Taking Shots

AIR DATE: Wednesday, January 7th 2009
None
How do you decide whether or not to vaccinate your children?

Whether or not vaccines pose a risk to infants and small children has been called one of the great debates of this decade. Some claim that there is a connection between vaccines and the rising rate of autism in the U.S., while others argue that vaccines are not only safe but vital to keeping kids healthy.

Oregon requires children to be vaccinated against 11 different diseases in order to attend school, but the state does allow for exemptions. These are technically religious exemptions, but religion is defined broadly as "any system of beliefs, practices or ethical values." The exemption rate is 4.1 percent statewide but Ashland has recently drawn national attention for their unusually high rate of vaccine exemptions. More than 28 percent of kindergartners there were not vaccinated in 2007. That's why the Centers for Disease Control will be hosting a public meeting in this southern Oregon city on Saturday to listen to parents' concerns and gather information for a vaccine safety study.

Are you a parent? How did you decide whether or not to vaccinate your children? Were you vaccinated as a child? How has your experience informed your medical choices? With the preponderance of the medical community in favor of vaccines, but with access to plenty of anti-vaccine information, how do you decide who you can trust?

GUESTS:

Photo credit: tschorda / Flickr / Creative Commons

COMMENTS: (157 total)

newest first | oldest first
Not vaccinating is just plain ignorance fueled by pop culture. Vaccines have saved more lives than any other medical discovery. The Vaccines are considered safe and effective by the majority of medical professionals, scientists and governments world wide.

The list of people that work against vaccinations are an MTV Vjay, conspiracy theorists, and a small hand full of discredited doctors.

But why use an ad hominem. Instead lets look at the peer reviewed research the anti vax crowd have performed. - crickets -
Revyloution —

Login to reply

Very true. Vaccines were made for a reason, and are given for a reason. We are not God and cannot control who does and does not get infected with a potentially fatal disease. We are human, and to prevent getting any type of potentially fatal disease is to shelter ourselves and our children. I have 1 child who I vaccinated with the scheduled time frames. He is healthy, although he is autistic. In Washigton, mercury is banned from all shots, so I will NOT say that it was due to vaccines. I know autistic children who are not vaccinated. His biological father has disorders and an autistic cousin. But this is another issue. He has not bad reactions, and wasn't diagnosed until he was 2. I was vaccinated and had chicken pox. No biggie. I can understand wanting to spread out the time frame, but not vaccinating your child at all is a selfish act, and in my opinion bad parenting. One who does not only care about them selves and not the well being or health and safety of their children and those in their community. Those who do not vaccinate their children, will feel horrible if your child get pertussis or something else.
rniten —
Actually, the group choosing not to vaccinate are the group that take more time to educate themselves. For myself and those that I know that chose not to vaccinate, we are the ones who have read all the books and all the (very limited) research. Those that I know that have chosen to vaccinate, for the most part, are just blindly following the mainstream expectations. The info is all out there for anyone who wants to take the time to learn. My decision is based on research and common knowledge.
CGerard —
Thanks for the claims. Unfortunately, your self-bias does not ring true. The "education" you purport to get develops conclusions based on anecdotes and ignoring peer-reviewed science. That isn't something an educated person should advertise.
MarvinAlgren —
Information is available these days. There is no secret place that doctors get there information that we don?t have access to. Health care professionals study much of the same information that we do. The difference is that YOU have time to do the research. They DONT.
Some of the guests, callers have taken far more time than ANY pediatrician could ever afford to take (and still be in business) to study this subject.
Are they right? Good question. But we should understand that these are people who are consuming vast amounts of information in a quest to understand something. Our doctors, as well intended as they are, don?t have that sort of time. I know a number of doctors in different fields. They don?t have time to see their own kids, let alone research mountains of information that is coming out every day.
SO... work WITH your health care provider to learn about issues affecting your children. Don?t just "take their word for it". Challenge them to provide current research that supports their position if it is in opposition to yours.
I personally don?t like the fact that my pediatrician, as highly recommended and expensive as he is, basically just defaults to the position of, "well, whatever you feel is the right way to do it is ok for you" whenever I present a different point of view than his.
EBinoregon —
Tell me what a "p value" is and I'll take you seriously.

There's a difference between research and googling.
mucker —
I am a mother of two. I was vaccinated as a child and suffered no ill effects. I have already vaccinated my oldest child for all the recommended shots except the MMR and chickenpox. I will do the same for my second child who is due mid-February 2009.
I found out from reliable sources that the measles, mumps, rubella, or MMR vaccine was manufactured using an aborted fetus. The fetus was aborted for the purpose of making the vaccine. There are alternatives put out by Merck, the company that makes the MMR vaccine, for the measles and mumps which use chicken instead of human embryos. However, the only alternative for the rubella vaccine is available only in Europe and Japan. I have yet to vaccinate for measles and mumps because I have found that they will not be available until sometime in the spring of 2009. I hope that the rubella vaccine will be available in the United States soon.
The chickenpox vaccine, I have heard, besides having been manufactured using an aborted fetus, is not very effective and reduces and person's immunity to shingles when they become adults. For these reasons, I am not going to vaccinate my children for chickenpox and am hoping they will contract it as I did as a child...thru contact with another child who has chickenpox. It is realively mild if contracted when the child is not still an infant or not entering or close to entering adulthood.
I make sure my sources are reliable by asking people who I trust to tell the truth where they get their information.
I hope this information helps others in their decision to vaccinate or not.

Thank you,
Kathryn
intrepid99 —

Login to reply

you are wrong.

the fetus was NOT aborted for the purpose of making the vaccine. the vaccine was developed from a single aborted fetus due to medical reasons. the virus was isolated from a second aborted fetus that was terminated because it had congenital rubella. both of these occurred during the 60's - no further fetal material has been used for rubella vaccine manufacture.


http://tiny.pl/63m6
jackaninny —
I am 26 years old and was never vaccinated due to a "religious exemption". My parents decided not to vaccinate me and my two little sisters because they were concerned about toxins such as mercury that may be present in some vaccines.

My sisters and I were really healthy growing up and we continue to be healthy as adults. We all had chicken pox growing up and that was no big deal. We were really healthy kids with really healthy immune systems.

When it comes time to decide to vaccinate my own kids I think the risk of vaccinating is too great. I rather control their health the best I can by keeping their immune systems healthy with a healthy diet.
portlandella —

Login to reply

Before you make that decision, go talk to the parents of a fourth-grader who couldn't relearn the alphabet after getting measles and a 107-degree fever. Or visit the graves of kids who weren't that lucky. Take your kids and stand next to the graves. Say it to your kids' faces, while standing there, that you could have done something to protect them but have decided not to. Then give them some whole-grain rice and a bottle of kefir as a treat. That should work.
mucker —
congratulations! you have been the beneficiary of all of us who have been vaccinated and did the same for our kids. We protected the "herd" and you took advantage of our precautions. Your conclusion that your immune system is what kept you healthy is wrong!
Angela E —
I am the father of a child who was developing normally. Jordan could talk when he was two. He became very sick with a high fever after getting a series of shots. He has not been able to talk since then and was diagnosed with autism. Blood tests showed that he had high levels of mercury in his system, and a check of the lot numbers proved that his vaccinations contained mercury. He is eleven now and is the first named plaintiff in one of the current class actions before Vaccine Court.

There are a few things that seem to get left out of many of these discussions in the media:

1) There is still mercury in vaccines. Most flu shots that are available have mercury in the same concentration that led to a recommendation to remove it years ago. It was removed from some vaccines, but some researchers have tested supposedly mercury-free vaccines and found mercury in them. In addition, the flu vaccine schedule was increased to twice a year starting at age six months, so kids are still getting mercury in their shots. In fact, kids are getting mercury in utero because pregnant mothers are also given flu shots.

2) Many people state that the the rate of diagnosed cases of autism has not dropped after the removal of mercury, and that proves that mercury does not cause autism. But, as I pointed out in 1., it was never completely removed, so that proof falls apart.

3) Many media stories treat parents' concern about vaccine risks as irrational. That makes little sense. Whenever you take a child to get a vaccination, you have to read and sign a statement that explains that there is a real known risk of several adverse reactions to vaccines, including brain inflammation, seizures and death. In fact, Vaccine Court exists because we know that a certain number of people will have these reactions. Over a billion dollars has been awarded to people injured by vaccines in this court. Even the federal government admitted this when they awarded compensation to Hannah Poling's family. (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHxqTyAxZZE)

3) One of the current arguments being used to cow parents into getting vaccines is that if they don't get them, they are putting other children at risk of getting childhood diseases like measles. But wait, if they got the vaccinations, isn't that supposed to protect them from the disease? Or is the pharmaceutical industry admitting that the vaccinations don't actually protect them?
fredking —

Login to reply

I am sorry for your son's condition.

There is a useful distinction between avoiding mercury and avoiding vaccines altogether, however.

And, if you don't have a sophisticated enough understanding of epidemiology to see several flaws in your reasoning on your point #3, maybe you should drop out of the public debate. One such example: if your kids aren't vaccinated and get the disease, they become breeding ground (literally) for the pathogens to reproduce and attempt to evolve resistance to antibiotics, or to evolve a strain that the vaccinations don't immunize against. Every new infection is an opportunity for evolution. Or don't you believe in evolution, either?
mucker —
It's a distinction without a difference if the only vaccines available to you have mercury in them.

Also, I have a Master's in research, and do believe in evolution. My point about #3 should be clear to you of all people. Aren't you the one who wrote:

"Before you make that decision, go talk to the parents of a fourth-grader who couldn't relearn the alphabet after getting measles and a 107-degree fever."

Wasn't that fourth grader vaccinated? If they were, why did they get measles? If not, what was your point? Or are you saying that some unvaccinated child became the breeding ground for a mutant form of measles? Kind of a stretch!
fredking —
"It's a distinction without a difference if the only vaccines available to you have mercury in them."

