This paper reports a survey amongst European chiropractors during early 2017. Dissemination was through an on-line platform with links to the survey being sent to all European chiropractic associations regardless of European Chiropractors’ Union (ECU) membership and additionally through the European Academy of Chiropractic (EAC). Social media via Facebook groups was also used to disseminate links to the survey.

One thousand three hundred twenty and two responses from chiropractors across Europe representing approximately 17.2% of the profession were collected. Five initial self-determined chiropractic identities were collapsed into 2 groups categorised as orthodox (79.9%) and unorthodox (20.1%); by the latter term, the investigators mean the subluxationists/vitalists.

When comparing the percentage of new patients chiropractors x-rayed, 23% of the unorthodox group x-rayed > 50% of their new patients compared to 5% in the orthodox group. Furthermore, the proportion of respondents reporting > 150 patient encounters per week in the unorthodox group were double compared to the orthodox (22 v 11%). Lastly the proportion of those respondents disagreeing or strongly disagreeing with the statement “In general, vaccinations have had a positive effect on global public health” was 57 and 4% in unorthodox and orthodox categories respectively. Logistic regression models identified male gender, seeing more than 150 patients per week, no routine differential diagnosis, and not strongly agreeing that vaccines have generally had a positive impact on health as highly predictive of unorthodox categorisation.

The authors concluded that despite limitations with generalisability in this survey, the proportion of respondents adhering to the different belief categories are remarkably similar to other studies exploring this phenomenon. In addition, and in parallel with other research, this survey suggests that key practice characteristics in contravention of national radiation guidelines or opposition to evidence based public health policy are significantly more associated with non-orthodox chiropractic paradigms.


N (%) Orthodox

N (%) Unorthodox


51 (92.7)

4 (7.3)


43 (66.2)

22 (33.8)


31 (79.5)

8 (20.5)


23 (59.0)

16 (41.0)


132 (93.0)

10 (7.0)


34 (43.6)

44 (56.4)


101 (82.8)

21 (17.2)


102 (90.3)

11 (9.7)

The Netherlands

81 (82.7)

17 (17.3)


236 (80.0)

59 (20.0)

The authors do laudably question that their findings are generalisable. However, this does not mean that this limitation is not significant. With such a dismal response rate, the value of any such survey approaches zero. I think, one has to be a chiropractor to publish such valueless paper nevertheless.

If, for a minute, I disregarded the non-generalisability of these data, what I would find most remarkable here is the high proportion of subluxationists/vitalists/anti-vaccinationists amongst today’s chiropractors. Chiropractic subluxation is an obsolete theory which should have been banned to the history books a long time ago. Yet, in some European countries around half of the chiropractors would adhere to it (I speculate that the figures would be significantly higher, if the response rate had been 100%).

I would find this unacceptable.

The reason I said ‘would find it acceptable’ is that I do not accept the validity of the survey results in the first place.

62 Responses to Far too many chiropractors believe that vaccinations do not have a positive effect on public health

  • Take up the challenge: “… WMP would pay $100,000 to the first journalist, or other individual, who could find a peer-reviewed scientific study demonstrating that thimerosal is safe in the amounts contained in vaccines currently being administered to American children and pregnant women. ” And that is just one of the many adjuvants that are in vaccines that have not been properly vetted. When mercury is combined with aluminum the synergy is even more neuro-toxic. “The FDA has never safety tested aluminum in vaccines.”

    • Roger – I think you should be aware that the burden of proof lies with those who claim that vaccines are not safe.

      • Well, it would be their responsibility to provide credible evidence that the risks outweigh the benefits.

      • Well RFK, Jr and the team of scientists that he worked with found over 200 studies showing that thimerosal is unsafe, and not a single one showing it to be safe. Does that meet your burden of proof? Youre happy to play Russian roulette with your children’s health by administering aluminum with all the questions about it? Then there is the handful of fraudulent studies supporting the safety of the MMR vaccine (one of the doctors who doctored those studies is on the lam for fraud). While Dr Thompson of the CDC confessed that he his colleagues cooked the numbers to hide the fact that in their MMR study African American boys had a higher rate of autism. Then even WHO says its not ethical to test vaccines against vaccines instead of placebo, which conveniently covers up problems in new vaccines. You can repeat ad nauseum that “[all] vaccines are safe and effective”. I only have to show one counter study to call it into question. As it happens there are many but you have to be willing to look at the evidence.

  • EE: “I think, one has to be a chiropractor to publish such valueless paper nevertheless.”

    This was a student project.

    • DN conceived of the study, wrote the final drafts and performed statistical analysis, RV, HG, JS, LS and AS collected data and contributed toward the text and review of the draft manuscript. IR supervised the undergraduate project and contributed to review of the draft manuscript.

