H1N1: Death, Deception, Science and Science Fiction
More American health workers are joining others across the nation and the world protesting the mandatory, experimental H1N1 vaccine that many health experts agree is far more dangerous than the flu and not needed. from the Houston Examiner
As the interest in the efficacy of the H1N1 vaccine mounts, a number of lingering questions swirl around the government’s handling of the coming pandemic that supposedly threatens the entire planet’s population. Of course, the number one question is the safety of the vaccine and, considering the public’s level of trust in the federal government, is it any wonder conspiracy theories swirl throughout the internet?
Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable. ~Author Unknown
Fact: You still need a regular flu shot, as well as the H1N1 vaccine
Fact: Increasing numbers of health care workers are refusing to take the H1N1 vaccine
Fact: All US military personnel will receive mandatory H1N1 vaccinations
Fact: President Nixon signed a ban in 1969 forbidding US development of offensive bioweapons and all subsequent research has been defensive in nature
Fact: H1N1 is not new, as many people are led to believe
Fact: US Government scientists have been conducting “defensive” bioweapon research using H1N1
Fact: The US Government is recommending pregnant women be among the first included in vaccine trials
Fact: Swiss pharmaceutical giant Novartis announced its vaccine ahead of schedule the “day after the World Health Organization declared swine flu, also known as A(H1N1), a pandemic.“
Fact: CBS News reported Secretary Sebelius said “no” to adjuvants on July 30, 2009, but Dr. Peter Hoetz says adjuvants are needed on August 17, 2009, and Hoetz is touted as a GWU expert
Fact: People will continue to die from H1N1
Fact: Statistics are easily manipulated
Fact: The same man who is conducting research on bioweapon detection is advising the US Government on H1N1
Fact: Vaccine manufacturers will be indemnified
Fact: The CDC has published Reflections on the 1976 Swine Flu Vaccination Program
Myth: A citizen will be able to “prove” tortious liability if someone dies from the H1N1 vaccine
What is known about H1N1 is voluminous, and so is what is not known. Death is a given. Government deception is also a given. And the deception is applicable to US research on H1N1 before the recent outbreak, accurate statistical analysis of the vaccine’s safety and efficacy, as well as the government’s initial “low key” response to what was well known in government circles to be a deadly strain long before the current clanging alarm.
The science behind the vaccine is also questionable and the mass vaccination of the country’s military is no reassurance to the citizenry. America’s military has been subjected to repeated “medical experimentation” throughout the years, including non-consenual LSD administration, deliberate radiation exposure after World War II, and mandatory use of non-FDA approved drugs (pyridostigmine bromide). In fact, more than 18 years after Desert Storm, the government is still lying by asserting PB tabs were used as “a ‘pre-treatment,’ intended to be taken in advance of a threatened chemical warfare attack in order to increase the likelihood that the usual antidotes atropine and pralidoxime would better reverse the effects of the nerve agent soman.“
First, atropine and pralidoxime do not reverse the effects of nerve agent poisoning. Atropine is used to treat the immediate life-threatening affects of organophosphates and pralidoxime (in lay terms) is used to “pry off” incompletely bound organophosphates with acetylcholinesterase (AchE). Second, only time allows the body to restore the compromised AchE. Third, pyridostigmine bromide (in lay terms) “tricks” the body into thinking it is already suffering organophosphate poisoning, which inhibits the unique properties of Soman from being so deadly (i.e., in lay terms again, “quickly aging”).
If we merely exam the government’s deception and published science fiction concerning PB tablets 18 years after the fact, one quickly understands just how far the federal government is willing to go in order to avoid honest evaluation of a, then, Investigational New Drug (IND). With the current H1N1 threat being potentially far more catastrophic than troop exposure to Soman in 1991, just how far is the government willing to obfuscate, distort facts, perpetuate myths, and publish science fiction, all in the name of “national security” and/or what the “experts” deem is “best” for the people? Although a rhetorical question, one understands that the more desperate the situation, the more the government will lie to the people. Moreover, the more financial resources that can be jeopardized, the more the government will act to prevent exposure of known truths. Again, the military provides the best example with respect to Agent Orange, which was undeniable, but that the government fought against for years, as veterans died from exposure and the government avoided the medical and disability costs associated with the already deceased.
For those who question the character and cause of my nation, I ask you to look at the concrete actions we have taken in just nine months. President Obama in his speech to the United Nations on September 23, 2009
In essence, the government is not our friend or champion on the H1N1 issue, scientists are often agenda-driven and/or grant-driven in their research, the public square will be devoid of reliable statistics for years to come and, even when they are available, the government will skew them to avoid any tortious liability. At the end of the day, we’re on our own. If you wish to believe the axiom “We’re with the government and here to help you,” be my guest. In the meantime, consider Obama’s comments in the Spring concerning VA care for wounded vets. You know, the comment about the wounded “volunteering,” so why should the government provide medical care for their injuries? If Obama can be that hard-hearted, then just imagine what he will say to the people who suffer significant reactions to the H1N1 vaccine — “You volunteered to take the vaccine, didn’t you? Hey, I guess it sucks to be you.”
Yu’re right, HiNi has been here before: in the period of 1917 to1920, one-third of the world’s population became sick with it, and 3 to 6 per cent of the population died. That is 50 to 100 million fatalities. It killed 25 million in the first 25 weeks. Entire villages in Alaska and South Africa were wiped out.
The population of the world in 1917 was about 1.5 billion people; it is about 6 billion now. So if we have a pandemic on the scale of the 1917-1920 pandemic, we are looking at about 400,000,000 deaths.
I think the governments might hve cause to worry, don’t you?
Most (over 95%) of the deaths in 1917 were caused by secondary pnuemonia. We now have antibiotics and pneumonia vaccines. I think in a full blown pandemic there would be considerable less deaths due to this. The h1n1 is so far less the a full blown pandemic.
Regardless how a committed 21st-century leftist looks at the outcome of this whole flu-pandemic it’ll be a “good thing”: a) more people convinced (by gov. mouthpieces) to do-as-my-government-says (get the shot); b) lots get sick w/o ‘health insurance’ putting more pressure on passing Universal Health Insurance; or, sob, c) the precious planet is rid of a few hundred/or thousand/or whatever # of ‘big-carbon-footprint-making’ folks (evil Westerners).
For these types it looks like a win-win-win scenario.
Oh, and d) if there are long term negative effects, with 100% of the military forced into taking it all the better – to debilitate pesky future-veteran trouble making ‘Teaparty’ types.
Haven’t these people heard that the shot may increase one’s risk of becoming infected rather than prevent it? Definitely something to consider.
Did you know swine flu affects cells in the lungs that are much deeper than any other flu making it much more deadly? http://cbt20.wordpress.com/2009/09/24/biotechnology-news-special-h1n1-coverage/ All the more reason to make sure the vaccine works before making it mandatory.
Yes, it looks like 2009 H1N1 will kill in ways different from the usual seasonal flu. This type of death from the flu affects healthy young adults.
That’s an excellent reason for healthy young adults to get the vaccine.
The vaccine will be mandatory for the US military. If you’re a health care worker and want to keep your job then some American governments have laws requiring you to be vaccinated.
Some hospitals may require vaccination as a term of employment.
So the only group for whom the vaccine is really mandatory is the military.