Lots of things change if you attach ridiculous hypotheticals to them. The distinction between "moon" and "moron" disappears if there's no such thing as the letter R. In the real world, there are 26 letters in the English alphabet, and most if not all vaccines available in the US are available in forms with no mercury.

Was this a show about reducing children's exposure to mercury, or was it about vaccination? Hint: the title was "Taking Shots". It is irresponsible to conflate the issues.


"Or are you saying that some unvaccinated child became the breeding ground for a mutant form of measles? Kind of a stretch! "

Every unvaccinated child is a breeding ground for measles. That is not only NOT a stretch, it is axiomatic to the theory of epidemiology.

"Wasn't that fourth grader vaccinated? If they were, why did they get measles?"

Vaccination is not a silver bullet or a guarantee. It's a probabilistic improvement. Its value is measured in populations, not individuals. It is, however, the best we can do. Again, this is Epidemiology 101.

And yes, vaccines are known to have side effects in a very small fraction of the population. Literally, it is close to one in a million. This risk is known and, thanks to science, predictable, so Vaccine Court exists to assist those who experience the worst side effects. There is nothing in any of these facts that alters the basic net value of vaccination to society. You might as well argue that because, say, 40 people per year get trapped in burning cars by their seatbelts that we should remove safety devices from vehicles.

"If not, what was your point?"

Strange that I would have to explain so many things to someone with a master's in "research", whatever that means.

The point was that if you want to make up your mind based on horror stories instead of science, the trend STILL favors vaccination. The horror stories of infection dwarf those of vaccination side effects, both in number and severity.
mucker —
I am both a physician and a parent. Growing up, I received the complete vaccination series. Having learned about all of the diseases that we vaccinate against, and having seen the effects of these diseases, my husband and I decided to vaccinate our children. I had a great-Aunt who never walked after contracting polio as a 3 year old child. I have patients in my practice who suffer from post-polio syndrome. I am very concerned about what will happen in our society as vaccination rates decline. There have been recent large outbreaks of measles and chickenpox, and unless our "herd immunity" improves, children and others will die. History shows us this. I feel that many in the US have become complacent because they haven't seen the large numbers of children and people dying from epidemics. However, all one needs to do is to visit graveyards and read the names and ages of the many (mainly children) who did die from many of these diseases for which we have safe and effective vaccines. Personally, I consider the issue of vaccinations as a moral obligation to one another in society. Those who choose not to vaccinate rely on the rest of society to prevent epidemics of polio or measles from ravaging our communities and infecting their families. As to Chicken Pox, according to the CDC, before the vaccine on average 10,600 hospitalizations and 100-150 deaths were caused by this disease in the U.S. alone. Since the vaccine, there has been a huge reduction in these rates, including a 90% reduction in deaths of 1-4 year old children. Yes, it is unlikely an individual would know someone who died, but the risk is real.
FaithofMtAngel —

Login to reply

Kathryn, you claimed 'reliable sources' citations requested, or you're just making things up.

portlandella, what you don't understand is that you failed to die from small pox, measles, polio et al because those around you WERE inoculated. Everyone else was protected from catching these diseases, so they protected you.

If enough people fail to vaccinate their children, we will see a return of these diseases.

Revyloution —

Login to reply

as the parent of a vaccine injured child, (my case is currently pending in court), I want the study done that compares a large population of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated people compared for overall health including autism and ADD and ADHD. We know that vaccines stop are effective for the targeting of diseases but at what cost. Many kids are the "collateral damage" of a buckshot approach to medicine. Thanks to the drug lobbies, but I do have hope for change.
paula bryant-trerise —

Login to reply

This is a very reasonable position. It can't be easy to be the parent of a vaccine injured child. I applaud that you are seeking rigorous large-population studies. Many people in your situation have taken the view that studies are not to be trusted no matter what, and that anecdotes should be the driver of policy.

Best of luck with your case.
mucker —
I can only say that I continue to be stunned that educated parents seem incapable of sifting through and understanding the difference between anecdotes and peer-reviewed research. I can only hope that this trend of refusing to inoculate children does not lead to a resurgence in these diseases -- and the possibility of new strains for which we may be without vaccinations and without treatment.

I spent years working with families caring for developmentally disabled children, and I understand their pain and their struggles. At the same time, I have yet to see evidence that vaccines cause disability stand up to the rigors of the scientific method. This leaves me frightened for other families who may someday end up with sick, disabled or dying children due to a failure of themselves or others to vaccinate.
MarvinAlgren —

Login to reply


Perhaps what some of the parents in Ashland are doing is delayed vaccination. Doctors are pushing too many vaccines on tiny children's developing immune systems. By the time my daughter was four months old, if we had vaccinated according to her pediatrician's schedule, she would have had something like 16 shots. She was only a few hours old when they were already pressuring me to give a Hepatitis shot. How can anyone claim with any certainty that putting so many foreign substances (sometimes up to five shots in one appointment) have no affect on a child's development?

We have many friends who are choosing to selectively vaccinate their children and are asking to see the ingredient labels of the vaccinations.
evilgenius —

Login to reply

1000s of children diagnosed with "autism" have been cured after a long treatment of heavy metal detoxification. Thousands.

Mercury was never tested by the FDA, but was grandfathered into the system in the 40s, I believe.

Thank you for your post fredking and I hope your child is doing OK. My child has a high functioning form of autism and we just started the process of testing for and removing toxins.

For anyone out there who is interested there is a clinic in Tigard that does only "green" vacines (they do exist, our gov't just doesn't want to use them because it would me more trips to the dr and more chances of non vaccination).

Also if I had to do it over again, when vaccinating I would kindly ask to see the packaging the vaccine came in. If it says "thimerosol" Do NOT vaccinate. This is mercury.

For an EXCELLENT book on the topic, read Sally Kitk's " Hope for Autism Spectrum"
For a quick read, read "Warrior Mothers".
OregonMomLisa —

Login to reply

What is that clinic? I have been wondering where to go that a doctor will work with you on slower vaccinations.
cblake —
I for one would like to see these "1000's" of children who have had autism exorcized from their bodies. Becuase as far as my research, and my reading, autism is a NEURO-logical learning disability, which is not something that can be drained from the body like blood.
rniten —
the assertion that vaccines are completely safe if just that a belief. The question has never been seriously addressed by research. Vaccines are the sacred cow of science.
paula bryant-trerise —

Login to reply

Vaccines are not completely safe for all people. They are just safer than the alternative of catching some of the real nasties out there: polio, measles, influenza, smallpox (which MAY have been eliminated, or not...)
Ella May Wulff —
vaccines are great, the idea of creating immunity to an illness. the issue is thermeresol, the preservative for the vaccines and its mercury base. when a new form of preservation is created, one that is non toxic, people will be more likely to vaccinate.
rainispring —

Login to reply

I'm curious why the U.S. uses the MMR vaccine. My husband is Italian and he had measles, mumps and rubella as a child. They looked at all of the outbreaks the way we look at chicken pox. We are expecting our first child and I'm skeptical about this vaccine.
jbancroft10 —

Login to reply

Perhaps because children die and become disabled from those illnesses?
MarvinAlgren —
I'm skeptical about exposing my children to fevers so high that they can cause irreparable brain damage (measles). Given the choice, I've gone with the vaccination.
mucker —
I am the father of a 12 year old son with autism. He had a severe reaction to the MMR vaccine in 1998, and never recovered. Most parents of kids with regressive autism don't want to get rid of all vaccines, we just want more careful screening and to split the shots into smaller doses that will not cause some kids immune system to crash. Mainstream medical people will not even listen to this for economic reasons, not medical reasons. Thank you for not referrring to OHSU as you usually do for autism-related topics.
JimSchlipf —

Login to reply

What economic reasons?
MarvinAlgren —
I am amazed at the number of smart, educated parents who disbelieve good science and to a great degree, common sense, that says vaccines save lives. I am very alarmed that parents of autistic or otherwise damaged children have zeroed in on vaccines as the primary cause of those problems and want vaccines banned for every child. Very sad and dangerous.
DKSand —

Login to reply

I have a moderatly autistic child, and I don't think it has anything to do with vaccines. I find it sad, that people think that it is just vaccines. People are not open to look outside the box to other possiblilities. I know kids who have autism who have, unfortunatly, never been vaccinated. So what causes it? Why do those people who think that vaccines cause autism and what is their theory for those who have no vaccines and are autisitc?
rniten —
What OPB doesn't tell you is that they have to talk to a concerned mom/travel writer because researchers, well-trained physicians and public health experts who support these theories do not exist. Just like email forwards that get Bill Gates to send you a $100 check. Even the researchers who conducted the original hypothesis generating study on MMR and autism have withdrawn their support for their research. Better research exists. See this link on WebMD.

http://www.webmd.com/brain/autism/news/20080903/autism-measles-vaccine-no-link

WebMD makes money from advertisers. Not selling vaccines.
kdowns —
Please note the organization NVIC - National Vaccine Information Center. This is a very complex issue that takes a great deal of patience and savvy to sift through the true cons of vaccines. I have a 4 year old that is unvaccinated due to what we feel are unsubstantiated claims of vaccine efficacy, and because he has other health conditions. Again, the debate is simply not one of mercury but is wholly larger. Injected imunizations bypass all the barriers that protect the brain and other organs. The impact of this is simply not understood fully and any scientist or physician that tells you otherwise should be questioned. Just get informed! Its your duty as a parent.
jpilsworth —

Login to reply

"any scientist or physician that tells you otherwise should be questioned"

