See Inside
Long-standing liability issues leave us unprepared for a pandemic
Note: This article was originally printed with the title, "Too Little, Too Late."
This article was originally published with the title Too Little, Too Late.
See what we're tweeting about
DNLee5 “@PopSci: Eating candy won't make you fat, according to study funded by the National Confectioners Association http://t.co/6zmVH9jieo” O'RLY DNLee5 Let me go to bed. Dream of the STEM articles I'm gonna write & pitch tomorrow. I'm gonna be SO productive this week. #claimingit!
curiouswavefn No. of books being published in 50th year of JFK assassination > no. of plotters purported to be involved in assassination.
Deadline: Jul 25 2013
Reward: Varies
This challenge provides an opportunity for Solvers to build a web-based or mobile “app” to explore data relationships in scholarly conte
Deadline: Jun 30 2013
Reward: $1,000,000 USD
This is a Reduction-to-Practice Challenge that requires written documentation and&
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
15 Comments
Add CommentYour article passes over why so many suits against the vaccine makers had juries convinced that the 1976 vaccine indeed caused harm. You also fail to address the many warnings of doctors and the official British government that the potential for harm caused by the adjuvants that speed the vaccine may be greater than its benefits, as well as informed persons who think the threat of swine flu is overstated (a doctor pledges, after all, to "first, do no harm").
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe American population is widely distrustful of vaccines. I believe the reason is that many feel that the government has not been honest about the potential for harm to a portion of our population, and that many of our publications do not investigate fully but buy into the propaganda issued by those with a conflict of interest (e.g. vaccine makers and the non profits they fund.) I believe, for example, that children who respond negatively to vaccines and develop autism will be able to be identified within our population eventually by genetic and other tests, and that there is a lot of research suggesting that is the case (see the Defeat Autism Now conferences). The government appears to many people to sit on any negative information much like the tobacco companies hid any evidence of the links between smoking and ill health. Meanwhile, we have a representative in Congress drawing different conclusions once his own grandchild came down with autism immediately following the MMR vaccine. We have people like Robert Kennedy Jr. warning us, as well as many doctors here and abroad, and the British government. In addition, individuals also often feel powerless and frustrated by the power of lobbies for vaccine and drug makers. Once the government loses credibility with its people, it is very, very difficult to regain. The government would do far better if it addressed the concerns of individual citizens with utmost seriousness and with concern for each individual person, as our founders intended. It would do better if it treated us as intelligent people capable of making informed choices.
I am among those who would certainly not receive a vaccine with the additives. You might also look at a recent study presented to the American Thoracic Society which quantifies an observation that many of us have personally made: that those who receive flu vaccines as a general rule are more likely to be hospitalizes with flu complications ("Flu vaccinations in asthmatics: does it work?" A. Y. Joshi, V.N. Iyer, M.F.Hartz, G.W.Volcheck, A.M.Patel. and J.T.Li, May 19, 2009).
Your article passes over why so many suits against the vaccine makers had juries convinced that the 1976 vaccine indeed caused harm. You also fail to address the many warnings of doctors and the official British government that the potential for harm caused by the adjuvants that speed the vaccine may be greater than its benefits, as well as informed persons who think the threat of swine flu is overstated (a doctor pledges, after all, to "first, do no harm").
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe American population is widely distrustful of vaccines. I believe the reason is that many feel that the government has not been honest about the potential for harm to a portion of our population, and that many of our publications do not investigate fully but buy into the propaganda issued by those with a conflict of interest (e.g. vaccine makers and the non profits they fund.) I believe, for example, that children who respond negatively to vaccines and develop autism will be able to be identified within our population eventually by genetic and other tests, and that there is a lot of research suggesting that is the case (see the Defeat Autism Now conferences). The government appears to many people to sit on any negative information much like the tobacco companies hid any evidence of the links between smoking and ill health. Meanwhile, we have a representative in Congress drawing different conclusions once his own grandchild came down with autism immediately following the MMR vaccine. We have people like Robert Kennedy Jr. warning us, as well as many doctors here and abroad, and the British government. In addition, individuals also often feel powerless and frustrated by the power of lobbies for vaccine and drug makers. Once the government loses credibility with its people, it is very, very difficult to regain. The government would do far better if it addressed the concerns of individual citizens with utmost seriousness and with concern for each individual person, as our founders intended. It would do better if it treated us as intelligent people capable of making informed choices.
