Julie, The School of Nursing at Athens (SONAT) started years ago at UGA, begun as a satellite for MCG.
http://athens.patch.com/listings/school-of-nursing-athens-campus
Plus, there are nursing programs at Athens Tech and Piedmont College.

I don't think so, Meg. There's a nominal fee, I believe, if one doesn't have health insurance. The flu shots were free, I do remember that. The rest of the immunizations that Clara and Margaret had came from the doctor's office, where there is a large staff to hold them down. I will check and let you know....

The study that linked autism to vaccinations has been totally discounted as bogus. No link whatsoever. All fabricated "data." Researchers are looking for genetic links, and have found that older dads are more likely to have autistic children.

Rebecca McCarthy alludes to the 1998 Wakefield et al Lancet study as "All fabricated 'data.'" Her accusations are based on findings issued in 2010 by the UK's General Medical Counsel (GMC), which revoked the medical licenses of two of the authors, Andrew Wakefield and John Walker-Smith. On March 7, 2012, the High Court of England tossed out all of the GMC's findings after concluding it made fundamental errors, distorted evidence, and based its findings on an inadequate analysis of the facts. Overall, it described the GMC's findings as “not legitimate," “perverse,” “odd,” “unsustainable,” “wrong,” and “untenable.” The High Court's ruling is consistent with The Lancet's own investigation published in 2004, which cleared Wakefield and his coauthors of the allegations. Based on documents I published in the BMJ in Nov 2011, the BMJ - which published the research fraud allegations in 2011 - abandoned its original theory and now claims that the University College London, Royal Free Hospital and authors all conspired to misdiagnose patients. That's like saying NASA faked the moon landing. Wakefield has since filed suit against the BMJ and others. David Lewis www.researchmisconduct.org

Wakefield's data were based on only 12 patients, and 5 already had some neurological symptoms at the time they got the MMR vaccine. He didn't disclose that. There was so much wrong with the "research" he did that space doesn't permit listing them all. People who know about autism know that it tends to emerge a bit after the time the MMR is scheduled, and some people will assume that the vaccine caused it. A delayed schedule does help reassure people that's not what caused it, but it does leave toddlers vulnerable to serious infections. BTW, I went to look, and the post from Mr. Lewis doesn't exactly agree with the information from the link therein. The only real question is whether Wakefield published fraudulent results for potential future profit or as the result of honest misperception based on his own enthusiasm for his theory. Ten of his 12 co-authors retracted the original paper; apparently Wakefield wrote it and the co-authors didn't get to see the original "evidence" before it was published. You can read a summary about Wakefield at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield, but you'll have to go to the BMJ web site to see what they actually are saying as opposed to what others SAY they are saying. And while it's true Wakefield is trying to sue BMJ and others, he sued them in a Texas court which is has since thrown out the suit (http://www.statesman.com/news/local/wakefield-former-autism-researcher-cant-sue-for-defamation-2427655.html?cxtype=rss_news_36716).

Pischer should heed his/her own advice - rely on the original documents (which I did) - and not what he/she has heard from those who are defending their sponsors' commercial products. Fona Godlee, editor-in-chief of the British Medical Journal (BMJ), published an editorial, two commentaries, and feature article responding to the original documents, which I provided to the BMJ and UK Office of Research Integrity. Not until then did the BMJ acknowledge its previously undisclosed conflicts of interest with Merck and GSK, which sponsor the BMJ Group. Godlee has since posted a proper disclaimer in the BMJ's previous editorials accusing Wakefield of research fraud. In an interview with Nature, an author of one of the BMJ's own commentaries, Ingvar Bjarnason, said the (original) documents “don’t clearly support charges that Wakefield deliberately misinterpreted the records.” It's time for people to admit, as Godlee herself did before Parliament in 2011: “Even on the peer-reviewed side of things, it has been said that the journals are the marketing arm of the pharmaceutical industry. That is not untrue.” http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmsctech/uc856-ii/uc85601.htm. Pischer cited a lower court decision in Wakefield's lawsuit, and left out the part about the ruling being under appeal. Learn from the BMJ: When not looking at the original documents, give someone their full day in court before passing judgment. www.researchmisconduct.org

David and Pischer's discussion is fascinating. I wish I had time to check into it. From a layman's point of view, it seems that if an experiment has this much controversy attached to it, there may be something wrong with the research process. Perhaps Wakefield should attempt to prove his hypothesis in a more universally accepted and less controversial manner? If he could, it would lay this controversy to rest. If this idea seems stupid please forgive me. I am just a mechanic.

