Could it be that Dr. Blaylock has produced some peer-reviewed studies that are able to determine the root cause of autism? No – because he has published no such studies.
Could it be that Dr. Blaylock has produced evidence showing long term negative side effects of vaccines? No – because he hasn’t bothered to produce such evidence.
Could it be that Dr. Blaylock has studied the long term negative side effects of the sweetener aspartame and has produced scientific evidence to support his theory that it is responsible for causing Multiple Sclerosis? No, because he has never bothered to produce evidence nor has he participated in research to support his theory.
Could it be that Dr. Blaylock has finally been able to produce evidence that his claims about the dangers of aluminum cookware, or fluoridated drinking water, or dental fillings are substantiated and verified? No, because he hasn’t bothered to produce the research, add his name to a study, or even be bothered to write unpublished papers detailing his claims in any detail.
So if it isn’t about evidence or fact, what is it about Dr. Blaylock that leads antivaxxers to cite him as an expert? The real truth is, the only thing antivaxxers appear to know about Dr. Blaylock is what is found on Blaylock’s website or published in Blaylock’s monthly newsletters. Their opinions aren’t based upon published research nor are they based upon proven science - but rather they are based upon self-cited opinion. In short, there are no legitimate third parties supporting any of Blaylock's claims, so citing his opinions is merely the equivalent of taking his word for it.
This is yet another example of how antivaxxers tend to believe anything that is said or written on the Internet provided it goes against conventional medical wisdom or proven and accepted science. Once again we have shown that a lack of critical thinking ability clouds the judgment and precludes many antivaxxers from understanding that just because someone makes a claim does not make it true.
Unfortunately this is a common pattern for many in the anti-vaccination community. They don't trust peer-reviewed studies or proven science, but they will believe a wild claim from anyone who calls themselves an expert on vaccines or medicine. Why is it that we aren't supposed to believe anything the CDC, FDA, WebMD, or any drug company tells us because they are all in it for the money but yet Dr. Blaylock is considered an expert even though he makes the majority of his income from SELLING his information?
Blaylock writes books and newsletters he can sell instead of studies that he wouldn't profit from even though studies would be more apt to influence other doctors and the medical and scientific community (and thus have a greater impact upon the actual patients).
If Blaylock was really serious about getting his message out there, why wouldn't he just post his articles and information on his website for all to see or (dare I say it) actually get one of his papers peer-reviewed so he can rub it in the face of the big bad drug companies? Blaylock claims he knows things the "major media" are afraid to tell you and he is providing "insider health information", but as with all snakeoil salesman of his type he is never able to actually prove his claims with real science.
But then again, why give information away for free when you can charge $48 a year for 12 emailed newsletters (or $54 if you want the hard copy version)?
So what else does Blaylock have to offer the public? You guessed it - Blaylock sells a 30 day supply of his "brain repair" pills for the low, low price of $51.25! Act now and he will toss in a free booklet with your first order!!
Seriously... you couldn't make this stuff up if you tried. Time and time again we find this common pattern with the “anti-vaccine pundits” that antivaxxers just love to quote, and once again we find that when you scrape away all of the wild and unsubstantiated claims or the shocking one-liners meant to spark interest or designed to appeal to the fear of the public, at the end of the day they are nothing more than snakeoil pitchmen selling their nutritional supplements or newsletters or books or DVDs etc, etc.
This just goes to show how out of touch these antivaxxers really are. They won't accept scientific fact, but the first quack who offers to sell them some miracle "brain repair" drug is suddenly an expert on all things related to vaccinations. It is the oldest scam in the book... find an idiot and then convince him to buy a worthless product he doesn't need. Whether it be a Snuggie, a Shamwow, a new type of kitchen gadget, or a bottle of nutritional supplements it is all the same - these products are not designed to make life better but instead are designed for one purpose and one purpose alone... pure unadulterated American profit via the naive, uneducated consumer who doesn't know any better.
I guess poor old Dr. Blaylock couldn't make enough money from these morons by selling newsletters for $48 a year so now he has to sell them pills to fix their brains. Although in Blaylock’s defense, considering his target audience it is quite possible they are in need of brain repair much more than the general populace, so he may be on to something with this one.
I often wonder how many antivaxxers are on the auto-ship program to receive these miracle 'brain repair' pills every 30 days? For those that are, I'd ask for a refund because they clearly are NOT working as designed.
Meanwhile - I have no doubt that Dr. Blaylock is laughing all the way to the bank knowing full well that he has tapped a market of followers that have no interest in separating fact from fiction.
Note (November 2012): I've noticed this particular blog post has been receiving hundreds of hits lately and is being linked to from several online forums and websites. Because of this I have went back through and updated the post to refer to antivaxxers in general terms rather than citing a specific antivaxxer or group of antivaxxers. Considering the recent increase in interest of Dr. Blaylock, I felt this was probably more appropriate since the post should be about him and not about any one specific antivaxxer.
Now have a look at how people are referring to this retired neurosurgeon "expert" on Facebook - it's a real shame!
ReplyDeleteQuote:
"If I were a woman I'd never have a mammogram." ...Radiation is known to induce cancer up to 3% a year. That's 30% in 10 years. The current approach to cancer is an absolute failure in which physicians overdiagnose cancers (prostate and breast), lie to patients and sell costly procedures for profit. - Dr. Russell Blaylock, oncologist, brain surgeon and neuroscientist." Unquote.
