Can anything be done about the appalling Joe Mercola?

[blutoski]

I think there is some room to consider that it is, for some values of "generally". Non-vaxers often advocate "CP parties" as a means of aquiring immunity for their children, and while tragic outcomes are certainly possible, they appear not to be very frequent.

Two things, though:

1. I include 'causes suffering' as a category of harm. The normal course of the illness is miserable, uncomfortable, and frightening for a child. Since it's pretty much avoidable, at this point, I consider putting the decision to deliberately infect a child with this kind of condition to be child abuse. Think about it in reverse: if a stranger put our children through the equivalent suffering, would we consider it 'generally harmless'?

2. varicella is a type of herpes, and never really goes away. It is a constant strain on the immune system. Part of the 'harm' caused by varicella infection is that it will almost always occur years later in the form of shingles once it has finally overwhelmed the immune system. Of course, by then, the parents are dead, and the child can only curse their stupid decision posthumously, while laying in bed gnashig her teeth in pain.

That people congratulate themselves for doing this to somebody they claim they love is just pitiful.

 

[blutoski]

FYI: Quackwatch covers Mercola: [link]

 

[robinson]

Actually, they don't. Nearly two percent of children in the U.S. are homeschooled, and this surely includes many for whom the decision was heavily influenced by a desire to avoid vaccination.

I have no idea. Maybe nobody does. If that is true, it is another reason to be able to state that vaccines, as currently mandated by law, do this, don't do that, here are the risks, here are the benefits. We have studied this and can show without a doubt this is what happens. Vaccinate your children.

There's an interesting little study presently ongoing in San Diego involving measles in unvaccinated children. Basically, it involves taking some measles-infected kids and running them through the same clinic as a bunch of other kids, in a community which contains a high number of unvaccinated kids, and seeing which ones get sick. I don't know if you like the way it was designed, but the results seem pretty clear.

That doesn't sound scientific at all. Epidemiology is an interesting branch of science. From what I read of studies, they like to just look at one thing. Which may be how the mercury problem slipped through the cracks, because nobody thought of the big picture ahead of time.

Your chief complaint seems not to be that it hasn't been done, but that it hasn't been done the way you think it should, which (I presume) would be to study all of the effects of all of the vaccines taken together over an indeterminate period of time.

I thought I was pretty clear about what I wrote. Maybe you should go back and read it again. I'm not complaining, I am directing pointed criticism at precise targets, which is not the same thing at all. I do the same thing with all woo woo medicine.

Animal studies, as well as Epidemiology. We aren't talking about something as nebulous as Vit E and heart problem, Vit D and cancer, or even air pollution and airport workers. We are talking about specific populations that have huge differences in one area. Because the parents, and possibly grandparents of our populations have similar histories, vaccines, no vaccines, there is an important difference in large populations. Of course there are all kinds of other factors, but from reading other long term large scale studies, the people who do them seem to know about all that, and account for it. Maybe I am wrong, and you can't, but that would mean all those other studies are worthless, which I doubt.

If you ever try to really get down with the details of what such a study would look like, you might realize why the results would be such a hopeless mess. Then again, you might not.

Based on the studies that have been done, your objections don't seem to mean anything. Can you be specific, and tell us what you mean? Why would Epidemiology be a "hopeless mess"?

There is a reason why epidemiological studies are usually designed by persons trained in statistical analysis rather than by seat-of-the-pants laymen.

Nobody said anything about laymen doing studies. Well, except you. I smell straw, man.

But if you, or anyone else here is an expert on these matters, maybe you could educate us. Don't just say something, explain why you believe it.

Except for some crazy people, I don't know anybody who doubts that vaccines have changed the nature of medicine, and reduced or eliminated some childhood diseases. Same for elderly people, vaccines are a huge medical tool. Powerful, effective, well researched.

Why not research the combined effects? Especially in regards to mercury, or other problems. It is better to know, than not know.

For example, in my next post ...

 

[robinson]

Not having access to the actual data, I just read the reports. I'm sure, after reading thousands, that some are wrong, some are deceptive, and some are just bad studies. Even experts have trouble with those issues, so I don't feel bad about that. Now since some people here are way smarter, and know all about stuff, maybe you could explain things, help counter the woo sources, help us be better skeptics.

