I have to give the CDC credit for the great job they’re doing with their website. This is one example of how they have simplified the vaccination process in a graphic presentation to increase public understanding.
Source: Center for Disease Control and Prevention
(A parody of the Travie McCoy and Bruno Mars song “Billionaire”.)
Uploaded to YouTube on Feb 26, 2011
ZDoggMD
(Updated 2016)
Since the 1930’s, the whole-cell pertussis vaccine began helping to prevent horrific and deadly cases of pertussis (whooping cough) that were violently killing about 8000 Americans every year, mostly babies and young children. The whole-cell Pertussis vaccine was replaced with the “acellular” version completely in the US and many other developed nations by the early 2000’s, but is still used in many developing nations. (Both the whole-cell and acelluar versions are administered in combination with the diphtheria and tetanus vaccines.)
The whole-cell vaccine worked very well, but it sometimes caused short-term yet very frightening side-effects, like sudden limpness or convulsions from fever. This led many to suspect, or insist, that it also was causing complex recurring seizures and acute or chronic encephalopathy (a brain disfunction or disorder). As fear led many parents to stop vaccinating their children, outbreaks began to come back, and some babies began to suffer and die again. This trend is continuing today.
The Institute of Medicine (IOM) was charged in 1991 with figuring out if the scientific evidence supported that suspicion or not. Regarding encephalopathy and related disorders (encephalitis or encephalomyelitis), they concluded that “the evidence is consistent with a causal relation between DPT vaccine and acute (temporary) encephalopathy” .
I am guessing that this sounded terrifying to many parents, as the conclusion of “consistent with a causal relationship” sounds definitive. But if you examine their categorization, it means that the evidence for this being a true vaccine reaction was not persuasive enough to conclude that “the evidence indicates a causal relation.” The evidence was suggestive enough, however, to stop short of saying the “evidence does not indicate a causal relation.” In other words, it might be causal.
How often might the pertussis vaccine cause acute encephalopathy? The IOM reported that the weight of the available evidence at the time was consistent with the findings of a fairly large study (the NCES) that had calculated a possible excess risk of acute encephalopathy due to pertussis vaccination in the range of zero to 10.5 cases per million doses of DTP. This should have been somewhat reassuring: if the DTP did cause acute encephalopathy, it was rare, possibly even zero.
Regarding “chronic” encephalopathy, which can be long-term and sometimes deadly, the IOM committee decided in 1991 that “there is insufficient evidence to indicate a causal relation between DPT vaccine and permanent neurologic damage.” But later, in 1994, after reviewing new NCES data, the IOM acknowledged that acute encephalopathy can sometimes lead to chronic neurologic dysfunction, including death, and so, the same conclusion they reached in 1991 about acute encephalopathy would apply to chronic illness/death provided that it followed an acute reaction occurring within 7 days of vaccination. They caution against people reading too much into their conclusion. They reported:
The committee concludes that the balance of evidence is consistent with a causal relation between DPT and the forms of chronic nervous system dysfunction described in the NCES in those children who experience a serious acute neurologic illness within 7 days after receiving DPT vaccine. This serious acute neurologic response to DPT is a rare event. The estimated excess risk ranged from 0 to 10.5 per million immunizations (IOM, 1991). The committee stresses that this is not the strongest statement regarding causality; the evidence does not “establish” or “prove” a causal relation. (bold mine)
Subsequent studies have been more reassuring about both the whole cell DTwP, as well as the MMR vaccine.
After the IOM’s maybe/maybe not conclusions in 1991 and 1994, some good evidence began to cast doubt on the suspicion that the whole cell pertussis vaccine, as well as the MMR vaccine, was causing brain disorders such as autism or complex seizures and acute or chronic encephalopathy.
Regarding autism, overwhelming scientific evidence has been building over the years that vaccines, in particular the MMR vaccine and those containing Thimerosal — a mercury based preservative used in some other childhood vaccines, but since removed for the most part anyway — are not responsible for autism as some had insisted and many feared. The IOM systematically reviewed the evidence on this question in 2004 and concluded the evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship to autism after reviewing the evidence on both sides of the debate.
