Fordham University - Mumps

As reported in the NY Post (see #1 below) Fordham University is experiencing what is presumed to be an outbreak of mumps - per the article (citing a university statement, so an actual person may not have interviewed) this has not actually been confirmed by lab testing, so the diagnosis is based on clinical exam/symptoms/history; The university statement cited by the article is accurate and non-inflammatory in what it says, as it acknowledges all the cases occurred in vaccinated students due to university requirements for admission - and likewise states that vaccination does not guarantee immunity from this, or any, infectious disease. The university statement also notes that "Mumps in college-age men and women usually runs its course without any lasting effects. They also took measures to quarantine/isolate those affected and clean common areas.

All of the above begs the question as to why mandatory vaccination is even necessary? Is the risk of vaccination worth any risk reduction for an illness that is generally mild and self-limiting, which rarely results in complications (especially if it happens in children rather than adults).

What's essentially unknown at this point in time is if this cohort had not been vaccinated early in their life (and it is unknown how many Fordham University students had been vaccinated with the MMR as children and then again prior to matriculation) ... but if they had not been vaccinated and had contracted Mumps as a child (when the risks of additional complications are a bit lower compared to infection as an adult - especially if a child is generally healthy and well nourished, immuno-competent, and does not have any pre-existing health problems, #2), then their risk of contracting this may well have been even lower, as "natural" spontaneous infection with "wild" (ie: not a vaccine manufactured strain) produces a different, and generally more robust level of protection (as opposed to the risk reduction of a vaccine). Those born prior to 1957 are presumed to be immune ... because they were more likely to have had the infection as children.

Because the vaccine for mumps in only available as a tri-valent vaccine (3 antigens - MMR,
measles, mumps, rubella) it is more difficult to determine what causes any adverse reaction or outcome from the vaccine - which of the three antigens, or which of the adjuvents or other ingredients (or preservatives) or which combination thereof contributed to any undesired
effect.

The use of vaccines may well have begun a round robin from which many want to get off.
Receipt of a vaccine may offer temporary risk reduction against contracting an infection, but then obligates the receiver to a lifetime of re-vaccination in order to maintain whatever level of risk reduction they may have obtained from vaccination - this absolutely benefits the makers of vaccines. It is not at all clear how much this benefits those receiving them, especially if they need continual "boosters";

Vaccination is not protection, it is risk reduction.
Vaccination is not immunity.
Any benefit is temporary.
Vaccination is not free of risk.

Those at risk should be free to decide what risk they are willing to live with ... if they want to avoid the risks of vaccination (which are real, but generally not acknowledged) and are willing to accept the risk of becoming ill (and the smaller risk of complications if they contract the infection), then they should not be compelled to take the vaccine.

If a person feels the benefit of risk reduction from the vaccine is greater than the risk of vaccination (and is willing to accept that they may get sick from the infection regardless of vaccination) then they should get the vaccine.

#1)
http://nypost.com/2014/02/21/mumps-outbreak-at-fordham-university/

2)
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/mumps.html

Lopsided liability

Two links today ... #1 is in response to a post alleging that the un-vaccinated should be held responsible for disease outbreaks (see link #2). The initial editorial was posted in May 2013, but the response (#1) is not dated;

How is it that the un-vaccinated could be held responsible for disease outbreaks while the manufacturers and providers of vaccines are legally immune (pun intended) from any adverse consequences of vaccines? One of the reasons people decline vaccination is concern about known and unknown risks of vaccines and their ingredients.

If groups insist on regulating an individual choice through mandate (ie: compulsory vaccination), then where will it end? This started with tobacco and has become increasingly intrusive, and virtually none of this was done through the free market. And even with the use of multiple legal, compulsory tools of the state (ie: banning smoking in private business/property, taxing the product, regulating advertisement, etc) it has taken >50 years to decrease smoking significantly population wide - people resist manipulation. There is no way to know what might have occurred if different tactics had been used - tactics based on a free market ... the marketplace of ideas.

It seems the only area where we have free choice is sex - and then anything goes, regardless of cost to the individual or group. Liability for spreading an STI (sexually transmitted infection) - virtually non-existent. Make a baby but you're not married - no problem, big Daddy government will step in and feed the baby (WIC/Food Stamps), provided medical coverage (Medicaid), housing (Section 8), and cash (TANF/EITC). Birth control is encouraged instead of self-control, with baby killing as a convenient back-up.

People are smart and should be able to freely choose if they will take part in a medical intervention ... and people who freely choose to take, or not take said medical intervention can and will live with the results, for good or ill. None of us lives in a vacuum, and ultimately we all benefit or are harmed by the choices we each make - and we should all be free to make decisions about our health without being manipulated or coerced.