  • EE: With such a dismal response rate, the value of any such survey approaches zero.

    The average response rate for an external survey is 10-15% while internal surveys are around 30-40%.

    Regardless, what is important is the non-response bias and if it is a representation of the population of interest.

  • I find their grouping into orthodox and unorthodox rather strange. I understand that “unorthodox” has been used to align with subluxationist/vitalist. However, I don’t think that some of the other categories deserve to be called “orthodox”. For instance “I treat the broadest spectrum of health concerns and may include lifestyle and wellness issues.” suggests treatment of non-musculoskeletal conditions which wouldn’t actually be appropriate for any chiropractor. A group that are going outside of any reasonable scope of practice can hardly be considered “orthodox”.

  • Complandalt… For instance “I treat the broadest spectrum of health concerns and may include lifestyle and wellness issues.” suggests treatment of non-musculoskeletal conditions which wouldn’t actually be appropriate for any chiropractor.

    So are you saying it’s inappropriate for a chiropractor to encourage a patient to stop smoking?

    • @DC

      The response ““I treat the broadest spectrum of health concerns…” was from a selection of five options to the question: “Which ONE of the following best describes the predominant view you have of the conditions you treat?” (Capitals from original.)
      So it’s the primary view of those who chose this option that they’re essentially the equivalent of a fully trained medical practitioner. Don’t play your semantic games with this one.

      • “The majority of chiropractors aligned with an MSK description of their practice (54%) with a further 20% describing their practice as addressing broad spectrum of health concerns including wellness or viscerosomatic issues.“

        could one say…bell curve?

  • “The response ““I treat the broadest spectrum of health concerns…” was from a selection of five options to the question: “Which ONE of the following best describes the predominant view you have of the conditions you treat?”

    ….which was 20% of respondents.

    • @DC Do you think that a chiropractor who treats “the broadest spectrum of health concerns” should be considered “orthodox”?

      • This seems to have degenerated into a meaningless exercise of playing with words. As far as I can see the main points are:

        1. There are a substantial proportion of chiropractors who are against vaccination
        2. There are a substantial proportion of chiropractors who are prepared to manage conditions for which they have no appropriate training
        3. There are a substantial proportion of chiropractors who subscribe to the outlandish notion that disease of all kinds is due to what they call subluxations and can be cured by spinal manipulation to correct these

      • “In contrast to the unorthodox perspective, all other chiropractic subgroups are identified with musculoskeletal joint dysfunction, which may or may not include public health and lifestyle concerns but appear relatively consistent with orthodox views regarding health overall and musculoskeletal health in particular.”

    • OK, let’s drill down into this issue. I agree with compandalt that the binary division of chiropractors into ‘orthodox’ and ‘unorthodox’ groups is highly questionable. Here are the five options, of which the chiros who responded had to choose the one that “best describes the predominant view you have of the conditions you treat”.

      1. I treat musculoskeletal and neuromusculoskeletal problems and include specific disorders such as but not limited low back and neck related pain.
      2. I treat the broadest spectrum of health concerns and may include lifestyle and wellness issues.
      3. I treat vertebral subluxation as a somatic joint dysfunction and/or related to functional or musculoskeletal problems.
      4. I treat a combination of biomechanical and organic/visceral complaints.
      5. I treat vertebral subluxation as an encumbrance to the expression of health – vertebral subluxation is seen as an entity in and of itself, which is corrected to benefit patient well-being.

      Options 1–4 were evaluated as ‘orthodox’ and option 5 as ‘unorthodox’. The questionnaire was based on a previous publication which contains the following statement: “Orthodox in this instance is defined as being consistent with the notion held by a majority of North American orthopaedic surgeons that chiropractic treatment is not effective for non-musculoskeletal conditions.”

      Thus, an orthodox chiropractor should be one who chooses option no. 1 (a ‘spinologist’ or ‘specialist in spinal manipulation therapy’). The other four options include management of non-spinal conditions to a greater or lesser extent, thus violating the notion (above) that chiropractic treatment is not effective for non-musculoskeletal conditions.

      Concerning option 3, a ‘luxation’ in medicine is defined as a complete separation of a joint, whereas a ‘subluxation’ is a partial joint separation, visible on X-ray. The chiropractic notion of ‘vertebral subluxation’ as a ‘somatic joint dysfunction’ is therefore a distortion of the orthodox medical definition of a ‘subluxation’. So chiros choosing option 3 should in no way be regarded as ‘orthodox’.

      If options 2–5 are grouped as ‘unorthodox’ then, of course, the results of the entire survey require drastic revision.

