9 Questions That Stump Every Pro-Vaccine Advocate and Their Claims

[Guest guest]

9 Questions That Stump

Every Pro-Vaccine Advocate and Their Claims

http://preventdisease.com/news/09/102809_9_arguments_to_win_any_vaccine_debate.shtml

Since the flu pandemic was declared, there have been several

so-called " vaccine experts " coming out of the woodwork

attempting to

justify the effectiveness of vaccines. All of them parrot the same

ridiculous historical and pseudoscientific perspectives of

vaccinations which are easily squelched with the following 9 questions.

Claim: The study of vaccines, their historical record of

achievements, effectiveness, safety and mechanism in humans are well

understood and proven in scientific and medical circles.

Fact: The claim is completely false.

1. What to ask: Could you please provide one double-blind,

placebo-controlled study that can prove the safety and effectiveness

of vaccines?

2. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific evidence on ANY

study which can confirm the long-term safety and effectiveness of

vaccines?

3. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific evidence which

can prove that disease reduction in any part of the world, at any

point in history was attributable to inoculation of populations?

4. What to ask: Could you please explain how the safety and mechanism

of vaccines in the human body are scientifically proven if their

pharmacokinetics (the study of bodily absorption, distribution,

metabolism and excretion of ingredients) are never examined

or analyzed in any vaccine study?

One of the most critical elements which defines the toxicity

potential of any vaccine are its pharmacokinetic properties. Drug

companies and health agencies refuse to consider the study, analysis

or evaluation of the pharmacokinetic properties of any vaccine.

There is not one double-blind, placebo-controlled study in the

history of vaccine development that has ever proven their safety,

effectiveness or achievements (unless those achievements have

underlined their damage to human health).

There are also no controlled studies completed in any country which

have objectively proven that vaccines have had any direct or

consequential effect on the reduction of any type of disease in any

part of the world.

Every single study that has ever attempted to validate the safety and

effectiveness of vaccines has conclusively established carcinogenic,

mutagenic, neurotoxic or fertility impairments, but they won't address

those.

*************************************************************** *********

***

Claim: Preservatives and chemical additives used in the manufacture

of vaccines are safe and no studies have been linked or proven them

unsafe for use in humans.

Fact: The claim is completely false.

5. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific justification as

to how injecting a human being with a confirmed neurotoxin is

beneficial to human health and prevents disease?

6. What to ask: Can you provide a risk/benefit profile on how the

benefits of injecting a known neurotoxin exceeds its risks to human

health for the intended goal of preventing disease?

This issue is no longer even open to debate. It is a scientifically

established fact in literally hundreds of studies that the

preservatives and chemical additives in vaccines damage cells.

Neurotoxicity, immune suppression, immune-mediated chronic

inflammation and carcinogenic proliferation are just a few of several

effects that have been observed on the human body.

http://preventdisease

..com/news/09/100509_vaccine_chemicals_inserts.shtml

See

a list of chemicals in vaccines

Fortunately, the drug companies still tell us the damage vaccines

have on the human body. People just don't read them. All you have to

do is look at the insert for any vaccine, and it will detail the

exact

http://preventdisea

se.com/news/09/092109_H1N1_package_inserts_warnings.shtml ingredients,

alerts and potentially lethal effects.

See my latest

http://preventdisea

se.com/news/09/102609_Alert_Canadians_Arepanrix_vaccine_analysis.shtml

analysis

of the Arepanrix H1N1 vaccine for an example.

Any medical professional who believes that it is justified to inject

any type of neurotoxin into any person to prevent any disease is

completely misguided, misinformed, deluded and ignorant of any logic

regarding human health.

************ ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* *********

********* ***

Claim: Once an individual is injected with the foreign antigen in

the vaccine, that individual becomes immune to future infections.

Fact: The claim is completely false.

7. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific justification on

how bypassing the respiratory tract (or mucous membrane) is

advantageous and how directly injecting viruses into the bloodstream

enhances immune functioning and prevents future infections?

8. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific justification on

how a vaccine would prevent viruses from mutating?

9. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific justification as

to how a vaccination can target a virus in an infected individual who

does not have the exact viral configuration or strain the vaccine was

developed for?

All promoters of vaccination fail to realize that the respiratory

tract of humans (actually all mammals) contains antibodies which

initiates natural immune responses within the respiratory tract

mucosa. Bypassing this mucosal aspect of the immune system by

directly injecting viruses into the bloodstream leads to a corruption

in the immune system itself. As a result, the pathogenic viruses or

bacteria cannot be eliminated by the immune system and remain in the

body, where they will further grow and/or mutate as the individual is

exposed to ever more antigens and toxins in the environment which

continue to assault the immune system.

Despite the injection of any type of vaccine, viruses continue

circulating through the body, mutating and transforming into other

organisms. The ability of a vaccine manufacturer to target the exact

viral strain without knowing its mutagenic properties is equivalent

to shooting a gun at a fixed target that has already been moved from

its location. You would be shooting at what was, not what is!

Flu viruses, may mutate, change or adapt several times over a period

of one flu season, making the seasonal influenza vaccine 100%

redundant and ineffective every single flu season. Ironically, the

natural immune defenses of the human body can target these changes

but the vaccines cannot.

I have never encountered one pro-vaccine advocate, whether medically

or scientifically qualified, who could answer even 1 let alone all 9

of these questions. One or all of the following will happen when

debating any of the above questions:

- They will concede defeat and admit they are stumped

- They will attempt to discredit unrelated issues that do not pertain

to the question.

- They will formulate their response and rebuttal based on historical

arguments and scientific studies which have been disproved over and over

again.

Not one pro-vaccine advocate will ever directly address these

questions in an open mainstream venue.

Dave Mihalovic is a Naturopathic Doctor who specializes in vaccine

research, cancer prevention and a natural approach to treatment.

