Measles and Mumps

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Members do not see this ad.
NickNaylor said:
I see you missed the part where I essentially said "this portion of the argument has no place in the policy/healthcare arena." You know, the big bold part.
Click to expand...

Nope, I didn't miss anything. Please feel free to show me where you said that in your post that I quoted. I also don't see anything big or bolded. I didn't read anything beyond that - you said plenty the first time.
 
3838 said:
The problem, NickNaylor, is that when you make arguments expressing skepticism about the risk of vaccination to lay people, people don't take it as "let's look into and improve these vaccines. Yay!" Any doubt is greeted with, "****, let's be safe rather than sorry because we're scared of these unknown effects. We won't vaccinate our kids." But that's not safe rather than sorry. Safe rather than sorry is to vaccinate your kids and then pressure governmental agencies, the EPA to look into vaccinations more and improve upon them.
Click to expand...

Why are you repeating what everyone else said? NickNaylor already addressed that part

NickNaylor said:
Important caveat: "known unknowns" and "unknown unknowns" should not factor into one's decision to recommend or not recommend vaccination to your patients if there is very little to evidence supporting them (as in this case IMO). The possibility of as-of-yet-unknown evidence of harm clearly has no role in the discussion given how much evidence of benefit vaccines provide.
Click to expand...
 
NickNaylor said:
I'm not referring to anything in this thread. I'm referring to the gigantic question mark looming at the "cutting edge" of any field of science. People here seem to think that there's no possible way that vaccines could be harmful. There is certainly no evidence supporting that that is the case at present. But people seem to fail to understand that some aspect of biology that we have yet to describe may ultimately demonstrate that vaccines aren't quite as harmless as we think they are. People fail to consider the known unknowns and then, most importantly, the unknown unknowns. Important caveat: "known unknowns" and "unknown unknowns" should not factor into one's decision to recommend or not recommend vaccination to your patients if there is very little to evidence supporting them (as in this case IMO). The possibility of as-of-yet-unknown evidence of harm clearly has no role in the discussion given how much evidence of benefit vaccines provide. In discussions like this, though - largely philosophical and in a debate format - I think it's important to keep that in mind. That's something that no one here seems to be remotely considering.

And I'm not equating "superstitions" of the past with current scientific knowledge, thinking, or methodology. There's a losing side to every theory, and there are many prominent scientists who argued for and believed in things that were ultimately demonstrated to be untrue. I'm not taking medieval witchcraft here. I'm talking about 20th and 21st century science. All it takes is one paradigm shift in understanding for an entire field of science to be turned on its head. I have no idea if immunobiology is in for such a change, but I'm at least willing to entertain the possibility. This is in contrast to, say, a knee-jerk rejection of a counterpoint without even for a second considering its possibility. I'm not arguing for some kind of intellectual relativism, but in this case I think the door of the "unknown" with respect to the human body is large enough such that we still have a few more "turns" in store for us as our understanding of the body increases. My only point in commenting on this thread is to encourage the people vehemently arguing for a position using what's "known" to consider, if only for a second, what all is unknown and how our future understanding of that unknown may lead to a more complete and factually correct picture than what we have today. In fact, I think that approach to science is absolutely critical to using science for what it really is - as a system that allows us to test, largely using artificially simplified models, our understanding of the world rather than a system that spits out absolute Truth (with a capital T) - and using the information it provides us effectively. In this specific instance, that future picture may be that vaccines are even less harmful and more beneficial than we thought. I happen to believe that that is the most likely result. But that doesn't mean that we know that for certain - at least not to the degree that people seem to be asserting that point.

In the present moment, the evidence surrounding vaccine administration is patently clear. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try and seek out evidence demonstrating its harms or that no evidence that may point to harms is worth consideration.
Click to expand...

I can't help but to LMFAO. These suckers are arguing against the only sane pro-vaccine person in this entire conversation. Nick has been a voice of reason. A voice that completely supports vaccination, but is open to the FACT that there real known and unknown dangers.

These guys are such brainwashed little lemmings that they will fight their own if they stray even slightly from the pack.

Thanks for the humor today guys.

Nick, It's no wonder you were accepted to med school. I'm sure you're going to become an excellent doctor. Maybe even a scientist?
 
