The intellectual bankruptcy of the anti-vaccine movement

[Ian David]

Dr. Steven Novella: “But we see here the anti-vaccine strategy, which is deliberately ignorant of history”

From Dr. Steven Novella, neurosurgeon and host of the popular podcast “Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe,” once again blows an anti-vaccination pseudoscientist out of the water:

It seems I have gotten under the skin of notorious anti-vaccine crank J.B. Handley, the founder of Age of Autism. He recently wrote an entire article dedicated to the character assassination of yours truly. It seems I had the temerity to critique the latest anti-vaccination propaganda initiative called fourteen studies, an attempt to discredit the scientific evidence against a link between vaccines and autism.

Handley’s attack is an astounding example of hypocrisy, logical fallacies, and tortured reasoning. He really exposes the intellectual bankruptcy of the anti-vaccine movement, which is only reinforced by the supporting comments left by his avid readers.

Read the whole thing if science and slapping down charlatans is your thing. And I can’t recommend the “Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe” podcast enough. It’s a weekly, hour-long learning experience.


More:
http://www.williamkwolfrum.com/2009/04/23/dr-steven-novella-but-we-see-here-the-anti-vaccine-strategy-which-is-deliberately-ignorant-of-history


See also:

A Personal Attack By J.B. Handley
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=523#more-523

Jim Carrey and Jenny McCarthy want your children to die
http://www.williamkwolfrum.com/2009/04/22/jim-carrey-and-jenny-mccarthy-want-your-children-to-die/

[madrchsod]

1. our friends daughter has spent tens of thousands of dollars

and countless hours trying to get a "cure" for their autistic son. sadly his condition is getting worse. there is`t one independent peer reviewed study that any of these quacks treatments help autistic children or adults.

the anti-vaccine people are creating fear and a very dangerous idea. that idea could lead to deaths of children that need not die.

[mike_c]

2. but..., but...

...there's ground up Luddites in them vaccines, doncha' know? :rofl:

[D-Lee]

3. Still don't like the over-scheduling of combined vaccinations

This debate over vaccinations continues ...

However that debate turns out, compared to many years ago, vaccinations are given over a much shorter time period and many vaccinations are combined and given together.

Just seems to be too much of a challenge to an immune system IMHO. Spread them out and separate them into individual ones or smaller groups just seems so sensible to me.

Again, IMHO.

[pnwmom]

4. I agree. n/t

[trotsky]

10. The human immune system - even an infant's...

is bombarded with thousands of antigens daily. On the skin, in the eyes, deep into the lungs. Get the slightest cut and hundreds of micro-organisms can easily enter your bloodstream.

And yet people who have no education, no professional training whatsoever, just a "gut feeling" think that the immune system can be overwhelmed by a handful of vaccines?

I believe we have FOX News to thank for "elevating the debate" to the point where Johnny on the Street has an equally valid opinion as the Ph.D. expert and the Argument from Personal Incredulity is no longer considered a logical fallacy.

[pnwmom]

29. The usual microorganisms aren't accompanied by a chemical adjuvant.

What is your professional training? Drug salesman?

[trotsky]

37. Your personal slams aside,

the usual microorganisms can be accompanied by much worse. So you admit the antigens in vaccines aren't a problem at all?

[pnwmom]

54. No, I don't. In real life, babies aren't simultaneously exposed

to measles, mumps, and rubella; or diptheria, tetanus, and pertussis. They don't have to develop the antigens to several disease-causing microorganisms simultaneously. The ONLY reason the vaccinations are given clumped together is to decrease the number of visits to the doctor's office -- not because there is any research showing that it is better to bunch up the vaccines instead of spreading them out.

[trotsky]

62. This is why vaccination opponents struggle to attain credibility.

You don't understand the facts.

In real life, babies aren't simultaneously exposed to measles, mumps, and rubella; or diptheria, tetanus, and pertussis.

Nor are they when they get their vaccines. They are exposed to WEAKENED OR KILLED versions of all of those. (Or in the case of DTP, their inactivated toxins. You were aware of that, right?)

not because there is any research showing that it is better to bunch up the vaccines instead of spreading them out.

Nor is there any indication that combining them is harmful - unless you've conducted or read of research proving otherwise?

[pnwmom]

71. Clever, but not clever enough. I didn't say that babies are exposed to

live viruses in the vaccines. In the following sentence that you left out, I said that babies in real life don't have to develop ANTIGENS to multiple serious illnesses simultaneously.