Questioned, yes. Absolutely. There should be a dialogue. But if your eyes glaze over because you can't understand the science or the statistical reasoning that supports vaccination (in general), that doesn't mean they are wrong and the crackpots with the scary anecdotes are correct. Indeed, if you think a statement like "Injected imunizations bypass all the barriers that protect the brain and other organs" is technically correct, then you are technically underinformed.
mucker —
I am a student who recently finished up a research paper about pesticide use and its health consequences on children and adults. My research indicated there is a very direct relationship between pesticide exposure and autism in children. I encourage parents to look beyond immunizations when trying to protect their child's health. The growing body of research about immunizations does not really support a link to autism. Whether you immunize your children or not, children are still unfortunately exposed to HUNDREDS of pesticides through the food that they eat, and at parks and fields where they play. I strongly encourage all parents to look into pesticide exposure and the connection to autism.
eiselemm —

Login to reply

My daughter is 6 years old and is exceptionally healthy and strong. My wife and I chose not to vaccinate for one big reason. Despite the empirical evidence that vaccinations are effective in reducing incidences of disease, there is substantial anecdotal evidence of children manifesting symptoms of autism, adhd and even death within minutes of receiving standard vaccinations. The argument that vaccinating safeguards the general population demands that every parent be willing to sacrifice the well being and/or life of their child in pursuit of this theoretical goal.
jim brosseau —

Login to reply

Well thank god Jim that we have people like you who have decided to be backdoor doctors and decide on the health of those around your child. There is nothing like being ignorant for the sake of selfishness. Way to go.
sionus —
"Despite the empirical evidence that vaccinations are effective in reducing incidences of disease, there is substantial anecdotal evidence of children manifesting symptoms of autism, adhd and even death within minutes of receiving standard vaccinations."

I don't even know what to say to this... completely ridiculous that you would give more value to anecdotal evidence than the empirical data.
sodapop —
I just won't understand some people. Those who don't immunize their children are taking risks that are completely un-realistic. They only think about their own children and not what the effect would be on everyone else. Would you rather have smallpox and rubella running rampant and harming children? Of course not; but obviously people don't understand how vaccines have made the world a much healthier place. Of course vaccines have risks but the risks of not giving them is global in its effects.

All I can say is, "Ignorance is bliss." The people who are against vaccines are completely unqualified to make that decision and instead go off of conspiracy type information they find on the internet.
sionus —

Login to reply

The challenge here is understanding that vaccines have, in fact, had a positive general outcome. BUT it was not without ?side effects? (as it is referred to in the medical community). The REAL QUESTION for all of us is whether these side effects are STILL worth it. For some things the answer may be a fairly overwhelming yes, but for others it may be deemed to be NO LONGER worth it, even if it WAS worth it just a few decades ago. I don?t believe, nor do many on the side of ?think first before just doing what everyone else does? think that there should be ZERO VACCINATIONS. It?s more a matter of which ones do we, as a society, still need, and which ones would be better suited for those who are living in or travel in high risk areas.
EBinoregon —
This debate is exemplary of a fundamental problem with broad discussions about science.

Dave Miller just made a comment to the effect that "the scientific community believes" that the risks of vaccines are justified by the benefits of avoiding disease, while others "believe" that there are side effects (such as autism) that are too great. This is a completely false equivalency, designed to stoke an argument. What we need to look at is not what some individuals "believe," but WHY they believe these things, and what their evidence is for these beliefs.

In the case of the scientists and doctors who "believe" that vaccines bring great benefits to the public health, these beliefs are based upon hundreds of well conducted scientific studies and vast epidemiological evidence over many decades. In the case of the opponents of vaccines, their "beliefs" are based upon pop culture, rumors and unsupported anecdotes.

This is similar to the "debate" between supportors of the "theory of evolution" and creationists. The sloppy use of language and creation of false equivalancies by the media perpetuate a "controversy" that doesn't deserve to exist at all.
Morrolan —

Login to reply

This is an excellent point, well phrased. The hosts should end the show with an apology to the entire population of the planet. Practically every individual's life has been improved by vaccination.
mucker —
Point taken.

I'm not sure exactly what I said in that comment, but I have a feeling it came in our ridiculous telephone-glitch banter-fest. I tried to summarize the societal disagreement at the heart of this issue, and didn't mean to equate all of the various studies, arguments, and fears. (In fact I don't think I used the word "belief.") But your point is well taken, and we'll be more careful in the future.
David Miller —
"ridiculous telephone-glitch banter-fest"

No doubt that couldn't have helped the situation. I know you guys try hard every day, and for the most part I've admired your judgment. (The fact that you articulate it as well as you do in real time is especially remarkable--it's not a skill I have.)

This was not your finest hour, though. Controversies over empirical topics (especially ones with powerful stakes) are much different than controversies over, say, literature. Some ideas are demonstrably bad.
mucker —
Please take a look at these articles.

http://westonaprice.org/children/vaccinations.html

http://westonaprice.org/children/autism.html

Polio did not decline when the polio vaccination was instigated. Look at the research.

Thank you.
kari.mcginley —

Login to reply

As far as I can see, there is one piece of research cited in these articles -- a study from New Zealand in 1996 that found a correlation between Hepatitis B vaccination and juvenile diabetes. This is a finding that has not been substantiated or replicated by further research. The remainder of the citations in these articles are either self-referential "see my other ariticles" or citations to articles on other anti-vaccine websites.
Morrolan —
That site doesn't offer any peer-reviewed research to back up your claim.
MarvinAlgren —
take a closer look at the source you are basing you information on!
reddydee —
Jennifer Margulis: Thank you so much for your well-informed, articulate, and reasonable statements. You have said everything I have experienced and felt as a mother, and learned through extensive research.
evilgenius —

Login to reply

I'm a parent of a one year old daughter in Portland and have been concerned about the increase of immunizations for children, and the number of shots given in one period of time. I get frustrated at the somewhat hostile comments from people who choose to vaccinate their children along the recommended schedule. I would like to think as parents we've learned that every child is different and some children may need to get shots on an extended schedule, or choose to not get a shot for a specific reason. Even though the reports of immunizations linked to autism often come from parents perspectives, I can't help but trust and believe these parents. Parents know their children best and even if it cannot be medically proven, they see the affects of these shots after the children leave their dr. appointments. Even though I have chosen to give my daughter all of the shots an extended schedule, I don't think I would be doing this if my pediatrician hadn't been so wonderful is encouraging me to do whatever I was comfortable with as a parent. If she had aggressively encouraged I think I would be even more skeptical. Even though I have chosen this approach I respect each parents decision and think it's our responsibility as parents to be educated and have a point of view...just blindly accepting the blanket recommendations seems naive.
Leighc —

Login to reply

There's an important distinction between making choices on a case-by-case basis, based on EVIDENCE, and making policy recommendations based on statistical models applied to a population. Statistical models are provably informative. You can bungle them, of course; garbage-in-garbage-out will take down any information system. But for the most part, they are the best tools we have for making broad-based policy, aka "blanket recommendations".

It's entirely reasonable to tailor a treatment for any given child's needs. However, it's entirely irrational to value heartbreaking anecdotes more than rigorous population studies, when making decisions about populations as a whole.

As for the question of respecting individual opinion--if we were talking about religious or political beliefs, I would agree with you entirely. Each person is different, and each person deserves respect. However, when it comes to medicine, science, or the empirical world, not every idea is equal. Some ideas are bad. The sun does NOT revolve around the earth, etc.

So, while it is true (except in degenerate cases) that "Parents know their children best", it is NOT true that parents necessarily know their children's best course of medical treatment. Sometimes experts are experts for good reasons.
mucker —
Listen to these wise women. Jen has done her homework. This is not about Polio etc., this has become a money machine-a deception. We have lost trust in a system that has become manipulated to produce profits. We don't know what is real and what is false information. This whole issue is falling on the tales of Pfizer and Wyeths deadly FDA approved drug scam. All Fed programs have become corporate profit centers. Don't forget about the mercury protection attatched to the 911 bill!
Listen to these women, not the drug/money poisoned lobbiests!
robert
rnp1thx —

Login to reply

So falling for baseless propaganda is homework? Sorry, I don't think that's the kind of homework a parent should be doing in regard to her children.
MarvinAlgren —
Viva la revolution! ...Or at least, the revolution will live until the first contact with a pathogen. Then, the revolution will be surviving, if at all, in an iron lung.

I prefer my crazy leftist theories with a dash of science.
mucker —
Your guest Jennifer is poorly informed. She stated that hepatitis B is only transmitted through sexual contact. This is untrue. It is also transmitted as a blood-borne pathogen. She also stated that hepatitis B is not a serious infection and is self-limiting. This is untrue. She is probably confusing hepatitis B with hepatitis A. Hep A is typically less serious and self-limiting. Hepatitis B is very serious, life-threatening, uncurable, and a leading cause of liver cancer and death world wide. Furthermore, she commented that we don't have diptheria anymore, so we shouldn't vaccinate. Why don't we see diptheria? Precisely because we CONTINUE to vaccinate. As a public health epidemiologist, I know this is true. These are just a couple of examples of how the anti-vaccine community is so poorly informed. And their lack of knowledge threatens us all. I have no problem with honest, open, INFORMED discussions of which vaccines are necessary and how we can lighten the load of vaccines in children. I agree that there is no need to vaccinate a child with 5 vaccines at once. But please, let's base the discussion on fact, not fear.
sd1000 —

Login to reply

Agreed. The guest is clearly highly biased and wholly uninformed.
sionus —
it feels to me like the risks associated with vaccinnations are quite overexaggerated in the argument against the practice. The argument that the vaccinnes are not necessary because the diseases do not exist seem laughably counterintuitive - it is the vaccinations which have allowed us to enjoy respite from diseases which one ravaged our population. And in our global world, i think it's an irresponsible, selfish choice not to vaccinate and feels like a choice made by overprivelaged americans who feel like since they do not have to worry about these diseases themselves, that they have no social responsibility to continue to ensure that these diseases do not reemerge. I think vaccinations are necessary until a disease is eradicated worldwide...
reddydee —

Login to reply

There should be NO exemptions from required vaccinations except for proven health risks (such as allergies to the vaccines -e.g. when they are made with eggs). The philosophical objections of today's parents illustrate the maxim that "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". This generation of parents has no collective memory of the horrible epidemics that used to ravage our populations. When I was a child, I was not allowed to go swimming in a public pool, because that was a great way to catch polio (before the vaccine). Also, I nearly died from measles when I was five. Measles is a known killer, but young adults today have little knowledge of this fact. Your program participant who stated that it is BETTER to get measles is way off base.