Not exactly right on either count ... The alleged culprit in Lancet study was live measles virus.
David Lewis Sunday, August 5, 2012. Pischer should heed his/her own advice - rely on the original documents (which I did) - and not what he/she has heard from those who are defending their sponsors' commercial products. Fona Godlee, editor-in-chief of the British Medical Journal (BMJ), published an editorial, two commentaries, and feature article responding to the original documents, which I provided to the BMJ and UK Office of Research Integrity. Not until then did the BMJ acknowledge its previously undisclosed conflicts of interest with Merck and GSK, which sponsor the BMJ Group. Godlee has since posted a proper disclaimer in the BMJ's previous editorials accusing Wakefield of research fraud. In an interview with Nature, an author of one of the BMJ's own commentaries, Ingvar Bjarnason, said the (original) documents “don’t clearly support charges that Wakefield deliberately misinterpreted the records.” It's time for people to admit, as Godlee herself did before Parliament in 2011: “Even on the peer-reviewed side of things, it has been said that the journals are the marketing arm of the pharmaceutical industry. That is not untrue.” http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmsctech/uc856-ii/uc85601.htm. Pischer cited a lower court decision in Wakefield's lawsuit, and left out the part about the ruling being under appeal. www.researchmisconduct.org

Janie, what's scary? That people don't vaccinate? They are doing what they believe is best for their children.It's not my choice, but they have their children in mind. Last time I was at my doctor's for a checkup, I got a boatload of shots, boosters, etc. I hadn't thought about boosters, but am going to look into them for my girls.

I interpreted your comment to mean the rise in whooping cough is scary. My daughter has had a cough for a few days and I can't help worrying a little about it. She's been vaccinated but apparently the kids who are getting it have been immunized.

Crystal, you're right, I meant the rise in whooping cough is scary. Something else to worry about. I should've elaborated, but I was having trouble seeing/navigating from the device I was posting from before.

However, Rebecca, since you mentioned it, it is actually scary to me when parents don't vaccinate, regardless of what they believe they are doing for their children, they're jeopardizing the health of everyone else when making that choice, as explained by Julie Crowe & Dave Ballard.

Thanks Athens Mama. My concern as a research microbiologist is that, thanks to the misguided targeting of Andrew Wakefield by reporter Brian Deer and the BMJ, we may never know whether vaccines are linked to autism. The anecdotal data cannot be simply explained away as coincidental. That's because many of these cases exhibit re-challenge effects, in which subsequent vaccinations exacerbate the effects. At this point in time, no scientist could publish data showing such a link even if it exists. Targeting scientists with false allegations of research misconduct has become the most common and effective tool used by government and industry to discredit scientists who don't support government policies and industry practices. Institutional Research Misconduct, which is a term I coined for my presentation at Harvard University in May 2011, occurs whenever government and industry fund universities to publish data supporting government policies and industry practices, and retaliate against scientists who threaten those interests. Harvard's Vice Provost for Research, who sat on my panel, also spoke about research misconduct supported at the institutional level as having the greatest overall impact on scientific integrity. Government and industry, and the universities and scientific journals they fund, have become so intertwined in supporting gov policies and industry practices that we have little hope of getting an objective assessment whenever gov and industry have much at stake.

I agree with Athens Mama. Staggering vaccines sounds like good common sense.
I know they study what affect vaccines have on us but I doubt there have been many studies on what happens when you dump several of them in the body at once. Modern medicine is scary enough, no need to mix them together like a cocktail.