Sheri Nakken, former R.N., MA, Hahnemannian

Homeopath

Vaccination Information & Choice Network, Washington State, USA

Vaccines -

http://vaccinationdangers.wordpress.com/ Homeopathy

http://homeopathycures.wordpress.com

Vaccine Dangers, Childhood Disease Classes & Homeopathy

Online/email courses - next classes start March 4

[Guest guest]

Yes, but then guys like this try to write a rebuttal to the 9

questions. What do you all think?

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=5025

Nine Questions, Nine Answers.

Published by Mark Crislip under Vaccines

Comments:

234

This is

not an easy blog to write. Doctors Novella and Gorski want the

entries to be formal, academic, referenced, with a minimum of

snark.

For the

most part I comply. But sometimes. Sometimes. It is hard, so

hard, to not spiral into sarcastic diatribes over the writings

that pass for information on the interwebs. I wish, sometimes,

that I could be an irascible computer as well.

What

brings on this particular bit of angst is a bit of whimsy on the

Internet called “9 Questions That Stump Every Pro-Vaccine

Advocate and Their Claims.” by Mihalovic, ND. Mr.

Mihalovic identifies himself as “a naturopathic medical doctor

who specializes in vaccine research.” However, just where the

research is published is uncertain as his name yields no

publications on pubmed. BTW. I am a beer researcher.

The nine

questions show up frequently on the interwebs, similar to

questions on is to ask when you want to stump an evolutionist.

Like the supposed stumpers for evolution, the vaccine questions

are grounded in either misinformation or laziness. Let’s go

through them one at a time.

1. Could

you please provide one double-blind, placebo-controlled study

that can prove the safety and effectiveness of vaccines?

One

trial? It took me 55 seconds to find 20211953, and that includes

time to boot the browser and mis-spell the search terms.

Vaccine efficacy randomized placebo control trial gives 416

pubmed results; add safety to the search term, you 126 returns.

The are easily more than one. Of course, to find them you have

to look.

Of

course, I am a highly educated adult who constantly searches the

web for medical information. For hoots and giggles, I asked my

12 year old son, whose passions are basketball and filming

comedy videos, to find me a reference that met the same criteria

and I timed him.

22

seconds to find Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial of

Inactivated Poliovirus Vaccine in Cuba from the NEJM.

12 yo

one, Mihalovic 0. Served.

As long

as we are on the topic, since he evidently place great store in

science, could Mihalovic please provide one double-blind,

placebo-controlled study that can prove the safety and

effectiveness of naturopathy? I would be happy at this point to

know you could do a pubmed search corruptly just to make me look

the fool.

2. Could

you please provide scientific evidence on ANY study which can

confirm the long-term safety and effectiveness of vaccines?

Long

term is vague. What is long term? Smallpox disappeared in 1976

thanks to the vaccine. I have not seem a case of smallpox in my

medical career, which now on it’s 31st year. No reported long

term toxicities and the eradication of smallpox seems to me

reasonable evidence for long term effectiveness.

No

vaccine is 100% in efficacy, and whether infected naturally or

by way of a vaccine, immunity wanes with time. In earlier

times people would be have their immunity boosted by exposure

to disease and maintain their antibody levels. It is not the

initial infection that leads to better immunity from natural

infections, as posited by some antivaccine people, but the the

fact that people were constantly re-exposed to wild type

disease.

It is

interesting what is happening with shingles. Everyone used to

get chickenpox as a child, and then, as they raised their kids

and grand kids, got re-exposed to the virus and boost their

immunity. Currently, due to the chickenpox vaccine and a change

in the way way children are raised, older adults are not getting

exposed naturally to chickenpox, immunity is waning, and there

is an increase in shingles in older adults. Part of why they

need the zoster vaccine.

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/651078

Clever

conspiracy, huh?

Unless

exposed to new infection, immunity, as measured by antibody

levels directed against the infecting agent, can wane over time.

That is to be expected. The nice thing about the immune system,

unlike water, is that it remembers the infection. It is primed

so that if exposed again at a later date, it can almost

instantly produce large amounts of antibody to nip an infection

in the bud. So rather than prevent infection, in some people far

removed in time from the vaccine, may instead have a shorter,

less severe illness and be infectious not as long, thereby

decreasing spread.

There is

a nice review in the NEJM 1798383 on duration of immunity (first

search in pubmed using duration of immunity vaccine, results in

17 seconds, including correcting typos. Seriously, just how

hard is it to find this information? As would be expected, it

depends on the disease and the vaccine (live better than

killed). They estimated the half life for the varicella zoster

virus immunity at 50 years, 200 years for measles and mumps, and

11 years for tetanus. If you peruse the references, you can

find other studies that show variable but sustained response to

vaccines, for example 90% maintain immunity to smallpox up to

75 years after vaccination. 12925846

Long

term safety was more difficult, 5 years was the limit of time I

could find safety studies, for the Hepatits B. j med virol 65

2001Most vaccine toxicities are found in the first week after

the inoculation and the studies follow most patients for a year.

Probably would not cut it as long term for Mihalovic.

BTW,

could you please provide scientific evidence on ANY study which

can confirm the long-term safety and effectiveness of

naturopathy?

3.

Could you please provide scientific evidence which can prove

that disease reduction in any part of the world, at any point in

history was attributable to inoculation of populations?

Smallpox?

Smallpox? Smallpox? Anyone? Smallpox? Buehler? Buehler?

Again I

get back to the whole binary, black and white approach that

characterizes many with whom we cross medical swords. The

decrease in infectious diseases has been multifactorial, due to

improved nutrition, improved hygienic (lets hear it for the

flush toilet) and understanding the epidemiology of diseases.

Knowing how a disease is spread has always been critical in

decreasing its spread. Note that none, none, none of the

interventions that have decreased the spread of infections in

the last 200 years or so have come from alt med tradition.

The

teasing out the effects of vaccines on populations is always

fraught with potential controversy. There are always multiple

confounders. The best example of the effects of vaccines was

from JAMA http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/298/18/2155

“Objective

To compare morbidity and mortality before and after widespread

implementation of national vaccine recommendations for 13

vaccine-preventable diseases for which recommendations were in

place prior to 2005.