3838 said:
http://www.voicesforvaccines.org/growing-up-unvaccinated/
I know that this is anecdotal but so much of the arguments of those against vaccination tend to be anecdotal. Are there risks to getting vaccinated? Yes, of course. Will some people fall ill or die from being vaccinated for some disease? Yes of course. However, if people are NOT vaccinated, you don't have to be in a third world country for an outbreak to occur. And that will have far more casualties and side effects than a little vaccine. Take the fight against polio. Areas of the world in which polio was considered ERADICATED had eruptions of the disease, including China, Tajikstan, and an Amish community in Minnesota.

Read this: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/whatifstop.htm In the 1950's, more deaths from measles were reported than are ever reported because of vaccination. I really don't think you can REASONABLY argue that the US was a "third world" country in the 1950s.

Is it worth looking into vaccines to ensure that they are safe and find ways to limit side effects? Of course. But that you suggest that vaccination be stopped, even in the first world is implying that you do not realize how much of a risk these diseases POSED as recently as 60 or 70 years ago. Vaccinations and sanitation are probably two of the BIGGEST contributors to a movement away from infectious disease and into non-infectious, chronic disease in the global north. Infectious disease is re-surging in developed countries. This is the reason we need to ramp up vaccination and ensure that people don't fall into this trap.
Click to expand...

Yeah......most diseases were already on the way out the door before vaccines came into play. Nice try.
http://drsuzanne.net/dr-suzanne-humphries-vaccines-vaccination/
 
Lucca said:
You dont have to backpedal on your original comments on his bad evidence regarding the non vaccinated mothers. I covered this in a reply to that post and he did not reply to me or even acknowledge the comment.

The only reason immunity from maternal antibodies matter is because it affects the ideal time frame for vaccination because maternal antibodies risk neutralizing the live vaccine. The non-vaccinated communities used in that study are still experiencing outbreaks of MMR.

None of this is conjecture or outside knowledge, it was directly written in the article he cited. He was just cherry picking as usual.
Click to expand...

He better backpedal. He better backpedal real far and get a freaking clue what he's talking about before he posts. You should follow behind him. You're a bunch of lemmings anyway. Do you only follow each other off the cliff?
 
Allen18328 said:
He better backpedal. He better backpedal real far and get a freaking clue what he's talking about before he posts. You should follow behind him. You're a bunch of lemmings anyway. Do you only follow each other off the cliff?
Click to expand...

Did you even read the criticism I had of your article? That article doesn't support your argument at all.
 
Allen18328 said:
perpetuate the ignorance that is taking of the profession.

Have fun with that. It probably won't matter what harm you cause though, right? As long as your ego is intact?
Click to expand...
How are you in any way qualified to make this statement?
 
Allen18328 said:
He better backpedal. He better backpedal real far and get a freaking clue what he's talking about before he posts. You should follow behind him. You're a bunch of lemmings anyway. Do you only follow each other off the cliff?
Click to expand...
Do you know why I "back-pedaled"? I was admitting where I made a mistake, something you refuse to do. I was trying to humor you, since I believed that if I pretended your arguments had merits, then maybe you would take a moderate position. But no, you refuse to see reason, and continue to rant and rave that the CDC is some kind of 1984-esque dictatorship, and that vast majority of physicians and biomedical scientists are somehow "brainwashed." Hell, I even cited an article that lists the risks of a specific vaccine, for fairness sake.

One more thing; realize that many of the people you are talking to here are scientists-in-training and physicians-in-training. I work in cancer research myself, so I am not an infectious diseases expert. But let me cite an organization that's a partner to mine, the NIAID. Here is their page. See that? See how many diseases in the US have been decreased by 90-100% because of vaccination? We who work in the NIH are not bureaucrats, I don't make any money from my work, I get no benefits except for a meager stipend. I am not trying to brainwash you, and I couldn't care less what you believe. What I do care about however, are the people who you would affect if you work in healthcare. If you continue to delude yourself and argue against the overwhelming majority of evidence, I sincerely hope you do not work in the field.

I think it's great that you are ready to go against the flow, or to argue against a popular belief. This works great when you decide not to wear Uggs, or drink Budlight, or play Call of Duty, or something to that nature. But realize that science is not a democracy. A healthy skepticism is good, but dogmatism is not the scientific way.

Whatever you do, good luck. I don't mean any ill-will to you, I really don't. Unfortunately I don't think your position is suitable for healthcare, but I hope you find a way to make things work. I am now peace-ing out of this thread.
 
Allen18328 said:
I can't help but to LMFAO. These suckers are arguing against the only sane pro-vaccine person in this entire conversation. Nick has been a voice of reason. A voice that completely supports vaccination, but is open to the FACT that there real known and unknown dangers.