I wish that all hospitals could require their employees to get the vaccine as a term of employment. But they don’t
Oops,
If the strain in question appears to be targeting young adults, then why should a 45 yo health care worker be mandated to take a vaccine? Just as health insurance is NOT a right, the government and public or private hospitals have no “right” to demand individuals take vaccines. Your advocacy for “mandatory vaccination” is nanny-statism on steroids. The US military is a unique entity and certain “rights” are waived. However, it would be far more conscionable if the US Government would “waive” the Feres Doctrine in the case of mandatory vaccination. Of course, if the federal government did this, I am sure we would see mandatory vaccination go by the wayside.
Mark
You have to accept that the following sentence is true before having any discussion of why health care workers should be encouraged or mandated to take the flu vaccine.
People who get the flu vaccine are much less likely to get the flu.
Shel, you are correct about “accepting” your premise. However, many people reject your premise and it doesn’t address the inherent right of people to refuse invasive procedures.
Still with me? Infected health care workers spread the infection to people who are often already sick. And as important, health care workers who are sick and stay home aren’t available to help people who are sick and may die without adequate care. So it’s a double whammy.
So we deny health care worker’s the right to refuse invasive procedures because they “might” spread a virus or stay home because they’re ill themselves? Flu is an annual occurrence that sends health care workers home and hospitals are filled with bacteria and viruses, which is why so many procedures have moved to “same day surgery.” Moreover, as a health care worker, most of them are more in tune to whether they are sick versus the general population. Your so-called “double whammy” is nearly normative, which makes your argument vacuous.
I can’t see that mandatory vaccination for health care workers is part of creeping statism. Things were tougher before widespread mandatory public health measures, effective medicines and vaccines. Then, the only effective way stop communicable diseases was by isolation. If you could, you’d move to a place that didn’t have the disease. If you got the disease, you would isolated. That’s why there were leper colonies (even though it is very, very hard to pass on). That’s why there were sanitoriums for tuberculosis.
There have been numerous diseases in recent years that should have triggered the quarantine laws that are still on nearly every state’s books. During the SARS crisis in Canada, there were numerous meetings in New England concerning quarantine, but the Public Health folks were too cowardly to take action to protect the public. Invoking everything from “hospitals are private” to “who is going to feed the patients,” Public Health officials refused to recommend the necessary measures to protect the public. The same would hold true for a number of other potential outbreaks that concern the state and federal governments, because they know vaccines are not a panacea. In other words, to aver that quarantine (isolation) is no longer needed is to hide ones head in the sand concerning emerging infectious diseases.
For most diseases,we’ve got the luxury today of not having to isolate people by force. TB is an exception. This is a dangerous disease spread through the air. Much of the time it can be cured easily. However, there are now types of TB that can only be cured by taking a number of drugs each day, some with nasty side-effects, for up to 18 months, even though you may feel fine after a short period of time. To make sure people take the drugs, some jurisdictions send out a public health worker every day to watch the drugs being taken. And if you won’t go along with this, eventually you will be locked up in a hospital until you are no longe infectious.
Regardless of treatment protocols for the highly infectious or mutated nature of some TB strains, your assertion that “we’ve got the luxury today of not having to isolate people by force” is not true. Just as the WHO declared H1N1 a pandemic, the CDC monitors emerging diseases. You can easily find a link to their monitoring activities on the CDC’s website. Again, the inference that vaccines play a role in eliminating the need for quarantine is not factually based.
No one has a right to behave in such a way that they spread TB. No one has a ‘right’ to work in a restaurant if they won’t wash their hands after using using the toilet. If you want to be filthy, that’s your business, as long as you aren’t handling food for the public.
And no one has a “right” to tell another what they “have to” put into their bodies.
Similarly, I can’t see why anyone has ‘right’ to work as a doctor or a nurse or work in a hospital. You’re opposed to vaccination, that’s fine, find a job outside of the health care system.
If we merely follow simple logic, doesn’t it occur to you that doctors and nurses have the most accurate information on the H1N1 vaccine? And considering the love affair between doctors and pharmaceutical companies in Western medicine, doesn’t it make sense that doctors would be the first to recommend the H1N1 vaccine? So why are the health care workers revolting? Do they know something you don’t?
I had to look up Feres. There is a legal concept called ’sovereign immunity’ which prevents individuals from suing government. In more recent times, laws have been passed to let people sue government for certain types of wrongs. Feres decided that a 1940s Federal law limiting sovereign immunity didn’t give members of the military, conscripted or volunteers, a NEW right to sue the government.
You missed the point of the doctrine’s application to military members. Feres prevents military members from suing the government for gross medical malpractice. A cursory news search in Google will provide you ample reading on this topic and its victims. Including a misdiagnosed Marine who later died of cancer, an Airman who lost his legs during a botched gall bladder surgery, etc. Then there’s the issue of the military hiring doctors who have been disciplined for medical malpractice or lost their license for a period of time for the same. All of these doctors are shielded by the government and allowed to butcher our service members.
Reversing Feres is simple, just have Congress pass and the President sign a law that explicitly gives members of the military the right to sue the government. Even if vaccines were dangerous, I can’t see why this type of the wrong by the government should get special treatment as opposed to someone killed in a training exercise. Both are things you may be required to do and both may kill you. And since the military is now all volunteer, you can’t say that it is a surprise to members of the military that may be required to be vaccinated.
No, reversing Feres is NOT that simple. Congress recognizes the hundreds of millions of dollars it would cost the taxpayer in a single year if Feres was reversed. In essence, the taxpayers get to have their cake and eat it to, while simultaneously complaining that VA treatment for “volunteers” who’ve lost their legs, eyesight, mental faculties, etc. is too expensive and, if we follow your “volunteer” logic (and the president’s) veterans should pay for their own medical care for wounds suffered on the battlefield. As for equating the the “invasiveness” of a bullet with a vaccination, you miss the point again. Service members recognize the potential for being shot. However, they also recognize the government has repeatedly lied to them about the “safety” of vaccines, deliberately denied benefits by skewing medical statistics (Agent Orange, radiation exposure, Gulf War Syndrome) and, as such, are growing increasingly leery of mandated vaccinations whose efficacy is questionable. The upshot is this: A bullet is an immediate hazard, but a vaccine may take years to show its deleterious effects. Given the surge of birth defects associated with children born to service members of returning Gulf War veterans, there are other questions that need asking as well. Unfortunately, those who view vaccines as the “solution” to H1N1 and other viral diseases don’t even begin to ask them. In fact, how about doing a little research on how difficult it is to mutate the DNA inside sperm as a jumping off point and then come back to the Gulf War birth defects associated with male Soldiers. Interesting data indeed.
Here’s another go around. Epstein’s words are in italics.
More American health workers are joining others across the nation and the world protesting the mandatory, experimental H1N1 vaccine that many health experts agree is far more dangerous than the flu and not needed.
Reply: This is an incredibly over the top vomit from an anti-vaccine advocate. Her ‘health experts’ are a bad joke. There’s wackiness of every type there.
Oops: That’s a pretty broad statement on your part. What differentiates your statement from hers? Because folks are supposed to not believe her “health experts,” but should believe yours?
As the interest in the efficacy of the H1N1 vaccine mounts, a number of lingering questions swirl around the government’s handling of the coming pandemic that supposedly threatens the entire planet’s population. Of
course, the number one question is the safety of the vaccine and, considering the public’s level of trust in the federal government, is it any wonder conspiracy theories swirl throughout the internet?
