Necessary Vaccines?

[Britster]

Originally Posted by 107barney

This is not true in all states. Rabies doesn't have waivers in all states. Here if you are one day over a rabies shot and your dog bites someone your dog will be quarantined in the state shelter. That's not something I ever want for my dogs.

This is why in general I would never skimp on rabies. Jackson will get it every 3 years as per the law. I hope the law will extend to every 5years as I truly don't feel it's necessary every 3 but I follow the law for this reason. The chance that he would bite someone is very low, but I just don't take a chance.

Originally Posted by megansmomma

Did you read the link that I posted? The last paragraph addresses exceptions. Additionally, I live in a suburb of Chicago and there have been rabid animals very near me. Why anyone would take a chance with vaccinating their animals against rabies is just beyond me. My sister who lives about 1.5 miles from me had 2 bats in her home. They think that the bats entered through a vent. Their dog was going crazy trying to catch it while my BIL was also trying to capture the time. There have been rabid bats found in her neighborhood. My other sister who also lives in the area had just come home with her puppy who only had 1 round of vaccines and they had a raccoon on their roof. Their neighbor does wild life rescue who came down to assist with the raccoon that was now running around the roof. The first thing she told me sister was to put the puppy inside because she could tell by the condition of the animal that it was infected with Distemper and Bella was not fully vaccinated. Both the stories prove to me that vaccinating our dogs against these diseases are very important. Not doing so is IMO is just as irresponsible as not properly vaccinating your children against childhood diseases.

Current New York State Rabies Data

Technically speaking I believe that the rabies vaccine that Jackson had at 6 months and 1 year old would still be protecting him from the disease today at 5 1/2 yrs old. But as I said above, getting it every 3 years is what I will do for the reasons Cathy stated. But I don't really believe that by getting every year or every 3 years gives 'more' protection. I don't think anyone is saying NOT to give the vaccines at all. Jackson's last DHPP vaccines were at 1 year old. He's 5 1/2. I doubt I'll ever get them again.


To the OP, how old is your dog? If she's had more than 3 rabies vaccines in her life, I am sure she is protected. And IF it is as you say and she never steps foot outside (which is kind of sad, IMO) and you never have guests over that she could potentially bite, then I would say to just discontinue personally.

[107barney]

As far as I understand that there is no good reason to skip rabies vaccine unless your dog has some immune mediated disease in which case it maybe medically contraindicated -- the rest is hype with an agenda by certain people to change the movement and whether we think that movement is a good one or not I think that as the law stands today in your state you need to comply with that or suffer the consequences which could include quarantine or worse like euthanasia of your pet. Rabies is 100% fatal to humans, if I got bit by a dog I didn't know, I would report the incident and go to the emergency room immediately. If I knew the dog, I still would want to see the paperwork and might go to the ER anyway for antibiotics.

[Britster]

Originally Posted by 107barney

the rest is hype with an agenda by certain people to change the movement and whether we think that movement is a good one or not

Hype? While I agree that a lot of times hype can overrule the best of us and there are a lot of falsehoods and blatant lies on the internet surrounding health related issues... over-vaccination is not one of them.

Cathy, I know you've seen this already from me before, but I'm posting for the sake of the OP.

Over-vaccination IS an issue. Is under-vaccination as well? Of course. But I don't think anyone, in this thread anyway, is saying NO vaccines at all. It speaks volumes to me that some AAHA hospitals are already switching to every 5 years (and I know it'll be a sloooww process). The decision was based on the 2011 AAHA Guidelines which state that DHP should be given no more than every 3 years and that it is effective for greater than 5 years (http://www.aahanet.org/PublicDocumen...Guidelines.pdf). From what I recall, the 3 year was basically a "compromise". A jump from annually to every 5-7 years would have been huge for most vets.

But, to me, it just proves that all along people WERE being scammed (but more than likely not on purpose). At one point in time, yearly vaccines WERE given and recommended by most vets. This was the 'standard of care' and many folks STILL believe this to be the case. I believe it probably started in the best interest of our pets but ended with annual income in mind (or just ignorance/lack of current education). Then suddenly every 3 years is okay. Now it's 5. Or 5-7 really according to studies. More than likely the lifetime of the dog. This is not new age internet hogwash, but real studies have been done, and the general population still believes that dogs need yearly vaccines, at least the ones I encounter. These are good dog owners who feel they are doing right by their dog by giving them yearly shots when it's simply... bogus.

