Saving Money by Increasing The Doctor Bill

Interesting article in the NYTimes today about a very large insurance experiment designed to cut costs by paying doctors more. The plan centers around cutting expensive visits to specialists by better paying family physicians, internists and pediatricians to devote more time and attention to their patients. This should prevent later costly procedures and emergency visits.

Currently there are just over 250,000 practicing family physicians, general, practitioners, and internists in this country, and nearly 472,000 specialists. The salary of those primary care physicians is far less than the specialists who are compensated at a far higher rate for each patient visit. The plan comes on the heels of a report in North Carolina that says a program like this saved $162 million in 2005.

I think this is an innovative idea and fair to those physicians that don't necessarily perform surgeries or procedures, but spend hours pondering over multiple blood tests, x-rays, and other common tests. The job of primary care is usually much more complicated than that of many specialists. Specialists usually have the advantage of knowing what is wrong with their patient and what they're going to do about it before they even see them, family doctors have to study histories over and over to understand the patterns that may arrive or an unusual result by a patient that hasn't presented with any symptoms for 20 years.

Trying to Save by Increasing Doctors’ Fees - NYTimes.com

More After the Fold...

Summary only...

The Amount of Stupid is Painful..."Green our Vaccines"

This week Washington played host to the anti-vaccination movement. Everybody was decked out in their "Green our Vaccines" shirts talking about the harm vaccines are doing around the US. I still have yet to find out what the absolute goal of the march was but according to their website the purpose was to:

"Demand Congress take action to Green our Vaccine Supply while reassessing our current vaccine schedule. Ask Congress to reenact legislation that would eliminate mercury and other toxins from our children's vaccines, study the instance of Autism and other neurological disorders in vaccinated versus unvaccinated children, and to extend the state of limitations to allow all children affected by vaccine induced Autism to file in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP)."

First, you demand that Congress take action on vaccine includants and schedules. I'm not entirely sure what Congress has to do with either of these issues as there is a full agency set up to deal with chemical threats (whether in Food or Drugs, aptly named the Food and Drug Administration). They happen to have a whole host of scientists and policy makers that use the science (I know, what an ugly word) to determine the best benefit to society.

Secondly you ask that Congress "reenact legislation that would eliminate mercury and other toxins from our children's vaccines. Now Jenny, I'm trying to give you some leeway on the science aspect of this whole argument since Google University usually puts out some pretty weak scientists, but take a fucking history lesson. In 2003 all mercury and mercury derivatives were removed from vaccines, and yet autism rates continue to climb (its what we in the science community like to call a negative association). Now as for these "toxins" in vaccines, do you mean that list of "chemicals" in some of your literature---since everything is "chemicals", I'm not sure which ones are "greener".

In your push to find harmful substances in vaccines your website lists "anti-freeze", and yet there isn't any in vaccines. Now some do have a compound with a similar name (polyethylene glycol vs. ethylene glycol---that little part "poly" makes a big difference, but its kind of "scienc-y" so I'll leave it out). There is also mention of "formaldehyde", which is used to inactivate the viruses in some vaccines, but its present in such small amounts, that common environmental exposures are much more significant.

My favorite in the list of chemicals if probably "chick embryos". Jenny, I'll share a little secret with ya, that's just a synonym (that means "means the same as") "egg". Eggs (yeah, the kind we eat, totally) are used to make flu vaccines. Maybe we should consider taking them out of supermarkets too if they're so harmful.

The next statement just kills me too. "Study the instance of Autism and other neurological disorders in vaccinated versus unvaccinated children". To complete a study of "vaccinated vs unvaccinated" children is possibly one of the most morally reprehensible studies that could be conducted. Maybe this is a bad analogy but a study like this is equivalent to placing two groups of people in a room. One group surrounded by a cage and the other group not. A lion is then released into the room and you measure how many people hit their head on the bars of the cage, ignoring how many people outside the cage get mauled or eaten. This is a classic example of placing an unethical and unrealistic goalpost on researchers and then claiming failure that the researchers cannot morally institute the experiment. Anyone who would willingly submit a very large group of children to the dangers of being unvaccinated (I truly hope I don't have to enumerate those dangers) should question their integrity. I would be ok with the study if the children could consent with their own volition, but that isn't the case. Does anyone else not see how stupid this goal is?