Reply: People who don’t like vaccines write for each other and create an echo chambet they don’t want to escape from. Conspiracy theories always swirl in the internet.
Fact: President Nixon signed a ban in 1969 forbidding US development of offensive bioweapons and all subsequent research has been defensive in nature
Reply: In 1492, Columbus sailed the Ocean Blue. Therefore, vaccines are bad.Or are we arguing that the flu
is a bioweapon or some escapee from from a bioweapons lab. There is of course, zero evidence to support this claim.
Oops: You mean “zero evidence” other than the government’s own admission it was and continues working with the virus? It appears you know very little of the government’s ongoing research with any virus. For example, do you have any idea what the protocols are for working with Smallpox in the two remaining depositories in Atlanta and Moscow? How about toxins, bacterials, and other life-threatening or incapacitating virals? All of this research is “defensive” in nature and, therefore, complies with the 1969 ban. Moreover, given the fact the government conducts this research, is it any wonder conspiracy theorists jump on it to formulate their theories?
Fact: H1N1 is not new, as many people are led to believe
Reply: Your reference doesn’t make sense. Pedantically, you are right that H1N1 type flus aren’t new. The 1976 swine flu
was also an H1N1 type flu. But the 2009 flu H1N1 is very new to humans and fairly new to the animals that passed it on to humans in ways that are different from the typical seasonal flu strains.
Oops: And your point is what? The fact that the H1N1 mutates? Has done so already? That there will be those who take the vaccine but will endure a mutated strain that the vaccine will not prevent? This year’s H1N1 strain is mutating rapidly and has already been found as a recombinant. How about a little intellectual honesty on your part?
Fact: US Government scientists have been conducting defensive bioweapon research using H1N1
Reply: You couldn’t even find a link to support this.
Oops: The information on this is already in the public domain. I don’t generally link to something that’s easily accessible. However, you can see the statement above concerning research and the CDC’s own site discusses its ongoing research. Then again, you may want to consider the government’s “mandatory vaccination” of its troops that you acknowledged in another of your comments.
Fact: The US Government is recommending pregnant women be among the first included in vaccine trials
Reply: Yeah, sounds like a good idea to me. Typically pregnant women aren’t included in drug tests or vaccine trials. so we don’t know, in advance, whether pregnant woman and fetuses react differently to the drug. This way, they can make a more informed choice as to whether they should take the drug or vaccine.
Oops: You mean the women who were not used as “guinea pigs” can make a more informed choice, correct?
Fact: British health official have warned doctors of possible similarities between the new H1N1 vaccine and a shot linked to 25 deaths in the U.S. in the 1970s.
Reply: Yup. that’s true. What’s weird about 1976 is that the swine flu didn’t reach the general population. So yo
had possible deaths and injury that weren’t vastly overshadowed by the lives saved if the vaccine had become pandemic. This time around, the H1N1 flu is pandemic. So any possible deaths and injury will be vastly overshadowed by the lives safed.
Oops: Since you’re operating from an obvious Darwinian worldview, why do you have such an issue with natural selection? It would seem far more advantageous NOT to vaccinate anyone, with the result being the survivors naturally “better” human beings that are more resistant to rapidly-mutating viruses. For all your pro-vaccine hype, why not address this foundational issue to contemporary science? Along with the skewed statistical analysis employed by contemporary science.
Fact: Swiss pharmaceutical giant Novartis announced its vaccine ahead of schedule the day after the World Health Organization declared swine flu, also known as A(H1N1), a pandemic.
Reply: Yup, if the AARP says it, I’ll believe it. Presumably you think the vaccine got developed too quickly. And therefore, Novartis helped create the flu so they could make a vaccine and beat out everyone else in the world. The problem is that lots of vaccine makers have come out with vaccine on roughly the same time line. As the flu was identified and typed, samples of the new flu strain were sent to vaccine makers all around the world.
Oops: You underscore where the conspiracy theorists derive a good deal of the basis for their theories. You are correct, many pharmaceutical companies worked on and are working on H1N1. However, let’s look at the shrinking time line in projected H1N1 pandemics: 1918 to 1976 (58 years), 1976 to 2009 (33 years) versus pharmaceutical research. Where are you capturing this information in your analysis?
Fact: CBS News reported Secretary Sebelius said no to adjuvants on July 30, 2009, but Dr. Peter Hoetz says adjuvants are needed on August 17, 2009, and Hoetz is touted as a GWU expert
Reply: The US H1N1 vaccine will not contain adjuvants. You’ve misquoted the single sentence I found at the GWU website you link to.The acutal quote is: “Dr. Hotez thinks we may need to consider adding adjuvants to extend the availability of the vaccine”
Oops: And the difference in your quote and mine is what? Sebelius relies on so-called “experts” as Hoetz. Thus far US vaccines contain no adjuvants. However, the prevailing science community’s (and yours) thought is that it should contain adjuvants.
Here’s what this is about. You can add chemicals to the vaccine that can increase the immune response to a vaccine. So you can give a much lower amount of vaccine and get a good response. For example, GSK’s AS03 means you can use
one-quarter the amount of vaccine than if you don’t have an adjuvant. The big concern was that it might take 2 separate doses of vaccine to get the proper immune response. That might result in not having enough vaccine for everyone who wants in the US in time for it to be effective. Fortunately, that wasn’t the case, only one
dose is needed. Even with one dose, the US has not ordered enough vaccine for everyone n the US. There is also a humanitarian issue. There’s only so much vaccine that can be produced in time. If the US used an adjuvant there’d be more left over to go to countries that didn’t lock in vaccine orders. Canada is supposed to be using adjuvant in almost all of the vaccine it is getting in the 50 million doses it is getting— so that every single Canadian can get the vaccine.
Oops: “You can add chemicals…” Might we also consider the following? In the 1960’s, there were approximately 260,000 man-made chemicals. Currently, there are over 30 million. During this same time frame, millions of people throughout the world have developed cancers that were heretofore a minimal cause of death. Of course, with the methods used to statistically insulate all manner of chemical users and manufacturers from cause and effect, we can easily avoid any relationship between the increased number of chemicals and killer cancers. You opine that using chemical additives will increase vaccine availability. A reasonable question, however, is “at what long-term cost”? Since no one can answer this question, it would appear the adjuvant advocates are myopic.
Fact: People will continue to die from H1N1
Reply: Yup. People will continue to die from car crashes. Does that mean that requiring collapsible steering wheels to cut down on death and injury was a bad idea?
Oops: How about using logical analogies? A passive restraint system such as seat belts, collapsible steering wheels, break-away engines, etc., are completely different than anything INVASIVE.
Fact: Statistics are easily manipulated
Reply: So what. There is no alternative unless you want to reject the basis of modern medicine that we can best treat the individual if we understand how diseases and treatments work for groups of people.
Oops: “So what?” How about the legal issue of “informed consent”? As for treating “groups of people,” this is one of the fundamentally flawed areas of science. No two people are alike and modern medicine admits this, while simultaneously using bell curves to treat patients.
Fact: The same man who is conducting research on bioweapon detection is advising the US Government on H1N1
Reply: So what? After reading the article, he seems like a good guy to have advise the government.