      The survey (and its predecessor) simply distort everyday concepts of what is orthodox and unorthodox medicine to suit their own perverted view of medical practice. Chiropractic seems to make abundant use of medical-sounding weasel words which, in reality, are distortions of orthodoxy. If chiropractic were truly science- and evidence-based, the name would vanish as its practitioners become merged into real medicine.

      Edited to add: By the time I posted this, Julian Money-Kyrle had just posted his (more concise) response above. His “playing with words” sums up exactly what my comment is saying.

  • I’m don’t subscribe to Chiropractic treatment, nor do I oppose it.

    I am against vaccines as given today, especially the rigorous schedule given in the USA and some other countries. The toxic substances in vaccines are some of the most dangerous known to humans. Combinations of vaccines, and multyple injections complicate the poison coctail to an even higher level. Get the poisens out and I’d be more willing to take a look at the evidence in the argument for vaccines.

    First of all, many question the need for vaccines.

    A look at the statistics of OECD Nations immunization schedule iwth mortality rates (under 1 year). So vaccines may work to some extent, but at what cost ?

    • “Get the poisens out and I’d be more willing to take a look at the evidence in the argument for vaccines.”
      why not look at the evidence in any case?
      is the evidence also poisonous?

      • Mr. Edzard

        Your replies here have become a useless exchange of word games.

        Why ? …. for the same reason I don’t want to expose myself to anything that is toxic. If a substance has been proven to be toxic, the benefit must out weigh the risk by a good margin. I don’t see the evidence that vaccines were the solution to many diseases. Disease rates were already in decline whey vaccines were developed, but somehow got the credit. If someone can show me where even a small exposures of mercury to a baby is not a risk, then I would be more inclined to look at the potential reward of being immunized.

        Many vaccines of 0.5mL dose contain 50 micrograms of Thimerosal, or about 25micrograms of mercury. This amount is simply to high to be safe for small humans. There is NO SAFE LEVEL of exposure. The bigger problem is they mormally don’t just give one vaccine at a time, this take the exposure level up another notch.

        Do you want to refute my words… or the data ?

        • go and get some help for your paranoia!

        • “There is NO SAFE LEVEL of exposure.”

          You are, of course, a liar. A lie is a lie, and your repeating it makes you a liar. Your lie does not become any more true the more times you repeat it. And whether you do so as an act of deliberate deception or out of sincere delusion is Not Our Problem.

          You are also really stupid. Which is to say, you combine your abject ignorance of how the universe works with the overreaching arrogance of one too narcissistic ever to accept or admit it. One of life’s many self-made intransigent losers, almost certainly utterly incapable of learning or self-correction. Honestly, had evolution been even 1×10⁹ as stupid as you, our species would never have made it out of the primordial goop.

          We are constantly exposed to any number of external and internal toxins every day of our lives, and, Guess What? Our bodies have evolved a whole range of mechanisms for capturing, processing, and eliminating them. That’s why we have things like livers and kidneys—providing each one of us with our 100% All-Natural Holistic Daily Detox, completely for FREE! (Let’s see AltMed shills match that price!)

          Thimerosal is “mercury” in the same way that table salt is WW1 trench gas. If you don’t know the difference between an element and a compound then you aren’t competent to expound on either.

          And then you’ve got organic vs inorganic mercury compounds, with very different chemical structures and toxicity. Narrowing down to thimerosal and its nearest cousins, ethylmercury (which thimerosal breaks down to in the body) is much less toxic than the methylmercury you ingest from, say, a can of tuna. It is also easily excreted, so doesn’t stay in the body long enough to accummulate through multiple vaccinations. Whereas methylmercury is much harder to get rid of, so can build up to toxic levels. So you’d better not eat the fish, lest—by your own logic—you give yourself teh autisms.

          And then, you get something really special like dimethylmercury, which will kill you stone dead merely by looking at you. Now that is some “NO SAFE LEVEL of exposure” toxicity to write home about, were it not reducing you to neurological soup.

          Finally, in a stunning twist [that’s totally obvious to anyone paying attention over the last two decades], the US stopped adding thimerosal to childhood vaccines back around the start of the century, precisely to placate such fears that might cause vaccination rates to fall. And yet here you still are, screeching louder than ever. (If Prof Ernst is still looking for evidence of homeopathic potency, he couldn’t do better than the horrifying inverse effects on a human adult [sic] brain of something that doesn’t even exist any more!)