There will always be a small risk from vaccines, and I understand that parents want NO risk for their children. Unfortunately, if enough children in a small area (such as Ashland) are not vaccinated for a disease, they put at risk other members of the population who, though once vaccinated, may have reduced immunity because of elapsed time or simply because vaccines don't "take" in a few individuals. These individuals are protected through "herd immunity" - if enough people are successfully vaccinated, diseases simply have no way to spread to the unprotected individuals.

Ella May Wulff —

Login to reply

Margulis got a FULBRIGHT?!? Sounds like another thing the Bush administration botched. Anyone with that poor an understanding of basic empirical science shouldn't have a driver's license, let alone a Fulbright.
mucker —

Login to reply

The problem with not being vaccinated is not that your child will not live through the disease, it's that you will want treatment for your child, our immune systems are wonderfully adaptive, but antibiotics and other treatments are not. each time a disease is treated there is a good chance that the organism will change or be strengthened against that treatment. vaccines work by using your own adaptive immune system not a static treatment. already we have seen infections that are resistant to the normal treatments, and the more these disease are allowed to spread the more they will gain in resistance.
also for those that believe that these diseases such as polio and smallpox are no longer a problem here in the united states forget that we are a nation of immigrants, and these diseases still exist in many countries around the world.
It's a tough choice to immunize your child when there are claims unproven or not of problems arising from the vaccines, but they need to remember they run the risk of creating a much more virulent strain of any disease and causing a much larger problem.
monkeyengineered —

Login to reply

Why doesn't the CDC set the vaccine schedule based upon the child's immune system development, rather than the well baby check schedule. The Chicken Pox vaccine is dangerous to the vaccinated person as an Adult unless they continue to receive booster shots.
DC2008 —

Login to reply

Do you have any idea what you are talking about?
MarvinAlgren —
Do you have any idea what I was talking about?

The Vaccine schedule has nothing to do with efficacy, but simply with getting as many children vaccinated when they are in the Dr. office.
DC2008 —
And? You didn't answer my question.
MarvinAlgren —
What are good resources for parents thinking about the vaccination issues?
TeenzBeenz —

Login to reply

http://www.immunizationinfo.org/

http://www.vaccineinformation.org/

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/vis/default.htm
MarvinAlgren —
Your family doctor. Trust someone who's studied at a professional school, been certified by a professional system, has a number of professional boards and insurance overseers checking on them, knows you and your family, and sees hundreds of patients every year. Don't so much trust, say, a travel writer who happens to have internet access.
mucker —
the problem with your logic is that the medical community in our country is treatment based vs. prevention based medicine in other countrys (ones that have to foot the $$ bill for health care). the reason is that there is more $$ directly and indirectly associated with "medicine" in this country than almost anything else. as such, the $$ incentive is sooo high that even with the best intended doctors and health care providers, we cannot get good clean information out of the so called "someone who's studied at a professional school". on top of that, are you going to volunteer your child to "test" the effects of multi-dose vaccines to see whether or not they have adverse effects? i know i am not and i dont think anyone wants to. so even IF the medical community wanted to test better, it would be quite hard. not to mention it is in thier financial DISinterest to do so. it would cost them money to do the research which would only result in less drugs sold. you do the math.
EBinoregon —
If docs only want to treat rather than prevent, wouldn't they be against vaccines?
MarvinAlgren —
I did the math. I happen to have a degree in math. I understand how statistical models work. That is why I trust epidemiologists far more than crackpots.

Moreover, I know people who work in public health. They could have been wealthy doctors but instead spend time interviewing intravenous drug users, talking to parents whose beautiful children are suddenly facing lifelong disabilities owing to measles, or climbing through empty lots to count the number of standing water sites that provide breeding grounds for mosquitos. These people are NOT suppressing "good clean information" due to a money motive. For you to say so immediately qualifies you as underinformed (to put it charitably).
mucker —
I appreciate what you are saying and as a fellow mathematician I also agree with the epidemiologists. And I also love statistics (crazy, I know). But the issue that i'm getting at I actually posted earlier. That is that I don?t think this is a black and white issue.
Many people seem to think that it HAS to be one way entirely, or the other entirely. In my opinoin it?s not whether to immunize or not. It?s more of a ?which ones? ?when? and ?where? type of issue. And my point as an economist is that getting good answers is tough when the people we are asking to provide them are trying to balance (again not black and white) profit for shareholders and caring for people. I know many, many good heath care professionals (again, it?s not black and white) and probably many truly are trying to do what they believe is best. The problem is that is the information they use to make their decisions is sometimes true, and sometimes not always true (again, not black and white) but they treat it all as if it is totally 100% infallible. And therein lies the problem. On top of that many (again, not all) of the companies they work for are also in that $$ balancing act. However well intended. That is simply a fact of how our economy, and in this case the health care component of our economy, works. The same sadly holds true all across the many different parts of a free market, capitalism based economy (and again, there are many exceptions). Anyway, this isn?t the place to open this can of worms. There is far too much that would need to be discussed on the subject that this chat room is not a place for. So in a sense I?m sorry for even bringing it up since it cannot be fully and properly discussed.
EBinoregon —
"trying to balance... profit for shareholders and caring for people"

Most doctors I know are also parents. If they have a bias, unconscious or otherwise, it's going to be in favor of defending children's health, not padding the bottom line. Maybe hospital administrators have an institutional bias, or pharmaceutical companies, or doctors who own their own large practices, but most family doctors these days are working for big corporations and are rather ambivalent about it. They are not "company men" (or women). I don't know whether you are correct when you suggest this is affecting the quality of information we can gather in the field--perhaps you are--but I simply don't find your account of pressures and loyalties consistent with my own experience or with the facts I know about the profession. I think there are many ways in which our health care system is unfortunately altered by money, but the truthfulness of studies about vaccines is not one of them, as far as I can tell.

"getting good answers is tough"

Yes, getting good answers is hard. That's why it takes bright people with sophisticated training to be competent at assessing whether an answer is statistically "good". That's why very few job listings at the CDC include "travel writer" as a desirable qualification. To the degree that we CAN get good answers, the way to do it is via population studies and numerical analysis, not by building a movement fueled by tearjerking stories. The stories are emotionally powerful, and every family that's had adverse effects of vaccination has my sympathy, but emotionally powerful can be misleading. In this case, DANGEROUSLY misleading.
mucker —
My family doctor didn't recognize that my son had autism. OHSU, when they diagnosed him with autism, told us it was "incurable and untreatable" and that we should "let go of him." (this was denied by Darryn Sikora from OHSU on this very program.) Some of us have had direct experience with medical professionals who are uninformed and either intentionally or unintentionally lie about these issues. Please don't have blind faith in medical science. (see my earlier post)
JimSchlipf —
Darryn Sikora is the last person who would tell someone to "let go of" a child with autism. While your GP may not have recognized or even performed a screen for autism, that does not mean he or she lied about it. It simply means that he or she is a family doc that does not do all the screens he or she should do.

I am sorry, but your story about OHSU does not ring true at all.
MarvinAlgren —
Wow. I was there. When Robert Nickel and Darryn Sikora gave us the diagnosis, in person, I asked what we were to do next. The response, and I quote, was, "NOTHING. There is nothing you can do, it is untreatable and incurable. The only thing WE are interrested in is that you, as his parents, accept the diagnosis and LET GO OF HIM." I'm telling you this because I couldn't believe it either. My experience is almost identical to Mr. Hanley's. After ten years of "alternative medicine," which insurance doesn't pay for, we have made great progress with our son, with no help whatsoever from OHSU.
JimSchlipf —
I call hogwash on that claim. I know you won't change your story. You can't. It's part of your mythology. But I know those people would not say such a thing. I know what they advocate, and it's the opposite of your story. Also, lots of parents have made great progress with kids with autism at OHSU. What does your claim about "alternative medicine" have to do with anything?
MarvinAlgren —
This discussion is about trust. The people who question the scientific community have good reason to do so. We are careful, reasonable, concerned human beings. Our health is at risk. The scientific community is also composed of human beings, perhaps careful, reasonable, and concerned, but just as prone to be submerged in their own mythology. Where, for instance, in the research is a recognition of the observer effect, which has been known about for a very long time? And how often are results contaminated by preconceived conclusions?

I am citing my own experience to let you know that I understand why parents have little or no trust in the medical, scientific, and pharmaceutical communities.

I am an older woman whose children were immunized in the 5os. Some of my grandchildren are immunized, and I was not involved in those decisions. I did not see these decisions as easy or straightforward. I am not a medical expert. Nor am I a scientist.

Does that make me an idiot? A purveyor of "mythology"?

The lack of compassion and insight is amazing in many of these comments.

Some people in this discussion have used insulting language that is entirely unnecessary and tells me that the writer is leading with his/her emotions, not his/her intellect (if the two could ever be separated!). Why is the scientific community threatened by ordinary human beings who are struggling to get good information? If they were not threatened, their responses would be compassionate and reasonable.

