremely baroque subject.

      • ione murphy

        Antisense to SV40 Early Gene Region Induces Growth Arrest and Apoptosis in T-Antigen-positive Human Pleural Mesothelioma Cells

        “Data presented in this study suggest that SV40 oncoproteins contribute to the malignant phenotype of human pleural mesothelioma cells and imply that strategies designed to inhibit their expression may be efficacious in the treatment of individuals with MPMs (and possibly osteosarcomas or brain tumors) that harbor SV40. Conceivably, 9p allelic deletions and expression of SV40 oncoproteins are complementary, rather than redundant, events that simultaneously inactivate the Rb and p53 tumor suppressor pathways during malignant transformation in pleural mesothelia. The relevance of SV40 oncoproteins in the pathogenesis of malignant pleural mesotheliomas should not be underestimated, irrespective of their levels of expression. ”

        http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/59/24/6068.long

        “We have recently reported that infection of human mesothelial cells by SV40 leads to an extremely high rate of malignant transformation, which is at least 1000 times higher than that reported for other tested human cells infected by SV40″…..http://www.nature.com/onc/journal/v21/n9/full/1205203a.html.

      • ione murphy

        Call any blood bank or hospital and ask them if they test donated blood for SV40, their answer is NO

        SV40 in Tumors and Blood from Blood Donors
        “SV40 large T-antigen sequences were detected at high prevalence, in human biopsies of primary brain (37-44%) and bone (21-37%) tumors, in cell cultures derived from brain (30-54%) and bone (53-80%) tumors. SV40 Tag sequences were detected in 29% of buffy coats of blood donors.”

        — Martini F, et al., Different simian virus 40 genomic regions and sequences homologous with SV40 large T antigen in DNA of human brain and bone tumors and of leukocytes from blood donors. Cancer. 2002 Feb 15;94(4):1037-48.

      • Boris Ogon

        Call any blood bank or hospital and ask them if they test donated blood for SV40, their answer is NO

        You didn’t understand the Yosemite Sam reference, did you? Show me the assay, along with its specificity and sensitivity. Remember the BKV problem.

        Cancer. 2002 Feb 15;94(4):1037-48.

        And? Cherry-picking from Martini’s cottage industry only goes so far.

      • ione murphy

        Government Scientists Compromise SV40 Study

        “Presently there are over 61 reports from 49 different laboratories that have detected SV40 in human mesothelioma, lymphoma, brain and bone tumors, versus three reports, two from Dr. Shah’s laboratory who performed his study under contract from Dr. Strickler at the Viral Epidemiology Branch (VEB) National Cancer Institute (USA) that have failed to detect SV40 in some of these same tumor types. To address whether the negative reports were caused by lack of sensitivity of the technique used in Shah’s laboratory, or whether the positive reports were caused by contamination within the greater number of laboratories reporting SV40 detection, two multi-center studies were conducted. Dr. Shah’s laboratory technique used in 1996 was apparently not sufficiently sensitive to detect SV40 in human tumors. When this became apparent, during unilateral pre-trial testing of positive controls by Dr. Shah, the study coordinator of the VEB, Dr. Strickler, apparently compromised the blinded nature of the study and allowed Dr. Shah to modify and improve his technique. When one of the participating laboratories questioned irregularities in the data from Dr. Shah’s laboratory and directly questioned Dr. Strickler, the study organizer, about the potential irregularity, Dr. Strickler and Dr. Shah offered letters stating that such irregularities had not occurred and re-confirmed that they had not deviated from the standard protocol. The facts indicating that Dr. Shah’s laboratory technique was not sufficiently sensitive to detect SV40 were not made available to the other laboratories participating in the study and were not published. Instead, according to Dr. Shah’s testimony, Dr. Strickler, the VEB multi-center study coordinator, compromised the masked positive controls and knowingly permitted Dr. Shah to re-test and adjust his technique during pre-trial testing. The actual negative pre-trial test results were never published alongside the published trial results indicating Dr. Shah’s laboratory had the most sensitive technique to detect SV40 among the nine participating laboratories.”

        — MacLachlan DS, SV40 in human tumors: new documents shed light on the apparent controversy. Anticancer Res. 2002 Nov-Dec;22(6B):3495-9.