I am among those who would certainly not receive a vaccine with the additives. You might also look at a recent study presented to the American Thoracic Society which quantifies an observation that many of us have personally made: that those who receive flu vaccines as a general rule are more likely to be hospitalizes with flu complications ("Flu vaccinations in asthmatics: does it work?" A. Y. Joshi, V.N. Iyer, M.F.Hartz, G.W.Volcheck, A.M.Patel. and J.T.Li, May 19, 2009).
Your article passes over why so many suits against the vaccine makers had juries convinced that the 1976 vaccine indeed caused harm. You also fail to address the many warnings of doctors and the official British government that the potential for harm caused by the adjuvants that speed the vaccine may be greater than its benefits, as well as informed persons who think the threat of swine flu is overstated (a doctor pledges, after all, to "first, do no harm").
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe American population is widely distrustful of vaccines. I believe the reason is that many feel that the government has not been honest about the potential for harm to a portion of our population, and that many of our publications do not investigate fully but buy into the propaganda issued by those with a conflict of interest (e.g. vaccine makers and the non profits they fund.) I believe, for example, that children who respond negatively to vaccines and develop autism will be able to be identified within our population eventually by genetic and other tests, and that there is a lot of research suggesting that is the case (see the Defeat Autism Now conferences). The government appears to many people to sit on any negative information much like the tobacco companies hid any evidence of the links between smoking and ill health. Meanwhile, we have a representative in Congress drawing different conclusions once his own grandchild came down with autism immediately following the MMR vaccine. We have people like Robert Kennedy Jr. warning us, as well as many doctors here and abroad, and the British government. In addition, individuals also often feel powerless and frustrated by the power of lobbies for vaccine and drug makers. Once the government loses credibility with its people, it is very, very difficult to regain. The government would do far better if it addressed the concerns of individual citizens with utmost seriousness and with concern for each individual person, as our founders intended. It would do better if it treated us as intelligent people capable of making informed choices.
I am among those who would certainly not receive a vaccine with the additives. You might also look at a recent study presented to the American Thoracic Society which quantifies an observation that many of us have personally made: that those who receive flu vaccines as a general rule are more likely to be hospitalizes with flu complications ("Flu vaccinations in asthmatics: does it work?" A. Y. Joshi, V.N. Iyer, M.F.Hartz, G.W.Volcheck, A.M.Patel. and J.T.Li, May 19, 2009).
Your article passes over why so many suits against the vaccine makers had juries convinced that the 1976 vaccine indeed caused harm. You also fail to address the many warnings of doctors and the official British government that the potential for harm caused by the adjuvants that speed the vaccine may be greater than its benefits, as well as ...........
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOops - looks like this has all been said before.
Actually, if you read the information on this study published by the authors (as opposed to the bad news reporting about this study) you see that this study did two things:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. It only looked at asthmatics, not all people, so no "general rule "about hospitalization can be derived from this research, because they only looked at a small subset of the population. Those general rules that people are so good at developing are usually wrong (e.g., there are more crimes on a full moon - this is common folk wisdom that is completely wrong, but that doesn't stop people from believing it).
2. They only looked at children who were hospitalized with the flu, not everyone who was vaccinated. This study had a strong selection bias, which means that it cannot be used to determine anything about the actual effectiveness of the vaccines.
The remainder of your argument about people speaking out about the MMR vaccine has been debunked many times. Again, that hasn't stopped people from believing it...unfortunately, this is the sort of thinking that is going to lead to outbreaks of preventable illnesses if we don't get our act together!