No, there is no indication that combining multiple vaccines, even multiple adjuvants, is harmful. But that means nothing, since they haven't done the research to show this one way or another.

[trotsky]

72. That's even better!

You follow up an erroneous reply with an even worse error.

Hint for you: our bodies don't develop antigens. Look up the word. :rofl:

My goodness, you make the anti-vaccine movement more of a laughingstock than it already is. Thank you. You've saved me a lot of work.

[pnwmom]

79. You are correct. I meant to say "antibodies." n/t

[uppityperson]

76. here is your quote. What is in vaccines is NOT disease-causing microorganisms

"They don't have to develop the antigens to several disease-causing microorganisms simultaneously"
Most are dead, or very weakened, or just the toxin. You don't inject them with "disease-causing microorganisms" but with non-disease-causing antigens to get the body to make antibodies against.

[pnwmom]

80. I meant to say "antibodies" instead of antigens. Sorry.

And a person who is vaccinated does develop antibodies to disease-causing organisms, even if the vaccine itself doesn't contain live virus.

[uppityperson]

75. psst, people develop antibodies to the antigens in the vaccines

you are right, we don't develop antigens to microorganisms

[cosmik debris]

20. "This debate over vaccinations continues ..." No, the debate is over

All that is left is the whining of the rabid anti-vaxers.

The debate ended when they were unable to come up with any evidence to support the vaccination/autism link.

Without scientific evidence, there is no debate.

Fear and accusations are not debate.

Wild speculation is not debate.

Speculation based on ignorance is not debate.

The debate is over.

[pnwmom]

28. Wishful thinking won't make it happen.

An expert in infectious diseases at Harvard recently called for more research into which subgroups of children are at risk from various vaccines. There is plenty of research showing that individual children, such as children who died from the old DPT vaccine, and Hannah Poling, have been harmed by vaccines. We need to do more work on identifying these children ahead of time and preventing these reactions.

The vax-to-the-max crowd will continue to debate the necessity of this, so the debate will go on.

[cosmik debris]

44. Wild speculation is not debate. n/t

[pnwmom]

5. The truth is that ALL vaccines are NOT safe for ALL people.

The old pertussis vaccine caused encephalitis and death in a small number of babies. The MMR caused the autism through the genetic disorder that Hannah Poling had. The HPV vaccine shouldn't be given to girls with preexisting epilepsy. We need research to continue to advance our knowledge of which children are at risk and should be excluded from receiving vaccines that might be safe for the general population; and also on what are the effects of multiple vaccines with multiple adjuvants at the same time.

[Ian David]

6. Real research. Not the fake research of the anti-vax murdering hoaxers. n/t

[pnwmom]

34. "Murdering hoaxers"? What shall we call those in the pro-vaccine community

who for decades refused to compensate families for the deaths related to the old pertussis vaccine? Who fought calls for a safer vaccine for decades because they could make plenty of money just using the old one? Are they the "murdering vaxers"?

[Ian David]

68. I put murdering hoaxers on my ignore list. Bye! n/t

[mike_c]

7. from a public health perspective, the issue is the average risk...

...of vaccine side effects-- as you noted, most vaccines have some statistically significant side effects-- the average risk of the vaccine side effects averaged across the whole population verses the average effects of the disease the vaccine immunizes against. For example, when small pox became so rare that more people were likely to suffer side effects from vaccination than were ever likely to get the disease, routine small pox vaccination ceased.

So while most vaccines have some side effects-- including fatal ones-- it's usually much riskier to avoid vaccination than to perform it.

[pnwmom]

8. True, particularly if you subscribe to utilitarianism. But from the family's perspective,

and the perspective of a parent trying to make these decisions, it is critical to identify who is at risk.

Public health doctors for decades thought it was acceptable that babies like my sister died from the old DPT vaccine in order to keep other babies safe. It was only because of pressure from parents -- through the "anti-vaccine" movement -- that the current, safer DPT vaccine was developed.

From a purely public health perspective, the old vaccine was fine. It still would be considered acceptable, and there would have been no reason to develop the safer vaccine, if the only concern was AVERAGE risk.

[trotsky]

9. You repeat a falsehood.

Hannah Poling was NOT diagnosed with autism. Please do not repeat the falsehood.