          Frankly, what you fear is not an organomercury compound of known properties and uses, benefits and risks, but an Invincible Evil Magical Boogeymans entirely the product of your own steamy imagination, running rampant alongside alongside all the other ghouls and goblins and monsters-under-the-bed that makes you feel special. And, hey, if the Magical Mercury Murderer is the founding belief of your own personal martyr religion, then far be it for base reality or anyone in it to tell you how to float your boat. Just keep that overcooked nonsense to yourself it is all, because once you start inflicting it on other people, little kids especially also start ending up crippled or dead in very concrete, mathematically quantifiable ways.

    • Perhaps you should look at the amount of aluminium in infant formulas. If i recall 6 months of formula contain much more Al then all the vaccinations up to that age.

      So maybe you’re barking up the wrong tree if you want to consider “poisons” to infants.

      • Hello Mr DC

        No, I’m barking up the right tree, the discussion is about vaccines…. not baby food. I’m surely not an advocate for baby formula. That said, you make a valid point, aluminum is highly toxic also. Aluminum just happnes to be another one of those toxic ingrediants of vaccines. The large difference can be what is the source of the aluminum. Is it plant based or other ? The second factor that comes into play is vaccines are injected directly into the blood stream, that is quite a different matter than a substance passing through the gastrointestinal tract. All exposures to toxic substances are not equal.

        • “vaccines are injected directly into the blood stream”. Bollocks!

        • Sigh. You raised the concern of exposure.

          Aluminum exposure first 6 months of life:

          Vaccines about 4.4 milligrams
          Breast-fed infants ingest about 7 milligrams
          formula-fed infants ingest about 38 milligrams
          soy formula ingest almost 117 milligrams

          Regarding mercury: “..this study showed that mercury intake by infants during lactation may exceed the toxicologically safe exposure level…”. Biol Trace Elem Res. 2013 Jan;151(1):30-7

          And yes, there are differences if the vaccine is given intramuscular or orally, and one has to be careful how and where one evaluates the markers. Example…Comparison of Blood and Brain Mercury Levels in Infant Monkeys Exposed to Methylmercury or Vaccines Containing Thimerosal. Environ Health Perspect. 2005 Aug; 113(8): 1015–1021.

          As Julian mentioned, the sources you referenced have an agenda and are playing with the data until they get the results they want. Pseudoscience…start with a conclusion and then find the data to support it.

    • “The toxic substances in vaccines are some of the most dangerous known to humans.”


      The LD50 of the dread thimerosal preservative that Big pHarma sticks in [a few of] its ebil vaccines? 100mg per kg of body mass.

      The LD50 of that botulin toxin that Jenny McCarthy’s beauty clinic sticks in her face? 0.000001mg per kg!

      Yeah, Skippy, you read that right: Ms McCarthy’s fash rictus grin is 100,000,000 times MORE LETHAL than the bad old flu jab you’re having such hysterics about.

      And yet…no only is the vacuous preening woman still making the vague idiot sounds that indicate, yes, indeed, she is still breathing, she’s even walking around completely freely in public too; a veritable ambulatory superfund site!!!

      How is this allowed?!?!!!!! Won’t somebody think of the children!!!!

      Oh, wait… ’cos as Paracelsus could manage to figure out for himself 500 years before either of you idiots even existed: “The dose makes the poison.

      How ’bout a quick hypodermic example to illustrate:

      Given a 5kg baby, a vaccine containing 0.01% thimerosal as a preservative contains 50 micrograms (0.05mg) of thimerosal per 0.5mL dose, and the knowledge that it takes 100mg of thiomersal for each kilo of body weight to have a 50% chance of poisoning babby to death, how many times would you have to inject baby with an ebil vaccine before baby’s outraged parents beat you to death first?

      Anyone? Anyone?


      ’Cos I’m pretty certain the answer’ll be a lot less than ten thousand shots. Which is the number of times you’d have to jab baby for a 50:50 chance of them dying from thimerosal poisoning, and all in quick succession too (as the thimerosal gets quickly excreted again).

      GLWT, cos even my worn-out math says that for all all your hysterics about poisoning babby with vaccine ingredients like thiomersal, on a scale of One to Fail you aren’t even in the same State as the ballpark that you completely and utterly missed by a mile.

      You don’t just fail at chemistry and medicine, you fail at basic maths. By Magnitudes.

      So why on Earth should anyone listen to anything you say?

      Once again, repeat it with me: “The dose makes the poison.”

      Vaccine manufacturers put in just enough thimerosal preservative to kill bacteria, and nowhere near enough to kill children.

      Because children are not bacteria, bacteria are not children (think: “size”, for starters), and they are not completely stupid, duh.

      Hell, even table salt or fresh water will poison you if you take too much of them. (LD50 of sodium chloride is 4000mg/kg; dihydrogen monoxide is 200,000mg/kg.) And just scanning a random sheet of sample LD50s, there’s things on there like anaesthetics that, gram for gram, are more toxic than your dread thimerosal; and yet millions of patients receive effective surgical pain control every year. Or would you rather we get rid of those “toxic anaesthetics” and go back to this?

