And your factual data would come from what scientific organization? Until you can show peer reviewed studies like those quoted above from NIH WHO and CDC, please keep your factual OPINIONS to yourself.

I doubt you would know research if it hit you in the head. Browsing the internet to find articles that fit your prejudices, is not research. Sure, I could be wrong, but I doubt you have a virology lab at your house when you refer to 'research'.

Did your research also show you that the anti-vaccine movement originated in the church hundreds of years ago? Did it show you it is based on nothing but superstition and fear, and that it was 'against gods will' to vaccinate?

Nature will take care of those who don't vaccinate. Unfortunately, the rest of us have to put up with them until that happens.

The same thing happened hundreds of years ago, there is nothing special about you this time around. More than likely, you will end up exactly the same way they did

Looks like Eric never received his schizophrenic vaccine.

I suggest you get another doctor. Prior to the development of the chicken pox vaccine there were 100 - 150 deaths from chicken pox each year in the US not to mention the 10's of thousands of cases that required hospitalization. Since its introduction the death rate among children has dropped to almost zero and hospitalizations have been cut by 70%. Check out the CDC website for details and the AMA to find a doctor who understands the facts.

What the heck? Who's your doctor? Dr. Pepper?

Actually, your md should instuct you not to have a second vaccination if your child has a reaction to the first. There is a substantially grater risk for an adverse and potentially severe or permant damage if admisnistered again. That is the actual protocol- how many have been advised of that?

Why not do both? If you want to promote abstinence among young girls (and boys), that's your choice, and the approach certainly does have its merits. Personally, I don't subscribe to the belief that simply providing information about birth control/vaccination for STDs necessarily leads to an increased likelihood of sexual activity. But regardless, you have little to lose by providing a vaccination for HPV, and much more to gain. Unfortunately, not all sex is consentual, and should the unthinkable happen, I want to know that my daughters at least have taken a proactive step to prevent HPV-related disease.

So, you honestly think young girls are not having sex because they are afraid of cervical cancer when they are in their 50s and older?

As I stated above, vaccines were resisted in the church decades ago because diseases were gods 'punishment' for bad behavior. You would rather open up your children to cancer and a premature and painful death, because of your prejudices against vaccines? Hopefully when they are married, and their husband cheats on them, they will forgive you for your misguided views on sex, and punishing them with it. How very sad that day will be for you.

Will you just admit that your religious views are closely tied with your opposition to vaccines?

Jeanne, I wouldn't be concerned that the HPV vaccine is promoting sexual behavior amongst our teens. I would be more concerned with actually developing cervical cancer. While it only protects against certain strains of cervical cancer, it is still protection (sort of like bug spray, sure it will repel mosquitoes for a little while, but there's still the chance of getting bit when it wears off). And yes, I'm glad I got them vaccinated BEFORE they became sexually active.

I am now entering Round 2 of cervical cancer. I have been in remission for 18 years. My cervical cancer is DIRECTLY linked to HPV. Had there been a vaccince back then, it is a possibility, not a certainty, that I would have been cancer-free. Incidentally, they told me that I would never have children due to this, but I proved them wrong. Both of my daughters have been vaccinated for this in the hopes that they will not have to go through what I've been through. With both parents as carriers of HPV, it was really the only logical choice for my daughters.

As for other vaccines, I have mixed feelings. Yes, they pose a potential risk for side effects. However, I think I'd rather suffer the side effect, than the full-on assault of the disease it is intended to prevent.

I have to completely agree that the HPV vaccine does NOT promote young children to have sex. Teenagers think they're invincible and the last thing they're worried about is cancer. Do you think a teenager is really thinking I'm not going to have sex because I don't want to get cervical cancer? I never once as a teenager ever thought about developing disease or cancer.

When those decisions put the lives of others on the line, there is no such thing as being 'too mean'.

Would you be worried about being 'too mean' to someone bragging about driving drunk through a school zone?

On a side note, I enjoy being able to tell who failed HS chemistry when they can't tell the difference between ethyl mercury(the harmless one in vaccines) and methyl mercury(the actual dangerous to humans one).

Tim,
How are the lives of others being put at risk if they have already been vaccinated?

