part 1 here
For TomDVM Methyl Mercury Natural and man made sources Environmental sources
In the past, methylmercury was produced directly and indirectly as part of several industrial processes such as the manufacture of acetaldehyde. Currently there are few anthropogenic sources of methylmercury pollution other than the burning of wastes containing inorganic mercury and from the burning of fossil fuels, particularly coal. Although inorganic mercury is only a trace constituent of such fuels, their large scale combustion in the United States alone results in release of some 50 tons of elemental mercury to the atmosphere each year. About 3 times as much additional inorganic mercury is contributed by natural sources such as volcanoes, forest fires and weathering of mercury-bearing rocks.(Tewalt, Bragg & Finkelman 2005) Methylmercury is formed from inorganic mercury by the action of anaerobic organisms that live in aquatic systems including lakes, rivers, wetlands, sediments, soils and the open ocean.
“Sorry you had trouble with finding everything at the link for the McRearden contamination article. Here is a better pdf version, containing all references and footnotes”
Thanks, beehiver, that helps. I’ll reserve further comments until after I’ve finished my homework.
“perhaps public education and pressure about the issue is what needs to happen. Maybe that is what motivated McRearden to write that review paper, to help educate the public in a way that brought the documentation away from news articles, and moving it into the journal literature and even FDA’s own discussions”
I think it’s always reasonable to consider motives. Where adverse reactions to vaccines are concerned, the motives of potential litigants and their attorneys should not be hastily dismissed. Where flu vaccines in particular are concerned, I always like to point out that low uptake and antigenic shift/drift make this one of the least profitable areas a pharmaceutical company has motives for devoting its resources to. Low uptake is significantly impacted by the persistence of urban myth; the average person who shuns the vaccine is not likely to do so due to the types of concerns you (and McRearden) express; it’s going to be because he believes he can catch the virus by recieving the vaccine. Trying to educate a public addicted to the ten-second sound bite on matters not directly concerning the love-lives of celebrities can be an exercise in frustration.
“We could have endless spirited discussions surrounding details of the contamination problem. But that will not make the problem go away.”
Indeed, the “spirited” nature of those discussions often poses something of a problem in itself.
cookie flusher Thanks for the explanation.
I assume that ‘anthropogenic sources of mercury’ means that manmade sources have been removed or we think they have…and I assume that the methyl mercury in fish comes from the natural chemical reactions you mentioned in ‘aquatic systems’?
It makes me wonder why fish farmed Salmon have much higher methy- mercury levels than wild Salmon.
anon_22 at 12:57:
“far more damage is done prenatally than postnatally, as any effect on the immune or neural system is lifelong”
In a somewhat broader sense, the influence of environmental toxins is most significant for the developing embryo, somewhat less for the infant, less still for the older child, and least of all for the adult. Much development, neural development in particular, occurs postnatally, and there are numerous critical stages at which it may be significantly influenced by (say) toxins, which may, at the same levels, have little or no impact at other stages.
A human embryo starts out as a single cell, which divides into two cells, and so on. After a while, the process of “differentiation” begins; the progeny of some cells will go on to become brain cells, others liver cells, etc. A small tweak to just one cell at a critical point can end up affecting all of the cells that come after. Certain substances having little effect at one stage of the process can have dire consequences at another.
The methylmercuric-cysteinyl complex is recognized by amino acid transporting proteins in the body as methionine. This is how it gets spread throughout the body, including the brain, and it’s also why the body does not eliminate it as easily. Lead is a concern for similar reasons; the body mistakes it for calcium. Young children, with their calcium-hungry developing bones, absorb calcium (and therefore lead) more readily from the same blood levels than do adults.
One reason that methylmercury persists in aquatic biosystems is that once it enters the system, it tends to keep getting handed off from one organism to another.
Thanks, Racter.
“Much development, neural development in particular, occurs postnatally,”
I think you probably mean prenatally. :-)
BTW for those who are not familiar with the issues, bioaccumulation (the tendency for toxins to keep getting handed off from one organism to another) is much more severe in the marine than land habitat because there are far more steps in the food chain. There are studies from Asia that show a very striking correlation between maternal breast milk PCB and other toxins with the amount of seafood in the diet.
Again, this review summarizing the link between prenatal exposures and neuro-developmental disorders gives an idea of the scale of the problems.
anon_22:
“I think you probably mean prenatally.”
No, I meant postnatally. The human brain is incompletely developed at birth. It is often suggested that this is evolution’s solution to a conflict between design constraints: the brain, and therefore the head, needs to be as big as possible, but the size of the birth canal cannot be increased beyond a certain point without compromising ambulation (and making the females really weird-looking besides). I prefer to think of it as built-in flexibility. Young ungulates typically stand up and start walking alongside their mothers within hours. Human ambulation isn’t that much harder to learn, it’s that human survival depends on a wider range of abilities. If you want your critter to be capable of a wide range of complex tasks, you don’t do so much hard-wiring; instead, leave as many as possible of the final details to be completed on the fly.
Racter,
This may not be the place to go too deeply into developmental disorders, certainly the jury is still out as to how juch pre- vs postnatal influences are important in (physical) environmental correlatates of neuraldevelopmental disorders such as autistic spectrum disorders or ADHD. My original point, if we still remember how we got here :-), was the issue of proportionality, how much difference might thiomersal make in a whole generation of kids who may have practically been swimming in a sea of such toxins before they were even born.
Anon_22, You’re right, I am not against all vaccines. I also believe you know the reporting system is not simply, imperfect. It was never really started. Its funny how several posters demand data, but overlook the lack of data, purposely not recorded about vaccines. They then base their arguments on recent “reports” from agencies that have an obvious desire for the continuation of the current vaccine system. This is how they determine “risk/benefit”? Scary.
“how much difference might thiomersal make in a whole generation of kids who may have practically been swimming in a sea of such toxins before they were even born.”
