The Beginning, Pertussis, and Autism

Medicine is a risk benefit analysis. Virtually all interventions carry an element of risk and we must utilize the available information to determine if the benefits outweigh those risks. The science itself is complicated and most times outdated, making it difficult for the average parent to sort through all of the misdirection and misinformation. Standing against this is simple respect for scientific integrity and the commitment to follow the evidence wherever it leads. With that, I have a few points to make:

 

1. Long before Jenny McCarthy was involved, vaccine controversies began in the late 18th century.  In fact, in 1722, a Reverend by the name of Edward Jenner gave a sermon entitled “The Dangerous and Sinful Practice of Inoculation”.  In that sermon, he argued that “Diseases are sent by God to punish. Any attempt to prevent small pox via inoculation is a diabolical operation”. Vaccines have been a subject of controversy for decades.

 

Please see Microbiology PDF for Rev. Edward Jenner information: http://mmbr.asm.org/content/47/4/455.full.pdf

 

 

2. Many pro-vaccine debaters will say that Pertussis vaccines are not INEFFECTIVE because research does not support it.  I assure you research has produced evidence of the lack of effectiveness. However, it is up to each parent to decide weather or not to forego the vaccine altogether or to still trust that the vaccine their child receives is the effective shot after all.  I have just read a New York Times article, in which the journalist interviewed, Dr. Baxter, the Co-director of the Kaiser Permanente Vaccine Study Center, where he clearly stated “whooping cough vaccine COULD BE BETTER”, and that “ I hope that manufacturers begin to work on a vaccine that has a BETTER EFFECTIVENESS.” Also he said, “Effectiveness in that age group (11 years old) was only about 53 to 64%”.

 

Furthermore, much like the flu vaccine, there are strains, (more like thousands), the vaccines doesn’t protect against. Does that not mean the vaccines are INEFFECTIVE? If the Webster definition of effective is “successful in producing a desired or intended result”, yet people are still contracting and suffering from vaccinate-related illness, does that not make them INEFFECTIVE?  As I am always a concerned parent, it seems like a tough call. I do not know how any parent could make the decision without a second thought.

 

Please reference the article I mentioned above: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/24/whooping-cough-vaccine-lags-in-efficacy/?_r=0

 

 

3. In conclusion, I would like to invite “posters” to please click on this link: http://youtu.be/3wwDPcNdxJQ and watch the Congressional Panel For AutismONE and Generation Rescue. The lead researcher for the CDC, on 21 of 24 studies on Autism and Vaccines, Dr. Poul Thorsen, who was indicted, but later fled, was charged with 13 counts of wire fraud and nine counts of money laundering. A federal grand jury alleges that Thorsen stole over $1 million from autism research funding between February 2004 and June 2008. One might ask: how does this have anything to do with autism and vaccination research? Aside from the research integrity aspect, and the financially-guided intention, he was also discovered to have been falsifying and destroying documents. The CDC and many other organizations have been dealing with money laundering issues and the like.  All impacts research, integrity, and subsequently, peoples’ livelihoods.

 

Side note:  The vaccine court exists for a reason.  By 2008 the fund had paid out 2,114 awards totaling $1.7 billion. Thousands of cases of Autism-related claims are still pending before court today.  If that kind of money is budgeted to award to the victims of these ailments resulting from vaccination, could it be used for preventative measures?  Why not proactively place those funds into reducing the margin of error, closing the gaps that have made this a topic of contention…..just saying.