    • Judith

      SV40 is the asbestos of vaccines – however for this to come to light as general knowledge could destroy the credibility of the holy church of vaccinology. It has been hidden under the rug but one day the light will shine on the ill deeds of those who are more interested in profit than the good of mankind.

      Reply
      • sabelmouse

        one day. there’ll be lessons taught about how we brought about our own [near] extinction by so many stupid decisions, this being one of them.
        if there are enough left and if there’s enough information/knowledge left.
        this makes me think of that wonderful novel ”station eleven” not the usual dystopian after the apocalypse story.
        but after a huge flu pandemic.

  12. ione murphy

    Association of autism with polyomavirus infection in postmortem brains

    Autism is a highly heritable behavioral disorder. Yet, two decades of genetic investigation have unveiled extremely few cases that can be solely explained on the basis of de novo mutations or cytogenetic abnormalities. Vertical viral transmission represents a nongenetic mechanism of disease compatible with high parent-to-offspring transmission and with low rates of disease-specific genetic abnormalities. Vertically transmitted viruses should be found more frequently in the affected tissues of autistic individuals compared to controls. Our initial step was thus to assess by nested polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and DNA sequence analysis the presence of cytomegalovirus (CMV), Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV1), herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV2), human herpes virus 6 (HHV6), BK virus (BKV), JC virus (JCV), and simian virus 40 (SV40) in genomic DNA extracted from postmortem temporocortical tissue (Brodmann areas 41/42) belonging to 15 autistic patients and 13 controls. BKV, JCV, and SV40 combined are significantly more frequent among autistic patients compared to controls (67% versus 23%, respectively; P < .05). The majority of positives yielded archetypal sequences, whereas six patients and two controls unveiled single–base pair changes in two or more sequenced clones. No association is present with the remaining viruses, which are found in relatively few individuals (N ≤ 3). Also polyviral infections tend to occur more frequently in the brains of autistic patients compared to controls (40% versus 7.7%, respectively; P = .08). Follow-up studies exploring vertical viral transmission as a possible pathogenetic mechanism in autistic disorder should focus on, but not be limited to, the role of polyomaviruses.

    Read More: http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/13550281003685839

    Reply
    • Boris Ogon

      Association of autism with polyomavirus infection in postmortem brains (SV40 is a polyomavirus)

      You do understand that this name has nothing to do with polio, right?

      Reply
  13. ione murphy

    And another animal virus of monkey origin that was in the breed of monkeys (African green) used for OPV production AFTER they had discovered SV40 in Rhesus monkeys and switched to the greens..Simian Cytomegalovirus is a Herpes Virus that can also infect humans. Likewise our human CMV can infect and kill monkeys. What does it say about human CMV?

    “CMV is a member of the herpes virus group that is characterized by the ability to remain dormant within the body over a long period. Infectious CMV may be shed in bodily fluids (urine, saliva, blood, tears, semen, and breast milk) intermittently, without any detectable signs or symptoms”…http://americanpregnancy.org/pregnancy-complications/cytomegalovirus-infection/

    Biologicals. 2003 Mar;31(1):63-73.

    Simian cytomegalovirus and contamination of oral poliovirus vaccines.

    Baylis SA1, Shah N, Jenkins A, Berry NJ, Minor PD.

    Author information

    1Division of Virology, National Institute for Biological Standards and Control, Blanche Lane, South Mimms, Hertfordshire EN6 3QG, Potters Bar, UK. [email protected]

    Abstract

    In the 1950s the use of primary rhesus macaque kidney cultures to propagate poliovirus for vaccine production led to the contamination of vaccines with simian virus 40 (SV40). African green monkey kidney (AGMK) cultures free of SV40 were used as an alternative cell substrate for vaccine manufacture. In this study we evaluate oral poliovirus seeds, vaccine bulks and vaccines themselves for the presence of a common contaminant of AGMK cultures, simian cytomegalovirus (SCMV). Using sensitive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) techniques, nearly half of the samples analysed were found to be contaminated with SCMV sequences. However, vaccine bulks, positive by PCR for SCMV failed to show any evidence of infectious virus in these studies. One poliovirus vaccine and one seed, propagated on rhesus macaque kidney cultures were found to be positive for the rhesus monkey CMV by PCR.

    Biologicals. 2002 Sep;30(3):167-74.