I’m sure most readers are aware that many children developed symptoms, such as a drastic change in their behavior, shortly after receiving vaccines. Is this a coincidence, anon_22? I’ll assume you don’t think this. I’m sure Racter is chomping at the bit to blame attorneys and parents, again. We will just wait and see. The fact is, the medical community observed these reactions many, many, years ago. These observations were recorded in a medical journal. As time passed, the popularity of “Herd Immunity” grew and the observations shrank. This information is easy to find. Good luck, readers. The human conscience can cause the most ridiculous justifications. Unfortunately, it’s our kids that really suffer. I’m not suggesting we stop vaccinations. I’m simply asking for the truth. I don’t want individuals like Racter, making health decisions for my family. I have a feeling, his benefit is not worth my child’s risk. Gather and solve.
“This may not be the place to go too deeply into developmental disorders.”
Oh sorry. Yeah. Don’t get me started, I guess.
The subject of vaccine safety is an emotionally charged one for a lot of us. Me, I’m high risk, so the idea of being exposed is scary. I’ve had lots of practice at social distancing. Most people don’t think too much about flu, even during flu season, and of those that do, most don’t seem to be very informed as to how it’s transmitted, and even if they were, I’m a bit cynical about how much thought they would give to how their behaviors impact others.
In making the decision as to whether the kids are healthy enough to send to school, for example, I think a lot of parents don’t give much priority to how contagious they might be. The idea that just having contact with a person with flu makes you a likely candidate for passing the bug around even though you may still feel fine, is something most people just don’t seem ready to wrap their heads around. They’re used to thinking of it as a sort of lottery, like: “if there’s a bug out there with your name on it, there’s nothing you can do about it”. The concept: “contagious before symptoms” is one that takes most people by surprise. Added to the self-centeredness, that sort of ignorance increases the risk for me, and the fear factor along with it. Among the possible responses to that fear, anger is the one that seems to come most naturally. Unfortunately, anger is not a mental state conducive to rational evaluation of evidence. This is why breathing is so important.
The risk of complications from influenza is high enough for me that going around unvaccinated is pretty much out of the question. If they told me that they knew for sure that I had a one-in-a-hundred chance of an adverse reaction, I’d take the jab anyway; that’s better odds than I’d get from the virus. Naturally, I’d like it best if everyone got vaccinated, but beyond a few family members, I can’t realistically expect others to do that just to protect me, especially if they aren’t even considerate enough to cover their mouths when they cough, or keep their sick kids home from school. Besides, some of them may not even like me, and it’s apparently going too far (in current U.S. culture anyway) to ask people to put themselves out for others whom they don’t even like.
Sarah:
“I don’t want individuals like Racter, making health decisions for my family.”
Dang, and I promised the storm troopers I’d take them to pizza after your forced vaccination.
By walking around unvaccinated, YOU are already making health decisions for MY family. You’re an immunological freeloader. You enjoy the benefits of vaccination without the risks. You are protected by the immunity of those around you who do accept the risk of vaccination. Let me ask you this: would you consider the risk of vaccination to be a more acceptable tradeoff for someone with an immunocompromised child?
Racter. Just don’t assume that the current seasonal flu vaccines are protecting you and a false sense of security leads you to take additional risks because you believe you are protected…
..because the odds indicate that you are far more likely to have no protection as a result of initial vaccination and boosters etc.
…and I for one doesn’t want anything to happen to you…even if you are eracable. /:0)
Racter,
Get off being personal.
Sarah,
“I’m sure most readers are aware that many children developed symptoms, such as a drastic change in their behavior, shortly after receiving vaccines. Is this a coincidence, anon_22? I’ll assume you don’t think this.”
There are quite a lot of disorders that have prenatal or genetic predisposing causes and then get triggered by postnatal environmental causes. Vaccines would be one of them. FYI.
The difficulty is in identifying who are the kids who ar likely to be susceptible to adverse effects. Sometimes we can, often it is very hard. If you are talking about vaccinations in infancy.
“Just don’t assume that the current seasonal flu vaccines are protecting you and a false sense of security leads you to take additional risks because you believe you are protected.”
Like going to the grocery store?
“Get off being personal. ”
I’m not being personal. My statement is directed to anyone who refuses vaccination. And it isn’t offered so much as a statement of fact as a statement about my emotional reaction. I’m saying: “here’s what my gut reaction to this is, and I concede that this reaction my be clouding my judgement; feel free to talk me out of it if you can”.
Racter,
“I’m not being personal.”
“By walking around unvaccinated, YOU are already making health decisions for MY family. You’re an immunological freeloader. You enjoy the benefits of vaccination without the risks. You are protected by the immunity of those around you who do accept the risk of vaccination. Let me ask you this: would you consider the risk of vaccination to be a more acceptable tradeoff for someone with an immunocompromised child?”
Just try to use the word ‘you’ less frequently. Give everyone a break, ok?
I’m saying: “here’s what my gut reaction to this is, and I concede that this reaction my be clouding my judgement; feel free to talk me out of it if you can”.
Actually, it’s more than than that. I’m saying:
“Here we are trying to conduct a rational examination of the facts of this issue, and time and again, we find ourselves unable to do so because this issue IS PERSONAL for each and every one of us persons. Some of us fear the illness more than the cure, and some the other way around, but we are all afraid, and when we get scared, we get angry. We want to kick something. But the dangers we face here are not visible to the naked eye, so we kick each other instead. But we don’t notice it so much when we’re the kicker as when we’re the kickee. If there is any hope of us learning anything from each other here, it’s going to have to be more than a butt-kicking contest, and maybe the best way to get past that is to take a look at just what it is we’re afraid of, and so here I am going first”.
Hi Racter at 10:01,
“You are protected by the immunity of those around you who do accept the risk of vaccination.”
