The CDC on single-dose vs. multi-dose vials of vaccines or any other medications

[mhatrw]

http://www.cdc.gov/injectionsafety/patients/syringeReuse_faqs.html

A single-use vial is a bottle of liquid medication that is given to a patient through a needle and syringe. Single-use vials contains only one dose of medication and should only be used once for one patient, using a clean needle and clean syringe.

A multi-dose vial is a bottle of liquid medication that contains more than one dose of medication and is often used by diabetic patients or for vaccinations. A new, clean needle and clean syringe should always be used to access the medication in a multi-dose vial. Reuse of needles or syringes to access medication can result in contamination of the medicine with germs that can be spread to others when the medicine is used again.

Whenever possible, CDC recommends that single-use vials be used and that multi-dose vials of medication be assigned to a single patient to reduce the risk of disease transmission.

*****

All multi-dose vials also must contain a preservative by FDA mandate. All multi-dose flu vaccine vials contain the preservative thimerosal, which is about 50% mercury by weight. Single dose flu vaccinations contain either no thimerosal or else only trace amounts. So always follow the CDC's recommendation and request single-use syringes or vials of vaccines and other medications whenever possible.

[mhatrw]

1. There is not even an economic argument for multi-dose vials over pre-filled, single use syringes

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21087111

In the USA, influenza vaccines are available as parenteral injections or as an intranasal preparation. Injectable influenza vaccines are available in either multidose vial (MDV), single-dose vial or prefilled syringe (PFS) presentations. PFSs have gained market share in the USA but have not yet reached the levels of uptake currently seen in Western Europe. Here, we review the topic of vaccine presentation in the USA, with a special focus on influenza vaccines. Second, we present the results of a time-motion study that measured administration costs of influenza vaccination comparing MDVs versus PFSs during the 2009/2010 influenza campaign. Vaccinating with MDVs took an average 37.3 s longer than PFSs. The cost of administering 1000 immunizations in 2009 using MDVs were US $8596 versus US $8920.21 using PFSs. In a pandemic situation where 300 million Americans would require vaccination, PFSs would save 3.12 million hours in healthcare worker time, worth US $111.1 million. The higher acquisition costs of PFS vaccines compared with MDVs are offset by lower administrative costs and increased safety.

[mhatrw]

2. The Australian Infection Control Association (AICA) comes out against multi-dose flu vaccinations.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/08/31/infection-control-experts-add-to-concerns-about-multidose-flu-vaccine/

The Australian Infection Control Association (AICA) has warned the Federal Government against proceeding with the planned swine flu vaccination program, warning that the use of multidose vials poses an unacceptable risk. The Association, which represents health professionals  — mainly nurses  — working in infection control, says the use of multidose vials in the current context is “unacceptable practice from an infection prevention risk management perspective”.

Using multidose vials would breach national Infection Control Guidelines, which state: “The Australian Drug Evaluation Committee (ADEC) has advised that injectable products packaged in multidose vials should not be used except where products such as insulin are intended solely for the exclusive use of an individual patient.”

AICA president Claire Boardman told Crikey by email that healthcare facilities are required to comply with these guidelines, and said the use of multidose vials would pose a “significant potential risk to patient safety”, and that numerous adverse events related to their use had been well documented. “We advise strongly against the use of multidose vials and do not support this mechanism for dissemination of the vaccine,” she said.

Ms Boardman says there is no justification for using the multidose vials as “the occurrence and distribution of H1N1 in 2009 within Australia does not constitute an emergency”.

[TheWraith]

3. You know that there's no evidence that thimerosal in vaccines is harmful at all, right?

The "study" that claimed there was has been determined to be falsified.

[pnwmom]

4. And there is no proof that it is safe either.

Why allow a heavy metal to be injected into you or your child for no good reason?

http://health.usnews.com/health-news/blogs/on-women/2008/9/26/an-option-flu-vaccines-without-mercury-based-thimerosal.html

"It's equivalent to the amount in a small can of tuna fish," says Tom Clarkson, a mercury researcher at the University of Rochester. "Still, we know that high levels of mercury can affect cell division in the developing brain of a fetus, and no one can say with absolute certainty that there's no risk."

The other concern is that the kind of mercury found in vaccines is different from the methyl mercury found in fish. While thimerosal gets flushed from the body much faster than methyl mercury, what remains is more likely to accumulate in the brain, as inorganic mercury, and remain there for a year or more, according to a 2005 University of Washington study of infant monkeys. "We still don't have enough data to say how long this inorganic mercury stays in the brain, but if you can reduce or eliminate your baby's exposure, why wouldn't you do that?" says Tom Burbacher, a professor of environmental occupational health sciences who led the study.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists sent out a news release yesterday urging all pregnant women to get flu shots, with the proviso that shots containing thimerosal are fine because "there is no evidence showing that thimerosal is a danger to the health of the pregnant woman or her fetus." When I read that quote to Burbacher, he said, "that is a very misleading statement because women will assume there's been exhaustive research done on this showing that it's safe for fetuses, and there's no such data."

[trotsky]

6. Because ethyl mercury isn't a heavy metal.

Just like table salt isn't a highly reactive metal OR a poisonous gas.

[mhatrw]

9. One drop of thimerosal is enough to kill the average healthy one-year-old almost immediately!

But you keep comparing it to table salt.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

[Warpy]

10. One pound of table salt is enough to kill a healthy one year old immediately!

Yet you keep comparing it to thimerosal which isn't in any vaccine but the injectable flu vaccine and then in parts per million.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

[mhatrw]

11. I am discussing injectable flu vaccines.

I'd rather that the injectable flu vaccines that I get for my children come without a substance that is so toxic that a single drop of it can kill, if possible. I realize that the dosage is low. But the toxicity of thimerosal is so high that I'd really rather do without even a small dose of it, if possible.

And it is eminently possible to get a flu vaccination without thimerosal if you can find a distributor who is willing to pay about $1 more per dose from the manufacturer. That is one of the points of the OP.

[Warpy]

18. You're injecting a big fat red herring and everybody else knows it.

Feel better now?

[mhatrw]

19. LOL. How about explaining why should risk infection AND get a shot of ethyl-mercury when

for a dollar more a dose, we wouldn't have to?

[trotsky]

16. Such a woeful lack of understanding of even the most basic principles...

of chemistry, physiology, and immunology. Dunning Kruger in the flesh.

