Vaccination "fact" sheet

[prosciencemum]

The below sheet was posted as a resource on the "I'm not vaccinating" board. Since that's support only I didn't comment there, but there's so many factual errors in it I just had to point them out somewhere - hence this thread to debate these "facts".

[prosciencemum]

1. Most vaccines are killed or attenuated. Some are grown in cell lines cultures from fetuses aborted in the 1960s (not the same as sorted fetal tissue). Probably other problems too, but that's a good start.

2. The human body has lots of ways of dealing with toxins, and the nasty sounding ingredients used to prevent bacteria or other nasties growing in vaccines are in such tiny quantities as to be insignificant.

3. Rubbish. The human body is assaulted by bacteria and viruses from the moment of birth.

4. The old vaccination for pertussis contained several times the number of antigens in it than the whole of the modern vaccination schedule.

5. Rubbish. How would you prevent exposure to multiple viruses in the real world?

6. There is no good evidence for this.

7. Nothing to do with vaccines.

8. Sure.

9. Untrue. Smallpox was eradicated. Polio is close to being eradicated, and gone from most regions of the world.

10. Not true.

Ok that feels better.

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

1. Most vaccines are killed or attenuated. Some are grown in cell lines cultures from fetuses aborted in the 1960s (not the same as sorted fetal tissue). Probably other problems too, but that's a good start.

Here is more:  http://www.vaccine-tlc.org/human.html

2. The human body has lots of ways of dealing with toxins, and the nasty sounding ingredients used to prevent bacteria or other nasties

There is growing evidence that some of these "nasties" are the reason we as a culture have a lot of chronic conditions.  

growing in vaccines are in such tiny quantities as to be insignificant.

Nonsense.  The poison is not always dose related.  Some things take just a tiny bit to be fatal or make you ill.  The question is whether or not the ingredients in vaccines do that.  Dr.  Sears think the amount of aluminum in vaccines is concerning.  http://www.askdrsears.com/topics/vaccines/vaccine-faqs

3. Rubbish. The human body is assaulted by bacteria and viruses from the moment of birth.

Tell that to the baby boys who have a 2-3 higher risk of autism due to being given hep b at birth.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21058170   

4. The old vaccination for pertussis contained several times the number of antigens in it than the whole of the modern vaccination schedule.

relevance?

5. Rubbish. How would you prevent exposure to multiple viruses in the real world?

So not rubbish.  I think the math on getting mumps, rubella and measles at the same time is very low.  I don't understand your rebuttal.  There are selective vaxxers who would like to have mumps, measles and rubella vaccines available separately. Ditto D, T  and P. There are selective people who do not vax because they do not want the other vaccines in multiple shots for one reason or another.  Some want shots spread out to decrease the likelihood of a reaction, or to know exactly what caused the reaction should one occur.  

6. There is no good evidence for this.
7. Nothing to do with vaccines.

Or does it?  You cannot know.  

8. Sure.
9. Untrue. Smallpox was eradicated. Polio is close to being eradicated, and gone from most regions of the world.
10. Not true.

Who has more vaccines than the USA? 
Ok that feels better.

[Taximom5]

Thanks, kathymuggle, for pointing out the real "rubbish."

It's worth asking why there are some people who spend hours on a support site, defending every single aspect of vaccination, and attempting to trash every single criticism of the current vaccine program.

It's pretty clear that parents of children who have suffered severe vaccine reactions, or even died from those reactions (like MDC member Michael Belkin, who lost his daughter to such a reaction) have come here to offer otherwise often-suppressed information in the hope of preventing future adverse reactions.
Edited by Taximom5 - 12/30/12 at 9:34pm

[Rrrrrachel]

I love the phrase "growing evidence." It's so good at making the evidence sound like way more than it is.

Kathy you're making a lot of leaps there. The science definitely does not support the conclusion that hep b is causin autism.

While not more, I believe Australia gives just as many vaccines as the us.

Many of the diseases we vaccinate for are spread through the air. Short of keeping your kid at home and never allowing anyone else in, it's difficult to avoid those kinds of viruses through good hygiene. We are lucky that, thanks to vaccination, incidence of various diseases are low. However, the fewer people who vaccinate the less true that will be. As someone who depends on low incidence to protect your children, maybe you don't want to encourage people to skip vaccination.

[IdentityCrisisMama]

PSM, there were some concerns raised about whether you have permission to re-post this image. If you sourced the image directly from another member's post, a nice thing to do is to ask for permission. This is not a UA violation (I don't think) but just something to consider if folks plan on using member's images in the future. Another solution if the member did not link her/his source is to do a reverse image search and link from as close to the original source as you can find. Carry on...

[Rrrrrachel]

Unless the person who posted the image here originally is the owner of the image they don't get a say in who reposts it from there. If they are the owner, they may want to consider attaching some kind of Creative Commons license to it.