I try to avoid prescription drugs because I do not trust the pharmaceutical industry to care about individual health and safety more than huge, obscene profits. The industry is doing the research and testing of drugs, paying for the results they want. I am sure the drugs they bring to market are among the less harmful possibilities, Physicians have no way to check on the validity of the results. Where is the peer review process in this industry?

Does my lack of trust mean that I am an idiot?

Another assumption is that doctors are great and would "do no harm." As a woman, I have been lied to and treated with contempt and cynicism. I have seen the snide little smile when I ask questions, because in asking questions, I have questioned the doctor's entire reason for being.

All those years when other women were taking hormone replacement therapy, I had grave doubts. At last I gave in and filled a small prescription for the two hormones. I came home and read the fine print, and there it was, from the pharmaceutical industry itself---risks included stroke, heart attack, and cancer. Had the doctor ever read that? None of the women I knew who took HRT had read the fine print. Later, everyone was shocked when the long-term studies showed the harmful effects of HRT. Where were the wonderful doctors then, the scientists?

I am often dinged for looking for information on the Internet. Where shall I look? I need enough information to ask questions. Appointments are so short (usually 15 minutes) that I must come to the office with a list of questions, and I don't know what to ask. So I look on the Internet and then sometimes get chastised as if I were a hypochondriac. There ARE good medical sites. So I ask, "What other questions should I be asking?"

I certainly hope most of the inflammatory comments come from scientists who stay in the lab and never have to put up with real patients, real concerned human beings who are going through tough, painful, confusing times.
janester —
You make many excellent points.

As one of (if not the) most inflamed commenters, let me draw a distinction between the way I might attack an idea that has been set forth as a policy recommendation for society, versus the way I would treat an individual who is confused about the healthcare they are receiving. The latter deserves compassion. If the show were about patient's experience of healthcare, my tone would be entirely different.

In the policy arena, though, arguments have consequences. The consequences of not vaccinating are horrific: death, pain, disability, terror, for tens of thousands if not millions of people. They entirely annihilate (in relative terms) the very real (but very rare) problems of side effects.

I am so inflamed on this topic because, quite literally, the number of people who would suffer or die (or both) in the absence of vaccines is larger than any war the world has seen. Before the advent of sanitation, medicine, and public health, epidemics would frequently sweep through populations and kill ONE IN THREE. The reason that there are so few "Native Americans" in the Americas is that OVER NINETY-FIVE PERCENT OF THEIR ANCESTORS DIED FROM EUROPEAN DISEASES. The deaths due to vaccinatable disease dwarf Sudan, Rwanda, the Holocaust, the Armenian genocide, the Khmer Rouge, Stalin, and every murder ever committed, combined. How angry is too angry?

It should be an outrage to every thinking person that underinformed people would get on the radio and NOT know this and NOT put these facts first. I could be a gentler advocate, but that would not be fair to the enormity of the subject matter. There are not many things that present more danger than war, genocide, and murder combined.
mucker —
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. I see that you are passionate about saving people's lives with immunizations. Immunizations, and modern water and sewer systems, have prolonged our lives more than any other causes.

I still remember the smallpox vaccination I had at the age of three (if memory is accurate), which would make it in 1936. I was among the many people who changed the world.

I still remember the polio epidemic, when the one person in the St. Paul high school I attended who made any sense to me, the assistance principal, Mr. Woolley, died of it.

I remember having anti-bubonic plague and yellow fever shots in 1947 before returning to the states from Madagascar. I have few arguments with these mass immunizations, and I hope for a way to save all our children from malaria.

But I have to go back to my lack of trust in the present state of the pharmaceutical industry. Their research is not in the least transparent, as far as I can see. We're always hearing about their "OOPS!" that kill a few people here and there. Doesn't this throw out the whole logical basis of the current argument against immunizations as cause of autism? Have they really taken the mercury out of the vaccines? I hear otherwise but can't prove anything.

Who is protecting the Center for Disease Control from the pressures of that industry? It has been subject to heavy political pressures, enough for me to understand the terrific quandary the scientists there must operate under. I know the pressures all scientists endure, from the lowly consultant to the employee of a high-powered firm to the government health official, to come up with the "right" numbers.

Here's my central question: When autism increases as immunizations increase, in number of shots per child and in total number of children immunized, one might draw one conclusion, which may be a flawed conclusion. When diseases remain low due to immunizations, and do not increase when immunizations decrease (is this true?), mainly because of the number of people immunized and the number of years immunizations have been common, where is the tipping point for disaster? Do we not have time between these points to do a thorough investigation of the autism link? Is there such an ongoing investigation? Or are these parents, who have little interest in statistics, crying out in the dark? Is anybody listening to them and checking their premise?

The follow-up research supposedly shows that mercury has not harmed children, although mercury in seafood is harmful. The industry supposedly has taken the mercury out of immunizations. Should I believe this? How can I find reassurance on this?

When people keep crying out, it is usually because they have not been heard or taken seriously. In the absence of good information, they feel they have no other choice but to refuse immunization for their children.

So what is happening to answer their terror, which seems to me to have some basis, some logic. It should not be dismissed out of hand by a society that can afford expensive organ transplants in very old people, and radiology and surgery on dogs and cats.
janester —
Just because I have a certain amount of faith in medical science doesn't mean I have blind faith in it. If this conversation were about pharmaceutical trials and the all-too-cozy relationship between regulators and paid experts, then you'd see me saying plenty of things that mainstream medical practitioners might disagree with.

Epidemiology, though, is not a field that is awash in money. And family practitioners, for the most part, are not awash in money. It's easier to make $100K/yr as a police officer than a GP, and you don't have to spend 8-10 years going into debt to do it. Most family docs are good, middle class people who want the best for their patients. Exceptions exist, of course.

That being said--my condolences about having an autistic child. I can't imagine.
mucker —
Thank you. I'm only telling people what actually happened because I was shocked and suprised to hear this from medical professionals. I agree with you that family docs want the best for their patients, I'm just frustrated with the lack of good research and education that is frequently a result of economics and politics rather than good intentions. OHSU has probably made a lot of changes in the last ten years, but their policies are directly connected to the insurance and pharm industries, and we experienced that very directly. Believe me, I wish none of this had ever happened.
JimSchlipf —
How are their policies directly connected to insurance and pharm industries?
MarvinAlgren —
Why have we not heard from reputable doctors as to why they don?t vaccinate? There seems to be mothers who think they are more intelligent than the entire medical community when it comes to their child?s health.
bowerman61028 —

Login to reply

I am extremely disappointed by the balance of information in this episode. This is an important topic. Jennifer was allowed to speak for the bulk of this session. Her misinformation is not helpful. She clearly knows very little about the bulk of the research on this topic as well as the characteristics of different vaccines or the associated diseases. I hope that Dr. Baker gets more time for the end of this session
kdowns —

Login to reply

Well said.
mucker —
Not getting your child vaccines is disturbingly close to the Oregon families who killed their children because they wanted to let God and their faith heal their illnesses away. Instead of relying on well established medical research, you are putting the life of your child in the hands of fate.
sionus —

Login to reply

In response to Jennifer's comments, she demonstrates the lack of information of some parents who refuse to vaccinate. Hepatitis B is not just a sexually transmitted disease, but also a pathogen bourne by other bodily fluids, blood, etc. In addition, there was a recent outbreak of measels begun by the infection San Diego by an unvaccinated child. This incident reminds of us several important points: Some of the children who were then affected were too young to be vaccinated. Some children were not vaccinated at all. Also, the vaccine is only 95% effective. This reminds us the importance of as many children getting vaccinated as possible in order to protect most children. I resent her implication that the vaccine schedule is a result of money hungry pharmaceutical companies or doctors who don't care about children as individuals.
shauna40 —

Login to reply

the problem with your logic is that the medical community in our country is treatment based vs. prevention based medicine in other countrys (ones that have to foot the $$ bill for health care). the reason is that there is more $$ directly and indirectly associated with "medicine" in this country than almost anything else. as such, the $$ incentive is sooo high that even with the best intended doctors and health care providers, we cannot get good clean information out of the medical communty. on top of that, are you going to volunteer your child to "test" the effects of multi-dose vaccines to see whether or not they have adverse effects? i know i am not and i dont think anyone wants to. so even IF the medical community wanted to test better, it would be quite hard. not to mention it is in thier financial DISinterest to do so. it would cost them money to do the research which would only result in less drugs sold. you do the math.
EBinoregon —
Why are you spamming the board with this repeated post?
MarvinAlgren —
A top quality study showed that children without the MMR vaccine have higher autism rates than those with the MMR. Double blind studies have shown that physicians can diagnose autism by watching 1st birthday party video tapes (before children get MMR vaccine) even when parents swear that their child got autism a year later after the MMR vaccine.
shauna40 —

Login to reply

Can you offer links to reports about these studies?
MarvinAlgren —
Here's one:
http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/booth/Vaccines/MMRUK.html
MarvinAlgren —
Ugh. I am very disappointed in you ToL.

You gave 85% of this show to two non-scientists who believe that they know better.

I feel for Mr. Handley - he sounds like a good, caring parent. He his not a scientist. Correlation is not evidence of causation.