[mhatrw]

21. It's really amazing how you always resort to posts that have no substance

other than thinly veiled personal attacks whenever you clearly lose an argument. I think uppityperson called this the http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=222&topic_id=97510&mesg_id=97510">Last Word Syndrome.

[trotsky]

26. ...

[HuckleB]

31. +1,000,000,000,000!!!

:rofl:

[pnwmom]

12. The Thimerosal that doesn't get flushed out accumulates in the brain,

according to the researchers at the University of Washington. Why would anyone want to inject it into the body when it isn't necessary?

[trotsky]

17. Because there is no evidence that it causes any harm?

Gee, why are you breathing the air when there's mercury in it?

[mhatrw]

23. Because mercury is 50% of our dental fillings by weight?

Or was that a trick question?

[trotsky]

27. How much mercury is in a red herring? n/t

[pnwmom]

30. Because there is not enough evidence that it is safe.

http://health.usnews.com/health-news/blogs/on-women/200...

"We still don't have enough data to say how long this inorganic mercury stays in the brain, but if you can reduce or eliminate your baby's exposure, why wouldn't you do that?" says Tom Burbacher, a professor of environmental occupational health sciences who led the study.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists sent out a news release yesterday urging all pregnant women to get flu shots, with the proviso that shots containing thimerosal are fine because "there is no evidence showing that thimerosal is a danger to the health of the pregnant woman or her fetus." When I read that quote to Burbacher, he said, "that is a very misleading statement because women will assume there's been exhaustive research done on this showing that it's safe for fetuses, and there's no such data."

[trotsky]

37. There's not enough evidence to call ANYTHING "truly" safe.

Sorry to break that one to you. "Safe" is always going to be a relative term, just like almost everything in life.

[mhatrw]

5. It's a highly toxic substance. Why unnecessarily inject it into yourself and you kids when

if you simply follow the CDC's recommendations about single dose vaccinations vs. multi-dose vials, you can avoid the ethyl mercury altogether?

[trotsky]

7. Do you eat tuna?

Do you serve it to your kids?

You're giving them far more mercury than they'll ever get from any combination of vaccines.

WHY DON'T YOU LOVE YOUR CHILDREN!?!?!

[mhatrw]

8. Sure, I always feed my infants can after can of tuna.

Nothing burps them better!

[trotsky]

15. Thanks for the serious answer.

No wonder you lose every argument - you bail out as soon as you realize the facts aren't on your side.

[mhatrw]

22. No wonder you win every argument.

You simply declare victory in the form of a personal attack whenever you argue yourself into a big hole, and chalk yourself up another "big win"!

[trotsky]

25. I win against you every time because the facts are on my side.

It's really that simple. All you have is fear and misinformation. The truth defeats those every single time.

[pnwmom]

57. Only in your imagination. n/t

[pnwmom]

13. I never ate any tuna while I was pregnant,

or in the year before. My doctor recommended against it. And I didn't serve it to my young kids, either. I also didn't drink a single glass of alcohol or take any medicine that wasn't prescribed. Most pregnant women I know are as careful as I was.

The researcher at the link said the amount in a vaccine was about the same as in a can of tuna -- small, but why take any risk when unknown amounts can accumulate in the brain? There is so much you CAN'T control when you're pregnant. All the smart women I knew did what they could to control the things that they could control.

[trotsky]

14. Excellent! Now, the harder question:

Do you know how the mercury in tuna differs from the mercury in thimerosal, and how both differ from elemental mercury?

[mhatrw]

20. If you are asking about toxicity to mammals, the answer is not much.

Methyl mercury is the form of mercury that accumulates in fish.

Thimerosal breaks up into ethyl mercury in the bodies of mammals.

Ethyl mercury is more toxic to the renal system of rats than is methyl mercury.

Ethyl mercury is slightly less neurotoxic to rats than is methyl mercury, but just 20% more ethyl mercury results in greater nerve damage, so the toxic effects are highly comparable.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/v0203116418023h8

Neurotoxicity and renotoxicity were compared in rats given by gastric gavage five daily doses of 8.0 mg Hg/kg methyl- or ethylmercuric chloride or 9.6 mg Hg/kg ethylmercuric chloride. Three or 10 days after the last treatment day rats treated with either 8.0 or 9.6 mg Hg/kg ethylmercury had higher total or organic mercury concentrations in blood and lower concentrations in kidneys and brain than methylmercury-treated rats. In each of these tissues the inorganic mercury concentration was higher after ethyl than after methylmercury.

Weight loss relative to the expected body weight and renal damage was higher in ethylmercury-treated rats than in rats given equimolar doses of methylmercury. These effects became more severe when the dose of ethylmercury was increased by 20%. Thus in renotoxicity the renal concentration of inorganic mercury seems to be more important than the concentration of organic or total mercury. In methylmercury-treated rats damage and inorganic mercury deposits were restricted to the P2 region of the proximal tubules, while in ethylmercury-treated rats the distribution of mercury and damage was more widespread.

There was little difference in the neurotoxicities of methylmercury and ethylmercury when effects on the dorsal root ganglia or coordination disorders were compared. Based on both criteria, an equimolar dose of ethylmercury was less neurotoxic than methylmercury, but a 20% increase in the dose of ethylmercury was enough to raise the sum of coordination disorder scores slightly and ganglion damage significantly above those in methylmercury-treated rats.

[trotsky]

24. And now, the next exercise:

Compare the amount of ethylmercury metabolized from the thimerosal in a seasonal flu vaccine with the amounts given to the rats in the study.

I'll await your detailed mathematical analysis.

[pnwmom]

29. Do you know what smug means?

How about self-satisfied? Patronizing?

I can wait.

[HuckleB]

32. Got red herring?

:rofl:

[trotsky]

34. I am definitely seeing examples from another individual.

So yes, I know what those words mean.

[mhatrw]

33. And now, the next exercise. Explain why it is a bad idea for us to pay about $1 more per dose

to avoid thimerosal completely.