[Rrrrrachel]

According to this (published in 2010 so possibly out of date?) us and uk give the same number of vaccines, Australia and brazil both give more.

http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/20/do-children-in-the-u-s-have-to-get-more-shots/

[Rrrrrachel]

I'll add to some of psm's concerns:

2. This statement is just not accurate. None of those things are used to preserve vaccines. Maybe you could call MSG a preservative, it's really a stabilizer but I can see why someone would call it a preservative. Some of those other things are in vaccines, but they are not preservatives. Makes me wonder if this fact sheet is, in fact, very facty.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/additives.htm

3. Also just false false false. From the moment they are born a child's immune system is bombarded by all kinds of pathogens and bacteria. By the time they're two months old I bet they've been exposed to millions of bacteria. This is also around the time antibodies from the placenta start to fade and baby starts producing their own antibodies. Hence the timing of the first round of vaccination. There is absolutely NO scientific evidence that vaccines in any way "overload" the immune system. The assertion is kind of silly when you consider what the immune system is exposed to in the typical day of a babe. Vaccines are a drop in the bucket.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/109/1/124.full
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaccines/multiplevaccines.html

This in addition to what has already been pointed out, that while vaccinations bypass SOME of the bodies defense systems, they do not bypass all of them. The body is equipped to handle contaminants introduced this way. The science of vaccination actually depends on it!

4. I don't really know what the point is of this one, but it's also inaccurate. By age six children have been exposed to WAY more than 100 viral strains. Probably thousands. Only a small fraction of them from vaccination, though.

5. Again, not sure of the point. See links further up about the safety of multiple vaccines at once. Also don't think the assertion is true. Why wouldn't children naturally be exposed to more than once virus at a time? Is there some rule that if you pick up a toy with flu and put it in your mouth you won't turn around and pick up a toy with strep throat and out it in your mouth? I mean sure, children probably wouldn't be exposed to those three specific viruses in a day, but as I've already pointed out, children are exposed to hundreds of viruses in a day. So again, not an accurate statement.

6. I don't think I even want to touch this one. Suffice to say, there's no conclusive evidence vaccines cause any of those things, especially not in any kind of specific numbers, especially SIDS. I find that accusation especially pernicious because it really preys on a major fear all new parents face. SIDS has been pretty conclusively shown not to be linked with vaccines. SIDS rates in recently vaccinated infants are actually LOWER then in other infants.

7. Once again, not sure of the relevance as these conditions have not been linked to vaccines. There are a lot of plausible reasons they could be on the rise. Including higher rates of preterm birth, advanced maternal age, and more sensitive and accurate diagnosis. I guess technically this is true, though.

8. Yup. I actually agree with this one. As I've said many times before, vaccines are not mandatory in this country.

9. Psm said it best. This is rubbish. Small pox was not elinated by hygiene, period. That's total nonsense. The thing about polio is a conspiracy theory, plain and simple. If polio hasn't been eradicated, then where are the rooms full of these?


10. Already addressed.

Wow, so of these ten statements TWO were accurate. That's even worse than I expected.
Edited by Rrrrrachel - 1/1/13 at 7:38am

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

I'll add to some of psm's concerns:
2. This statement is just not accurate. None of those things are used to preserve vaccines. Maybe you could call MSG a preservative, it's really a stabilizer but I can see why someone would call it a preservative. Some of those other things are in vaccines, but they are not preservatives. Makes me wonder if this fact sheet is, in fact, very facty.
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/additives.htm

You are either wrong, or you conveniently missed the listing of thimerosal, which is indeed used to preserve vaccines. How facty are your own facts?

3. Also just false false false. From the moment they are born a child's immune system is bombarded by all kinds of pathogens and bacteria. By the time they're two months old I bet they've been exposed to millions of bacteria. This is also around the time antibodies from the placenta start to fade and baby starts producing their own antibodies. Hence the timing of the first round of vaccination. There is absolutely NO scientific evidence that vaccines in any way "overload" the immune system. The assertion is kind of silly when you consider what the immune system is exposed to in the typical day of a babe. Vaccines are a drop in the bucket.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/109/1/124.full
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaccines/multiplevaccines.html
This in addition to what has already been pointed out, that while vaccinations bypass SOME of the bodies defense systems, they do not bypass all of them. The body is equipped to handle contaminants introduced this way. The science of vaccination actually depends on it!

Not false false false, but true true true.  Babies are given the hepatitis B vaccine within a few hours of their birth.  Our hospital gives it 4 hours from time of birth, to infants as tiny as 4 1/2 pounds (which my child was), and within 2 hours or less to  infants just moved from the PICU.

4. I don't really know what the point is of this one, but it's also inaccurate. By age six children have been exposed to WAY more than 100 viral strains. Probably thousands. Only a small fraction of them from vaccination, though.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to point out the concerns that they seem to have left out.  It's not the fact that the children have been exposed to these viral strains that is a concern.  The problem is that they were injected with these strains ALONG with chemicals that are now known to cause autoimmune disorders and neurological damage.

5. Again, not sure of the point. See links further up about the safety of multiple vaccines at once. Also don't think the assertion is true. Why wouldn't children naturally be exposed to more than once virus at a time? Is there some rule that if you pick up a toy with flu and put it in your mouth you won't turn around and pick up a toy with strep throat and out it in your mouth? I mean sure, children probably wouldn't be exposed to those three specific viruses in a day, but as I've already pointed out, children are exposed to hundreds of viruses in a day. So again, not an accurate statement.