Design,

Setting, and Participants For the United States, prevaccine

baselines were assessed based on representative historical data

from primary sources and were compared to the most recent

morbidity (2006) and mortality (2004) data for diphtheria,

pertussis, tetanus, poliomyelitis, measles, mumps, rubella

(including congenital rubella syndrome), invasive Haemophilus

influenzae type b (Hib), acute hepatitis B, hepatitis A,

varicella, Streptococcus pneumoniae, and smallpox.

Main

Outcome Measures Number of cases, deaths, and hospitalizations

for 13 vaccine-preventable diseases. Estimates of the percent

reductions from baseline to recent were made without adjustment

for factors that could affect vaccine-preventable disease

morbidity, mortality, or reporting.

Results

A greater than 92% decline in cases and a 99% or greater

decline in deaths due to diseases prevented by vaccines

recommended before 1980 were shown for diphtheria, mumps,

pertussis, and tetanus. Endemic transmission of poliovirus and

measles and rubella viruses has been eliminated in the United

States; smallpox has been eradicated worldwide. Declines were

80% or greater for cases and deaths of most vaccine-preventable

diseases targeted since 1980 including hepatitis A, acute

hepatitis B, Hib, and varicella. Declines in cases and deaths of

invasive S pneumoniae were 34% and 25%, respectively.”

Milhalovic,

could you please provide scientific evidence which can prove

that disease reduction in any part of the world, at any point in

history was attributable to naturopathy?

4. Could

you please explain how the safety and mechanism of vaccines in

the human body are scientifically proven if their

pharmacokinetics (the study of bodily absorption, distribution,

metabolism and excretion of ingredients) are never examined or

analyzed in any vaccine study?

There

is, superficially, some truth in this statement. Most

pharmacokinetics are done prior to the clinical efficacy trials.

That is why there are phase 1 and phase 2 trials. The

assumption being that if you exam influenza vaccine

pharmacokinetic studies in one group it can be extrapolated to

similar populations. I think that is reasonable. So no, there

are no pharmacokinetic studies in the clinical efficacy trials,

those were done prior to the efficacy trials. But it is not

hard to find the phase 1 and 2 trials if you are so moved.

Milhalovic,

could you please explain how the safety and mechanism of

naturopathic nostrums in the human body are scientifically

proven if their pharmacokinetics (the study of bodily

absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion of

ingredients) are never examined or analyzed in any naturopathic

nostrum study? Is this getting old? There is something to be

said for repetition.

5. Could

you please provide scientific justification as to how injecting

a human being with a confirmed neurotoxin is beneficial to human

health and prevents disease?

I

presume the issue is mercury. Maybe aluminum. The latter is not

in most vaccines, although as been discussed at length on this

blog, the amount of mercury and aluminum found in vaccines is

minimal and, at the dosing and formulation, has never been

demonstrated to cause neurotoxicity from vaccines. Of course, I

am old school and think there is a dose response, and that a

greater amount leads to a greater response. Most naturopaths

receive extensive training in homeopathy, where the less the

amount, the greater the response. So I would presume arguments

based on chemistry would have little meaning to an ND, although

I would not want my appletini made by a practitioner of

homeopathy.

Of

course, it is not the ‘neurotoxin’ that is being used to prevent

disease, but the antigens of the potential infection. That is

assuming that the author of the nine questions does not consider

the antigens to be neurotoxins, and to judge from his

understanding of disease later in the post, I am notes certain

he warrants the benefit of the doubt.

Could

you please provide scientific justification as to how applying

naturopathy to a human being is beneficial to human health and

prevents disease?

6. Can

you provide a risk/benefit profile on how the benefits of

injecting a known neurotoxin exceeds its risks to human health

for the intended goal of preventing disease?

Since

there is no more mercury in most vaccines, I will assume, for

the sake of argument, it is the aluminum. Risk from aluminum in

the H. influenza type b vaccine, where aluminium is used as a

adjuvant: zero.

The

benefit from the vaccine: “From eight trials, the protective

efficacy of the Hib conjugate vaccine was 84% (OR 0.16; 95%CI

0.08-0.30) against invasive Hib disease, 75% (OR 0.25; 95%CI

0.08-0.84) against meningitis, and 69% (OR 0.31; 95%CI

0.10-0.97) against pneumonia. Serious adverse events were rare.”

16491301

Seems a

good trade off. No risk from aluminum, significant decrease in

morbidity and mortality.

7. Could

you please provide scientific justification on how bypassing the

respiratory tract (or mucous membrane) is advantageous and how

directly injecting viruses into the bloodstream enhances immune

functioning and prevents future infections?

Well,

things really get off the rails here. Vaccines are not injected

into the blood stream, they are infected into the soft tissues.

At a simple level, an infection enters to body, the body makes

a variety of antibodies to the constituent parts of the

infecting organism and next time the patient is exposed, the

pre-existing antibody can, if there is a match with new strain,

inactivate the new infection.

It

doesn’t matter how the antigen is presented to the immune

system, the response is the same. Natural influenza, inhaled

influenza vaccine, or injected influenza vaccine, the same

antibody will be made.

He says

later

“All

promoters of vaccination fail to realize that the respiratory

tract of humans (actually all mammals) contains antibodies which

initiates natural immune responses within the respiratory tract

mucosa. Bypassing this mucosal aspect of the immune system by

directly injecting viruses into the bloodstream leads to a

corruption in the immune system itself. As a result, the

pathogenic viruses or bacteria cannot be eliminated by the

immune system and remain in the body, where they will further

grow and/or mutate as the individual is exposed to ever more

antigens and toxins in the environment which continue to assault

the immune system.”

This is

what we call in the trade, gibberish. At least it makes no sense

to me. I will leave to the readers to search, Bible Code style,

for truthiness in the above selection.

8. Could

you please provide scientific justification on how a vaccine

would prevent viruses from mutating?

That is

actually a very interesting question. It has nothing to do with

why we give vaccines and I fear our intrepid ND does not have a

firm grasp on what he is talking about as he says

“Despite

the injection of any type of vaccine, viruses continue

circulating through the body, mutating and transforming into

other organisms. The ability of a vaccine manufacturer to target

the exact viral strain without knowing its mutagenic properties

is equivalent to shooting a gun at a fixed target that has

already been moved from its location. You would be shooting at

what was, not what is!”