[pnwmom]

11. No falsehood. She has autistic type symptoms, and there is no test

anywhere that can distinguish a diagnosis of autism from the diagnosis of autism type symptoms.

And there is no parent in the world with a child with that disorder who would care what the label is either. It's the symptoms that matter, not the label. And the vaccine court held that her autism symptoms were the result of the interaction of her disorder with the vaccine she received.

[trotsky]

12. Well, you've perfectly illustrated the subject of this thread at least.

There was no diagnosis of autism. Please be intellectually honest and admit that.

[pnwmom]

13. You're the one being intellectually dishonest. In the case of autism, there is no

medical distinction between the diagnosis of the symptoms and the diagnosis of the disorder.

And no parent in the world would be satisfied with this response: don't worry -- your child won't get autism from the vaccine; she might only get the SYMPTOMS. And she'll have them the rest of her life. But hey, at least people like Trotsky won't be saying she has autism!

No wonder parents don't trust the vax-to-the-max crowd.

[trotsky]

14. People with Down's Syndrome exhibit autism-like symptoms.

But they do not have autism.

People with Fragile X exhibit autism-like symptoms, but they do not have autism.

People with certain kinds of poisoning exhibit autism-like symptoms, but they do not have autism.

People who have sustained head injuries can exhibit autism-like symptoms, but they do not have autism.

People (like Hannah Poling) who have a mitochondrial disorder can exhibit autism-like symptoms, but they do not have autism.

I know that you don't care about any of this, and would rather just take out your frustrations on me, but the truth is the truth, and if we aren't accurate with terminology, we don't serve ANYONE in this "debate."

[pnwmom]

15. Autism is a diagnosis of exclusion. Do you understand what that means?

If a child has the symptoms of autism -- and does not have another disorder that would explain the symptoms -- then the diagnosis is autism.

Hannah Poling's mitochondrial disorder alone did not explain her autism symptoms. The vaccine court held that the vaccine interacted with her disorder, which interaction resulted in her autism symptoms, i.e. her autism.

Your answer is laughable, really. Do you honestly think any parent in the world would care whether a doctor labeled a child as having "autism symptoms" -- such as (you say) a child could receive from a permanent head injury, or Fragile X, or poisoning -- or whether the doctor labeled it as "autism"?

"Hey, parent, don't worry, that vaccine gave her the same kind of symptoms that can come from a poisoning. But the vaccine didn't poison her, not really. And we won't call it autism. It's only autism like symptoms. There now, don't you feel better?"

:sarcasm:

[trotsky]

16. I am sorry that you continue to want to bash on me instead of using accurate terminology.

At least I've made the facts clear for anyone else who chose to read this much.

[pnwmom]

17. LOL. n/t

[mzmolly]

91. Hannah Polling was diagnosed with autism by her neurologist. Some claim otherwise.

The spin machine talking points are interesting though, huh?

:hi:

[Jim__]

18. Yes, Hannah Poling was diagnosed with autism.

At least according to her mother, the registered nurse, and her father, the neurologist:

Our daughter, Hannah, developed normally until receiving nine vaccines at once. She immediately developed a fever and encephalopathy, deteriorating into what was diagnosed, based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or D.S.M. IV, as autism.

Her parents are both professionals in this area, and also deeply personally involved with access to the medical personnel treating Hannah and to her medical records; and both state that Hannah was diagnosed with autism.

[trotsky]

21. Nope, and that is quite irrelevant.

Nowhere in the court case does it say Hannah has autism. She was never diagnosed with the condition. Sorry.

[Jim__]

31. I hope you can see the obvious non-sequitur in your claim.

And, I'll take the word of her father, the neurologist, and her mother, the registered nurse, who have access to her medical records over people who don't have such access and should realize that they have absolutely no basis to dispute the claims of people who do have access.

[trotsky]

36. If such a diagnosis were fact,

it would have been in the court documents.

It wasn't. So sorry.

[Jim__]

38. You haven't seen all the court documents - n/t

[trotsky]

39. Oh, you have?

:rofl:

[Jim__]

42. I haven't made any claims about what isn't in the court documents.

I cited my source for the claim that Hannah Poling was diagnosed with autism. You've cited nothing to refute that claim.

[trotsky]

43. You have made a claim that you haven't documented at all.

You just say her parents decided. That is not a medical diagnosis, even if her parents are health professionals. A neurologist isn't necessarily trained to diagnose autism.

After you document your claim with an official medical diagnosis of autism, then you can start attacking me.