But if we take the example of what I posted in part one of this thread (at 10:28) about chickenpox vaccinations - that breakthrough infections can occur in up to 56% percent of vaccinated individuals, and that those individuals are often highly infectious even though their symptoms might be considered mild…then the tables are turned. The ones that did not accept vaccination can be at particular risk from the ones that did, if a breakthrough infection occurs. And, the reports show that with this particular vaccine, protection seems to wane significantly the second year.
I don’t know how often breakthrough infections happen with influenza vaccine, obviously any stats would be clouded by viral strain variants. To do a research project on that would require that every participant who received vaccination and got ill get the offending virus sequenced to determine whether it was the same strain as the vaccine, or not. That would significantly raise the cost of the project. And, sometimes respiratory illness will also be caused by viruses other than influenza, but yet perceived to be “flu” (especially by general public).
I fully concur that a large effort is needed in the public health arena to teach people safer methods of coughing, sneezing, and keeping ill people out of the workplace, schools, and public places. The faculty at schools would need to become much more flexible than they often are, because kids are scared of missing too many classes or tests - especially at high schools and universities. Some faculty have no sensitivity to these issues whatsoever - and are on one heck of a power trip.
I do empathize with your situation, you bring up important issues. If the illness we were talking about would be cholera for instance, the public would be on a very fast learning curve how to avoid and prevent it. And that may need to happen with pandemic influenza.
These issues are complex, and no one answer seems to fit every situation. But good public health habits, good nutrition, good water sources, and less toxins could go a long way towards easing some of the problems staring us in the face.
beehiver, Racter is well aware of the information in your post. Racter, your life is not worth a risk to my child, because you will not accept responsibility for the risk. If you believe in “Herd Immunity” you must take care of the herd. That includes families that take the vaccine risk and pay the price. You have not and you never will. As a matter of fact, you turn your back and claim there is no “data”. Good luck. You may want to stay inside. I’m not alone. By the way, my son is going to yoga today. I’ll give you a little wink when they practice breathing. Peace&Health.
anon_22:
At the risk of being labelled as being personal…IMO your (I’m sure unintentional) bias is showing in the above posts…the utilization of a poster’s name is infinitely more personal (8:05) vs. the utilization of the pronoun “you”.
<we now return to our regular programming>
An aspect of this vaccination/panflu issue that alters our perspectives is the type of healthcare system in our respective countries. My DH was raised and lived in Canada until the last decade. He and I have had NUMEROUS arguments about healthcare because we see the issue from different perspectives. It took years to understand what a vast difference this makes. And I see this issue perhaps unknowingly, playing a role in many of the threads we see here.
My comments about the varicella vaccine and the risk/benefit ratio of a “minor” virus plays into this issue. I understand that you are in the UK. That may be an erroneous assumption. And I do not know the exact mechanism or the requirements that your healthcare system mandates regarding vaccinations.
What I learned during these marathon debates, was that in a socialized system, so much more was devoted to prevention than in the US system. That part I envied. The mindset that the government is responsible for the healthcare of it’s citizens BECAUSE IT PAYS FOR IT, creates a different type of system. (So does our legal system, but that is another thread).
A child in a socialized system that gets chickenpox, gets the usual care from their pediatrician. Anyone exposed to that child gets the same care by their physicians. Any complications get taken care of by governmental edict (albeit via higher citizen taxation). There may even be assistance with sick childcare for working parents.
In the US, (most) citizens have to pay for immunizations or any other preventative care. A child that gets ill with that “minor” virus incurs another expense for the parents, including any meds, and time off from work (often not compensated). Any elderly, immunocompromised, or pregnant women exposed also have to endure that expense and/or sequelae.
My DH says that “in his day” the kids were all lined up and innoculated in school, without regard of parental consent. Probably not so today, but it was mandatory for them to be innoculated to attend school. Has this changed?
Stockpiling of antivirals and even acquisition of a panflu vaccine will be and is different in our healthcare systems. Socialized countries have greater access to antivirals now because their governments are responsible for their individual healthcare. In the US, each individual is responsible. That changes everything.
Yes, that changes everything. And it is the “elephant in the room” that can not be ignored when speaking of healthcare issues. When I speak of a risk/benefit ratio, and you speak of a cost/benefit ratio, we look at the same issue with different eyes, whether it be vaccinations or a panflu.
H everyone. Something to keep in mind here is that we are talking about a total of 200 million people during the next pandemic that may have the priviledge or curse of being vaccinated…depends how you look at it.
Really, for all of us on flu wiki and more importantly our children…it is not going to be an option anyway.
And if you notice…there production systems fail about half the time when producing the much easier seasonal influenza…in a pandemic the pressures under which they will work will be many multiples of this and the chance of production failures…very likely.
We have to come up with other alternatives!!
nsthesia – at 11:51
I’m not sure I’m understanding you. Maybe its because of the perception of where I live. Actually it is only where I live currently. Without giving out too many personal details, I’ve lived in several different countries and practiced medicine in other different ones. So my remarks are more based on a theoretical/general sense than with any context of the type of healthcare system in mind. :-)
Please enlighten me some more cos I think you’ve got some good points. I’m just confused. :-)
BTW do not have any illusions about the benefits of a socialized system. It most commonly result in equity only to bring everyone down to the lowest common denominator. I’m not sure that it is worth it. For what it’w worth, a recent OECD report places the UK 24th of 27th countries (or something in that range) for healthcare outcomes.
nesthesia at 11:51, thank you for your input…have not seen this issue of “medical responsibility” put quite so clearly anywhere, it is certainly food for thought.
beehiver, your comments at 11:34 shows precisely how there isn’t a one-size-fit-all answer to vaccines. I’m specifically talking about chickepox vaccine vs influenza vaccine. Even though they are both vaccines, the implications and imperatives are very different. As are their effectiveness vis-a-vis personal vs collective health outcomes.