Mutating

and transforming into other organisms. Sigh. Either the author

is a sloppy writer (sloppy writing reflects a sloppy mind) or

his understanding of microbiology is so profoundly mistaken it

boggles the mind that he takes care of patients. And in Oregon

he would allowed by the state to prescribe antibiotics.

If you

have a population of viruses and a specific antibody against the

virus, then those naturally occurring mutants that are not

recognized by the antibody should have a replication advantage.

It is possible that the vaccine can help select for new strains

of an infection, but not new organisms.

Vaccines

selecting for new mutants has been looked at for the Hepatitis B

vaccine, and found not to be a issue 20210630.

In HIV,

there is an ongoing interaction between the immune response and

the virus driving mutations that escape the immune system and,

in some patients leads to a marked increase in HIV replication

and a clinical decline decline (9143689). Oh wait, this is a

natural infection. That shouldn’t happen. It is the vaccines

that do do this.

There is

nothing unique about the vaccine response acting as

environmental pressure on the evolution of infections; the

response from the natural infections should be the same. I

would wonder, since the response to a natural infection is

broader, with antibodies made to numerous parts of the

infection, rather than the few key antibodies provided by the

response to the vaccine, whether a natural infection would lead

to a faster mutation rate. As a rule in the microbial world,

the more intense the stress, the faster and more varied the

mutations. More antibiotics leads to faster development of

resistance in E. coli, not its delay

9. Could

you please provide scientific justification as to how a

vaccination can target a virus in an infected individual who

does not have the exact viral configuration or strain the

vaccine was developed for?

Dr.

Black and White. Antibody response is not all or nothing, there

is a gradient of response between the developed antibody and the

site to which it is directed. A good example is the H1N1

influenza. People exposed to the strains from the first half f

the century had antibody that was partially protective for the

2009 strain. The reason

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20049332?

“The

pandemic influenza virus (2009 H1N1) was recently introduced

into the human population. The hemagglutinin (HA) gene of 2009

H1N1 is derived from “classical swine H1N1″ virus, which likely

shares a common ancestor with the human H1N1 virus that caused

the pandemic in 1918, whose descendant viruses are still

circulating in the human population with highly altered

antigenicity of HA. However, information on the structural basis

to compare the HA antigenicity among 2009 H1N1, the 1918

pandemic, and seasonal human H1N1 viruses has been lacking. By

homology modeling of the HA structure, here we show that HAs of

2009 H1N1 and the 1918 pandemic virus share a significant number

of amino acid residues in known antigenic sites, suggesting the

existence of common epitopes for neutralizing antibodies

cross-reactive to both HAs. It was noted that the early human

H1N1 viruses isolated in the 1930s-1940s still harbored some of

the original epitopes that are also found in 2009 H1N1.

Interestingly, while 2009 H1N1 HA lacks the multiple

N-glycosylations that have been found to be associated with an

antigenic change of the human H1N1 virus during the early

epidemic of this virus, 2009 H1N1 HA still retains unique

three-codon motifs, some of which became N-glycosylation sites

via a single nucleotide mutation in the human H1N1 virus. We

thus hypothesize that the 2009 H1N1 HA antigenic sites involving

the conserved amino acids will soon be targeted by

antibody-mediated selection pressure in humans. Indeed, amino

acid substitutions predicted here are occurring in the recent

2009 H1N1 variants. The present study suggests that antibodies

elicited by natural infection with the 1918 pandemic or its

early descendant viruses play a role in specific immunity

against 2009 H1N1, and provides an insight into future likely

antigenic changes in the evolutionary process of 2009 H1N1 in

the human population.”

Oops.

Not simple.

But the

result? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20059763

” over

75% of confirmed cases of novel H1N1 occurred in persons < or

= 30 years old, with peak incidence in the age range 10-19

years. Less than 3% of cases occurred in persons over 65, with a

gradation in incidence between ages 20 and 60 years.The sequence

data indicates that novel H1N1 is most similar to H1N1 viruses

that circulated before 1943. Novel H1N1 lacks glycosylation

sites on the globular head of hemagglutinin (HA1) near antigenic

regions, a pattern shared with the 1918 pandemic strain and H1N1

viruses that circulated until the early 1940s. Later H1N1

viruses progressively added new glycosylation sites likely to

shield antigenic epitopes, while T-cell epitopes were relatively

unchanged.

CONCLUSIONS:

In this evolutionary context, Original Antigenic Sin exposure

should produce an immune response increasingly mismatched to

novel H1N1 in progressively younger persons. We suggest that it

is this mismatch that produces both the gradation in

susceptibility and the unusual toxicity”

The

better the antibdy fit for the epitope (where the antibody

binds) the better the effect, but it doesn’t have to be all or

nothing. He would probably ask, what good is half and eye, why

have half a wing. Or had a brain.

He

finishes

“I have

never encountered one pro-vaccine advocate, whether medically or

scientifically qualified, who could answer even 1 let alone all

9 of these questions. One or all of the following will happen

when debating any of the above questions:

- They

will concede defeat and admit they are stumped.

- They

will attempt to discredit unrelated issues that do not pertain

to the question.

- They

will formulate their response and rebuttal based on historical

arguments and scientific studies which have been disproved over

and over again. Not one pro-vaccine advocate will ever directly

address these questions in an open mainstream venue.”

I am

neither stumped not defeated.

My

response was not unrelated.

My

arguments are bases on modern studies that a 12 year old can

find in less than a minute.

SBM is

an open mainstream venue.

I do

feel like I just had a foot race with a sloth; where is the

honor in that?

And

people wonder why I question the wisdom of allowing naturopaths

to function as primary care providers.

This is not an easy blog to write. Doctors Novella and Gorski

want the entries to be formal, academic, referenced, with a

minimum of snark.

For the most part I comply. But sometimes. Sometimes. It is

hard, so hard, not to spiral into sarcastic diatribes over the

writings that pass for information on the interwebs. How should

one respond to profound ignorance and misinformation? I wish,

sometimes, that I could be an irascible computer as well.