The primary population studies were funded by the CDC under a cooperative agreement administered by Poul Thorsen, who was employed by Aarhus University in Denmark. Thorsen has since been indicted by the U.S. Department of Justice for engaging in a "scheme to steal grant money." Thorsen's data, which were published by the New England Journal of Medicine and Pediatrics in 2002-2003, were also used by EPA (McDonald and Paul) to supposedly estimate a "changepoint" in time for the autism epidemic. It's reasonable to assume that any scientist who embezzles federal funds, if that is what happened, would not hesitate to manipulate data to gain more funding. To be fair, anyone who attacks any and all data published by Wakefield and his associates should do the same with Thorsen and all of his associates at the CDC and elsewhere. It's undisputed that the CDC and other federal agencies fire their own scientists who publish data unsupportive of their agency's policies, and cease funding academic scientists who publish unwanted data. So long as scientists are only free to publish data that support government policies and industry practices, the resulting body of science is essentially meaningless. It's marketing, not science. While objectivity is the goal in science, marketing is inherently deceptive. The system will never be perfect. But for now, many rewards and no negative consequences await scientists willing to engage in research misconduct to support government and industry.

Are you saying, A) we don't know, B) we CAN'T know, and C) the reason we can't know is because the government's covered it all up, or else hopelessly muddied the water? It doesn't seem possible, let alone believable.

Granted, "'science'-by-press-release" happens all the time, especially where there is money or power to be gained from it. And in health science, particularly where nutritional and environmental "findings" have the potential to generate huge cash flows, etc., for those who can market a "solution," it seems to be a daily occurence. Nevertheless, the data are out there, and it is accesible to too many to be entirely repressed.

For instance, I might point out that all Mr. Deer did was publish documents he obtained via FOIA requests. ( http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/2703/ ) Those were quite enough to expose Dr. Wakefield for the fraud he was. A libel suit was quickly dropped: "In November and December 2006, Justice Eady made further rulings allowing Deer’s application to see copies of key documents... The fact that Dr Wakefield’s withdrawal from the libel action followed so closely on Deer’s team gaining access to these documents suggests that they were supportive of Deer’s case."

There are two (among the many) peer-reviewed studies at the bottom of the article that smash the alleged vaccine/autism link. In addition, it links to Mr. Deer's website. Read and decide for yourself who to believe.

The truth IS out there.

Athens Mama, one of the biggest things that I take comfort from is the fact that the military health care system is a HUGE believer in vaccines.

Ignoring the impact of multiple simultaneous vaccinations for some pretty serious diseases on the service members themselves for a moment -- since they're already physically mature adults -- if we remember that the children of service members are also eligible for medical treatment in the military healthcare system at little or no cost to their families, then it seems clear that any vaccine-caused autism would thus impact the cost and burden on that system.

If there were any demonstrable (rather than coincidental) link between any particular vaccine, its component ingredients, or the manner or method of its administration and the onset of autism -- thus raising significantly the cost of providing health care to its dependent population -- you can bet the military would find some other way of doing business.

DB- You may well be right but why not stagger the vaccines over a period of time? It seems like an excellent compromise.

Mike, no problem with that in my opinion -- one shot at a time is a lot easier to deal with psychologically anyway. ^_^

David Lewis- I am certainly no scientist but I really appreciate your posts. I do know what it is like to be passionate about one's work. As a scientist, it must be very frustrating for you to deal with that sort of governmental and industrial sabotage, not to mention those piers who sully your profession with unethical support of that system, all in the name of the almighty dollar.
Many people with a passion and ethics are facing similar challenges. Thanks again for sharing your insight.

Mr Ballard, perhaps my response to Mr. Horseman will answer some of your other questions. The comments section doesn't allow enough space to elaborate on everything you've said. Perhaps you could list just a few concise questions, which I will be happy to answer. Maybe you can answer one for me: What name did I call you? I only said what you are not, to which you agreed is true. It's easy for people to jump on a bandwagon and accuse someone of murder or research fraud or whatever. That's one reason false allegations of research misconduct have become the most effective tool used by government and industry to destroy scientists who challenge government policies and industry practices. You seem offended by the slightest criticism. How do you think Dr. Wakefield feels, now that his career and reputation have been completely destroyed for simply publishing the fact that some patients and their doctors have observed that some children have severe reactions to vaccines and begin to regress developmentally. How do you think that his senior coauthor, Professor John Walker-Smith, feels now that the High Court has thrown out all of the allegations, but all the media outlets and scientific journals that destroyed his career and reputation aren't interested in printing the details of that part of the story? I know that Dr. Wakefield has been called a "liar," a "fraud," and a "baby killer" by millions. But I don't know any names that you have been called.