So perhaps its not very fruitful to debate across all vaccination issues, but rather picks specific vaccines and debate those.
As far as vaccine production and protection of these producers in the US…
Companies that produce vaccines in Canada and Europe already have protection from general litigation. We did not have that here. In Canada, vaccine production is a result of corporate and provincial interaction. The vaccines are produced, the government buys the lot and distributes it accordingly. These corporations are not held liable for adverse reactions UNLESS there is a gross negligence intentionally committed.
Many of these countries in Europe produce vaccines for their own use. Their governments purchase the products from these corporations, thereby ensuring survival for corporations whose product may or may not be utilized consistently every year.
In the US, private corporations have been held responsible and litigated for often frivolous suits. Inconsistent purchase of their products, with minimal governmental purchase, made for a tenuous environment. That is what has put the US in the situation it now finds itself…no companies willing to risk vaccine production without governmental protection (like in OTHER developed countries). It has also made us dependent on “foreign” countries for the acquisition of these vaccines.
Not a good position to be in. The playing field needed to be leveled.
We keep talking apples and oranges when speaking of these issues. It may be beneficial to look outside of our own countries to understand we each have significant differences. Yet, we each think the other thinks as we do and has the same experiences. Wrong assumption - one that causes wars. Our differences must be understood to be resolved.
nsthesia – at 12:29
Thank you. Most excellent point. Various people have been pushing for harmonization for the purpose of pandemic vaccine production. It just is not happening.
“These corporations are not held liable for adverse reactions UNLESS there is a gross negligence intentionally committed.”
nsthesia
Are you sure about your Canadian information? I am from Canada and have heard nothing of legal escapes from vaccine incidents.
Also regarding the comments on socialized medicine…at least I don’t loose my house if I am unfortunate to become seriously ill or a member of my family becomes seriously ill.
I won’t comment on other countries because I do not think it is ethical but I am quite happy with the balance in our system at present…even if I have been less than happy with some of the treatment I have recieved within this system.
NSarah1:
“If you believe in Herd Immunity you must take care of the herd. That includes families that take the vaccine risk and pay the price.”
You’ve got a good point there. With the gentle guidance of patient souls such as yourself, I’m beginning to see that I may not always have given that as much consideration as it deserves. How to address that without driving litigation-conscious pharmaceutical companies off the field entirely remains a puzzle, but maybe a payoff in increased public confidence, and an accompanying increase in the market for vaccines, would help keep them motivated.
“You have not and you never will. As a matter of fact, you turn your back and claim there is no data.”
Here, you indulge in unnecessarily inflammatory language. You (as a representative of the “anti-vax” stance) are angry because you feel that I (as a representative of the “pro-vax” stance) have turned my back on relevant data. Your anger is justified only if what you say is true: that important data have been hidden or deliberately ignored. Your anger doesn’t MAKE it true, yet you often seem to argue as if you feel it does. Are you really afraid that someone will force you to get vaccinated?
Perhaps what is really in dispute is not so much data, but interpretations of data, and with the biases which always appear so glaring when they belong to somebody else. It’s interesting that while my default assumption is that bias is always present, and that the biases that will always be both the most limiting for me and the most difficult to spot are my own, noting that does little to help actually identify them. For that, I need help from someone like you, but it only works if you support your observations with something I can sink my teeth into. I’ve asked a number of times to see what you’ve got. If you can’t provide anything because “the data are hidden”, then my logic modules want to know: if the data are hidden, how can you know about them? Are your arguments based on data that might exist? Because that’s a pretty slippery slope.
anon_22:
“perhaps its not very fruitful to debate across all vaccination issues, but rather picks specific vaccines and debate those.”
I keep thinking it might be best to go in the other direction, and start one level up, with a “meta-discussion” about the best way to discuss the issues. We inevitably end up doing a lot of that anyway, but seldom in a very productive way, and only after reaching a point of impasse over minutiae. Nsthesia says it well: Our differences must be understood to be resolved. I don’t see our differences to propagate upward from the level of minutiae; they start somewhere above there, and work down. As we arrive at the level of minutiae by different paths, we see things differently. I wonder if we can at least agree that the high ground is unoccupied; that no one speaks from a position which is superior by virtue of being free from personal biases, fears, and frustrations?
Hi all, Why all the concern? Since a true vacine most likely can’t be developed/manufactured until 6 months post first wave. It appears to me it will not be produced. Without a reliable power grid, the odds of a vacine being produced are slim to none. I do believe that is why so many countries are trying to develope something now. There thoughts being… Some resistance is better than none at all. Does this make any sense or am I barking up the wrong egg? gina
Racter,
“Nsthesia says it well: Our differences must be understood to be resolved.”
Differences don’t always have to be resolved. We can just be different.
There’s not enough time in my life to resolve everything around vaccination or indeed any topic. So there! :-)
One thing I do not understand: If there is protection in the federal law for drug companies against getting sued for vaccine reactions, what possible argument is there to hide relevant data? It seems to me that if you provide legal protection like that, it should be completely mandatory to report and publicize all adverse outcomes. You still might not get all events due to long-term and subtle complications, but there is no rationale I can see for combining legal protection and secrecy.
“Since a true vacine most likely can’t be developed/manufactured until 6 months post first wave. It appears to me it will not be produced. Without a reliable power grid, the odds of a vacine being produced are slim to none.”
Gina (and Tom), pandemic flu isn’t the only issue; there are ongoing disputes over vaccination policies, efficacy, safety, etc. This winter, somewhere around 36,000 Americans will die from seasonal influenza alone even if H5N1 doesn’t go pandemic (and some unknown but presumably much smaller number from adverse reactions to flu vaccines). I’m not as quick as some to automatically assume that power grids will fail, but one thing that appears clear is that resolving the differences over vaccines won’t suddenly become easy in the teeth of a pandemic, even if the lights stay on. As things stand, even if we had a foolproof vaccine ready to go, and in quantities sufficient to give everyone a dose, a lot of people would probably choose to take their chances with the virus anyway. It can be a life-or-death decision, even in the absence of a pandemic, and I suspect that the average fluwikian, regardless of his position, has given the matter a lot more thought than the vast majority of his neighbors. In fact, if there’s one thing we all seem to agree on, it’s that for most, whatever the decision is, it is not likely to be a well-informed one; people mostly just follow their gut instincts on this.
