Autism: Why The Debate Rages

one of few things I disagree with below - they always seem to think they
gotta say this one:
"Vaccinations have provided lifesaving miracles in public health."
sorry, just not true.

Otherwise pretty excellent article!

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/06...y2934107.shtml


June 15, 2007

Autism: Why The Debate Rages

(CBS)
Sharyl Attkisson is the Capitol Hill Correspondent for CBS News.
With the first autism case now being heard in federal vaccine court in
Washington D.C., it makes sense to ask: Why is anyone even still debating
the possibility of a link between vaccines and autism? After all, for
years, many government health officials, advisors and vaccine manufacturers
have said there's no association.

Here are a number of reasons why the question remains open:

1. While government scientists, advisors and pharmaceutical companies have
been responsible for infinite lifesaving and life improving medical
advances, they are not infallible.

.. It's the same group that originally thought it was safe to use x-ray
machines in shoe stores, gave pregnant women Thalidomide for morning
sickness and once allowed mercury in medicines. They assured us Vioxx and
Duract were safe painkillers, prescribed Rezulin for diabetics and then
denied any of them were responsible for patient deaths. If we never
questioned that group, we might not have discovered that Fen-phen and the
dietary supplement Ephedra are not safe weight loss products, that
antidepressants in kids can lead to suicidality and Viagra can cause
blindness. The list goes on.

.. When it comes to vaccines, the same group failed to predict that the
1990's rotavirus (diarrhea) vaccine would have to be pulled from the market
after infant deaths. They encouraged use of the oral polio vaccine
(eventually discontinued after it gave too many children polio). And they
allowed the use of a mercury neurotoxin preservative in childhood vaccines,
only to admit later that they hadn't thought to calculate the cumulative
amount kids were getting as more and more vaccines were added to the
childhood immunization schedule.

.. Recent history demonstrates that too often, government health officials,
mainstream doctors and pharmaceutical companies aren't on the leading edge
of alerting us to health risks; they're bringing up the rear. Patients feel
left to fend for themselves, seeking independent research and opinions on
their own. They and their dogged, relentless determination have often been
the catalyst that eventually brings medical dangers to the forefront.

2. Government scientists, advisors and vaccine manufacturers often take an
all-or-nothing approach to vaccinations.

.. Government officials and infectious disease experts I've spoken with are
fearful that if vaccine side effects are better publicized, or if a link
between vaccines and autism and ADD were made, the public would overreact
and lose faith in the entire vaccination program. The result, they're
afraid, would be parents refusing to give their children any vaccines,
leading to new, deadly epidemics of preventable diseases. That indeed would
be a disaster. However, their fears have resulted in something I call an
all-or-nothing approach: they tend to promote nearly all vaccines for
nearly all children as equally necessary and equally safe. Yet at the same
time, if asked, they agree not all vaccines are equally safe, equally
beneficial, equally necessary and equally tolerated by each individual
child.

.. Through the Internet and other resources, parents are now able to find
research on vaccines and read it for themselves. They compare the
government's all-or-nothing approach to the research and become skeptical
that the government is presenting the whole picture on vaccine safety
generally.

3. Government officials and mainstream scientists who dispel any
vaccine/autism/ADD link have ties to vaccine makers.

.. There's so much overlap among pharmaceutical companies, government
scientists and advisors that the information they provide at least has the
appearance of a conflict of interest. Government scientists and advisors
often do not mention their connections to the vaccine industry when they
provide opinions on the vaccine/autism/ADD issue.

.. One of the best examples of this is the landmark autism/vaccine study
published in Pediatrics. Early in his study, the lead author, CDC's Dr.
Thomas Verstraeten, found statistically significant associations between
the amount of mercury (thimerosal) exposure kids got from their childhood
vaccines, and a wide range of brain disorders. However, the published
version of the study (the one the authors say is accurate) found no
evidence of a link to autism. Not disclosed was that Dr. Verstraeten had
left CDC midstream during the study and had gone to work for Glaxo, a
vaccine manufacturer. That failure to disclose was criticized in a later
publication of Pediatrics, but it got little mainstream attention. Also
getting little attention was a letter from well-respected scientists, also
in Pediatrics, who echoed what parents of autistic children had been saying
for months: they questioned the use and exclusion of certain data from Dr.
Verstraeten's study that eventually reduced the statistical ties between
vaccines and neurodisorders.

.. University and government researchers and advisors often do research for
vaccine companies, help develop vaccines (even profit from them), and/or
are paid to consult for them. Often, these researchers do not disclose
their industry ties when they publicly dispel the notion of a link between
autism or ADD and vaccines.

.. Lastly, the CDC is inextricably tied to vaccine makers through contracts
and other business and financial relationships that open the door for the
possibility of conflicts.

4. Non-profits which dispel any vaccine/autism/ADD link have ties to
vaccine makers.

.. Non-profits that promote vaccinations have ties to vaccine makers that
they often do not disclose when giving their opinions on vaccine safety.
One example is "Every Child By Two." This group contacted CBS News several
years ago in an unsuccessful attempt to prevent one of our stories about
the vaccine safety from airing. In forms filed for the IRS, the non-profit
lists an official from vaccine maker Wyeth Pharmaceuticals as its
Treasurer. It lists vaccine maker Chiron as a paid client.