Jenny, a bit of advice, you are probably a good mom, a mediocre actress, and a damn good naked blonde bimbo with fake tits, but what you aren't is a science person. Your degree from Google University doesn't mean you're good at understanding any of what science has to offer. If anything you are giving hope to a bunch of people in a false location, they don't deserve that. Hopefully I can stop writing about why one of my Playboy Playmate fantasies keeps popping up in the news spouting stupid opinions about stuff she doesn't understand, but I sincerely doubt Jenny has any intention of doing so.

More After the Fold...

Summary only...

Can We Really Eliminate a Virus? The Polio Puzzle

On Wednesday a milestone was established in the fight for the eradication of polio. It has been one year since the last reported case of the childhood disease in Myanmar (data usually takes a month or two to collect so this may change). That makes two countries this year, the other being Somalia, who have surpassed a year without an outbreak in 2008. Currently polio is endemic in four countries: Pakistan, India, Afghanistan, and Nigeria. The organizations who fight the disease encounter a two-fold challenge in each of these countries; immunize all children under 5 with enough doses to be effective, and contain the disease within the country until it can be eliminated. These challenges are further complicated by war, political insecurity, famine and distrust of medicine. To overcome these roadblocks and eliminate the disease will require supreme diligence and innovative ideas from those on the ground in these last few strongholds which continue to spawn cases of polio.

The press to eradicate polio across the globe started in 1988. The World Health Organization (WHO), Rotary International, UNICEF, and most developed countries (with the US far and ahead with greater than $1,000 million US donated so far) set out to conquer the disease that was endemic to over 125 countries. 20 years later only 4 countries suffer through a constant battle to interrupt transmission. 10 other countries reported infections in 2007 and all but 2 have had cases this year (the total cases to-date in 2008 is 453 globally).

One major factor standing in the way of success in many of these countries is political instability and war. Afghanistan and Somalia, as well as parts of Pakistan and Ethiopia, suffer from armed conflicts that make "vaccination logistically difficult and unpredictable at best." But the will of the people on the ground, doctors and volunteers who want to make a difference in their home countries, finds ways to operate around such dangerous situations. Negotiations for 'days of tranquility' (the suspension of hostilities in order to allow for vaccination) have been successful in Sudan and previously in Somalia and Ethiopia. These individuals show great courage and determination in the face of a major roadblock. Many times simply receiving and delivering vaccinations with the workers is a strain on the patience with multiple searches and questions. Soldiers don't take to kindly to strangers, especially those who create large crowds of citizens. But there are success stories from countries with far worse conditions than any face today. Bangladesh, Vietnam, Rwanda, and Zimbabwe all offered serious problems. Polio was eradicated from Angola in the midst of a civil war. In 2002 an outbreak in Kandahar was stopped by a WHO-led mop up crew despite the Afghan war. Currently Afghanistan faces challenges with a power struggle happening in the country. Basic supplies are in short order, many parts are barren or hard to reach by vehicle, and regional conflict has made most villages wary of any outsiders. This final roadblock presents a whole new challenge for the eradication efforts.

Once the organizations have been allowed to organize a vaccination effort the ground campaign must begin to recruit trained medical personnel and volunteers to monitor and administer the vaccine. A huge part of this effort is to inform citizens of the intentions and purpose of the operation. Dr. Atul Gawande, a surgeon from the United States, traveled to his family's native India after his residency to volunteer in the fight against polio. In his book, Better: A Surgeon's Notes on Performance, Gawande writes,

One difficulty came up repeatedly--from local doctors, from villagers, from workers trudging house to house. The question was: Why? Why this huge polio campaign when what we need is--fill in the blank here--clean water (diarrheal illness kills 500,000 Indian children per year), better nutrition (half of children under three have stunted growth), working septic systems (which would help prevent polio as well as other diseases), irrigation (so a single rainless season would not impoverish farming families)? We saw neighborhoods that had had outbreaks of malaria, tuberculosis, cholera. But no one important had come to visit in years. Now one case of polio occurs and the infantry marches in?

There are no simple answers to this question because truly the access to clean water, or good nutrition would save a larger number of children than polio eradication ever will. I know I would have trouble answering questions like that, I know I would explain I was there to do what I could, and polio eradication has been decided as what I can do. An old saying explains a better reason maybe; if you're starving, becoming paralyzed certainly isn't going to help. While it is harsh it is true, the doctors on the ground are just following what they can do to help. These guys are truly what makes the eradication goal a feasible one, the ability to organize and convince the population of the importance in the face of true struggle is a skill that a large organization cannot achieve, only in small step swill individuals gain the trust of an entire population.