I see a study published in 2001 was conducted by the CDC’s Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) Working Group to evaluate the risk of a “first seizure, subsequent seizures, and neurodevelopmental disability following the administration of diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and whole-cell pertussis (DTP) vaccine and measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine.” The title of the abstract summarizes their conclusions: “Increased Risk of Seizures Following DTP and MMR Vaccine Is Not Associated with Any Long-Term Adverse Consequences.”
And, I see a very large Kaiser Permanente Vaccine Safety study, published in 2006, of 2 million children on the DTwP and the MMR vaccine that found no evidence for a causal relationship to encephalopathy or related disorders: “Encephalopathy after whole-cell pertussis or measles vaccination: lack of evidence for a causal association in a retrospective case-control study,” Ray P, et al.
Further, an intriguing 2006 preliminary study discovered that most presumed vaccine induced encephalopathy cases among a small sample were actually caused by a hereditary epilepsy-inducing genetic mutation, misattributed to a vaccination that happened to occur beforehand (temporally). Read: “De-novo mutations of the sodium channel gene SCN1A in alleged vaccine encephalopathy: a retrospective study,” Berkovic SF, et al.
Putting this important finding in the context of vaccination hesitancy and refusal, read this 2007 commentary, “Vaccines, Encephalopathies, and Mutations” by Anne T Berg, PhD and this 2008 commentary,“Genetics and the myth of vaccine encephalopathy” by Asif Doja, MD.
(There may be many other studies on this too, but I’ll stop here, for now.)
RECOMMENDED reading on this topic: “BRIAN DEER: THE VANISHING VICTIMS – Can whooping cough jabs cause brain damage in children? BRIAN DEER INVESTIGATES” The Sunday Times Magazine, November 1 1998. (Note: Brian Deer is the same investigative reporter who brought us the inside scoop on the Andrew Wakefield’s MMR vaccine-autism scare.)
Also, see my related post, “Serious disease risk vs. serious vaccine risks“
I empathize with vaccine hesitant parents. I felt wary myself, especially after going through the late 70’s pertussis vaccine scare that emerged right before my first child’s birth, wrongly claiming that the DPT vaccine most likely causes brain damage. With my second child, I felt trepidation over the growing number of infant and early childhood vaccines — so many, so soon (and even more nowadays.)
Ultimately I decided to trust my science-based doctors who follow the recommended CDC schedule, and who decided to fully immunize their own kids without hesitation. As I continue to learn more about the science and regulation of vaccines, I feel confident that I made (and am still making) the most well informed and protective decision for my family.
On my journey to sort fact from fiction regarding vaccinations, I often consult the Science Based Medicine (SBM) blog site.
Dr. David Gorski posted his review of Frontline’s “Vaccine War”, a PBS documentary that featured my town of Ashland Oregon as a low-immunization “hot spot.” He mentioned the appearance in the documentary of one parent in Ashland who favored full immunization(there are actually many here) – who happened to be me.
Later, he added: “ADDENDUM: There was a segment in which a pro-vaccination parent in Ashland was profiled. In a shot in which she was surfing the ‘net, guess what blog showed up?” It was a shot of Sciencebasedmedicine.org on my computer screen, a typical scene in my autodidactic life (thank you to my husband for informing me of that word).
I seized upon the opportunity to add this my comment in response:
Hello, Dr. Gorski, et al at SBM. I am the “pro-vaccine” parent from Ashland Oregon interviewed by Frontline for their Vaccine War program. You should know that I not only pulled your site up on my screen for their “B-roll” taping, but I sang its praises several times to them. One of my strongest points during my interview involved a basic vaccine consumer question: How can a non-scientist layperson, a member of the general public, figure out what to believe when both sides are claiming they are backed by scientific data and studies and expert analyses? When it comes to vaccines, is it really a matter of picking your poison: risk vaccine side-effects or risk the diseases? (Like Jenny McCarthy suggests when she says she’ll take measles over autism.)