The thing is, IMO, a lot of vets don't want to give up that money they get from yearly vaccines. Let's face it - most dog owners wouldn't want to fork up the dough to get titers and a majority of people ONLY take their dogs to the vet when they need vaccines (so it IS a way to get pets into the vet, which is a good thing). It is a fairly large money maker for them no matter how you put it. And no, I am not one who thinks all vets are out to get us, or money grubbing, or bad people who want our pets to suffer so they can reap the benefits. Quite the contrary. Now, an owner like me, I'll be at the vet at least once a year anyway for annual check-ups, bloodwork, etc so they'll still get their money from me. But an average owner... does not do this. So I guess in some way I can understand this viewpoint.

Have you had your measles, mumps, and polio titer checked this year? It's kind of the same concept IMO. Humans get vaccines as kids. We don't continue to check the levels every year (unless a job requires it, for example, or you are ill, traveling, etc). Some get the flu shot every year. But other than that...?? What would the point be? Would getting the chicken pox shot every 3-5 years decrease your chances of getting chicken pox any more than if you got it only once as a baby?

Vaccines ARE important. Very important. Year after year, or even every 3 years? I have no desire.

Unfortunately, with the rabies vaccine, the state has put laws in place, and I DO believe in following those laws reasons stated above. But I still don't believe my dog is anymore protected getting them every 3 years, then he would be getting them every 5-7.

Originally Posted by 107barney

I think that as the law stands today in your state you need to comply with that or suffer the consequences which could include quarantine or worse like euthanasia of your pet.

I absolutely agree. (even if I don't agree with the law per say, I AGREE that it is responsible to follow it).

I'm not trying to downplay the seriousness of rabies. Especially for humans where it is nearly 100% fatal (I watched a documentary once of a girl who survived rabies, crazy! )

But in all of the USA’s history there are no records of rabies being transferred to people through bites from dogs that are kept as pets.

There were 32 human deaths over 16 years from rabies in the US. And in 2012, only 2 people died from rabies in the US. None of these deaths because of dogs. In 2010, 69 dogs died due to rabies. Out of 83.3 million pet dogs in the USA.

Yes, it’s true that if your pet has already received a round or two of rabies vaccines, he or she is likely to be protected by antibodies against rabies for his or her entire lifetime. In fact, I received the human version of the rabies vaccine in 1991 and my own antibody levels are still quite high. So why force pets to undergo such frequent vaccines? Are they so biologically different?
Not at all. But you might choose to view things differently if your child were bitten by an animal that had been vaccinated only once ... ten years ago, for instance. In the absence of hard science on the subject, human health will always trump animal health in these matters.
Until veterinary science can prove that vaccines last longer than they do, your best bet in the interim is to play it as safe as you can. Make make sure your pet is healthy when vaccinated and only receives his or her rabies shot when administered by a trusted veterinarian whose selection, storage, and handling of the vaccine is likely to adhere to the highest standards of vaccine quality and safety.


Dr. Patty Khuly

[ajchallenger]

Heres some information that a doctor conducted and he states that he vaccinates his pet againat rabies every 3 years bec its the law but he feels that a rabies vaccine may be good for up to 7 years. Its in my belief that if incidents of rabid animals are high in an area the need for the vaccine obviously increases. But if there is little to no threat perhaps we are being advised to over vaccinate. Dont get me wrong I'm NOT saying do NOT vacccinate but I'm not opposed to less vaccinations.

Should the Rabies Vaccine Be Given Every Two or Three Years?!


Should the Rabies Vaccine Be Given Every Two or Three Years?!

Duration of Immunity Study for Rabies Vaccine - Rabies Challenge Fund

[Britster]

Originally Posted by ajchallenger

Heres some information that a doctor conducted and he states that he vaccinates his pet againat rabies every 3 years bec its the law but he feels that a rabies vaccine may be good for up to 7 years. Its in my belief that if incidents of rabid animals are high in an area the need for the vaccine obviously increases. But if there is little to no threat perhaps we are being advised to over vaccinate. Dont get me wrong I'm NOT saying do NOT vacccinate but I'm not opposed to less vaccinations.

