Gardasil linked to deaths and disabilities after young girls vaccinated: Toronto Star investigation

If you think I have communicated a logical fallacy, you will have to be very explicit about what it is and why it is a logical fallacy.

The logical fallacies came into play when you said that if immunity to HPV caused infertility that humanity would be extinct.

I NEVER suggested that immunity caused infertility. What I said was that NOBODY CAN SAY whether or not Gardasil could cause infertility.

Of course Gardasil contains other ingredients. ALL vaccines contain ingredients in addition to the antigenic component. There is no more reason to think that the buffers, salts, and adjuvant contained in Gardasil would have any more effect on fertility than the buffers, salts, and adjuvant contained in any other vaccine have.

That's all well and good, but no other vaccine involves giving girls strains of a virus that affects the reproductive organs at the exact same time that those organs are maturing.

I should also point out that the development of Gardasil began before 1988. Thus, it was tested for 18 years, in thousands of patients, before it was approved. Had any safety issues showed up then, it would not have been approved.

No, the first widespread tests began in 2004.

No. Many cases of HPV (of any type) do clear on their own, but a significant number do not. Now, for some ballpark estimates:

About 4 million babies are born per year. Roughly half of them are girls, so that equates to 2 million new women per year.
Around 250,000 to 1,000,000 women per year are diagnosed with cervical dysplasia. That is, 1/8 to 1/2 of all women develop cervical dysplasia at some point in their lives.
Between 30 and 50% of those dysplasias develop into invasive cancer if left untreated.

Do you realize how absurd it is to state that between 250,000 and 1,000,000 cases of cervical dysplasia are DIAGNOSED each year?!

Why is it that the CDC can tell down to the single digits how many people are diagnosed with other diseases each year, but this has a potential deviation of up to 400%?

Who came up with these numbers? Is it a quarter of a million or is it a million? This isn't science, it's a guess and it sounds like the left's typical junk science (i.e. global warming).

Merck pulled its own drug after some extremely weak statistical correlations were made between its drug and cardiovascular events. Those correlations were too weak to ever be uncovered in clinical trials (which typically involve several thousand patients). They also did not show up consistently in studies. It is still unclear whether there is any real relation between the use of Vioxx and cardiovascular events, or in the case that such a relation exists, if it is specific to Vioxx, or it is an effect of all drugs in that class.

In any case, it is clear that Merck did NOT try to hide data in order to market a drug that it knew would fare badly in a risk/benefit analysis.

Where did you get this? Merck's website?

It was pulled because Merck got caught hiding evidence that Vioxx was causing heart attacks and killing people.

Companies DO NOT agree to pay $5 BILLION based on "extremely weak statistical correlations."

Companies DO NOT agree to pay millions to state governments for deceptive practices based on "extremely weak statistical correlations."

Companies DO NOT plead guilty to federal charges and pay 4950 MILLION in fines based on "extremely weak statistical correlations."

You may or may not realize this (to be honest, I'm fairy certain that you don't), but you lost ANY glimmer of credibility when you decided to defend Merck on Vioxx.

The logical fallacies came into play when you said that if immunity to HPV caused infertility that humanity would be extinct.
I NEVER suggested that immunity caused infertility. What I said was that NOBODY CAN SAY whether or not Gardasil could cause infertility.

Given that the only component of Gardasil that is unique to that vaccine is the HPV Late-one (L1) protein, there really is nothing else that could even be suspected of causing infertility. And if immunity to L1 somehow caused infertility (presumably by causing the immune system to cross-react with some protein necessary for reproduction), then the human race would have gone extinct hundreds of thousands of years ago. Papillomavirus has been around for a LONG time; it co-evolved with us.

That's all well and good, but no other vaccine involves giving girls strains of a virus that affects the reproductive organs at the exact same time that those organs are maturing.

The vaccine does not affect the reproductive organs any more than any other vaccine does. It is injected into the arm, and the immune system reacts to it at the site of injection. The immune cells, however, travel all over the body so that the cells trained to identify HPV L1 can respond to the virus anywhere in the body.

In a natural HPV infection (of any of the 100+ strains of HPV), the L1 protein is typically made after the virus has already invaded the cell and taken it over for the purpose of making new virus particles. L1 protein is the major component of the virus shell; in a viable virus, the DNA and other viral proteins are packaged inside this shell. In the vaccine, the shell is empty because none of the other viral components are present. Also, because L1 does not specifically attach to cells, this "virus-like particle" (VLP) made of L1 does not typically enter cells. Even if it does enter, since the VLP does not contain viral DNA, it can't do anything inside a cell. The cell just chops it up and present fragments of L1 on its surface to attract the attention of T cells.