Like the following

[Epidemiological investigations on measles in unvaccinated and vaccinated children (author's transl)]
[Article in German]

Wiedermann G, Ambrosch F.

A national study, with participation of 82 paediatricians, was carried out on 9472 children over medium observation periods of between 3.13 and 5.46 years with evaluation of the history of measles, incidence of complications and details of vaccination procedure performed. The protection rate of primary vaccination with live vaccine was 0.89, with split vaccine (3 times) 0.67 and after a combination of split vaccine (3 times) with live vaccine (9 to 12 months later) 0.94. Complications due to measles in unvaccinated children were found in 5.9% of cases. Measles complications after failure of vaccination were found in 2.9% and 2.8% of children vaccinated with live or split vaccine, respectively. No such complications were observed in children vaccinated with a combination of split and live vaccines.

PMID: 997537 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/997537


I see

Complications due to measles in unvaccinated children were found in 5.9% of cases.

That means "complications" were found, in 5.9% of the kids. Unvaccinated kids.

Measles complications after failure of vaccination were found in 2.9% and 2.8% of children vaccinated with live or split vaccine, respectively.

That means "complications" were found in 5.7% of those kids. Vaccinated kids.

No such complications were observed in children vaccinated with a combination of split and live vaccines.

That means none, and it looks like the combination of vaccines works better.

Is that what it means? And what are complications? Obviously no kids died.


Or what about this one:

Reported pertussis infection and risk of atopy in 8- to 12-yr-old vaccinated and non-vaccinated children.
Bernsen RM, Nagelkerke NJ, Thijs C, van der Wouden JC.

Department of General Practice, Erasmus MC - University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, and Department of Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates.

Pertussis infection has been suspected to be a potential causal factor in the development of atopic disease because of the effect of pertussis immunization on specific IgE antibodies. Although several studies found a positive association between pertussis infection and atopic disorders, this relationship has not yet been studied in a population stratified by vaccination status. To assess the association between pertussis infection and atopic disorders in pertussis-unvaccinated children and in pertussis-vaccinated children. Using data from a previously conducted study on the relationship between the diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis-(inactivated) poliomyelitis vaccination in the first year of life and atopic disorders, the study population of 1872 8-12 yr old was divided into children pertussis-unvaccinated and children pertussis-vaccinated in the first year of life. Within each group, the association between pertussis infection and atopic disorders (both as reported by the parents) was assessed. In the unvaccinated group, there were no significant associations between pertussis infection and atopic disorders. In the vaccinated group, all associations between pertussis infection and atopic disorders were positive, the associations with asthma [odds ratio (OR) = 2.24, 95% confidence interval (CI(95%)): 1.36-3.70], hay fever (OR = 2.35, CI(95%): 1.46-3.77) and food allergy (OR = 2.68, CI(95%): 1.48-4.85) being significant. There was a positive association between pertussis infection and atopic disorders in the pertussis vaccinated group only. From the present study, it cannot be concluded whether this association is causal or due to reverse causation.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...ez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

I see

In the unvaccinated group, there were no significant associations between pertussis infection and atopic disorders.

I see kids who didn't get the vaccine had no atopic problems.

In the vaccinated group, all associations between pertussis infection and atopic disorders were positive, the associations with asthma [odds ratio (OR) = 2.24, 95% confidence interval (CI(95%)): 1.36-3.70], hay fever (OR = 2.35, CI(95%): 1.46-3.77) and food allergy (OR = 2.68, CI(95%): 1.48-4.85) being significant. There was a positive association between pertussis infection and atopic disorders in the pertussis vaccinated group only.

I see that as vaccinated kids had problems. Is that what it means?

Oh wait:

From the present study, it cannot be concluded whether this association is causal or due to reverse causation.

I see hand waving, tap dancing and that desperate need for more studies.

What do you see?

I got a thousand more, but lets just educate me so I quit thinking wrong.

 

[robinson]

Now those are just one kind of study. There are also animal studies, very detailed in vitro studies, and some very complicated studies that don't seem to mean anything.

One thing I know from learning bout this here science stuff, is that one study doesn't prove anything. And the more people you use, the better chance of the results being valid. And the farther removed the researchers are from the vested interest, the better data you end up with.