Perhaps the goal of global eradication of polio is an absurd ambition, India alone creates a new pool of potential polio victims the size of Venezuela's entire population. Staying caught up means organizing a mammoth campaign to immunize every child under 5, and the cost has been overwhelming. So far about $3 billion has been spent worldwide, more than six hundred dollars a case. To put that in perspective the total health care budget for India's government in 2003 amounted to four dollars per person. The truth is, no cost-benefit analysis calculus can assure us just now that the money is well spent. But this remains a task that as a civilization we can do that would benefit mankind forever. The eradication of smallpox was a gift from the previous generation to all who are to come, and now, perhaps, the eradication of polio can, too. But it will be achieved on the backs of those on the ground who represent a monument to the perfection of performance, showing what can be achieved through diligent detail coupled with great ambition.

More After the Fold...

Summary only...

What Does the Hannah Poling Case Prove?

I figured I'd take a minute to address the Hannah Poling case since it deals with a topic I've covered here multiple times; the link (or non-link) of vaccines and autism. Earlier this year the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) was sued by the Poling family under the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) and won. They successfully argued that vaccines Hannah had received, specifically diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis, Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib), measles-mumps-rubella (MMR), varicella, and inactivated polio, caused her to develop autism spectrum disorder.

Ok, that's a lot of medical mumbo jumbo, here's the important part; the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). This program was created in 1986 because lawyers had sued almost all pharmaceutical companies out of existence, claiming vaccines were the reason for cases of sudden infant death syndrome to epilepsy. By the time it came into existence there was only one manufacturer of the diptheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine left in the market. The government stepped in with the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, which included the creation of the VICP. The Act called for an excise tax on every vaccine and the VICP compiled a list of compensable injuries. If studies supported the notion that vaccines caused a negative reaction -- thrombocytopenia after receipt of measles containing vaccine -- children and their families were given a fair reimbursement quickly and fairly. The number of lawsuits against vaccine makers decreased.

Unfortunately the VICP has recently turned its back on science. In 2005 a woman successfully claimed that a tetanus vaccine caused her optic neuritis. Although there was no evidence, published or otherwise, to support her claim, the VICP ruled that if a petitioner proposed a biologically "plausible" mechanism by which a vaccine could cause harm, as well as a logical sequence of cause and effect, an award should be granted. This opened the door to compensation being given for a whole new host of conditions which have no set of data to prove or disprove the claims.

In 2006 the VICP deviated farther from its original standards than it ever had before when Dorothy Werderitsh successfully claimed that a hepatitis B vaccine caused her multiple sclerosis. By the time of the ruling, several studies had shown that the hep B vaccine neither caused nor exacerbated the disease, and the Institute of Medicine even concluded that "evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between the two." But the VICP was less impressed by the scientific literature than it was with an expert's proposal of a mechanism by which hep B vaccine could induce autoimmunity (an ironic conclusion, given that Dorothy Wederitsh never had a detectable immune response to the vaccine).

Here are some facts: Natural infections will exacerbate autism spectrum disorder in patients with mitochondrial enzyme deficiencies (what Hannah Poling has), vaccines haven't shown the same. Children with this disorder are especially susceptible to infection so it is recommended they receive all vaccines.

A belief that multiple vaccines overwhelm the immune system is floating around the anti-vax camp. But a century ago children received one vaccine, smallpox, which contained 200 structural and nonstructural proteins. Today, the 14 vaccines given to children contain a total of 150 immunologic components.

Maybe the most important point of this case is that the government has eroded the confidence in the vaccination system without any concrete evidence of mass panic. The problem with letting a few kids skip out or having parents opt out of vaccination compromises herd immunity, a pillar of the vaccination theory. Consequences should be weighed next time a decision like this is made instead of caving to media and political pressure, a precedent has been laid down.

More After the Fold...

Summary only...

Freedom of the Press, Voices of the People Stifled

Events is recent weeks have highlighted a problem in growing nations as well as long established powers, the dissolution of a free press, or the access of foreign press. Tibet, Zimbabwe, and now Myanmar are all refusing access to journalists who want to report on the hardships of their people.