#1)
http://www.ebcala.org/areas-of-law/vaccine-law/guest-post-crack-down-on-those-who-dont-vaccinate-a-response-to-art-caplan

#2)
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/billofhealth/2013/05/23/liability-for-failure-to-vaccinate/

Follow the conflict of interest ... if you can

This link is to a 2011 article detailing a variety of conflicts of interest regarding the controversy surrounding Dr. Andrew Wakefield's research into the gastro-intestinal symptoms seen in many children diagnosed with autism. There is far more to this, and his story, than what is detailed in this link, but I think the information is very relevant ... not just to MMR vaccine, but to all vaccines (you can search the blog to see previous posts about this);

#1)
http://coto2.wordpress.com/2011/07/17/murdoch-and-vaccines-exposure-of-murdochs-crimes-expose-a-much-larger-story/

Association not causation?

There are too many to count anecdotal/personal reports linking vaccination with various particular bad/undesired outcomes ... the link below is one parents story (#1).

While association is not the same as causation, bunches/clusters of anecdotal reports begs the question - is there something here that we need to look at?

Because we have hardly scratched the surface of what we know, this procedure (vaccination) should be free of compulsion.

The history of medicine is replete with documentation of harm - done either deliberately (like the Tuskegee Syphilis experiment) or inadvertently due to bad science (discovered after the fact);

#1)
http://www.fhfn.org/how-vaccines-can-cause-type-1-diabetes/


There is good reason to question the veracity of many studies used to justify many
medications:

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/10/16/drug-commercials-misleading.aspx

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/12/the-truth-about-tamiflu/307801/

Here's a link to the Cochrane Review about Tamiflu (embedded in The Atlantic aricle):
http://www.bmj.com/content/339/bmj.b5106

There is a need for FAR greater transparency on the part of companies making vaccines (well, for most other drugs as well ... see Tamiflu link above). They need to make their data and clinical trials available to independent scientists for review and vetting with less risk of bias.

There is a need for more, and better, studies comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated populations.

There is a need for more, and better, safety studies (and in particular, long term safety studies) for all vaccines ... and any placebos need to be true placebos (ie: like normal saline), rather than comparing a vaccine to a vaccine, or using the diluent or excipient minus the antigen as a placebo. The diluents/excipients are not normal saline ... they also contain adjuvents and other chemicals that are biologically active as well - they are not even a little bit inert!

There is a need to study the safety of the adjuvants and preservatives as well.

It's not just about mercury ...

While much concern has been raised about mercury (and rightfully so), mercury is just one of many ingredients in vaccines that may be problematic. We have hardly scratched the surface in our understanding of the immune system and how it works, and more importantly, how these products (vaccines and their various ingredients) interact with the immune system. One problem with the post/article is that it is not dated (though the date it was published is embedded in the hyperlink/address bar - it's just not clear to me if this is an original article or if it's re-published ... though there are links to refs at the end).

http://vactruth.com/2014/01/28/toxic-levels-of-aluminum/?utm_source=The+Vaccine+Truth+Newsletter&utm_campaign=d57191d115-01_28_2014_aluminum&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_ce7860ee83-d57191d115-406334639


The next two links go to a pages with many other links and information ... quotes from individuals tasked with discerning if there is a link between thimerasol and autism - primarily from the Simpsonwood meeting where the quotes support concern about a link between mercury/thimerasol exposure and autism while the official party line has always been "move along, nothing to see here ... "; While exposure to mercury as a child may have more obvious detrimental effects (and they may show up faster), it begs the question that this is not safe at any age - it leads me to wonder if the adverse effects also show up in adults who are exposed via vaccines, but it may take longer or be more subtle than in children.

http://www.autismhelpforyou.com/Simpsonwood_And_Puerto%20%20Rico.htm

http://www.aapsonline.org/vaccines/cdcfdaexperts.htm

Third link goes to a blog reviewing various quotes/court cases/data about the link between
the MMR vaccine and autism ... basically asserting that the link between autism and MMR vaccine has been acknowledged/implied but no one is accepting responsibility for this.

http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2013/08/16/all-studies-claiming-no-mmr-vaccine-autism-link-invalid-according-to-mercks-vaccine-director-former-us-cdc-director-the-us-hrsa/


Final link goes to a page with a list of studies refuting the claim that there is no connection between vaccination and autism ...

http://adventuresinautism.blogspot.com/2007/06/no-evidence-of-any-link.html

Contaminants continued ...

In response to my comment of a previous post on FB (see previous blog post), someone else posted several other links related to contaminants in vaccines:

http://www.fda.gov/biologicsbloodvaccines/scienceresearch/biologicsresearchareas/ucm127327.htm

The urgent demand for vaccines against emerging diseases has necessitated the use of novel cell substrates.