.. Another example of a non-profit tied to the industry is "The Vaccine
Fund." Its President from 2000-2005 was Jacques-Francois Martin, formerly
CEO of vaccine maker Sanofi-Pasteur, CEO of vaccine maker Chiron, and
President of the International Federation of the Pharmaceutical
Manufacturers' Association. While at The Vaccine Fund, his salary was paid
by a company that says it "has developed particular strength in the vaccine
industry and vaccine development."

5. The dual role of the CDC undermines the appearance of fairness.

.. There is a perceived, if not real, conflict of interest with the
government's Centers for Disease Control (CDC) heavily promoting vaccines,
but also responsible for monitoring adverse events. At least two respected
medical journals, the "American Journal of Public Health" and "Pediatrics"
have published letters or articles recommending "greater independence in
vaccine safety assessments" apart from "the highly successful program to
promote immunizations." In short, the CDC's bread and butter is achieving
high vaccination rates. But that role is in conflict with the agency's
responsibility to fully research and disclose adverse events that could, in
theory, bring down vaccination rates.

6. There is no definitive research proving a link between vaccines and
autism or ADD, but there is also no definitive research ruling it out.

.. Something rarely reported is that while there's no definitive study
linking vaccines to autism or ADD, there is also no study definitively
disproving a link. And there's a substantial body of peer-reviewed,
published science from places like Columbia, Yale and Northeastern
suggesting a link, or pointing to the need for further study.

.. Many credible voices deny a link. But many other credible voices support
the idea of a link. One example of the latter is George Wayne Lucier,
formerly a senior official at the National Institutes of Health in
Environmental Toxicology, an NIH advisor, member of the National Academy of
Sciences Committee on Toxicity Testing and a scientific advisor for EPA who
concludes "...it is highly probably that use of thimerosal as a
preservative has caused developmental disorders, including autism, in some
children." A lengthy Congressional investigation also concluded that the
autism epidemic is likely linked to vaccinations.

7. Those who say autism and ADD are not linked to vaccines do not know what
is causing the epidemics.

.. The most frightening part of the autism/ADD epidemics is that if, indeed,
they're unrelated to vaccinations, that our best, brightest public health
experts still have no idea what is causing it. Excluding ADD, one out of
every 150 American children are now being diagnosed with autism.

Vaccinations have provided lifesaving miracles in public health. However,
it's undisputed that they are also responsible for many serious adverse
events including brain disorders and, rarely, deaths. Trying to maximize
the potential benefits of vaccines and minimize the harm shouldn't be seen
as a threat to the nation's inoculation program, it's merely a logical step
forward.

One scientist who testified for the plaintiff this week in The Vaccine
Court said there's a way to test children for a hidden hole in their immune
make-up that makes them susceptible to bad immune reactions from
vaccinations. He said that, ideally, every child should undergo such a test
before their first vaccinations. But he also said the test is very
expensive and so "not worth it." Many parents might disagree. If they knew
such a test was available, they'd find a way to pay for it. But such
information has to be disseminated to the public before a first step can
even be considered.

Mainstream medicine initially said that autism was caused by mothers who
weren't affectionate enough with their children. If that doesn't teach us
that we should always seek further knowledge and not necessarily accept
what's spoon-fed to us by certain experts.then nothing will.

JOHN wrote:
one of few things I disagree with below - they always seem to think they
gotta say this one:
"Vaccinations have provided lifesaving miracles in public health."
sorry, just not true.

Ask all the parents who had kids die of measles, rubella-related birth
defects, smallpox and polio in the US last year. Oops. There are none.
Thanks to vaccines, none of these diseases killed anyone in the US last
year. However, measles still kills hundreds of thousands of kids in
developing countries last year.

You're wrong. Vaccines is one of the things that save the most lives.
Only sanitation, good food and clean water save more.

Jeff

Otherwise pretty excellent article!

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/06...y2934107.shtml


June 15, 2007

Autism: Why The Debate Rages

(CBS)
Sharyl Attkisson is the Capitol Hill Correspondent for CBS News.
With the first autism case now being heard in federal vaccine court in
Washington D.C., it makes sense to ask: Why is anyone even still debating
the possibility of a link between vaccines and autism? After all, for
years, many government health officials, advisors and vaccine manufacturers
have said there's no association.

Here are a number of reasons why the question remains open:

1. While government scientists, advisors and pharmaceutical companies have
been responsible for infinite lifesaving and life improving medical
advances, they are not infallible.

. It's the same group that originally thought it was safe to use x-ray
machines in shoe stores, gave pregnant women Thalidomide for morning
sickness and once allowed mercury in medicines. They assured us Vioxx and
Duract were safe painkillers, prescribed Rezulin for diabetics and then
denied any of them were responsible for patient deaths. If we never
questioned that group, we might not have discovered that Fen-phen and the
dietary supplement Ephedra are not safe weight loss products, that
antidepressants in kids can lead to suicidality and Viagra can cause
blindness. The list goes on.

. When it comes to vaccines, the same group failed to predict that the
1990's rotavirus (diarrhea) vaccine would have to be pulled from the market
after infant deaths. They encouraged use of the oral polio vaccine
(eventually discontinued after it gave too many children polio). And they
allowed the use of a mercury neurotoxin preservative in childhood vaccines,
only to admit later that they hadn't thought to calculate the cumulative
amount kids were getting as more and more vaccines were added to the
childhood immunization schedule.