In Tibet, the Chinese are stamping out all means of unrest that could spoil the summer Olympics in Bejing; Tibetans complain of beatings and brutal killings. In Zimbabwe, President Robert Mugabe is hanging on grimly, trying to overthrow an apparent election loss by subterfuge and violence, after running his country into the ground for twenty years. And in Myanmar, after 46 years of iron rule by a military junta, the generals want to stop outsiders from witnessing the devastation of Cyclone Nargis. They're afraid of a threat to their power.

Unfortunately for their people, major disasters and human rights violations have caused a series of devastating events in the past weeks. In China, a severe earthquake has buries hundreds of schoolchildren and killed upwards of 10,000 people. The Chinese, for all of the consternation shown from Humanitarian agencies, is actually doing their part to help their citizens through disaster.

But Myanmar is a world removed from that reality. The government, just a day after a devastating cyclone claimed 32,000 lives (with another 33,000 still missing), decided to hold a constitutional referendum rather than delay it in order to help the victims. Girls danced and balloons were released into the air to celebrate the vote.

And the Myanmar government continues to block aid from foreign countries (and no doubt is redistributing and profiting off of the given supplies and aid) and allow their citizens to suffer. An undercover British correspondent said that as many as 100,000 may now be dead with as many as a million at risk due to disease and improper nutrition or water supply. As of now, over 2 million residents are without clean water or government assisted intervention.

It is a far cry away from the US, but instead of pressuring Myanmar to recognize its citizens (kinda like we did in Iraq) we have sent billions and will not ask where or how that money is being spent. I'm sure in 5 years there will be a beautiful new palace and government buildings, and maybe they'll even send a thank you note so the elite could live in luxury.

More After the Fold...

Summary only...

Senate Passes Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act

This last week has seen a small victory in healthcare coverage for consumers. The Senate, on a 95-0 vote, passed the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA, H.R. 493). The bill's goal is to "prohibit discrimination on the basis of genetic information with respect to health insurance and employment," filling what was considered a large gap in coverage protection of employees' and patients' rights.

This vote has been a long time in the making, with multiple votes coming up on it, but never in the same congressional session. This year, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev) determined that the bill needed to be on the front burner and its about time. Francis S. Collins, director of the National Human Genome Research Institute and leader of the Human Genome Project said, "this is a day for celebration...I think the American public can breathe a sigh of relief that the fear of genetic discrimination, which has basically been a cloud over our future, has been dealt with." (Washington Post, April 24)

This doesn't seem like a big deal now but a big reason of that is due to the doubt citizens had about their coverage if genetic tests were performed. A January survey conducted by the Genetics and Public Policy Center found that 93 percent of respondents would not participate in genetic research projects unless it were illegal for employers and insurers to use the results against them.

And for those of us like myself who work with DNA research and clinical samples, a long standing problem has been solved. During my research many times it is necessary to confirm that my own DNA has not contaminated the samples that I have been working with. The only way to do this is to perform a genetic fingerprint on my own sample and compare it to the working samples. Although I am the only one who uses the information it is written down to document the full procedure. If my employer or insurer happened to find an underlying genetic problem, such as a risk of cancer, heart disease, or diabetes, previously they would have had the right to terminate my employment or coverage in order to save themselves the problem in the future.

There are still some questions that were not answered in the bill including life insurance, but a gaping hole in employee and patients rights has been closed.

The bigger debate surrounding this issue should be under what circumstances should it be right for health insurers to decline coverage? Under a more sophisticated and consumer friendly system, such protection would be completely irrelevant, as nobody could arbitrarily be declined care. The Congress has put a band-aid on a system that needs a complete reconstructive operation, but until there is an administration in the White House who cares to acknowledge the damage a market-driven system has inflicted on America's health and pocketbooks, this looks to be all Congress can do.

I'll take a quote from Barack Obama's new book, The Audacity of Hope, to explain a pragmatic way to look at the healthcare problem for those that really think accessible, affordable healthcare should be spurned in favor of a pay-or-die attitude.

"Given the amount of money we spend on health care (more per capita than any other nation), we should be able to provide basic coverage to every single American. But we can't sustain current rates of health-care inflation every year; we have to contain costs for the entire system, including Medicare and Medicaid. With Americans changing jobs more frequently, more likely to go through spells of unemployment, and more likely to work part-time or to be self-employed, health insurance can't just run through employers anymore. It needs to be portable." (The Audacity of Hope, p. 184)

More After the Fold...

Summary only...