What brings on this particular bit of angst is a bit of whimsy

on the Internet called “9

Questions That Stump Every Pro-Vaccine Advocate and Their

Claims.” by Mihalovic, ND. Mr. Mihalovic identifies

himself as “a naturopathic medical doctor who specializes in

vaccine research.” However, just where the research is published

is uncertain as his name yields no publications on Pubmed. BTW.

I specialize in beer research. Same credentials.

The nine questions show up frequently on the interwebs, similar

to questions on what to ask when you want to stump an

evolutionist. Similar to the supposed stumpers for evolution,

the vaccine questions are grounded in misinformation, ignorance

or laziness. Let’s go through them one at a time.

1. Could you please provide one double-blind,

placebo-controlled study that can prove the safety and

effectiveness of vaccines?

One trial? It took me 55 seconds to find ”Efficacy

of 23-valent pneumococcal vaccine in preventing pneumonia and

improving survival in nursing home residents: double blind,

randomised and placebo controlled trial” and that included

time to boot the browser and mis-spell the search terms.

’Vaccine’, ‘efficacy’, ’randomized’ and ’placebo control

trial’ results in 416 Pubmed references; add ‘safety’ to the

search terms, you get 126 returns. 416 is easily more than one.

Of course, to find them you have to look.

Of course, I am a highly educated adult who constantly searches

the web for medical information. For hoots and giggles, I asked

my 12 year old son, whose passions are basketball and filming

comedy videos, to find me a reference that met the same criteria

and I timed him.

Twenty two seconds, not including boot time, to find

“Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Inactivated Poliovirus

Vaccine in Cuba” from the NEJM. Can anyone beat my son?

12 yo one, Mihalovic 0. Served.

As long as we are on the topic, since he evidently place great

store in science, could Mihalovic please provide one

double-blind, placebo-controlled study that can prove the safety

and effectiveness of naturopathy? I would be happy at this

point to know just to know he was able to do a pubmed search

correctly just to make me look the fool.

2. Could you please provide scientific evidence on ANY

study which can confirm the long-term safety and effectiveness

of vaccines?

Long term is vague. What is long term? Smallpox disappeared in

1977 thanks to the vaccine. I have not seem a case of smallpox

in my medical career, which now on it’s 31st year. No reported

long term toxicities of the smallpox vaccine and the

eradication of smallpox appears to me to represent reasonable

evidence for long term safety and effectiveness. But it would.

No vaccine has 100% efficacy, and whether infected naturally

or by a vaccine, immunity wanes with time. In earlier times,

people would have their immunity boosted by exposure to disease

and maintain their antibody levels. It is not the initial

infection that leads to better immunity from natural infections,

as posited by some antivaccine people, but the the fact that

people were constantly re-exposed to wild type disease.

It

is interesting what is occurring with shingles. Everyone

used to get chickenpox as a child, and then, as they raised

their kids and grand kids, were re-exposed to the virus and

boosted their immunity. Currently, due to the chickenpox vaccine

and a change in the way children are raised, older adults are

not getting exposed naturally to chickenpox, immunity is waning,

and there is an increase in shingles in older adults. Part of

why they need the zoster vaccine.

Clever conspiracy to increase the use of the zoster vaccine,

huh?

Unless exposed to new infection, immunity, as measured by

antibody levels directed against the infecting agent, can

decline over time. That is to be expected. The nice thing about

the immune system, unlike water, is that it remembers the

infection. It is primed so that if exposed again at a later

date, it can almost instantly produce large amounts of antibody

to nip an infection in the bud. So rather than prevent

infection, in some people far removed in time from the vaccine,

they may instead have a shorter, less severe illness and be

infectious for a shorter period of time, thereby decreasing

spread.

There is a nice review

in the NEJM on duration of immunity (first search in

Pubmed using duration of immunity vaccine, results in 17

seconds, including correcting typos. Seriously, just how hard

is it to find this information? As would be expected, it

depends on the disease and the vaccine (live better than

killed). They estimated the half-life for the varicella zoster

virus immunity at 50 years, 200 years for measles and mumps, and

11 years for tetanus. If you peruse the references, you can

find other studies that show variable but sustained response to

vaccines, for example 90%

maintain immunity to smallpox up to 75 years after

vaccination.

Long term safety was more difficult, 5 years was the limit of

time I could find for safety

studies of Hepatits B. Most vaccine toxicities are found

in the first week or two after the inoculation and the studies

follow most patients for a year. Probably would not cut it as

long term for Mihalovic.

BTW, could you please provide scientific evidence on ANY study

which can confirm the long-term safety and effectiveness of

naturopathy?

3. Could you please provide scientific evidence which

can prove that disease reduction in any part of the world, at

any point in history was attributable to inoculation of

populations?

Smallpox? Smallpox? Smallpox? Anyone? Smallpox? Buehler?

Buehler?

Again I get back to the whole binary, black and white approach

that characterizes many with whom we cross medical swords. The

decrease in infectious diseases has been multifactorial, due to

improved nutrition, improved hygienic (lets hear it for the

flush toilet) and understanding the epidemiology of diseases.

Knowing how a disease is spread has always been critical in

decreasing its spread. Note that none, none, none of the

interventions that have decreased the spread of infections in

the last 200 years or so have come from naturopathic tradition.

The teasing out the effects of vaccines on populations is

always fraught with potential controversy. There are always

multiple confounders. The best example of the beneficial

effects of vaccines was from JAMA.

“Objective To compare morbidity and mortality before and

after widespread implementation of national vaccine

recommendations for 13 vaccine-preventable diseases for which

recommendations were in place prior to 2005.

Design, Setting, and Participants For the United States,

prevaccine baselines were assessed based on representative

historical data from primary sources and were compared to the

most recent morbidity (2006) and mortality (2004) data for

diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, poliomyelitis, measles, mumps,

rubella (including congenital rubella syndrome), invasive

Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib), acute hepatitis B,

hepatitis A, varicella, Streptococcus pneumoniae, and

smallpox.