These guys are such brainwashed little lemmings that they will fight their own if they stray even slightly from the pack.

Thanks for the humor today guys.

Nick, It's no wonder you were accepted to med school. I'm sure you're going to become an excellent doctor. Maybe even a scientist?
Click to expand...
No one is arguing against him, they're taking the points he made and commenting as to why those points aren't sufficient for convincing certain people.
Regardless of your conviction that we are all lemmings because we happen to overwhelmingly agree on pro-vaccine, many of us actually have thought about these things and like to participate in conversations on the subject to exchange ideas and perspectives, and to figure out why there is such strong opposition in spite of the evidence supporting vaccination.
 
Allen18328 said:
Yeah......most diseases were already on the way out the door before vaccines came into play. Nice try.
http://drsuzanne.net/dr-suzanne-humphries-vaccines-vaccination/
Click to expand...
That chart is not about the prevalence of the diseases, it is about mortality rate (note the huge drop after diphtheria antitoxin became available).

I am perfectly on-board with the fact that better education, sanitary conditions, and quarantine substantially reduced the spread of these diseases.
I am also on-board with the fact that our healthcare system is such that fewer people die after they contract these illnesses than used to.

I am NOT on-board with saying "oh, well if most people won't die from it, let's not worry about exposing people (including at-risk populations such as the immunocompromised and the elderly...who are overrepresented at hospitals)"
Will I die if I contract HPV? Hell, I likely won't even notice. But hey, my cervical cancer, hysterectomy, and inability to ever bear children won't increase the numbers on that chart, so who cares.
Will 50 kids die if they all get measles? Almost certainly not. However, 2 of them have leukemia and now they're at risk of serious complication...and they wouldn't have gotten it if the other 48 had been vaccinated. They might die. They might just have their treatment screwed up. ALL 50 of the kids will be miserable when they absolutely didn't have to be.
And hey, I already had chickenpox, so clearly that's not a huge issue. But when I'm 75 and I have painful shingles rash, boy I'll be wishing that childhood me had gotten the vaccine instead of the illness.

I don't understand how people can be so concerned about every single bump and bruise their child might get (god forbid they play with sticks that might have splinters, or run on the side of the pool), but then turn around and think 'oh, well, what's 1wk of absolute fever and misery...my kid has a good immune system, they will be OK' and not even consider how unpleasant the whole scenario is even without serious complication.

As one of the articles in that 'Voices for Vaccination' site posted above said, if you trust your kid's immune system to deal with the live virus, why would you not trust it to deal with the attenuated version?
 
QuinnTheEskimo said:
You keep quoting this lunatic "MD." If you read her bio, you'll see that she has renounced Western medicine and instead chooses to practice homeopathy. Perhaps a naturopathic medical degree would be the best choice for you.
Click to expand...

What initials do you have behind your name? Who are you to call her a quack? Some big shot high school kid with a rich daddy? You're nobody, buddy.
 
mehc012 said:
As one of the articles in that 'Voices for Vaccination' site posted above said, if you trust your kid's immune system to deal with the live virus, why would you not trust it to deal with the attenuated version?
Click to expand...

Because it is not just an attenuated virus they are concerned with. It's the known neurotoxins and the carcinogens. It's the fact that adjuvants unnaturally interfere with their immune systems. It's the fact that it has been shown that vaccines can actually weaken your immune system. It's the fact that there are ethical reasons involved. It's the fact that all of these things pose dangerous risks.

All of these are real issues. Stop acting as if they don't exist.
 
Allen18328 said:
What initials do you have behind your name? Who are you to call her a quack? Some big shot high school kid with a rich daddy? You're nobody, buddy.
Click to expand...

This is Pre-Allo. We're mostly undergrads here. Non-trads. Rich. Poor. Everywhere in between. Scientists, volunteers, office workers, business people, artists.

We've actually taken science courses, a lot of us have taken the MCAT and been accepted to medical schools. A lot of pwople here are med students, some of which you have insulted. Attendings also show up on Pre Allo from time to time.

Who the **** are you?

Still waiting for you to reply to all the people with legitimate criticism of your articles.
 
Allen18328 said:
Because it is not just an attenuated virus they are concerned with. It's the known neurotoxins and the carcinogens. It's the fact that adjuvants unnaturally interfere with their immune systems. It's the fact that it has been shown that vaccines can actually weaken your immune system. It's the fact that there are ethical reasons involved. It's the fact that all of these things pose dangerous risks.