[Jim__]

45. No, I didn't say her parents decided.

I cited an article in which her parents publicly claimed that Hannah Poling was diagnosed with autism. You've cited nothing to support your claim that she wasn't diagnosed with autism. Yet, without citing any evidence to support your claim, you told another poster that she was repeating a falsehood. You have absolutely no evidence to support that.

[trotsky]

46. You have documented a parent's claim in a letter to the editor.

You have not documented an autism diagnosis.

Keep trying though. It's not up to me to disprove something, it's up to you to PROVE it. 'Til then...

[Jim__]

47. ... and you have documented nothing.

[trotsky]

49. I have referred to the official records of the case, which outline all the details we KNOW.

Here's some more specific info just to further demolish your claim.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=66

She was seen by Dr. Andrew Zimmerman, a pediatric neurologist, who diagnosed her as having: “encephalopathy (that) progressed to persistent loss of previously acquired language, eye contact, and relatedness” or “regressive encephalopathy with features consistent with an autistic spectrum disorder, following normal development.” He also noticed features consistent with a mitochondrial disease and had Hannah undergo a neurogenetics evaluation. Ultimately, she was diagnosed with a disorder of her mitochondria due to a point mutation in the gene for the 16S ribosomal RNA (T2387C).

Medical personnel at the Division of Vaccine Injury Compensation, Department of Health and Human Services (DVIC) have reviewed the facts of this case, as presented by the petition, medical records, and affidavits. After a thorough review, DVIC has concluded that compensation is appropriate in this case.

In sum, DVIC has concluded that the facts of this case meet the statutory criteria for demonstrating that the vaccinations CHILD received on July 19, 2000, significantly aggravated an underlying mitochondrial disorder, which predisposed her to deficits in cellular energy metabolism, and manifested as a regressive encephalopathy with features of autism spectrum disorder. Therefore, respondent recommends that compensation be awarded to petitioners in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-11(c)(1)(C)(ii).

"Features of autism spectrum disorder" is of course not equal to autism. As I noted upthread, individuals with Down's Syndrome have features of ASD, but no one claims they have autism.

[Jim__]

51. All the details WE know. Obviously not all the details her parents know.

Her parents have publicly made an explicit declaration that she has been diagnosed with autism. For very clear reasons, her parents know far more about the case than WE do. You have cited nothing to discredit the parents statement.

[trotsky]

52. If their claim were true,

then it would have been in the court records, because it would have bolstered their case. The fact that the claim does not appear is all the evidence that is needed.

[Jim__]

53. Do we have to rehash arguments? See post #38. - n/t

[pnwmom]

57. It wouldn't have bolstered their case, because legally and medically

it doesn't matter whether she has autism or autism symptoms. She was severely damaged as a result of her mitochondrial disorder's interaction with the vaccine. And no one knows how many other children out there with "symptoms of autism spectrum disorder" also were damaged by a vaccine.

[trotsky]

60. It absolutely would have.

But you are free to believe your own version of reality.

[pnwmom]

56. This girl is severely disabled, whether she has

"autism" or "features of autism spectrum disorder" -- WHO THE HELL CARES?

For some reason, this appears critically important to you, but no reasonable person would think this distinction mattered one iota.

And as I explained to YOU upthread, autism is a diagnosis of exclusion. If a child has no other diagnosis that would explain her autism symptoms -- such as the ones you listed -- then she is said to have autism. Hannah Poling did not have a known cause of autism symptoms, such as Downs, or Fragile X, or a head injury, or poisoning -- unless you count the vaccine itself. Therefore, the only diagnosis that has not been excluded is autism.

[trotsky]

61. People who care about accuracy.

Rather than screaming and laying blame.

If a child has no other diagnosis that would explain her autism symptoms

But she did. She had a diagnosis of mitochondrial disorder, which caused a predisposition to encephalitis, which brought about her autism-like symptoms.

Again though, you clearly don't care about accuracy, you just want to scream and blame.

[pnwmom]

69. The problem is that some people care more about hair-splitting distinctions

than they do about the families like Hannah's.

[trotsky]

73. If your crusade is really about autism, or really about vaccines,

why not be as accurate as possible? Science is all about hair-splitting, and I'm sorry you don't appreciate that and would rather attack me.

[uppityperson]

77. "hair-splitting distinctions" such as correct diagnoses and treatment?

well, yes, many of us do care about that sort of thing. Good thing we scientists and health care providers are such types to want to get correct and accurate diagnoses and treatments.