During the course of a viral infection, the virus attaches to the exterior of a susceptible cell. In the case of HPV, this is an epithelial cell; sexually transmitted HPV attaches to mucosal cells (found in the genitals, anus, and mouth/throat). Once it attaches, the cell carries it inside. The viral DNA enters the nucleus of the cell and takes over all of the biochemical processes of that cell to force it to make new virus particles. Those virus particles are released from the cell and infect new cells. Once a cell is infected, it does not regain its original function; the immune system's killer T cells kill it if they find it.

In the case of HPV, the virus DNA can insert itself into a chromosome--into the human DNA. Depending on where it inserts, it can disrupt the normal function of that cell (which can cause cancer). It can sit there in the DNA for years, and can direct the affected cell to make virus proteins all that time. When those viral proteins are constantly made in the cell, they can disrupt normal cell function (which can lead to cancer). Some HPV proteins (not L1, but other proteins) directly interfere with cell cycle control, which is a really bad thing, since an aspect of cancer is the uncontrolled growth of cells.

Clearly, a viral infection is far more disruptive to health than a vaccine that contains a single non-infectious viral protein.

Do you realize how absurd it is to state that between 250,000 and 1,000,000 cases of cervical dysplasia are DIAGNOSED each year?!

Actually, not. I realize that since I constantly read the disease table, this kind of language seems perfectly normal to me. There is not an exact number of cases of any disease reported per year; the number is variable. This is because there is variability in actual number of cases and in reporting efficiency. What that number means is that the CDC has seen as few as 250,000 cases and as many as 1,000,000 cases reported in different years, with the actual number of cases reported most years being somewhere between those two extremes.

Where did you get this? Merck's website?

Actually, it did not occur to me to look at their website. I read several articles, including meta-analyses of study data, and looked at the numbers for myself. There is too much uncertainty to say that Vioxx is particularly dangerous, or that it is any more dangerous than any other drug in its class. Apparently, the people in whom the putative increase in cardiovascular events occurred had been taking Vioxx daily for at least 18 months. Even if those events occurred specifically because of the Vioxx (and not other drugs of its class), that would still mean that Vioxx is perfectly safe for occasional use. As a biochemist, I would strongly recommend against taking ANY drug daily for a prolonged period unless there is a strong medical reason to do so--just because of the fact that taking any drug (no matter how safe it is for occasional use) long-term can have effects on the body, and it is very difficult and expensive to determine those effects with studies.

Companies DO NOT agree to pay $5 BILLION based on "extremely weak statistical correlations."

Actually, companies pay out on "damages" all the time, even if their product has nothing to do with the adverse effects. They do this because juries are all too happy to see companies as pots of gold, and they feel sorry for someone who gets up on the stand and provides tear-filled testimony about how they got some horrible disease while they were using that company's product. It does not matter whether the product had anything to do with the disease: the jury will award them money. Some companies do a cost analysis and determine that it's cheaper just to pay out up front on the basis of allegations (or extremely weak statistics) than to incur legal costs.

The fact that the federal government fined Merck also does not signify anything about the drug's actual safety. We all know that the government will take money any way it possibly can--and levying fines is a common source of revenue for government.

BTW, are you aware that there are people who are upset that Vioxx is no longer available, because they consider it a far safer alternative to existing drugs?

That link you posted does not support your claim that you have information that the FDA knew of contamination of endoscopes since 2009 (and presumably did nothing even though it knew). What you linked is an article written by a couple of medical personnel describing problems with sterilizing endoscopes, types of bacteria often found following inadequate sterilization, and a method to better monitor sterility. Nothing in that article suggests that the FDA is hiding anything, or failing to take action when warranted.

Even if multiple outbreaks occur, it is not apparent why they occur. Is the problem that the recommended procedures for sterilization aren’t followed correctly, or that the procedures are inadequate? That question is not easy to answer. The total number of outbreaks (75 reported in one year, from a total of 500,000 endoscopic procedures done annually) is actually quite low. That could very well be the result of technicians who don’t pay attention to detail—and as such, would not be an FDA issue since the FDA oversees product design, not technical training. I believe that oversight of training procedures comes under the purview of JCAHO, not FDA.