STD Rates Should Embarrass The USA

Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) are incredibly common here in the US. The frequency of infection was highlighted earlier this month with a study released by the Center for Diseases Control (CDC). In that study estimates that

"one in four (26%) young women between the ages of 14 and 19 in the United Sattes-or 3.2 million teenage girls-is infected with at least one of the most common sexually transmitted diseases (human papillomavirus (HPV), chlamydia, herpes simplex virus, and trichonomiasis)."

That is an incredibly high infection rate for a country like ours, we occupy a rather unique position in that few countries have the resources we do to prevent and treat STDs. And honestly there are very few countries who squander such resources so effectively.

Considering the breadth and systemic nature of the problem it makes sense to examine our public policy measures to evaluate just how effective our current plan is at battling the spread of STDs. An effective, sane, national STD-prevention policy will be built on the three pillars of education, vaccination, and testing.

Doctors on the front lines of STD prevention say that they have little hope of effectively stopping the spread of common diseases. One problem is that most visits to clinics about STDs only involve one partner and only in 11 states is it legal to treat the absent partner. Another problem that doctors face in the clinics is that patients will show up to get a short treatment and disappear until their next bout of discharge.

So knowing this information it would make sense that people be educated on infection and disease progression. A large majority of the public doesn't understand the course of disease treatment or transmission risks. Calls for greater public awareness have been called for many times in the past and the Institute of Medicine issued a report on the state of public awareness and STD transmission in 1997. The article cites the need for stronger leadership within the public health policy makers.

We sit 11 years later in a very similar situation and the rates of STD infection continue to rise. In the early 1990's after the HIV/AIDS scare began the rates of all infection dropped, but soon after began to rise again as public awareness of HIV/AIDS died after the initial sensationalism began to fade away.

Knowing that public awareness drops the rate of infection it would seem that the government would be pushing very hard for comprehensive education concerning STDs and sexual health. But in fact the opposite is what has happened over the last 10 years. The idiocy that is "abstinence only programs", a politically popular but scientifically discredited idea negatively affects the public policy. So mark a fail down on the public education pillar. Abstinence-only does not remove the stigma from STDs and sexual health. If anything it creates a taboo around sex which closes the channels of communication between adults with answers and children with uncertainty. This is unacceptable and a comprehensive education program needs to be put into place.

Vaccination has recently become available for one of the most widely spread STDs; HPV. Gardasil was approved last year for prevention of certain cancer-causing strains of HPV. Besides vaccinating against the HPV virus this is the first widely available vaccine aimed directly at preventing cancer (The Hepatitis B vaccine also helps prevent liver tumors). Gardasil can prevent cervical cancer, certain mouth and anal cancers, and maybe other cancers of the naughty bits.

Unfortunately this vaccine has been met with quite a bit of resistance from the religious right. Since the infection that leads to these cancers is usually spread by sexual contact the fundies consider it a big no-no. Some religious groups (Christianity today) favor an "opt-in" policy, while others such as Focus on the Family want a "let the parents decide" policy. The obvious imbalance with those policies are that the parents are not the ones deciding to, or not to, have sex. "The wages of sin is death", and while most Christians don't subscribe to a literal interpretation of the idea, it does infuse the Right's decision-making, perhaps blinding them to the benefits of the vaccine. Nobody likes to think of our kids having sex at 14, it may happen, and to punish them with cancer is excessive.


An "opt-in" policy is not effective to public health. Vaccines work by protecting people before they may be exposed, and by creating herd immunity. Opt-in carries implications that the vaccine is unimportant or of uncertain utility. Opt-out, while less negative, makes it too easy for people to put off a decision until it is too late.

With nationwide vaccination the idea is that the greater good to a greater number of people despite the potential damage to a small number of people. There is little doubt of the value of vaccines and I think it would take a very good spinster to argue that vaccines for polio, smallpox, measles, mumps, the flu, and other illnesses have not benefited society. Millions have lived as a result ,escaping what was many times a certain death. I think if Gardasil prevented ovarian or breast cancer there would be a lot less resistance to its implementation.

To be fair many places, including my home state of Texas, have implemented mandatory vaccination with Gardasil. This should be a good study in caner rates and HPV infection between states in the next 10 years.

The third pillar of STD prevention is mandatory screening. It is very hard to prevent transmission of a disease if you don't even know you have it. Unfortunately that is the story with most teens and young adults. Screening and early testing is the best way of managing already infected populations as well as preventing the spread of diseases. Knowledge only increases the power of prevention and with today's very effective tests there is no reason that we shouldn't require people to at least go find out if they are a carrier to a potential spreadable disease.