INFOMASS:
“If there is protection in the federal law for drug companies against getting sued for vaccine reactions, what possible argument is there to hide relevant data?”
Excellent point. “To maintain high confidence among the public and thereby increase sales” is the answer I’d expect.
TomDVM:
“Unlike many western countries which recognize and compensate vaccine injuries, Canada offers no recognition nor compensation when vaccine damage occurs - except for the province of Quebec.”
I don’t remember where I read it, but I read where compensation for a wrongful death in Canada was limited to $30,000. My understanding is that the trend is to change that, but historically, it has been quite difficult to successfully win monetary compensation there.
DH has contacts in Canada and runs a biomedical company. He will ask one of his Canadian scientists for more info tomorrow to see if anything has changed regarding litigation…
nsthesia. Thanks. I do not thik that wrongful death suits are limited to 30,000$. The only place I have heard of anything similar is no fault car insurance that I think limits injury claims.
I think it is just that Canada seems to follow the trends in the United States approx. ten years later.
Canadian Farmers presently are two years into a class action against Government and regulators for nine billion dollars over the BSE outbreak. They are going to win that lawsuit and I’m not sure if there ever has been one this big in the USA.
“In the US, private corporations have been held responsible and litigated for often frivolous suits.” “That is what has put the US in the situation it now finds itself…no companies willing to risk vaccine production without governmental protection (like in OTHER developed countries). It has also made us dependent on “foreign” countries for the acquisition of these vaccines.”
Or, vaccines can cause severe side-effects. The true risk/benefit is not known. The vaccine professionals did not keep accurate data and/or, like the Tobacco Industry, never revealed it. Now they find themselves in a precarious situation. The US public has already witnessed a huge cover-up involving research that showed the detrimental effects of a product (tobacco). American law firms are more then capable of exposing the truth and American juries will reward them. Run, pharmaceutical companies, run. Or, you can blame it on attorneys and the parents of sick children. The risk that needs to be taken in this situation is this. Vaccine “professionals” need to be honest and risk telling the truth. Yes, it may cause some parents not to vaccinate. Yes, it may cost the industry a lot of money. However, to continue denying the risks and producing bogus “risk/benefit” numbers in an attempt to show how safe vaccines are, is going to perpetuate the growing distrust a huge portion of the US public has toward vaccines. If the public feels it has been lied to about one type of vaccine, it will not trust “professionals” advice on another. I am not “anti-vaccine”. I think the concept of vaccines is great. I have a problem with dishonesty. It alienates the public and in the long run undermines the industry. Protecting “Herd Immunity” at the expense of truth has killed it. Now we have millions of Americans not vaccinating and the number is growing each year. Gather and Solve.
Wow quite the hot-button issue I see. Since I do not have children that I am aware of :) I think I can comment emotion free. From a scientific approach there are mountains of papers that directly link thimerosal in vaccines to developmental problems, mainly autism. I personally think there is a link and it all depends on when you get exposed, how much you get exposed, your genetics, and pure luck. Personally when I have to vaccinate my children I will request the vaccines not come from bulk bottles which contain thimerosal but from single use injections that can be ordered thimerosal free.
What does all this have to do with AF. Plenty, since the current vaccine will have it in there. I asked in the clinical trial, always nice to know your injecting toxins into your body. If there is a pandemic vaccine they will not make it as a single injection dose it will be in multi-dose bottles as is the current vaccine. But what are you going to do face an infinitely small risk of thimerosal or face BF unvaccinated.
As an adult I do not worry about thimerosal in the vaccine as my exposure to body size is vastly different than an infants and if anything my brain is getting smaller not larger (umm beer). But there is always a risk, so is life.
As far as heard immunity goes I think it is irresponsible because like someone else stated you are making medical decisions for others. Although if your reading this its prob preaching to the choir. Plus in the recent past there have been outbreaks in children of common preventable disease because heard immunity was being depended on to greatly.
The NYT today (Tuesday) had an article about smallpox vaccinations. It turns out that the strain of smallpox virus used has a huge impact on the side effects, including deaths. The study found that the European strains (Lister and Copenhagen, among others) were much more dangerous than the NY strain used in the US. However, the story did mention that (paraphrasing) you do not know the side-effects until you have lots of vaccinations and observe the effects! Bottom line? First, there are serious studies of SOME vaccinations that report negative results. Second, if we paid more attention to details like mercury, adjuvants or strains, we might reduce the risk. Third, if we have a proposed H5N1 vaccine, we cannot make an informed guess about the risk/reward tradeoff until millions have been vaccinated and we find out its effects on immunity (which could be low or not) as well as its side-effects. Overall, a mess.
“Vaccine professionals need to be honest and risk telling the truth.”
I have two problems with this. One is that it assumes facts not in evidence. In this regard, it’s reminiscent of the old “is it true that you’re still beating your wife?”. It’s typical of what passes for critical thinking in these times of “trial by accusation” and “trial by media”.
The other is that no matter how much evidence is presented, those who are not satisfied with what it indicates will always be able to issue the same complaint: “there isn’t enough evidence; it hasn’t been studied thoroughly enough, the real evidence is hidden”, etc.
“American law firms are more then capable of exposing the truth”
If law firms are the custodians of truth in America, I’d say we’re all in big trouble.
“American juries will reward them.”