My experience working in research tells me that sterility is exceptionally difficult to achieve 100% of the time; it such a huge concern that we constantly try to improve methods and technique for achieving and preserving sterility. Even with meticulous technique, you can still come to the lab in the morning and find out your experiment is contaminated and you have to start over. I won’t go into the details about everything we did to keep things sterile; I’ll just say that I expect achieving and maintaining sterility in a patient-care setting is just as challenging as in the research setting.

Why do you expect the FDA to be omniscient about such matters? It isn’t God; it’s just a regulatory agency staffed by human beings, and it depends on others to report problems.

I’ve got many more than that (journal articles from years). Bottom Line, the Fed Govt. can not be your absolute source to be informed. How many doctors that have written in journal articles do you want me to paste here. I posted an article that is not written for the “elite”. After my undergrad and grad school, I chose as my career raising my four kids, full-time, without “wages”, that was my JOB. Raising healthy, educated children. (I got two more degrees later) I believe after writing so many papers, that I had to use terms that the average person might not recognize. (psycho babble,edu babble and lawyer speak terminology in the latter years, and engineering terms in the former).I hated having to write using word inflation instead of cutting to the chase as in engineering and average-speak. In my experience in Education this is done frequently to ostracize those not “in the field”. Read and hear all these “big words” and immediately it is intimidating and confusing. A person doesn’t want to be “embarrassed” by asking, “what does this mean”? This happens in the Dr’s offices too frequently to patients. A patient should be able to query their own doctor, then if prescribed something, query the Pharmacist (they know more about the medicine, reactions, contraindications), and include informing yourself by READING, I also double checked the Dr. and Pharmacist myself on the dosage calculations. A “mistake” could mean serious injury or DEATH.

The FDA was aware and did NOT go far enough in WARNING. Remember the DENTAL instruments? If science had been settled,those instruments wouldn’t be sterilized now as they are and people would still be exposed to AIDS, Hepatitis and other body fluid communicable diseases. If you TRULY want (your salary and career aside) to honestly promote and present the science you have experience with, DON’T BELITTLE and use ALINSKY tactics. I could post at least 50 articles on what I spoke of. Why use up the bandwith? If you believe the Fed. Govt REALLY and HONESTLY has your best interests at heart, then by all means YOU LIVE THAT WAY AND DON’T USE COMPLEMENTARY sources to ALLOPATHIC MEDICINE and leave everyone else with the same rights? NOT that hard.

I do agree, the FDA and CDC are NOT GOD and are HUMANS that make mistakes, but when presented with evidence to the contrary they have no problem in some cases, dropping the ball and not admitting “mistakes”. If you are one of the statistical mistakes, I suppose the attitude is, “it sucks to be you”? I prefer to strive so there aren’t any “statistically insignificant mistakes” after all, if it’s you or your family, it’s hardly “insignificant” is it?

This guy, PhD, is pretty smart.
http://endoscopereprocessing.com/2013/12/overlooked-outbreaks-superbug-cre-following-gastrointestinal-endoscopy/

The history of smallpox inoculation is interesting.(400 years or more of history) The practitioners had ‘anecdotal’ stories and they didn’t have PhD’s, but with their experiences and observations they saw that it worked. Many drugs have roots in folk stories, folk medicine, old-wives tales. They just isolate what they think is the reactive chemical, add something inert, and bamm! A patent.

Up in my neck of the woods, the Fed Govt. used to test Nukes, neglecting to inform the citizens downwind of the risks. If someone believes solely that the Feds have our best interest at heart, I believe that makes the Fed Govt. some kind of demi-god.

Questioning keeps them honest, or should

I'm sorry, I really don't know what the point of that rather long post is.

At one point, you claim to read a lot of medical journal articles, but then you go on to contradict that claim by complaining that the use of scientific language amounts to jargon meant to ostracize those outside of the field. Well, which is it--are you well-enough educated and read in the field of medicine to understand medical terminology, or is it all Greek to you?

Bottom Line, the Fed Govt. can not be your absolute source to be informed.

Oh, I need to break up my train of thought to comment on this right now. In the matter of science, the Federal Government (or, to be more exact, Federally employed scientists) gets its information the same way that non-government scientists do: from the scientific literature. The government is not, for the most part, the source of information; the exception to that is in the area of research, where government scientists work in government research labs, conducting experiments and publishing their results. And when they publish, they publish as individuals expressing individual opinion; they do not publish as the voice of the federal government. (Really. There is a disclaimer at the bottom of medical papers published by government employed scientists that says exactly that.)