. Recent history demonstrates that too often, government health officials,
mainstream doctors and pharmaceutical companies aren't on the leading edge
of alerting us to health risks; they're bringing up the rear. Patients feel
left to fend for themselves, seeking independent research and opinions on
their own. They and their dogged, relentless determination have often been
the catalyst that eventually brings medical dangers to the forefront.

2. Government scientists, advisors and vaccine manufacturers often take an
all-or-nothing approach to vaccinations.

. Government officials and infectious disease experts I've spoken with are
fearful that if vaccine side effects are better publicized, or if a link
between vaccines and autism and ADD were made, the public would overreact
and lose faith in the entire vaccination program. The result, they're
afraid, would be parents refusing to give their children any vaccines,
leading to new, deadly epidemics of preventable diseases. That indeed would
be a disaster. However, their fears have resulted in something I call an
all-or-nothing approach: they tend to promote nearly all vaccines for
nearly all children as equally necessary and equally safe. Yet at the same
time, if asked, they agree not all vaccines are equally safe, equally
beneficial, equally necessary and equally tolerated by each individual
child.

. Through the Internet and other resources, parents are now able to find
research on vaccines and read it for themselves. They compare the
government's all-or-nothing approach to the research and become skeptical
that the government is presenting the whole picture on vaccine safety
generally.

3. Government officials and mainstream scientists who dispel any
vaccine/autism/ADD link have ties to vaccine makers.

. There's so much overlap among pharmaceutical companies, government
scientists and advisors that the information they provide at least has the
appearance of a conflict of interest. Government scientists and advisors
often do not mention their connections to the vaccine industry when they
provide opinions on the vaccine/autism/ADD issue.

. One of the best examples of this is the landmark autism/vaccine study
published in Pediatrics. Early in his study, the lead author, CDC's Dr.
Thomas Verstraeten, found statistically significant associations between
the amount of mercury (thimerosal) exposure kids got from their childhood
vaccines, and a wide range of brain disorders. However, the published
version of the study (the one the authors say is accurate) found no
evidence of a link to autism. Not disclosed was that Dr. Verstraeten had
left CDC midstream during the study and had gone to work for Glaxo, a
vaccine manufacturer. That failure to disclose was criticized in a later
publication of Pediatrics, but it got little mainstream attention. Also
getting little attention was a letter from well-respected scientists, also
in Pediatrics, who echoed what parents of autistic children had been saying
for months: they questioned the use and exclusion of certain data from Dr.
Verstraeten's study that eventually reduced the statistical ties between
vaccines and neurodisorders.

. University and government researchers and advisors often do research for
vaccine companies, help develop vaccines (even profit from them), and/or
are paid to consult for them. Often, these researchers do not disclose
their industry ties when they publicly dispel the notion of a link between
autism or ADD and vaccines.

. Lastly, the CDC is inextricably tied to vaccine makers through contracts
and other business and financial relationships that open the door for the
possibility of conflicts.

4. Non-profits which dispel any vaccine/autism/ADD link have ties to
vaccine makers.

. Non-profits that promote vaccinations have ties to vaccine makers that
they often do not disclose when giving their opinions on vaccine safety.
One example is "Every Child By Two." This group contacted CBS News several
years ago in an unsuccessful attempt to prevent one of our stories about
the vaccine safety from airing. In forms filed for the IRS, the non-profit
lists an official from vaccine maker Wyeth Pharmaceuticals as its
Treasurer. It lists vaccine maker Chiron as a paid client.

. Another example of a non-profit tied to the industry is "The Vaccine
Fund." Its President from 2000-2005 was Jacques-Francois Martin, formerly
CEO of vaccine maker Sanofi-Pasteur, CEO of vaccine maker Chiron, and
President of the International Federation of the Pharmaceutical
Manufacturers' Association. While at The Vaccine Fund, his salary was paid
by a company that says it "has developed particular strength in the vaccine
industry and vaccine development."

5. The dual role of the CDC undermines the appearance of fairness.

. There is a perceived, if not real, conflict of interest with the
government's Centers for Disease Control (CDC) heavily promoting vaccines,
but also responsible for monitoring adverse events. At least two respected
medical journals, the "American Journal of Public Health" and "Pediatrics"
have published letters or articles recommending "greater independence in
vaccine safety assessments" apart from "the highly successful program to
promote immunizations." In short, the CDC's bread and butter is achieving
high vaccination rates. But that role is in conflict with the agency's
responsibility to fully research and disclose adverse events that could, in
theory, bring down vaccination rates.

6. There is no definitive research proving a link between vaccines and
autism or ADD, but there is also no definitive research ruling it out.

. Something rarely reported is that while there's no definitive study
linking vaccines to autism or ADD, there is also no study definitively
disproving a link. And there's a substantial body of peer-reviewed,
published science from places like Columbia, Yale and Northeastern
suggesting a link, or pointing to the need for further study.

. Many credible voices deny a link. But many other credible voices support
the idea of a link. One example of the latter is George Wayne Lucier,
formerly a senior official at the National Institutes of Health in
Environmental Toxicology, an NIH advisor, member of the National Academy of
Sciences Committee on Toxicity Testing and a scientific advisor for EPA who
concludes "...it is highly probably that use of thimerosal as a
preservative has caused developmental disorders, including autism, in some
children." A lengthy Congressional investigation also concluded that the
autism epidemic is likely linked to vaccinations.