I expressed to Frontline that the skeptical inquiry and science-based medicine movement provides a greatly needed counterbalance to anti-vaccinationist scare-mongering, notably on the web. I told them this movement has made me feel empowered. I no longer have to throw my hands into the air in confusion. I can see that when it comes to vaccines it’s not a matter of picking-your-poison, that the benefits of vaccination far, far outweigh the risks.
I expressed that I believe there are many vaccine-wary people who may just need some scientific literacy to learn how to sort out the claims and how to recognize credible versus non-credible souces of information. Among other things, I learned that vaccine safety and efficacy studies are on the higher, gold standard end of the continuum of bad to good science, while those critical of vaccines tend to cite studies that are of poor quality and they continue to defend those that have been seriously discredited (e.g. Andrew Wakefield).
The Frontline photographer took footage at my home of the cover of the Skeptical Inquirer magazine featuring Dr. Novella’s article on vaccines and autism published not too long ago. I suggested to Frontline that they interview some of the professionals from SBM, like you Dr. Gorski, and Dr. Novella, and Dr. Crislip. It was great to see that at least a flash of the SBM website survived the cuts. (My own vaccine related blog article, a critical analysis of the Desiree Jennings claims, didn’t survive the cuts: “A CHEERLEADER’S UNBELIEVABLE FLU VACCINE REACTION,” posted on Selectsmart.com, here, if you’re interested: http://www.selectsmart.com/commentary/blog.php?m=1336 [update: now posted on this blog.]
Mostly, I just want to say THANKS! Keep up the good work; please know that you are making an impact on the public, as you have on me. We are very fortunate that you and others who publish on this blog are willing to share your time, energy, and expertise. I really can’t express how grateful I feel.
(Note: Numbers may vary among sources for reasons such as the time period and location of the collected data, reported vs. estimated or suspected cases, averages vs. maximums, etc.)
MEASLES – SERIOUS DISEASE RISKS
RUBELLA DISEASE RISK:
MUMPS DISEASE RISK:
“Mumps can be a mild disease, but it is often quite uncomfortable and complications are not rare. These include meningitis; testicular inflammation in males who have reached puberty, among whom about half experience some degree of testicular atrophy; inflammation of the ovaries or breasts in females who have reached puberty; and permanent deafness in one or both ears. Before the development of a mumps vaccine, the disease was one of the major causes of deafness in children. Some research also suggests an increase in miscarriages among pregnant women who are infected with mumps during their first trimester” (The History of Vaccines).
MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) VACCINE RISKS
MMR vaccination moderate problems
MMR vaccination severe problems (Very Rare)
The following severe problems have been known to occur after a child gets MMR vaccine. But this happens so rarely, experts cannot be sure whether they are caused by the vaccine or not. (bold mine) SEE FOOTNOTE*
DIPHTHERIA – SERIOUS SYMPTOMS AND DISEASE RISK
TETANUS – SERIOUS SYMPTOMS AND DISEASE RISK
PERTUSSIS – SERIOUS SYMPTOMS AND DISEASE RISK
DTaP (Diphtheria, Tetanus, and acellular Pertussis) VACCINE RISK **
Moderate Problems (Uncommon)
Severe Problems (Very Rare)
The following severe problems have been reported after DTaP vaccine. These are so rare it is hard to tell if they are caused by the vaccine. (bold mine) SEE FOOTNOTE*
* Footnote: These are some very scary disorders but with an important caveat that these events are so rare that “it’s hard to tell” or “experts cannot be sure” that the vaccine caused these disorders. I fear that some people might misinterpret these statements; afterall, they are included on a page about “side-effects.” I do believe the CDC’s intent here is actually to reassure the public and that the emphasis should be on the rarity of these events and the inability of these events to show themselves to be anything but a temporal (time-related, coincidental) relationship to vaccines when analyzed.