The purpose of scientific jargon, btw, is not to ostracize people. It is to describe highly technical topics as accurately as possible. Whenever I explain technical subjects to lay people (for instance, here on Free Republic), I am left with a dilemma: if I describe the topic as accurately as possible, most people won't understand it, but if I dumb it down too much, I cannot adequately explain the point I am trying to make. (And then there are the people who think that because I'm not using all of the big words, I must not know what I'm talking about, even though they personally wouldn't know the difference between endocytosis and transcription.) In post #104, I was trying to explain why the Gardasil vaccine could not possibly affect fertility to an audience that knows nothing about how vaccines work. That is more of a challenge than I think you can possibly realize.

In the course of my work, I often have to give speeches. When I have to do that, I find out as much as I can about the audience before I draft the speech. That is because I have to communicate to them, and if they don't understand the terminology, I haven't done that. Not long ago, I gave a speech first to a mixed audience, second to a group of physicians. It was a lot easier talking to the physicians, since I didn't have to worry about whether they would understand technical language.

If you feel intimidated by the big words, you shouldn't. The expert using those big words knows that you aren't an expert, and will not judge you for asking for clarification. Who knows, if you get over your fear of looking stupid, and you ask those questions, you might learn something. In my experience, experts LOVE to discuss their area of expertise, and are happy that someone else is interested in the topic that they love enough to immerse themselves in throughout their career. Personally, I am not a social person, but if you start asking me about my area of expertise, you can keep me talking for hours (as long as you look appropriately interested).

You can post blog articles all day long about problems with sterilizing endoscopes, but that does not prove that the FDA "knew something" and is intentionally hiding the problem from the public. The fact that a problem exists and is documented in the medical literature (medical journals indexed at www.PubMed.org) does NOT mean that any government entity is aware of the problem. Government scientists at FDA, CDC, etc., cannot read all of the medical literature; they need to be specifically alerted to problems. Then they review the literature, they start investigations--it is quite a process that goes on behind the scenes. The fact that it is not publicized doesn't mean much, and certainly does not mean that there is some huge conspiracy meant to bamboozle and endanger the public. Approximately 1400 people work in the FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health. I do not know how many are scientists or physicians and how many are administrators. The list of medical devices that the FDA oversees is 27 pages long. However, given the number of medical devices, and the even greater number of different manufacturers, models, etc., I think it's rather unrealistic to expect them to not only be aware of every problem with every device, but to anticipate those problems before they occur or are reported. And the fact that they don't anticipate every problem certainly does not mean there is some government conspiracy going on.

If you believe the Fed. Govt REALLY and HONESTLY has your best interests at heart, then by all means YOU LIVE THAT WAY AND DON’T USE COMPLEMENTARY sources to ALLOPATHIC MEDICINE and leave everyone else with the same rights? NOT that hard.

I think what people who are taken in by CAM scams do not understand is that when the government (federal or state) says that some quack cannot legally claim that snake oil (for example) has curative properties, its purpose is not to deprive citizens of their right to make health choices. Its purpose is actually to keep scammers from endangering people's health and bilking them of sometimes large sums of money. The government basically tells people that if they claim to be able to treat medical conditions, they have to have scientific evidence that they can do so. Anyone can put stuff in bottles and sell it as a cure; it takes a lot of time and effort to actually test stuff to show it works (and money, typically about $1 billion). The FDA knows that "supplements" are useless, but doesn't stop their sale--they just don't allow those selling the "supplements" to make unfounded health claims about them.

The Fed Govt. is not the end all. Disparaging people for their education or lack of ‘college education’ is elitest. My “claims”? I’m not questioning your “work for wages”, but yet you question my claims of keeping myself educated? Way back when I got my first degree in Engineering, we wrote reports without B.S. You had to write programs without extra B.S. I worked without wages for 20+ years raising my four kids, watching others, and volunteering including Boy, Girl Scouts each for Four year. Volunteering in schools, for charities and Sub Teaching. I also had a part-time (evening) ‘mommy job’ at the local Community College. I don’t use word inflation to discuss a topic. Why would I? I’m not presenting a paper, defending a dissertation, or a speech at a conference. I’m not contradicting anything. To claim that those of us in FR can’t discuss immunology or our own experiences with our own kids/grandkids as ‘anecdotal stories not worthy of acceptance by the immunologist with a PhD’ or the vaccine industry, intentionally/unintentionally disparages our experience. Being dismissed because we don’t have 20+ years as a “wage earning” PhD in the industry is insulting.