    Live oral poliovirus vaccines and simian cytomegalovirus.

    Sierra-Honigmann AM1, Krause PR.

    Author information

    1Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, Building 29A, Rm 1C16, 29 Lincoln Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA.

    Abstract

    Live oral poliovirus vaccines (OPV) are often produced in primary Cercopithecus monkey kidney (CMK) cells. The kidneys of these monkeys are often latently infected with simian cytomegalovirus (SCMV), and CMK cultures are frequently contaminated with SCMV. We tested human, monkey and rabbit tissue culture systems, and found that MRC-5 cells are most sensitive for detection of SCMV. To address the question of whether OPV could be contaminated with infectious SCMV, we inoculated MRC-5 cells with neutralized OPV manufactured in the United States between 1972 and 1998. Infectious SCMV was not found in any of the vaccine lots tested. We also used the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to search for SCMV DNA in live oral poliovirus vaccines; SCMV DNA sequences were found in several of the vaccine lots manufactured prior to 1992…http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12217341

    Simian cytomegalovirus-related stealth virus isolated from the cerebrospinal fluid of a patient with bipolar psychosis and acute encephalopathy.

    Martin WJ 1 . Author information Pathobiology. 1996;64(2):64-6.

    Abstract A cytopathic ‘stealth’ virus was cultured from the cerebrospinal fluid of a patient with a bipolar psychotic disorder who developed a severe encephalopathy leading to a vegetative state. DNA sequencing of a polymerase chain reaction-amplified product from infected cultures has identified the virus as an African green monkey simian cytomegalovirus (SCMV)-related stealth virus. The virus is similar to the SCMV-related stealth virus isolated from a patient with chronic fatigue syndrome. The findings support the concepts that stealth viruses can account for a spectrum of dysfunctional brain diseases and that some of these viruses may have arisen from live polio viral vaccines.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8888270/?i=4&from=/12217341/related

    Reply
    • AutismDad

      And they swear and maintain there’s no science. What a ruse

      Reply
      • ione murphy

        If SCMV (simian cytomegalovirus) and Sv40 were being incubated together for years, what might have come from that interaction?

        “Although manufacturers switched from rhesus monkeys to SV40-free green African monkeys to grow the bulk vaccine in 1961, they have continued to use potentially contaminated polio seed strains originally grown on the rhesus monkey tissue to start the bulk vaccine process. “

      • Proponent

        Oh, dear..

        “Leonard Horowitz is a former dentist, anti-vaxxer, promoter of various “natural cures,” and self-publisher of books and pamphlets expressing such unfounded beliefs as that the AIDS and Ebola epidemics were intentionally caused by the U.S. government. These and other claims made by Horowitz have influenced some black leaders into boycotting vaccination programs.*

        “His company mission statement for OxySilver might nauseate the
        unspiritual or the clearheaded:

        “To celebrate the manifestation of Divinity in biology, health science, and emerging biospiritual technologies, and through our loving service, deliver the most advanced knowledge and equipment for personal and planetary purification, physical salvation, and spiritual evolution.” ”

        … …

        You sure know how to pick’em, Ione Murphy.

      • ione murphy

        Wrong again as usual Proponent..my source is this article..

        Rogue virus in the vaccine / Early polio vaccine harbored virus now feared to cause cancer in humans

        http://www.sfgate.com/health/article/Rogue-virus-in-the-vaccine-Early-polio-vaccine-2899957.php

        Then in 1999, Carbone was contacted by a former public health director in Oak Park, Ill., who said he had seven sealed vials of vaccine dated October 1955 in a refrigerator in his basement.

        Carbone, who had left the NIH and joined the faculty at Loyola University Medical Center, ran tests on the vaccine and made a startling discovery: Not only was the vaccine contaminated, it contained a second form of the virus – an “archetypal” SV40 strain.

        Although manufacturers switched from rhesus monkeys to SV40-free green African monkeys to grow the bulk vaccine in 1961, they have continued to use potentially contaminated polio seed strains originally grown on the rhesus monkey tissue to start the bulk vaccine process.

        Manufacturers check the purity of their vaccine with a series of 14-day tests to detect whether any SV40 slipped through.

        But when Carbone replicated the tests, he found that the second, slower- growing “archetypal” strain took 19 days to emerge.

