Category: Vaccine Misinformation

What Happens When You Research the Disease?

We know how anti-vaccine folks think.

Anti-vaccine math…

And now we know how they do their research

How Anti-Vaccine Folks Research Disease

If you’re like me, you are probably wondering why they picked 2016 as the year to research.

Why look just at 2016?

And, there you see it.

In the past 6 years, 2016 was the year with the fewest cases of measles. Why not choose 2017 or 2018 to do their research?

But let’s look at 2016, even though the information isn’t complete:

  • 86 cases
  • cases in 19 states, including Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah
  • a large outbreak in Arizona (31 cases) linked to a private detention center and all that is known is that 7 of 9 staff members who got measles had received at least one dose of MMR, and 3 had received their dose very recently
  • a large outbreak in Shelby County, Tennessee, at least 7 cases, including 6 unvaccinated and one partially vaccinated child
  • a large measles outbreak (17 cases) in Los Angeles County and Santa Barbara County that was linked to the Los Angeles Orthodox Jewish community
  • two cases in Colorado, including an unvaccinated toddler and an unvaccinated adult – outbreaks which cost at least $68,192 to control

And of th cases in 2016, it seems that just 16% were vaccinated.

What about the claim that 26% were vaccinated?

That wasn’t 26% of the total number of cases, but rather 26% of the cases among US residents.

So if you do the math, that’s just 14 cases that were vaccinated, and out of 86 cases, that’s really just 16%. And a lot of those cases are skewed by the one outbreak at the detention center, in which they may have only received one dose of MMR and nearly half may have gotten vaccinated after the caught had already started!

What about the claim that “the odds of dying from the measles are like 0.00000013%” using numbers “before the vaccine was introduced in 1963?”

“Before a vaccine became available in 1963, measles was a rite of passage among American children. A red rash would spread over their bodies. They would develop a high fever. Severe cases could cause blindness or brain damage, or even death.”

CDC says measles almost eliminated in U.S.

In the pre-vaccine era, your odds of getting measles were very high. Remember, everyone eventually got measles.

And looking at statistics of reported measles cases and reported measles deaths, we know that death occurred in about 1 to 3 in every 1,000 reported cases.

So everyone got measles, but not everyone survived having measles.

Even if you use a more liberal count of 1 death in 10,000 cases, when all kids get measles, that’s a lot of deaths. Remember, about 450 people used to die with measles each year.

What about your odds of dying with measles now?

If you are fully vaccinated, then they are extremely low.

They are pretty low if you are unvaccinated too, in most cases, because you are benefiting from herd immunity and the fact that most folks around you are vaccinated, reducing your risk of being exposed to measles. Still, the risk is much higher than most anti-vaccine folks expect, because they often make the mistake of using the entire population of the United States in their calculations. They should instead just use the folks who are unvaccinated and susceptible, a much smaller number.

Want to increase your risk?

  • travel out of the country
  • hang out in a cluster with other unvaccinated people
  • stay unvaccinated

The odds aren’t in your favor to avoid measles if you are unvaccinated. Eventually, your luck might run out.

Starting to see the mistakes anti-vaccine folks make when they say they have done their research?

“How do they know how many people would have gotten measles and how many of them would have died?!?”

It’s not rocket science.

It’s epidemiology.

“We constructed a state-space model with population and immunisation coverage estimates and reported surveillance data to estimate annual national measles cases, distributed across age classes. We estimated deaths by applying age-specific and country-specific case-fatality ratios to estimated cases in each age-country class.”

Simons et al on Assessment of the 2010 global measles mortality reduction goal: results from a model of surveillance data.

Unfortunately, after years of improvements, measles deaths increased in 2017. And they will continue to increase, as our risk of getting measles continues to increase if folks don’t get vaccinated and protected.

Lastly, why does it “sound like millions of people would have died without the measles vaccine?”

Maybe because millions of people died in previous years, before they were vaccinated and protected.

Indeed, do your research, but you will find that vaccine-preventable diseases aren’t as mild as anti-vaccine folks believe. That’s why it is important to get vaccinated and protected.

More on Researching Vaccine-Preventable Disease

Why Would Vaccines Be Designed to Kill People?

If you are playing devil’s advocate with anti-vaccine folks, trying to figure out how they think, it isn’t a terrible question.