I am omitting the Facebook publishers name - as it is a friend of mine. Loads of medical advice - and haven't spent one day studying medicine formally. But that is the wonder of the Internet - it creates thousand of instant medical professionals and doctors (no, - better than doctors - as they are experts not being ashamed of criticizing those people who has studied medicine formally for 11 year and more)!! These Internet qualified experts are all quoting each other - or other real medical professionals mostly out of context - or a previously respected medical professional gone astray... like Dr. Blaylock
Blaylock is a damn liar and those that take his advice are fools. If it were not for the mammogram my wife would be dead now. This guy is making money from his news? letter and his brain pills. Have his pills ever had a independent study to prove his claims? No, or he would have the documentation to prove it. Yes we are all concerned but do a little research on these so called medical infomercials before you believe their sales pitch and send them your hard earned cash and risk your life on a worthless and absolutely unproven product and so called medical advice.
DeleteI can't disagree with you - the number of people who believe they are medical experts is amazing... and some of them even go so far as to brag about their "University of Google" credentials.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that these people tend to quote one another. The alternative medical community is actually a pretty small group. There are a number of big names who get all the press and a handful of websites that all quote one another as it is one big echo chamber. There is a faithful following, but as the years go by with no evidence to support anything they say I surely don't expect them to continue to fool anyone with average or above cognitive abilities.
As far as the rest of them - some people will always remain ignorant... not much anyone can do about that.
double ditto. Blaylock's proposal of starting a public vaccination program support that he's a self-serving, ignorant person.
DeleteThat program has been in place already, for decades. It's called the public health department. He's counting on the public to be gullible and shower him with hero worship for his so-called new ideas and expertise. He's shameless. Just shameless.
There is no scientific evidence that certain vaccinations do not have the potential to harm patients, especially young children seriously. Whatever you think about Dr. Blaylock, his idea to ask for a public vaccination program of all vaccination company officials incl CEO with off the shelf vaccines ( hand picked, no distilled water pretend) is brilliant. It should be given in the same numbers young children receive the vaccination. It should be made mandatory for vaccination promoters to provide evidence that they themselves and their children got vaccinated first with the vaccines they are promoting. This is a long story ladies and gentlemen and not a good one as many of you may believe. One thing I know for sure is that whenever we have a measles or pertussis outbreak for example, the majority of the people getting sick had been vaccinated against these very viruses. I see the same pattern with flu vaccinations, why don't you ? Its very likely, you never bothered to look and if you are a practitioner, you possibly never asked the relevant questions.
ReplyDeleteIts becoming a joke already, when someone gets a flu around here, that people ask him "oh, did you get a flu shot recently?".
You need to add polio into your list of things and check the results on what vaccines did to eradicate polio from the U.S. And PLEASE don't tell me it was from better hand washing techniques by medical personnel. I'm going to take a leap of faith and believe that you are more of an intelligent person than that.
DeleteYou want to condemn doctors without any proof that your own opinion is valid.
DeleteI'm a practitioner. How dare you suggest myself and other practitioners don't ask relevent questions. How dangerously self-serving you are; couple that with your ignorance, and Oh! You get to make lots of money, another thing you're condemning doctors for.
Agreed alex. My boy almosr died from vaccines, and his doc wouldnt give hom anymore!
DeleteWell Anonymous I suppose if your son had an allergy to a component in a vaccine it is possible there could be a serious reaction, but I'd be lying if I didn't admit to be skeptical of your claim.
DeleteEither way we know (and can prove) that millions of lives have been saved due to vaccines. Thus even if they aren't compatible with everyone, and even if there are occasional complications and side effects it is clear the benefits far outweigh the risks.
"There is no scientific evidence that certain vaccinations do not have the potential to harm patients". Really "Alex"?? You are asking for scientific evidence to prove a negative?
ReplyDeleteLet me try to explain this concept to you using an example you might understand. Let's pretend I make a claim that drinking tap water causes cancer. Based upon your logic, you would need to prove that drinking tap water does NOT cause cancer, and since there is no scientific evidence showing that tap water does NOT cause cancer, then we must assume tap water does cause cancer.
Hopefully you can see how stupid that sounds "Alex".
As far as your ideas (or perhaps Blaylock's ideas) for a public vaccination program why is that even relevant? Do you have any information on whether (medical) doctors or scientists have refused to vaccinate themselves yet are recommending vaccines to others? I doubt it. However the pretense that notion is based upon is silly - should Oncologists be required to undergo chemotherapy or radiation on themselves before they can prescribe these treatments to others? Should Cardiac Surgeons be required to insert stents into their own arteries?
Sorry "Alex", but there is no logic to this thought process, and I'm sure somewhere out there is a doctor recommending vaccines that he or she may be allergic to... should they be banned from suggesting his or her patients be vaccinated? Should male doctors not be allowed to suggest a female patient receive a Gardisil vacciation? In your world it seems so.
Also, when there is an outbreak of a vaccination preventable disease it is true that often some of those who catch a virus may have been vaccinated in the past, however in many cases it may have been years earlier and they failed to get the recommended booster. Perhaps they were vaccinated against another strain, or perhaps they were one of those who were never fully protected against the virus due to their body physiology. No vaccine is 100% effective in 100% of the population which is why we rely upon herd immunity to protect those who are not able to be vaccinated or who may not be fully protected even with a vaccine.
That said, you will note when there is a breakout in the vast majority of the cases it has been a small group or an individual who was not vaccinated that was the point of origin. Thus the unvaccinated individual is who is putting others at risk.
Finally "Alex", I think we all know you just registered a new blogger ID to use as an alias since you just registered this name to post this specific comment. I will not be posting any further comments from ID's created merely to post nonsense on this blog.
Considering "Alex" uses the same broken English, faulty reasoning, logical fallacies, and overall style as Lowell Hubbs (as well as posting comments at the same time of day) I'd say it is safe to assume they are one in the same. I guess some people will do anything to get around a comment ban.