You can't. You lose. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[trotsky]

35. That you couldn't address the point tells me all I need to know.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2572331/

However, multi-dose vials are likely to be most appropriate for cheaper vaccines and in settings where cold-chain storage capacity is restricted. Single-dose formats will be most appropriate for more expensive vaccines and where there are problems with unsafe injection practices.

http://www.labmeeting.com/paper/30053323/lee-2010-single-versus-multi-dose-vaccine-vials-an-economic-computational-model

The mean daily patient arrival thresholds for each vaccine format are as follows: for the MEA vaccine, 2 patients/day (below which the single-dose vial and above which the 10-dose vial are least costly); BCG vaccine, 6 patients/day (below, 10-dose vial; above, 20-dose vial); Hib vaccine, 5 patients/day (below, single-dose vial; above, 10-dose vial); YF vaccine, 33 patients/day (below, 5-dose vials; above 50-dose vial); and DTP-HepB-Hib vaccine, 5 patients/day (below, single-dose vial; above, 10-dose vial).

So you see it's just economic and common sense, in particular with the flu vaccine, which is widely distributed and dispensed in far greater dosage numbers per day than other vaccines.

Now that I've answered your question and given you the facts, will you answer mine?

[mhatrw]

40. Simple economics! Ethyl mercury in vaccines is good for shareholders!

It would take only a dollar more per dose to protect our children against both cross-contamination and the possible harmful effects of ethyl mercury based preservatives, but -- after all -- the bottom line matters more.

What's so funny is that you yourself are obviously far too smart to believe this. Wouldn't the extra costs of pre-filled syringes be more than offset by the lower labor costs of vaccine administration?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21087111

In the USA, influenza vaccines are available as parenteral injections or as an intranasal preparation. Injectable influenza vaccines are available in either multidose vial (MDV), single-dose vial or prefilled syringe (PFS) presentations. PFSs have gained market share in the USA but have not yet reached the levels of uptake currently seen in Western Europe. Here, we review the topic of vaccine presentation in the USA, with a special focus on influenza vaccines. Second, we present the results of a time-motion study that measured administration costs of influenza vaccination comparing MDVs versus PFSs during the 2009/2010 influenza campaign. Vaccinating with MDVs took an average 37.3 s longer than PFSs. The cost of administering 1000 immunizations in 2009 using MDVs were US $8596 versus US $8920.21 using PFSs. In a pandemic situation where 300 million Americans would require vaccination, PFSs would save 3.12 million hours in healthcare worker time, worth US $111.1 million. The higher acquisition costs of PFS vaccines compared with MDVs are offset by lower administrative costs and increased safety.

So what exactly is the excuse for using the multi-dose vials that contain thimerosal that the CDC does not recommend? It's because Americans are easily manipulated idiots who take whatever crap Big Pharma offers up at whatever price Big Pharma wants to charge. Western European markets demand single-dose pre-filled syringes for all the reasons outlined above. But in the USA, it's cheaper to hand us the leftover third world crap, then assign a bunch of flacks to sell the idea that this decision is "just economic and common sense."

[trotsky]

41. Of course, once again, you can't address the facts but instead attack.

When it comes to distributing a vaccine safely to the largest number of people possible, yes, the bottom line matters. Especially since there is no evidence linking thimerosal to ANY of the crazy things the anti-vax movement has claimed.

You are done, and you lost again. Peace to you.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mhatrw]

47. You have shown your true colors.

You wouldn't pay a dollar more (or even a dollar less) to make the flu vaccines you want everyone to get safer.

[trotsky]

50. My true colors are that I go by the facts.

You have none.

[pnwmom]

77. If you took off your dark glasses you'd be able to see better. n/t

[trotsky]

85. Not even sure what you were trying to imply with that one.

Better luck next time.

[mhatrw]

52. Un-fucking-believable!

Did you even read the title of the first article you quoted from above?

Single-dose versus multi-dose vaccine vials for immunization programmes in developing countries.

In developing countries!

Doesn't that say it all.

[pnwmom]

55. Selective, out-of-context quoting from an article about vaccines in developing countries.

Even so, the link you provided acknowledges that the single dose injections are safer.

"Single-dose formats offer several important programmatic benefits, such as increased vaccination opportunities and improved vaccine safety."

And the link also indicates that cost savings on multi-use vials may be lost by wastage.

Of course, you didn't bother to quote those parts.

[trotsky]

87. Say what?

I quoted nothing that contradicts the focus of the article. If you read the whole thing you'd see that.

[mhatrw]

91. And what the title of the article you cited again?

Oh, yeah.

Single-dose versus multi-dose vaccine vials for immunization programmes in developing countries.

LOL

[trotsky]

94. You keep thinking that matters.

Doesn't change the facts about vaccine formats at all. But I suppose you gotta latch onto something, no matter how weak or pathetic it is.

[mhatrw]

97. Big Pharma treats the USA as a developing country.

Which Western European nations foist multi-dose flu vaccines on their citizens to save vaccine manufacturers 15 cents per dose?

[trotsky]

99. Actually I'm sure vaccine manufacturers would love to charge 15 cents more per shot.

You're barking up the wrong conspiracy tree.

[mhatrw]

102. LOL. It's not a conspiracy. Vaccine manufacturers have plants set up to produce millions of

cheaper to manufacture multi-dose vials. Western European countries won't take them and third world nations can't afford their highly profitable full retail prices, so who can they pawn off these mercury adulterated multi-dose vials on?

Guess who?

What you call a "conspiracy" is known in the business world as a smart business practice.

[trotsky]

103. So which conspiracy is it?

Do vaccine makers WANT to charge more for vaccines, and make more profit, or not?

Gotta get this figured out! :rofl:

[mhatrw]

105. What are they going to do with their multi-dose vaccine manufacturing plants

if they can't sell at least some multi-dose vaccines at full retail price?

Wow! Vaccine manufacturing corporations are trying to keep their expenses as low as possible while trying to supply hundreds of millions of vaccine doses using their existing manufacturing facilities. Sound the conspiracy alarm!

[laconicsax]

108. They really need separate manufacturing plants to fill different vial sizes?

Could you explain why a vaccine maker would need to build a new manufacturing plant just to fill a smaller vial?

[trotsky]

110. Answer the question .

Why wouldn't vaccine makers jump at the chance to make more money?

[mhatrw]

115. Because they can make more doses quicker by selling multi-dose vials.

Come on. Now you answer this question, if vaccine manufacturers could fulfill all of the first world's flu vaccine demand by making single dose pre-filled syringes in a more profitable manner than they make multi-dose vaccines, why does the CDC, unique to all first world nations other than Canada, desire vaccine manufacturers to flood the USA flu vaccine market with multi-dose flu vaccines?