7. Those who say autism and ADD are not linked to vaccines do not know what
is causing the epidemics.

. The most frightening part of the autism/ADD epidemics is that if, indeed,
they're unrelated to vaccinations, that our best, brightest public health
experts still have no idea what is causing it. Excluding ADD, one out of
every 150 American children are now being diagnosed with autism.

Vaccinations have provided lifesaving miracles in public health. However,
it's undisputed that they are also responsible for many serious adverse
events including brain disorders and, rarely, deaths. Trying to maximize
the potential benefits of vaccines and minimize the harm shouldn't be seen
as a threat to the nation's inoculation program, it's merely a logical step
forward.

One scientist who testified for the plaintiff this week in The Vaccine
Court said there's a way to test children for a hidden hole in their immune
make-up that makes them susceptible to bad immune reactions from
vaccinations. He said that, ideally, every child should undergo such a test
before their first vaccinations. But he also said the test is very
expensive and so "not worth it." Many parents might disagree. If they knew
such a test was available, they'd find a way to pay for it. But such
information has to be disseminated to the public before a first step can
even be considered.

Mainstream medicine initially said that autism was caused by mothers who
weren't affectionate enough with their children. If that doesn't teach us
that we should always seek further knowledge and not necessarily accept
what's spoon-fed to us by certain experts.then nothing will.

"Jeff" wrote in message
news:wiYci.916$Zh6.358@trnddc04...
JOHN wrote:
one of few things I disagree with below - they always seem to think they
gotta say this one:
"Vaccinations have provided lifesaving miracles in public health."
sorry, just not true.

Ask all the parents who had kids die of measles, rubella-related birth
defects, smallpox and polio in the US last year. Oops. There are none.
Thanks to vaccines, none of these diseases killed anyone in the US last
year. However, measles still kills hundreds of thousands of kids in
developing countries last year.

You're wrong. Vaccines is one of the things that save the most lives. Only
sanitation, good food and clean water save more.

Jeff

Is CBS wrong about the government, scientists, CDC, etc.?

Otherwise pretty excellent article!

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/06...y2934107.shtml


June 15, 2007

Autism: Why The Debate Rages

(CBS)
Sharyl Attkisson is the Capitol Hill Correspondent for CBS News.
With the first autism case now being heard in federal vaccine court in
Washington D.C., it makes sense to ask: Why is anyone even still debating
the possibility of a link between vaccines and autism? After all, for
years, many government health officials, advisors and vaccine
manufacturers
have said there's no association.

Here are a number of reasons why the question remains open:

1. While government scientists, advisors and pharmaceutical companies
have
been responsible for infinite lifesaving and life improving medical
advances, they are not infallible.

. It's the same group that originally thought it was safe to use x-ray
machines in shoe stores, gave pregnant women Thalidomide for morning
sickness and once allowed mercury in medicines. They assured us Vioxx and
Duract were safe painkillers, prescribed Rezulin for diabetics and then
denied any of them were responsible for patient deaths. If we never
questioned that group, we might not have discovered that Fen-phen and the
dietary supplement Ephedra are not safe weight loss products, that
antidepressants in kids can lead to suicidality and Viagra can cause
blindness. The list goes on.

. When it comes to vaccines, the same group failed to predict that the
1990's rotavirus (diarrhea) vaccine would have to be pulled from the
market
after infant deaths. They encouraged use of the oral polio vaccine
(eventually discontinued after it gave too many children polio). And they
allowed the use of a mercury neurotoxin preservative in childhood
vaccines,
only to admit later that they hadn't thought to calculate the cumulative
amount kids were getting as more and more vaccines were added to the
childhood immunization schedule.

. Recent history demonstrates that too often, government health
officials,
mainstream doctors and pharmaceutical companies aren't on the leading
edge
of alerting us to health risks; they're bringing up the rear. Patients
feel
left to fend for themselves, seeking independent research and opinions on
their own. They and their dogged, relentless determination have often
been
the catalyst that eventually brings medical dangers to the forefront.

2. Government scientists, advisors and vaccine manufacturers often take
an
all-or-nothing approach to vaccinations.

. Government officials and infectious disease experts I've spoken with
are
fearful that if vaccine side effects are better publicized, or if a link
between vaccines and autism and ADD were made, the public would overreact
and lose faith in the entire vaccination program. The result, they're
afraid, would be parents refusing to give their children any vaccines,
leading to new, deadly epidemics of preventable diseases. That indeed
would
be a disaster. However, their fears have resulted in something I call an
all-or-nothing approach: they tend to promote nearly all vaccines for
nearly all children as equally necessary and equally safe. Yet at the
same
time, if asked, they agree not all vaccines are equally safe, equally
beneficial, equally necessary and equally tolerated by each individual
child.

. Through the Internet and other resources, parents are now able to find
research on vaccines and read it for themselves. They compare the
government's all-or-nothing approach to the research and become skeptical
that the government is presenting the whole picture on vaccine safety
generally.

3. Government officials and mainstream scientists who dispel any
vaccine/autism/ADD link have ties to vaccine makers.

. There's so much overlap among pharmaceutical companies, government
scientists and advisors that the information they provide at least has
the
appearance of a conflict of interest. Government scientists and advisors
often do not mention their connections to the vaccine industry when they
provide opinions on the vaccine/autism/ADD issue.