The editor stated: "Do you have any information on whether (medical) doctors or scientists have refused to vaccinate themselves yet are recommending vaccines to others? I doubt it."
DeleteI don't have information of medical doctors or scientists that have refused to vaccinate themselves yet are recommending vaccines to others, but have a look at this information:
In the Feb. 20, 1981 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, the article “Rubella Vaccine in Susceptible Hospital Employees, Poor Physician Participation” reports that the lowest vaccination rate among medical personnel for the rubella (German measles) vaccine occurred among obstetrician-gynecologists and the next lowest rate occurred among pediatricians. Out of 11 obstetrician-gynecologists who were known to be susceptible to rubella, only 1 was vaccinated.
Here is the abstract of the article:
http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/245/7/711.abstract
I don't think oncologists should undergo chemotherapy before prescribing the treatment to others. But looking at this further, cancer is not a contagious disease. Measles is contagious. Using the editor's logic, perhaps, ALL of those doctors who chose not to be vaccinated had an allergy to the rubella vaccine. If so, I wonder how many children could have this same allergy?
The editor stated: "when there is an outbreak of a vaccination preventable disease it is true that often some of those who catch a virus may have been vaccinated in the past, however in many cases it may have been years earlier and they failed to get the recommended booster."
A CNN.com article from Feb 8, 2010 reported that over 1,000 cases of the mumps broke out in adolescents in NY and NJ. It was within a 7 month period. It stated 77% of the New Jersey cases were vaccinated.
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-02-08/health/mumps.outbreak.northeast_1_mumps-outbreak-vaccinated-cases?_s=PM:HEALTH
Using the editor's logic, perhaps the 77% of the adolescents who got the measles failed to get the recommended booster.
Lana, you are using data from 1981 to make a point about vaccinations - do you feel this is representative of the current situation? There have been a lot of developments and new vaccines and increased recognition of vaccine preventable diseases over the past 30 years, so I dare say if you had updated information it may tell a different story.
DeleteThat said, my original point remains. I haven't heard of doctors who flat out refuse to vaccinate themselves or their own children yet recommend vaccinations to others, and the silly notion that anyone associated with a drug company should be required to be vaccinated with their own products is absurd. That is a distraction Lana... nothing more.
Now as to your comments about 77% of those who contracted measles but who were vaccinated, that is interesting, but I cannot tell you for certain why it occurred. Perhaps it was due to some missing boosters, perhaps there are various strains of the disease, maybe some children didn't receive the full course of vaccinations that were required for it to be effective, or perhaps some of those infected are incompatible with the vaccine, or perhaps it is something more.
Hard to say - but I hope you aren't attempting to use fuzzy math to claim that someone is at greater risk of contracting a disease merely to them being vaccinated. Looking at the bigger picture and knowing that vaccination rates hover around 90-95% in most cases, it would suggest the risk of contractin the disease is much less if a child is vaccinated. The medical and scientific community doesn't dispute this which is why these vaccinations are on the recommended schedule. That isn't to say we can't improve the actual vaccines of course, but that is a separate discussion.
If the majority of people who get measles in a measles outbreak are people who have been vaccinated, it's probably because most people have been vaccinated, leaving only a few non-vaccinated people to get the disease. Since vaccines are not perfect protection, it would be the case that some people could catch the disease even if everyone was vaccinated. Alex should consider what has happened with measles outbreaks prior to vaccination. Without the vaccination, any outbreak in the US would likely have included many millions of people, rather than the usual few dozen people.
DeleteFurther, it is not always the case that most people who get measles have been vaccinated. For example, of 776 cases of measles in 2011 in Quebec, 615 cases (79%) had not been vaccinated.
And, in any case, a completely unsubstantiated "potential" for a vaccine to be harmful is nothing like the actual harm from the diseases vaccinations protect against, even though the protection is not perfect.
I year late here, but just wanted to respond to the claim that there is no evidence that vaccines don't cause harm. Some people are allergic to components of a vaccine and can therefore be harmed. Some live vaccines cannot be given to those who are immunosuppressed such as AIDS patients and those with cancer as they may end up with the disease in question. However, when it comes to the more ridiculous claims that anti-vaxxers make about vaccines there is evidence, good evidence, that they do not cause harm. Several large epidemiological studies have been conducted looking at rates of autism in vaccinated versus non vaccinated children. One study found no difference between the two, and another found that the rate of autism was actually slightly higher in the unvaccinated children (this small difference would probably not stand up to regression analysis but is rather ironic all the same). Good evidence/good research requires large sample sizes. The original journal article that started the "MMR causes autism" hysteria was a series of 8 case reports, claiming that these children "suddenly" developed "autism" after being vaccinated with the MMR. These children would have been about 12 months of age when they were vaccinated. The average age for diagnosis of autism is 3 years, because you actually have to have reached an age when language skills would be expected to develop to be diagnosed with this disorder. The article did not attempt to prove that these kids had autism, or that the vaccines were the cause. There is no way he could make such a causal conclusion given the fact that he couldn't prove that they didn't have autism before hand, since they were too young to be diagnosed. So this study has no power (a sample size of 8), no case definition, no causal links, and no science to explain the links. But it is the bible for anti-vaxxer's and the fact that people would hang on to this piece of trash as their holy grail speaks to the failure of the public education system.
DeleteThe editor stated: "you will note when there is a breakout in the vast majority of the cases it has been a small group or an individual who was not vaccinated that was the point of origin. Thus the unvaccinated individual is who is putting others at risk."
ReplyDeleteSince we are not going to see 100% of the population vaccinated, it may be reasonable to assume that the best defense against contracting a contagious disease is to get vaccinated. I will find documentation from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) that supports that assumption.