Main Outcome Measures Number of cases, deaths, and

hospitalizations for 13 vaccine-preventable diseases.

Estimates of the percent reductions from baseline to recent

were made without adjustment for factors that could affect

vaccine-preventable disease morbidity, mortality, or

reporting.

Results A greater than 92% decline in cases and a 99% or

greater decline in deaths due to diseases prevented by

vaccines recommended before 1980 were shown for diphtheria,

mumps, pertussis, and tetanus. Endemic transmission of

poliovirus and measles and rubella viruses has been eliminated

in the United States; smallpox has been eradicated worldwide.

Declines were 80% or greater for cases and deaths of most

vaccine-preventable diseases targeted since 1980 including

hepatitis A, acute hepatitis B, Hib, and varicella. Declines

in cases and deaths of invasive S pneumoniae were 34% and 25%,

respectively.”

Milhalovic, could you please provide scientific evidence which

can prove that disease reduction in any part of the world, at

any point in history was attributable to naturopathy?

4. Could you please explain how the safety and

mechanism of vaccines in the human body are scientifically

proven if their pharmacokinetics (the study of bodily

absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion of

ingredients) are never examined or analyzed in any vaccine

study?

There is, superficially, some truth in this statement. Most

pharmacokinetics are done prior to the clinical efficacy trials.

That is why there are phase 1 and phase 2 trials. The

assumption being that if you exam influenza vaccine

pharmacokinetic studies in one group it can be extrapolated to

similar populations. I think that is reasonable. So no, there

are no pharmacokinetic studies in the clinical efficacy trials,

those were done prior to the efficacy trials. But it is not

hard to find the phase 1 and 2 trials if you are so moved.

Milhalovic, could you please explain how the safety and

mechanism of naturopathic nostrums in the human body are

scientifically proven if their pharmacokinetics (the study of

bodily absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion of

ingredients) are never examined or analyzed in any naturopathic

nostrum study?

Is this getting old? There is something to be said for

repetition.

5. Could you please provide scientific justification as

to how injecting a human being with a confirmed neurotoxin is

beneficial to human health and prevents disease?

I presume the issue is mercury. Maybe aluminum. The latter is

not in most vaccines, although as been discussed at length on

this blog, the amount of mercury and aluminum found in vaccines

is minimal and, at the dosing and formulation, has never been

demonstrated to cause neurotoxicity from vaccines. Of course, I

am old school and think there is a dose response effect of

drugs, and that a greater amount leads to a greater response.

Most naturopaths receive extensive training in homeopathy,

where the less the amount, the greater the response. So I would

presume arguments based on chemistry would have little meaning

to an ND, although I would not want my appletini made by a

practitioner of homeopathy.

Of course, it is not the ‘neurotoxin’ that is being used to

prevent disease, but the antigens of the potential infection.

That is assuming that the author of the nine questions does not

consider the antigens to be neurotoxins, and to judge from his

understanding of disease later in the post, I am not so certain

he warrants the benefit of the doubt.

Could you please provide scientific justification as to how

applying naturopathy to a human being is beneficial to human

health and prevents disease?

6. Can you provide a risk/benefit profile on how the

benefits of injecting a known neurotoxin exceeds its risks to

human health for the intended goal of preventing disease?

Since there is no longer mercury in most vaccines, I will

assume, for the sake of argument, he is referring to aluminum.

Risk from aluminum in the H. influenza type b

vaccine, where aluminium is used as a adjuvant: zero.

The

benefit from the vaccine:

“From eight trials, the protective efficacy of the Hib

conjugate vaccine was 84% (OR 0.16; 95%CI 0.08-0.30) against

invasive Hib disease, 75% (OR 0.25; 95%CI 0.08-0.84) against

meningitis, and 69% (OR 0.31; 95%CI 0.10-0.97) against

pneumonia. Serious adverse events were rare.”

Seems a good trade off. No risk from aluminum, significant

decrease in morbidity and mortality from disease.

7. Could you please provide scientific justification on

how bypassing the respiratory tract (or mucous membrane) is

advantageous and how directly injecting viruses into the

bloodstream enhances immune functioning and prevents future

infections?

Well, things really get off the rails here. Vaccines are not

injected into the blood stream, they are infected into the soft

tissues. At a simple level, an infection enters to body, the

body makes a variety of antibodies to the constituent parts of

the infecting organism and next time the patient is exposed, the

pre-existing antibody can, if there is a match with new strain,

inactivate the new infection.

It doesn’t matter how the antigen is presented to the immune

system, the response is the same. Natural influenza, inhaled

influenza vaccine, or injected influenza vaccine, the same

antibody will be made to the proteins.

Mihalovic says later

“All promoters of vaccination fail to realize that the

respiratory tract of humans (actually all mammals) contains

antibodies which initiates natural immune responses within the

respiratory tract mucosa. Bypassing this mucosal aspect of the

immune system by directly injecting viruses into the

bloodstream leads to a corruption in the immune system itself.

As a result, the pathogenic viruses or bacteria cannot be

eliminated by the immune system and remain in the body, where

they will further grow and/or mutate as the individual is

exposed to ever more antigens and toxins in the environment

which continue to assault the immune system.”

This is what we call in the trade, gibberish. At least it makes

no sense to me. I will leave to the readers to search, Bible Code

style, for truthiness in the above selection.

8. Could you please provide scientific justification on

how a vaccine would prevent viruses from mutating?

That is actually a very interesting question. It has nothing to

do with why we give vaccines and I fear our intrepid ND does

not have a firm grasp on what he is talking about as he says

“Despite the injection of any type of vaccine, viruses

continue circulating through the body, mutating and

transforming into other organisms. The ability of a vaccine

manufacturer to target the exact viral strain without knowing

its mutagenic properties is equivalent to shooting a gun at a

fixed target that has already been moved from its location.

You would be shooting at what was, not what is!”