Remember, many anti-vaccine folks think that vaccines never work and that they always cause injuries – to everyone that gets them.

Why Would Vaccines Be Designed to Kill People?

We can start with Larry Cook‘s “answer,” which was in the form of another question:

“Why do doctors and medical examiners deny vaccine injury and death?”

Larry Cook

Wait, do doctors and medical examiners deny vaccine injury and death?

Uh, no they don’t.

They are often skeptical that each and everything that happens after someone gets a vaccine, even if it is months or years later, is a vaccine injury though. But we do know that although rare, vaccine injuries are real and can sometimes be life-threatening.

But why would vaccines actually be designed to kill people?

Makes sense, right?

  1. Make vaccines that kill people.
  2. ?
  3. Profit.

Actually, it doesn’t make any sense, does it?

Vaccine-preventable diseases kill people. In the pre-vaccine era, they killed a lot more people.

If you want to control the population or make life-long customers, why not just let them get smallpox, measles, chicken pox, hepatitis B, and HPV?

“Results revealed a significant negative relationship between anti-vaccine conspiracy beliefs and vaccination intentions. This effect was mediated by the perceived dangers of vaccines, and feelings of powerlessness, disillusionment and mistrust in authorities.”

Jolley et al on The Effects of Anti-Vaccine Conspiracy Theories on Vaccination Intentions

And if you wanted to do that, you could just push a lot of conspiracy theories about vaccines to scare folks away from getting vaccinated…

So, could bacteria and viruses be controlling the minds of these disease-friendly, influential anti-vaccine folks, helping to make sure people are intentionally unvaccinated, so that they can spread among us more easily?

Since I’m too skeptical to go down that rabbit hole, it is probably a safer bet to think that most are just doing it to sell supplements in their stores, get commissions from pushing online seminars, and ads from folks visiting their sites.

“Conspiracy beliefs are therefore associated with common motivations that drive intergroup conflict. Two social motivations in particular are relevant for conspiracy thinking. The first motivation is to uphold a strong ingroup identity, which increases perceivers’ sense‐making motivation when they believe their group is under threat by outside forces. That is, people worry about possible conspiracies only when they feel strongly connected with, and hence care about, the prospective victims of these conspiracies. The second social motivation is to protect against a coalition or outgroup suspected to be hostile”

van Prooijen et al on Belief in conspiracy theories: Basic principles of an emerging research domain

Will any of this help anti-vaccine folks see that these anti-vaccine conspiracy theories aren’t true?

Unfortunately, it probably won’t.

Like vaccine-injury stories, conspiracy theories are one of the things that hold up, and hold together, the modern anti-vaccine movement.

More on Why Would Vaccines Be Designed to Kill People?

Propaganda Busting Confirms Anti-vaccine Sites Photoshop Images

Spend a few minutes going through our list of anti-vaccine PRATTs, and you will quickly realize that they just push misinformation and propaganda.

Propaganda Busting Confirms Anti-vaccine Sites Photoshop Images

How easy is it to refute their claims?

Consider this “article” about measles outbreaks

It shows an infant with chicken pox.

While that could be a simple mistake, it is actually a Photoshopped stock image of an infant with chicken pox that adds a big scary needle and syringe, that I guess is supposed to represent a vaccine.

Where's the syringe and needle?
Where’s the syringe and needle?

The thing is, neither the chicken pox nor MMR vaccine look like that and neither would be given with such a long needle!

In fact, that needle is about twice the size as any needle that would be used on an infant or toddler, which is why they had to Photoshop a separate photo of a big syringe and needle onto the infant with chicken pox.

It's just a stock image of a big syringe and needle...
It’s just a stock image of a big syringe and needle…

Now that you know that the photo is make-believe, you shouldn’t be surprised that their “article” is too.

This erroneous thinking has led the public, media and government alike to attribute the origin of measles outbreaks, such as the one reported at Disney in 2015 (and which lead to the passing of SB277 that year, stripping vaccine exemptions for all but medical reasons in California), to the non-vaccinated, even though 18% of the measles cases occurred in those who had been vaccinated against it — hardly the vaccine’s two-dose claimed “97% effectiveness.”

Government Research Confirms Measles Outbreaks Are Transmitted By The Vaccinated

By itself, the number of cases in an outbreak doesn’t exactly tell you a vaccine’s effectiveness. You also have to know something about how many people were vaccinated and unvaccinated and the attack rate, etc.