Should the Rabies Vaccine Be Given Every Two or Three Years?!


Should the Rabies Vaccine Be Given Every Two or Three Years?!

Duration of Immunity Study for Rabies Vaccine - Rabies Challenge Fund

I can only hope that it gets changed to every 5 years before Jackson needs his next vaccine but probably not. He got one at 4 years old so will need another at 7. He's 5 1/2 now.

[Lovetodream88]

Originally Posted by ajchallenger

Your vet can give her a blood test to check her immunity levels for the DHPP and rabies and if your pets immunity levels come up high enough she can be exempted from the rabies requirement. I stopped giving my pets vaccinea after a 8 years of a modified vaccine schedule. They see a holistic vet that incorporates both traditional veterinarian medicine and holistic practice. If you want I can scan his vaccine schedule and give you a copy to review. Just keep in mind he is not saying NOT to vaccinate your pet but after a certain period of time only do it if the tests show they need it.

That's is not true in a lot of states for rabies.

[Lovetodream88]

Originally Posted by ajchallenger

Yes that is correct. The titer is for the other vaccines.

I know this is going to stir the pot up but heres some info about rabies. Not saying I totally agree but its something to think about unless you live in an area where rabies is rampant.

https://www.dogsnaturallymagazine.co...s-vaccination/

Breaking the law on rabies can get your dog taken away and you possibly finned. I also would not be suggesting to people they break the law.

[Lovetodream88]

Originally Posted by ajchallenger

Heres some information that a doctor conducted and he states that he vaccinates his pet againat rabies every 3 years bec its the law but he feels that a rabies vaccine may be good for up to 7 years. Its in my belief that if incidents of rabid animals are high in an area the need for the vaccine obviously increases. But if there is little to no threat perhaps we are being advised to over vaccinate. Dont get me wrong I'm NOT saying do NOT vacccinate but I'm not opposed to less vaccinations.

Should the Rabies Vaccine Be Given Every Two or Three Years?!


Should the Rabies Vaccine Be Given Every Two or Three Years?!

Duration of Immunity Study for Rabies Vaccine - Rabies Challenge Fund

But you are saying to break the law and do something that could end you up dog less.

[107barney]

Sorry, it's still hype. I don't care what the Internet says. And rabies can and does kill. It's just that the vaccine is very good.

[Ellie May]

OP, your pup needs rabies.

I don't over vaccinate by any means. I also don't play games with my dogs' lives. Decapitation for rabies testing is not some distant idea that never happens. It is real and happens all the time. Vet hospitals even keep 'head cans' for this purpose.

Modified live virus vaccines and killed vaccines are totally different. The research done thus far for parvo and distemper is not applicable to rabies.

It makes no difference that a dog is house bound (as said above that is sad, imo). If pup bites or even licks a scratch or mucus membrane of another animal or human then you risk being reported followed by quarantine.
If in that time the pup that bit or the animal/person bitten gets as much as a tiny tremor the state has every right (and a responsibility) to decapitate.

These unvaccinated animals also must he treated differently at the vet because no owner can prove nonexposure.

Dogs are a major carrier of rabies that infects humans. This is not seen in the US as much because we have mandatory vaccination.

[megansmomma]

Originally Posted by ajchallenger

Heres some information that a doctor conducted and he states that he vaccinates his pet againat rabies every 3 years bec its the law but he feels that a rabies vaccine may be good for up to 7 years. Its in my belief that if incidents of rabid animals are high in an area the need for the vaccine obviously increases. But if there is little to no threat perhaps we are being advised to over vaccinate. Dont get me wrong I'm NOT saying do NOT vacccinate but I'm not opposed to less vaccinations.

Here's a little insight into Dr. Mercola

FDA Orders Dr. Joseph Mercola
to Stop Illegal Claims

Stephen Barrett, M.D.