All of these are real issues. Stop acting as if they don't exist.
Click to expand...

LOL. Speaking of neurotoxins...last I checked, poliovirus causes permanent paralysis in 1 out of every 100 victims. Speaking of carcinogens, certain strains of HPV are KNOWN to cause cervical cancer in women, and throat cancer in both men/women. Epstein Barr Virus is another known carcinogen, but unfortunately there is no vaccine at this time.

You consistently fail to see the big picture. Yes, vaccines can (very rarely) cause adverse effects in select individuals. Yes, in the past, certain vaccines contained thimerosal -- this was removed due to HYSTERIA like that propagated by Jenny McCarthy, not to any direct evidence that it causes harm. Big picture: vaccines serve to protect us from some very nasty diseases that used to cause permanent damage and death.
 
Last edited:
Allen18328 said:
Because it is not just an attenuated virus they are concerned with. It's the known neurotoxins and the carcinogens. It's the fact that adjuvants unnaturally interfere with their immune systems. It's the fact that it has been shown that vaccines can actually weaken your immune system. It's the fact that there are ethical reasons involved. It's the fact that all of these things pose dangerous risks.

All of these are real issues. Stop acting as if they don't exist.
Click to expand...
It has not been shown that vaccines weaken your immune system. It has been shown that vaccines may not strengthen your immune system AS MUCH as actually contracting a disease. But you don't have to get sick to get that resistance. So no, it is NOT 'the fact'.
Adjuvants don't interfere with immune systems, they trigger them.
Wanna talk ethics and dangerous risks? Maybe you shouldn't work in a hospital, with the elderly and the immunocompromised, and endanger THEIR health because you don't think vaccines are necessary.

I'm not acting as if they don't exist. However, the nebulous "these things may cause problems in some tiny number of people even though there is no evidence" is simply not sufficient to outweigh the very clear negatives of NOT vaccinating people.
 
Allen18328 said:
Yeah......most diseases were already on the way out the door before vaccines came into play. Nice try.
http://drsuzanne.net/dr-suzanne-humphries-vaccines-vaccination/
Click to expand...
Yeah, really? You're just so wrong I don't even know what to tell you... http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/meas.html. Reputable sources (Like the graph on this page) just literally render you WRONG. When vaccination was introduced and pushed to the public, MMR decreased in incidence. And this doctor that you cite? Well, she obviously doesn't value scientific thinking does she? She says, and I quote, "Ask your grandmother if she knew anyone who died from measles." Also, do you realize the graph that you're looking at on this page??! It shows DEATH FROM MEASLES. We became better at treating it. It DOES not show the fact that measles still occurred VERY widely in the US before the vaccine was introduced. So it wasn't "on the way out the door", it was just being treated. That's like arguing that because HIV/AIDs is being treated more effectively now, it's on it's "way out the door". So, why don't you make an argument that we stop preaching safe sex and condom use? Treatment, in this day and age, is far more expensive than PREVENTION.
'http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/meas.html

That page has an HONEST graph about the actual number of cases that occurred before the introduction of the MMR vaccine. Namely, from 500,000 cases of Measles a year to almost NONE. And that 500,000 is a conservative number - that's how many were reported.

"Before 1963, approximately 500,000 cases and 500 deaths were reported annually, with epidemic cycles every 2–3 years. However, the actual number of cases was estimated at 3–4 million annually. More than 50% of persons had measles by age 6, and more than 90% had measles by age 15. The highest incidence was among 5–9-year-olds, who generally accounted for more than 50% of reported cases.

Following licensure of vaccine in 1963, the incidence of measles decreased by more than 98%, and 2–3-year epidemic cycles no longer occurred. Because of this success, a 1978 Measles Elimination Program set a goal to eliminate indigenous measles by October 1, 1982 (26,871 cases were reported in 1978). The 1982 elimination goal was not met, but in 1983, only 1,497 cases were reported (0.6 cases per 100,000 population), the lowest annual total ever reported up to that time."
 
Last edited:
Allen18328 said:
I can't help but to LMFAO. These suckers are arguing against the only sane pro-vaccine person in this entire conversation. Nick has been a voice of reason. A voice that completely supports vaccination, but is open to the FACT that there real known and unknown dangers.

These guys are such brainwashed little lemmings that they will fight their own if they stray even slightly from the pack.

Thanks for the humor today guys.