In a study published in the Clinical Infectious Diseases Journal on March 15, 2012, there was the first detailed analysis of a recent North American outbreak of pertussis (also known as whooping cough.) Researchers at the Kaiser Permanente Medical Center conducted this study. They found 171 patients who tested positive for pertussis within an 8 month period at their hospital. Over 78% of these patients who tested positive were pediatric patients. 81% of these same pediatric patients, who got pertussis, had been fully vaccinated. They concluded that the current schedule of the pertussis vaccine is insufficient to prevent outbreaks of pertussis.
http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2012/03/13/cid.cis287.abstract?sid=1abca6ce-4f0b-42c4-8fdf-5e4ba1addb87
The meaning of being fully vaccinated, from a medical doctor's perspective, means that they got the recommended boosters.
Oh, I see. The CDC says the pertussis vaccine is very effective, but not 100% effective. The Kaiser Permanente Medical Center study, published in Oxford Journals' Clinical Infectious Diseases, a leading journal in the field of infectious disease, shows that 81% of children fully vaccinated for pertussis, ended up getting pertussis. If I look at the statistics for this study, it shows that the pertussis vaccine was only 19% effective in preventing pertussis.
The editor wrote: "Perhaps they were vaccinated against another strain."
That logic does not apply here because of the 132 children who got pertussis, 81% were vaccinated for pertussis.
The editor stated: "perhaps they were one of those who were never fully protected against the virus due to their body physiology."
Maybe you are on the right track. Out of 132 children who got pertussis, perhaps 106 children were never fully protected against the virus due to their body physiology.
Perhaps those 106 children should not have gotten the vaccine in the first place. After all the vaccine did no good to prevent the disease that it was designed to prevent.
The CDC now recommends that infants get the DTaP vaccine (for diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus) at 2 months, 4 months, 6 months, and another from 15-18 months of age. Another booster is recommended at 4-6 years of age. They now recommend another dose of the specific whooping cough vaccine (Tdap), ideally at 11 or 12 years.
A 12 year old child will be vaccinated for whooping cough a total of 6 times, if following this recommended schedule from birth through 12 years of age.
Perhaps a rebuttal to my post will be that more vaccinations are needed, more often, to produce better results in preventing an "outbreak of a vaccination preventable disease."
Or perhaps there will be another comment about how this is another post about nonsense on this blog. Because the editor's blog is based on reason and logic.
"The Kaiser Permanente Medical Center study, published in Oxford Journals' Clinical Infectious Diseases, a leading journal in the field of infectious disease, shows that 81% of children fully vaccinated for pertussis, ended up getting pertussis. If I look at the statistics for this study, it shows that the pertussis vaccine was only 19% effective in preventing pertussis."
DeleteYou're misunderstanding the data Lana. The data does not show that 81% of the children vaccinated ended up getting pertussis. It shows of those who DID get pertussis, 81% were vaccinated. There is a vast difference.
If 81% of the children vaccinated actually got pertussis, it would be a lot more than 106 children. Extrapolate that figure out to the entire population and it would reach into the millions.
What this study shows is that the current vaccination schedule, as well as the vaccine itself may not be sufficient. There are holes that need to be addressed. It may require a newer more effective vaccine, or modifications to the vaccine schedule (which may include vaccination recommendations for older children and/or adults to prevent the disease from being spread to younger children).
I don't think many dispute that more work has to be done, but what is the alternative? Are you suggesting they just scrap the entire vaccine because it isn't 100% effective? The consequences of that would most certainly be disasterous.
Also Lana, I noticed you didn't mention that this same study also said on average, there were 36 cases for every 10,000 children between the ages of 2 and 7 who were fully immunized who got pertussis. That works out to be .36% (just slightly less than the 81% figure you cited don't you think?). For kids between 8 and 12 the number goes up to 245 out of 10,000, or put another way about 2.45%. That number dropped drastically after the kids reached 13, most likely because of the booster shot given at the age of 12.
So using the larger figure for the 8 - 12 year olds, the vaccine was not effective in 2.45% of those children. That means the other 97.55% were safe. Compare that to the figures of pertussis before the vaccine era when pertussis was a leading cause of infant death and let me know if you think we should just scrap the entire concept of the vaccine.
Did you know in the 1940s pertussis was responsible for more infant deaths than measles, scarlet fever, diphtheria, polio, and meningitis combined? The reason we don't fear it today is because of one thing.... the vaccine.
The other issue to consider is that pertussis deaths generally occur in young infants before they are even eligible to be vaccinated for the disease. This is why it is so important for older children to be vaccinated to minimize the spread of the disease to those who cannot protect themselves.
So again there may be work to be done to improve the vaccine and to improve the vaccination schedule, but in the short term the best way to prevent these outbreaks is to ensure as many children are vaccinated as possible.
I think the editor didn't understand my statement. My original comment was "Researchers at the Kaiser Permanente Medical Center conducted this study. They found 171 patients who tested positive for pertussis within an 8 month period at their hospital. Over 78% of these patients who tested positive were pediatric patients. 81% of these same pediatric patients, who got pertussis, had been fully vaccinated."
Deletethen I stated, "The Kaiser Permanente Medical Center study, published in Oxford Journals' Clinical Infectious Diseases, a leading journal in the field of infectious disease, shows that 81% of" (the 132) "children fully vaccinated for pertussis, ended up getting pertussis."
the editor stated "You're misunderstanding the data Lana. The data does not show that 81% of the children vaccinated ended up getting pertussis. It shows of those who DID get pertussis, 81% were vaccinated. There is a vast difference."