An American jury awarded Stella Liebeck several million dollars for spilling a cup of coffee on herself. If what American juries will or won’t award is the test for what’s true and what’s right, I’d say we’re all in big trouble. Litigation too is a business.
“If the public feels it has been lied to about one type of vaccine, it will not trust professionals advice on another”.
There’s something we agree on. And convincing the public that they’ve been lied to is not difficult. It hardly requires any evidence at all; indeed, since the public’s attention span is largely limited to the ten-second sound bite and the two-minute news clip, the quickest way to bore them is to try to get them to look at evidence. Americans want to be told that they’ve been lied to. They love a good conspiracy theory. Surprising numbers of them still cling to the notion that their government has lied to them for decades about the recovery of an alien spacecraft in the New Mexico desert. The American public feels that it has been lied to about the H5N1 threat; if they didn’t, they’d be prepping, and they aren’t. If whether the American public feels it has been lied to about something is the test for whether that thing is true, I’d say we’re all in big trouble.
“And convincing the public that they’ve been lied to is not difficult. It hardly requires any evidence at all; indeed, since the public’s attention span is largely limited to the ten-second sound bite and the two-minute news clip, the quickest way to bore them is to try to get them to look at evidence. Americans want to be told that they’ve been lied to.” All hail King Racter! Wow, did I peg you or what? The families I know that chose not to vaccinate are well-educated and very health conscious. My family does not have cable or even the local channels. Many of the families we visit with share the same philosophy. Sorry, Racter, the big, bad portion of the public that chose not to vaccinate are not all simpletons. Quite the opposite. “You have not and you never will” So true, so true. Stay inside, Racter. The aliens are coming, sorry, I mean attorneys. Sometimes I think you have to be joking.
Sarrah, I respectfully disagree that “families I know that chose not to vaccinate are well-educated …”. It takes little education to act in one’s own self-interest. What really takes education is to act in the interest of a greater group. It is the non-intuitive, altruistic recognition that cooperation buys more than selfisness that must be learned. You and your friends have chosen to act in your own self-interest, and to shut out information from the outside world, preferring your own internal ‘story’. Fine. But, because it is a story, you are unfortunately unable to provide any facts to back it up. I agree that the nonvaccinating community are not simpletons. Selfish is one term that comes to mind, although there are others.
beehiver – at 11:34 writes about breakthru infections from vaccinated individuals, and the fact that they are often infectious to others. Then he/she mentions possible breakthru infection from the flu vaccine. Is that possible? I have always heard that it is ABSOLUTELY NOT POSSIBLE to get the flu from the vaccine.
I ask because my mom had never had the flu in her life. One year her doc hounded her into taking the vaccine and right after that she got the flu for the one and only time in her life. She has refused the vaccine ever since. The doc swears the vaccine could not have caused her to get the flu.
I have always heard that it is ABSOLUTELY NOT POSSIBLE to get the flu from the vaccine.
The commonest form of flu vaccine is the inactivated subunit vaccine, ie there are no live virus particles, whereas the chickenpox vaccine is a live attenuated vaccine.
Anonymous, “your life is not worth a risk to my child, because you will not accept responsibility for the risk. If you believe in “Herd Immunity” you must take care of the herd. That includes families that take the vaccine risk and pay the price. You have not and you never will. As a matter of fact, you turn your back and claim there is no “data”. Good luck. You may want to stay inside. I’m not alone” It’s the act of a coward to demand a risk and then ignore the fallen. It’s pathetic and a little creepy, when the same individual grows angry at parents for not participating. Selfish is one term that comes to mind, insane, is another.
anon_22 at 21:18, You say the “commonest” form of the flu vaccine has no live particles. Does that mean that some flu vaccines have live viruses?
A lot of my focus is on influenza, because I have for some time considered this to be the single greatest threat to my life (at least during those times when I am not travelling by automobile). To all those who have, thanks to H5N1, recently begun also to percieve flu in this way: welcome to my world. While you plan for social distancing, I’ll be practicing it, just as I have done for a number of winters. Thanks for the tip, Sarah, but I really don’t need you to tell me to stay inside; for me, it’s a no-brainer during flu season, especially with all those unvaccinated people running around. (By the way, have you considered the question I asked above? In case you forgot, here it is again: would you consider the risk of vaccination to be a more acceptable tradeoff for someone with an immunocompromised child?)
Most people don’t consider seasonal influenza to be a serious threat; and to most, it isn’t; not life-threatening, anyway. But every year, roughly a tenth to a fifth of the population will spend a week flat on their backs with flu at some point, at a cost in lost production estimated in billions of dollars (if that’s the sort of thing that works for you). Despite this, roughly eighty percent continue to decline the vaccine.
Of this majority, there are those who decline because they don’t like needles, those who decline because they don’t want to pay, because they don’t think they have time, because they think they’ll get the virus from the vax, because they think whatever exercise or vitamin regimen they’re on will protect them, because they don’t think the vax will work, because they just don’t think about it — and there are those who decline because they just don’t think. People at all levels of income and education can be included among one or more of these groups, and I would differentiate between these and the broader non-vaccinating community.
That community includes both non-vaxers and anti-vaxers, and for convenience, I tend to lump these together into a single category. I shouldn’t do that. The former are those who have been persuaded that the risk of any vaccine outweighs the potential benefits (and some who object to the whole idea on religious grounds; that many of these home school their kids is something we can all be happy about).
The latter, the anti-vaxers, are on a mission. For them, it’s not merely a stance; it’s a movement. They see themselves as crusaders against the evils of “Big Pharma”, who ride in the same car as “Big Tobacco”. This, in fact, is a comparison they make at every opportunity. It’s low overhead; most folks can connect the dots in a second, without bothering with “evidence”; they’re already predisposed to distrusting anything big anyway; business, government, whatever. It’s an appeal to intuition. The disseminators of antivax propaganda are not all simpletons; some of them seem quite skilled at psychological manipulation. They know their audience, and they know better than to bore them with facts; they stick with anecdotes, testimonials, poster-children, appeals to emotion and intuition. They howl about the suffering big pharma causes — if they are right — yet I seldom see much willingness to acknowledge the suffering their “information campaign” causes if they are wrong. That doesn’t seem to be a possibility they are willing to consider; they have a responsibility to do that, and I don’t see it being met, and the irony is that this is precisely their main beef with big pharma.