“Among the 110 California patients, 49 (45%) were unvaccinated; five (5%) had 1 dose of measles-containing vaccine, seven (6%) had 2 doses, one (1%) had 3 doses, 47 (43%) had unknown or undocumented vaccination status, and one (1%) had immunoglobulin G seropositivity documented, which indicates prior vaccination or measles infection at an undetermined time.”

Measles Outbreak — California, December 2014–February 2015

Anyway, in the Disneyland outbreak, if you do the math correctly, you can see that only 8 of 110 were fully vaccinated, or about 7%.

What does that tell you about vaccine effectiveness?

Not much!

Again, we don’t know how many vaccinated vs unvaccinated folks were exposed and didn’t get measles.

We can guess though…

Most folks are vaccinated, even in California. So the fact that only 7% of the people that got measles in the outbreak were fully vaccinated actually says quite a lot about how effective the MMR vaccine really is.

What about the idea that vaccinated people are starting outbreaks and spreading measles?

While the vast majority of measles outbreaks are in fact traced to someone who is unvaccinated, there was one outbreak in 2011 that was “started” by someone who was vaccinated.

“She had documentation of receipt of MMR vaccination at 3 years and 4 years of age. There was no travel during the incubation period and no known sick contacts. However, the index patient worked at a theater frequented by tourists.”

Outbreak of Measles Among Persons With Prior Evidence of Immunity, New York City, 2011

Since even the MMR vaccine isn’t 100% effective, is it really so surprising that occasionally, someone who received two doses of the vaccine could get measles and pass it to others, especially considering that around 220 people got measles in the United States that year?

“During 2011, a provisional total of 222 measles cases were reported from 31 states… Most patients were unvaccinated (65%) or had unknown vaccination status (21%). Of the 222, a total of 196 were U.S. residents. Of those U.S. residents who had measles, 166 were unvaccinated or had unknown vaccination status, 141 (85%) were eligible for MMR vaccination, 18 (11%) were too young for vaccination, six (4%) were born before 1957 and presumed immune, and one (1%) had previous laboratory evidence of presumptive immunity to measles.”

Measles — United States, 2011

Is the MMR vaccine a failure because there were some still some outbreaks in the 1980s, before we started to give kids a second dose? The attack rate in many of these school outbreaks, in which many kids had one dose of MMR, was still only about 2 to 3%.

It is safe to blame a failure to vaccinate and intentionally unvaccinated kids for most of the recent measles outbreaks.

Is the MMR vaccine a failure because we still have outbreaks among intentionally unvaccinated kids and every once in a while, in someone who is fully vaccinated who gets caught up in an outbreak?

Of course not!

It is easy to do a little research, consider what disease rates looked like in the pre-vaccine era, and know that vaccines work and that they are necessary.

More on Propaganda Busting Confirms Anti-vaccine Sites Photoshop Images

Sharyl Attkisson’s Full Measure Vaccine Debate Bombshell

A bombshell about vaccines from Sharyl Attkisson?

To be fair, even Sharyl Attkisson doesn't go so far as to talk about a CIA cover-up over vaccines or a banned video. That's just something extra that Natural News threw in to make her story sound even scarier.
To be fair, even Sharyl Attkisson doesn’t go so far as to talk about a CIA cover-up over vaccines or a banned video. That’s just something extra that the Health Ranger threw in to make her story sound even scarier.

The only bombshell that’s dropping about Sharyl Attkisson is that someone hasn’t gotten fired yet for putting her show on TV.

Sharyl Attkisson’s Full Measure Vaccine Debate Bombshell

To be fair, it’s a bit of a stretch to say that her show, Full Measure, is “on TV.”

“Full Measure is broadcast to 43 million households in 79 markets on 162 Sinclair Broadcast Group stations, including ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, CW, MyTV, Univision and Telemundo affiliates.”

The show appears at various times on various channels, kind of like an infomercial. And these stations, owed by Sinclair Broadcasting Group, have to run the show.

The show isn’t really on ABC, NBC, or even FOX or CW… It is only on affiliate stations that Sinclair Broadcast Group owns.

And like an infomercial, it seems like Sharyl Attkisson has something to sell.

There is nothing new in Sharyl Attkisson's report or techniques.
There is nothing new in Sharyl Attkisson’s report or techniques.