Like I said, it is pretty obvious that vaccines work.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...bmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlusDrugs1

What I would like to know, is what else do they do? In combination, and when you lace them with mercury, and bundle them up, to save money.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

An increase in vaccine coverage tends to produce an upwards shift in age distribution of measles cases, and a corresponding reduction in CFR is just what you'd expect.

<snip>

Really? I thought childhood diseases were typically more severe the older you are when you get them. This is certainly true for chickenpox, where the majority (80%, IIRC) of deaths are in adults.

<snip>

I don't know how things are where you live, but as far as I know, all but two U.S. states provide for exemptions on religious or philosophical grounds, and all of them provide for medical exemptions, so complaints about being "forced" to vaccinate tend to be overstated.

I'm only aware of enthusiastic language being used in the UK at the moment. But we do tend to adopt many ideas from the US.

I often attempt to get some idea of the vax status of people I'm in contact with, when it can be done tactfully. I may even go so far as to make gentle and polite suggestions. But most people aren't interested enough in the science to get into much of a debate about it anyway.

<snip>

Apart from my family and work colleagues who know what I'm like (I'm can be pretty blunt at times), I really can't imagine how I'd work that into a conversation. (Does it work with women?)

Hardcore anti-vaxers are another matter. Simply not vaccinating themselves and their children isn't good enough for them, any more than not eating meat and boycotting zoos is good enough for PETA. For them, it's not a personal decision; it's a crusade. They write books, maintain websites, and run full-page ads in newspapers to spread the word. To me, that is an open invitation to debate. And there is plenty to debate, both scientifically and ethically.

Are they gaining any ground or just making more noise? Is Mercola persuading more people with his lies and misinformation?

One problem with debating these people is that they don't appear to have any problem with making stuff up to support their argument, whereas we're bound by the evidence and reality.

I think it's hard for scientists to come across as convincing against a woo, mainly because the information they are trying to convey is often quite lengthily and complicated (read as: "Boring!" in Homer Simpson voice), and they are seen as having a vested interest in vaccination, whilst the anti-vaxer is seen as the little guy battling big pharma.

As someone has already suggested, I think Robert Lancaster's debunking approach is probably worth a try.

Here's a (non-woo) website which (amongst other things) gives information on some common childhood illnesses and vaccinations:

http://www.medinfo.co.uk

(Notice the death rate given for measles.)

 

[robinson]

http://www.medinfo.co.uk/conditions/measles.html

Hey! There are those complications I was asking about. Thanks.

Damn. Death is considered a complication. Hmm... that sucks.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

Like I said, it is pretty obvious that vaccines work.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...bmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlusDrugs1

What I would like to know, is what else do they do? In combination, and when you lace them with mercury, and bundle them up, to save money.

The Hep A vaccination is interesting because it is not known if it does actually give life-long immunity. Theoretically Hep A vaccination could push the average age of infection up, when it is a more severe disease.

Many older people have had Hep A as a child and don't known it, since in young children it's often asymptomatic.

 

[robinson]

I just saw a new topic, which had of all things, a link to a survey on this very issue. I looked for the original study, and found this web site, Age of Autism. The link included takes you to the paper. Interesting. It looks like the survey is for real. How strange.

For those who read links, the survey links vaccines to increased childhood health problems, (not increased disease that the vaccines are for). I think Age of Autism speaks for more than a few people on the matter.

Dear Age of Autism: So what if you crackpots have turned up another survey (CLICK HERE) strongly pointing to an association between vaccines and autism? So what, because we've already seen a bunch of so-called studies like that, and they don't mean a darn thing. Even if a full-scale study of the autism rate in vaccinated-versus-unvaccinated kids has never been done, this case is closed. We already told you so.

First of all, this so-called survey was done by the Dutch Association for Conscientious Vaccination, a questionable crowd made up of doctors, parents and therapists "among others" -- and who might those secret unnamed "others" be? We can only guess -- whose stated aim is "freedom of choice for parents when it comes to vaccinating their children, based on honest, comprehensive and independent information. We view the current 'one size fits all' vaccination policy with great concern. The NVKP is therefore urging the adoption of more thorough independent research by representatives from different disciplines."