Who is more likely the dog and who is more likely the tail? If vaccine manufacturers really want to produce only single dose flu vaccines because they can charge a dollar more per dose for them, why don't they? Because the CDC demands that vaccine manufacturers sell multi-dose vaccines so that all poor and middle class USA citizens can get their annual minimum requirement of intramuscular mercury?

[trotsky]

117. So you believe that vaccine manufacturers, when given the choice...

between making something cheaper and charging less, versus making the same thing with a little more money and charging a LOT more, are going to opt for the former? Out of the goodness of their hearts? My, you have a rosy picture of big pharma! :D

[mhatrw]

120. OK. Fine. Let's posit that vaccine manufacturers would rather sell single-dose flu vaccines to

the US market.

Why don't vaccine manufacturers simply take all multi-dose vials off the US market just as they have in Western Europe. Who is stopping them from doing so? Why?

[trotsky]

122. "Who is stopping them from doing so? Why?"

I dunno, have you stopped beating your children yet? Why or why not?

The question you really need to answer first is, why do you *think* someone is stopping them?

[mhatrw]

124. And we have gone full circle. n/t

[pnwmom]

28. I know more than you do, apparently.

I know that while thimerosal "gets flushed from the body much faster than methyl mercury, what remains is more likely to accumulate in the brain, as inorganic mercury, and remains there for a year or more" -- according to a 2005 U. of Washington study of infant monkeys. The bottom line, according to Dr. Tom Burbacher, a professor of environmental occupational health sciences: "We still don't have enough data to say how long this inorganic mercury stays in the brain, but if you can reduce or eliminate your baby's exposure, why wouldn't you do that?"

Why wouldn't you, Trotsky?

http://health.usnews.com/health-news/blogs/on-women/200...

"It's equivalent to the amount in a small can of tuna fish," says Tom Clarkson, a mercury researcher at the University of Rochester. "Still, we know that high levels of mercury can affect cell division in the developing brain of a fetus, and no one can say with absolute certainty that there's no risk."

The other concern is that the kind of mercury found in vaccines is different from the methyl mercury found in fish. While thimerosal gets flushed from the body much faster than methyl mercury, what remains is more likely to accumulate in the brain, as inorganic mercury, and remain there for a year or more, according to a 2005 University of Washington study of infant monkeys. "We still don't have enough data to say how long this inorganic mercury stays in the brain, but if you can reduce or eliminate your baby's exposure, why wouldn't you do that?" says Tom Burbacher, a professor of environmental occupational health sciences who led the study.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists sent out a news release yesterday urging all pregnant women to get flu shots, with the proviso that shots containing thimerosal are fine because "there is no evidence showing that thimerosal is a danger to the health of the pregnant woman or her fetus." When I read that quote to Burbacher, he said, "that is a very misleading statement because women will assume there's been exhaustive research done on this showing that it's safe for fetuses, and there's no such data."

SNIP

[trotsky]

36. I know enough to not base any medical decisions on one lone study.

Especially when countless other studies have found no link to any problems whatsoever.

I am not afraid of boogeymen. I do not fear things because I don't understand them.

So while you think you know more than I do, what you "know" is based on misinformation from anti-vaccine sites.

[pnwmom]

56. There are many other studies, which I've listed in the past,

that support this researcher's point.

I can't help it if you won't read them.

[trotsky]

86. Oh I've read them.

The problem is that you think they say something they don't - or worse, you think you know better than the researchers themselves what the results mean.

[mzmolly]

53. "No one can say with absolute certainty that there's no risk."

Yet many here, do so daily. :crazy:

[evirus]

38. Dosage matters more than Identity

for example, a women died during a radio contest involving drinking large amounts of water, the challenge was to avoid urination but the death was from drinking too much water. so in a sense water is deadly, but does that mean we should avoid it at all costs and at all dosages? NO. Just because you can find an example or study that shows a substance can be harmful doesn't mean every amount of that substance is harmful, you MUST look at the dosage, because dosage means the difference between a scratch and an amputation(figuratively speaking).

also as pointed out before the properties of a chemical changes when it is bound to other chemicals, table salt being sodium bound with chlorine, a metal reactive even to water, and a highly toxic gas, is neither reactive nor toxic.(our body depends on salt, but like water dosage matters)

[mhatrw]

42. Where are the animal toxicological studies showing which dosages are perfectly safe & which are not?

Just wondering.

[evirus]

48. im not a library nor am i a librarian

if you want to find out about the toxicity of a specific substance, try a wikipedia search to get you started, then check out the relevant references. just don't be as quick to quote mine as you are with your original post.

[mhatrw]

51. Quote mine? The OP reproduced paragraphs 3-5 in full from a 7 paragraph website!

You seem to be relatively certain that animal toxicology studies showing which levels of thimerosal are safe and which levels are dangerous have been performed and reported somewhere.

I have looked for these studies in all the usual places, but have not able to find them. I was hoping that you had seen some.

[pnwmom]

58. Tell that to the parents of the Thalidomide babies.

Or today, to the parents of fetal alcohol syndrome children. Doctors today tell pregnant women to keep their alcohol "dose" to zero, since nobody knows what a totally safe dose is. Why not do the same thing with all toxic substances?

[trotsky]

61. Mmmm, delicious red herring!

Honestly, do you have any logical arguments in favor of your anti-vaccination position, or just fallacies and appeals to emotion?

[pnwmom]

62. I'm not anti-vaccination. I'm pro-safe-vaccination.

And you, apparently, don't have any concerns about vaccine safety, just vaccine profits.

[HuckleB]

65. "Pro-safe vaccination" is a term used as an attempt to hide anti-vaccination motivations.

That has long been known.

You are not fooling anyone with your ad hominem nonsense, and your attempts to fool others about your true motivations.

[pnwmom]

66. Yeah, right.

:sarcasm:

Everybody like me who vaccinates their children but who wants those vaccinations to be as safe as possible is really trying to hide anti-vaccination motivations.

What a genius you are.

[HuckleB]

67. You claim to have vaccinated your children, yet you bash vaccines at all costs.

Sorry, your story doesn't add up.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=7838


"...