The editor clarified that "Of those who DID get pertussis," (Lana notes this was 132 children,) "81% were vaccinated." So the editor is saying there is a vast difference between that statement, and the following:
"81% of the children vaccinated ended up getting pertussis."
cbsnews.com refers to this same study:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-57409332-10391704/washington-state-reaches-epidemic-levels-of-whooping-cough/
The exact wording in the cbs.com article is:
"Researchers in California observed 132 patients under the age of 18 who tested positive for whooping cough. They found out that 81 percent of them were up to date with their whooping cough shots, 11 percent did not complete the series and eight percent received no vaccination whatsoever."
Meaning that out of the 132 patients under age 18 who tested POSITIVE for whooping cough, (i.e. out of the 132 children observed who got whooping cough,) 81% of them were up to date with their whooping cough shots.
the editor stated: "If 81% of the children vaccinated actually got pertussis, it would be a lot more than 106 children. Extrapolate that figure out to the entire population and it would reach into the millions."
My math is fuzzy, sorry. 81% of 132 is actually 106.92 children.
Extrapolate that figure out to the entire population and it would reach into the millions.
Precisely.
Again Lana you are misunderstanding the data. Your original quote was: "If I look at the statistics for this study, it shows that the pertussis vaccine was only 19% effective in preventing pertussis." That is factually incorrect and a misinterpretation of the study.
DeleteWhat you mean is that 81% of the children in this sample group who were admitted to that specific hospital and who actually did test positive for pertussis were vaccinated. That is not remotely the same thing as suggesting the pertussis vaccine is only 19% effective, and to make such a statement either suggests you are deliberately trying to mislead, or you lack the ability to accurately interpret the data.
As I said previously (and which you continue to ignore) is that the same study also reported that there were 36 cases of pertussis for every 10,000 children between the ages of 2 and 7 who were fully immunized which is .36% of the total. For kids between 8 and 12 the number goes up to 245 out of 10,000 which is 2.45%. Those numbers are a more accurate representation since they include larger populations rather than a select cohort group of those who were already being admitted to a hospital with symptoms.
Surely you see the difference don't you Lana?
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, but you seem to be dancing around it. If you believe the pertussis vaccine is ineffective or if you are questioning in the efficacy of the vaccine then feel free to indicate that is your belief, but please don't try to twist data or make obtuse statements which are not supported by the very data you are using as a source.
Finally, I don't make a habit of responding to people who register new blogger accounts merely to add comments here all too often it is an attempt to troll. I made an exception in your case, but if you continue to attempt to mislead I won't bother responding further.
My intention is to exercise my freedom of speech by commenting on the editor's postings in a civil manner and point out relevant information that has not been revealed on the blog. It appeared to me that any blog reader who has a specific profile, such as a blogger account, had the liberty to do this.
DeleteIf this is not the case, it may help blog readers to be able to access a blog comment rules of conduct, or the like, on the main page of this website so that blog readers understand the constraints of posting comments. If that doesn't happen, it appears one restriction is that if one has the desire to post a comment to the editor's views, and establishes a blogger account just for this purpose, this is an unacceptable practice to the editor, and there will likely be a warning about it.
I have no intention to mislead, my intention is quite the contrary. I will, however, admit when I have made a mistake.
I realize that I made an error that I would like to point out. When I stated "81% of the children vaccinated ended up getting pertussis," that was incorrect. In the reiteration of some details to make my point, I inadvertently reversed the facts from my original statement about the matter.
The editor was stated this well: "Of those who DID get pertussis, 81% were vaccinated."
In this one SPECIFIC study, approximately 106.92 children who had been vaccinated for pertussis, tested positive for pertussis. The vaccine did not prevent the disease it was designed to prevent for about 106 children.
I will comment on what the editor thinks that I chose to ignore, which is helpful because it will shed more light into this specific matter. I need to post this is my next comment since there is a character limit on each comment.
The editor stated: "the same study also reported that there were 36 cases of pertussis for every 10,000 children between the ages of 2 and 7 who were fully immunized which is .36% of the total" and "Those numbers are a more accurate representation since they include larger populations rather than a select cohort group of those who were already being admitted to a hospital with symptoms."
DeleteIn order to produce statistics that are worth an educated examination, the information should come from data that can be proven to exist, such as hospital records of actual people, examined by medical doctors, who tested positive for the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) test for B. pertussis, the actual test used to determine if one has whooping cough.
Let's say looking at records of 20,000 children is a "larger population" that would meet the editor's satisfaction of a more accurate representation, rather than a small cohort of 132 children.
It appears to me that the following statements are in agreement with the editor's understanding:
Of 10,000 fully immunized children ages 2-7, .36% got pertussis.
Of 10,000 fully immunized children ages 8-12, 2.45% got pertussis.
I now emphasize this information, because it is very relevant when you compare it to a Reuters article statement, about the SAME study by the Kaiser Permanente doctors:
"Comparing the kids who got pertussis to the more than 22,000 kids in the medical center's database who didn't, Witt's group wrote in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases that the vaccine is effective about half of the time for all kids, and just 24 percent of the time in the eight to 12 year old age group."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/03/us-whoopingcough-idUSBRE8320TM2012040
There are contradictions in this article, and we could go on forever dissecting it.
The actual journal abstract for this study states "Our center provides care to 135,000 patients." It is from the patient records of this medical center that they based their studies, from which Reuters.com states had at least 22,000 children in the medical database.
The editor stated eariler:
"There have been a lot of developments and new vaccines and increased recognition of vaccine preventable diseases over the past 30 years, so I dare say if you had updated information it may tell a different story."
The CDC says the whooping cough vaccine is very effective.
Reuters.com claims the Witt group stated the following fact in the medical journal about this one study, published in March 2012:
The (pertussis) vaccine was "effective about HALF of the time for all kids."