        It was possible, Carbone noted in a published report, that this second strain of SV40 had been evading manufacturers’ screening procedures for years – and infecting vaccine recipients after 1962.”

      • Proponent

        I can certainly understand you getting mixed up and not knowing just what exactly is being addressed.. when you go on these frenetic posting jaunts.

        If you actually took the time to read your own stuff, and then that of the posts/comments in response.. you would have readily discerned that your first statement/interrogative was being addressed.

        And to be clear.. and quoting you.. here it is again..

        ione murphy: “If SCMV (simian cytomegalovirus) and Sv40 were being incubated together for years, what might have come from that interaction?”

        ‘Cause.. and again, if you had taken a moment’s pause.. from your irrelevant to the topic at hand gish galloping.. you’d have duly noted that the term “SCVM” appears no where in the article in your post/comment above.

        No.. where.

        It was, though.. indeed.. subject material that Leonard Horowitz, the former dentist, tried to expound upon as the root causes for HIV, AIDS and all manner of disease origins.

        So.. really.. you are incorrect, Ione Murphy … a -gain.

        No surprise, though.

      • ione murphy

        Drinking on the job again are we? I can’t say I blame you, being what you are, would drive me to drink too.

        So, because I used the term SCMV, somehow you think it belongs only in a certain book?

        Or maybe I used the abbreviation because I was referring to my previous post that I was commenting on? hmmm

        Biologicals. 2003 Mar;31(1):63-73.

        Simian cytomegalovirus and contamination of oral poliovirus vaccines.

        Abstract

        “In the 1950s the use of primary rhesus macaque kidney cultures to propagate poliovirus for vaccine production led to the contamination of vaccines with simian virus 40 (SV40). African green monkey kidney (AGMK) cultures free of SV40 were used as an alternative cell substrate for vaccine manufacture. In this study we evaluate oral poliovirus seeds, vaccine bulks and vaccines themselves for the presence of a common contaminant of AGMK cultures, simian cytomegalovirus (SCMV). Using sensitive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) techniques, nearly half of the samples analysed were found to be contaminated with SCMV sequences”

      • Proponent

        ione murphy: “Do you get paid per word?”

        Tsk.. and.. double tsk, Ione Murphy.

        Pharma shilll gambit is weak sauce and for the weak-minded when they have no other rebuttal/refutation of a post/comment,

        Insofar as the rest of your apparent back pedaling goes?

        That’s exactly what it is. Back pedaling, scrambling to put your scattered pieces of walls of text/gish gallop nonsense into some sort of framework of coherence.

        Didn’t.. doesn’t work.

        I win.

    • Proponent

      Only 162 to go.

      But.. before that.. a couple of things jump out from the papers that you’ve cited so far.

      i) W. John Martin

      “W. John Martin, M.D., Ph.D. has been stripped of his license to do
      any clinical laboratory testing and his clinical laboratory license has been suspended.”

      Maybe it might be better to get the full story from those that were taken advantage of by W. John Martin.. have a read for yourselves..

      “He emerged as a key player in ME/CFIDS research in the late 1980’s with a virus that he named a “stealth” virus. By the early 90’s, The CFIDS Association had funded him for $231,000. Dr. Martin had said he had discovered “Epione” which was a “potential therapy of stealth viral infection.” He named it after the wife of a Greek God of medicine known for skills in “soothing pain”. He assured the CFIDS Association that Epione was already in stage 2 testing with an IND number through the federal government. They cut off his funding but never told the patient community why. The reason they cut off funding? They checked with the FDA and found out all Martin had told them about the status of Epione was a lie. If the CFIDS Association (CAA) had, at that time, been more forthcoming about this to the patient community, which they claim to represent, it may well have ended the destructive path that Martin was taking.”

      “Martin preyed upon patients who were desperately ill, telling them that he knew what they had (a “stealth” virus) and only he could save them from their “fatal” disease. His therapeutic regimen included antibiotics, antivirals, diet and vitamins, neurontin, and other medications, including anti-depressants, that have all been tried before and are not new. What was different, was that he wanted you to be “monitored” closely which includes lot of tests that he does and not “to conclude a lack of long term benefit” for at least 4-6 months. He thoroughly frightened many by telling them that without funding for him, they had no chance.”