The problem is, there is anecdotal evidence that combination vaccines such as MMR are resulting in autoimmune and neurological problems that were almost never seen before its introduction.  The manufacturer set up studies purporting to indicate complete safety in the same way the the tobacco industry set up studies to show that cigarettes are beneficial to one's health.  Another issue is that babies are usually protected from viruses by the immunological benefits of nursing, well beyond the production of colostrum.  http://www.jaoa.org/content/106/4/203.full

6. I don't think I even want to touch this one. Suffice to say, there's no conclusive evidence vaccines cause any of those things, especially not in any kind of specific numbers, especially SIDS. I find that accusation especially pernicious because it really preys on a major fear all new parents face. SIDS has been pretty conclusively shown not to be linked with vaccines. SIDS rates in recently vaccinated infants are actually LOWER then in other infants.

Perhaps the reason you don't want to touch this one is that you know it's true?  We've posted study after study linking vaccines to autoimmune disorders and SIDS.  Feel free to go back and read them.  As for "conclusive evidence," there is no conclusive evidence that the benefits of vaccines outweigh the risks.  If you're going to demand conclusive evidence, we need it for the benefits of vaccines as well.  The "tobacco science" provided by the manufacturers/profiteers of a $12-billion-a-year industry does not count as conclusive evidence.  As for SIDS, there exists evidence linking SIDS with vaccines: http://www.vierascheibner.org/index.php?view=article&catid=47%3Acot-deaths-sids&id=73%3Avaccinations-part-i-medical-research-on-sids-and-epidemics-&option=com_content&Itemid=58  Therefore, it is grossly inaccurate to say that there is any conclusion at all dismissing such a link.

7. Once again, not sure of the relevance as these conditions have not been linked to vaccines. There are a lot of plausible reasons they could be on the rise. Including higher rates of preterm birth, advanced maternal age, and more sensitive and accurate diagnosis. I guess technically this is true, though.

Once again, we have posted study after study linking these conditions to vaccines.  Vaccines have not been proved to be the one and only cause, but there is ample evidence showing that they are linked.  Perhaps you need to go back and reread the links we've posted, because you seem to be ignoring them.
8. Yup. I actually agree with this one. As I've said many times before, vaccines are not mandatory in this country.

Vaccines are absolutely mandatory for those who lose their jobs for not getting them, or who lose their children because they delayed vaccination, for those who are unable to obtain exemptions or who are unaware that the possibility exists.  When the health care industry insists via the news media that vaccines are mandatory for school-age children and infants in daycare, and when the health care industry/news media don't TELL anyone that exemptions are a possibility, that's equivalent to making vaccines mandatory.
9. Psm said it best. This is rubbish. Small pox was not elinated by hygiene, period. That's total nonsense.

Given the excellent points made by  Dr. Roger Schlafly    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/01/02/was-smallpox-vaccine-really-a-great-success.aspx  there is certainly enough evidence to show the enormous exaggeration of the benefits of the smallpox vaccination program--and, as usual, the covering up of harm from a vaccine.

The thing about polio is a conspiracy theory, plain and simple. If polio hasn't been eradicated, then where are the rooms full of these?

The iron lung has been replaced by modern ventilators, also called respirators or mechanical breathing machines.  Surely you knew that?  I know several people who have been on them, including 2 with flu-shot-induced Guillaine-Barre Syndrome.  And polio--VACCINE-INDUCED polio--has not been eradicated, as tens of thousands of children in developing nations have it: http://www.dailypaul.com/259831/vaccine-induced-strain-of-polio-sweeping-india

10. Already addressed.

The only way to address it is to compare CURRENT vaccination schedules.  If you compare a 2010 Australian or Brazilian schedule with a 2012 US schedule, that's obviously inaccurate.
Wow, so of these ten statements TWO were accurate. That's even worse than I expected.

I have been able to find serious flaws, inaccuraces, and untruths in 9 out of 10 arguments you made.  That's even worse than I expected.

[Rrrrrachel]

I saw mercury. Which is not the same as thimerosal, so I counted that one wrong.

[prosciencemum]

Originally Posted by IdentityCrisisMama 

PSM, there were some concerns raised about whether you have permission to re-post this image. If you sourced the image directly from another member's post, a nice thing to do is to ask for permission. This is not a UA violation (I don't think) but just something to consider if folks plan on using member's images in the future. Another solution if the member did not link her/his source is to do a reverse image search and link from as close to the original source as you can find. Carry on...

ICM - thanks for the warning. I'll be more careful in future. 

Amazing how a list of "facts" is so debatable.... (well OK I mean wrong, but I'm trying to be nice).

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

Amazing how a list of "facts" is so debatable.... (well OK I mean wrong, but I'm trying to be nice).

I agree with you!  Your list of "facts" in post #2 is so...debatable (well OK I mean wrong, but I'm trying to be nice).

[prosciencemum]

Originally Posted by Taximom5 

I agree with you!  Your list of "facts" in post #2 is so...debatable (well OK I mean wrong, but I'm trying to be nice).

Hah you made me smile! I think yet again we'll have to agree to disagree....