I don’t care or have ever cared for word inflating B.S. writing. Writing is not one of my strong suits and in Engineering, we didn’t have to write like that. Later in my other degrees in Education and Law, I had to write like that. I had to edit my papers and later Court Pleadings probably more than the average person. Read any “Education” letter/mission statement and it’s full of BS. It’s a technique deliberately used to dampen questions. No one wants to be labeled the ‘fool’ in the room by the “Education” establishment by asking a question(s) that Parents deserve an answer to. This also works in Physicians offices if the Doctors do not want or have time for discussions with their patients. Lawyers, the terms are used for the same reason. Go into Court without a lawyer and watch the Judge or opposing attorneys work to silence the peasants.

You may or may not be the only PhD in immunology here, and your experience is valuable, but so is EVERYONE Else’s. We masses that don’t have our PhD in “immunology” or not necessarily irrelevant nor simpletons. I do NOT HAVE a PhD in “immunology” with 20+ years in “wage experience”. I have plenty of education formally. Degrees. I read and have always read and kept educated during any spare time from my full-time job of raising my four kids. I chose not to attend Medical School. My career was raising my kids.

Your experience does not trump our experience with bad reactions to certain vaccines nor is anyone’s child an acceptable risk or statistic. I think that has always been the reasoning of my responses to you. Your experiences are not mine, or any of the other FReepers that have had a child with a bad reaction to a vaccine. Science is almost always NOT SETTLED. Humans aren’t perfect, the Fed Govt consists of Humans, some whom have criminal intent, or don’t care. Corporations, Vaccine and Drug companies included, have some employees that just care about profits or as simply as keeping their job.

The Fed Govt. is not the end all.

You really seem to have an obsession with the Federal government. It's like you expect it to be omnipotent, and when you see evidence that it isn't, there is some huge conspiracy going on. Ditch the conspiracies; try to wrap your head around the fact that federal agencies are staffed by highly trained people who are trying to make the best decisions possible based on the information that they have (information generated mostly within the private sector), and who sometimes get things wrong because the complete information does not exist. And ditch the obsession.

Disparaging people for their education or lack of ‘college education’ is elitest. My “claims”? I’m not questioning your “work for wages”, but yet you question my claims of keeping myself educated?

First of all, let me say that you give the appearance of having a massive inferiority complex over the fact that you do not know a subject that you have never studied. Seriously, it takes *years* to learn any kind of medical discipline--you have to take a lot of chemistry, physics, biology, and mathematics courses before you even have a knowledge base to start studying the subjects related to your chosen discipline. No one expects you to know what you have never studied, and no one judges you for not knowing it. So stop acting all defensive when someone who actually does know the subject takes time to explain it to you.

Where I have criticized you is for claiming to keep yourself educated when it is obvious that you know nothing about the subject you claim to be self-educated about. Believe it or not, that lack of knowledge shows. You have yet to link to the database that all medical researchers, physicians, veterinarians, and many others use. Instead, you link to anti-vax websites and ads for anti-business conspiracy films. Those are *not* sites that you can use for self-education; their main purpose is to bamboozle you into giving them your money (and receiving nothing of value in return). Heck, when I offered to explain a complex topic to you, you acted all defensive and showed no interest. The truth is that I didn't take the time to explain it then but only offered to explain because I sense you are not after real answers, but rather more material to feed your conspiracy theories. You've yet to show any interest in any actual science underlying many of these issues. BTW--why do you frequent a conservative website and promote anti-business anti-government conspiracies that are characteristic of leftist kooks?

Way back when I got my first degree in Engineering, we wrote reports without B.S.

Seriously? If just anyone can pick up and read engineering schematics and the accompanying technical specifications without any kind of engineering education, then why bother teaching engineering? *Every* highly technical field has its own language associated with it. If you really think that you wrote "programs without extra B.S.", I would suggest you take another look at those programs and ask yourself if they would be instantly comprehensible to any average person picked at random. The thing about technical fields is that they have to develop a language to describe their technology because their field is so far outside of ordinary experience that pre-existing terms for what they want to describe just don't exist. The only reason you thought your programs contained no "extra B.S." is because, during the course of getting your engineering degree, you learned the language of engineering, so you understood it. But that doesn't mean that anyone outside of that field understands it. Once again, no one judges you for not knowing a subject you have not studied--you are only judged for claiming to know the subject when clearly you do not.