. One of the best examples of this is the landmark autism/vaccine study
published in Pediatrics. Early in his study, the lead author, CDC's Dr.
Thomas Verstraeten, found statistically significant associations between
the amount of mercury (thimerosal) exposure kids got from their childhood
vaccines, and a wide range of brain disorders. However, the published
version of the study (the one the authors say is accurate) found no
evidence of a link to autism. Not disclosed was that Dr. Verstraeten had
left CDC midstream during the study and had gone to work for Glaxo, a
vaccine manufacturer. That failure to disclose was criticized in a later
publication of Pediatrics, but it got little mainstream attention. Also
getting little attention was a letter from well-respected scientists,
also
in Pediatrics, who echoed what parents of autistic children had been
saying
for months: they questioned the use and exclusion of certain data from
Dr.
Verstraeten's study that eventually reduced the statistical ties between
vaccines and neurodisorders.

. University and government researchers and advisors often do research
for
vaccine companies, help develop vaccines (even profit from them), and/or
are paid to consult for them. Often, these researchers do not disclose
their industry ties when they publicly dispel the notion of a link
between
autism or ADD and vaccines.

. Lastly, the CDC is inextricably tied to vaccine makers through
contracts
and other business and financial relationships that open the door for the
possibility of conflicts.

4. Non-profits which dispel any vaccine/autism/ADD link have ties to
vaccine makers.

. Non-profits that promote vaccinations have ties to vaccine makers that
they often do not disclose when giving their opinions on vaccine safety.
One example is "Every Child By Two." This group contacted CBS News
several
years ago in an unsuccessful attempt to prevent one of our stories about
the vaccine safety from airing. In forms filed for the IRS, the
non-profit
lists an official from vaccine maker Wyeth Pharmaceuticals as its
Treasurer. It lists vaccine maker Chiron as a paid client.

. Another example of a non-profit tied to the industry is "The Vaccine
Fund." Its President from 2000-2005 was Jacques-Francois Martin, formerly
CEO of vaccine maker Sanofi-Pasteur, CEO of vaccine maker Chiron, and
President of the International Federation of the Pharmaceutical
Manufacturers' Association. While at The Vaccine Fund, his salary was
paid
by a company that says it "has developed particular strength in the
vaccine
industry and vaccine development."

5. The dual role of the CDC undermines the appearance of fairness.

. There is a perceived, if not real, conflict of interest with the
government's Centers for Disease Control (CDC) heavily promoting
vaccines,
but also responsible for monitoring adverse events. At least two
respected
medical journals, the "American Journal of Public Health" and
"Pediatrics"
have published letters or articles recommending "greater independence in
vaccine safety assessments" apart from "the highly successful program to
promote immunizations." In short, the CDC's bread and butter is achieving
high vaccination rates. But that role is in conflict with the agency's
responsibility to fully research and disclose adverse events that could,
in
theory, bring down vaccination rates.

6. There is no definitive research proving a link between vaccines and
autism or ADD, but there is also no definitive research ruling it out.

. Something rarely reported is that while there's no definitive study
linking vaccines to autism or ADD, there is also no study definitively
disproving a link. And there's a substantial body of peer-reviewed,
published science from places like Columbia, Yale and Northeastern
suggesting a link, or pointing to the need for further study.

. Many credible voices deny a link. But many other credible voices
support
the idea of a link. One example of the latter is George Wayne Lucier,
formerly a senior official at the National Institutes of Health in
Environmental Toxicology, an NIH advisor, member of the National Academy
of
Sciences Committee on Toxicity Testing and a scientific advisor for EPA
who
concludes "...it is highly probably that use of thimerosal as a
preservative has caused developmental disorders, including autism, in
some
children." A lengthy Congressional investigation also concluded that the
autism epidemic is likely linked to vaccinations.

7. Those who say autism and ADD are not linked to vaccines do not know
what
is causing the epidemics.

. The most frightening part of the autism/ADD epidemics is that if,
indeed,
they're unrelated to vaccinations, that our best, brightest public health
experts still have no idea what is causing it. Excluding ADD, one out of
every 150 American children are now being diagnosed with autism.

Vaccinations have provided lifesaving miracles in public health. However,
it's undisputed that they are also responsible for many serious adverse
events including brain disorders and, rarely, deaths. Trying to maximize
the potential benefits of vaccines and minimize the harm shouldn't be
seen
as a threat to the nation's inoculation program, it's merely a logical
step
forward.

One scientist who testified for the plaintiff this week in The Vaccine
Court said there's a way to test children for a hidden hole in their
immune
make-up that makes them susceptible to bad immune reactions from
vaccinations. He said that, ideally, every child should undergo such a
test
before their first vaccinations. But he also said the test is very
expensive and so "not worth it." Many parents might disagree. If they
knew
such a test was available, they'd find a way to pay for it. But such
information has to be disseminated to the public before a first step can
even be considered.

Mainstream medicine initially said that autism was caused by mothers who
weren't affectionate enough with their children. If that doesn't teach us
that we should always seek further knowledge and not necessarily accept
what's spoon-fed to us by certain experts.then nothing will.