Unfortunately, some folks are still buying it

You shouldn’t. Vaccines are safe and necessary and certainly aren’t associated with autism.

More on Sharyl Attkisson’s Full Measure Vaccine Debate Bombshell

Did Dr. Bob Uncover a CDC Plot to Give Adult Flu Shots to Babies?

Have you heard the news?

Uh, the ACIP can't request a license for a vaccine...
Uh, the ACIP can’t request a license for a vaccine…

Dr. Bob and his new podcasting side kick think that the “CDC wants the FDA to approve adult doses of the flu vaccine for babies, because the normal half-doses approved for babies don’t work well enough.”

Did Dr. Bob Uncover a CDC Plot to Give Adult Flu Shots to Babies?

This is likely going to surprise Dr. Bob, but many infants already get the same dose of flu vaccine as adults.

Both FluLaval and Fluarix are given at the same 0.5ml dose, containing 15 µg of HA per vaccine virus, to infants, older children, and adults.

Fluzone, on the other hand, is still given at a 0.25ml dose, containing 7.5 µg of HA per vaccine virus, to children between the ages of 6 months to three years, and a larger 0.5ml dose to older kids and adults.

Why the differences?

“In a randomized trial comparing immunogenicity and safety of 0.5 mL FluLaval Quadrivalent with 0.25 mL Fluzone Quadrivalent, safety and reactogenicity were similar between the two vaccines.”

Prevention and Control of Seasonal Influenza with Vaccines: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices—United States, 2018–19 Influenza Season

Because they are just as safe at the lower doses and might actually work better.

Then why did we ever use a lower dose for infants?

That recommendation was based on the older, whole-virus version of the flu shot, which did cause more side effects for infants when given at a full dose. We now use split-virus flu shots that don’t have this problem.

And now, the manufacturer of Fluzone has done a study, and not surprisingly, they have also found that “safety profile of a 0.5 ml (full-dose) is similar to 0.25 ml (half-dose) and may be more immunogenic.”

So they are submitting a BLA to the FDA for the use of the 0.5ml dose of their flu vaccine for infants.

What about the idea of an “adult dose of mercury” for infants?

Over 80% of flu vaccines were thimerosal free this year. You almost have to go out of your way to get your kids a flu vaccine with thimerosal, so no, this won’t mean an “adult dose of mercury” for your infant.

Most importantly though, if you understand how vaccines work, you know that the dose of vaccines for kids and adults is not calibrated by weight or age, so none of this really matters. The immune reaction that helps antibodies travel all through your body starts locally, near where the vaccine was given, so a 20-pound infant and a 200-pound adult can get the same dose of flu shot and both can be protected.

More on Dr. Bob’s CDC Plot to Give Adult Flu Shots to Babies

Does Getting a Flu Vaccine Increase Your Risk of Spreading the Flu or Getting Others Sick?

Have you heard the latest flu vaccine bombshell from anti-vaccine folks?

Like all other anti-vaccine bombshells, this one is a dud.
Like all other anti-vaccine bombshells, this one is a dud.

They think that they have evidence that flu vaccines spread the flu.

Does Getting a Flu Vaccine Increase Your Risk of Spreading the Flu or Getting Others Sick?

The latest anti-vaccine bombshell comes from Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, and is posted among a bunch of other articles that will have you scratching your head.

Did you know that Amazon’s Alexa is a ‘demon device,’ Apple is banning Christian apps in a war on Christianity, and that CHAOS is coming in the new year?

Not surprisingly, the “latest” anti-vaccine bombshell was a dud, even though it continues to be shared on the majority of anti-vaccine websites and Facebook groups.

What’s the problem?

Anti-vaccine folks are simply misinterpreting a small study, Infectious virus in exhaled breath of symptomatic seasonal influenza cases from a college community, from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Of course, that the study wasn’t a great anti-vaccine bombshell is easy to see if you actually read it.

Although the study did find an association between vaccination and greater fine-aerosol shedding for influenza A infections, if the flu vaccine really increases your risk for spreading the flu, then:

  • why wasn’t getting a flu vaccine associated with coarse-aerosol or nasopharyngeal shedding?
  • why wasn’t the association of vaccination and shedding significant for influenza B infections?

The answer is that because it was a small study, the finding about vaccination and shedding likely wasn’t really significant.