** CDC’s web page on Febrile Seizures reports there is no added febrile (fever related) seizure risk with the DTaP vaccine. There may be a slight added febrile seizure risk with the MMR vaccine. They say febrile seizures are more common among children than many realize and usually aren’t dangerous or indicative of a permanent problem. Here is another CDC page about febrile seizures after influenza and other vaccines.
Main source: The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
(Disclaimer: I haven’t evaluated all the aspects of Smart Meters to know if I favor them or not, but I do believe that radio frequency (RF ) fears of health risks are unwarranted.)
Dear Council members and Mayor,
I understand the City has decided to allow residents to opt out of Smart Meter installation, largely due to fears about radio frequency (RF) safety. Further, I read in the media that the added expense for allowing opt-outs could cost the city as much as $150,000.
RF radiation can be an emotional topic for many, and I personally tend to favor freedom of choice. But, I feel that the financial burden of accommodating scientifically unsupportable claims should be born by those adhering to the claim.
While not all RF safety questions have been thoroughly answered through scientific research (which may be an impossible expectation and something that might still not satisfy many opposers), the most credible expert sources are reassuring that RF devices are very safe when regulations are followed.
RF exposure from Smart Meters appears to be especially trivial (similar to baby monitors, TVs, radios, remote controls, garage door openers), given their very low power intensity, short transmission time (typically less than a minute per day), and the fact that exposure to electromagnetic radiation decreases exponentially with distance from the source. Smart Meters transmit primarily from the front (aiming away from the house), the RF is attenuated by an enclosure and obstacles like walls, and they’re not a device that people ordinarily stand close to or hold directly up to the face as they might do with cell phones. And even if they were, the RF exposure is minuscule compared to a cell phone.
Meanwhile I see a fair (or should I say unfair) amount of misinformation; for example, suggesting that scientific research has shown that many people suffer from electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EMH) from RF waves.
Systematic reviews of the best studies on this question have shown no correlation between reported EMH symptoms and the level of RF exposure reported to be causing them. While the medical symptoms are real, it’s the fear of RF and not the RF itself that appears to be causing a stress response and/or leading the sufferer to misattribute symptoms caused by something else to RF radiating devices.
I urge our city council members and the mayor to counter the wave of fear-mongering about radio frequency (RF) radiation by (1) studying the consensus of scientific opinion based on systematic reviews of the best scientific evidence from credible US and international sources (for example: ICNRP, WHO, HPA, FCC, FDA, NIOSH, etc.), and (2) widely distributing a plain language report to the public explaining the safety of non-ionizing radiation and of RF devices that meet FCC guidelines.
Policy decisions that involve the safety of RF devices should be based on reliable, expert opinion; decisions accommodating unwarranted fears could end up reinforcing the misperception that such fears are warranted.
I recommend the following sources:
“What are electromagnetic fields?” A primer on electromagnetic field, including what they are and how safe they are.http://www.who.int/peh-emf/about/WhatisEMF/en/index.html
“Electromagnetic fields and public health – Electromagnetic hypersensitivity”http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs296/en/
About Smart Meters: “Health Impacts of Radio Frequency from Smart Meters,” California Council on Science and Technology, 2011.http://www.ccst.us/publications/2011/2011smart-final.pdf
Thank you for your consideration.
Dr. Michael Osterholm, head of the University of Minnesota’s Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, released in early 2012 the findings of his systematic review of studies that used strict criteria for evaluating the flu vaccines’ effectiveness.