"My intention is to exercise my freedom of speech by commenting on the editor's postings in a civil manner and point out relevant information that has not been revealed on the blog."
DeleteThat's cute Lana... but you do realize the freedom of speech is only protected when speaking in public places or in response to your government etc correct? Not that I'm trying to silence you here, but you don't have a right to free speech on someone else's blog, or in someone else's home, or in someone's business etc.
I realize that is an unrelated side issue, but I just thought I would mention it since so many people seem to be confused on this point.
No as to your data surrounding pertussis, I'm still unsure what your primary point is. Are you suggesting the pertussis vaccine isn't as effective as it should be? If so, we are in agreement. Are you suggesting the vaccine could use an update or that we need better vaccines? If so, then again we are in agreement.
However if you are suggesting the vaccine has no value or that we should simply eliminate the vaccine from the recommended schedule, then I would very much disagree.
There is more than enough evidence to show that although the pertussis vaccine may not be 100% effective, it does do a good job at reducing the number of children who suffer from pertussis which in turn can (and does) save lives.
Here is a good source if you are interested in the subject matter and recent epidemics:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/whooping-cough-epidemic/
And here is a study aptly named "Parental refusal of pertussis vaccination is associated with an increased risk of pertussis infection in children."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19482753
Bottom line - there are several factors at play here. Number one, we know there are new strains of pertussis which are not yet covered by the vaccine. Two, we may need to revisit the vaccination schedule due to how the immunities in the vaccine fade with time. This may suggest an additional booster shot is needed, or the schedule may need slight modification. Three, we need to focus upon those who are refusing to vaccinate their children and work on an education campaign to explain the risks. As the SBM article above has shown, the pretussis vaccine resulted in a 92% decrease in morbidity and 93% decrease in mortality from whooping cough. This shows us that the vaccine does work and until we have a better vaccine, there is no scientifically supportable excuse for refusing to vaccinate.
My final comment would simply be as interesting as this discussion all is, it does seem to be drifting further and further away from the original blog post. Perhaps I should consider writing a post on pertussis itself at which time you could add your opinions and insights so they are more easily referenced in the future.
It's completely statistically irrelevant, but does illustrate the danger of developing whooping cough in unvaccinated children. Because of doubts that had been raised around 1980 in the Netherlands about the DTKP-vaccination cocktail (Diphtheria-Tetanus-Whooping Cough-Polio), we had our two boys done with the DTP-cocktail, omitting the whooping cough vaccination. Both promptly developed whooping cough, the only cases in our neighbourhood at the time.
DeleteIt's also worth pointing out that around 20 children died in a polio outbreak in the 70s in a Dutch village where many orthodox protestant inhabitants failed to have their children vaccinated.
I'm sure there are numerous parallels.
One other thing I would like to point out. I worked in African countries with low rates of vaccination. I would challenged each and every one of the naysayers on this blog to spend a day at the Digfer Hospital Tetanus ward in Mogadishu Somalia, and watch helplessly while dozens of men, women and children slowly died painful deaths with the bodies bent into horrendous shapes by their rigors before issuing statements that most people who get infectious diseases have been vaccinated. Or I would challenge them to go to the orphanage for the disabled in Burundi to watch the abandoned 2 year olds with polio learn to walk with braces, or to the large refugee camp in Rwanda to watch a two year old with acute polio die in his mother's arms, or to the feeding station at the same camp to watch as 1/3 of children being treated for severe malnutrition are identified as having developed failure to thrive and malnutrition from an initial case of measles, and watch as fully 1/2 of these children died. I am not in the back pocket of the pharmaceutical industry trying to perpetrate a huge cover up to, apparently, make myself rich. I am a witness to what happens without vaccines. And its not pretty.
DeleteMuch better to spend $100,000 dollars a year paying a psychiatrists son way to college while minimum wage workers apply his magic therapy with 1000 scientific studies to back it up.
ReplyDeleteI'd rather have the $50 a month false hope. It's all relative...
Editor: you are a verbal bully!
DeleteIf relying upon facts rather than emotion makes me a bully, then I will gladly accept the label.
DeleteIf you just look at his newsletters you can see where he references all of his data. I have met this man, calling him anything but an amazing doctor is just disrespectful. I bet big pharma is putting up all these hateful comments and blogs...
ReplyDeleteThe problem is - often times his references are circular and lead right back to other anti-vaxxer opinions... not to scientifically proven fact.
DeleteOh... and "big pharma" hasn't much to do with it, but nice ad hominem.
Gotta give him credit. At least he sparks controversy and, I assume, good sales income.
ReplyDeleteI am 85 and on a strict diet. If it tastes good, I'll eat it. If it doesn't taste good, I won't eat it unless I'm hungry. (I didn't sign up for hie news letter.)
http://www.mpwhi.com/references_proving_vaccines_are_deadly.htm
ReplyDeleteNormally I wouldn't bother to post a blatant link dump, especially one that offers no context but is merely a list of random studies (many of which have been discussed in the past and don't actually support a belief that vaccines are "deadly), but in this case I'll make an exception because the parent website is a treasure-trove of anti-everything nonsense.
DeleteWow. Just wow.