      (Source: “W. John Martin Stripped of License — Is All His Work Bogus?” )

      … …

      Your ‘research’ (and critical thinking) skills are sorely lacking, if this is the quality of papers that you are presenting to the readers in order to back up your nonsense, Ione Murphy.

      Reply
      • ione murphy

        Yes, the gov did not like having SCMV showing up in people, at a time when the SV40 cancer connection was being made public and over in Britian Wakefield’s findings. So they used a mentally ill woman’s lawsuit against Martin to stop him testing others and to stop his research into what else could be in vaccines..

        LOS ANGELES — Hundreds, perhaps thousands of people in Los Angeles and around the world may think they’re suffering from a potentially fatal disease, but does this disease even exist?

        “A lot of the time I spent all day in bed in excruciating pain,” said Susan Peters.

        The pain in Susan Peters’ life began 10 years ago. She thought she had chronic fatigue syndrome, or CFS. Looking for answers, she went to the University of Southern California and met with Dr. W. John Martin, a scientist who claimed to have discovered a new virus.

        NBC4 gave Martin numerous chances to speak on the record. In the only conversation NBC4 had with him by phone, he continued to claim his virus exists, and he said, “The government is trying to suppress my work.”

        A stealth virus is a virus that has lost the components that the immune system would recognize,” Martin told NBC4 in a report NBC4 did in 1994.

        Peters sued Martin, but was unsuccessful. In the lawsuit, Martin argued there was no doctor-patient relationship between him and Peters, and that her claims were filed too late because of the statute of limitations. Grewal is suing Martin and USC for fraud in Los Angeles Superior Court. Her case is pending.
        From NBC4 news

        “First of all what do we know about this “woman”? They don’t tell us the whole truth once again. They don’t tell the fact that she launched lawsuits and was beat every single time and Dr. Martin was exonerated every time. They don’t tell you that she was dismissed as having a serious mental illness and changed her story every single time she got on the stand. Even the courts didn’t believe her. So, let’s look a bit further? How could this single mother, single handed afford to go to court after court and sue? It was later discovered by lawyers that she had only invested $200 in her endeavours to attack Martin. So where was her money coming from? Obviously, there was a larger organization weighing in, she was being funded by someone with deep pockets”

        It seems Miss Grewal was one sue happy woman….

        http://marygsykes.com/2014/08/02/from-a-new-probate-victim-standing-strong-ms-grewal-in/

        http://www.napil.com/PersonalInjuryCaseLawDetail64587/Page1.htm

        Antoinette Grewal v. Target Corporation et al

        http://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/cacdce/2:2009cv08582/459462/

      • Proponent

        ione murphy; “Yes, the gov did not like having SCMV showing up in people, at a time when the SV40 cancer connection was being made public and over in Britian Wakefield’s findings. So they used a mentally ill woman’s lawsuit against Martin to stop him testing others and to stop his research into what else could be in vaccines..”

        Oh, my.

        And those citations/sources look.. so legit, too..

        … …

        Sorry.. my drink just came out of my nose.. couldn’t stifle the laughter, got to clean up now. This is all your fault, Ione!

      • ione murphy

        One patient filed a complaint with the State of California Health and Human Services Agency who sent Martin a
        letter dated September 15, 2002 which stated, “Your CIJA certificate was
        suspended by Centers for Medicaid Services and your laboratory’s approval to
        receive Medicare and Medicaid payments was canceled, effective August 27,
        2002. Your state clinical study license, CLF 10919, has therefore been suspended effective August 27, 2002. You must CEASE and DESIST all clinical laboratory testing immediately if your laboratory is currently performing tests. This information must be reflected in your website http://www.ccid.org. You may not perform any clinical laboratory test until you are reinstated and your California clinical laboratory license is reactivated.

      • Proponent

        “This website has been optimized for 800 x 600 monitor resolution and must be viewed with Netscape or Internet Explorer version 4 or higher. AOL Mac Version 5 will not work with this website, so please use Internet Explorer if you have that version of AOL.”

        Clearly.. W. John Martin (/CCID) is on the cutting edge of research..

        … …

        Oh, crap.. cleanup time.. a -gain.