Oops: Again, “So what?” How about this for a “so what”: Weaponized virus research (offensive or defensive) is a completely different field of endeavor than is public health. The methodologies are completely different, except for use of bell curves as they apply to healthy males between 18 and 45. Only an idiot of Sebelius’ level would fail to recognize the difference.
Fact: Vaccine manufacturers will be indemnified
Reply: Your link says they’ve got “immunity from liability except for acts of willful misconduct.” Presumably you think this immunity makes vaccines less safe. This was a bargain the US made with vaccine makers in 1976 when they threatened not to produce the vaccine unless they could be protected from lawsuits that whether or not the vaccine was safe would wipe them out. At the time, US courts accepted scientific claims without requiring that they were scientific. An example is bankrupting Dow over silicone breast implants that didn’t cause disease.
Oops: If breast implants don’t cause disease, then why do insurers refuse coverage to women with breast implants? If car manufacturers recognize a life-threatening flaw in design, then why do they recall the vehicles at their expense? What you are saying is the pharmaceutical companies blackmailed the government. Sounds ethical and moral to me. NOT.
The US vaccine court has rules that are much more favorable to plaintiffs than regular courts. They recently decided that there is no plausiible mechanism that links vaccines to autism.
Oops: So Autism just miraculously appears without explanation? You’ve already stated “so what” when it comes to statistics being skewed, so why are you buying into these findings? Most Americans have a healthy distrust of those who deny the obvious. And since there is no “plausible” explanation for increased Autism outside of increased childhood vaccination, skewed statistical analysis doesn’t serve anyone other than vaccine manufacturers.
Fact: The CDC has published Reflections on the 1976 Swine Flu Vaccination Program
Reply: I’ll take your word for it.
Myth: A citizen will be able to prove tortious liability if someone dies from the H1N1 vaccine
Reply: I think you’re saying that you can’t sue a vaccine maker.That’s true.
[snip diatribe]
What is known about H1N1 is voluminous, and so is what is not known. Death is a given. Government deception is also a given. And the deception is applicable to US research on H1N1 before the recent outbreak, accurate statistical
analysis of the vaccine safety and efficacy, as well as the government’s initial low key response to what was well known in government circles to be a deadly strain long before the current clanging alarm
Comments on flu versus chemical and biological warfare. The 2009 H1N1 flu is just another variation of the flu that we’ve been vaccinating people against flu vaccines were developed in the 1940s. That’s why vaccine makers can get quick approval each year of vaccines against that year’s strains of flu, once they’ve been approved for flu vaccine production. Each year there isn’t much change to the manufacturing process. There is a vast knowledge about the safety and effectiveness of flu vaccines that available to everyone.
Oops: I thought we got quick approval in 1976 after the manufacturers blackmailed the government? Now you’re arguing “safety” of vaccines as a long-running “fact.” If they are so safe, why the H1N1 episode in 1976?
This is easy compared to deciding how to prevent and treat soldiers against chemical and biological warfare. So no one should be surprised that the military might not have got it right
Oops: Except for the fact the US government has been conducting chem-bio research since 1917 and 1943 (organophosphates the Nazis developed), and radiation since the quick-developing cancers now known to be associated with radiation exposure. The government still doesn’t have it right, choosing to use Valium for organophospate-related seizure activity instead of the known better treatments. Why? It all boils down to dollars, which is the same reason you admit the pharmaceutical companies seek blanket indemnification.
[snip anti-Obama comments as irrelevant]
In essence, the government is not our friend or champion on the H1N1 issue, scientists are often agenda-driven and/or grant-driven in their research, the public square will be devoid of reliable statistics for years to come and, even when they are available, the government will skew them to avoid any tortious liability. At the end of the day, we’re on
our own. If you wish to believe the axiom We’re with the government and here to help you, be my guest.
[snip]
Reply: In essence, govenmentt’s all around the world have been our firiend in the fight against 2009 H1N1. They’ve been working independently, competitively and cooperatively this year in ways they haven’t in the past. Unlike China and
SARS, Mexico didn’t hide anything about the new flu. There has been amazing transparency with the flu genome being posted on the internet.. doing the best it can in an environment where anti-vaccine myths abound. Anti-vaccine fears meant that the government might not have had enough vaccine available if two doses had been needed for
adequate protection. There will be a problem with statistics. Not with the data itself but with the interpretation. It will be similar to autism — where greater awareness of the condition results in many more cases being reported. At the end of the day, you’ve got a choice. I choose to see myself as part of a world wide community that includes honest, ethical people in government, universities, private industriy and medicine who are working to prevent people from
becoming sick and dying from the flu.
Oops: And your last paragraph highlights the difference between you and many, many Americans. Americans inherently distrust government. Our Constitution and country’s history is founded on distrust of centralized government, and a majority do not buy into the “one world” ideology you subscribe to. Moreover, to even equate government with ethical standards of conduct is so far outside a historically-factual basis as to wonder if you believe in the Easter Bunny as well. Autism “reporting” is the cause for more known cases? Please. That is propaganda. The facts are simple: There ARE more Autism cases and reporting has nothing to do with its prevalence. As for statistical “interpretation” being the culprit, no, and no again. It is what is placed in the equation that is causing the skewed analysis and you know it. Perhaps this is why you believe in “honest” people in government — you share the same level of dishonesty.
And, BTW, US courts will not accept Wikipedia as evidence and the one idiot federal judge who temporarily did so was skewered for his lack of jurisprudence.
In this go around, I make some concessions that don’t help much and talk about my brother the hero.
Shel: You have to accept that the following sentence is true before having any discussion of why health care workers should be encouraged or mandated to take the flu vaccine.
People who get the flu vaccine are much less likely to get the flu.
Epstein: You are correct about “accepting” your premise. However, many people reject your premise and it doesn’t address the inherent right of people to refuse invasive procedures.
Shel: Still with me? Infected health care workers spread the infection to people who are often already sick. And as important, health care workers who are sick and stay home aren’t available to help people who are sick and may die without adequate care. So it’s a double whammy.
Epstein: So we deny health care worker’s the right to refuse invasive procedures because they “might” spread a virus or stay home because they’re ill themselves? Flu is an annual occurrence that sends health care workers home and hospitals are filled with bacteria and viruses, which is why so many procedures have moved to “same day surgery.” Moreover, as a health care worker, most of them are more in tune to whether they are sick versus the general population. Your so-called “double whammy” is nearly normative, which makes your argument vacuous.
Shel: Except for the last sentence which I can’t understand, you’ve got it right.
Shel: I can’t see that mandatory vaccination for health care workers is part of creeping statism. Things were tougher before widespread mandatory public health measures, effective medicines and vaccines. Then, the only effective way stop communicable diseases was by isolation. If you could, you’d move to a place that didn’t have the disease. If you got the disease, you would isolated. That’s why there were leper colonies (even though it is very, very hard to pass on). That’s why there were sanitariums for tuberculosis.
Epstein: There have been numerous diseases in recent years that should have triggered the quarantine laws that are still on nearly every state’s books. During the SARS crisis in Canada, there were numerous meetings in New England concerning quarantine, but the Public Health folks were too cowardly to take action to protect the public. Invoking everything from “hospitals are private” to “who is going to feed the patients,” Public Health officials refused to recommend the necessary measures to protect the public. The same would hold true for a number of other potential outbreaks that concern the state and federal governments, because they know vaccines are not a panacea. In other words, to aver that quarantine (isolation) is no longer needed is to hide ones head in the sand concerning emerging infectious diseases.