Lawyers are the problem. They exploit ignorance and spread lies. The simply awful science education in the US allows the lawyer's lies to persist and empowers the lawyers. Our legal system appears immiscible with science. The Democrats will never allow our idiotic personal injury laws to become rational. The simple approach is to force lawyers to practice what they preach - prevent them from being immunized for any disease. The vaccine problem then solves itself when the lawyers die out.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Your article passes over why so many suits against the vaccine makers had juries convinced that the 1976 vaccine indeed caused harm."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere's a reason for that, the site is called "Scientific American", not "Woo Woo Weekly". Just because ignorant members of the general populace (IE juries) can be convinced by a well-speaking lawyer that an illness like GBS was caused by the vaccinations is not proof of anything. Some 60% of Americans believe the world is flat, how do you explain to people like that that GBS occurs in the same proportions in people who catch the flu as those who get a flu vaccine? How do you explain to them that the reason GBS was "tied" to the vaccine was due to the extensive amount of documentation that is required as part of the protocol concerning post-vaccination symptoms that crop up. If your kid bumps their head and gets a bruise the day after a vaccination, that gets recorded. All of this information is available for you to peruse at any time. But, this information doesn't fit your confirmation bias, and therefore is ignoreed.
"You also fail to address the many warnings of doctors and the official British government that the potential for harm caused by the adjuvants that speed the vaccine may be greater than its benefits"
There's a reason for that: appeal to authority logical fallicies are also not proof of anything. The evidence gathered through actual, well-done scientific research completely blows away the small number of claims from people who just have an opinion on the subject. If the British government or the warnings of a small group of doctors can be followed up with some actual, factual evidence, we'll listen. Seriously, show some actual evidence that contradicts all of the other science and we'll listen. We're like that, we listen. We're flexible. We understand we could be wrong. You should try it, it's really quite nice. Until they provide some evidence, though their opinions are as meaningful as those of an anonymous poster in a comments section. "The swine flu vaccine causes nothing more than excessive earwax production". There, I've stated my opinion, it's therefore true. If you want to hear, avoid the vaccine. If you contradict me, you're a shill for the vaccine companies.
"as well as informed persons who think the threat of swine flu is overstated (a doctor pledges, after all, to "first, do no harm")."
Which is why they vaccinate. There are exactly ZERO informed persons who think the threat is overstated. There are a large number of uninformed people, which can include doctors and the British government, who believe otherwise. This is known as an ad populum logical fallicy. Those who know what they're talking about, however, know that the threat would be minimal if the ignorance wasn't so virulent.
"The American population is widely distrustful of vaccines."
Yes, because the American population is made up of rednecks who eschew knowledge and wisdom in favor of ignorance.
"I believe the reason is that many feel that the government has not been honest about the potential for harm to a portion of our population"
The CDC has lots of information on the potential "harm" that could come from vaccinations. Again, the mountains of proof don't fit your confirmation bias, so you ignore them and then complain they're not there! Are vaccines perfect? Absolutely not. Are there alternatives? Absolutely: we could let a large portion of the population die off. Personally, I'm in favor of that option. It'll generally be the ignorant and stupid that die off, and let's face it: we're better off without them. When natural selection is overriden, American Idol is the result.
"I believe, for example, that children who respond negatively to vaccines and develop autism will be able to be identified within our population eventually by genetic and other tests, and that there is a lot of research suggesting that is the case (see the Defeat Autism Now conferences)."
There is exactly ZERO correlation between vaccines and autism. ZERO. ZERO. ZERO. Made up numbers, like Wakefield published, and conspiracy theories from former Playboy models are NOT science. The research has shown that. Why is it you're ok with poorly done research that fits your confirmation bias, but ignore well-done research that doesn't? You should probably look into why that is. I've given you a clue a couple of times. It's ok...the world won't end if your worldview changes.
"The government appears to many people to sit on any negative information much like the tobacco companies hid any evidence of the links between smoking and ill health"
I'm sorry, I can't remember the name for the logical fallicy in which "one group of people did something bad, therefore another group might do it, too". We'll just call it "poor thinking" for now. That being said, there are mountains of information available on vaccines and their side effects from the government. The problem is, the government can't disprove a negative. They say "this is all we have" and you say "no it's not". Since they can't prove they don't have something they don't have, your "logic" tells you they're sitting on something...it's all so sad, really. If only the Republicans hadn't replaced critical thinking lessons in our schools with "everyone gets a trophy" day. But, hey, if they hadn't we wouldn't have great TV like The X-Files & Fringe.
"Meanwhile, we have a representative in Congress drawing different conclusions once his own grandchild came down with autism immediately following the MMR vaccine."