Your guests, Ms. Margulis and Mr. Handley are fanatics -- neither of them was engaging in a debate. They were evangelizing their illogical, unfounded beliefs, using the platform you gave them.
Morrolan —

Login to reply

What we're seeing in Mr. Handley is an example of the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy -- assuming that because Event B followed Event A, Event A caused Event B. His son became autistic after receiving vaccinations; ergo he assumes the vaccinations caused the autism.
BruceM —
Scientists? You mean paid 'professors;' of corporate truth? If you get sick from what you ingest, you don't have to be a scientist to find out you consumed something harmful! The real issue is that we are deceived so easily, because science has become a shield. Use your brain, not someone elses. We all can do research without being a 'scientist'! If you listen to 'experts' you may be ill or dead before the truth is revealed rather than controlled 'proof' that is presented to sell a product. Read what Dr. Saulk had to say about vacines!
rnp1thx —
So you claim that scientists are all shills, and your anecdotes are the real truth? Your "research" equals picking and choosing "information" that supports your world view, which is clearly a view that makes everything a battle, and everyone out to get you. I'm sorry, but that's the kind of research that leads to good outcomes for anyone.
MarvinAlgren —
"Use yor brain, not someone elses [sic]"

The process of scientific investigation, experimentation and conclusion is designed to be transparent so that others can look at the process, replicate the experiments and confirm the results. If I look at a well-documented study supporting a conclusion, look at three other studies confirming that conclusion and at five articles critiquing and ultimately confirming the conclusion reached, am I relying on the insight, training and hard work of others? Absolutely. Am I doing so blindly, without critical insight or indepenent thought? Absolutely not.

If, on the other hand, I hear about one child who gets sick soon after receiving a shot, and that was subsequently diagnosed with autism, and I conclude from that one incident not only that "vaccines cause autism" but that all vaccines are dangerous and without merit, I am not using anyone's brain in a productive manner.

Science is about doubting things until they are proven. It is proven that vaccines can protect populations from certain communicable diseases, if they are administered to a sufficient portion of the population. It is not proven that vaccines are related in any way to the causation or onset of autism. (Neither is it disproven, although the existing evidence seems to discredit the assertion.) Vaccines DO have side effects, some of them serious. We should not ignore that, nor should we allow that fact to cloud the broader public health benefits that vaccination provides.

Morrolan —
My child has some, but not all, vaccines suggested. For example, she is not vaccinated against rotavirus, chicken pox, or hep b. She is nine now. When she was 3, I asked her pediatrician if there was still mercury in the vaccine. She said no, that had been phased out. On the next visit, I requested the ingredient list. When I read the ingredient list, mercury was still in the vaccine. I was shocked and upset that her pediatrician was not educated about what was in the vaccines, and lied out of ignorance. There have been a long, long list of OPPS in the medical community, only to be admitted years too late after much suffering on the part of patients.
PaulaHood —

Login to reply

Thanks for the illustration of the importance of asking questions about your treatment. That's a helpful point.

But I don't quite understand the distrust you are hinting at (as opposed to healthy skepticism). Yes, there have been many well-known mistakes in medicine over the years. But that is just as much a reason to have confidence in the system as to doubt it. When you take the mistakes in the fuller context of mistakes being made, analyzed, publicized, and corrected going forward, you realize how modern medicine got from near-useless in 1908 to not half bad in 2008. If there's another profession that gets as much scrutiny of its mistakes, I can't think of it. Airlines, maybe?
mucker —
I was appalled by Jennifer Margulis' statement that measles can be "a good thing to have." I grew up in the era before measles shots were available, and trust me -- measles is NOT a good thing to have. It is a killer disease. I had measles and survived with no permanent ill effects, but I knew kids who were not so lucky. One suffered serious brain damage; another died. If Jennifer's "research" led her to conclude that measles is not a serious disease, I have to seriously question the validity of her other information about the vaccination issue.
BruceM —

Login to reply

Well said. It IS appalling.

I'll go further than "seriously question" her: if TOL puts her back on the program and doesn't ask her, in so many words, "but aren't you a person with bad information and nonexistent quantitative reasoning skills, so shouldn't you stick to travel writing?", I'll have to reconsider my station membership. It's an outrage. I've never heard OPB perform an actual public DISservice like this. There can be public health consequences to providing implicit sanction (unchallenged airtime) to actively dangerous stupidity.
mucker —
Jennifer Margulis exemplifies the "echo chamber" of the anti-vaccine community. When she says she "researched" this, it means she looked online for articles written to back her preconceived ideas. The hubris that she has is staggering. All she really cares about is her own, with no sense of others. Many vaccine such as the Rubella vaccine (part of the MMR) are not to protect the child, but to protect for the yet to born generations for massive birht defects if their mother comes down with Rubella during pregnancy.
tjampdx —

Login to reply

Jeffery are you nuts? You don't take poison because it hasn't yet been proven to kill you!!!
rnp1thx —

Login to reply

Do you have a point at all?
MarvinAlgren —
What was the website he just said for listings of delayed vaccination schedules?
evilgenius —

Login to reply

I'm not sure if he was talking about Dr. Sears' book on the subject, but...FYI...

http://www.newsday.com/news/health/ny-hsvaccine05-nws,0,1546509.story

CDC Recs:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5701a8.htm
MarvinAlgren —
Your travel writer guest, J. Margulis said that Hepatitus B is a sexually transmitted disease. Well that is true, but so is the common cold. To characterize Hepatitus B as a primarily sexually transmitted disease is wrong and misleading.
doctordoctor —

Login to reply

Great show even with tech breakdown. I'd be heading for the pub early if it was me. Ha ha. Could have honed in more on science than conjecture but it is an important discussion.
chadrichins —

Login to reply


Hi.

I am a naturopathic physician who treats many infants and children and I have a practice in McMinnville and Portland. I think it is important to remember that every argument has 2 sides. This is plenty of research for both sides as there is ample research to support vacccination and to support ill effects caused by vaccinations.

If choosing to vaccinate it is important to assess the immune system development alongside the timing of vaccines. Often times, vaccines are given too early when the immune response is not completely developed yet, hence the need for multiple boosters for particular vaccines. The T helper system of the immune response has 2 important pathways to consider when considering vaccinations. Most of the time, vaccines stimulate a TH2 response earlier than it is originally present in the developing newborn. There is also ample research to support that many harmful childhood conditions such as asthma, allergies, and eczema result from an overactive TH2 system of immune response. Therefore if we were to wait until the immune system has developed more in the infant, then we most likely will have a better and more appropriate response to the vaccination.

When considering vaccinations, parents must make an educated decision based on their baby's risk including family history of allergies, whether or not they are breast fed, whether or not they will be in daycare, whether or not they will be around other school aged children, socioeconomic status, and race as they all play a role in the risk for particular diseases.

Also something to note is that when vaccines began, they were made for very threatening diseases and now vaccines are made for conditions such as chicken pox. Just this year we had a 9 year old girl in our office with Shingles (normally an adult disease which she got from getting the chicken pox vaccine). Not to mention, if children are not given their chicken pox booster and contract the disease in high school or early adulthood, then they will be subjected to a much more severe form of the disease.

There is so much more information out there on vaccinations and correctly choosing and correctly timing vaccinations for each child as an individual.

Please parents, be educated before just vaccinating because your physician tells you that you must.


Sincerely,

Dr. Jessica Black
A Family Healing Center, PC


jblacknd@comcast.net —

Login to reply

"be educated before just vaccinating because your physician tells you that you must"

Fair enough. I'd agree that the ideal case is an educated parent making the decision. But in a society where half the high school graduates can't find the US on a globe, much less tell you the difference between a quadratic and a quartic equation (or asthma and eczema), we need a fallback position for the many parents who are NOT educated about these issues, or who don't have the time to delve deeply into every last one of the many decisions a parent must make.

I hope you'll agree that the fallback position should be to do the thing that is statistically most likely to help BOTH the child and the population as a whole: vaccinate.
mucker —
i'm still waiting for the peer reviewed studies that show the ineffectiveness and danger of vaccinations to be presented by the anti-vaccine crowd instead of the broken logic and ignorance of basic science.

jackaninny —

Login to reply

Basic science-you need to define what that means. In the case where it may mean perminent damage, it is basic logic to wait until proven to be worth the risk.
rnp1thx —
What are you talking about?
MarvinAlgren —
The challenge with your logic here is that it assumes that your "basic science" is 100% correct. Sadly this is not the case. If it was, we would be still using the exact same vaccines and such that we always have.
In reality, these things are constantly evolving, which is actually proof that they don?t have it figured out.
PLUS, do you want to volunteer your kids to see just how "ineffective" and "dangerous" these things might be? I know I wouldn?t. And the medical community is not going to support expensive studies that could result in less sales of the very drugs that make the $$ for them. Not to mention the thousands of lawsuits and litigation that they would be facing once they show the world that something they were doing was wrong or dangerous.
Think about it. Would you if you were in their shoes?
The most well intended individual facing financial ruin and jail time is not going to pursue something that has that potential outcome...
EBinoregon —
You're not making sense. Why would doctors want to vaccinate children against diseases, if they only wanted to treat children for those diseases in order to make more money? Your logic is way off.
MarvinAlgren —
Bravo, Marvin. You ARE making sense.
mucker —
You are thinking in a box Marvin. I will simplify for sake of time...
First, they get to charge for the vaccines (many of which are no longer necessary).
Second the number of vaccines has tripled in the last few years.
Third, the number of vaccines given and the $ made from them, far outweighs the few people who come down with these diseases and are treated.
Forth, the lawsuits. Condider the Billions of $$ drug companies would be sued for if they had to admit that there were dangers that should have been known. Not that i'm saying there are or are not, but just think about it, this has happened with other drugs and it has cost them many millions.
And I could go on and on.
But the bottom line is I am not the source of this information. And I actually support much of the western medicine. But I?ve travelled and lived in 35+ countries and I can tell you, other developed countries have been studying how we do things here and I have read many times specifically how health care decisions are made out of $$ reasoning.
I don?t have the time or space necessary to write the bullet proof dissertation that would prove this point to you and everyone else. Nor do I think I need to. Nor do I consider myself the expert on the subject. The information backing this subject is considerable. And it should be noted that it is simply a part of how our economy works in this country, for better or worse. And it is a part of many other components of our economy. I challenge you to study the subject, and then make your comments.
All that said, I am no conspiracy theorist person, I am simply pragmatic about the environment of the world we live in.
EBinoregon —
I'm not the one who is stuck in a box. Your out-of-context claims are stuck in an echo chamber of conspiracy theory. You are not pragmatic at all. You have chosen to ignore evidence. You are all about the conspiracy.