Before I try to define “anti-vaccine” in more detail, I should take a moment to point out that, if there’s one thing I’ve learned in nearly six years blogging about vaccines and the pseudoscience used to attack them, it’s that no one — well, almost no one — considers himself “anti-vaccine.” This is very easily verifiable in the outraged reaction elicited from people like J.B. Handley (who simultaneously gloats about the decline in confidence in vaccines among parents), Jenny McCarthy, and Dr. Jay Gordon when they are described as “anti-vaccine. Jenny McCarthy, for instance, will reliably retort, “I’m not ‘anti-vaccine.’ I’m pro-safe vaccine.” An alternative response is, “What I really am is ‘anti-toxins’ in the vaccines.” Meanwhile, Dr. Gordon will say the same thing while simultaneously saying that he doesn’t give a lot of vaccines and foolishly admitting in the comments of a blog post that some parents have actually had to persuade him to vaccinate “reluctantly.”

The rule that those holding anti-vaccine views will rarely admit that they are anti-vaccine is a good one, although there are exceptions. It is not uncommon to find in the comments of anti-vaccine propaganda blogs like Age of Autism and anti-vaccine mailing lists comments proclaiming explicit anti-vaccine views loud and proud, with declarations that “I am anti-vaccine.” This dichotomy has at times caused problems for the more P.R.-savvy members of the anti-vaccine movement, as demonstrated two years ago at Jenny McCarthy’s “Green Our Vaccines” rally, where images of vaccines as toxic waste and weapons of mass destruction were commonplace. Even so, the “Green Our Vaccines” slogan and coopting the “vaccine safety” mantle have been very effective for the anti-vaccine movement. In particular, Barbara Loe Fisher has successfully portrayed her National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) as being a “vaccine safety watchdog” group looking out for parents’ rights, this despite hosting an online memorial for vaccine victims and a deceptive and disingenuous vaccine ingredient calculator.

...

Distinguishing true anti-vaccine rhetoric from cluelessness is not always easy. To help, I’ll recap the eight characteristics I’ve just discussed:

1. Claiming to be “pro-safe vaccine” while being unrelentingly critical about vaccines
2. The “vaccines don’t work” gambit
3. The “vaccines are dangerous” gambit
4. Preferring anecdotes over science and epidemiology
5. Cherry picking and misrepresenting the evidence
6. The copious use of logical fallacies in arguing
7. Conspiracy mongering
8. Trying to silence criticism, rather than responding to it


Someone who is anti-vaccine will almost certainly use at least three or four of these techniques. The cranks at Age of Autism use all eight and then some. Indeed, when these eight techniques fail to suffice, they make up more.

..."

[pnwmom]

70. I vaccinated my children, and there is no conflict at all

between that statement and my wanting to make sure that every vaccination they get is as safe as possible.

I can't imagine any loving parent feeling any other way.

Show me one post where I have "bashed" vaccines in general or at all costs. There is none.

[HuckleB]

74. You claim one thing, while clearly advocating for another.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/12/the_annals_of_im_not_anti-vaccine_part_4.php

The evidence is quite clear.

[pnwmom]

76. I argue for safe vaccines. Unlike you, I don't think that's a contradiction in terms. n/t

[HuckleB]

80. This is where you are off base.

I am very much pro-safety, but I don't need to wear it on my sleeve. Those who do pretend to wear it on their sleeve have repeatedly ignored the realities of the discussion to push the usual anti-vaccine arguments.

Repeat your mantra all you want, but it's not selling.

[pnwmom]

83. I have never once pushed an anti-vaccine position.

Being for vaccine safety, which you acknowledge supporting, is entirely consistent with being supportive of vaccines.

[HuckleB]

90. You push every spin that the anti-vaccine movement offers.

Cut the propaganda BS. It's over.

[trotsky]

39. LMAO - you know what?

Your bolded quote is only referring to MEDICATIONS, not vaccines. The biggest clue should have been that a multi-dose vial of a vaccine would be completely wasted if it were assigned to a single patient, since that patient only needs ONE vaccination!

LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!

I can't believe you started this whole thread on a misinterpretation of a webpage. No, wait, I can believe it.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[mhatrw]

43. Wow! You caught me! What you said makes perfect sense!

The same problems of cross-contamination that exist for medications could not possibly exist for vaccines!

You sure showed me!

Seriously? This is what you have been reduced to? Seriously?

[trotsky]

45. Learn how to read websites, and then maybe people will take you seriously.

:rofl:

[mhatrw]

46. .

:eyes:

[pnwmom]

59. Learn some common sense and people will take you seriously.

The issues of contamination with regard to multi-use vials is the same for vaccines and medications.

You yourself provided a helpful link in this regard, even though it concerned developing countries (and the U.S. is not a developing country.)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/ppmc/articles/PMC2572331/

Excessive vaccine wastage and safety concerns have prompted the international health community to develop and supply vaccines in formats other than the standard multi-dose vial. This article presents a programmatic and economic comparison of the major differences between the multi-dose vials and single-dose formats used for immunization services in developing countries. Multi-dose vials, in general, sell at a lower per-dose price and occupy less cold-chain capacity than single-dose formats. However, higher wastage rates may offset these benefits, especially for more expensive vaccines. Single-dose formats offer several important programmatic benefits, such as increased vaccination opportunities and improved vaccine safety.

[trotsky]

60. Oh I've got the common sense.

The anti-vax movement does not. And my link only goes to strengthen my point. Nice attempt, though. I know it's tough trying to dig up material to cast doubt on vaccines so you gotta reach sometimes.

[pnwmom]

63. I'm not as familiar with the "anti-vax movement" as you appear to be.

I'm pro-vaccines, and I'm pro-vaccine-safety. Fortunately, the two positions don't have to be at odds -- except in the minds of certain people.

[HuckleB]

64. The only people who bring up the term "pro-vaccine safety" are those who know the anti-vaxers well.

The anti-vaccine movement is where that BS nonsense originates.

Try another cover.

[pnwmom]

68. Every parent I know is pro-vaccine safety and pro-medication safety.

And we vaccinate our children and give them prescribed medications AFTER informing ourselves as best as we can.

I'm curious why this threatens you so much. Do you work for big pharma?

[HuckleB]

69. And the great "BIG PHARMA" label comes to the fore, in a last ditch attempt....

As it always is: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=7838


"...