There is no such person because there's never been a case of someone "coming down" with autism after getting a vaccine. Autism typically starts to manifest itself immediately after birth (thus disproving any link with vaccines off the bat), but the most extreme symptoms won't be easily recognizable by an ignorant parent (which is what all parents are unless they're autism experts, this one's not an insult) until around 6-12 months...right around the time vaccinations start. Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a tough logical fallicy to overcome. Your statement only proves we need an intelligence and educational understanding test prior to allowing just anyone to run for political office. Ideally we should have one for the voters, too, but I'll take vetting only candidates that aren't drooling twits.
"We have people like Robert Kennedy Jr. warning us"
Robert Kennedy Jr is an attorney. I generally avoid taking my daughter to the attorney when she's not feeling well. Similarly, I avoid listening to them for medical advice. Another appeal to authority logical fallicy, and not even a very good one.
"In addition, individuals also often feel powerless and frustrated by the power of lobbies for vaccine and drug makers."
Because they're ignorant, not because these lobbying groups necessarily are doing anything wrong. BTW, you mentioned Defeat Autism Now: part of a lobbying group to promote doing something about autism. Lobbying groups aren't evil. Ad hominem fallicies are popular with you folks, aren't they?
"Once the government loses credibility with its people, it is very, very difficult to regain."
When it loses it over stupid shit and poor thinking and reasoning skills...it's completely impossible.
"The government would do far better if it addressed the concerns of individual citizens with utmost seriousness and with concern for each individual person, as our founders intended."
Our founders had no such intention. You want the government to devote all of its resources to every single individual in the country? Sigh....
"It would do better if it treated us as intelligent people capable of making informed choices."
But, you're not. That's the problem. You're sitting here arguing, extremely poorly, in favor of things that aren't true. You really need to see that the problem isn't the government or some conspiracy. It's your complete lack of understanding of the scientific method and community, medicine and reality. I'm sorry to be so cruel, but YOU are the problem. You're inflexible, dogmatic and completely unwilling to listen to facts if they contradict your world view. You have no idea what you're talking about, but are vociferous in your opinion and think that quoting attorneys is better than actual scientific evidence. I will give you some credit though: your mastery of logical fallicies is fantastic. Most people only manage to squeeze one or two into a diatribe. You're up to four or five so far, I think.
"I am among those who would certainly not receive a vaccine with the additives."
That's great. You therefore should not be allowed into the general population. You should be locked in a room where you can't be a danger to others because of your flagrant disregard for their well being.
"You might also look at a recent study presented to the American Thoracic Society which quantifies an observation that many of us have personally made: that those who receive flu vaccines as a general rule are more likely to be hospitalizes with flu complications"
As another poster pointed out the significant flaws in how you came to that conclusion, I'll skip them. However, you've done nothing but prove my point: you have no idea what you're reading, you've misread it, you've misanalysed it, you've misunderstood it...and it's only after all of that you've drawn your conclusion. Therefore, your conclusion is wrong, wrong, WRONG!
And, to those who are going to respond that I was too harsh on this person: get over it. The time for treating ignorance nicely is over. I did try to be nice by giving him the names of the logical fallicies she uses so that he can look them up and see why his thinking is wrong. But, we both know he's not going to. She doesn't want to know why his thinking is wrong, because then SHE would be wrong and...gasp...she might have to admit it and...even more gasp!...CHANGE! YIKES!! I at least avoided the temptation of pointing out that someone who can't post to a comments section just once probably isn't someone anyone should listen to. :)
Thank you Spoonman for your response. You cannot save a population that rejects intelligence and embraces quack medicine. Add to that a population that is uninsured or under-insured and you have a recipe for disaster.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the US we have thousands trained to make beer. How many persons do we have trained to manufacture vaccines in bulk? 75? 80? Remember, in a laboratory in London they have replicated the 1918 Spanish Flu that killed 40 million.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs this article so well points out-and should be read by every US citizen-we are WOEFULLY unprepared for a flu pandemic. Solution? Sponsor two Veterinary schools to manufacture animal vaccines for third world countries. Then we could get more persons trained in this field plus good science and advancements in this field. Then if a pandemic does arise, those manufacturing facilities could be used. Instead of sending third world countries guns we could send them animal vaccines!