      Or vitamins. Go read up on the toxicity of fat-soluble vitamins, and then ask yourself who loves to make money by flogging vitamin megadoses to all the “natural living” rubes. Whereas overdosing on water-soluble vitamins merely produces expensive pee, overdosing on fat-soluble vitamins will poison you for real.

      Just don’t start Gish Galloping on aluminium adjuvants next…because, really. Aluminium. Most common element in dust and soil that babby merrily plays in every day.

      So please do everyone including yourself a big favor and go away now; and don’t return till you’ve made at least some effort to learn how reality actually works. ’Cos you ain’t done yourself any favors thus far.

      • has

        The fallacy of your argument is that three times you refer to the child dying. The conversation is not about death, the conversation is about the risk/reward of the present and future health after vaccine injection. If immediate death were the subject, the conclusion would be obvious…. try again.

        • That is not a fallacy, and you’re incompetent and/or dishonest at logic as you are as facts.

          I used LD50 because it’s a basic tool for determining comparative toxicities of elements and compounds, and trivially proves your claims that the mercury compound (thimerosal) used as a vaccine preservative is one of the most toxic substances known to man (false: botox is 100,000,000 more toxic) and no dose of it is safe (false: botox is safely injected into stupid vain people all the time). Conversely, what people consider “safe” substances essential to life such as sodium chloride (table salt) and Vitamin D can severely poison and even kills.

          The dose makes the poison.

          We know the mechanisms and symptoms of mercury poisoning and we know the bioavailability of ethylmercury (not great; it gets peed out in a day). The amount of ethylmercury from a thimerosal-containing vaccine is nowhere near enough to cause acute mercury poisoning, and is incapable of accummulating over the full vaccination schedule to a level where it would cause chronic mercury poisoning.

          Basically, you’re a … whose non-existent understanding of even high-school chemistry and biology, never mind pharmacology and toxicology, renders you utterly unfit to discuss such matters. Your lies injure and kill adults and children. So cram your quasi-religious delusions and martyr bullshit where the light never shines, then go sit on a spike and spin on it.

          • sorry, I had to remove some of you foul language

          • Edzard,

            Personally I would like to have seen the whole of the last paragraph omitted, as it does nothing to further has’s argument. This sort of outburst has no place in any serious discussion.

          • I know, but this is a forum where outbursts are too regular and often even quite informative, I find.

      • Having tried to discuss the vaccine topic with antivaxxers, or whatever they are called these days, generally ends up with them claiming some conspiracy theory. Usually its the Illuminati using vaccines for population control in order to save natural resources.

        Most can’t critically evaluate research (assuming they even read the research) and instead rely on public figures for “the truth”.

        Waste of time in most cases…almost cultish.

        I’m out.

    • RG,

      “Get the poisens out and I’d be more willing to take a look at the evidence”
      You are telling us that you have already made up your mind and so you don’t need to look at the evidence. How is that going to convince anyone?

      “many question the need for vaccines.”
      You give a link to a Web site that appears to be primarily about post-polio paralytic syndrome in people who have already survived an infection with the poliomyelitis virus. This particular page purports to show evidence that the infectious diseases which we vaccinate against were already declining prior to the introduction of vaccination. There are a number of impressive-looking graphs to support this. However, on looking at the graphs more closely I find it hard to make sense of them. They seem to have been collected from rather diverse sources and represent different diseases from different countries over different timescales, with cutoff points that aren’t even in the same century, and comparisons of deaths per 100,000 with deaths per 10,000,000 and deaths per 175. There is no information on whether any of these are standardised for population demographics. The countries shown are England and Wales, USA and Australia, which makes me wonder whether other countries (Scotland, other European countries, Northern Ireland, Ireland, Africa, Asia…) were omitted because the data didn’t fit the conclusions. There were no data presented for infection rates, with a daft explanation that this wasn’t relevant to an assessment of the efficacy of vaccines.

      I will be convinced by data rigorously analysed by statistitians and epidemiologists who know what they are doing, but not by this sort of thing.

      “A look at the statistics of OECD Nations immunization schedule iwth mortality rates (under 1 year).”
      You provide a link to another paper by two campainers against vaccination presented as though it were an impartial analysis. They highlight correlations they have found between vaccination schedules and infant mortality. A brief examination of the paper immediately shows up statistical flaws that undermine it.