You can start by answering the question I asked you in the very first post I addressed to you: where are the studies, surveys, or data which conclusively show a dosing relationship between any vaccine/vaccine component/method of administration and autism?

On the other hand, they may also have reported the simultaneity of the onset of autism and age 18-30 months. They'd have been just as accurate, but possibly not as likely to collect millions in legal fees.

I read above (but cannot reply directly to the post) that you say all the BMC findings were thrown out, but I was under the impression that it was only Prof. Walker Smith who was vindicated? Is this not so? I thought Dr Wakefield subsequently filed a suit from texas, which was quashed?

'Rebecca McCarthy alludes to the 1998 Wakefield et al Lancet study as "All fabricated 'data.'" Her accusations are based on findings issued in 2010 by the UK's General Medical Counsel (GMC), which revoked the medical licenses of two of the authors, Andrew Wakefield and John Walker-Smith. On March 7, 2012, the High Court of England tossed out all of the GMC's findings after concluding it made fundamental errors, distorted evidence, and based its findings on an inadequate analysis of the facts. '

Right on Mr. Ballard. You don't need to be spoon fed, but you need me to google the scientific literature for you so you can digest it for yourself. Yea, that makes a lot of sense. You make all kinds of unfounded accusations, ask a lot of questions, but won't answer even the simplest question yourself, like What name did I call you? You apparently assume that I have some opinion or position on whether vaccines cause autism, which I don't. And you say that this position, which I don't even have, "is ideologically or politically motivated, not scientific in nature." Man, get a life and find something constructive to do.

AmazonGrace, Here's the problem. Fiona Godlee, Editor-in-Chief of the BMJ, said it all when she testified before Parliament last year that the peer-reviewed journals have become the marketing arm of the pharmaceutical industry. I worked in EPA's Office of Research & Development as a senior-level (GS-15) Research Microbiologist for 31 years, and was the only EPA scientist to publish first-authored research papers in Nature, Lancet and Nature Medicine. I served on the graduate faculty at UGA; and, last year, Annals of Internal Medicine rated me in the top 10% of its reviewers. It's like everything else. If you're in the business, and are good at it, you understand how it works. We simply don't know, and can't know, whether vaccines cause autism when honest scientists are destroyed for publishing data that support a link. Mr. Ballard, or Dr. Ballad or whatever he is (he won't say), thinks he can trust a study funded by gov or industry because, in his opinion, it's well documented etc. He doesn't have a clue. To his colleague, Larry Welsh, it's just a joke. We have a real problem on our hands here. The peer-reviewed scientific and medical journals have become the marketing arms of government and industry. Marketing is all about deception. It doesn't take a conspiracy. All it takes is government agencies and big corporations pumping tons of money into universities to support their interests, and going after scientists who don't. Easy to understand, but almost impossible to stop.

SIr, (if I should be calling you "Dr.," I apologize for the earlier unintentional slight) I'll put it like this:

There are those who say that heart disease has nothing to do with diet, or blood chemistry, and instead insist that the disease is one of inflammation due to stress, bacteria, or other irritant. They can back up their work with peer-reviewed literature, regardless of the CDC's current position on the subject. There are many who dispute the premise of human-caused/-exacerbated climate change, preferring to call it "cyclical," "normal," even "desirable," and they back it up with a large body of peer-reviewed work, despite NASA's, the EPA's, and the IPCC's stated positions on the issue. It seems completely incredible that Dr. Wakefield and his supporters cannot do the same.

And as to what I do... who cares? (You may call me whatever you want, just not late for dinner.) Despite the "establishment position," and you not being a dentist, the military went on to validate your work USING SCIENCE. As it turned out you were right, the establishment was wrong, and science told the story, whatever the ADA's editorial commentary.