Sarah:
“My family does not have cable or even the local channels.”
I’ll give you points there; that’s a plus in my book. I don’t do TV either. As bitter as our dispute here may be, I wouldn’t be surprised if we got along fine IRL. (Just not during flu season).
“The aliens are coming, sorry, I mean attorneys.”
I have news for you; the attorneys aren’t coming; theeyyy’re HEEERE.
dd at 21:05.
That’s a very good question you bring up. But it’s been my understanding that a “breakthrough” infection refers to a vaccinated individual that gets a circulating wild-type infection (not an infection from the vaccine). If someone else has a different understand of the term “breakthrough”, please correct me. Tom DVM? Anon_22?
If my memory serves me correctly, about 60-some percent of the mumps infections in Iowa early this summer (or perhaps it was the midwest in general, I just don’t remember) occurred in individuals that had been previously vaccinated. Those would be considered breakthrough infections.
“my mom had never had the flu in her life. One year her doc hounded her into taking the vaccine and right after that she got the flu for the one and only time in her life. She has refused the vaccine ever since.”
There it is. Post hoc, ergo promter hoc.
Definition: An infection, caused by the infectious agent the vaccine is designed to protect against, that occurs during the course of a vaccine trial. These infections may be caused by exposure to the infectious agent before the vaccine has taken effect, or before all doses of the vaccine have been given.
dd – at 22:53 “anon_22 at 21:18, You say the “commonest” form of the flu vaccine has no live particles. Does that mean that some flu vaccines have live viruses?”
Flumist is a live attenuated vaccine adminstered by nasal spray.
beehiver – at 00:02 dd at 21:05.
That’s a very good question you bring up. But it’s been my understanding that a “breakthrough” infection refers to a vaccinated individual that gets a circulating wild-type infection (not an infection from the vaccine).
Correct.
I didn’t get whether you were referring to infection by the vaccine in your remarks, but that would be the meaning of the phrase.
anon_22 and racter - my misunderstanding about breakthru infection. I am still curious if the flu vaccine itself could cause a flu infection.. Since flumist has live virus, could it somehow infect the person receiving it or some one they come in contact with?
racter at 00:45 - the flu infection could have been a coincidence, but the timing sure looked suspicious - once out of 75 years. I certainly can’t fault her for asking questions. I also can’t fault her for not getting the vaccine for something she doesn’t get anyway. I know of numerous people who get the vaccine and then still get the flu.
Of course vaccinating everyone for the flu is a moot point anyway. It seems like alot years there is some sort of shortage. It was last year or the year before, they were interviewing hysterical people who were waiting in lines for hours for the vaccine, because they were convinced that they would die for sure if they didn’t get it. So even if everyone was willing to get it, it just wouldn’t be possible.
I’m not anti-vaccine. I’m not part of a “movement”. I used a variety of sources to make my vaccine choice. That includes talking with other parents. Some of them had children that grew ill after receiving vaccines. Two of the parents were medical professionals. I also observed the behavior of the pharmaceutical industry. Let’s not forget, most pharmaceutical companies have the best lawyers money can buy. “Frivolous lawsuits”, right. “It’s the act of a coward to demand a risk and then ignore the fallen. It’s pathetic and a little creepy, when the same individual grows angry at parents for not participating. Selfish is one term that comes to mind, insane, is another.” Good bye, Racter. You have reinforced my vaccine choice. Thank you. I hope the last part of your life journey ends in peace and happiness. The answer to your question is, no. Now get outside and play. dd, I have heard many similar stories.
dd:
“Since flumist has live virus, could it somehow infect the person receiving it or some one they come in contact with?”
Yes. Especially if either the person recieving the vax or someone with whom they have close contact is immunocompromised in some way. But it’s rare; currently estimated at 0.6 to 2.4 percent. This risk is significantly lower than the risk of contracting flu from natural sources (and transmitting it). Those odds are roughly 1 in 5 during severe seasonal epidemics, and 1 in 20 during mild ones.
“I certainly can’t fault her for asking questions.”
I hope you can’t fault me for asking questions about her questions. Establishing causal links can be hard enough even for those specially trained for it; the intuitive default assumption is that if two events occur around the same time, they are causally connected. This works some of the time, and fails spectacularly the rest of the time.
“I know of numerous people who get the vaccine and then still get the flu.”
I’ve known a number of people in their nineties who smoked like chimmneys since they were teenagers, but it doesn’t mean much standing next to statistics which include millions of people. The jury is in: if you want to live into your nineties, don’t smoke.
“It seems like alot years there is some sort of shortage.”
Problems with distribution often cause temporary localized shortages, but millions of unused doses are discarded every year. If you take into consideration the number of others to whom each (successfully) vaccinated person won’t be passing the virus on, you don’t need to vaccinate every single one of them anyway.
Racter. This is off topic but I finally got one to give you in return for that one in March.
Friendship prayer…May the fleas of a thousand camels infest the crotch of the person who screws up your day and may their arms be too short to scratch…Amen.
/:0)
Tom: I like it.
So Sarah, here we are still having trouble sticking to the facts on this issue, and the problem still seems to be that we get too worked up about it. Obviously, the problem isn’t that you get too worked up about it, though I confess that I experience the temptation to adopt that viewpoint. That’s because I get too worked up about it myself, and when I get all worked up, I have a hard time seeing things rationally. But I tend to think I am seeing things rationally. Because I’m not seeing things rationally. This might be as good a working definition of “insanity” as one could ask for, so I’ll stipulate to that. I’ve tried to look at why it is that I get so worked up, and the first thing I come up with is: fear. Influenza in particular scares the crap out of me. Besides anger, selfishness tends to be another byproduct of fear, so I’ll stipulate to that as well. Pathetic and creepy I have a little more trouble digesting.