An article in the Allamakee County Standard, “Waukon native Dr. Michael Osterholm shares his views on recent reports on the effectiveness of vaccines,” by David Johnson, does a good job of conveying the results of Dr. Osterholm’s findings and opinions. For two vaccines, the article reports:
“According to the report, randomized controlled trials of TIV vaccine, which is given to 90 percent of the nation’s adults receiving flu shots, were effective in preventing influenza in eight of 12 seasons and had a combined efficacy of 59 percent against the flu in healthy adults. The LAIV was shown to provide protection in nine of 12 seasons against infection and was 83 percent effective combating the flu when given to children aged six months to seven years. For LAIV, there was no data showing efficacy for people aged eight to 59 years. There were no randomized controlled trials of TIV for children two to 17 years of age meeting the study inclusion criteria. One study assessing TIV vaccine efficacy in children age six months to two years was done over two seasons with good matches between vaccine and circulating virus strains in both years. There were no studies of TIV and one study of LAIV showing protection for those 60 years of age and older. The study feels that this information gap needs to be addressed.
As for the bottom line:
“Dr. Osterholm stresses that everyone read the last statement of the report, …“We maintain public support for present vaccines that are the best intervention available for seasonal influenza.”
…Depending on the relative strength of each seasonal influenza outbreak, some three to 50 thousand people die each year in this country and over half a million world-wide. Thus, it is encouraged that everyone receives a vaccine as the vaccine is the best tool to fight the flu. The report urges that a new generation of more effective flu vaccines is needed. What is recommended is “active partnerships between industry and government needed to accelerate research, reduce regulatory barriers to licensure and support financial models that favor the purchase of vaccines that provide improved protection.”
And he warns about particularly deadly influenza strains emerging in Egypt, Southeast Asia and Africa, some with 35%- 75% fatality rates:
“Dr. Osterholm is concerned about not only the effectiveness of the seasonal flu vaccines, but the vaccines for the more dangerous pandemic influenzas that can kill millions.”
…”With a possible spread and worldwide affliction of a killer or pandemic flu, Dr. Osterholm stresses the importance of a ‘21st century’ vaccine to be developed to combat future health threats.”
Whle Dr. Osterholm offers constructive criticism, he takes great umbrage with public figures who are dismissive of the flu vaccine as the point of his findings is not to throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water but to raise awareness of the need to come together to accelerate the development of improved influenza vaccines. The reporter reflects Osterholm’s viewpoint:
“What Dr. Osterholm finds more troubling are the many declarations by individuals, such as Dr. Russell Blaylock and Dr. Wolfgang Wordarg, an epidemiologist and president of the Health Committee of the Council of Europe. These gentlemen and Dr. Mehmet Oz, who announced on CNN that his wife was not going to vaccinate their children with a swine flu vaccine, claim that vaccines such as the pandemic flu vaccine are not safe or the dangers of a pandemic are nothing more than a “great campaign of panic.”
Dr. Osterholm can add Jennifer Margulis of Ashland, Oregon, to the list. She is an author who earned her PhD in English who regularly speaks out against the efficacy, safety, and need for vaccinations – although she purports to favor “selective vaccination” and individual choice rather than non-vaccination. In 2011 she wrote a science-y looking piece for Mothering Magazine to dissuade pregnant woman from the influenza vaccination.
The World Health Organization’s (WHO) advisory committee, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), decided that radio frequency (RF) electromagnetic fields (EMF) should be classified as a “Group 2B “possible” carcinogenic. These are non-ionizing EMFs that most physicists and many other experts world-wide regard as implausible, or at least highly unlikely, to be able to cause cancer. (Microwaves are usually regarded as a subset of radiowave frequencies.)
After thousands of studies, most EMF expert organizations maintain that the only plausible and proven (meaning indicated by the preponderance of credible evidence) potentially harmful effects of RF exposure are thermal (heat), upon which regulators base exposure limits with an abundance of caution.
The IARC’s conclusion appears to be focused on cell phone use, not base station cell phone antennas or other RF devices, such as TV, radio, baby monitors, remote controls, automatic doors, microwave ovens or so-called Smart Meters, etc. – all of which have been shown to create very low public RF exposure.