      For instance the first table is a list of 34 developed nations ranked by their infant mortality rates in 2009. For some of them the number of births per year is sufficiently low that the figures will depend much more on random year-to-year variation than on true differences in health. Even when they exclude countries such as Monaco which might have no deaths one year and three another out of their approximately 250 births, the data source quoted (the CIA handbook) is easy to find via Google and gives rather different rankings in different years.

      The authors group the various nations together according to vaccination doses in the standard schedule, and the vaccination doses are also grouped into ranges. They then compare the infant mortality rates according to which group they fall into. There does not seem to be any correction for population size, (i.e. Luxemburg is given the same weight as the USA). More importantly, there seems to be no consideration of vaccination uptake rates or variability in population demographics.

      This latter point is critically important, since unequal distribution of wealth is a strong indicator of poor health in a population (surprisingly among the wealthy as well as the poor), and just eyeballing the list of countries grouped by vaccination schedules I would contend that there seems to be a correlation between number of recommended vaccines and heterogeneity of population demographics.

      I rather fear this paper is an example of torturing the data until it confesses, or in other words two anti-vaxers playing around with infant mortality statistics until they have found a correlation that appears to support their initial position. In any case remember: CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION

      I am not a statistician or an epidemiologist, merely an ordinary doctor with a good head for maths and a nose for bulls**t. But I should point out the the authors of the papers that you have cited aren’t statisticians or epidemiologists either, and they seem to be professing expertise in an area well outside their field.

  • Here’s one of my go-to articles to counter the rampage of delusional paranoia about vaccine ingredients.

    Unfortunately, posting solidly substantiated information written by genuine experts does little to help the miserable wankers who seem to get off by anonymously parroting easily refutable rubbish on the internet. It may however be interesting and enlightening for the audience who come here seeking answers and feel confused by the seemingly passionate fervor of the anti-vaccination cult.

    • That chart is for Australia. If that was just an isloated recording for one disease over time it would be debatable. But every chart I’ve seen for vaccinations in every country its been introduced has almost the exact same pattern. I think the exception is Japan but that was due to other factors rather than the vaccine.

      The only concern i had with my daughter was the schedule because she has a genetic defect. It may have been unwarranted but we went with a delayed schedule. Mild reaction first series but after that she did just fine.

      • You folks here are blind as you wanna be, you are the ones looking for a conspiracy. I guess I have to spoon feed ya.

        It you want to take issue with the AMA, go ahead. Perhaps the AMA will meet your rigid standards.
        Click anywhere in the text where it says “Figrure 1(2,3 or 4 and all the charts will come up together). These charts represent all infectious diseases in the USA combined together… over decades. All to say that diseases were already in decline… as I previoulsy stated, before vaccines. No agenda here folks, get your facts straight.

        To those of you that want to agrue the differences between Methylmercury & Ethylmercury… Not so fast, the verdict is still out, I refer you here:

        Beyond all that, it’s conclusive that Methylmercury is toxic, this is not up for discussion. It is proposed that Methymercury was removed from all child vaccines a couple decades ago. However, this is questionable. Flu shots DO still contain Methylmercury, which is likely that largest exposure over time. Beyond that, for children though adults ages, reports only state that vaccines with Ethylmercury are “AVAILABLE”. That does not infer, or prove that all or any vaccines have removed the Methylmercury at any specific age.

        • My bad, I don’t want to leave out ANYTHING…. to my most discriminating readers.

        • Oh dear, RG. You’re not very good at this, are you?

          Those charts which you fondly imagine support your argument show mortality, not incidence. What’s the difference? Ask someone crippled by polio. They’ll be able to help you.

          • Oh dear, Lenny. I don’t imagine anything, you are mistaken, the conversation WAS about death. As for permenant disabilities from Polio, the incidence of paralysis is only 1%, of all Polio infections, of that number, many will recover. Most people are not even aware of that, I think you are one of them.

            The last link to the table on vaccines is about death rates. If you look, you might notice that the countries with the top three immunization rates are also the three coutries with the highest infant mortality rates. Please look again. Sweeden Japan and Iceland among the lowest vaccine regimen., yet those same countries with the lowerst infant mortality rates. Conversly, the USA Australia and Canada with the most rigorous vaccine regimen, with the highest infant mortaliy rates.

            Don’t imagine that there is no collateral damage from vaccines. A friend of mine just shared with me a incident of his three year old neighbor changing from perfectly healthy to quite ill, only ten days after receiving some vaccine injections. When I say ill, I don’t mean just sick, I’m talking major damage. There is no panacea to be had from vaccines.