Your friend may be the best guy ever, but I have yet to see any FACTS which refute the allegation that he was hired by lawyers to speculate on possible links in order to bolster a bunch of lawyers in their case, using their clients as the population. I'm looking forward to the facts you will lay out later in your defence of Dr. Wakefield.

I mean really: if we can't trust studies "funded by the establishment," how am I supposed to trust a case study entirely enabled by trial lawyers looking for a pound?

I hope I'm wrong about your colleague. If I am, and your article can show it, I'll buy you the beer of your choice..

Thanks Twyla, for articulating what should be readily apparent to anyone reading my comments. My research on HIV transmission in dentistry published in Lancet and Nature Medicine in the 1990s prompted the CDC and other public health organizations worldwide to adopt the current heat-sterilization standard for dental devices. Initially, the ADA published an editorial claiming that I was a dentist who stood to profit from a patent if heat-sterilization became the standard of practice. I was attacked in the same way as Wakefield, accused of making millions and unnecessarily scaring patients, even causing innumerable illnesses and deaths. Once the US Navy and Air Force independently confirmed my results, we all got together at a meeting at ADA headquarters in Chicago, including the CDC and FDA, and settled on the new guidelines. I was never a dentist, and didn't have a patent. It's the most common trick in the business. It works because most doctors and scientists, like others, are easily sucked in by what they read, especially in professional journals. Dr. Wakefield, one of the most honest people I've ever met, was kind enough to give me full access to all of the thousands of documents related to his Lancet article and court cases. I've shared many of them with the BMJ, UK Office of Research Integrity, and the University College London. My full analysis will appear in the paperback edition of Vaccine Epidemic next month. I was paid nothing, not even for the book chapter.

On the contrary, Twyla, they are very much separate issues in my mind. What you have read indicates Dr. Wakefield is a good man doing great work. What I have read indicates the opposite. We can share articles, and discuss and argue and scream and shout... but in the end, you're absolutely right: my distaste for what Dr. Wakefield has done has exactly nothing to do with vaccines causing or not causing autism. (Btw, what I've read says he was hired by lawyers to do The Study on patients who had previously retained these SAME lawyers for the purpose of manufacturing viable possibilities for a vaccine-ASD link. Who knows.)

I have not yet seen any studies which would prove or even suggest such a link. I'd thought that Mr. Lewis might share such, but he has not to this point. I have seen many - including several of the ones AmazonGrace graciously linked to - which suggest the exact opposite: that there is no link, or if there is, it's extraordinarily tenuous. (I say suggest: you can't "prove" a negative)

That doesn't mean contrary studies don't exist, or that evidence of a link doesn't exist, or that such a link itself doesn't exist. Until I see that evidence, though, and since I am not in a position to do such research myself (my expertise lies less in the biological and more in the mathematical/astronomical), I can't in good conscience say "Well, all these in-depth, well-documented studies say 'No,' but these really nice people say 'Yes,' so I'll go with them."

Insulins saves lives, period. But does that mean that huge doses of insulin would be safe and good for everyone? Surgery saves lives, but does that mean that it does not also have risks, or that it is always the best option for everyone? Cars and airplanes are so important for transportation, but does that mean that accidents/crashes should be ignored and not studied to figure out causation and prevention and how to make transportation safer? Some drugs which save lives can be fatal in high doses, or for people who have certain medical histories - isn't it important to understand this?

This is not black and white, all good or all bad. To say, "Vaccines save lives. Period," is very simplistic, not good science, not good medicine.

Gee. Debate much? Those are terrible analogies. Insulin is one hormone that helps diabetes and yes, too much of it is bad. You need multiple vaccines to prevent multiple illnesses - no one's advocating a lot of one vaccine.

Yes, it's good science and good medicine, backed by hundreds of years of research. You have no proof of causality for well, anything, while science has continued to roll out study after study showing that vaccines are safe and effective. All you're doing is scaring people into not vaccinating, which is dangerous and irresponsible.

Wow, David Ballard, I appreciate your civility! (And I'm not being sarcastic!)

Good luck with your numbers.

A great way to end! Best to all. David (www.researchmisconduct.org)