Our public policy needs to more accurately reflect the reality of the situation. Education, vaccination, and testing need to become ingrained in our public policy and passed down to future generations. People will always have sex. Always. And as long as they do, there will be STDs. But to live in a rich, technologically advanced nation, and have STD rates as high as we do is not only embarrassing, its a travesty.

More After the Fold...

Summary only...

Uber Fail by the Anti-Vaccinationists

I was searching around for some flu information at work dealing with an NIH project I have and my google search turned up some pretty freakin scary results. One of the first hits, "Building a Child's Immunity the Natural Way" is so fundamentally wrong about all matters medical that it took a while for me to read through it. It starts off really bad.

New Jersey's Public Health Council gave its citizens a Christmas present that will not please the health-conscious, as it became the first state in the nation to require flu shots for preschoolers.

So being "health-conscious" now means your are anti-mandatory vaccinations. What the fu...

Vaccines are dangerous for the health of any individual, but when administered to small children in their important developmental years, they are especially damaging. Medical "experts" have not even determined the correct dosages for small children, who in this regard are not just small adults. When we talk about daycare, we are talking about babies as young as a few months of age. Additionally, not only do vaccines usually contain mercury, but many lack effectiveness and can cause problems with the development of the child's natural immune system (emphasis mine).

Look, I'm not going to address all of the anti-vaccination canards present in this piece, other than refer you to other excellent sources. Two things really get me though: lies, and this "immunity" thing.

Even if the evidence of a relationship between vaccine use and autism is disregarded, there are more debilitating results of vaccine administration to children. Due to the availability of new health information, a growing number of scientists and doctors have realized the problems revealed by recent immunology research and have begun to challenge the foundational tenets of vaccination. Because it seems that vaccines have eradicated many diseases in the last 100 years, many doctors have been reticent to question them. Such claims have mainly been based on epidemic studies rather than on clinical evidence.

For example, Europe never used the polio vaccines, yet it experienced the same rise and fall of polio cases as did the U.S.

That, my dear reader, is a lie. OK, if you are being generous, it is just ignorance, but I find it hard to be generous, given a 3 second stop at google will take you over to the World Health Organization and explain its polio eradication campaign in Europe. After a lie like that, it's hard to believe anything that follows.

Also, many diseases that were believed to be wiped out have re-appeared under different names. As an example, spinal meningitis and polio have almost the same exact symptoms. There have never been any studies that proved the vaccines actually did cause the eradication of any disease; it has only been assumed by the fact that that the epidemics seemed to have ceased. The CDC uses the concept that a relationship does not prove causality to downplay the autism-thimerosal link, yet ironically, they don't apply the same standard to the relationship between vaccination usage and the end of an epidemic.

That isn't just "moving the goalposts"; that's digging them up, burning them, and scattering the ashes. We all know epidemiologic studies have their limitations, but it's pretty clear to the scientific community, beyond a reasonable doubt, that vaccines successfully prevent disease. (By the way, "spinal meningitis" and polio are completely unalike, and, believe it or not, we actually have tests to tell us what organism is causing an infection. Welcome to the early 20th century!)

All vaccines depress our immune functions. The chemicals in the vaccines depress our immune system; the virus present depresses immune function; and the foreign DNA/RNA from animal tissues depresses immunity. Studies have found that some metabolic functions were significantly reduced after vaccinations were given and did not return to normal for months. Other indicators of immune system depression included reduced lymphocyte viability, neutrophil hyper-segmentation, and a reduced white cell count. So we are trading a small immune depression for immunity to one disease, our only defense against all known disease for a temporary immunity against one disease, usually an innocuous childhood disease. Vaccines have been linked to AIDS and other immunodeficient disorders as well. The trade-off is not at all fair and not worth the risk.

Wow. This is so damned stupid. And dangerous. First, what does this phrase "immune depression" mean? I don't know. They do give a hint futher down, throwing around big words like "neutrophil hypersegmentation" but that's pretty meaningless as an observation, and without references is completely useless. Then the nice scare tactic of vaccines and AIDS. Nice. Really nice. OK, time to explain how vaccines actually work.
Vaccines and the Immune System

This is really cool...much cooler than the cultists would like you to believe. It is teh uber-kool. And please forgive the over-simplification.