          • The paper referred by “RG” is typical of the made up falsifying propaganda produced by the antivaccine information forgers. Goldman and Miller, the authors of this particular tripe literally falsify data to make a correlation look the way they wish. I live in one of the countries where infant mortality is lowest worldwide and I can twll you it is NOT because we vaccinate less. Far from it. As usual, well educated people are quick to rip such forgeries apart when they appear, but lies travel faster than wisdom and idiots echo them indiscriminately instead of studying where it comes from and what it stands for.
            Here is a take-down of the anti-vaccine rubbish “RG” posted,

        • “Proponents of the anti-vaccine movement will often plot death rates over time as “proof” that vaccines were introduced at a time when they had a negligible effect. However, mortality rates are the incorrect metric when evaluating vaccine effectiveness. Here’s why:…”

    • Mr Geir – what constitutes the anti-vaccination cult? Does it mean that pro-vaccinators are members of a cult? It’s okay: no answer required if it means using language that you and Has like to respond to those with a different view.

      Do you think random people decided to become anti vaccination for the fun of it? Or could it be parents’ valid reasons to connect the loss or disability of their children to vaccinations? Maybe those parents started researching and discovering that they are not alone. There may ensue questions around safety: what are the ingredients? Why is there a special court that deals with vaccine injuries if they are totally safe? Why are some medical professionals concerned enough to put their careers at risk and talk publicly? Why is the USA working so hard to mandate and exclude children if necessary from schools and the unvaccinated from certain areas? Why are social media platforms being targeted to remove any articles or books that may be construed as anti vaccination! Why In the past few weeks has there been more media coverage about vaccination levels falling by high profile doctors than previously?

      It has been acknowledged that some diseases are also spread by the vaccinated, yet the campaign to blame the unvaccinated persists. There are many aspects to this discussion: being rude and angry serves no one. Discussion with parents affected by these issues nay reveal they are not anti vaccination, but seek safe vaccinations ( dependent on transparency from pharmaceuticals, governments and doctors. ))Many years ago a decleration was made to allow iinformed consent with regard to medical procedures. This doesn’t appear to be upheld in some countries.

      We owe that informed consent to parents and those wanting vaccinations : we owe them the correct information to make informed choices. I fear that the powers that be have the upper hand : children as young as 4 being vaccinated herd like in schools. Schools are our children’s safe haven away from home. Medical centres are for vaccinations.

      I realise you pro vaxxers won’t like my post, but please remember we are adults and there is enough unnecessary abuse on social media. If being part of a cult is researching the truth to give informed consent or not, count me in. If it means that future generations and those I love have a chance of a healthy life I am doubly in.

      • Researching the truth is not going on an internet expedition selecting material that seems to corroborate your opinion. The facts are there, waiting for you to put away your blinders and realise you are being led by a collective belief, like sheep in a flock, if I may borrow a favourite analogy from the antivaccine adherents, who are never shy to name-call those who try their best to promote reason and fact. The selection of words we assign to the congregation of vaccination-benefit denialists may of course be seen as derogatory to those who identify with them. I find the term “cult” rather forgiving and bland in the context of the deaths and destruction the pro-disease movement is causing.

      • “Do you think random people decided to become anti vaccination for the fun of it?”
        No. I think people hear scare stories in the media and when they follow them up they find a lot of false information.

        ” could it be parents’ valid reasons to connect the loss or disability of their children to vaccinations?”
        Part of the psychological response to tragedy is to look for an explanation. Unfortunately the most obvious explanation isn’t necessarily the correct one, but most people are untrained in critical thinking and tend to go with what seems right to them rather than examining the evidence.

        “There may ensue questions around safety: what are the ingredients?”
        That is not the way to answer questions about safety.

        ” Why is there a special court that deals with vaccine injuries if they are totally safe”
        Because Governments don’t follow scientific evidence when making policies. Also because it is cheaper and easier giving automatic compensation rather than fighting individual cases. Because of the bizarre compensation culture in the US.

        “Why are some medical professionals concerned enough to put their careers at risk and talk publicly?”
        Why do people seek fame and business opportunities?

        “Why is the USA working so hard to mandate and exclude children if necessary from schools and the unvaccinated from certain areas? ”
        It is a public health measure following the declaration of a state of emergency in response to a measles outbreak.

        “Why are social media platforms being targeted to remove any articles or books that may be construed as anti vaccination!”
        This is also a public health measure, again in response to rising numbers of cases fuelled by misinformation.

        “Why In the past few weeks has there been more media coverage about vaccination levels falling by high profile doctors than previously?”
        Because there have been more cases of measles than previously. It is a serious problem.