Shel: I can’t judge whether the New England response was correct. However, my whole point is that vaccines allow us to control epidemics that in the past required isolation. But if necessary, public health officials will still enforce quarantines if necessary.
For example, my brother the doctors does some part time shifts in a hospital ER. That hospital had many, many SARS cases. Half of the doctors working shifts in the ER stopped working there. My brother kept on working. He and his family were quarantined more than once. They all came through the SARS crisis in good shape.
Shel: For most diseases,we’ve got the luxury today of not having to isolate people by force. TB is an exception. This is a dangerous disease spread through the air. Much of the time it can be cured easily. However, there are now types of TB that can only be cured by taking a number of drugs each day, some with nasty side-effects, for up to 18 months, even though you may feel fine after a short period of time. To make sure people take the drugs, some jurisdictions send out a public health worker every day to watch the drugs being taken. And if you won’t go along with this, eventually you will be locked up in a hospital until you are no longe infectious.
Epstein:Regardless of treatment protocols for the highly infectious or mutated nature of some TB strains, your assertion that “we’ve got the luxury today of not having to isolate people by force” is not true. Just as the WHO declared H1N1 a pandemic, the CDC monitors emerging diseases. You can easily find a link to their monitoring activities on the CDC’s website. Again, the inference that vaccines play a role in eliminating the need for quarantine is not factually based.
Shel: If most of the population could have been protected by a SARS vaccine then there wouldn’t have been a major outbreak of the disease so that there wouldn’t have been cases of SARS in the hospital where my brother worked so there never would have been a need to quarantine him. That’s how vaccines play a role in eliminating the need for quarantine.
Shel:No one has a right to behave in such a way that they spread TB. No one has a ‘right’ to work in a restaurant if they won’t wash their hands after using using the toilet. If you want to be filthy, that’s your business, as long as you aren’t handling food for the public.
Epstein: And no one has a “right” to tell another what they “have to” put into their bodies.
Shel: Your view is fine with me. But in serious enough cases, you’ll still have the choice of take the drugs OR stay locked up until you’re no longer infectious.
Shel:Similarly, I can’t see why anyone has ‘right’ to work as a doctor or a nurse or work in a hospital. You’re opposed to vaccination, that’s fine, find a job outside of the health care system.
Epstein: If we merely follow simple logic, doesn’t it occur to you that doctors and nurses have the most accurate information on the H1N1 vaccine? And considering the love affair between doctors and pharmaceutical companies in Western medicine, doesn’t it make sense that doctors would be the first to recommend the H1N1 vaccine? So why are the health care workers revolting? Do they know something you don’t?
Shel : Vaccine and virus experts are experts on vaccines and viruses. Public health experts implement the policies determined by vaccine and virus experts. The opinions of these people should be followed.
Public health experts also pass on information to the medical community and the general population. Doctors, nurses and the rest of the health care community aren’t experts on vaccines and viruses and therefore their opinions should not be followed when they contradict that of the experts.
Its sad that many doctors and nurses have bizarre beliefs when it comes to vaccines. Some of that can be helped by better education. But many people, such as yourself, belief that opposing vaccination is somehow very important to them, and its usually useless trying to persuade them to change their minds. The best thing we could do, is cut down on the nonsense on TV. Unfortunately, sensationalism sells better than the dull truth.
Shel: I had to look up Feres. There is a legal concept called ’sovereign immunity’ which prevents individuals from suing government. In more recent times, laws have been passed to let people sue government for certain types of wrongs. Feres decided that a 1940s Federal law limiting sovereign immunity didn’t give members of the military, conscripted or volunteers, a NEW right to sue the government.
Epstein: You missed the point of the doctrine’s application to military members. Feres prevents military members from suing the government for gross medical malpractice. [snip]
Shel: That’s what I said.
Shel: Reversing Feres is simple, just have Congress pass and the President sign a law that explicitly gives members of the military the right to sue the government. Even if vaccines were dangerous, I can’t see why this type of the wrong by the government should get special treatment as opposed to someone killed in a training exercise. Both are things you may be required to do and both may kill you. And since the military is now all volunteer, you can’t say that it is a surprise to members of the military that may be required to be vaccinated.
No, reversing Feres is NOT that simple. Congress recognizes the hundreds of millions of dollars it would cost the taxpayer in a single year if Feres was reversed. In essence, the taxpayers get to have their cake and eat it to, while simultaneously complaining that VA treatment for “volunteers” who’ve lost their legs, eyesight, mental faculties, etc. is too expensive and, if we follow your “volunteer” logic (and the president’s) veterans should pay for their own medical care for wounds suffered on the battlefield. As for equating the the “invasiveness” of a bullet with a vaccination, you miss the point again. Service members recognize the potential for being shot. However, they also recognize the government has repeatedly lied to them about the “safety” of vaccines, deliberately denied benefits by skewing medical statistics (Agent Orange, radiation exposure, Gulf War Syndrome) and, as such, are growing increasingly leery of mandated vaccinations whose efficacy is questionable. The upshot is this: A bullet is an immediate hazard, but a vaccine may take years to show its deleterious effects. Given the surge of birth defects associated with children born to service members of returning Gulf War veterans, there are other questions that need asking as well. Unfortunately, those who view vaccines as the “solution” to H1N1 and other viral diseases don’t even begin to ask them. In fact, how about doing a little research on how difficult it is to mutate the DNA inside sperm as a jumping off point and then come back to the Gulf War birth defects associated with male Soldiers. Interesting data indeed.
Shel: I thought my reference to the 1940s was enough to make it clear that the law is very, very unlikely to change. Beyond that, if veterans can prove they’ve been harmed by a vaccine they got in the military they get compensated. I don’t know enough to have an opinion on whether veterans were harmed by chemicals or vaccines. I will agree that, whether or justified or not, it will be much harder for the army brass to decide that they will require the military to get vaccines over and above that given to the civilian population. That is, there won’t be trouble requiring the military to have seasonal and swine flu shots. There will be a problem if they’re asked to get a new anthrax or smallpox vaccine.
Feel free to make formatting changes if they help – put your words or mine in italics If you want to, turn this into a blog entry rather than comments.
PRELIMINARIES
I’m not sure if you, Epstein, should be pleased or displeased with this response. Pleased because someone is taking your words seriously and pleased because it gives you the opportunity to do the necessary research to prove me wrong..
OR displeased because this response shows that you: Accuse those disagree with you of intellectual dishonesty without evidence. And you are woefully ignorant on topics you write about. And you keep bringing into discussion issues that are irrelevant in deciding whether or not the 2009 H1N1 vaccine is safe and effective — which I always thought was the most important issue.
OVERVIEW OF SHEL’S VIEWS ON VACCINATION
Unfortunately for you, I’ve been interested in issues surrounding infectious diseases, vaccines, bioweapons and the critical thinking and skeptical movement for years. While it shouldn’t matter, my only connection with drugs and vaccines is that I take them. Funnily enough, I don’t take all the prescription drugs that my doctors would prefer I take.
My approach to the flu is this: It’s bad to get infected with the flu. It makes you sick, you can lose time from work and in some cases it can kill you. Similarly, its bad to infect other people with the flu. Those people will become sick. They may lose time from work and in some cases die.. As someone who isn’t a complete hermit, it’s wrong for me to hurt others when I can avoid it with essentially zero risk to myself.