We need an example: let's take polio vaccine---you know, the one they never used in Europe when the WHO wiped out polio in Europe. We have two choices, but the one we use the most in N.A. and Europe is the inactivated polio vaccine (IPV). Both of the polio vaccines have advantages and disadvantages, but hey, I only have so much time.

To make IPV, polio viruses are grown in the lab, then "inactivated" with a chemical. This renders them non-infectious. Then they are injected under the skin, which is where the fun starts...

When the inactivated viruses enter the tissues, immune cells patrolling the area detect foreign chemicals, usually proteins. (Viruses are not living organisms, but basically little bits of RNA or DNA and protein.) These cells engulf the invading viruses, process the parts, and actually display them on their surface, like a sign. Other cells (T-cells) come by, and if any of them happens to be able to read this sign, they get very excited. These cells, by various mechanisms, pass the news of the specific invader on to B-cells, which then mature and start making antibodies that are specific to the polio virus. This takes a few weeks. After this initial introduction of polio to the immune system, the antibody reaction dies down, and a few of these now-polio-specific B-cells go into hibernation in the spleen, lymph nodes, gut, and other nooks and crannies.

Let's fast forward a few years. You are about to go on your dream vacation to Uganda. You've been warned about sporatic cases of polio in the area. You have every intention of avoiding unpurified water and uncooked foods, but nobody's perfect. One night at dinner you accidentally eat the salad. They guy who made the salad just returned from the outhouse, which doesn't have a sink. Eww. In his stool were some polioviruses. These were deposited on his hands, then into your salad, and ultimately into your gut. I hope it was a good salad.

When the virus reaches the gut, it latches onto the intestine. Some of your immune cells recognize it, and start the same process that happened when you were vaccinated. Except you have those clever little "memory B-cells" left over from your vaccination, so instead of the immune reaction taking weeks to ramp up, it takes hours. Your B-cells start dividing and producing antibodies and secreting various important chemicals. The antibodies mark cells infected with polio with a big sign that says "kill me", and the soldiers of the immune system march in and do just that.

If it weren't for your vaccine, the antibody response would have taken too long, and you would have become infected. Chances are you would get lucky and suffer nothing worse than a "stomach flu". Or you could end up paralyzed.

So, when I read idiotic trash like the above article, I get really, really mad. All these years of science, medicine, and public health pumped into the sewer in favor of cult medicine bullshit. They should be ashamed. But of course, they have no shame.

More After the Fold...

Summary only...

"Strong Evidence" Mercury Causes Autism claims McCain

Jake Tapper, ABC News' Senior National Correspondent, reports John McCain's views on thimerosal and autism.

At a town hall meeting Friday in Texas, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., declared that "there's strong evidence" that thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative that was once in many childhood vaccines, is responsible for the increased diagnoses of autism in the U.S. -- a position in stark contrast with the view of the medical establishment.
***
McCain said, per ABC News' Bret Hovell, that "It's indisputable that (autism) is on the rise amongst children, the question is what's causing it. And we go back and forth and there's strong evidence that indicates that it's got to do with a preservative in vaccines."

Really John? Well lets check out what the established medical and research community has to say about this.

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) says "evidence from several studies examining trends in vaccine use and changes in autism frequency does not support such an association." The CDC was supported by a scientific review* by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) which concluded the "evidence favors the rejection of a causal relationship between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism."

The American Academy of Pediatrics says "No scientific data link thimerosal used as a preservative in vaccines with any pediatric neurologic disorder, including autism."

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) conducted a review in 1999 -- the year thimerosal was ordered to be removed from most vaccines -- and said that it "found no evidence of harm from the use of thimerosal as a vaccine preservative, other than local hypersensitivity reactions."

And a study of California Department of Developmental Services data published last month indicated that there was "an increase in autism in California despite the removal of thimerosal from most vaccines."

There is a vocal and determined group of medical researchers who dispute what the medical community says about the issue. One question they ask is why would the thimerosal have been removed from the vaccines if there was no real harm? The answer so far has been, according to the Public Health Service, "because any potential risk is of concern."

Either way the Republican nominee is stating that he at the very least isn't as sure about thimerosal than the medical community. Even further, the way he speaks about the vaccine totally masks the fact that the thimerosal is gone from almost every childhood vaccine, and has been since 1999. Now explain that John.

More After the Fold...

Summary only...