      • ione murphy

        1956–Scientists report the discovery of eight more monkey viruses in monkey kidney cells SV1, SV2, SV4, SV5, SV6, SV11, SV12, SV15. The scientists wrote that “Numerous filterable, transferable cytopathogenic agents other than poliovirus were also encountered (in the poliovirus vaccine)…The greatest significance of these viruses has been their appearance in tissue cultures used to produce and to test poliomyelitis vaccine”.–Robert N. Hull, et al., New Viral Agents Recovered From Tissue Cultures of Monkey Kidney Cells, American Journal of Hygiene, 1956, Vol. 63, pp. 204-215

        1958–Scientists report the discovery of 20 more monkey viruses from monkey kidney cells (SV16, SV17, SV18, SV19, SV20, SV23, SV25, SV26, SV27, SV28, SV29, SV30, SV31, SV32, SV33, SV34, SV35, SV36, SV37, SV59). The scientists state, “As long as primary monkey-kidney cultures are used in the production and testing of virus vaccines the problem of simian virus contamination will remain…the possible virulence of these viruses for man remained unknown…”–Robert N. Hull, et al., New Viral Agents Recovered From Tissue Cultures of Monkey Kidney Cells, American Journal of Hygiene, 1958, Vol 68, pp. 31-44

      • Proponent

        Let’s see..

        …… 2015
        … – 1956
        ……… 59

        Fifty-nine (59) years ago.

        Do I have that right, Ione?

        … ….

        And let’s not forget the comment you evaded below..

        Boris Ogon … ione murphy • 9 days ago

        “Association of autism with polyomavirus infection in postmortem brains (SV40 is a polyomavirus)”

        “You do understand that this name has nothing to do with polio, right?”

      • ione murphy

        2014 Sep;42(5):223-36. doi: 10.1016/j.biologicals.2014.07.003. Epub 2014 Aug 16.

        Adventitious agents in viral vaccines: lessons learned from 4 case studies.

        Petricciani J1, Sheets R2, Griffiths E3, Knezevic I4.

        Author information

        Since the earliest days of biological product manufacture, there have been a number of instances where laboratory studies provided evidence for the presence of adventitious agents in a marketed product. Lessons learned from such events can be used to strengthen regulatory preparedness for the future. We have therefore selected four instances where an adventitious agent, or a signal suggesting the presence of an agent, was found in a viral vaccine, and have developed a case study for each. The four cases are: a) SV40 in polio vaccines; b) bacteriophage in measles and polio vaccines; c) reverse transcriptase in measles and mumps vaccines; and d) porcine circovirus and porcine circovirus DNA sequences in rotavirus vaccines. The lessons learned from each event are discussed. Based in part on those experiences, certain scientific principles have been identified by WHO that should be considered in regulatory risk evaluation if an adventitious agent is found in a marketed vaccine in the future.

        Chttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25135887

        Evaluation of the Human Host Range of Bovine and Porcine Viruses that may Contaminate Bovine Serum and Porcine Trypsin Used in the Manufacture of Biological Products -2011

        A detailed literature search was undertaken to determine which viruses that infect cattle or swine or bovine or porcine cells in culture also have human host range [ability to infect humans or human cells in culture] and to predict their detection by the currently used 9CFR procedures.

        . When these tests are applied to bovine and porcine-derived raw materials used to manufacture products intended for human use, they may or may not detect the most relevant agents of concern for biological products for human use.

        Risk mitigation procedures can and should begin at the manufacturer of the animal-derived material and at the collection abattoirs.

        Serum collection is a non-sterile procedure and the blood from 2500 to 3000 (calf) fetuses is used to produce a single 1500 liter lot of serum

        One infected animal may contaminate an entire batch/lot and the sensitivity of current testing may not be adequate to detect diluted contaminants. The limitations of testing for viruses in pooled products have been amply demonstrated in the human blood industry

        For bovine viruses with human host range, 21 virus families are represented while for porcine viruses, 17 virus families are represented [Table 5].”

        ttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3206158/?report=classic

      • Proponent

        Funny, that.

        You.. you, that is.. paint yourself into a corner and when pressed.. simply puke up more walls of irrelevant gish galloping nonsense.

        That.. you don’t even comprehend.. is the real kicker.

        Hard to take you serious, Ione Murphy.

        Well, truth be told.. I don’t.