Vaccines are very, very safe. The very, very slight chance that the vaccine will injure or kill me is vastly outweighed by the dangers of the flu to me and anyone I infect.
————————————-
WHAT’S RELEVANT
Some Anti-vaccine supporters think that anecdotal evidence and conspiracy theories on the origin of 2009 H1N1 and the vaccine are relevant in deciding whether the 2009 H1N1 flu is effective and safe. They aren’t. That’s just a red herring. Ultimately, as an individual faced with a chance to avoid a disease, it doesn’t matter whether 2009 H1N1 is natural, brewed up as a bioweapon, released by evil big pharma or made in the BatCave. There is a virus out there. If I get vaccinated I’ll safely protect myself and others.
————————————–
OTHER REASONS FOR NOT GETTING VACCINATED
You can, of course, argue that you shouldn’t get the 2009 H1N1 vaccine for reasons that don’t have to do with safety and effectiveness. But just make sure you don’t argue that they effect the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine because they don’t. Here are four reasons.
1. The vaccine is being given without ‘proper’ informed consent. This has nothing to do with safety and effectiveness.
2. I don’t want to support Big Pharma, the military-industrial complex or the health care industry by getting the vaccine.
3. The process that starts at research and ends with the vaccine is sufficiently un ethical that I won’t get vaccinated even though it is safe and effective. The standard example for this view is whether the unique hypothermia data gathered by the Nazi’s in death camps should be used.
4. I don’t care whether the vaccine is safe and effective. Vaccines or this vaccine in particular, go against my religious beliefs, my philosophical beliefs or the voices I’m hearing in my head. That’s fine to say as long as it’s clear that this has nothing to do with safety and effectiveness.
————————————————————————————
ON EXPERTS
Epstein: That’s a pretty broad statement on your part [that anti-vaccine experts are a bad joke] What differentiates your statement from hers? Because folks are supposed to not believe her “health experts,” but should believe yours?
Shel: That’s correct. I don’t give everyone’s opinion equal weight. My ‘experts’ are the thousands and thousands of people all over the world that have spent centuries studying and expanding our understanding of probability, statistics, mathematics, biology, medicine, computers, chemistry and genetics using tools that include double blind studies, statistics, computer science and the eventual self-correcting methods of science.
See below for the unkind words I have for some of the big ‘experts’ who put forward the claim that vaccines cause autism
——————————————-
ON VACCINES AND BIOWEAPONS
Shel: Are we arguing that the flu is a bioweapon or some escapee from from a bioweapons lab. There is of course, zero evidence to support this claim.
Epstein: You mean “zero evidence” other than the government’s own admission it was and continues working with the virus? It appears you know very little of the government’s ongoing research with any virus. For example, do you have any idea what the protocols are for working with Smallpox in the two remaining depositories in Atlanta and Moscow? How about toxins, bacterials, and other life-threatening or incapacitating virals? All of this research is “defensive” in nature and, therefore, complies with the 1969 ban. Moreover, given the fact the government conducts this research, is it any wonder conspiracy theorists jump on it to formulate their theories?
Shel: My zero evidence remark was directed to evidence that the creation and/’or distribution of 2009 H1N1 virus had anything to do with bioweapons programs. That stands. But the origins of the virus are irrelevant to deciding whether the vaccine is good or bad.
Your response is a discussion of bioweapons. This is a red herring. Let’s assume that everything possible is evil. There are governments around the world working hard to weaponize influenza. And let’s go farther and assume (with no evidence) that the 2009 H1N1 flu was created in some government lab in the United States or Russia or Iran or Israel and then accidently or deliberately released in Mexico. Or let’s go even further and assume that 2009 H1N1 was accidently or deliberately released by a vaccine maker. That makes zero difference to how we should react to this public health measure. There is a new strain of the flu spread all over the world, vaccine makers make vaccines, people are vaccinated and fewer people die.
BTW, I do have an informed layman’s understanding of bioweapons. Part of the reason the Soviets created a vast empire dedicated to making biological weapons after the 1969 agreement was their belief that the US would cheat as well. If you want evidence that the Soviet Union was evil, read Germs: Biological Weapons and America’s Secret War, ISBN 0-684-87158-0
——————————————–
ON THE HISTORY OF THE 2009 H1N1 FLU AND INTELLECTUAL HONESTY
Epstein: H1N1 is not new, as many people are led to believe
Shel: Your reference doesn’t make sense. Pedantically, you are right that H1N1 type flus aren’t new. The 1976 swine flu was also an H1N1 type flu. But the 2009 flu H1N1 is very new to humans and fairly new to the animals that passed it on to humans in ways that are different from the typical seasonal flu strains.
Epstein: And your point is what? The fact that the H1N1 mutates? Has done so already? That there will be those who take the vaccine but will endure a mutated strain that the vaccine will not prevent? This year’s H1N1 strain is mutating rapidly and has already been found as a recombinant. How about a little intellectual honesty on your part?
Shel: Calling into question my intellectual honesty is wrong even if we assume that the statements in that paragraph were wrong or contradictory or ignorant. There’s simply no evidence that I know there’s something wrong with my argument and yet I made it anyhow. What makes this hilarious and sad is that the problem is yours, not mine: Every word in that short paragraph is correct. My only sin was assuming you already had a good grasp of the basic concepts and language. My mistake. I’ll expand what I wrote:
Every year, the flu strains that are most likely to infect people change. A strain that was very rare in the past is now very widespread, so the seasonal flu vaccine changes every year. However,
2009 H1N1 is a new flu strain that is different enough from the usual seasonal strains that very few people have any natural immunity to it. 2009 H1N1 is also very new to animals: See http://download.thelancet.com/flatcontentassets/H1N1-flu/virology/virology-39.pdf
Here’s Epstein paragraph once again:
Epstein: And your point is what? The fact that the H1N1 mutates? Has done so already? That there will be those who take the vaccine but will endure a mutated strain that the vaccine will not prevent? This year’s H1N1 strain is mutating rapidly and has already been found as a recombinant. How about a little intellectual honesty on your part?
Shel: I never discussed any of these issues. However, the 2009 H1N1 virus was always known to be a recombinant virus. It never changed to become a recombinant after it infected humans. That’s what the talk of the virus having pig, bird and human genes was all about. And while the virus is still mutating, it’s already known that the swine flu vaccine is a very good match with the virus out in the world. I won’t accuse you of intellectual dishonesty but you’re clearly guilty of a charge of ignorance. Intellectual dishonesty is a character flaw that’s hard to correct. But ignorance can be replaced by knowledge if you work at it.
———————————————-
ON USING 2009 H1N1 FLU IN DEFENSIVE BIOWEAPONS RESEARCH
Epstein: US Government scientists have been conducting defensive bioweapon research using H1N1
Shel: You couldn’t even find a link to support this.
Epstein: [You're wrong. look at cdc site]
Shel: My search of site:cdc.gov defensive h1n1 research got 459 results. I’m not going to go through all of them. So let’s say you’re right. I can’t see anything wrong with the people who do defensive bioweapons research on lots of bacteria and viruses, also working on influenza. If these people can help us, let’s use them. Since U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID). is the most likely place where this research would take place, I should tell you that a search for site:cdc.gov defensive h1n1 research usamriid got 6 results most of which were about USAMRIID’s ability to safely transport infected persons by air.