Simply because one is a successful physician (or psychologist, educator, faculty member, etc) doesn't mean that the person could not espouse questionable ideas. Dr. Blaylock espouses an "alternative" medical approach that enables him to sell a product (actually, multiple products) with minimal state/federal/ professional association regulation. The various folks (including some chiropractors, I understand) who guest in his newsletter and other venues are also selling products that are minimally regulated. It's not uncommon for professionals to do this, and the products themselves are probably good - eating healthy and taking supplements are better than not doing so. But the political aspect of all this - that the government is working to control us - is what troubles me. Seems to me that the belief in conspiracies leads to a paranoia that, at least for me, would make life unbearable. I have found, in my contacts with others across the country, and the world, that my neighbors in all careers - from medical to car repair, actually care for one another and want to make the world a better place in whatever way they can. That includes government officials I've known and worked with at the state and federal levels. At this time in history, we're rather polarized with reference to our social values and can't seem to find compromise. Yet, I think we will, or I certainly hope so; as a nation, we're more likely to be invaded by a hostile nation if we're fighting among ourselves about conservative or liberal values (I dare say that the majority of Americans are neither highly conservative or liberal).
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting that all the comments here are in support of the quackery conspiracy. What about the 100's of thousands of people who have now cured their children from autism by removing the toxins injected by vaccines? Perhaps you are only posting people who agree with the premise of this article? Modern medicine holds no hope for autism. Non-mainstream, antivaxxers, are curing their children!! Are you?
ReplyDeleteOne might think if hundreds of thousands of people have "cured" their children of autism perhaps a few would have bothered to consult a researcher and have their miracle cure published in a medical journal. Or maybe alert the media. Or maybe contact their family physician to brag and show them what they are capable of. But alas they don't... Because they aren't curing anything. What you hear about are fables and third hand accounts of cures, but the evidence doesn't exist.
DeleteBy the way... When you resort to the "toxin" gambit you instantly lose all credibility as it is very clear you have no true idea what is in a vaccine. Don't believe everything you read on the "alternative health" websites, because at the end of the day they lack peer reviewed evidence to support their opinions and that is why this anti-vaccine movement is quickly losing steam. People can only be fooled for so long before they start asking for evidence. Sadly, the antivaxxers don't have any.
DeleteHundreds of thousands have cured Autistic children? You are plain full of crap!!
DeleteIt may be worth noting that I haven't had a vaccination of any kind in the last 22 years and I'm living proof that they are unnecessary...
ReplyDeleteOh well by all means let's assume a single person and a sample size of 1 is justification to assume vaccines aren't necessary!
DeleteYes that was sarcasm.
First of all, I have no idea if you had vaccinations prior to the last 22 years nor do I know your overall health status so it is illogical to make assumptions about whether vaccinations are beneficial in your case or not. However, vaccinations are provven to reduce infection rates on a number of diseases and have prolonged lives of millions. Primarily this is seen with children, but there are many cases where vaccinations benefit adults as well.
Just imagine if we had an Ebola vaccine available today! Thousands upon thousands of lives would have been saved, but perhaps we shouldn't worry about it since you are living proof that vaccines are unnecessary.
SMH
Michael Snyder is living proof that herd immunity works. As the vaccination rates drop, he'll soon find that the serengeti starts to look a bit more stark once the herd has dispersed.
ReplyDeleteThe Amish don't vaccinate and they have none of the epidemic diseases .....and there are certainly more than one Amish......you my friend have not seen a perfectly normal child loose their speech....eye contact....social skills...their ability to show affection...and start walking on their toes....flapping their hands....cover their ears and do the same ritualistic stacking and lining up of their toys after they got their so called vaccine...the correlation between the increased vaccination schedule and the incidence of autism escalating cannot in my humble opinion be ignored....
ReplyDeleteIt is simply incorrect to state the Amish don't vaccinate. Are there certain groups of them that may? Sure - but there are also many Amish which do vaccinate as has been proven time and time again. The Amish have also experienced their share of diseases - the fact you don't know this suggests you simply ignore the facts, so I'll go head and leave this here:
Deletehttp://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2014/06/24/323702892/measles-outbreak-in-ohio-leads-amish-to-reconsider-vaccines
This one is also interesting as it proves that some Amish (the majority actually) do vaccinate:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2011/06/23/peds.2009-2599.abstract
You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.
I find this discussion interesting, especially when reading the reference material.
DeleteI could use some help with the math though as the above mentioned 2011 Pediatrics article (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2011/06/23/peds.2009-2599.abstract), confuses me. When I checked the Holmes County census for 2000 and 2010, I don't think the numbers support your statement that 'some Amish (the majority actually) do vaccinate'. Yes, some do but the majority? It doesn't look like it.
Perhaps you would be so kind as to look at those numbers again and explain how you reached this conclusion.
Thank you.
Laurie, the abstract of the article states: "Among the 359 respondents, 68% stated that all of their children had received at least 1 immunization, and 17% reported that some of their children had received at least 1 immunization. Only 14% of the parents reported that none of their children had received immunizations"
DeleteThus if 68% of survey respondents indicate that ALL of their children had received at least one vaccine, we must say that the majority do vaccinate. Anyone making a blanket claim such as "the Amish don't vaccinate" would be wrong as has been shown here.
Granted there are a lot more studies out there, but this is just one example. The Amish people aren't nearly as anti-vaccine as some would like us to believe. This is a myth that preys upon people not bothering to do their own research.
If I'm going to read something on a health or scientific subject that writer better substantiate his claims. I like the fact that Blaylock is an M.D., but like better the footnotes. Granted, that's doesn't guarantee anything, but science is the process of feeling your way through a dark cavern with a cane--even well-established theories get tweaked time and again. I find it interesting that the editor of this page makes blanket statements without any links to studies--I respect his point of view, but nothing I read here is helpful.
ReplyDeleteLynne - it is sad that you treat footnotes as if they are the same thing as peer-reviewed science. Blaylock has been known to cite himself in his footnotes as well as citing other sources which make unsubstantiated claims. That doesn't add value nor does it equate to peer-reviewed science.
