New Study on Efficacy of Pneumococcal Vaccination

[carriebft]

http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...ll/123/6/e1103

Efficacy of Pneumococcal Vaccination in Children Younger Than 24 Months: A Meta-Analysis

RESULTS. The efficacy of pneumococcal conjugate vaccine in the reduction of invasive pneumococcal disease was 89% involving vaccine serotypes in both the intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses and ranged from 63% to 74% for all serotypes. The efficacy to prevent acute otitis media sustained by vaccine serotypes was 55% in the intention-to-treat and 57% in the per-protocol analyses, whereas it was 29% to prevent otitis involving all serotypes in the per-protocol analysis. Finally, in the intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses, the efficacy to prevent clinical pneumonia was 6% and 7%, respectively, whereas for the prevention of radiograph-confirmed pneumonia it was 29% and 32%, respectively.

full text available in the link

[stacey05]

Is this prevnar? I think this one has a higher rate than other vaxes of seizures, am I right? My first 3 kids never got this...it wasn't out then and when they gave it to my 4th, they said it was for ear infections...strange.

[ema-adama]

A meta-analysis of published data from trials on pneumococcal conjugate vaccine was performed to determine the efficacy in reducing the incidence of invasive disease caused by Streptococcus pneumoniae, pneumonia, and acute otitis media in healthy infants younger than 24 months.

Bolding mine
There is no new data.
It looks like his new study is using the data from the clinical trials. The data from the clinical trials is problematic due to the placebo being an experimental vaccine (if the data is PCV7 trials) or PCV7 (if the data is PCV13 trials).

The pneumococcal conjugate vaccine produces a significant effect regarding prevention of invasive pneumococcal disease. Results on prevention of otitis or pneumonia have been less striking, but considering the high burden of these diseases in infants, even a low efficacy has potential for tremendous impact on the health of infants in developing and industrialized countries.

Bolding mine
Well, at least we can be reassured that it *could* be doing something, even if it falls short of expectations. And yet even that is quesitionable with such problematic data.

ETA :http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/...t-the-studies/ for those who are interested in just how well designed the studies are for the safety of the vaccine. Included is the fact that only healthy children are in the trials, followed by a recommendation for less than healthy children to have this vaccine.

[runes]

Meta-analysis also has inherent potential limitations. Only published trials have been included, and they have been judged according to what is recorded in the publication. The results might have been affected by publication bias, because positive studies are more likely than negative ones to be published, and so it is possible that other trials have been conducted and their results never published.

That's quite an admission.

[ema-adama]

I was too hasty in my claiming that the placebo was an experimental vaccine.

In the 9 studies cited in this study - two used an experimental vaccine (investigational group C meningococcal conjugate), another two used hep B vaccine as a control (babies getting hep B at 2, 4, 6, 12 months - I wonder if this was in addition to their regular hep B vaccines ) and yet another used hep A as a placebo. Two studies done in Africa do not mention what their placebo was.

so there is massive number crunching going on from studies done around the world, including trying to to verify if these vaccines have any use for HIV+ babies.

I do not take this as a reason to go ahead and vaccinate my child. I realise that is my personal decision.

And I am horrified that HIV+ babies are being experimented on like that.... by scientists paid by Wyeth no less.

[japonica]

Not a surprise to me. I read Shah's the Body Hunters.

[xmasbaby7]

Originally Posted by ema-adama

I was too hasty in my claiming that the placebo was an experimental vaccine.

In the 9 studies cited in this study - two used an experimental vaccine (investigational group C meningococcal conjugate), another two used hep B vaccine as a control (babies getting hep B at 2, 4, 6, 12 months - I wonder if this was in addition to their regular hep B vaccines ) and yet another used hep A as a placebo. Two studies done in Africa do not mention what their placebo was.

so there is massive number crunching going on from studies done around the world, including trying to to verify if these vaccines have any use for HIV+ babies.

I do not take this as a reason to go ahead and vaccinate my child. I realise that is my personal decision.

And I am horrified that HIV+ babies are being experimented on like that.... by scientists paid by Wyeth no less.

The set ups and use of placebos of these studies ABSOLUTELY baffles my mind, and I think any parent who really understood how these are tested for safety would give pause. I had great joy in going over the methods of clinical trials for Gaurdisil with all of my legislators on Capitol Hill, and they couldn't believe it.

When scientists from non medical disciplines see the ridiculous contamination allowed in these types of studies, it creates this reputation as the lowliest of the sciences.