Joseph Mercola, D.O., who practices in Schaumburg, Illinois, also operates one of the Internet's largest and most trafficked health information sites. In 2012, Mercola stated that his site had over 300,000 pages and is visited by "millions of people each day" and that his electronic newsletter has close 1,500,000 subscribers [1]. The site vigorously promotes and sells dietary supplements, many of which bear his name.

In 2004, Medical Economics reported that Mercola's practice employed 50 people and that he employed 15 people to run his newsletter, including three editors [2]. Much of his support comes from chiropractors who promote his newsletter from their Web sites. Two of his books hit the #2 sales rank on Amazon Books shortly after his newsletter plugged them for the first time. In 2006, according to an article in Chicago Magazine, Mercola stopped practicing medicine to focus on his Web site [3]. I have not seen the fact that he is no longer in practice mentioned on his Web site.

Many of Mercola's articles make unsubstantiated claims and clash with those of leading medical and public health organizations. For example, he opposes immunization [4] fluoridation [5], mammography [6], and the routine administration of vitamin K shots to the newborn [7]; claims that amalgam fillings are toxic [8]; and makes many unsubstantiated recommendations for dietary supplements. Mercola's reach has been greatly boosted by repeated promotion on the "Dr. Oz Show."

Mercola's Profits

Mercola is very critical of drug company profits and proudly states:

Mercola.com does NOT accept any third-party advertising or sponsorship, and I am in no way tied into any pharmaceutical company or any other corporate "interest" whatsoever. So you get the real inside scoop on health issues, with practical advice that matters to you untainted by outside influence! [1]

He also states:

Mercola.com is not . . . a tool to get me a bigger house and car, or to run for Senate. I fund this site, and therefore, am not handcuffed to any advertisers, silent partners or corporate parents. . . .

Profit generated from the sale of the products I recommend goes right back into maintaining and building a better site. A site that, startling as it may be with all the greed-motivated hype out there in health care land, is truly for you [9].

I don't doubt Mercola's sincerity—and I know nothing about how he allocates his income. But I recently made some interesting observations. The word "Mercola" on the labels of his "Dr. Mercola Premium Supplements" is service-marked. Records at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office say that he began using the mark in commerce in 2000, applied to register it in 2009, and was granted registration in 2010. The registration address is for his home in South Barrington, Illinois, which the BlockShopper Chicago Web site states has 5,083 square feet and was purchased by Mercola in 2006 for $2 million. The Bing Maps aerial view indicates that it is quite luxurious.
In 2011, Mercola announced the formation of Health Liberty, a nonprofit coalition whose goals include promoting organic foods and targeting fluoridation, vaccination, genetically modified foods, and the use of amalgam fillings [10]. In a video accompanying the announcement, Mercola stated that he planned to donate $1 million to catalyze the project. In addition to Mercola.com, The coalition members are:

National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), which understates the benefits and exaggerates the risks of vaccination
Fluoride Action Network (FAN), the leading promoter of misinformation about fluoridation
Institute for Responsible Technology, which understates the benefits and exaggerates the risks of genetically modification of foods
Consumers for Dental Choice, which vigorously attacks amalgam use with misinformation, propaganda, lobbying, and lawsuits
Organic Consumers Association, which irresponsibly promotes unpasteurized milk and spreads false alarms about food irradiation, agricultural biotechnology, and vaccines.
The "health freedom" argument involves deception by misdirection. It focuses on individual freedom but does not consider how people who fail to protect their health put the rest of society at physical and/or financial risk. Failing to vaccinate, for example, decreases herd immunity so that contagious diseases spread more widely. In 2012, Mercola becan calling his newsletter "Health Liberty Newsletter."