      • ione murphy

        “Award winning journalist Janine Roberts, author of Fear of the Invisible and a host of other papers developing into the truth behind vaccine development, discovered that “vaccines are not filtered clean, but suspension from the manufacturers incubation tanks in which the viruses are produced from substrates of mashed bird embryo, minced monkey kidneys, or the infamous cloned human diploid cells only scanned for a few known contaminates – while the unknowns remain just that — unknown.”

        FDA regulations 21 CFR states

        “Virus interaction can’t be controlled — by their very nature they are mutating organisms. There is a well-founded concern that these animal viruses are able to cross species lines and adapt to their new host environment.”

        Dr. Leonard Hayflick, a virologist at both Stanford and the University of California at San Francisco raised a concern that the common primary culture used for making vaccines with animals and bird embryos has created a situation where it is “apparent that these cells contained many unwanted viruses, some of which were lethal to humans.”

        “The viral cell matter presents a significant health risk due to the plethora of dangerous animal viruses, RNA, DNA, and other foreign material that can’t be filtered out of the final preparation.”

      • Proponent

        You perform an invaluable service for the readers when you copy paste nonsense, Ione Murphy.

        Particularly drawing attention to said nonsense’s sources.. when.. you.. don’t.. attribute your sources.

        A quick Google search of your first quoted section brings up a list of crank websites like:

        I) highstrangeness.tv – “A Visit With a Person of High Strangeness”
        ii) attorneyinfact.ca – Now what anti-vaxxer ever met a conspiracy website that they didn’t like? Answer: None.

        Oh.. and what else do we have?

        iii) prn.fm – “HIV Twenty-Eight Years Later: What is the Truth?” – Gary Null

        Back to the HIV/AIDS denialism..

        “In late August 2008, the investigative work by award-winning British journalist and filmmaker Janine Roberts was brought to my attention. Her book, Fear of the Invisible: How Scared Should We Be Of Viruses and Vaccines, HIV and AIDS? (Impact, 2008) has generated a stir in the HIV/AIDS research community,but has yet to reach the greater public.”

        And then, of course.. Natural News and some others.

        “Award winning journalist?” Hardly.

        Credible and creditable sources? No.

        … …

        Right, almost forgot.. cue the next wall of copy pasta nonsense and/or petulant insults in.. 3.. 2..

      • ione murphy

        Do you know when you type with so many pauses, I can’t help but hear your words in William Shatner’s voice…makes it real hard to take you serious Proponent.

      • Proponent

        ione murphy: “Do you know when you type with so many pauses, I can’t help but hear your words in William Shatner’s voice…makes it real hard to take you serious Proponent.”

        orly?

        ione murphy: “Or maybe..just maybe.. I used that abbreviation because I was referring to my previous post that I was commenting on?”

        Oops..

      • ione murphy

        And here is Dr Martin’s credentials..

        W. John Martin has over 80 peer reviewed papers published

        Visiting Scientist and Expert National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda , MD 1/71-9/72; 2/74-1/76

        • Supervisory Medical Officer GS-14 and Head, Oncology Unit, Division of Virology, Bureau of Biologics, Food and Drug Administration, NIH, Bethesda, MD 1/76-2/81

        • Supervisory Medical Officer GS-15 and Head, Biological Resources Branch, Biological Response Modifiers Program, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda , MD 3/81-1/82

        • Associate Professor of Pathology, Uniformed Services, University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda , MD 1/82-6/85

        • Professor of Pathology, University of Southern California School of Medicine 7/85 – present. Tenured position with leave granted from 1996.

        Clinical Appointments

        • Chief of Immunology/Immunopathology Unit, Section of Laboratories and Pathology, Los Angeles County + University of Southern California Medical Center, Los Angeles , CA 7/85-6/93. Unit name change to Immunology/Molecular Pathology 7/88. Director of Flow Cytometry, 6/93 to 10/95

        • Director of USC Infectious Diseases Laboratory and of USC Molecular Pathology Laboratory within the USC Clinical Laboratories, USC School of Medicine 1/88-10/95

        Board Certification

        • Diplomat of the American Board of Medical Laboratory Immunology 1983

        • Diplomat of the American Board of Pathology in Anatomic and in Clinical Pathology 1984

        • Special Competence Certification in Immunopathology, American Board of Pathology, 1984

        • Special Competence Certification in Medical Microbiology, American Board of Pathology 1985

      • Proponent

        I’m pretty sure that the 1990s came after the 1980s.