I have to go to work--you know, where I spend several hours reading real medical journals in order to keep up with the rapidly expanding knowledge base--so I don't have time to fully address anything else you say. Just one thing in closing, though. Stop posting the Facebook material. It is irrelevant to the discussion; if I wanted to see Facebook stuff, I'd go to Facebook.

You are just insults. One could argue you have an unhealthy obsession with believing everything that comes out of Govt. and Pharma research. Being informed is a positive. Submission is not.

I responded to a 20+ “wage earning” industry worker who claims everyone else is uninformed. Your responses disparaging posters whom have had experiences being the “statistical anomaly”.

Your insults as to my education, my experiences, what I have accomplished, is typical of elite, nose up in the air responses.

I won’t respond to your petty insults. YOU are an example of what the response is when whistle blowers speak out. Up against a LOBBY, WITH FACTS ON MY SIDE, I WON.

Your characteristics of me “ex dem” and “mother” instead show you to be a lefty, woman hater (or woman hating feminist). Typical of those elitist I encountered in all three of my degrees, industry and law. Since you are NOT QUALIFIED TO SPEAK ABOUT ENGINEERING (BACC and grad school), you don’t write reports with flowery language and bad research.

Your attempt to shame me into silence is typical of the Dem Party and this Administration. Your claim you are an ex-dem or a mother?

Instead of resorting to personal insults and claims that you are being “disparaged” because you claim to be “well-informed” but can produce no evidence to back up such an assertion, why don’t you actually inform yourself?

If you are really as educated as you claim, it should not matter that you were not educated in a medical field. Any form of technical education involves learning how to critically analyze data, how to sift through nonsense and how to recognize con men. Your obsession with supposed conspiracies does *not* show that you have learned how to think critically. (In fact, it shows quite the opposite.)

Here, to help you out, I will tell you how to find bona-fide data measured and reported by real scientists, that has NOT been cherry-picked and misrepresented through some conspiratorial anti-vax (anti-science) website.

Go to www.pubmed.org. This is *the* data base that catalogs medical journals from all over the world. The government does not control the content of these journals; the editorial staffs of these journals make those decisions based on scientific validity of the data described in the articles. You can enter any search term you want, and the results appear, unfiltered by any conspiracy nut.

Besides that, stop reading the conspiracy anti-vax sites. People who try to manipulate you through conspiracies and so-forth do NOT have your best interest in mind. Typically, they want your money but since they have no legitimate product or service to sell, they resort to scams. In addition, anti-vax proponents are radical leftists who use any lie possible to convince people to not vaccinate their children against potentially deadly diseases, since that fits the ultra-left goal of massively reducing the population and making existence miserable for the survivors.

The fact that you did not mention PubMed even once, or link to a single article indexed there is very telling. Since anyone who is fairly knowledgeable about medical issues (whether they are an expert or a well-informed layperson) knows how to use PubMed, the fact that you do not seem to know it exists indicates that you are NOT as informed as you claim.

One thing about articles printed in medical journals: they list author affiliations. I’ll tell you right now that knowing where the authors work contradicts your anti-government/anti-business conspiracies, since researchers come from a range of institutions.

Sorry, but genuine medical research is described using big words. If you *really* have a degree in engineering, it shouldn’t be too much trouble to look those words up and find out what they mean. And to find out what statistical data means, so that you understand concepts like “confidence intervals.”

BTW, I do not assign much credibility to “whistleblowers” trotted out by anti-vax conspiracy nuts. Typically, those “whistleblowers” are anything but... they are often portrayed as experts in fields in which they have no qualifications. Anti-vax ringleaders count on the lack of medical knowledge and absence of critical thinking skills of their followers in order to use these “whistleblowers” to push their agenda.

Lastly, it makes no sense that you claim to have had your children vaccinated, yet you seem utterly smitten with anti-vax conspiracies. Are you an anti-vax activist or ring leader, who is perfectly aware that vaccines save lives so you want *your* kids protected, while doing everything you can to prevent other people from similarly protecting *their* kids?

Examples of PubMed indexed articles (all free to download):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24780368
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18762618
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19684472

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.