[pnwmom]

78. As a health care provider, I'm sure you understand something that

Trotsky does not (or pretends not to); autism is a diagnosis of exclusion. If a child has the symptoms of autism, and no other condition that explains the symptoms, then she is considered to have the syndrome.

[uppityperson]

85. However, saying it came from one cause rather than another can be wrong also

If they had evidence of "autism", then they would have presented it to the court, imho.

And, there is a difference between "autism" or "features of autism spectrum disorder". I do not see arguments as to whether or not her or her family's life has been impacted, but disagreement on diagnosis and etiology.

She had a diagnosis of mitochondrial disorder, which caused a predisposition to encephalitis, which brought about her autism-like symptoms.

Those 2 italisized quotes are from you and trosky.

[mzmolly]

94. Scientists and health care providers diagnosed Poling with autism.

Her own father is a neurologist and her mother an RN, which is why I expect the courts could not deny their case?

[Why Syzygy]

48. Seems to me you've got to PROVE her parents lied. nt

[trotsky]

50. False dichotomy. n/t

[Why Syzygy]

59. *snort*

[pnwmom]

55. How do you know it wasn't in the court documents? Have YOU seen them all?

[trotsky]

63. I know because if it HAD BEEN in the documents,

the rabid anti-vaxers at Generation "Rescue" would have screamed it from the mountaintops. (They still tried to, by doing the same thing you and Jim are, but without an actual autism diagnosis, they were once again just showing their asses.)

[pnwmom]

70. IF they didn't, it's because they thought anyone familiar with the condition

would know that autism was a syndrome and that the symptoms are what constitute the syndrome.

[trotsky]

74. Great excuse!

Too bad it wasn't in the court documents, and wasn't even mentioned in the official decision. I know, details, shmetails. Good thing you & Jim can fill in information where you want it! Who gives a rat's ass about accuracy when there's a crusade against vaccines to wage?

[pnwmom]

81. The only thing that mattered to the girl and her family was that she be

compensated for the serious permanent damage that was done to her as a result of receiving the vaccination.

Whether people like you believe her autism symptoms constitute autism or not is completely irrelevant. Her life and her family's have been altered forever.

[trotsky]

82. Lost the argument, so you appeal to emotion.

I guess this has finally run its course.

No one has EVER said that every vaccine is 100% safe and effective, so hopefully you'll never repeat that lie that some have told. Cases like this are why the vaccine court exists. Do we have proof that a vaccine exacerbated Hannah's underlying mitochondrial disorder? No. We have enough circumstantial evidence, however, that a judgment was awarded to her parents to help pay for her care. They, like millions of responsible adults, were willing bear the microscopic risk of vaccines in order to help provide a healthy society. In fact, they remain absolutely supportive of vaccination to this day, if I'm not mistaken. (Her mother said something like "We are completely pro-vaccine" IIRC.)

Would that everyone had such a liberal, society-oriented outlook, rather than seeking to make others think vaccines are today's evil plot to kill and maim.

[pnwmom]

83. This is the first time I've ever seen you acknowledge that

vaccines are not always safe, so that's progress.

[trotsky]

84. Then you have totally ignored about 100 of my previous posts.

Glad you're willing to read.

[pnwmom]

26. Yeah, Jim, she doesn't have autism,

she just ACTS like she's had autism ever since she got sick after she had that vaccine, and the court has made a large settlement with her family because of her autism-symptoms, but no matter, don't worry, it's not "autism." OKAY???

:sarcasm:

[Jim__]

32. He steps all over his own credibility when he makes claims he obviously has no basis to make - n/t

[trotsky]

41. You certainly do.

No diagnosis of autism, yet you continue to make the claim. Definitely some credibility issues there.

[trotsky]

40. Accuracy in terminology is appreciated by those who are serious.

Others just want to bash and be petty.

[pnwmom]

58. Yeah, it all comes down to what the meaning of is is. n/t

[mzmolly]

92. Her Dr. has indicated she's autistic on television as well.

It's interesting that so many appear to believe the common falsehood "she wasn't diagnosed with austism".

:shrug:

[Liberal Veteran]

22. Measles, mumps, rubella, influenza, polio, diptheria, tetanus, etc...are not safe for MOST people

If there is an established medical reason not to vaccinate your child, then you get pass. But let's be honest, the majority of people not vaccinating their children who have access to vaccination are choosing that path because they have been scared into believing a bunch of pseudoscientific nonsense.