Nick, It's no wonder you were accepted to med school. I'm sure you're going to become an excellent doctor. Maybe even a scientist?
Click to expand...
Let's talk about how you don't know how to draw conclusions from graphs. Someone wasn't paying attention in second grade. tsk tsk.
 
Allen18328 said:
What initials do you have behind your name? Who are you to call her a quack? Some big shot high school kid with a rich daddy? You're nobody, buddy.
Click to expand...

Whoa dude. Calm down, take a deep breath, gather your composure, read all the arguments made with an open mind (or better yet, take an immunology course), get informed, self-reflect your flaws and get back to us
 
Lucca said:
This is Pre-Allo. We're mostly undergrads here. Non-trads. Rich. Poor. Everywhere in between. Scientists, volunteers, office workers, business people, artists.

We've actually taken science courses, a lot of us have taken the MCAT and been accepted to medical schools. A lot of pwople here are med students, some of which you have insulted. Attendings also show up on Pre Allo from time to time.

Who the **** are you?

Still waiting for you to reply to all the people with legitimate criticism of your articles.
Click to expand...

You're none of those. You're a little high school punk. What legitimate criticisms? They weren't posted by the CDC? Several were. You think a doctor is a "quack" because they don't swallow up everything that the government and the media are trying to push? You have no credentials. You are nobody. How much arrogance does it take for you to continually label every FULL FLEDGED MD who disagrees with you a "quack" or a "shill".

And don't come back asking me "oh yeah, who are you??". You don't see me calling out doctors. I'll call you out for being a little punk kid though. If an actual doctor comes to a conclusion after doing research I can respect that, so long as they do not disregard every study that counters what they believe.
 
Allen18328 said:
You're none of those. You're a little high school punk. What legitimate criticisms? They weren't posted by the CDC? Several were. You think a doctor is a "quack" because they don't swallow up everything that the government and the media are trying to push? You have no credentials. You are nobody. How much arrogance does it take for you to continually label every FULL FLEDGED MD who disagrees with you a "quack" or a "shill".

And don't come back asking me "oh yeah, who are you??". You don't see me calling out doctors. I'll call you out for being a little punk kid though. If an actual doctor comes to a conclusion after doing research I can respect that, so long as they do not disregard every study that counters what they believe.
Click to expand...
I would caution you to take more care with your interpretation of studies. We are not disregarding the data or the conclusions of the studies you are presenting. The issue is that you are leaping from the limited conclusions of those papers into grandiose, unsupported claims. If you were in a journal club, a tutorial, or were writing your own paper, you would get absolutely REAMED for the assumptions you are making and 'basing' off of the study you have shown us.
 
Allen18328 said:
You're none of those. You're a little high school punk. What legitimate criticisms? They weren't posted by the CDC? Several were. You think a doctor is a "quack" because they don't swallow up everything that the government and the media are trying to push? You have no credentials. You are nobody. How much arrogance does it take for you to continually label every FULL FLEDGED MD who disagrees with you a "quack" or a "shill".

And don't come back asking me "oh yeah, who are you??". You don't see me calling out doctors. I'll call you out for being a little punk kid though. If an actual doctor comes to a conclusion after doing research I can respect that, so long as they do not disregard every study that counters what they believe.
Click to expand...

Dude did you even read what I said? That could be the reason why you're off on a mindless rant.

Agent B said:
Whoa dude. Calm down, take a deep breath, gather your composure, read all the arguments made with an open mind (or better yet, take an immunology course), get informed, self-reflect your flaws and get back to us
Click to expand...
 
Allen18328 said:
You're none of those. You're a little high school punk. What legitimate criticisms? They weren't posted by the CDC? Several were. You think a doctor is a "quack" because they don't swallow up everything that the government and the media are trying to push? You have no credentials. You are nobody. How much arrogance does it take for you to continually label every FULL FLEDGED MD who disagrees with you a "quack" or a "shill".

And don't come back asking me "oh yeah, who are you??". You don't see me calling out doctors. I'll call you out for being a little punk kid though. If an actual doctor comes to a conclusion after doing research I can respect that, so long as they do not disregard every study that counters what they believe.
Click to expand...

Oh, you must think this is hSDN. How awkward! This is pre-allopathic, so we're are all college students.
 
J Senpai said:
Oh, you must think this is hSDN. How awkward! This is pre-allopathic, so we're are all college students.
Click to expand...

So you probably should stop calling medical professionals "quacks" and "shills". You're just a little know nothing kid.
 