Most of your post is a disconnected mishmash of anecdotal assumptions. When you put it together, it doesn't fit at all.
MarvinAlgren —
As a biology instructor at a local community college, I find that the biggest problem with vaccines is that people do not understand how they work. Shouldn't a really basic discussion of how vaccines work be a part of a show like this?

The majority of my students seem to think that a vaccine is just a bunch of chemicals that somehow incorporate themselves into our cells and/or DNA and that those chemicals wear off over time (that's why we get booster shots). I am certainly not an expert on vaccination, but this is just not the case. The functional part of any vaccine is DNA or protein that forms parts of a disease causing agent. When your immune system sees these fragments, it mounts a response to get rid of them (like it would to any disease). In the process, your immune system creates little molecules that remember that disease for long periods of time. Having these "memory molecules" in your body is what protects you from the disease. When you get a booster shot, more bits and pieces are injected into your body and those memory molecules go back to work attacking the vaccine and again, making more memory molecules (kind of a refresher course for the immune system). When I explain to my students how vaccines really work, they are shocked that science is really just taking advantage of natural processes in the body to increase your immunity.

I wonder whether, if people better understood how vaccines worked, if the issue would be so big? It seems that one of the biggest concerns with vaccines is the chemicals that are added usually as preservatives. Could we come up with natural "organic" vaccines that don't contain the chemicals? I'm sure they would cost more (shorter shelf life, required refrigeration), but if this option was available, would some of you who are resistant to vaccination be more willing to have your children immunized?
jschramm —

Login to reply

Maybe, but I'm still concerned with the development of their immune systems first and foremost. A small child's immune system is not as developed as one who has a few more years under them. I, myself, have been plagued with a very poor immune system and would never put my child through the same struggles if I can help it. Because I know that my immune system is very poor, I would have to be more careful with this issue because I could have a child who has turned out just like me.
kari.mcginley —
Your reasoning is backward. The whole point of vaccines--and I don't mean most of the point, I mean the WHOLE point--is that they strengthen immune systems. There may be individual cases where they don't make sense, but a doctor should identify them. An expert.

By your logic, if you were not particularly athletic, then you would tell your child not to exercise. It's exactly the wrong decision. (In general; there may be particular reasons why it could make sense in isolated cases.)
mucker —
The challenge here is understanding that vaccines have, in fact, had a positive general outcome. BUT it was not without ?side effects? (as it is referred to in the medical community). The REAL QUESTION for all of us is whether these side effects are STILL worth it. For some things the answer may be a fairly overwhelming yes, but for others it may be deemed to be NO LONGER worth it, even if it WAS worth it just a few decades ago. I don?t believe, nor do many on the side of ?think first before just doing what everyone else does? think that there should be ZERO VACCINATIONS. It?s more a matter of which ones do we, as a society, still need, and which ones would be better suited for those who are living in or travel in high risk areas.
EBinoregon —
"It?s more a matter of which ones do we, as a society, still need, and which ones would be better suited for those who are living in or travel in high risk areas."

A very reasonable position. Certainly, benefits must be weighed against costs. But that's a question that can be asked, and answered, empirically. As citizens, we should set the policy goals and agenda, then hire people who have subject matter expertise to crunch the numbers. This is a difficult notion for many vaccine-wary people to accept.
mucker —
Mucker,
After you clean my stall, please gather up some horse handicappers to crunch the numbers about vaccines. They will tell you that over 90% of children who had their brains mangled by thimerosal have regained some function by treating the brain damage as mercury poisoning. That means the odds are less than 1 to 10 in favor of thimerosal as the cause of autism. In other words, we already have the proof that propaganda wizards like you are only trying to help Pharma cover up their crimes against children.

THere is no debate but thanks for trying to obfuscate the truth by suggesting we look at bogus studies instead of cured children to find the true answers.
Secretariat —
Prove it, please. Thank you.
MarvinAlgren —
This is SENSITIVE SUBJECT for sure. We parents don?t ever want to feel like we have "done it wrong" or even worse, done something that will hurt our children.
As such, we, as parents, are the most closed minded about anything having to do with child rearing.
This subject is particularly hard because you cannot go back and undo what you have done, so if you are a parent who vaccinated according to the recommended schedule, then you are likely not to want to even consider the possibility of whether or not that was a good decision.
For those who haven?t vaccinated at all, or very little, they don?t want to consider that maybe they should have done some part of that.
This dynamic is played out all over the parenting spectrum. People adamantly supporting positions that are in complete conflict with each other and that cannot both be correct.
THEREFORE we all, parents in particular, need to parent on purpose. NOT reactively. Think. Research. Learn.
And Parent with an open mind realizing that maybe you don?t already have all the answers.
Parent with an idea that maybe the way you learned how to parent from your parents may OR may not be the right way to do things.
EBinoregon —

Login to reply

What are some of the things being looked into that cause autism? Is there a major genetic factor leading to the cause?


My niece teaches in a grade school in San Jose, CA. She sees quite a few autistic children in this school. She has wondered if there might be a correlation between the concentration of brilliant high tech people in that population and the number of autistic children. Also, the idea that with the rise of these IT industries which would allow more brilliant people to coming together and have kids. If there is a correlation maybe this is contributing to the continual rise in the rates of autism. Maybe that in combination with immunizations.

Who knows?

Thanks,
Mr. C
Mr. Craig —

Login to reply

http://www.webmd.com/brain/autism/causes-treatment-spectrum-disorders
MarvinAlgren —
At the end of the day, it appears that OPB and TOL were after one thing with this show: Ratings. The quality of the content did not matter. The program allowed a full airing of unsubstantiated claims, with very little rebuttal by those who are researching this topic. The physician bashing on the show, and on this board, is ludicrous. The physicians I know -- and I've known a lot of them over time -- deeply care about their patients and the families they serve, and they also deeply care about evidence-based practice.

Doing so in an environment where some parents choose to ignore science in favor of the hyped-up anecdote is difficult. Yet most physicians do a very good job with this. Yes, there are always horror stories, many of which occurred before many of today's parents were born. Again, those anecdotes serve very little purpose other than to build a wall between good information and bad information.
MarvinAlgren —

Login to reply

I wholeheartedly agree. TOL usually does a better job of parsing controversial topics. I've been listening since the show's inception and have never been more disappointed. This is a topic where information has real consequences. I am sad to say that the word "irresponsible" is a shoe that fits.
mucker —
You are all so trusting of science and industry-so were the 7 astronauts aboard Challenger!
If you spend time with OPB, you should also spend time watching Bill Moyers and NOW on PBS, where the truth is often exposed. I am so surprised at the sheep like responses to life threatening issues. The people on this program have have serious issues with misinformation from medical experts. The responsibility of each of us is to make choices based on careful research. It is most foolish to assume we are not being exploited by 'well meaning' experts. We have just spent eight years being exploited by 'well meaning' and 'ethical' people. People like Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Chaney, who still defend their unconstitutional and illegal manipulation of our trust, all for the gain of profiteers. Get on with your lives and start paying attention to the present-this aint the fifties anymore! Scamming is legal because laws have been bought-if you don't get that, then go on and ride the shuttle!
rnp1thx —
Read some of my other posts on this topic. I'm by no means a blanket defender of "experts" who don't publish their results or disclose their statistical models or commit any of the various secrecy/faith-based shenanigans that Rumsfeld, Cheney, et al have committed. But the remarkable thing about science is it can be objectively reviewed, evaluated, reproduced, and improved. This is in strong contrast to many of the claims made here by anti-vaccine true believers. I think the left is equally capable of producing faith-based loonies as the right--and on the topic of vaccines, they have, in spades.

Rumsfeld and Cheney should be held accountable for the lives lost due to their malfeasance. I put the anti-vaccine crackpots in the same category.
mucker —
Exactly.
MarvinAlgren —
Your generalized response says nothing. Do you understand that? I doubt it.
MarvinAlgren —
Let me see if I follow your logic.

1. The medical industry has a financial incentive to develop and sell vaccines.

2. Anyone with a financial incentive to do something will do ANYTHING to pursue that incentive, including poisoning millions of children.

3. Anyone who listens to someone with a financial incentive to say what they are saying is a "sheep" who is unwilling or unable to think for him or herself.

4. Anyone who says anything bad about the products offered by those with a financial incentive to sell those products must be right, whatever they are saying.

Nobody who has criticized the composition of this show has said that the topic was unimportant or that a meaningful, fact based discussion should not be held about it. I would love to see both sides bring their well-conducted, peer-reviewed, scientifically valid research to the table for a fair airing. This show was not that.