Kristie,

If you are actually interested in the topic, there are plenty of colleges in the area that teach this. It is far to lengthy to attempt to explain in a post that is limited to 1500 characters.
http://books.google.com/books?id=Lxcj-PlALiIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=immunology&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XIXGT4fiLenh0gHxkrmSCw&ved=0CEoQ6AEwAg

You will also have to have a solid understanding of organic chemistry, biology, and the autonomic and sympathetic nervous systems of the human body, to understand most of what will be taught in an immunology course.

An easy example for Kristie (and others):

There is a window of opportunity between birth and the age at which vaccination is possible. The fewer potential carriers they (the very young) are exposed to during this time the less likely they will contract one of these very contagious "childhood" diseases.

Vaccines are not 100% affective.

Some parents choose not to vaccinate and other can not be vaccinated because of medical issues.

All the more reason to make sure that as many people as possible receive protection, Tom! To go back to the concept of herd immunity (which really isn't as complicated as some may make it sound), unprotected individuals (including those who can't receive vaccinations, and those in whom the vaccine wasn't effective) are better off by having as many of the other members of their population protected as possible.

But on the flip-side, as the percentage of unprotected individuals in the population increases, the likelihood that a variant of a pathogen will arise and be "selected" for (even one that could threaten the vaccinated members of the population!) also increases.

Give it up, Jim. As
they say, argue with a fool,
and you become one...

Nobody mentioned it because it is not true.

Again, it takes a rather in depth understanding of physiology and biology, that you obviously do not have, to understand the mechanisms involved in immunology.

Let me help you;
"So what exactly is HEK293? It's a cell line that started in the 1970s from human embryonic kidney cells. The line was cultured by scientist Alex Van der Eb in the early 1970s at his lab at the University of Leiden, Holland. Since then, the cell line has been cultured and grown in laboratories"

The word 'cultured' means that these cell lines being used in vaccines today are NOT aborted baby cells. It means they are grown from ONE stem cell sample, taken over 40 years ago. Science means that we don't have to use aborted fetus cells to replenish this cell line. It means we replenish them without touching a single aborted fetus.

Again, you provided a link to a site called 'children of god', and still do not understand the link to anti-vaccine and religion? Entire churches vanished off the face of the earth not that long ago from preventable diseases, because they thought vaccines were 'evil' and interfered with 'gods plan', and that any diseases were punishment from god for wrongdoing.

Keep your superstitions to yourself. I can only hope you have no children to 'punish' with this nonsense.

The scientific illiteracy in this post is nothing short of astounding.

do you even know what a poster presentation is, in this context that you are 'reporting' it? You do know that's what you just did, right?

Hey maybe I'm wrong, and you would like to describe for all of us the similarities and differences between T1 and T2 cells.

You quite clearly don't even know what you are reading.

Stem cells can be taken from umbilical cords after birth(not an abortion), and differentiated afterwards into specific organ cells. You, however, make it sound like multiple aborted babies are being used in vaccines to this day. No doubt, the place you got this 'information' from has a religious basis for making these claims, in order to sway people like you who don't have an understanding of biology to follow their 'teachings'. The 'truth' is that no, there are no aborted babies in vaccines.

You obviously know nothing about biology, and are getting your 'information' from people with even a lower understanding of it than yourself.

I still think it is sad that you and your children will face a higher likelihood of a painful and agonizing death because of your own uninformed choices. What is even worse, is that you are putting the lives of others on the line with this same choice.

You want to enjoy the benefits of modern society? Then you need to accept what has built that modern society. Science. Otherwise, sell your house, sell your car, sell your computer, and move to a commune in the middle of nowhere where you can live off the land by your own sweat, and will only be a danger to yourself. All of these things that you enjoy are a direct result of the knowledge we have collectively gained as a society, and you are still stuck on arguments against vaccines that were last used in the 19th century. Inform myself? No, inform yourself.

I personally have donated my cord blood (which contains the needed embryonic stem cells) after 3 healthy births. It is a current option to every mother giving birth in a hospital. And that is the real truth - I didn't read it, nobody told me....I actually did it. wow.

The difference, of course, is that rational people know that vaccines are not 100% safe. Life carries an inherent risk, and they will never be 100% safe.

But I don't go running around trying to scare EVERYONE into not getting a vaccine with made-up nonsense about 'toxins' and autism, because I know that a .0001% chance of harm in getting a vaccine, is a lot better that the alternative of not getting a vaccine. Even most of the 'reactions' are preferable to the diseases they are preventing.