When pro-vaxers claim to be pro-science, I feel they are forced to grab onto these truths to validate a certain belief, which is no different to me than a religious conservative. We truth seekers willing to admit the gray in all of this are left lonely in the middle.

Sorry, but I lose it every time I see shabby methodology.

[Marnica]

Originally Posted by xmasbaby7

The set ups and use of placebos of these studies ABSOLUTELY baffles my mind, and I think any parent who really understood how these are tested for safety would give pause. I had great joy in going over the methods of clinical trials for Gaurdisil with all of my legislators on Capitol Hill, and they couldn't believe it.

When scientists from non medical disciplines see the ridiculous contamination allowed in these types of studies, it creates this reputation as the lowliest of the sciences.

When pro-vaxers claim to be pro-science, I feel they are forced to grab onto these truths to validate a certain belief, which is no different to me than a religious conservative. We truth seekers willing to admit the gray in all of this are left lonely in the middle.

Sorry, but I lose it every time I see shabby methodology.

Well Said

[laohaire]

Those are controls, not placebos.

[FernG]

Originally Posted by laohaire

Those are controls, not placebos.

But they are being used in place of a true placebo group.

[runes]

Originally Posted by laohaire

Those are controls, not placebos.

The science is incredibly poor, if they are using other vaccines as controls.

[ema-adama]

Originally Posted by laohaire

Those are controls, not placebos.

: sloppy of me. Yes the vaccines are controls and yes, some of these studies claim to have tested not only the efficacy, but also the safety of the vaccine being studied by using an experimental vaccine as the control.

[runes]

Originally Posted by ema-adama

Yes the vaccines are controls and yes, some of these studies claim to have tested not only the efficacy, but also the safety of the vaccine being studied by using an experimental vaccine as the control.

Piss poor "science".

That's not my definition of safety.

[ema-adama]

Originally Posted by runes

Piss poor "science".

That's not my definition of safety.

I could not agree more. How you can establish the *safety* of a vaccine by measuring it against another vaccine and call that good science eludes me.

[stacey05]

>When pro-vaxers claim to be pro-science, I feel they are forced to grab onto these truths to validate a certain belief, which is no different to me than a religious conservative. We truth seekers willing to admit the gray in all of this are left lonely in the middle.<

I don't understand what any of this has to do with religious conservative...should I be offended?? I am "religious conservative". I do not consider myself as "grabbing" on to truths to validate a certain belief.??!!

[xmasbaby7]

I am sorry if my words were clumsy. i was in a rare rant mode. I was throwing this not at religious conservatives, but at the "pro-science, pro-vax" people who are dismissive of other people's reasoning for not vaccinating, like religion, when a different type of "faith" pays just as equal of a role in their thinking. They just believe something because it is the party line of the brilliant infallibility of modern medicine, not because they said "show me."

I am sorry if I am not explaining it well, but I am thinking of the the Orac type followers who smugly think we don't respect "science" and critical thinking on this board.

[mammy bear]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by xmasbaby7

I am sorry if my words were clumsy. i was in a rare rant mode. I was throwing this not at religious conservatives, but at the "pro-science, pro-vax" people who are dismissive of other people's reasoning for not vaccinating, like religion, when a different type of "faith" pays just as equal of a role in their thinking. They just believe something because it is the party line of the brilliant infallibility of modern medicine, not because they said "show me."

I get what you are saying. You mean that people wholeheartedly believe and have faith in the "religion" of modern medicine.



..

[Deborah]

Yeah, I get it too. Pretending to yourself that something is science-based, when it is really a matter of "faith" is either self-deception or dishonesty.

Straight-forward religious faith is what it is. But if someone pretended that their religion was based on scientific research...

[amnesiac]

Just wait - the new & improved super prevnar is coming soon.

[laohaire]

Originally Posted by runes

The science is incredibly poor, if they are using other vaccines as controls.

I agree, placebos should be used as controls. Particularly since they have never established vaccine safety to begin with. Though I also see a purpose in using other vaccines as secondary controls.

I wasn't tryiing to be nitpicky on the words but when it comes to discussions on science, I think it's best to be accurate, and I was seeing everyone was picking up on the reference to "placebo" on this thread. Just as an example, I would hate for someone to wander in here and think "they don't know what they are talking about" based on that alone, and miss the main point. I know this isn't exactly an uneducated forum, and I always appreciate when posters do their part to keep things accurate and also keep questioning conclusions (even - or especiallys - the conclusions that we subscribe to ourselves).