Before I try to define “anti-vaccine” in more detail, I should take a moment to point out that, if there’s one thing I’ve learned in nearly six years blogging about vaccines and the pseudoscience used to attack them, it’s that no one — well, almost no one — considers himself “anti-vaccine.” This is very easily verifiable in the outraged reaction elicited from people like J.B. Handley (who simultaneously gloats about the decline in confidence in vaccines among parents), Jenny McCarthy, and Dr. Jay Gordon when they are described as “anti-vaccine. Jenny McCarthy, for instance, will reliably retort, “I’m not ‘anti-vaccine.’ I’m pro-safe vaccine.” An alternative response is, “What I really am is ‘anti-toxins’ in the vaccines.” Meanwhile, Dr. Gordon will say the same thing while simultaneously saying that he doesn’t give a lot of vaccines and foolishly admitting in the comments of a blog post that some parents have actually had to persuade him to vaccinate “reluctantly.”

The rule that those holding anti-vaccine views will rarely admit that they are anti-vaccine is a good one, although there are exceptions. It is not uncommon to find in the comments of anti-vaccine propaganda blogs like Age of Autism and anti-vaccine mailing lists comments proclaiming explicit anti-vaccine views loud and proud, with declarations that “I am anti-vaccine.” This dichotomy has at times caused problems for the more P.R.-savvy members of the anti-vaccine movement, as demonstrated two years ago at Jenny McCarthy’s “Green Our Vaccines” rally, where images of vaccines as toxic waste and weapons of mass destruction were commonplace. Even so, the “Green Our Vaccines” slogan and coopting the “vaccine safety” mantle have been very effective for the anti-vaccine movement. In particular, Barbara Loe Fisher has successfully portrayed her National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) as being a “vaccine safety watchdog” group looking out for parents’ rights, this despite hosting an online memorial for vaccine victims and a deceptive and disingenuous vaccine ingredient calculator.

...

Distinguishing true anti-vaccine rhetoric from cluelessness is not always easy. To help, I’ll recap the eight characteristics I’ve just discussed:

1. Claiming to be “pro-safe vaccine” while being unrelentingly critical about vaccines
2. The “vaccines don’t work” gambit
3. The “vaccines are dangerous” gambit
4. Preferring anecdotes over science and epidemiology
5. Cherry picking and misrepresenting the evidence
6. The copious use of logical fallacies in arguing
7. Conspiracy mongering
8. Trying to silence criticism, rather than responding to it


Someone who is anti-vaccine will almost certainly use at least three or four of these techniques. The cranks at Age of Autism use all eight and then some. Indeed, when these eight techniques fail to suffice, they make up more.

..."

[pnwmom]

71. Interesting how you always avoid that question. n/t

[HuckleB]

72. I tend to avoid ridiculous questions, especially when they only serve incriminate the questioner.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/12/the_annals_of_im_not_anti-vaccine_part_4.php

[pnwmom]

73. Still no answer. n/t

[HuckleB]

75. Thank you for continuing to prove my point on this matter.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=7838


"...


Before I try to define “anti-vaccine” in more detail, I should take a moment to point out that, if there’s one thing I’ve learned in nearly six years blogging about vaccines and the pseudoscience used to attack them, it’s that no one — well, almost no one — considers himself “anti-vaccine.” This is very easily verifiable in the outraged reaction elicited from people like J.B. Handley (who simultaneously gloats about the decline in confidence in vaccines among parents), Jenny McCarthy, and Dr. Jay Gordon when they are described as “anti-vaccine. Jenny McCarthy, for instance, will reliably retort, “I’m not ‘anti-vaccine.’ I’m pro-safe vaccine.” An alternative response is, “What I really am is ‘anti-toxins’ in the vaccines.” Meanwhile, Dr. Gordon will say the same thing while simultaneously saying that he doesn’t give a lot of vaccines and foolishly admitting in the comments of a blog post that some parents have actually had to persuade him to vaccinate “reluctantly.”

The rule that those holding anti-vaccine views will rarely admit that they are anti-vaccine is a good one, although there are exceptions. It is not uncommon to find in the comments of anti-vaccine propaganda blogs like Age of Autism and anti-vaccine mailing lists comments proclaiming explicit anti-vaccine views loud and proud, with declarations that “I am anti-vaccine.” This dichotomy has at times caused problems for the more P.R.-savvy members of the anti-vaccine movement, as demonstrated two years ago at Jenny McCarthy’s “Green Our Vaccines” rally, where images of vaccines as toxic waste and weapons of mass destruction were commonplace. Even so, the “Green Our Vaccines” slogan and coopting the “vaccine safety” mantle have been very effective for the anti-vaccine movement. In particular, Barbara Loe Fisher has successfully portrayed her National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) as being a “vaccine safety watchdog” group looking out for parents’ rights, this despite hosting an online memorial for vaccine victims and a deceptive and disingenuous vaccine ingredient calculator.

...

Distinguishing true anti-vaccine rhetoric from cluelessness is not always easy. To help, I’ll recap the eight characteristics I’ve just discussed:

1. Claiming to be “pro-safe vaccine” while being unrelentingly critical about vaccines
2. The “vaccines don’t work” gambit
3. The “vaccines are dangerous” gambit
4. Preferring anecdotes over science and epidemiology
5. Cherry picking and misrepresenting the evidence
6. The copious use of logical fallacies in arguing
7. Conspiracy mongering
8. Trying to silence criticism, rather than responding to it


Someone who is anti-vaccine will almost certainly use at least three or four of these techniques. The cranks at Age of Autism use all eight and then some. Indeed, when these eight techniques fail to suffice, they make up more.

..."

[pnwmom]

78. I don't dispute the efficacy of vaccines or their general safety.

So I don't fall into your category of "anti-vaccine."

But I do support continued research into vaccine safety and the identification of sub-groups who may be susceptible to harm from certain vaccines; and careful consideration when the government adds to the vaccine schedule. Just because a manufacturer invents a vaccine doesn't mean it should automatically be made mandatory.

[HuckleB]

79. You repeat that mantra over and over again, while your repetitive posts indicate otherwise.

No one is buying the routine.

[mhatrw]

81. So you can read minds?

No one is buying the routine.

[HuckleB]

88. Nope.

The evidence is quite clear.

[mhatrw]

92. in your crystal ball n/t

[HuckleB]

96. Is that your only answer?

Of course it is.

[pnwmom]

82. I repeat myself because you make the same accusations over and over.

But I have posted nothing anywhere to justify your claims.

[HuckleB]

89. Uh huh.

Newsflash: If you and your cronies weren't pushing anti-vaccine mantras over and over again, no one would be addressing the anti-vaccine nonsense that you push.

Try again.