And even with that, their chairman only suggests a relatively light precautionary approach to cell phone use. The World Health Organization’s media release about the IARC conclusion states: (bolding is mine)
“Dr Jonathan Samet (University of Southern California, USA), overall Chairman of the Working Group, indicated that “the evidence, while still accumulating, is strong enough to support a conclusion and the 2B classification. The conclusion means that there could be some risk, and therefore we need to keep a close watch for a link between cell phones and cancer risk.”
“Given the potential consequences for public health of this classification and findings,” said IARC Director Christopher Wild, “it is important that additional research be conducted into the longterm, heavy use of mobile phones. Pending the availability of such information, it is important to take pragmatic measures to reduce exposure such as hands‐free devices or texting.”
The WHO, even after the IARC classification, assures the public that cell phones (and by extension, other RF devices of even lower exposure levels) are safe: “A large number of studies have been performed over the last two decades to assess whether mobile phones pose a potential health risk. To date, no adverse health effects have been established as being caused by mobile phone use.”
[bracketed comments are mine]
Group 1 – “Carcinogenic to Humans” (108 agents)
Examples:
alcoholic beverages (ethanol) [including some medicines or homeopathy]
tobacco smoke, second-hand smoke, smokeless tobacco
ionizing radiation (all types) – x-rays, gamma rays
ultra-violet radiation – UVA,UVB,UVC [part of sunlight] and UV tanning
art glass manufacturing
wood dust
Group 2A – “probable carcinogenic to humans” (64 agents)
Examples:
frying, emissions from high-temperature
working as a hairdresser or barber
hot mate [a beverage, not your partner ;-)]
shiftwork that involves circadian disruption [sleep disruption]
Group 2B – “possible carcinogenic to humans” (271 agents)
Examples:
coffee (urinary)
pickled vegetables
coconut oil diethanolamine condensate [used in soaps, hair products, etc.]
carpentry and joinery
nickel, metallic and alloys
magnetic fields, extremely low-frequency [emitted by all electric wiring and appliances]
radiofrequency electromagnetic fields [are ubiquitous – natural and manmade]
Group 3 – “not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans” (505 agents)
electric fields (extremely low frequency or static)
Group 4 – “probably not carcinogenic to humans” (1 agent)
Caprolactam
Group 5 – Not carcinogenic – Oh wait, there is no Group 5. It appears that the IARC does not intend to classify any agents as non-carcinogenic, which is what anti-EMFers would likely insist upon before regarding radiowaves as safe.
Knowing that the IARC’s carcinogenicity continuum ranges from non-carcinogenic –> probably –> possibly –> who knows? (my words) –> probably not, and further noticing that only one agent out of nearly 1000 agents analyzed has been placed in the Group 4 improbable category, tells us that the media headlines that the WHO decided radiowaves can possibly cause cancer are alarmist.
“Possible” means different things to scientists than to the general public. To a scientist, it means theoretically and logically possible as opposed to impossible. It’s a very low ranking as to the truth of a matter. The next steps up the ladder of probability that something is true are: plausibly and then probably and then “proven” (meaning it is so likely to be true that we take the liberty of saying it’s proven, even as nothing is cast in stone). This continuum has been termed “the four Ps”.
To the lay public, the IARC using the word possible means they (the experts) found out that radiowaves do, in fact, cause cancer. To illustrate: if a patient asks her doctor, “do you think my cancer was caused by radiowaves?” and her doctor answers, “possibly,” most patients would hears that as a definite maybe, up there with something like smoking. This was clearly not the IARC’s intent.
Appears to me that the IARC intended to convey that they couldn’t rule out the literal possibility that radiowaves can cause cancer without additional studies, such as on longer-term use of cell phones . Had they gone with “unclassifiable,” I can see the headlines: “The WHO doesn’t know if radiowaves are carcinogenic or not!”
“Toward a general theory of pathological science” by Nicholas J. Turro, PhD. [Describes “the four P’s” of science.]
Kovvali G. Cell phones are as carcinogenic as coffee. J Carcinog [serial online] 2011 [cited 2012 Jun 21];10:18.
CNN Health. “Coffee, pickled veggies also ‘possibly’ cause cancer“. June 2011.