In 2013, Williamette Week reported that Mercola had donated a total of $26,975 in cash and in-kind contributions that included polling and a YouTube video to support the efforts of the antifluoridation group that is opposing a fluoridation referendum in Portland, Oregon. The report also stated that "Mercola has questioned whether HIV causes AIDS, suggests that many cancers can be cured by baking soda, and warns parents not to vaccinate their children. He also says that animals are psychic." [11]

Better Business Bureau Report

Mercola markets his supplements through Mercola Health Resources, LLC. In 2011, after a customer complained that she thought a product she purchased was overpriced, I began checking whether the Better Business Bureau had received any complaints. I found that the company was rated C- on a scale of A+ through F. On February 1, 2012, the BBB reported that during the previous 36 months, there were 26 complaints—which is not an unusually high number for a high-volume business—but the report contained the following comments:

A recent review of consumer complaints filed with the BBB of Chicago & Northern Illinois against your Mercola Health Resources, LLC delineates a pattern of consumer allegations. Consumers are alleging that Mercola Health Resources does not honor the 100% money-back guarantee listed on your website. Customers have reported that refunds have not been provided for returns that were specifically covered under this guarantee. Consumers have also reported that they have experienced delivery issues. While Natural Health Information Articles and Health Newsletter by Dr. Joseph Mercola states that orders ship within 10 business days, consumers say they have waited much longer for their products. Customers allege that the company's service staff has been unable to provide explanations regarding this delay. Some consumers have also reported that Mercola provided them with shipment tracking numbers that were not valid with their respective carriers [12].

On November 26, 2013, I checked again and found that during the previous 36 months there had been 34 complaints, complaints but the Mercola Health Resouces was rated A+.

FDA Warnings

In 2005, the FDA ordered Mercola and his Optimal Wellness Center to stop making illegal claims for products sold through his Web site [13]. The claims to which the FDA objected involved three products:

Living Fuel Rx, claimed to offer an "exceptional countermeasure" against cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, autoimmune diseases, etc.
Tropical Traditions Virgin Coconut Oil, claimed to reduce the risk of heart disease and has beneficial effects against Crohn's disease, irritable bowel syndrome, and many infectious agents
Chlorella, claimed to fight cancer and normalize blood pressure.
In 2006, the FDA sent Mercola and his center a second warning that was based on product labels collected during an inspection at his facility and on claims made on the Optimum Wellness Center Web site [14]. This time the claims to which the FDA objected involve four products:

Vibrant Health Research Chlorella XP, claimed to "help to virtually eliminate your risk of developing cancer in the future."
Fresh Shores Extra Virgin Coconut Oil, claimed to reduce the risk of heart disease, cancer, and degenerative diseases.
Momentum Health Products Vitamin K2, possibly useful in treating certain kinds of cancer and Alzheimer's disease.
Momentum Health Products Cardio Essentials Nattokinase NSK-SD, claimed to be "a much safer and effective option than aspirin and other pharmaceutical agents to treating heart disease."
The warning letters explained that the use of such claims in the marketing of these products violates the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act, which bans unapproved claims for products that are intended for curing, mitigating, treating, or preventing of diseases. (Intended use can be established through product labels, catalogs, brochures, tapes, Web sites, or other circumstances surrounding the distribution of the product.)

FDA Orders Dr. Joseph Mercola to Stop Illegal Claims

[megansmomma]

In 2011, the FDA ordered Mercola to stop making claims for thermography that go beyond what the equipment he uses (Medtherm2000 infrared camera) was cleared for. The warning letter said that statements on Mercola's site improperly imply that the Meditherm camera can be used alone to diagnose or screen for various diseases or conditions associated with the breast, they also represent that the sensitivity of the Meditherm Med2000 Telethermographic camera is greater than that of machines used in mammography. The statements to which the FDA objected included:

"Revolutionary and Safe Diagnostic Tool Detects Hidden Inflammation: Thermography"
"The Newest Safe Cancer Screening Tool"
"[b]ecause measuring inflammation through thermal imaging is a proactive, preventative method you can use for detecting disease, which significantly improves your chances for longevity and good health."
Additionally, thermograms provide: "Reliable and accurate information for diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis…"
"Yes, it's true. Thermograms provide you with early diagnosis and treatment assistance in such problems as cancer, inflammatory processes, neurological and vascular dysfunction, and musculoskeletal injury."
Thermography can benefit patients by detecting conditions including: Arthritis: "[d]ifferentiate between osteoarthritis and more severe forms like rheumatoid." Immune Dysfunction, Fibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue, "Digestive Disorders: Irritable bowel syndrome, diverticulitis, and Crohn's disease…" and "Other Conditions: including bursitis, herniated discs, ligament or muscle tear, lupus, nerve problems, whiplash, stroke screening, cancer and many, many others." [15]
In 2011, the Chicago Tribune reported that Mercola had not complied with the FDA's order and intended to "fight the FDA . . . if they decide to take it further." [16]