On Jun 16, 5:07 pm, Jeff wrote:
JOHN wrote:
one of few things I disagree with below - they always seem to think they
gotta say this one:
"Vaccinations have provided lifesaving miracles in public health."
sorry, just not true.

Ask all the parents who had kids die of measles, rubella-related birth
defects, smallpox and polio in the US last year. Oops. There are none.
Thanks to vaccines, none of these diseases killed anyone in the US last
year. However, measles still kills hundreds of thousands of kids in
developing countries last year.

You're wrong. Vaccines is one of the things that save the most lives.
Only sanitation, good food and clean water save more.


Measles does not kill hundreds of thousands of kids in developing
countries every year.Those children live in conditions of poor
sanitation;malnourished and with weakened immune conditioned. If they
contract measles it can lead to serious sometimes fatal results . If
they get a cold it can led to the same results.. Any one truly
concerned about these children must realise that what is needed is
better sanitation; good food and clean water .That will make a far
greater impact upon the health of these children. In a cruel irony
children in a compromised immune state have a far greater rate of
reaction to vaccines they healthy children.Measles vaccine in this
population saves very few lives. If the billions spent on vaccines
were being spent on the basics in these groups far more lives would be
saved. Thanks Vince

bigvince wrote:
On Jun 16, 5:07 pm, Jeff wrote:
JOHN wrote:
one of few things I disagree with below - they always seem to think they
gotta say this one:
"Vaccinations have provided lifesaving miracles in public health."
sorry, just not true.
Ask all the parents who had kids die of measles, rubella-related birth
defects, smallpox and polio in the US last year. Oops. There are none.
Thanks to vaccines, none of these diseases killed anyone in the US last
year. However, measles still kills hundreds of thousands of kids in
developing countries last year.

You're wrong. Vaccines is one of the things that save the most lives.
Only sanitation, good food and clean water save more.


Measles does not kill hundreds of thousands of kids in developing
countries every year.

Got proof?

Those children live in conditions of poor
sanitation;malnourished and with weakened immune conditioned. If they
contract measles it can lead to serious sometimes fatal results . If
they get a cold it can led to the same results..

Not really. The simple fact is, if the children do not contract measles,
their likelihood of dieing is dramatically reduced.

Any one truly
concerned about these children must realise that what is needed is
better sanitation; good food and clean water .That will make a far
greater impact upon the health of these children.

Until that happens, and it has not happened for hundreds of years, a
vaccination program will have to suffice.

In a cruel irony
children in a compromised immune state have a far greater rate of
reaction to vaccines they healthy children.

Can you prove that they have a compromised immune state? Of course you
cannot. In fact, the fact that these vaccination programs are so
successful proves that their immune systems are working well.

Measles vaccine in this
population saves very few lives.

You should be able to prove that by presenting the before and after
death rates for measles vaccination programs. Just get the numbers and
post them.

If the billions spent on vaccines
were being spent on the basics in these groups far more lives would be
saved. Thanks Vince

The money is well spent. Fixing sanitation, nutrition, etc. would be far
more expensive. Vaccination gives far more extensive coverage for the
same money.

bigvince wrote:
On Jun 16, 5:07 pm, Jeff wrote:
JOHN wrote:
one of few things I disagree with below - they always seem to think they
gotta say this one:
"Vaccinations have provided lifesaving miracles in public health."
sorry, just not true.
Ask all the parents who had kids die of measles, rubella-related birth
defects, smallpox and polio in the US last year. Oops. There are none.
Thanks to vaccines, none of these diseases killed anyone in the US last
year. However, measles still kills hundreds of thousands of kids in
developing countries last year.

You're wrong. Vaccines is one of the things that save the most lives.
Only sanitation, good food and clean water save more.


Measles does not kill hundreds of thousands of kids in developing
countries every year.Those children live in conditions of poor
sanitation;malnourished and with weakened immune conditioned.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs286/en/ says it killed
345,000 people, mostly kids, in 2005. Clearly, not nearly as many would
have been killed if it weren't for poverty. Nonetheless, measles vaccine
would have prevented the vast majority of the deaths.

If they
contract measles it can lead to serious sometimes fatal results .

You don't say. Some of the deaths are because of poverty, others are
because the virus sometimes spreads to the brain and kills about 1 in
2000 kids infected, even in developed countries.

If
they get a cold it can led to the same results..

Rarely do colds lead to death.

Any one truly
concerned about these children must realise that what is needed is
better sanitation; good food and clean water .

Jobs would help too, to lift these kids from poverty.

That will make a far
greater impact upon the health of these children.

No question. Nonetheless, measles is killing 345,000 a year.

In a cruel irony
children in a compromised immune state have a far greater rate of
reaction to vaccines they healthy children.Measles vaccine in this
population saves very few lives.

Yeah, it is hard for measles vaccine to save lives when they don't get it.

If the billions spent on vaccines
were being spent on the basics in these groups far more lives would be
saved. Thanks Vince

How do you figure that billions is spent on vaccines?

The reality is that the kids need both vaccines and the money spent to
raise them from poverty.

Jeff

"Mark Probert" wrote in message
news:OD8ei.8100$u65.3736@trndny07...
bigvince wrote:
On Jun 16, 5:07 pm, Jeff wrote:
JOHN wrote:
one of few things I disagree with below - they always seem to think
they
gotta say this one:
"Vaccinations have provided lifesaving miracles in public health."
sorry, just not true.
Ask all the parents who had kids die of measles, rubella-related birth
defects, smallpox and polio in the US last year. Oops. There are none.
Thanks to vaccines, none of these diseases killed anyone in the US last
year. However, measles still kills hundreds of thousands of kids in
developing countries last year.