And, BTW, your reference to the Challenger and the astronauts who died in that tragedy is offensive and demeaning to them and their memories. Those seven people were explorers and scientists who intimately understood the technology they were relying upon and the risks they were taking in the name of scientific advancement. Invoking them as "victims" of a profit-oriented science industry is wrong headed and belittling.
Morrolan —
You missed the point. The Saturn rocket is a superior method of space exploration. Yet, because of budgets, rather than what is best, NASA still tempts fate with the cheaper firecrackers the shuttle is now attached to. Two crashes aren't enough to stop the chance of further disasters. The same is true for the health care industry and their promotions of defective and unnecessary vaccines. If you want to make money, play poker. If you want to help people, volunteer or do it because it is right. BTW to say Chaney and Rumsfeld were faith based is pure junk. Most of these pro-industry comments are showing a compromise that is the intent of the deceptive practices of those behind the scenes. There is no leftist or rightist view-there is a correct view or a view based on deception.
Anyone who has ever had a job knows, you can't always be truthful nor ethical-business is business.( Dare I send someone to Gimbles when Macys is out of the item?) Like I said, if profit is your goal, go play poker! This serious topic is about the ability to live a normal life, not about forcing every one to accept the conclusions of charts and graphs done with slanted studies and flawed logic. I am sorry you are offended by the common persons 'unscientific' discussions about the permanent damage to their children's lives, due to expert 'help' to save society from itself. (I survived the 50s metal jungle gym at school and drank the milk handed to me from a teacher without rubber gloves on-using common sense is a good thing). TOL tries, in a short amount of time to assemble a program that attempts to get people involved. But from these responses, it sounds like a lot of you have missed a good twenty years of PBS's informative reporting on social and economic issues you don't find on AM62 or Rush L!! You might try listening to Democracy Now or KBOO if you think OPB is biased to the left! You may even find Radio Liberty is interesting on AM1330 and that is the far Right-but they are discussioning the same issues-deception of the media, and the elite public by Washington and Corporate America.
But, I appear to be wasting my time commenting to a bunch of
'logical' sophisticrats who complain about speaking of immoral profits and financially based science. Life is not an 'industry'!!!
rnp1thx —
"This serious topic is about the ability to live a normal life, not about forcing every one to accept the conclusions of charts and graphs done with slanted studies and flawed logic."

My objection to the tenor of the debate (as aired) is that it's not enough to whine that the studies are "slanted" and the logic "flawed". If the best available studies say XYZ, then the burden of proof is on their critics to demonstrate the slants, highlight the logical flaws, and participate in improving the collective understanding of the problem. That's how responsible science and responsible policy-making are done. The crackpots don't want to play that game because either they know science is not on their side or, more commonly, they don't understand enough science to speak competently about the matter, which is how they got snared into their benighted theories in the first place.

"complain about speaking of immoral profits and financially based science"

I have no issues with attacks on immoral profits or financially based science--when they are substantiated. I haven't heard that from you.

I do have issues with people who disagree with science because they are worried by it, confused by it, or would be happier in a world where strong emotional feelings are given credibility equivalent to empirical fact. Western civilization tried being ruled by those sorts of people, in an experiment now known as The Dark Ages. Then they pulled their heads out of their collective rump and produced math, physics, chemistry, biology, engineering, economics, public education, secular universities, research as a profession, the fourth estate, democracy, freedom, and, yes, sanitation, public health, and medicine. On balance, I'd say the Enlightenment wins. (People who got enslaved or colonized during that period might well disagree with the overall benevolence of that transition, but that speaks to a moral failing of Westerners, not the problem of fact vs suspicion.)

Even if some of the science on vaccinations is bad or incomplete, the answer to bad science is good science--not mumbo jumbo or, for that matter, travel writing. We don't let musicians design airplane engines or let children install electrical wiring or let dogs vote because EXPERTISE MATTERS. Normally TOL seems to recognize that. Apparently whoever ran their phone bank for this episode also compiled their guest list.

BTW, it's spelled Cheney, not Chaney. And yes, he and Rumsfeld ARE faith-based if one considers that phrase to be the antithesis of "fact-based". It does not necessarily connote religion.
mucker —
Cheney!!!-sorry my spell checker doesn't seem to recognize people who are not in the executive branch of government.
I have my degree in science, but I'm not stupid enough to get a vaccine I don't need, that may cause my inability to waste my time on blogs.
Please don't be so hard on the phone tech at OPB. It seemed that whenever the topic of drug companies came up, the phone patch went down! Cheney again? No...Halliburton is not a drug company. Oh well, I guess I'm just a conspiracy theorist-which is faith based.
You could stand a class in SocioEconomics. But I suppose you don't believe in that either.
I can tell you, those charts don't lie.
Why would you say that attacks on unethical studies and drug companies are unsubstantiated? Where do you get your news?
rnp1thx —
rpn1thx --

This note is a courtesy to say that I am clearly talking past you, so will not be responding in the future. Your responses are so erratic that I never know where to begin. Until you say something cogent and backed up with evidence, expect no reply from me. It's time to move on.
mucker —
Your not talking past anyone. You are just unable to take in any new information which doesn't fit into your rigid viewpoint so there's not much point talking to you.
The the current vaccine schedule is dangerous and unnecessary and thousands of doctors and scientists and health professionals from all fields know it. Quite a large percentage of doctors don't even vaccinate themselves against vaccine preventable diseases because they fear the vaccines. jeez-wake up.
neocon —
Please prove your assertions with actual, verifiable, peer-reviewed data.
MarvinAlgren —
I really don't have anything to add to Mucker's post. Well said.
Morrolan —
Vaccinating is good, yes. Too many vaccines at once, and vaccines with mercury - maybe not so good.

From salon.com:

When a study revealed that mercury in childhood vaccines may have caused autism in thousands of kids, the government rushed to conceal the data -- and to prevent parents from suing drug companies for their role in the epidemic.

By Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

link: http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/06/16/thimerosal/index.html
Steve.Peters —

Login to reply

Kennedy pushed the same propaganda, devoid of science and honesty in that piece.

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/letters/2005/06/22/iom_thimerosal/

For another view altogether:

http://www.neurodiversity.com/salon_letter.html
MarvinAlgren —
Check out this link regarding the aborted fetal source of some vaccines, with ethical alternatives listed:

www.cogforlife.org

And this new Seattle company working to develop ethical alternatives:

www.avmbiotech.com

noah46 —

Login to reply

Vaccinations are worth the risk and I do believe that the majority of dissenting people who are "well read" on the topic cannot be convinced otherwise. Fine. However, I would not raise my children in Ashland or in any area with a large unvaccinated population. It is foolish. Children simply cannot be safeguarded completely from exposure to other humans. Not vaccinating your children now may not be a problem but it invites problems down the road that we will not be around to witness. Most of my Native America ancestors are not here now because of simple contagion. Indeed the government on numerous occasions condoned the murder of our people simply by gifting us blankets that had been used on people with contagious disease. In this age of global travel it seems more important, not less, to be fully vaccinated. One can survive today after contracting whooping cough, measles, mumps, rubella, or even polio but there are potential consequences down the road that your children may not thank you for later. Ben Franklin himself immunized all of his children against smallpox as they were born. My bet is that his only regret was immunizing the one child that later became Colonial Governor and voted against rejecting loyalty to Britain! And by the way, Hepatitis B is NOT just a sexually transmitted infection, it can also be transmitted IV which means that people who are injured together and whose blood or body fluids co-mingle during an accidental injury can also be exposed. IV infection does not necessarily mean via needle. I didn't hear anybody clarify that during the program. People who claim a religious exemption should be required to prove it because I believe there are many in that growing unvaccinated percentage who are not being truthful.
Dr Loco —

Login to reply

Well what do you know...This was todays actual headline from Bloomberg:

"Wyeth Boosts Vaccine Dream With $1.35 Billion Crucell Courtship

Wyeth Chief Executive Officer Bernard Poussot has been refocusing the company?s research on vaccines and five other areas. Vaccines are a dependable source of sales for drugmakers because they don?t lose patent protection and are often purchased by governments. Poussot has turned Wyeth?s pneumonia vaccine Prevnar into its second best-selling product with $2.4 billion in 2007 revenue.
?Vaccines are probably one of Wyeth?s most important platforms of technology, so I think this is a smart move for them,? said David Moskowitz, an analyst with Caris & Co., in a telephone interview yesterday."

(http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=as4rY9TI49Yo&refer=home )


Wyeth!~These are the guys who promoted dual hormone therapy and killed many many trusting women!!!! This is the point! You sideline experts should know your history- talk about Percy Julien, or Florence Nightingale, or Howard Walter Florey, who didn't do their hard, dangerous work for our benefit to make a profit! The whole focus on money as motivation in healthcare is disgusting!
rnp1thx —
Well said. The germs brought to the "New World" killed far more people than any colonialist's sword, and often with malice aforethought. Entire cultures are gone. GONE. The people who doubt vaccine's value to humanity are jawdroppingly ignorant. I don't accuse them of this lightly, but it's hard to overstate the carnage that has been done by now-vaccinatable disease.
mucker —
Nice 7th grade history lesson, all very sad. You do know there were no vaccines back then don't you? And that no one on the radio show doubts vaccines have a place in our health care arsenal. The problem is they are not the panacea they have been portrayed to be and they cause a host of chronic medical conditions. It's hard to overstate the ignorance of those incapable of understanding, in spite of mountains of scientific data, that the vaccines, and the vaccine mandates in this country are dangerous and need to be thoroughly overhauled.
neocon —
Hello? Hello? Is anybody home?
MarvinAlgren —
"People who claim a religious exemption should be required to prove it because I believe there are many in that growing unvaccinated percentage who are not being truthful."
Spoken like a true Nazi Dr Loco.
neocon —
It's been a few days since this show has been on the air, and I find myself thinking about the attitude of the government people on the show and many of the people in this forum - that we should just accept what we're told.

To try to address those people politely -- Trust what we are told? Hello? Are you high?

I would love to trust without reservation the information from our government agencies, but our public agencies have proven to be unreliable.

Until such a time when the reputation of the federal government have been restored, you would be *nuts* -- really not very bright -- to accept uncritically what you are told.

Reasonable people agree that vaccination is a net positive good for our world. Now prove to us that it isn't harming our individual children.
Steve.Peters —

Login to reply

There is vaccine injury fund that has paid out 1,000,000,000 dollars to the families of those killed and maimed by vaccinations. Only a tiny fraction of those injured are ever compensated.
neocon —
Link to this fund please?
MarvinAlgren —
Western Oregon University
Profile Theatre
Umpqua Bank

Become a sponsor

© 2010, Oregon Public Broadcasting.

Search · Inside OPB · Report Reception Problems · Privacy Policy · Terms of Use · Contact Us · Pressroom · Employment · Community · Audio Streams · RSS Feeds


PBS NPR PRI BBC APM