Ha! Clearly a foreign cabal of know-nothings.

Then -- get this: "The NVKP survey was conducted in the Netherlands in the latter half of 2004 with the parents of 635 children, and involved both members and non-members of the NVKP. The survey was geographically distributed over the entire country. ... We asked the parents to fill in a questionnaire with questions about the health of their child or children."

Let's get this straight. These people asked PARENTS about the health of their children? We've seen this gambit before -- most recently when Generation Rescue hired a so-called "respected" phone survey firm to ask parents whether their kids were vaccinated or not vaccinated, and whether those same kids had been diagnosed with autism or not. CLEARLY a trick question, and the "fact" that vaccinated kids had autism by more than two to one -- a so-called statistically significant finding -- must be dismissed out of hand.

So the "fact" (so-called) that these Netherlands results are even worse -- that EIGHT of the fully vaccinated kids had autism and NONE of the never-vaccinated kids had autism -- is equally laughable. So are the findings in most every category of better health outcomes for the never-vaccinated versus the fully vaccinated.

At some point, this demented data-gathering has got to stop. First came the totally meaningless reports that there seemed to be fewer cases of autism among the Amish. Even the reporter who kept writing about that SAID it wasn't scientific, yet here comes U.S. Rep. Carolyn Maloney of New York introducing legislation to force federal health officials to do just such a study. Who is Congress to tell federal officials to do anything?

Then came the homeschooled -- that nutty Dr. Jeff Bradstreet said he had never seen autism in never-vaccinated homeschooled kids and that a study in that group would be worth doing. Why, he was almost laughed off the podium. What would that tell us besides stuff we don't need to know about homeschooled kids? They are so very different from the rest of us they might as well be aliens.

And then there was Homefirst in Chicago, the medical practice that has thousands of never-vaccinated kids, and no autism and no asthma.

Who appointed these so-called medical doctors to diagnosis and report children's health conditions? Those kids must be strange, too. Very strange.

Heck, unless and until a real scientific study on vaccinated-versus-unvaccinated American kids is conducted, there will never be any evidence.

And believe us, that's never gonna happen.

http://www.ageofautism.com/2008/01/pay-no-attentio.html

 

[robinson]

Forget Mercola! Can anything be done about these damn data gathering people? What are they thinking?

 

[Dymanic]

I consider putting the decision to deliberately infect a child with this kind of condition to be child abuse.

I might agree if we were talking about measles, but "abuse" seems a bit strong to me if what we're talking about is chickenpox. Somewhat misinformed perhaps, but surely trying to do the best thing for their children.

Part of the 'harm' caused by varicella infection is that it will almost always occur years later in the form of shingles once it has finally overwhelmed the immune system.

It can, though not quite so often as "almost always". I don't think it's necessarily so much a matter of it overwhelming the immune system as of lurking about until presented with an exploitable decline in immunity caused by advancing age or whatever. And shingles can lead to serious complications. Immunocompromised individuals are particularly at risk. But, to be fair, shingles can also occur in vaccinated individuals -- though with considerably less frequency: estimated at 18 cases per 100,000 in healthy children, versus 68 per 100,000 with natural infection.

That doesn't sound scientific at all.

I hate having to explain a joke. I assumed that your interest in such matters might extend to keeping up with current related events. Guess I should have provided a link. See, some unvaccinated kids brought measles back with them to San Diego from Switzerland, and started a little outbreak which may now have spread to Honolulu via a Hawiian Airlines flight. The punch line is that the cases have all been unvaccinated. Vaccinated versus unvaccinated... get it?

lets just educate me so I quit thinking wrong.

That may be a worthwhile project, but I'm afraid you're going to have to take responsibility for most of the heavy lifting. Maybe you should start here.

I thought childhood diseases were typically more severe the older you are when you get them.

Measles can be more serious in adults, but it's a little more complicated than that. Hypothetically, accept my claim that widespread vaccination produces an upward shift in age distribution of measles deaths, and then look again at the observation that the disease is typically more severe in older patients, and consider the societal context in which that observation is made.