What urgent demand? Since the market for vaccines (ie: the "demand" for the product) is tightly controlled by the federal government there is no way to know how much demand there actually might be - the way to do that is to end all mandates and end the liability shield for those who provided/administer vaccines and their manufacturers ... and see how many people purchase the product on the free/open market. THAT's how you determine demand for a product!

But the presence of undesired extra's in vaccines is openly acknowledged, along with the fact that this is a safety concern (remember, vaccines are "safe and effective")!

Xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus (XMRV) is a recently discovered human retrovirus that has been found in both chronic fatigue syndrome and prostate cancer patients. Although these findings need further confirmation, there is a potential safety concern regarding XMRV in cell substrates used in vaccines and in transmission by blood transfusion and blood products. We are developing sensitive detection assays for XMRV to evaluate cell substrates and investigate virus transmission by blood transfusion in a monkey model.

We don't know what we don't know ... the fact that XMRV has been found in those with CFS and prostate cancer is an interesting association, but not necessarily causation - far more concerning is the possibility of horizontal transfusion (ie: via blood transfusion, or via sex, or perhaps even by more casual methods, who knows?) - but it's the unvaccinated (however few of them there are) who are clobbered as being the problem. Go figure.

Let people decide risk/benefit ratio for themselves (with their chosen healthcare provider).
When will we know just how much damage has been done all in the name of "the greater good"? (Happens to be a catchy name for a movie, too!)

SV40/contaminants

Lowell Hubbs (vacfacts.info) posted this link to Facebook today:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11205211

Just to make it easy ... here's the abstract:

  To date, the scientific literature and research examining SV40 and cancer-related diseases has been based upon an assumption that SV40 was not present in any poliovirus vaccine administered in the United States and was removed from the killed polio vaccine by 1963. The basis for this presumption has been that the regulations for live oral polio vaccine required that SV40 be removed from the seeds and monovalent pools ultimately produced in the manufacturing process. The Division of Biologic Standards permitted an additional two tissue culture passages--from three to five--in order to allow manufacturers the ability to remove this contaminant from the oral poliovirus vaccines then awaiting licensure. The confirmation of the removal by one drug manufacturer, Lederle, has been made public at an international symposium in January 1997, where its representatives stated that all of Lederle's seeds had been tested and screened to assure that it was free from SV40 virus. However, in litigation involving the Lederle oral polio vaccine, the manufacturer's internal documents failed to reveal such removal in all of the seeds. The absence of confirmatory testing of the seeds, as well as testimony of a Lederle manager, indicate that this claim of removal of SV40 and the testing for SV40 in all the seeds cannot be fully substantiated. These legal documents and testimony indicate that the scientific community should not be content with prior assumptions that SV40 could not have been in the oral polio vaccine. Only further investigation by outside scientific and independent researchers who can review the test results claimed in the January 1997 meeting and who can conduct their own independent evaluations by testing all the seeds and individual mono-valent pools will assure that SV40 has not been present in commercially sold oral poliovirus vaccine manufactured by Lederle.

Here's my comment:
So even if they've cleaned up polio vaccine of SV40 (IF), there's still reason for concern about many other vaccines grown/manufactured on various other tissue cultures, either animal or human ... if polio vaccine doesn't contain SV40 (IF), other vaccines may well contain other animal viruses, or animal dna or human dna - with no way to know just exactly how our bodies will interact with these foreign proteins/viruses/dna;

Then of course, there's this (also posted by Lowell Hubbs):
http://books.google.com/books?id=PfO7D8ZoSMkC&pg=PA84&lpg=PA84&dq=sv40+is+contagious&source=bl&ots=AlaWsAkp95&sig=RnycQFX2ucD-3zybHQ07FAIeJYk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=kZLfT5_mA4qc2QXKz6jtCA&ved=0CFoQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=sv40%20is%20contagious&f=false

If SV40 can be spread horizontally (from person to person in some fashion), then what else might be transferred? SV40 is a monkey virus, but flu vaccine is still (generally) produced using chicken eggs - are there avian viruses in flu vaccine? Is anyone checking for this? There is an ever expanding mosaic of novel substrates being used to make vaccines (like insect tissue), in part to make vaccines available to those who have allergies to eggs or other substrates (in other words, they react dangerously to the foreign protein that is not able to be removed from the vaccine during production and "purification") - but it begs the question, what other foreign proteins will be included, even inadvertently, in these vaccines as well? What dna? What bacteria and/or viruses?

This is precisely why my position is that vaccines should be an individual decision, never mandated ... if you are willing to accept this risk because you believe there is a benefit greater than the risk you should get a vaccine. But if you do not think the benefit is greater than the risk you should be free not to get a vaccine.