[megansmomma]

Josephy Mercola is an osteopath whose main practice is the selling of a lifestyle that he characterizes as "natural." Much of his advice is in opposition to science-based medicine. His dietary advice conflicts with the advice of science-based organizations such as the American Diabetes Association and the American Heart Association. Mercola claims that diabetics should avoid all grains because they cause insulin resistance, and he recommends eating unprocessed saturated fats. In fact, he advises everybody to give up grains and eat foods that our pre-agricultural ancestors might have eaten, supplemented, naturally, by some of the many products he sells.

Mercola promotes his "alternatives" to a healthy diet and science-based medicine on his website, in his newsletter, and in books.

No one should fault Mercola for advocating eating a healthy diet and exercising, but his diet is questionable and his opposition to prescription drugs and surgery seems clearly unwarranted in light of the obvious benefits of both. His beliefs about the dangers of microwaved food (that it alters the structure of food and ruins its nutritional value) and his beliefs about EMFs in general are unfounded.* His promotion of Emotional Freedom Technique is based more on emotion than science.*

[megansmomma]

anti-vaccination

Mercola is one of the leaders of the anti-vaccination movement (AVM). His website has links to many anti-vaccination articles and he has posted some articles himself that, in the words of one science-based physician, reveal "his exceptionally poor grasp of the immune system."* He also seems to have an exceptionally poor grasp of epidemiology and pharmacology. His errors are too many to list, but here are some of the false or misleading notions he promotes about vaccines.

Error 1. Too many vaccines are used too soon during infancy.

Error 2. Mercury and other "toxins" in vaccines are causing great harm.

Error 3. Since very few children die of the flu, they shouldn't be given the flu vaccine.

Here's his proposed schedule for vaccinations:

No vaccinations until a child is two years old.
No vaccines that contain thimerosal (mercury).
No live virus vaccines (except for smallpox, should it recur).
These vaccines should be given one at a time, every six months, beginning at age 2:
A) Pertussis (acellular, not whole cell)
B) Diphtheria
C) Tetanus
D) Polio (the Salk vaccine, cultured in human cells)
The experts at the Center for Disease Control disagree with Mercola about children receiving too many vaccines too soon. According to the CDC:

The available scientific data show that simultaneous vaccination with multiple vaccines has no adverse effect on the normal childhood immune system....

No evidence suggests that the recommended childhood vaccines can "overload" the immune system. In contrast, from the moment babies are born, they are exposed to numerous bacteria and viruses on a daily basis. Eating food introduces new bacteria into the body; numerous bacteria live in the mouth and nose; and an infant places his or her hands or other objects in his or her mouth hundreds of times every hour, exposing the immune system to still more antigens. An upper respiratory viral infection exposes a child to 4 to 10 antigens, and a case of "strep throat" to 25 to 50.

Quackwatch calls Mercola's view misconception #7.

In fact babies have an ability, right from birth, to cope with lots of different germs. The body is constantly surrounded by germs and has to react to them in different ways. The advantage of being immunized rather than catching the disease is that the vaccine uses only part of the germ, or, if the whole germ, it is either killed or toned down (“attenuated”). In this way, the challenge to the immune system is less than that from the disease, but it is enough to produce protection.

In 2002, the Immunization Safety Review Committee of the American Institute of Medicine made a detailed examination of all the evidence about the effects of multiple immunizations on a baby’s immune system. They concluded that there was no evidence to support the suggestion that multiple immunizations overwhelm the immune system. They strongly supported the continuing use of vaccines against multiple diseases....

If immunizations are delayed, a baby will remain unprotected for longer than necessary. This could be particularly dangerous for whooping cough and Hib. Very young babies, if they catch whooping cough, are likely to be much more seriously ill than older children and are more likely to need hospital care. Babies under a year old are more likely to catch Hib than older children Studies have shown that when the vaccines are given at the younger age, babies have fewer reactions such as fever, sore injection sites etc, while at the same time they are still protected.*

[megansmomma]

There is a mountain of scientific evidence that refutes the claim that mercury in vaccines is harmful.