My own fear I think I understand; it’s that some unvaccinated person will expose me to influenza, and as a result, I’ll die, and there’s not much I can do about it short of going into total isolation. I isolate as much as I can, but total isolation is tough to sustain for long periods. I rely a lot on handwashing and alcohol gel, and I’ve developed some pretty good habits as far as being careful about what I touch, but during times when I consider the risk high, I’m never very comfortable around others. If they start coughing or sneezing, I won’t hesitate to get up and walk out. I’m not sure what else to do, except to continue to put one foot in front of the other, and remember to breathe.
On the assumption that your passionate involvement in this discussion is similarly driven by fear (hence the flaws in your reasoning which appear as glaring to me as mine do to you), I’ve invited you to examine your own fears. As you have declined this invitation, maybe I’ll just have a quick go at it myself, and if you’d like, perhaps you could check my work and offer any corrections you may feel are indicated.
If all you feared was a bad outcome from a vaccine, you wouldn’t be acting like a person who was still afraid. Just don’t vax, and hey presto, problem solved, fear gone. I considered the possibility that you genuinely are afraid that you will be forced to submit to vaccination against your will, but that doesn’t feel right; there would be more of a “political fringe” flavor to your language. My best guess at this point is that what you fear most of all is that you are wrong. Not vaccinating your children is a big decision, and you know that, and as a parent, I know what it’s like to agonize over decisions regarding one’s children. It never was my intent to cause you further torment, and if I’ve done that, I do apologize.
I will further confess that one of the things that drives me is that some people I care about have also chosen not to vaccinate (and some have had the choice made for them), and I’m trying to get a better grasp on the reasoning. As “evidence” supporting their case, they present some of the same arguments you have presented, like having talked with other parents some of whom had children that grew ill after receiving vaccines — which, to me, is like talking to the guy that smoked since a teenager and lived to be ninety. It’s called a “small sample set”.
Racter:
A yoga-inspired, body/soul response if ever I read one…
“Convince a (wo)man against his will and you convince him not.”
racter, I certainly don’t fault you for asking questions. That’s the only way anyone is ever going to learn anything. I agree it is very hard to find causal links, even when you are looking for them. Sometimes there is an interplay of several variables and that makes it very difficult to establish cause.
What concerns me is when people don’t want to look at a situation because it is complicated. Or worse, where they might have a motive for not looking at a problem. Pharmaceutical company and doctor profits would take a hit if there were a proven problem with a vaccine. I’m not paranoid enough to think there is a conspiracy here to hurt people, but I can also see that it is not in a company’s financial interests to look into these issues. What the companies don’t know, they don’t have to do anything about. The one thing that could give credibility to this issue is independent research, not funded by anyone who stands to profit in any way from the vaccines. Do you know of any studies like this?
A few years ago, was working for a company that had some problems with their product. One of the people who had to go out to client sites asked management what to say when the clients mentioned that there were problems. Management’s answer was “Act surprised as he!!” (Fortunately this wasn’t a health care company.) I have since noticed other companies and government entities doing the same thing. So I like to ask questions and if the response seems evasive, I am going to tread very carefully.
“Pharmaceutical company and doctor profits would take a hit if there were a proven problem with a vaccine. I’m not paranoid enough to think there is a conspiracy here to hurt people, but I can also see that it is not in a company’s financial interests to look into these issues.”
Despite what some would have you believe, licensing of pharmaceuticals is strict, and getting a new vaccine approved takes years. Think of it this way: a liquor store owner might risk grabbing some profit in the short term by knowingly selling to minors, but it isn’t the best way for him to protect his financial interests over the long haul.
“What the companies don’t know, they don’t have to do anything about.”
Oh, that’s not the way it works at all. Ask any attorney. It’s very much in the best financial interests of a pharmaceutical company to know everything they can about the products they plan to sell before they actually begin to sell them. Ever heard of Fen-Phen? Stockholders just hate multi-billion dollar surprises like that.
“The one thing that could give credibility to this issue is independent research, not funded by anyone who stands to profit in any way from the vaccines.”
I don’t see how anything like that could ever possibly satisfy the most rabid^H^H^H^H^Henthusiastic of the anti-vaxers; they’d still argue that the independent researchers were in big pharma’s pocket, and as evidence, they’d present the complete lack of evidence (the hallmark of a successful conspiracy, after all, is that it leaves not the slightest trace).
“Do you know of any studies like this? ”
It’s hard to find good help these days, especially if you’re looking for people with expertise who do not stand to profit in any way from applying that expertise. The protocols for clinical trials already include many safeguards designed to eliminate bias, but I think everybody agrees that there’s a lot of room for improvement. Not everybody agrees on exactly what improvement might consist of, however, or how it might be accomplished. It’s hard to see BARDA as a giant step in the right direction.
I used to believe the NIH was the last bastion where research was being carried out that wasn’t being micromanaged by PR drones. Unfortunately, there have been problems there too. When the NIH scientists and scientists at the FDA admit to being pressured and then the political appointees deny it, health care for everyone in US suffers.
Research requires money and the US govt. asked the pharmaceuticals to provide it and they did. The price is being paid now, they asked for the protections of BARDA (payback’s a b^&%ch!
Folks irate citizens have gotten the FDA and Congress to consider withdrawing a special regulation that allows testing of medications and products without informed consent on US citizens in emergencies. The PolyHeme study is the poster child for having research forced on people. http://tinyurl.com/mjqz6. BARDA can be repealed!
Closed to maintain Forum speed.