You're wrong. Vaccines is one of the things that save the most lives.
Only sanitation, good food and clean water save more.


Measles does not kill hundreds of thousands of kids in developing
countries every year.

Got proof?

Yes, which you could have found and already know.



Those children live in conditions of poor
sanitation;malnourished and with weakened immune conditioned. If they
contract measles it can lead to serious sometimes fatal results . If
they get a cold it can led to the same results..

Not really. The simple fact is, if the children do not contract measles,
their likelihood of dieing is dramatically reduced.

Any one truly
concerned about these children must realise that what is needed is
better sanitation; good food and clean water .That will make a far
greater impact upon the health of these children.

Until that happens, and it has not happened for hundreds of years, a
vaccination program will have to suffice.

In a cruel irony
children in a compromised immune state have a far greater rate of
reaction to vaccines they healthy children.

Can you prove that they have a compromised immune state? Of course you
cannot. In fact, the fact that these vaccination programs are so
successful proves that their immune systems are working well.

Measles vaccine in this
population saves very few lives.

You should be able to prove that by presenting the before and after death
rates for measles vaccination programs. Just get the numbers and post
them.

If the billions spent on vaccines
were being spent on the basics in these groups far more lives would be
saved. Thanks Vince

The money is well spent. Fixing sanitation, nutrition, etc. would be far
more expensive. Vaccination gives far more extensive coverage for the same
money.

In article , JOHN wrote:
one of few things I disagree with below - they always seem to think they
gotta say this one:
"Vaccinations have provided lifesaving miracles in public health."
sorry, just not true.

Otherwise pretty excellent article!

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/06...y2934107.shtml

Astoundingly bad article, actually. For a discussion of why this is,
see:

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/20...cbs_news_1.php


-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"Only George Bush could start a war for oil and not get any."
-- Bill Maher

"David Wright" wrote in message
. net...
In article , JOHN
wrote:
one of few things I disagree with below - they always seem to think they
gotta say this one:
"Vaccinations have provided lifesaving miracles in public health."
sorry, just not true.

Otherwise pretty excellent article!

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/06...y2934107.shtml

Astoundingly bad article, actually.

You mean *f*actully.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With the first autism case now being heard in federal vaccine court in
Washington D.C., it makes sense to ask: Why is anyone even still debating
the possibility of a link between vaccines and autism? After all, for years,
many government health officials, advisors and vaccine manufacturers have
said there's no association.

Here are a number of reasons why the question remains open:

1. While government scientists, advisors and pharmaceutical companies have
been responsible for infinite lifesaving and life improving medical
advances, they are not infallible.

• It's the same group that originally thought it was safe to use x-ray
machines in shoe stores, gave pregnant women Thalidomide for morning
sickness and once allowed mercury in medicines. They assured us Vioxx and
Duract were safe painkillers, prescribed Rezulin for diabetics and then
denied any of them were responsible for patient deaths. If we never
questioned that group, we might not have discovered that Fen-phen and the
dietary supplement Ephedra are not safe weight loss products, that
antidepressants in kids can lead to suicidality and Viagra can cause
blindness. The list goes on.

• When it comes to vaccines, the same group failed to predict that the
1990's rotavirus (diarrhea) vaccine would have to be pulled from the market
after infant deaths. They encouraged use of the oral polio vaccine
(eventually discontinued after it gave too many children polio). And they
allowed the use of a mercury neurotoxin preservative in childhood vaccines,
only to admit later that they hadn't thought to calculate the cumulative
amount kids were getting as more and more vaccines were added to the
childhood immunization schedule.

• Recent history demonstrates that too often, government health officials,
mainstream doctors and pharmaceutical companies aren't on the leading edge
of alerting us to health risks; they're bringing up the rear. Patients feel
left to fend for themselves, seeking independent research and opinions on
their own. They and their dogged, relentless determination have often been
the catalyst that eventually brings medical dangers to the forefront.

2. Government scientists, advisors and vaccine manufacturers often take an
all-or-nothing approach to vaccinations.

• Government officials and infectious disease experts I've spoken with are
fearful that if vaccine side effects are better publicized, or if a link
between vaccines and autism and ADD were made, the public would overreact
and lose faith in the entire vaccination program. The result, they're
afraid, would be parents refusing to give their children any vaccines,
leading to new, deadly epidemics of preventable diseases. That indeed would
be a disaster. However, their fears have resulted in something I call an
all-or-nothing approach: they tend to promote nearly all vaccines for nearly
all children as equally necessary and equally safe. Yet at the same time, if
asked, they agree not all vaccines are equally safe, equally beneficial,
equally necessary and equally tolerated by each individual child.

• Through the Internet and other resources, parents are now able to find
research on vaccines and read it for themselves. They compare the
government's all-or-nothing approach to the research and become skeptical
that the government is presenting the whole picture on vaccine safety
generally.

3. Government officials and mainstream scientists who dispel any
vaccine/autism/ADD link have ties to vaccine makers.

• There's so much overlap among pharmaceutical companies, government
scientists and advisors that the information they provide at least has the
appearance of a conflict of interest. Government scientists and advisors
often do not mention their connections to the vaccine industry when they
provide opinions on the vaccine/autism/ADD issue.