        Feel free to correct me, Ione Murphy, if I am wrong here.

      • Proponent

        Oh and just for comparative purposes.. here’s Paul Offit’s C.V.:

        “Paul A. Offit, MD is the Director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia as well as the Maurice R. Hilleman Professor of Vaccinology and a Professor of Pediatrics at the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania. He is a recipient of many awards including the J. Edmund Bradley Prize for Excellence in Pediatrics from the University of Maryland Medical School, the Young Investigator Award in Vaccine Development from the Infectious Disease Society of America, and a Research Career Development Award from the National Institutes of Health.

        Dr. Offit has published more than 150 papers in medical and scientific journals in the areas of rotavirus-specific immune responses and vaccine safety. He is also the co-inventor of the rotavirus vaccine, RotaTeq, recommended for universal use in infants by the CDC; for this achievement Dr. Offit received the Luigi Mastroianni and William Osler Awards from the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, the Charles Mérieux Award from the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases; and was honored by Bill and Melinda Gates during the launch of their Foundation’s Living Proof Project for global health.

        In 2009, Dr. Offit received the President’s Certificate for Outstanding Service from the American Academy of Pediatrics. In 2011, Dr. Offit received the Humanitarian of the Year Award from the Biologics Industry Organization (BIO), the David E. Rogers Award from the American Association of Medical Colleges, the Odyssey Award from the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest, and was elected to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences.

        In 2012, Dr. Offit received the Distinguished Medical Achievement
        Award from the College of Physicians of Philadelphia and the Drexel Medicine Prize in Translational Medicine from the Drexel University College of Medicine.

        In 2013, Dr. Offit received the Maxwell Finland award for Outstanding Scientific Achievement from the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases, the Distinguished Alumnus award from the University of Maryland School of Medicine, and the Innovators in Health Award from the Group Health Foundation.

        In 2015, Dr. Offit won the Lindback Award for Distinguished Teaching from the University of Pennsylvania and was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

        Dr Offit was a member of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and is a founding advisory board member of the Autism Science Foundation and the Foundation for Vaccine Research.”

        … …

        Note the dates, Ione.. not the 1980s.. not the 1990s.

  14. ione murphy

    Whopping cough outbreaks covered in main stream news sources over the last few years, I will provide the links for anyone interested in seeing the articles…

    “The disease has returned in recent years with a ferocity that’s unlikely to abate anytime soon. Even Americans who thought they were protected have fallen ill. Yet whooping cough’s resurgence hasn’t triggered the public attention and congressional hearings that several dozen measles cases traced to Disneyland provoked in barely a month. There’s been no new examination of what went wrong with the current vaccines, no intense push for accelerated development of an alternative.

    “Until we understand the pertussis germ better it is going to be difficult to develop new vaccines,” CDC’s Skoff said. “That’s where the research is focused right now.”

    NIH is supporting a range of pertussis studies, and various companies are at the early stages of testing new vaccines, but the prospects of success are remote. To compare any new vaccine against the existing shots might require immense trials lasting years and costing hundreds of millions of dollars…”

    Pediatrician: Failure of pertussis vaccine “a matter of serious concern”

    “Epidemics of the disease in 2005, 2010, and 2012 “suggest that failure of the DTaP vaccine is a matter of serious concern,” said Cherry, a professor at the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles who specializes in infectious diseases at Mattel Children’s Hospital.

    “ I believe that better vaccines are something that industry, the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research of the Food and Drug Administration, and pertussis experts should begin working on immediately,” he writes.”

    “According to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the booster shot to counteract waning immunity for pertussis came out five years ago. Now, there’s concern about how long the booster shot provides protection, because many kids who are up-to-date on immunizations, including the booster shot, still have contracted whooping cough. Public health officials agree on one thing: “We need a better vaccine for pertussis”, CDC spokesman Tom Skinner said.”

    Reply
  15. Rick

    Well I believe vaccination is the proper cure,I don’t believe in this case that a vaccinated person will get pertussis in near future,consult Best Neurologist in NYC in this case

    Reply

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Pin It on Pinterest

Shares
Share This