[trotsky]

84. You wield those words like the Republicans use "pro-life" and "pro-abortion."

They imply that anyone who disagrees with you ISN'T "pro-vaccine-safety." That's dishonest and disingenuous. We ALL want vaccines to be safe. And thankfully, they are incredibly, REMARKABLY safe. The problem comes when someone like yourself, with no better than a layman's understanding of disease and vaccination, arbitarily declares they aren't safe "enough," but you refuse to provide any factual evidence that we COULD make them safer and yet keep them available and affordable to do their jobs. Where is the bar you set? How safe must vaccines be before you declare them safe enough? 100%? Do you think that's even attainable? Right now we're somewhere around 99.9999%. Compare that rate with the morbidity/morality rates of the diseases we are preventing.

Could we make cars 100% safe? Food? Sports? Do we all have to live in individual bubbles in our homes to be 100% safe?

[mhatrw]

93. LOL. You want vaccines to be exactly as safe as they already are.

If they are made less safe, you will want them exactly that safe as well.

You are already on record as saying that you would not pay even 15 cents to eliminate the risk of both cross-contamination and ethyl mercury exposure in your own kids' vaccines.

You won't pay 15 cents a dose to make flu vaccines safer, yet you are in favor of having Medicare pay for a $400+ regimen of three shots of Gardasil for all young girls.

smh

[trotsky]

95. So where's your bar?

When would you consider vaccines safe enough?

And when the fuck did I ever say anything about wanting Medicare to pay for Gardasil? Can you please TRY to stay on subject? I know it sucks getting your ass handed to you on the topic at hand, but c'mon.

smh!!!

[mhatrw]

98. I will consider flu vaccines safe enough when they are all single-dose

and rid of all thimerosal at a total cost to vaccine manufacturers of less than 16 cents per dose. You know, like all Western European nations do it.

That doesn't mean I'd recommend flu vaccines to everyone over 6 months of age annually, but that would be because of flu vaccines' http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=222x99128">poor demonstrated efficacy rather than their poor safety.

And here you are arguing in favor of http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=222x43031">state mandated Gardasil vaccination. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=222&topic_id=14177&mesg_id=14798">Here you are again arguing DIRECTLY for state mandates of Gardasil, saying it would be a "crime" not force states to cough up $360 a dose for every teenage girl. I mean, who do you think is going to pick up the $360 tab on each shot of Gardasil for all the parents who can't even afford health insurance?

You're priceless. $360 for one dose of Gardasil is good deal, but 15 cents per dose to make our flu vaccines safer is a non-starter.

[trotsky]

100. So you think all other vaccines are safe, then?

Because none of the other standard childhood vaccines have thimerosal - DESPITE nothing ever being linked to the preservative.

I am glad to hear you fully support the standard childhood vaccines. This is great news.

And here you are arguing in favor of state mandated Gardasil vaccination.

Fail. Your original claim is full of fail, and your follow-up backing off the original claim is as well. I do love laughing at you. :rofl:

[mhatrw]

101. No, I think aluminum adjuvants need a lot of further study.

So the question is up in the air until all the studies that the CDC and Big Pharma are currently rushing to do on http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=222x98414">aluminum adjuvants come in.

[trotsky]

104. So in other words, it's a moving target.

You aren't against vaccines, you're just against every ingredient in them. But I'll grant you that there's as much evidence that aluminum adjuvants cause harm as there is for thimerosal doing the same. Hopefully you can figure out what that means. :hi:

[mhatrw]

106. You are 100% wrong. The target has always been the same.

1) Exhaustively demonstrate that the ingredients that are obviously toxic at higher doses (thimerosal and aluminum adjuvants) are (or at least should be) perfectly safe at vaccine doses.

2) Demonstrate that the benefits of each specific vaccine exceed their associated costs and risks.

It's just like any medication.

I think the safety of single-dose flu vaccines is generally very good, and I would recommend them and get them myself if they were better at protecting against the flu. That's what this entire discussion and all my discussions of flu vaccination have been about. I want single-dose rather than multi-dose flus vaccines, just as any responsible and circumspect parent should.

[trotsky]

109. TONS of things you think are harmless are toxic at higher doses.

You realize this, at some level, because you are able to live your life as a member of society. Why you are unable to realize the same principle is at work with vaccines, I'm really not quite sure. That is quite the disconnect.

And yes, the minuscule risks of all the standard childhood vaccines are NOTHING compared to the harm of the diseases they prevent.

But you will never be convinced of either point. You've already decided that no facts will penetrate your shield - you KNOW that vaccine ingredients are deadly. You KNOW that the risks of vaccines outweigh their benefits. You just KNOW this. Problem is, you couldn't be more wrong, and that is precisely why no one takes you seriously.

[mhatrw]

112. Of course they are. But most of these other things don't have the mercury level about a 8 oz can of

chunk light tuna injected directly into a infant's body all in one fell swoop.

Most of these other things couldn't just as easily have removed this risk entirely for just 15 cents a dose.

And yes, the minuscule risks of all the standard childhood vaccines are NOTHING compared to the harm of the diseases they prevent.

Sometimes I would agree. In the case of flu vaccinations for toddlers, you need to produce some numbers for me before I could possibly agree. Flu vaccines are not very effective in young children, and basically the same as placebos for children under 2. For children under 9, the live virus vaccine is far more effective. Even so, is the flu really all that debilitating for the average healthy young person?

I'm all for any vaccine for which it can demonstrated that the benefits clearly exceed the risks. I don't think that is the case for multi-dose flu vaccines, which seem to be most effective in those that need them least (healthy young adults) and which contain a completely unnecessary shot of ethyl mercury.

[trotsky]

118. Do you actually understand anything about comparative quantities

and different chemical compounds?

Anything at all?

I don't think you do. No, wait, scratch that. I *know* you don't. Your posts have demonstrated this quite clearly. No wonder no one takes you seriously.

[mhatrw]

119. Again, what is your point other than to simply assert that I am stupid and ignorant?

Explain yourself.

What is my above post did you take exception to and why?

[trotsky]

123. I am not calling you stupid.

You just clearly do not understand some very basic principles here - principles that you MUST understand to even begin to have a debate. That you do not understand them is why everything looks like a massive scary conspiracy to you. Knowledge is a good thing. Knowledge kills fear.

[mhatrw]

126. Why not try to convey some actual knowledge, then?

When we left off any actual discussion on the thread, you had said:

"TONS of things you think are harmless are toxic at higher doses.