“IARC Press Release – Cell Phones Possible Carcinogenic,” article at EMFandHealth.com
Are Cell Phones a Possible Carcinogen? An Update on the IARC Report, by Lorne Trottier, published on Sciencebasedmedicine.org, April 2012.
WHO press release, May 2011, “IARC CLASSIFIES RADIOFREQUENCY ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AS POSSIBLY CARCINOGENIC TO HUMANS”
“Electromagnetic fields and public health: mobile phones” World Health Organization Fact sheet N°193, June 2011
Written September 22, 2010. Guest Opinion published in the Ashland Daily Tiding
[ Similar to many communities in the U.S. and abroad, conflict erupted when AT&T applied to install an antenna station on the roof of the cinema in my town, Ashland, Oregon. The owners of a neighboring non-conventional health center were devastated and sounded the alarm. All the practitioners who rent space from them said they would not work so close to a cell tower. The City Planning Commissioners, compelled by Federal law prohibiting cities from denying cell antenna station applications based on environmental/health concerns, reluctantly approved AT&T’s application. Yet, the drama continues to unfold as the wellness center owners rally public support while appealing the approval. Meanwhile, knowing very little about scary-sounding “radiation,“ I decided to explore credible information to find out the risks, sorting fact from fiction. This essay was published in the Ashland Daily Tidings.]
Some say AT&T’s insistence on placing their cell phone antennas on the roof of the cinema in the Ashland Shopping Center is corporate bullying and an affront to Ashland’s values, as many nearby (non-conventional) healthcare practitioners and their clients fear these antennas emit harmful radio frequency (RF) radiation.
I suspect that AT&T’s motives reflect the community’s values, as we increasingly value and demand tiny, richly-featured mobile phones with excellent reception. While spearheading public and legal opposition, the neighboring Hidden Springs Wellness Center owners reported: “I have a cell phone; almost everybody has a cell phone these days.” 
Opponents insist Ashland law mandates AT&T to co-locate with other antennas, e.g. at the less densely populated Holiday Inn location. There is no isolated tower there; the existing antenna site is situated on the building, populated with overnight guests and workers, near other hotels, restaurants, a brewery, a temple, homes, etc. When AT&T argued there’d be coverage deficits, an opponent claimed that AT&T can amplify the signal, which would raise RF emissions. Some opponents insist AT&T can co-locate with the broadcast radio antennas at SOU—adding more purportedly harmful RF radiation in the heart of the campus. Sounds like anything goes, just “not in my backyard.” Continue reading
| Disease | Baseline 20th Century Pre-Vaccine Annual Cases | 2008 Cases* | Percent Decrease |
|---|---|---|---|
| Measles | 503,282 | 55 | 99.9% |
| Diphtheria | 175,885 | 0 | 100% |
| Mumps | 152,209 | 454 | 95.7% |
| Pertussis | 147,271 | 10,735 | 92.7% |
| Smallpox | 48,164 | 0 | 100% |
| Rubella | 47,745 | 11 | 99.9% |
| Haemophilus influenzae type b, invasive | 20,000 | 30 | 99.9% |
| Polio | 16,316 | 0 | 100% |
| Tetanus | 1,314 | 19 | 98.6% |
Sometimes it’s more revealing to know the worst-case history rather than baseline annual figures. Here’s an excerpt from a 2010 updated article about rubella from the National Network for Immunization Information :
“Before a vaccine was available, there was a rubella outbreak in the U.S. (1963 to 1964), during which 12 million people developed the disease. Because many of those infected were expectant mothers, 11,000 fetuses died and 20,000 babies were born with permanent disabilities as a result of exposure to the virus. The number of cases of rubella fell very sharply once the rubella vaccine was licensed in 1969; today there are fewer than 1,000 cases of rubella reported each year in the U.S. on average and less than 10 cases of congenital rubella syndrome.”
Photo source: CDC
Thinking it out 
You must be logged in to post a comment.