Mercola's belief that vaccines are full of toxins, either as adjuvants or as residuals from the manufacturing process, seems to make sense to many people, but it doesn't jibe with the evidence. Here is what Mercola says:

Flu vaccines can also contain a number of chemical toxins, including ethylene glycol (antifreeze), formaldehyde, phenol (carbolic acid) and even antibiotics like Neomycin and streptomycin.

In addition to the viruses and other additives, many vaccines also contain immune adjuvants like aluminum and squalene.

This sounds frightening to a parent who is as ignorant of immunology and pharmacology as Mercola is.

"One of the biggest myths that antivaccinationists believe and like to use to stoke the fear of vaccines is the concept that they are full of 'toxins'," says Dr. David Gorski of Science-Based Medicine.* The antivaxxers then speculate that these "toxins" affect "sensitive" children and cause neurological disorders. This is the AVMers way of bypassing the pharmacological principle that "the dose makes the poison." (Small amounts of certain toxins won't kill you and might even be good for you. Antivaxxer Jenny McCarthy uses Botox, which contains the most potent neurotoxin there is, and "loves it."*) For those who want a primer on the "dangerous toxins" in vaccines, read Gorski's "Toxic Myths About Vaccines." It is the antidote to the nonsense about toxins being spread by the antivaxxers.

Mercola suggests that the vaccine may be more dangerous than the flu because the vaccine contains squalene. On the one hand, no flu vaccine in the U.S. contains squalene, which is an adjuvant that allows the vaccine to be equally effective while using less of the antigen (thus, more vaccine can be made with less material). On the other hand, what if it did? There's no evidence squalene, a substance naturally produced in the body, is harmful. "Squalene is a natural and vital part of the synthesis of cholesterol, steroid hormones, and vitamin D in the human body."*

Dr. Harriet Hall writes:

Flu vaccines containing MF59, a squalene-based adjuvant, have been used in Europe for 10 years, with 22,000,000 doses given; and no serious adverse events have occurred, only mild local reactions. The vaccine does not raise the incidence or titers of anti-squalene antibodies. The World Health Organization (WHO) considers it safe.*

Mercola repeats the false claim made by other antivaxxers (e.g., Russell Blaylock) that squalene "in vaccines has been strongly linked to the Gulf War Syndrome," despite the fact that there was no squalene in vaccines given to Gulf War soldiers.

Finally, the idea that children don't need to be given a flu shot, since very few children die of the flu, is preposterous on several levels. Again, David Gorski has deconstructed this bit of nonsense for us:

... in discussing only the children who die, Dr. Mercola implies that the only benefit of vaccination is the prevention of death in the person vaccinated. People aren’t either healthy or dead. Those who survive an infection are still subject to its inherent suffering and complications. Furthermore, survivors run a high risk of spreading it to others who then share in the risk and misery. Dr. Mercola doesn’t seem to appreciate that children suffer the greatest rate of infection from seasonal flu each season (10-40% of all children are infected each year, ~1% of all infected children are hospitalized), and are therefore the primary source from which influenza spreads (that’s the “infectious” part of an infectious disease, I know, it’s subtle) to the rest of the population. By immunizing children against influenza we not only save their lives, we also reduce the burden of disease on the elderly who make up the bulk of the 36,000 seasonal influenza deaths each year. We do not vaccinate “to prevent perhaps 100 deaths,” we vaccinate to prevent a disease altogether, and to help the entire population avoid all of these risks.

Preventing children from contracting influenza, either seasonal or H1N1, is a very rational, humane goal, and hardly the “ridiculous assumption” Dr. Mercola claims it to be.

For a more accurate and complete picture of the risks and benefits of vaccinations I recommend the website Science-Based Medicine. As an antidote to the rhetoric posted by Joseph Mercola on vaccines, I recommend the reader listen to a special podcast on vaccines hosted by The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe.