[Crunchy Frog]

23. Rubella is safe for most people. It's not safe for developing fetuses.

Several of the other illnesses are relatively safe in that most people who get them will recover without incident. Vaccinations are very valuable, but I don't like seeing the case overstated. Also, you really don't know what the motivations are for an individual person's health care decisions.

[trotsky]

24. And how do we keep the virus away from developing fetuses?

By making sure as many people are vaccinated as possible, so we don't have a chain for the infection to spread around.

I don't know if it's possible to "overstate" the case for vaccination.

[Crunchy Frog]

25. I'm not at all opposed to the rubella vaccine.

My mother almost aborted my sister when the neighbor kids came down with rubella, so I'm actually very much in favor of the vaccine. That doesn't change the fact that the illness is extremely benign in most other people; so benign that my mother didn't know whether she'd ever had it before.

It is possible to overstate things. Claiming that rubella is a dread disease for everyone who gets it is an overstatement, and not necessary to make a case for the vaccine.

[trotsky]

35. Who said that "rubella is a dread disease for everyone who gets it"?

Was it this guy?

[Crunchy Frog]

64. Is that what Liberal Veteran looks like?

He said that rubella is not safe for MOST people. I pointed out that it's safe for almost everyone with the exception of fetuses.

[trotsky]

65. But did LV say "rubella is a dread disease for everyone who gets it"?

Yes or no?

[Crunchy Frog]

66. So it's wrong when I overstate something but not when LV does. OK.

[trotsky]

67. No, but if that's what you need to believe, go for it. n/t

[pnwmom]

27. In my generation, MOST children had measles, mumps, rubella and

chicken pox without suffering any long-lasting effects. The vast majority of women today who have the HPV virus will not develop cancer. Some vaccines are less critical than others.

Having said that, rubella can cause damage to the developing fetus, so it poses a serious risk beyond that of the mild symptoms children usually have.

[Ian David]

19. Jim Carrey loves the pro-disease movement

Living with Jenny McCarthy must have infected Jim Carrey’s brain, because yesterday he posted an astonishingly fallacious antivaccination propaganda piece for the Huffington Post screed.

Carrey is the boyfriend of Public Health Threat Jenny McCarthy and has been an antivaccination advocate for some time. He is a funny guy and a movie star, but I don’t think either of those things should give him a public voice wherein he can mislead people about vaccinations.

The article Carrey wrote has so much wrong in it that it almost qualifies as self-satirizing. His very first paragraph is a textbook example of spin. Basically, a few months ago a special court looked at three cases of potential damage due to vaccinations, and found no evidence of any connection. About this, Carrey says:

…a ruling against causation in three cases out of more than 5000 hardly proves that other children won’t be adversely affected by the MMR, let alone that all vaccines are safe. This is a huge leap of logic by anyone’s standards.

More:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/04/23/jim-carrey-loves-the-pro-disease-movement/


If there is a god, Jim Carrey and Jenny McCarthy will die of Polio.

[Why Syzygy]

30. Wishing polio

on someone displays your superior moral values so well :eyes:

[pnwmom]

33. No, he just has a reasonable dispute with the vax-to-the-max crowd.

He's right. The three cases don't prove that NO child will ever be harmed by ANY vaccine. Millions of children weren't damaged by the old DPT vaccine, for example -- but that didn't matter to the thousands who were.

Jenny McCarthy's son developed autism soon after a vaccination. Imagine how that must have felt -- allowing your child to have a vaccine that you're convinced permanently injured him. Whether she is right or wrong, I can't imagine how any decent person could wish polio on her.

[21st century fox]

87. Tell it, Sister!

You have to wonder what motivates such vociferous opposition to mothers like McCarthy with direct experience in this matter. Methinks they are benefitting financially from the "health" (read: drug) industry in some way.

[cosmik debris]

89. That was a quick exit! n/t

[mzmolly]

93. Why must one fall into two categories with you people?

If Jim Carrey dies of polio, it will be due to vaccine failure as surely he's had his. Further, should we wish vaccine related death upon you?

[xchrom]

86. ...

:applause: :applause: :applause:

[omega minimo]

88. Is the whole thing full of insults & arrogance like the quotes or is he professional at some point?

[xchrom]

90. kick