• One of the best examples of this is the landmark autism/vaccine study
published in Pediatrics. Early in his study, the lead author, CDC's Dr.
Thomas Verstraeten, found statistically significant associations between the
amount of mercury (thimerosal) exposure kids got from their childhood
vaccines, and a wide range of brain disorders. However, the published
version of the study (the one the authors say is accurate) found no evidence
of a link to autism. Not disclosed was that Dr. Verstraeten had left CDC
midstream during the study and had gone to work for Glaxo, a vaccine
manufacturer. That failure to disclose was criticized in a later publication
of Pediatrics, but it got little mainstream attention. Also getting little
attention was a letter from well-respected scientists, also in Pediatrics,
who echoed what parents of autistic children had been saying for months:
they questioned the use and exclusion of certain data from Dr. Verstraeten's
study that eventually reduced the statistical ties between vaccines and
neurodisorders.

• University and government researchers and advisors often do research for
vaccine companies, help develop vaccines (even profit from them), and/or are
paid to consult for them. Often, these researchers do not disclose their
industry ties when they publicly dispel the notion of a link between autism
or ADD and vaccines.

• Lastly, the CDC is inextricably tied to vaccine makers through contracts
and other business and financial relationships that open the door for the
possibility of conflicts.

4. Non-profits which dispel any vaccine/autism/ADD link have ties to vaccine
makers.

• Non-profits that promote vaccinations have ties to vaccine makers that
they often do not disclose when giving their opinions on vaccine safety. One
example is "Every Child By Two." This group contacted CBS News several years
ago in an unsuccessful attempt to prevent one of our stories about the
vaccine safety from airing. In forms filed for the IRS, the non-profit lists
an official from vaccine maker Wyeth Pharmaceuticals as its Treasurer. It
lists vaccine maker Chiron as a paid client.

• Another example of a non-profit tied to the industry is "The Vaccine
Fund." Its President from 2000-2005 was Jacques-Francois Martin, formerly
CEO of vaccine maker Sanofi-Pasteur, CEO of vaccine maker Chiron, and
President of the International Federation of the Pharmaceutical
Manufacturers' Association. While at The Vaccine Fund, his salary was paid
by a company that says it "has developed particular strength in the vaccine
industry and vaccine development."

5. The dual role of the CDC undermines the appearance of fairness.

• There is a perceived, if not real, conflict of interest with the
government's Centers for Disease Control (CDC) heavily promoting vaccines,
but also responsible for monitoring adverse events. At least two respected
medical journals, the "American Journal of Public Health" and "Pediatrics"
have published letters or articles recommending "greater independence in
vaccine safety assessments" apart from "the highly successful program to
promote immunizations." In short, the CDC's bread and butter is achieving
high vaccination rates. But that role is in conflict with the agency's
responsibility to fully research and disclose adverse events that could, in
theory, bring down vaccination rates.

6. There is no definitive research proving a link between vaccines and
autism or ADD, but there is also no definitive research ruling it out.

• Something rarely reported is that while there's no definitive study
linking vaccines to autism or ADD, there is also no study definitively
disproving a link. And there's a substantial body of peer-reviewed,
published science from places like Columbia, Yale and Northeastern
suggesting a link, or pointing to the need for further study.

• Many credible voices deny a link. But many other credible voices support
the idea of a link. One example of the latter is George Wayne Lucier,
formerly a senior official at the National Institutes of Health in
Environmental Toxicology, an NIH advisor, member of the National Academy of
Sciences Committee on Toxicity Testing and a scientific advisor for EPA who
concludes "...it is highly probably that use of thimerosal as a preservative
has caused developmental disorders, including autism, in some children." A
lengthy Congressional investigation also concluded that the autism epidemic
is likely linked to vaccinations.

7. Those who say autism and ADD are not linked to vaccines do not know what
is causing the epidemics.

• The most frightening part of the autism/ADD epidemics is that if, indeed,
they're unrelated to vaccinations, that our best, brightest public health
experts still have no idea what is causing it. Excluding ADD, one out of
every 150 American children are now being diagnosed with autism.

Vaccinations have provided lifesaving miracles in public health. However,
it's undisputed that they are also responsible for many serious adverse
events including brain disorders and, rarely, deaths. Trying to maximize the
potential benefits of vaccines and minimize the harm shouldn't be seen as a
threat to the nation's inoculation program, it's merely a logical step
forward.

One scientist who testified for the plaintiff this week in The Vaccine Court
said there's a way to test children for a hidden hole in their immune
make-up that makes them susceptible to bad immune reactions from
vaccinations. He said that, ideally, every child should undergo such a test
before their first vaccinations. But he also said the test is very expensive
and so "not worth it." Many parents might disagree. If they knew such a test
was available, they'd find a way to pay for it. But such information has to
be disseminated to the public before a first step can even be considered.

Mainstream medicine initially said that autism was caused by mothers who
weren't affectionate enough with their children. If that doesn't teach us
that we should always seek further knowledge and not necessarily accept
what's spoon-fed to us by certain experts…then nothing will.

For a discussion of why this is,
see:

http://scienceblogs.com/insolenceORAC the known and proven liar.


-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always INcorrect.