The only thing I can see that you have 'learned' is an inability to properly assess risk, that you have developed using emotion instead of logic.

You mention seeing the 'reactions'... have you ever seen polio?

Tim,
You're exactly right. It is impossible to argue that the elimination of small pox and the near elimination of polio, both due to vaccination, is not a giant move forward for humankind. The vaccines each have their own potential complications ... but each is preferable to the contracting the associated disease.

KG, if you wish to believe the world is flat, that's your business. And if you wish to believe that vaccines cause more harm than good, in the privacy of your own thoughts, again, that's your right. But when you perpetuate anti-vaccine hysteria and misinformation, you are willfully participating in what practically every relevant expert in the medical and scientific fields would consider to be an inexcusable and irresponsible (and borderline criminal) assault on public health. And in a case such as this, people of good conscience can't sit idly by and simply agree to disagree with the specious logic, emotional manipulation, and dangerous pseudoscience being spread by the antivax crowd.

I've spent half my life in this field -- suffice it to say, I've "done some research" (more than a few "seminars", too). And I certainly don't know everything, but I can typically spot a pseudoscientific cult when I see one. So please don't try to wrap your cause in false nobility, or accuse anyone of being narrow-minded, ignorant, or trying to be "more right than you" (whatever that means) simply for calling your views out.

Ms. Gallagher -- as the original author of this opinion piece, will you please confirm whether or not you left these last two comments? Given the responsible tone of the article you wrote, and the veiled, reactionary tone of these two websites, I have a hard time believing that this is the "Erin G(allagher)" who wrote the original story. I have the feeling that this is someone trying to legitimize his/her point of view by trying to create the impression that these are sources disseminated by (and endorsed by) you.

The chances of this being a simple coincidence are pretty small. If I'm wrong, and you actually did add these links (or this actually IS a coincidence), you have my humblest apologies for the insinuation. But if I'm correct, and "Erin G" is not the Erin Gallagher who wrote this story (or doesn't actually have the exact same first name and last initial as you) , then I believe that "Erin G" owes you at least an explanation.

Nevertheless, if you're looking for information from what I would consider to be more reliable sources, please fee free to check out the following:

http://www.vaccineinformation.org/
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/default.htm
http://www.immunize.org/

So, it was a coincidence after all -- I stand corrected. Thank you for straightening that out -- you have my apologies for the implication.

I do, however, stand by my assertion that the websites you cited don't exactly appear to be sources of unbiased, objective information -- despite their claims, the intent doesn't really seem to be to "educate and inform" in a comprehensive manner. If I were a parent who knew little to nothing about vaccines, these sites would likely frighten me out of getting my children many of their needed vaccinations. Part of making sure that parents are properly informed also involves making them aware of the consequences of NOT vaccinating -- both for their own children, and for the rest of the community.

The bottom line is this -- the current "best fit for the data" (a commonly used phrase in science) available overwhelmingly supports the claim that vaccines have done far more good for human populations than harm. The problem with assessing the efficacy of preventative medicine is that it's difficult to gather data as to what might have been prevented as a result of your efforts. I believe you were absolutely right when you said that you were being "responsible citizen" by getting your son vaccinated. I'm very sorry that it had the outcome it did (assuming that the cause and effect are, in fact, linked), but in my mind, you can still rest easy knowing that at the time, you still did the right thing.

@Erin G, yes, please keep sharing your opinions. We welcome a discussion.

My comments have all been directed at the viewpoints (and the perceived flaws that lie therein) expressed by many with whom I disagree, and their sometimes puzzling willingness to so strenuously adopt and defend them (not the people themselves). I'm sure that you're a very nice person and a wonderful mother! As (the other) Erin said, this is an open forum, and you're certainly free to express your views, and critique mine as you see fit (I only ask that for the sake of maintaining objectivity, people back their claims up with credible, peer-reviewed sources) -- my ego isn't on the line, and I certainly don't have a persecution complex. If had been truly guilty of any irrational, ad hominem "bullying", I'm reasonably sure that someone at Patch would have removed my comments for violating their terms of use policy... :)

We've discussed the concept of calculated risk ad nauseam already. I read reports like this all the time, and this case doesn't surprise me in the least. But as I've said, we all (especially members of the antivax movement) have the unimaginable luxury of focusing attention on such individual cases where adverse reactions do happen. We'll never see reports like "child is spared measles thanks to MMR vaccination" because those are far more common. A true measure of the relative success of vaccination efforts lies is the fact that so many people now have the privilege of taking that success for granted.