Aside from any work on bioweapons, USAMRIID took the lead in sterilizing the monkey facility in Reston VA that had an airborne ebola virus spreading from monkey to monkey. In a stroke of luck, the Reston ebola could not spread from human to human. Richard Preston’s Hot Zone tell this story.
———————————————–
ON TESTING THE VACCINE ON PREGNANT WOMEN
Epstein: The US Government is recommending pregnant women be among the first included in vaccine trials
Shel: [That's a very good idea]
Epstein:You mean the women who were not used as “guinea pigs” can make a more informed choice, correct?
Shel: Absolutely. I don’t understand this criticism. The main reason for vaccine makers testing their vaccine on children (yup) and pregnant women is to see if the amount of vaccine antigen needed for a successful immune response is different than that of unpregnant adults. It’s pretty simple: Give people differing amounts of vaccine, wait some days and then do a blood test and measure the level of antibodies to the vaccine.
———————————————
ON BEING A GUINEA PIG
I’ve been a guinea pig for two medical studies. One was pretty simple, all I had to do was give them permission to test a piece of me that they would otherwise thrown in the garbage.
The other was a major double blind multi-center (teaching hospitals around the world) trial of a recombinant antibody drug. My specialist asked me if I was interested. My condition was pretty stable and didn’t do a lot to interfere with my life. I didn’t get paid and I went into the trial without much hope that it would help or much concern that it would harm me. Believe it or not, part of my reasons for joining the trial was that I thought it was the right thing to do. It wasn’t fun because I hate needles and this was an IV drug that I got 5 or 6 times. I got the drug and not the placebo. Turns out the drug was very safe but wasn’t very effective when compared to a similar drug that was a bit less safe but more effective. The drug never went on the market.
——————————————-
ON LINKING EVOLUTION TO SOCIAL DARWINISM
Epstein: Since you’re operating from an obvious Darwinian worldview, why do you have such an issue with natural selection? It would seem far more advantageous NOT to vaccinate anyone, with the result being the survivors naturally “better” human beings that are more resistant to rapidly-mutating viruses. For all your pro-vaccine hype, why not address this foundational issue to contemporary science? Along with the skewed statistical analysis employed by contemporary science.
Shel: I’m trying to understand this. Yup, I accept the modern darwinian synthesis. Accepting the darwinian synthesis has nothing to do with whether I’m also a social darwinist despite the creationist and intelligent design ilk would have you believe.You can be a Darwinist and a social darwinist. You can be a darwinist and not a social darwinist. You can not be a Darwinist and still be a social darwininst (how else can you explain Glenn Beck). FWIW, I’m not a social darwinist.
—————————————
ON DEVELOPING THE VACCINE TOO QUICKLY
Epstein: [Novartis, a drug company developed its vaccine too quickly for it not to have done something nefarious]
Shel: [Lots of vaccine makers came out with their vaccines at roughly the same time.]
Epstein: You underscore where the conspiracy theorists derive a good deal of the basis for their theories. You are correct, many pharmaceutical companies worked on and are working on H1N1. However, let’s look at the shrinking time line in projected H1N1 pandemics: 1918 to 1976 (58 years), 1976 to 2009 (33 years) versus pharmaceutical research. Where are you capturing this information in your analysis?
Shel: There may be reasons for the pattern 1918, 1976, 2009 — or it might be chance. I wouldn’t think that 3 data points aren’t enough for a robust pattern. If I were interested enough, I’d read what the experts had to say. They, unlike the conspiracy theorists, might have some evidence to back up their views.
————————————————
ON NEWER CHEMICAL BEING WORSE AND ADJUVANTS
Epstein: “You can add chemicals…” Might we also consider the following? In the 1960’s, there were approximately 260,000 man-made chemicals. Currently, there are over 30 million. During this same time frame, millions of people throughout the world have developed cancers that were heretofore a minimal cause of death. Of course, with the methods used to statistically insulate all manner of chemical users and manufacturers from cause and effect, we can easily avoid any relationship between the increased number of chemicals and killer cancers. You opine that using chemical additives will increase vaccine availability. A reasonable question, however, is “at what long-term cost”? Since no one can answer this question, it would appear the adjuvant advocates are myopic.
Shel: I’ve never heard the argument that in general newer chemicals are more of a problem. I’ve always thought that older chemicals are the problem because they were produced and still are being produced in vast amounts under laxer rules than for new chemicals.
The US hedged its bet on adjuvants. They bought millions of dollars of them because they thought they might be necessary for the 2009 H1N1 vaccine to work.
One of the reasons everyone reacted so quickly to 2009 H1N1 was because of all the advance preparation done to be ready if the H5N1 bird flu mutated to allow human to human transmission. Vaccines against H5N1 appear to require adjuvants to be effective.
—————————————–
DOES IT MATTER THAT VACCINES ARE INVASIVE
Epstein: People will continue to die from H1N1
Shel: Yup. People will continue to die from car crashes. Does that mean that requiring collapsible steering wheels to cut down on death and injury was a bad idea?
Epstein: How about using logical analogies? A passive restraint system such as seat belts, collapsible steering wheels, break-away engines, etc., are completely different than anything INVASIVE.
Shel: Ok, no problem.
——————————————
ON USING BIOWEAPONS SCIENTISTS FOR VACCINE RESEARCH
Epstein: The same man who is conducting research on bioweapon detection is advising the US Government on H1N1
Shel: So what? After reading the article, he seems like a good guy to have advise the government.
Epstein: Again, “So what?” How about this for a “so what”: Weaponized virus research (offensive or defensive) is a completely different field of endeavor than is public health. The methodologies are completely different, except for use of bell curves as they apply to healthy males between 18 and 45. Only an idiot of Sebelius’ level would fail to recognize the difference.
Shel: Huh? I don’t understand this. Science is science, good scientific practice and method is the same everywhere. USAMRIID’s mission is: “To conduct basic and applied research on biological threats resulting in medical solutions to protect the warfighter.” But then look at USAMRIID’s highlight page at http://www.usamriid.army.mil/highlightspage.htm and you’ll see how defensive work on bioweapons can directly benefit public health.
———————————————-
ON NOT ALLOWING LAWSUITS AGAINST VACCINE MAKERS
Epstein Vaccine manufacturers will be indemnified
Shel: Your link says they’ve got “immunity from liability except for acts of willful misconduct.” Presumably you think this immunity makes vaccines less safe. This was a bargain the US made with vaccine makers in 1976 when they threatened not to produce the vaccine unless they could be protected from lawsuits that whether or not the vaccine was safe would wipe them out. At the time, US courts accepted scientific claims without requiring that they were scientific. An example is bankrupting Dow over silicone breast implants that didn’t cause disease.
Epstein: If breast implants don’t cause disease, then why do insurers refuse coverage to women with breast implants? If car manufacturers recognize a life-threatening flaw in design, then why do they recall the vehicles at their expense? What you are saying is the pharmaceutical companies blackmailed the government. Sounds ethical and moral to me. NOT.
Shel: Of course what the vaccine makers did was not blackmail. They simply said that they wouldn’t sell a product that might end bankrupting them through lawsuits. That’s normal business behavior. The government response was to put itself in the position of the manufacturer for liability purposes. See: http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/vaccines/Unthank.htm
Vaccine makers and others connected with 2009 H1N1 vaccination have legal immunity. The US government will compensate those seriously injured or killed where there’s some link between the vaccine and the serious injury or death. For details, see my comment in http://markepstein.wordpress.com/2009/08/26/h1n1-vaccine-25-test-subject-deaths-and-the-msm-cover-up-for-obama/#comment-1558
To shorten this, I’ll not comment further on breast implants.