DeleteAs far as Blaylock being an M.D. it seems you're relying upon a known logical fallacy. You are assuming because he has some credentials that everything he states has merit. That is simply an appeal to authority fallacy. Instead of relying upon credentials, you need to use critical thinking skills and examine the evidence offered. Sadly, Blaylock never bother to offer any evidence for most of his claims, he has never drafted or published a peer-reviewed paper to support his ideas and he has never participated in a study to prove his hypothesis.
You mention that I make "blanket statements" but that isn't factual. When I make a claim about a study or a scientific subject, I will in fact provide evidence to support it. On the other hand, when I see someone else make a claim and offer no evidence you can rest assured I'll call them out on it.
I recommend you dig a little deeper before running around and trusting an opinion of someone merely because they have some initials after their name or that they include circular footnotes at the bottom of their newsletters.
Posting this arbitrarily on this particular thread...appears to apply pretty much to everything on your site---
ReplyDeleteGrandstanding, "outrage", sensational... You seem to attack pretty much anything you claim as "Conspiracy theory" (A term coined by the CIA to cause otherwise ostensibly intelligent people to betray their own intellect in analyzing logic), with the same flimsy arguments that "conspiracy theorists" themselves use! (When they're speculating wildy of course, not when they are calling out glaring realities worthy of simply further, legitimate, investigation, such as in the case of many of the 9/11 "official" conspiracy theories posed to explain those attacks. You surely DO know that the OFFICIAL story is a Conspiracy, yes? I'm not even on the "opposing side" of some of your positions ("arguments" would be a stretch), but I do think your assertions do nothing but prove that the average IQ in America has been so lowered as to cause fools arguing with other fools, to see themselves as "superior" fools. If any of your "arguments" consisted of real apples-to-apples "analysis" instead of wild postulations and name-calling, I could respect it on some level, but it doesn't, so I can't. You have simply joined "the noise" of the internet. Through such worthless mire, truth-seekers must wade. Such is the reality of life... precious time will sometimes be lost.
I think I just wasted some precious time reading that comment... but thanks.
Deletehttps://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_sdt=0,13&q=russell+blaylock&hl=en
ReplyDeleteWhen you go to Google Scholars, and enter Russell Blaylock, you will return a search including 3,470 results. The term excitotoxicity, along with immunoexcitotoxicity, are new terms he developed to describe how the brain was starting to respond to new toxic invaders into our system. Nothing is concrete people. Be kind. Search for truth. Lets rise above the contention, and put our energies into resolving this matter. Instead of all of us arguing, why don't we read real articles from Google Scholar. You will be surprised what you are capable of understanding. Sure, terms will be used that you are unfamiliar with. Is this not the challenge we face in ignorance in general? Please, I pray, I beg, I implore you, quit bickering and contribute to the challenge. For fear, is the only thing to fear.
Authority is not truth...
Truth is Authority!!!
If you want a quick snapshot of what I have discerned from the articles I have read thus far; here goes. Contaminants, toxins, virus parts, etc find their way into different parts of the brain, such as the microglia. These tiny little things lodge into the "small glue" as originally described and named in medical science. Now we know microglia are apart of the immune response system in the brain. So, with these invaders inside, the immune system starts responding to them. With the invaders attached to these very specific parts of the brain, these microglia immune system cells within the brain, start to excrete chemicals which damage the brain. This is a normal process of the immune system, However, when the brain is continually attacked with the numerous vaccines on schedule today, who you have is an aggressive assault on the formation of the brain, and the child's early development stages. In addition, when the rest of the bodies immune system is activated from these vaccines, as well as the numerous environmental contaminants, the microglia also responds. So a total continual state of immune response at times, whether still in the womb, or in those first critical years, these poor children are absolutely at risk because of our decisions. Again, humbly I might add, none of us have all the answers, and just as soon as we do, someone else will claim to discover another breakthrough. Lets be realistic, lets not let fear control us, and together, maybe we have a chance to understand our world, our health, and ourselves a bit more. For the sake of our next generation, can we stop arguing and all start studying? What do you think is most productive? What will help resolve this issue the best? One last note, if your children have been immunized, then what is the risk of having them around the non immunized children? Theoritically, it would be the non immunized child that is at risk, not the other way around. So, lets get real. Let the truth set us free. (PS - What really is a birth certificate? Ever looked at one close?)
I'm not sure where to start with this one, but are you somehow suggesting that if search terms appear in Google Scholar it somehow indicates that information must be factual?
DeleteBy all means visit Google Scholar and type in the search term "Martian". You'll find about 15,700 results. Type in "Sasquatch" and you'll find 4,460 results. Type in "Unicorn" and you'll find over 74,000 results!
Clearly the act of returning search results has no bearing upon the factual nature of that term. So let's dispense with that notion right away.
As far as Blaylock goes, what I wrote in the original post way back in 2011 remains true. He has not produced any peer-reviewed studies that are able to determine the root cause of autism. He has not produced evidence showing long term negative side effects of vaccines. He has not studied the long term negative side effects of the sweetener aspartame and has not produced scientific evidence to support his theory that it is responsible for causing Multiple Sclerosis. He hasn't published peer-reviewed studies to support his ideas yet to many antivaxxers he is still considered an "expert". I can only assume this is due to the fact he appears to be against the concept of vaccines even though he doesn't have any scientific data to support his opinions.
This is why Blaylock is not taken seriously in the medical community. Yet he probably doesn't care because he profits very well from selling newsletters and brain repair pills to people who have difficulty understanding words with more than three syllables in them.
If you want to promote the idea of studying and learning I'm on board, but people need to understand actual research and actual science is far different that simply reading something on the Internet and taking it as fact. Blaylock is very good at making claims, but he fails to follow up with research and data to support his claims. Thus he simply is not credible.