And just out of curiosity, did you read the full article or just the abstract? The full article may have been able to answer some of the questions you posed. Certain types of immunodeficiencies are readily detectable at birth (especially if there's a documented family hsitory), others are not. And not all adverse reactions to vaccines involve patients with immunodeficiencies, some might involve allergic reactions or the triggering of other types of hypersensitivities. Each vaccine has its own unique composition -- people (if they're one of the few who would have a propensity to have a "bad" reaction) will react in different ways, and it's not uncommon for some people to have adverse reactions to certain vaccines after they've received many others. In some cases, people don't realize that their kids had certain food allergies until they had a bad reaction (that may have resulted in death or permanent disability). I think that unless you have some individual or family history of bad reactions to certain vaccines, they're the "right choice" by default.

That is an abstract(not a paper) that was published almost 20 years ago. It describes a condition that has 11 reported cases in the U.S., EVER. In a population of over 300,000,000. That is 0.00000002%. That's the very definition of 'rare'.

Are you actually asking why a genetic sequencing test(that wasn't invented until recently)wasn't done in 1994? It is comments like that, which make people not take you seriously.

Meanwhile, the odds of being killed in a vehicle accident in any given year are 0.012%

More children die on the way home form the hospital in car accidents, than from vaccinations.

Life is not without risk, and it still stands that the risk of not being vaccinated is immensely larger than the risk of being vaccinated. In fact, It is not even close. At the root of the antivax claims, is a basic inability to correctly assess risk in the world around them.

My personal opinion, is that these 'claims' of letting this be a choice are only because the majority of the population have never seen what these diseases can do. Vaccine uptake was so incredibly high when they are first created, because the reality and the horror of the diseases they prevent are fresh in the minds of people.

When was the last time you saw someone slowly dying of polio? How about smallpox?

How about we make people sit through a graphic presentation of someone slowly dying of a preventable disease, before they make their 'choice'

Thank you Hera for your thoughtful response. I too have watched these comments for a few days and stayed away because of the bullying by some commenters who claim to be experts and Immunologists. Yes, we have a right to pose questions regarding our children even though we are not doctors or Immunologists. When did so many Immunologists read opinion pieces on the Patch anyway? Maybe the "paranoids" who complain about Pharma PR people hijacking a thread aren't so paranoid after all.
As a parent of two, I chose to not give my children the Chicken Pox vaccination. They caught it at the ages of six and ten and are now immune for the rest of their lives, as opposed to needing boosters throughout adulthood, like their classmates will, in order to prevent a much more severe case as adults.
I found the comments of one of the "experts" above very inconsistent. He claimed that the Chicken Pox vaccine is necessary because of a death rate (no source provided)of 142 out of hundreds of thousands of cases prior to its use. Yet, the rate of vaccine injury was inconsequential because it was also a low number compared to the total vaccinated. Which deaths and injuries matter and which don't?
When legitimate parental concerns are dismissed by "experts" with put downs or dire warnings, parents will make their own decisions.

This is not a 'thoughtful response'. It is an emotional response, and it is another example of poor understanding of chemistry.

Ethyl mercury is not bioaccumulative, which is exactly why it is used in vaccines. Methyl mercury is, which is exactly why it is NOT used in vaccines. You are no more threatened by the mercury in ethyl mercury, than you are the chlorine in regular table salt(Na+Cl-). Chlorine is used in chemical weapons!

It is not a valid concern that this is in flu vaccines, it is an incorrect conclusion drawn from an incorrect starting assumption.

Instead of playing the victim, perhaps it would do you better to enroll in a chemistry class at a local community college. Then you too can understand why what you are saying right now is not a valid concern to those who HAVE taken that class.

Notice some of these comments imply that because an Italian COURT validates their claims, it must therefore be scientifically true. Courts do not dictate what is true in scientific research, and if you knew your local history, you would know that Indiana courts defined Pi as exactly equal to 3. Indiana courts are in no way able to change reality, than Italian courts are.

There is absolutely ZERO evidence to back up your claims of autism, and all you can use are anecdotal stories based on nothing more than correlation. Because of this, it is also important that you enroll in a statistics class so you can understand why that is not a valid way to draw a conclusion.