Mutating and transforming into other organisms. Sigh. Either

the author is a sloppy writer (sloppy writing (not typos, but

logic and word selection) reflects a sloppy mind) or his

understanding of microbiology is so profoundly mistaken it

boggles the mind that he takes care of patients. And in Oregon

he would allowed by the state to prescribe antibiotics and other

pharmaceuticals.

If you have a population of viruses and a specific antibody

against the virus, then those naturally occurring mutants that

are not recognized by the antibody should have a replication

advantage. It is possible that the vaccine can help select for

new strains of an infection, but not new organisms.

Vaccines

selecting for new mutants has been looked at for the Hepatitis

B vaccine, and found not to be a issue.

In HIV,

there is an ongoing interaction between the immune response and

the virus, driving mutations that escape the immune system and,

in some patients leads to a marked increase in HIV replication

and a clinical decline decline. Oh wait, this is a natural

infection. That shouldn’t happen. It is the vaccines that do

this.

There is nothing unique about the vaccine response acting as

environmental pressure on the evolution of infections; the

response from the natural infections should be the same. I

would wonder, since the response to a natural infection is

broader, with antibodies made to numerous parts of the

infection, rather than the few key antibodies provided by the

response to the vaccine, whether a natural infection would lead

to a faster mutation rate. As a rule in the microbial world,

the more intense the stress, the faster and more varied the

mutations. More antibiotics leads to faster development of

resistance in E. coli, not its delay.

9. Could you please provide scientific justification as

to how a vaccination can target a virus in an infected

individual who does not have the exact viral configuration or

strain the vaccine was developed for?

Mr. Black and White. Antibody response is not all or nothing,

there is a gradient of response between the developed antibody

and the site to which it is directed. A good example is the

H1N1 influenza. People exposed to the strains from the first

half of the century had antibody that was partially protective

for the 2009 strain. The reason?

“The pandemic influenza virus (2009 H1N1) was recently

introduced into the human population. The hemagglutinin (HA)

gene of 2009 H1N1 is derived from “classical swine H1N1″

virus, which likely shares a common ancestor with the human

H1N1 virus that caused the pandemic in 1918, whose descendant

viruses are still circulating in the human population with

highly altered antigenicity of HA. However, information on the

structural basis to compare the HA antigenicity among 2009

H1N1, the 1918 pandemic, and seasonal human H1N1 viruses has

been lacking. By homology modeling of the HA structure, here

we show that HAs of 2009 H1N1 and the 1918 pandemic virus

share a significant number of amino acid residues in known

antigenic sites, suggesting the existence of common epitopes

for neutralizing antibodies cross-reactive to both HAs. It was

noted that the early human H1N1 viruses isolated in the

1930s-1940s still harbored some of the original epitopes that

are also found in 2009 H1N1. Interestingly, while 2009 H1N1 HA

lacks the multiple N-glycosylations that have been found to be

associated with an antigenic change of the human H1N1 virus

during the early epidemic of this virus, 2009 H1N1 HA still

retains unique three-codon motifs, some of which became

N-glycosylation sites via a single nucleotide mutation in the

human H1N1 virus. We thus hypothesize that the 2009 H1N1 HA

antigenic sites involving the conserved amino acids will soon

be targeted by antibody-mediated selection pressure in humans.

Indeed, amino acid substitutions predicted here are occurring

in the recent 2009 H1N1 variants. The present study suggests

that antibodies elicited by natural infection with the 1918

pandemic or its early descendant viruses play a role in

specific immunity against 2009 H1N1, and provides an insight

into future likely antigenic changes in the evolutionary

process of 2009 H1N1 in the human population.”

Oops. Not simple.

But the

result?

“Over 75% of confirmed cases of novel H1N1 occurred in

persons < or = 30 years old, with peak incidence in the age

range 10-19 years. Less than 3% of cases occurred in persons

over 65, with a gradation in incidence between ages 20 and 60

years.The sequence data indicates that novel H1N1 is most

similar to H1N1 viruses that circulated before 1943. Novel

H1N1 lacks glycosylation sites on the globular head of

hemagglutinin (HA1) near antigenic regions, a pattern shared

with the 1918 pandemic strain and H1N1 viruses that circulated

until the early 1940s. Later H1N1 viruses progressively added

new glycosylation sites likely to shield antigenic epitopes,

while T-cell epitopes were relatively unchanged.

CONCLUSIONS: In this evolutionary context, Original Antigenic

Sin exposure should produce an immune response increasingly

mismatched to novel H1N1 in progressively younger persons. We

suggest that it is this mismatch that produces both the

gradation in susceptibility and the unusual toxicity”

The better the antibdy fit for the epitope (where the antibody

binds) the better the effect, but it doesn’t have to be all or

nothing. Mihalovic would probably ask, what good is half an eye,

why have half a wing, or half a brain?

He finishes,

“I have never encountered one pro-vaccine advocate, whether

medically or scientifically qualified, who could answer even 1

let alone all 9 of these questions. One or all of the

following will happen when debating any of the above

questions:

- They will concede defeat and admit they are stumped.

- They will attempt to discredit unrelated issues that do not

pertain to the question.

- They will formulate their response and rebuttal based on

historical arguments and scientific studies which have been

disproved over and over again. Not one pro-vaccine advocate

will ever directly address these questions in an open

mainstream venue.”

I am neither stumped not defeated. I know how to search Pubmed

for medical information.

My response directed specifically to the questions.

My arguments are based on modern studies that a 12 year old can

find in less than a minute, none of which have been disproved

once, much less over and over.

SBM is an open mainstream venue.

I do feel like I just had won Jeopardy playing against Prof.

R.J. Gumby; where is the honor in that?

And people wonder why I question the wisdom of allowing

naturopaths to function as primary care providers.

ADDENDUM FROM THE EDITOR: Medical Voices has

responded to this post by e-mail. We have published our response

here.

On 3/5/11 7:29 PM, Sheri Nakken wrote:

9

Questions That Stump

Every Pro-Vaccine Advocate and Their Claims

http://preventdisease.com/news/09/102809_9_arguments_to_win_any_vaccine_debate.shtml

Since the flu pandemic was declared, there have been

several

so-called "vaccine experts" coming out of the woodwork

attempting to

justify the effectiveness of vaccines. All of them

parrot the same

ridiculous historical and pseudoscientific perspectives

of

vaccinations which are easily squelched with the

following 9 questions.