        “It has been acknowledged that some diseases are also spread by the vaccinated, yet the campaign to blame the unvaccinated persists. ”
        It is not a campaign of blame. However, it does seem to me that you need to educate yourself regarding how contagious diseases spread. In brief, if one case results in spread to more than one person on average, then an epidemic will result. If the spread is to fewer than one person than it won’t. For measles, which is highly infectious, 95% immunity within the community is required to prevent an epidemic. Not everybody who is vaccinated will develop immunity, but the vast majority of them will. Not everybody can be vaccinated due to other health problems (for instance I am immunosuppressed due to my cancer and its treatment and I don’t seem to respond to vaccines; I have probably also lost my immunity to measles which I contracted at the age of 7).

        “being rude and angry serves no one. ”
        I completely agree

        ” There are many aspects to this discussion:”
        The debate of clearly established facts should not be one of them.

        “Discussion with parents affected by these issues nay reveal they are not anti vaccination, but seek safe vaccinations ( dependent on transparency from pharmaceuticals, governments and doctors. )”
        That is all very well, but they will not get reliable information by trawling the internet. Whatever you may think, people who have devoted their lives to improving health are not conspiring to undermine this goal.

        “Many years ago a decleration was made to allow iinformed consent with regard to medical procedures”
        Vaccination is slightly different as it affects everybody’s health, not just the person vaccinated. Do the immunosuppressed consent to the risk of death as a result of coming into contact with a completely preventable infection?

        “Schools are our children’s safe haven away from home”
        Yes. They should not be somewhere to contract a dangerous disease.

        “I realise you pro vaxxers won’t like my post”
        Not if it results in avoidable death and disability.

        “but please remember we are adults”
        That carries with it responsibility.

        “there is enough unnecessary abuse on social media”
        There is more than enough nonsense on social media, resulting in many kinds of harm

        “If it means that future generations and those I love have a chance of a healthy life I am doubly in.”
        What if it doesn’t?

        I read an article on the BBC News Web site this morning following a press release from the World Health Organisation.

        From the press release:
        “The number of measles cases reported worldwide in the first three months of 2019 has tripled compared with the same time last year.”

        “Actual numbers may be far higher since only one in 10 cases globally are reported”

        There were also quotes from a piece for CNN by the head of the WHO and the head of UNICEF:
        “Nothing about measles has changed. It has not mutated to become more infectious or more dangerous. Instead the answers are entirely human.”

        “Measles kills around 100,000 people, mostly children, each year”

        “More than 20 million lives have been saved through measles vaccination since the year 2000 alone.”

        “There are two stories here – one of poverty and one of misinformation.”

        “Rich countries with seemingly high vaccination rates are seeing cases spike too. This is because clusters of people are choosing not to vaccinate their children due to the spread of untrue anti-vax messages on social media”

        “It is understandable, in such a climate, how loving parents can feel lost… but ultimately there is no ‘debate’ to be had about the profound benefits of vaccines”

  • Mr Geir – ‘researching the truth is not going on an internet expedition….’

    I could not agree more: where/what are they? As always there is an evidential question mark regarding assumptions.

    • I am glad you agree. You could begin by reading Julian’s comment above and contemplate what went wrong in your information gathering. Hopefully your irrational, misinformed assumptions regarding vaccines and vaccinations is already on the mend.

      Do you have a point with the rest of your comment?

  • Mr Geir – ‘you could begin by reading Julian’s comment….’

    Thank you for the heads up but I already had started my reply to Dr Julian, having read his comment, just after posting your’s; however every day life prevented the conclusion but hopefully with more time today will respond.

    I am sure the readers are riveted by this exchange : nonsensical really, but untrue assumptions are a tad annoying. Apologies readers.

    • untrue assumptions are a tad annoying

      More than a tad, when they’re made by people who seriously use their untrue assumptions to dissuade people from vaccination.

      • Frank O – this is going beyond the ridiculous. And boringly so. ‘seriously use their untrue assumptions to dissuade people from vaccination’

        I have never proclaimed anything anti vaccination, rather I suggest informed choice for all. Because I am commenting on the subject here does not translate to anti vaccination.

        Not that you are remotely interested but fior the record I have never dissuaded any one from vaccines. I have been asked twice ( and am in my eighth decade now) should I/shouldn’t I vaccinate and each time I have said do your research before making your decision. And that’s why I comment here on the need for transparency.

        Frank please be reassured that I am surrounded (and there are many wonderful people in my life) by pro vaxxers. I tend not to engage in conversation about it because like Brexit there appears to be no common ground. But also I very much believe we should all make our own choices.

        To say your assumptions are barking up the wrong tree doesn’t cover the basic premise of this discourse.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

If you want to be able to edit your comment for five minutes after you first submit it, you will need to tick the box: “Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.”
Recent Comments

Note that comments can be edited for up to five minutes after they are first submitted but you must tick the box: “Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.”

The most recent comments from all posts can be seen here.