Despite his anti-scientific and unhealthy beliefs about health, vaccines, and nutrition, Mercola has many supporters, especially among those who distrust the government (the FDA is not a protector but an enemy agent), those who distrust Big Pharma and science-based medicine, those who trust testimonials over scientific studies, and those New Age seekers who love anything "alternative." Recently, he was voted the number ten "game changer" by readers of the Huffington Post.* That honor doesn't reveal much about Mercola, but it may tell you something about the kind of health information you're likely to get from the HuffPo1, 2, 3, which notes:

Whether or not you agree with his point of view, there is no question that Mercola has helped inspire the explosion of online interest in integrative medicine. And his site offers thousands of pages of reports on health and medical issues free of charge.

Unfortunately, most of those reports shouldn't be trusted, even if the price is right.

See also Antivaxxer Plague, Andrew Wakefield, the anti-vaccination movement, Russell Blaylock, detoxification therapies, flu vaccine, Barbara Loe Fisher, Jay Gordon, Leonard Horowitz, Rauni Kilde, supplements, and Defending Falsehoods.

further reading

reader comments

Joe Mercola: Quackery pays - D. Gorski at Science-Based Medicine Don't miss the hilarious comments of Mercola defender and germ theory denier sarah007.

Joe Mercola plays the religion card against vaccines "He's anti-vaccine, and he sees anti-abortion religious beliefs as an opportunity to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt about vaccines, like any good denialist would. That's why, like many of the anti-abortion anti-vaccine sources Mercola cites, he tries his hardest to blur the line between cells that were derived long ago from an aborted fetus and aborted fetal tissue, the false implication being that there is aborted fetal tissue in vaccines."

Mercola appears to lie about vaccines and fertility "If even one person is harmed by following Mercola’s advice, he is morally culpable for the injury or death of that person. He should be ashamed."

Mercola, Gardasil, and Toyota? by Joseph Albietz "Nothing seems to personify the evil of modern medicine to Dr Mercola more than the concept of vaccination, and Gardasil, the vaccine against human papillomavirus (HPV), has been drawing a good deal of his ire of late. Case in point is this train-wreck of a post comparing the recent Toyota recall to Gardasil entitled Time for the Truth About Gardasil. The post is ill-named."

9 Reasons to Completely Ignore Joseph Mercola by Joseph Albietz "Nested among the half-truths are some outright falsehoods. Reason number 5 notes that, contrary to Mercola and his source Dan Olmstead, The Amish do vaccinate and they do get autism. Also, your vitamin pills won't prevent the flu by "strengthening the immune system."

A Defense of Childhood Influenza Vaccination and Squalene-Containing Adjuvants; Joseph Mercola’s “Dirty Little Secret” by Joseph Albietz

The “Iron Rule of Cancer”: The dangerous cancer quackery that is the “New German Medicine” by David Gorski

A fungus among us in oncology? by Orac
Tullio SimonciniMercola is taken to task for defending the quackery of Dr. Tullio Simoncini, who maintains that cancer is a fungus. What? You thought the cause of cancer was an acid-base imbalance or a liver fluke? Simoncini lost his license to practice medicine in Italy after several of his patients died.

FDA Orders Dr. Joseph Mercola to Stop Illegal Claims by Stephen Barrett, M.D.

Even Fox News Questions Mercola's claims!

Wallace, Amy. (2009). An Epidemic of Fear: How Panicked Parents Skipping Shots Endangers Us All, Wired. To hear his enemies talk, you might think Paul Offit is the most hated man in America. A pediatrician in Philadelphia, he is the co-inventor of a rotavirus vaccine that could save tens of thousands of lives every year. Yet environmental activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. slams Offit as a “biostitute” who whores for the pharmaceutical industry. Actor Jim Carrey calls him a profiteer and distills the doctor’s attitude toward childhood vaccination down to this chilling mantra: “Grab ‘em and stab ‘em.” Recently, Carrey and his girlfriend, Jenny McCarthy, went on CNN’s Larry King Live and singled out Offit’s vaccine, RotaTeq, as one of many unnecessary vaccines, all administered, they said, for just one reason: “Greed.”

Journalists sink in The Atlantic article on vaccines blog by revere (the article in question is "Does the Vaccine Matter?" by Shannon Brownlee and Jeanne Lenzer, November 2009)
Joseph Mercola D.O. - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com