Claim: The study of vaccines, their historical record of

achievements, effectiveness, safety and mechanism in

humans are well

understood and proven in scientific and medical circles.

Fact: The claim is completely false.

1. What to ask: Could you please provide one

double-blind,

placebo-controlled study that can prove the safety and

effectiveness

of vaccines?

2. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific

evidence on ANY

study which can confirm the long-term safety and

effectiveness of

vaccines?

3. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific

evidence which

can prove that disease reduction in any part of the

world, at any

point in history was attributable to inoculation of

populations?

4. What to ask: Could you please explain how the safety

and mechanism

of vaccines in the human body are scientifically proven

if their

pharmacokinetics (the study of bodily absorption,

distribution,

metabolism and excretion of ingredients) are never

examined

or analyzed in any vaccine study?

One of the most critical elements which defines the

toxicity

potential of any vaccine are its pharmacokinetic

properties. Drug

companies and health agencies refuse to consider the

study, analysis

or evaluation of the pharmacokinetic properties of any

vaccine.

There is not one double-blind, placebo-controlled study

in the

history of vaccine development that has ever proven

their safety,

effectiveness or achievements (unless those achievements

have

underlined their damage to human health).

There are also no controlled studies completed in any

country which

have objectively proven that vaccines have had any

direct or

consequential effect on the reduction of any type of

disease in any

part of the world.

Every single study that has ever attempted to validate

the safety and

effectiveness of vaccines has conclusively established

carcinogenic,

mutagenic, neurotoxic or fertility impairments, but they

won't address

those.

***************************************************************

*********

***

Claim: Preservatives and chemical additives used in the

manufacture

of vaccines are safe and no studies have been linked or

proven them

unsafe for use in humans.

Fact: The claim is completely false.

5. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific

justification as

to how injecting a human being with a confirmed

neurotoxin is

beneficial to human health and prevents disease?

6. What to ask: Can you provide a risk/benefit profile

on how the

benefits of injecting a known neurotoxin exceeds its

risks to human

health for the intended goal of preventing disease?

This issue is no longer even open to debate. It is a

scientifically

established fact in literally hundreds of studies that

the

preservatives and chemical additives in vaccines damage

cells.

Neurotoxicity, immune suppression, immune-mediated

chronic

inflammation and carcinogenic proliferation are just a

few of several

effects that have been observed on the human body.

http://preventdisease

..com/news/09/100509_vaccine_chemicals_inserts.shtml

See

a list of chemicals in vaccines

Fortunately, the drug companies still tell us the damage

vaccines

have on the human body. People just don't read them. All

you have to

do is look at the insert for any vaccine, and it will

detail the

exact

http://preventdisea

se.com/news/09/092109_H1N1_package_inserts_warnings.shtml

ingredients,

alerts and potentially lethal effects.

See my latest

http://preventdisea

se.com/news/09/102609_Alert_Canadians_Arepanrix_vaccine_analysis.shtml

analysis

of the Arepanrix H1N1 vaccine for an example.

Any medical professional who believes that it is

justified to inject

any type of neurotoxin into any person to prevent any

disease is

completely misguided, misinformed, deluded and ignorant

of any logic

regarding human health.

************ ********* ********* ********* *********

********* *********

********* ***

Claim: Once an individual is injected with the foreign

antigen in

the vaccine, that individual becomes immune to future

infections.

Fact: The claim is completely false.

7. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific

justification on

how bypassing the respiratory tract (or mucous membrane)

is

advantageous and how directly injecting viruses into the

bloodstream

enhances immune functioning and prevents future

infections?

8. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific

justification on

how a vaccine would prevent viruses from mutating?

9. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific

justification as

to how a vaccination can target a virus in an infected

individual who

does not have the exact viral configuration or strain

the vaccine was

developed for?

All promoters of vaccination fail to realize that the

respiratory

tract of humans (actually all mammals) contains

antibodies which

initiates natural immune responses within the

respiratory tract

mucosa. Bypassing this mucosal aspect of the immune

system by

directly injecting viruses into the bloodstream leads to

a corruption

in the immune system itself. As a result, the pathogenic

viruses or

bacteria cannot be eliminated by the immune system and

remain in the

body, where they will further grow and/or mutate as the

individual is

exposed to ever more antigens and toxins in the

environment which

continue to assault the immune system.

Despite the injection of any type of vaccine, viruses

continue

circulating through the body, mutating and transforming

into other

organisms. The ability of a vaccine manufacturer to

target the exact

viral strain without knowing its mutagenic properties is

equivalent

to shooting a gun at a fixed target that has already

been moved from

its location. You would be shooting at what was, not

what is!

Flu viruses, may mutate, change or adapt several times

over a period

of one flu season, making the seasonal influenza vaccine

100%

redundant and ineffective every single flu season.

Ironically, the

natural immune defenses of the human body can target

these changes

but the vaccines cannot.

I have never encountered one pro-vaccine advocate,

whether medically

or scientifically qualified, who could answer even 1 let

alone all 9

of these questions. One or all of the following will

happen when

debating any of the above questions:

- They will concede defeat and admit they are stumped

- They will attempt to discredit unrelated issues that

do not pertain

to the question.

- They will formulate their response and rebuttal based

on historical

arguments and scientific studies which have been

disproved over and over

again.

Not one pro-vaccine advocate will ever directly address

these

questions in an open mainstream venue.

Dave Mihalovic is a Naturopathic Doctor who specializes

in vaccine

research, cancer prevention and a natural approach to

treatment.

Sheri Nakken, former R.N., MA, Hahnemannian

Homeopath

Vaccination Information & Choice Network, Washington

State, USA

Vaccines -

http://vaccinationdangers.wordpress.com/ Homeopathy

http://homeopathycures.wordpress.com

Vaccine Dangers, Childhood Disease Classes

& Homeopathy

Online/email courses - next classes start March 4