Spoonman you asked for science. here it is:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy child was vaccinated; Two days later my dog up and died. My lawyer says we have a case to sue for the harm that the vaccine caused.
We investigated and there are almost a hundred cases of dogs that died within a week of the child being vaccinated. The lawyer is now compiling a group of such cases for a class action suit. He only wants to protect future dogs, so he is out to stop vaccination of children. He is also gathering all animal lovers to chip in for the suit. There is your statistic- at least a hundred proven cases that when the child received the vaccine, the dog died within a month after the child got the shot!
If you love animals you should contribute to this great humane cause to stop administering vaccines to children and prevent needless deaths of man's best friend, the dog.
In the US we have thousands trained to make beer. How many persons do we have trained to manufacture vaccines in bulk? 75? 80? Remember, in a laboratory in London they have replicated the 1918 Spanish Flu that killed 40 million.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs this article so well points out-and should be read by every US citizen-we are WOEFULLY unprepared for a flu pandemic. Solution? Sponsor two Veterinary schools to manufacture animal vaccines for third world countries. Then we could get more persons trained in this field plus good science and advancements in this field. Then if a pandemic does arise, those manufacturing facilities could be used. Instead of sending third world countries guns we could send them animal vaccines!
Right, because we care more about the survival of dependent canines than the human race. How stupid of us to think any differently!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUmmm...really? If you and your kids are vaccinated (and you trust that the vaccinations are effective) then you should not worry that my unvaccinated kids will sicken yours!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis may be the last time I post anything regarding vaccinations. It is a ridiculous discussion because you either believe that they help and work or you do not. My post will not change anybody's mind. I think the only way that change happens is when it affects you directly. When one of your kids stops speaking permanently just two weeks after their MMR shot. When this happens to one of you "scientists" consider reading the information that the CDC itself has released. Why do you suppose there is a federal Vaccine Injury Fund set up? Listen, the paperwork that comes with the childhood vaccines says right on it that you should not give to anyone who's immune system is compromised. So, why then do we send the kids with asthma, the babies and the old people to the front of the line claiming they are "most at risk". Their systems are already compromised! Duhhhhh!
Is this Scientific American?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy comment is for Spoonman Wo. I regret that I am 6 weeks late in reading this post, I hope it still gets out there. I have time because I am sitting here with swine flu feeling totally miserable. I wanted to get a swine flu shot and started trying to get one 6 weeks ago. Unfortunately my government took the bull by the horns and proceeded to mismanage the whole swine flu vaccine program to the point that there will be plenty of vaccine to go around after the the pandemic. Spoonman you are so close to the truth but also so wrong with your elitist shit. You seem to see an evil republican behind everything stupid. yes the woman who wants to believe that vaccines cause autism is a moron ( I am an elitist asshole also) but you somehow blame it on republicans damaging schools. it is pretty clear that school vouchers and school competition would give us a smarter america, but the liberals are standing in the way of that. i would be willing to bet that if we found concernedmom and asked her a few questions, we would find out that she is probably a slightly hippy, completely vacuous, liberal, tree hugging, recycling, global warming enthusiast, subaru driving soccer mom that only votes for politicians that infatically believe in her right to infanticide of any fetus of any age that still has so much as a baby finger still in her birth canal. While she thinks the government is hiding something from her, as a conservative I know that the government is only capable total failure. A conspiracy of more than 2 is beyond government capacity. i give you credit for figuring out that the bell curve is not symmetrical but more elongated like a slug with the tail representing the smart side and the dumb side representing about 70%. There is nothing wrong with lobbyist, I agree. A congress person can't possibly be an expert on everything,the lobbyist are just there to inform the congress of a point of view. 300 million americans can't exactly hop on over to the congress every afternoon to explain all of our greevances and needs, but it is not conservatives who villafy lobbyist. All of our socio-economic problems come from stupid, liberals think that poverty causes crime because they always find poverty and crime together, but stupid causes poverty and stupid causes crime, just watch 1/2 of an episode of cops. All cops do is try to talk really stupid people out of doing really stupid shit. Lex Luther was an anomally. I say let's pay people on welfare to get sterilised. I think we will just endup with equally less conservatives and liberals.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this