———————————————–
ON VACCINES AND AUTISM
Shel:The US vaccine court has rules that are much more favorable to plaintiffs than regular courts. They recently decided that there is no evidence of a epidemiological link between autism and vaccines and no plausiible mechanism that links vaccines to autism.
Epstein: So Autism just miraculously appears without explanation? You’ve already stated “so what” when it comes to statistics being skewed, so why are you buying into these findings? Most Americans have a healthy distrust of those who deny the obvious. And since there is no “plausible” explanation for increased Autism outside of increased childhood vaccination, skewed statistical analysis doesn’t serve anyone other than vaccine manufacturers.
Shel: To the contrary, I’m a strong believer in statistics. I can’t help the general ignorance of people on rational thinking, how science works and how to understand statistics. As for your claims about vaccinations and autism: Thousands and thousands of parents have been deceived, millions and millions of dollars and thousands and thousands and thousands of hours have been spent debunking the ignorance, laziness, cheating, unethical behavior (doingcolonoscopies in children without without informed consent) and greed by so-called experts and in particular Andrew Wakefield. Start with this overview at Steve Novella’s Neurologica blog and then follow the links to Brian Deer’s article in the Times (London) http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=474
Then read an overview of the vaccine court decisions of 2009
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=478
and then read the actual decisions by following the links.
I’m a big fan of Steve Novella both as an individual and as the head honcho of the Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe podcast.
——————————————–
ON THE KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THIS VACCINE
Epstein: What is known about H1N1 is voluminous, and so is what is not known. Death is a given. Government deception is also a given. And the deception is applicable to US research on H1N1 before the recent outbreak, accurate statistical analysis of the vaccine safety and efficacy, as well as the government’s initial low key response to what was well known in government circles to be a deadly strain long before the current clanging alarm
Shel: The 2009 H1N1 flu is just another variation of the flu. We’ve been vaccinating people since flu vaccines were developed in the 1940s. That’s why vaccine makers can get quick approval each year of vaccines against that year’s strains of flu, once they’ve been approved for production. Each year there isn’t much change to the manufacturing process. There is a vast knowledge about the safety and effectiveness of flu vaccines that available to everyone.
Epstein: I thought we got quick approval in 1976 after the manufacturers blackmailed the government? Now you’re arguing “safety” of vaccines as a long-running “fact.” If they are so safe, why the H1N1 episode in 1976?
Shel: I don’t know. Experts believe it was a one off event. But we know that getting the 2009 H1N1 vaccine is much, much safer for everyone that getting the flu itself that is out in the world.
[snip out discussion of military and vaccines as I'm running low on interest]
—————————–
ON THE DECENCY OF GOVERNMENT AND SCIENTISTS
Epstein: In essence, the government is not our friend or champion on the H1N1 issue, scientists are often agenda-driven and/or grant-driven in their research, the public square will be devoid of reliable statistics for years to come and, even when they are available, the government will skew them to avoid any tortious liability. At the end of the day, we’re on our own. If you wish to believe the axiom We’re with the government and here to help you, be my guest.
[snip]
Shel: In essence, governments all around the world have been our friend in the fight against 2009 H1N1. They’ve been working independently, competitively and cooperatively this year in ways they haven’t in the past. Unlike China and SARS, Mexico didn’t hide anything about the new flu. There has been amazing transparency with the flu genome being posted on the internet, doing the best it can in an environment where anti-vaccine myths abound. Anti-vaccine fears meant that the US government might not have had enough vaccine available if two doses had been needed for adequate protection. There will be a problem with statistics. Not with the data itself but with the interpretation. It will be similar to autism — where greater awareness of the condition results in many more cases being reported. At the end of the day, you’ve got a choice. I choose to see myself as part of a world wide community that includes honest, ethical people in government, universities, private industriy and medicine who are working to prevent people from
becoming sick and dying from the flu.
Epstein: And your last paragraph highlights the difference between you and many, many Americans. Americans inherently distrust government. Our Constitution and country’s history is founded on distrust of centralized government, and a majority do not buy into the “one world” ideology you subscribe to. Moreover, to even equate government with ethical standards of conduct is so far outside a historically-factual basis as to wonder if you believe in the Easter Bunny as well. Autism “reporting” is the cause for more known cases? Please. That is propaganda. The facts are simple: There ARE more Autism cases and reporting has nothing to do with its prevalence. As for statistical “interpretation” being the culprit, no, and no again. It is what is placed in the equation that is causing the skewed analysis and you know it. Perhaps this is why you believe in “honest” people in government — you share the same level of dishonesty.
Shel: Well, they tried a really decentralized government under the Articles of Confederation. That didn’t work. So they changed to a much more centralized government under the US Constitution. I’d say that today, power in the United States is very centralized— more so than Canada.
Essentially, no one (including me) is in favor of a one world government. And certainly there’s zero chance of the United States doing anything to move towards this. The only time you hear about this is when it is being used as a straw man by the right wing.
Another distortion is your attack on me for allegedly saying governments in general are ethical. I never said that. What I said was ” I see myself as part of a community that includes honest, ethical people in government.” Surely, even you must agree that the postman, the fireman and the police can be honest and ethical.
And again, just because I disagree with you, I get accused of dishonesty. There’s zero reasons for me to be dishonest. Other than taking some drugs and vaccines, I have no personal stake in the matter.
If the research had shown a real rise in autism or there was a causal link between vaccines and autism or even there was only some epidemiological correlation, it wouldn’t change any core belief of mine. I’d end up accepting the research and move on from there.
It would have been wonderful if there actually was a causal mechanism linking vaccines and autism because then we’re looking at an environmental cause for autism. And we’d be a lot closer to preventing or treating autism. Unfortunately, the massive amount of research and a closer examination of the history of claims that vaccines correlate with autism or cause autism shows that it was mostly junk science and in the case of Andrew Wakefield disgusting, unethical and inhumane.
———————————————–
WIKIPEDIA
Epstein: BTW, US courts will not accept Wikipedia as evidence and the one idiot federal judge who temporarily did so was skewered for his lack of jurisprudence.
Shel: Your claim is: “US Courts will not accept Wikipedia.” That set off my crap detector. It is just too bizarre to believe there has been an ruling from on high rejecting Wikipedia. And over the years, I’ve found Wikipedia to be an excellent research tool. So I did what you obviously did not do, I googled wikipedia us courts and found http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/29/technology/29wikipedia.html and perhaps more favorably to your view a posting at a website I read, even thought I often disagree with it, The Volkolh Conspiracy,
http://www.volokh.com/posts/1217437325.shtml
—————————————————
A DIVERSION
Shel: I’ve got relatives with serious medical issues. My parents are very elderly and require more expensive care. A younger relative’s serious condition has taken another deteriorating step that will require more and increasingly expensive medical intervention. So I’m glad of this diversion as I prepare my arguments to convince their death panels that more medical resources should be spent on their behalf, even though they’re no longer productive members of society. For details on the process, see: http://tinyurl.com/facing-death-panel
DON’T TAKE THE VACCINE!!!