Ismet said:
This is a reminder that while SDN encourages open discussion and healthy debate, personal attacks are not permitted.

Keep the discussion civil and courteous.

Thank you.
Click to expand...

I like how "healthy" got bolded. Subtle pun :naughty::naughty:
 
Allen18328 said:
You're none of those. You're a little high school punk. What legitimate criticisms? They weren't posted by the CDC? Several were. You think a doctor is a "quack" because they don't swallow up everything that the government and the media are trying to push? You have no credentials. You are nobody. How much arrogance does it take for you to continually label every FULL FLEDGED MD who disagrees with you a "quack" or a "shill".

And don't come back asking me "oh yeah, who are you??". You don't see me calling out doctors. I'll call you out for being a little punk kid though. If an actual doctor comes to a conclusion after doing research I can respect that, so long as they do not disregard every study that counters what they believe.
Click to expand...

My legitimate criticism was that the study you posted about maternal antibodies didn't support your argument so you should stop bringing it up in the discussion, especially when you used it to attack @Underu.

Lucca said:
S

Did you even read this? How strong are your reading skills? This article cites that infants of immunized mothers lose protection from maternal antibodies at an earlier age than infants from non immunized mothers. The only reason tbis is important is because it affects the ideal time window for vaccination since we dont want the maternal antibodies to neutralize the live attenuated vaccine. Straight from your link.

You should also notice that the communities that are against vaccines are still experiencig outbreaks of mmr when they dont need to be.
Click to expand...

You should e-mail my lab PI and inform him that I'm a high school punk, he'll dismiss me immediately if he finds out I've been masquerading as a biochemistry student this whole time.

I wont waste time reiterating other people's criticisms since you seem so keen to ignore them.
 
Just wanted to throw my 2 cents in and say that I am very happy with how this thread has run its course. I don't even feel like I need to add anything to the pro-vaccine viewpoint, I am glad that so many people are up in arms to combat vaccine misinformation. I think it is important that we have future doctors on the front lines who understand and push for vaccines in their hospitals and practices, especially when these anti-vaccine movement ideas start to take root in some less informed healthcare practitioners (I for one, am amazed at the amount of backlash there is at the mandatory vaccination of healthcare workers, for example). We are going to need a lot more people who actually care about this issue to ensure safety for patients, instead of complacently allowing patient safety to be compromised.

As much as I wish it weren't so, there will be people like allen who somehow make it into healthcare (even med school) and will try to push the misinformation he is currently peddling. Just try to make sure you never refer your patients to them!
 
Allen18328 said:
So you probably should stop calling medical professionals "quacks" and "shills". You're just a little know nothing kid.
Click to expand...

So you're telling us to buy everything she says without thinking about it because she at one point practiced medicine? Huh. That sounds different from the Allen of page 2 of this thread.

Is this you?

Tunturisopuli_Lemmus_Lemmus.jpg
 
Ace-Co-A said:
What do docs say to people who refuse vaccinations? I've never had the opportunity to talk to a doc about this.

My only experience with this was a guy who called me an idiot for getting the flu vaccine. When he asked me why I did it and I said that the CDC checks these things to ensure safety for people receiving the vaccination, he resorted to an anecdote about a family member who developed some neurological condition after being vaccinated. I didn't know what to say to this, so I blankly stared at him. (This guy was a Wharton grad!):wtf:

Edit: Typo.
Click to expand...

To which you say...if vaccinations are so bad who do we credit for the eradication of small pox? BIGGEST FRUSTRATION EVER!!!!

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...ristin-cavallari-vaccines-and-autism-children

So you take one article and run with it. But forget that the article in the Lancet regarding link to autism was retracted due to falsified data. NBD.

(I only skimmed the first few posts so if I repeated anything just ignore me 🙂 )
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

TibiaOrNotTibia
Timeline of Submission and IIs
Replies
9
Views
610
TibiaOrNotTibia
TibiaOrNotTibia
L
Work and Activities Review
Replies
0
Views
400
lizadav02
L
Q
  • Locked
UCLA and UCSF Secondary Screening?
Replies
6
Views
2K
GoSpursGo
GoSpursGo
annabethchase
Secondaries - balancing authenticity and repetitiveness
Replies
2
Views
583
Mr.Smile12
Mr.Smile12
D
  • Locked
Huge dilemma and need advice
Replies
15
Views
2K
HopefulApplicant667
H
Top