The big dog has spoken. You know all, Tim. If parents have questions or concerns, they should get a PhD in Chemistry or shut up.

A PhD is not necessary. It takes a barely more than HS level class in Chemistry to know this. Any organic chemistry class at any local junior college would more than suffice.

Make fun of it all you want, it won't change the facts.

Yes sir, Tim. You are more qualified than us. Tell us what to do.

Professional offendees, indeed! I think it's fair to say that this thread may be circling the drain. I haven't seen this many straw men built since last Halloween (the one about not caring about children who have adverse reactions to vaccines was my personal favorite!). I actually thought about listing and responding to them, until I realized that it would probably be (yet another) exercise in futility. One of the problems with (largely anonymous) open forums is that they usually degenerate into complete, semantic worthlessness after a while. And I can't seem to shake the feeling that I should have known better...

Then you have no excuse for confusing correlation with causation. Yet, you continue to do so.

I listen to people who have degrees in their field. I do not listen to a woman with a PhD in geology, talk about vaccines while claiming her authority in it is because of her PhD(always leaving out the field it is actually in).

Even then, if those people are making claims that are not supported by evidence, their degrees mean nothing.

The MSDS, last updated in 2004 by the company that makes the chemical, is based off the assumption that ethyl mercury, has the same characteristics in the body as methyl mercury. Even though this has since been proven incorrect and inaccurate, the MSDS still uses the same classification for both. Read section 11 of the MSDS one more time. That, is why you see what you do on the MSDS, which is not a medical document, by the way.

The world advances, but all I continue to hear from the anti-vaccination crowd, are reasons for 'doubts' that have been proven wrong time and time again. When it is shown they are wrong, the simply move the goalposts to the next issue de jour.

Point blank, I am no more concerned with ethyl mercury, than I am with table salt. Sure, both could kill me if I ingesting a large amount of them, but I have no intention of abusing either of them like that. I understand that responsible use of each of them, is based on what are known to be the unique chemical properties of each of them.

You are obviously pulling links off a 'vaccines cause autism' site.

Lots of articles are peer reviewed, the important thing is what the actual reviews are. I'm certain you haven't the slightest idea what those papers are saying, otherwise you wouldn't be using them.

For example, your first link "Thimerosal Induces DNA breaks..."
Describes the method of determining the toxicity levels using a fluorescence marker. The substrate contains a concentration of ethyl mercury at 250MicroM. Do you realize what that means? This is when chemistry class comes in handy;

The molecular weight of 1 mole of Thimerisol is around 400g. At that concentration you cited, you would be looking at a concentration of 102mg/L. The water content of the average human body is around 37L. To scale this up, that would be like an individual taking 102x37 mg of thimerisol.

When are you planning on ever ingesting 3.774g of Thimerisol?

The amount in vaccines? 12.5mcg = .0125mg

You are citing a study that uses a concentration of Thimerisol that is over 300,000X higher than what is in a vaccine? In that paper, at 150,000X higher(half the 250MicroM- 125MicroM), toxicity drastically fell.

This is why you need the classes I described above. You can do the math on your own, and see exactly how absurd this comparison is.

Frankly, you are getting fooled by these sites, and they are using your willingness to believe them, to take advantage of you.

I am not ignoring any of your claimed injuries, I just do not think it is appropriate to be using an already existing genetic defect to point to the dangers of another unrelated chemical. It is incredibly dishonest to be using a worst case scenario, and attempting to draw this as a baseline for everyone.

You have showed me studies that you have copied from an autism site. It has clearly been shown that you did not even understand what they were, and were fooled into thinking they were somehow related to your point. I showed the math that proves your misunderstanding, and you ignore it and retort with emotional pleas about 2 injured children?

This is exactly what the antivax movement does best. Once the initial claim is proved wrong(and embarrassingly wrong in your case), you just move on to something else and completely ignore the previously failed discussion that you just had.

Why would I send you more studies when it has clearly been shown that you are unable to understand the ones you are using yourself? I already suggested a starting point for you, and that is a college level chemistry course. After that, when you understand the terminology and measurements being used in the very reports you are quoting, THEN I can provide you with more information. Until then, you will not understand it, and I have no intention of giving you the needed foundational understanding to be on the level needed to even have this discussion.

You are arguing form emotion, not reason.