What I'm hoping you'll get out of doing that is an appreciation for the importance of differentiating between mostly vaccinated and mostly unvaccinated populations. With the exception of infants under nine months or so (most of whom may be presumed to have some passive immunity from maternal antibodies aquired through breastfeeding), the under five age group is the most vulnerable to severe complications from measles (diarrhea in particular). In an undervaccinated population, this group can be expected to account for at least half of the fatalities, and in some countries, nearly all of them. Older children are least vulnerable, so when you hear it said that measles tends to be more severe in adults than in children, keep in mind that the validity of this observation can depend heavily on the vax status of the population as a whole.

I really can't imagine how I'd work that into a conversation.

I find that most people are eager to discuss the state of their health; vax status isn't such a long walk from there. The tricky part isn't getting into such a conversation, it's getting out of it.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

Measles can be more serious in adults, but it's a little more complicated than that. Hypothetically, accept my claim that widespread vaccination produces an upward shift in age distribution of measles deaths, and then look again at the observation that the disease is typically more severe in older patients, and consider the societal context in which that observation is made.

What I'm hoping you'll get out of doing that is an appreciation for the importance of differentiating between mostly vaccinated and mostly unvaccinated populations. With the exception of infants under nine months or so (most of whom may be presumed to have some passive immunity from maternal antibodies aquired through breastfeeding), the under five age group is the most vulnerable to severe complications from measles (diarrhea in particular). In an undervaccinated population, this group can be expected to account for at least half of the fatalities, and in some countries, nearly all of them. Older children are least vulnerable, so when you hear it said that measles tends to be more severe in adults than in children, keep in mind that the validity of this observation can depend heavily on the vax status of the population as a whole.

I should have been more specific: It appears there are windows in age when it is better to get particular diseases - typically not too young and not too old, the obvious exception to this being pandemic flu:

http://www.hpa.org.uk/infections/topics_AZ/measles/background.htm

Epidemiology
Measles is endemic in many countries. In 2005, 345,000 children died from measles globally according to WHO estimates, mostly in developing countries. Measles is also serious in industrialised countries. In the UK prior to 1988, half of all children who died from measles were previously healthy. There have been one death from acute measles in 13 years old child since 1992.

Case fatality rates for measles are age-related. They are high in children under one year of age, are lowest in children aged 1 to 9 years and then rise again with advancing age.

So Measles has a classic U-shaped mortality curve, though mortality starts rising at quite an early age compared to many other diseases.

I do appreciate what you said though.

I find that most people are eager to discuss the state of their health; vax status isn't such a long walk from there. The tricky part isn't getting into such a conversation, it's getting out of it.

If you don't mind me asking, what's your line of work / expertise? I have a feeling an electronic engineer asking such questions would be considered rather unusual compared to someone with a medical science background. Having said that, I might try it.

 

[Dymanic]

It appears there are windows in age when it is better to get particular diseases - typically not too young and not too old, the obvious exception to this being pandemic flu.

That's true, but things don't always appear the same when looking up from the bottom as they do when looking down from the top. Vaccinate a previously unvaccinated population, eliminating most of the fatalities in infants and young children, and where children were previously most at risk, now it's adults (maybe). But from the perspective of an individual adult, your actual risk of dying wasn't affected by the shift in age distribution at all; in fact, it went down, because fewer cases means less chance of exposure (if you were born before 1958, your chances of having natural immunity to measles were pretty good already).

If you don't mind me asking, what's your line of work / expertise?

I study physiology and immunology (and dabble in epidemiology) not because I am paid to do so, but because these things deeply interest me. Not only do I not regard myself as an expert in any of these fields, but I seem to be getting further from that all the time, because the more I learn, the less I seem to know. My greatest ambition would be to reach a point where I can really feel that I have even scratched the surface. I do believe that there are such things as experts in these fields, but my greatest achievement so far is being able to slog through the dense arcana constantly being generated by these experts without ninety percent of it going completely over my head.

I have a feeling an electronic engineer asking such questions would be considered rather unusual compared to someone with a medical science background.

Come to think of it, most of the engineers I've known were... rather unusual. But when it comes to discussing vaccination with people who choose not to vaccinate, I'm not sure that having a medical science background would be an asset, considering that these are people who reject most of what medical science has to say on the matter (except when they find it convenient to use carefully selected material to support what they have already decided must be true).