It wasn’t even what they were looking at in the study, which was instead trying to prove that you don’t have to cough and sneeze to spread the flu – simply breathing can spread infectious flu particles.

“Unvaccinated people are more likely to get the flu and transmit it to other people because they shed lots of virus into the nasal secretions into the air.”

Donald K. Milton

And as the authors of the study clarified, folks who aren’t sick because they got vaccinated and didn’t get the flu won’t shed and won’t get anyone else sick.

If anything, the study confirms just how hard it is to avoid folks sick with the flu and why everyone should get a flu vaccine each year.

And how hard it is to avoid anti-vaccine misinformation

After all, anti-vaccine folks could have done a little digging and found that a previous study about influenza virus aerosols, Exposure to Influenza Virus Aerosols During Routine Patient Care, didn’t find a statistically significant difference among folks who got a flu vaccine and how much flu virus they shed (emitters vs non-emitters). In fact, they found that a small percentage of these patients were superemitters, who “exceeded average influenza virus aerosol concentrations by multiple times.”

What’s that mean?

It’s just another reason to get vaccinated and protected. While you don’t want to be exposed to a superemitter and get the flu, you also don’t want to get the flu and become a superemitter, getting lots of other people sick.

More on Does Getting a Flu Vaccine Increase Your Risk of Spreading the Flu or Getting Others Sick?

The Latest Anti-Vaccine Bombshell on Infanrix Hexa is Just Another Dud

There are a lot of things about the latest anti-vaccine bombshell that won’t surprise you

For one thing, the “bombshell” isn’t recent. Anti-vaccine folks are just re-posting it now because a new hexavalent vaccine just got FDA approval.

The Latest Anti-Vaccine Bombshell on Infanrix Hexa is Just Another Dud

What about the 1,271 page confidential GSK document that was leaked to the press?

It was actually a document that was submitted as part of an Italian court case.

What about the idea of “missing deaths” and under-reporting of vaccine deaths?

“Before specifically addressing your analysis, it’s important to note that the issue of whether there is an increased risk of Sudden Infant Death following vaccination generally and following vaccination with DTP-containing vaccines more specifically is one that has been considered and thoroughly evaluated not only by GSK but also by a number of world-renowned regulatory agencies and public health authorities, including the European Medicines Agency, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization. The clear consensus amongst such agencies and authorities is that one cannot reasonably conclude, based on available data and information, that there is a causal relationship between vaccination generally or vaccination with Infanrix hexa and Sudden Infant Death.”

Dr. Norman Begg, Chief Medical Officer, GSK Vaccines on Infanrix hexa and sudden death: a review of the periodic safety update reports submitted to the European Medicines Agency

It’s no bombshell that this is all propaganda and these issues have been thoroughly investigated. Or that someone got a “study” that manipulated and misinterpreted data published in a predatory journal.

The idea that the hexavalent vaccines could be causing unexplained cases of sudden infant death shortly after vaccination began after a few case reports from Germany in 2003. Further studies, including a large study in Italy, found no risk.

What about the idea of “missing deaths” in safety reports from the manufacturer?

If there are so many "missing deaths," then why is the cumulative number of deaths higher in the latest report?
If there are so many “missing deaths,” then why is the cumulative number of deaths higher in the latest report?

Of course, there are no missing deaths.

I found the “missing deaths” that Puliyel talks about in his Infanrix hexa paper – in the GSK report he used to write his “study.”

The GSK report explains that twelve deaths were excluded from analysis, apparently eight from the first year (101 cumulative) and three from the second year (five cumulative), which is why the cumulative deaths dropped from eight to five.

Why?

“A cumulative review of Sudden Death (SD) since launch has been performed. Follow-up information received for older cases was taken into account. Design of the below observed to expected analysis was revisited in view of comments EMA expressed in the assessment report of PSUR 15-16 (dated 26 April 2012).”

GlaxoSmithKline Biological clinical safety and pharmacovigilance’s confidential report to the EMA: PSUR 19, page 440

Keep in mind that these are cumulative deaths since they began using the vaccine in 2000, and which are below the expected background rates of SIDS.

Vaccines are safe.

Hexavalent vaccines are safe.

Do your research before buying into the next anti-vaccine bombshell that try to throw at you to scare you away from vaccinating and protecting your kids.

More on the Latest Anti-Vaccine Bombshell