You realize this, at some level, because you are able to live your life as a member of society. Why you are unable to realize the same principle is at work with vaccines, I'm really not quite sure. That is quite the disconnect.

And yes, the minuscule risks of all the standard childhood vaccines are NOTHING compared to the harm of the diseases they prevent."

To which I replied:

"Of course they are. But most of these other things don't have the mercury level about a 8 oz can of chunk light tuna injected directly into a infant's body all in one fell swoop.

Most of these other things couldn't just as easily have removed this risk entirely for just 15 cents a dose.

Concerning your contention that the minuscule risks of vaccines are greatly outweighed by the very real risks of the diseases they help to prevent, sometimes I would agree. In the case of flu vaccinations for toddlers, you need to produce some numbers for me before I could possibly agree. Flu vaccines are not very effective in young children, and basically the same as placebos for children under 2. For children under 9, the live virus vaccine is far more effective. Even so, is the flu really all that debilitating for the average healthy young person?

I'm all for any vaccine for which it can be demonstrated that the benefits clearly exceed the risks. I don't think that is the case for multi-dose flu vaccines, which seem to be most effective in those that need them least (healthy young adults) and which contain a completely unnecessary shot of ethyl mercury.

Please share any knowledge you have to disabuse me of any specific misapprehensions I made in the above post.

[trotsky]

128. Believe me, I've tried.

I've tried far more than most people probably would have bothered. All over your various threads. But you refuse to listen. You simply won't accept anything that doesn't fit your pre-conceived notion that vaccine manufacturers COULD make things safer but don't - for whatever reason. (I don't know, because you steadfastly refuse to explain WHY they would do this and how not even one whistleblower has ever called foul on them.) AND, not only those manufacturers but also the entire CDC, the FDA, and the NIH are in on the scam, protecting them because they would rather see innocent children suffer than take one penny away from big pharma's profit. This is why I tell you that in order for what you claim to be true, there would have to be a truly global conspiracy, not only among the institutions I listed above but also the medical professionals here and abroad, all over the world, all of them covering up for big pharma. What you are asking people to believe is beyond absurd. All because you don't understand some really basic principles, and so your imagination runs wild and you won't let anyone check it.

[mhatrw]

129. And yet another post devoid of anything but a long and drawn out personal attack on me.

You had time to write all that about me personally, but no time to share any of your vastly superior knowledge on the specific issues we were discussing?

[trotsky]

138. I've already presented copious amounts of data to disprove every claim you've made.

But you simply ignore it, and clutch tightly to what you want to believe. So truth be told, I'm not posting to try and help you see the light. It seems obvious to me, that will never happen. So I'm posting just to help make sure no one else is misled by the claims you make and the nonsense articles you post. Thankfully, my efforts have been worth it, because you haven't converted a soul.

[laconicsax]

111. I like how you say the target hasn't moved then list three new targets.

You started this thread about single vs multi-dose vials with respect to thimerosal and cross-contamination, and now you're saying it's about the safety of ALL vaccine ingredients AND proving that the benefits of ALL vaccines outweigh the associated costs and risks.

I also love how you put each target on movable posts. It's almost like you don't want these new targets to bet met.

[mhatrw]

113. Read the conversation. The target "moved" because I was asked

about something other than the OP.

I have been 100% consistent on this forum and in every post I have ever made on the entire internet about vaccines. I am concerned about mercury and aluminum in vaccines and think while most people tolerate both well, both could potentially result in severe health problems for the subset of people who are most genetically sensitive to these heavy metals.

I also think that the effectiveness of both Gardasil & flu vaccines has been ridiculously oversold.

I don't have any problem with vaccination in general. In fact, I have a problem with any person (or internet site) who claims that vaccination itself is a complete scam. I often put these people in their place thusly: If vaccination itself were a complete scam, then why do so many of the best and most experienced animal breeders pay for them?

[laconicsax]

114. You can't even stay consistent within a subthread!

Post 106: "The target has always been the same."
Post 113: "The target moved...I have been 100% consistent"

:rofl:

[mhatrw]

116. Wow! You caught me red-handed! Are you sure you're not related to Matlock?

:rofl:

[Dorian Gray]

121. So

why would you be arguing so vehemently for single dose vaccines for a vaccine that you believe is not effective? What difference would it make?

[mhatrw]

125. If the benefit is small, then it is particularly critical for the risk to be even smaller. n/t

[Dorian Gray]

132. How great is the risk?

[mhatrw]

135. Good question. You tell me.

http://www2.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab004879.html

Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy children

...

In children under the age of two, the efficacy of inactivated vaccine was similar to placebo. It was not possible to analyse the safety of vaccines from the studies due to the lack of standardisation in the information given but very little information was found on the safety of inactivated vaccines, the most commonly used vaccine, in young children.

For kids between 6 & 23 months, the effectiveness of flu vaccination is that of a placebo, so how much unknown risk are you as a parent willing to take?

[HuckleB]

127. Considering the constantly moving goal posts offered, it likely makes no difference.

After all, when the moving goal posts include a thread in support of Andrew Wakefield, the reality of the situation is overly obvious.

[mhatrw]

130. What thread? n/t

[HuckleB]

131. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=222&topic_id=97779&mesg_id=97779

[mhatrw]

133. Thanks for the plug!

Note that I did not defend Wakefield's MMR study nor his conflicts of interest, but merely pointed out that Deer's crusade against him had successfully squelched the publication of an important study on the effects of the entire vaccination schedule on primates on which Wakefield was the final listed author.

[HuckleB]

134. You were clearly defending Wakefield.

You've just done it again.

Thank you for showing your true stripes.

[mhatrw]

136. Wakefield is completely compromised, IMHO.

I just wanted to see the results of the important study he was involved in published in a peer reviewed medical journal.

[HuckleB]

137. Nice partial backpedal.

:rofl:

[Callisto32]

49. I am not a health care worker, nor to I play one on TV.

But I always figured that is how it was done.

Seems like a "duh" statement, to me.

[mhatrw]

54. That's how it should be done.

Unless, of course, it saves http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=222&topic_id=99607&mesg_id=99607">15 cents per dose to stick us all with thimerosal and the risk of multi-vial cross-contamination.

[upi402]

107. That's always been my concern

I request no Thimerosal and get told it doesn't exist, can't get it. Never told that multi-dose was the concern and that single dose not so much.