Found you in quest of an answer to the vaccination question - Page 3

[WildKingdom]

Originally Posted by Shanesmom 


I won't even mention how vaccines are injected straight into the bloodstream, thereby completely missing the mucus membranes, which would never happen if they were to encounter the real deal. That's another thread. Good luck

Please name one vaccine that is injected "straight into the bloodstream."  Just one.

[pers]

Originally Posted by Bokonon 

Many older adults who did not have measles only had one dose of MMR, when it was thought that one dose would confer immunity for a lifetime.  We now know that isn't true, so most of those are likely not immune.

The second shot was added primarily to catch the 5% or so of people who didn't respond to the first shot, not due to fear that the measles vaccine would wear off.  After two shots, only 1% or 2% are still not immune compared to 5% after just one shot.  That it functions as a booster is a secondary benefit, but it wasn't the primary purpose.  

There is some concern that measles immunity may wane eventually since the disease is no longer circulating in the community to act as a natural booster.  Lower titers in older people supports this, but we haven't reached that point yet, and there isn't enough evidence to show that we ever will.  If we do reach the point, adding another booster to the schedule is an option, as horrified as some would be at the thought.  For now though, while there may be some people out there unknowingly at risk for measles due to not having had the second shot, that there haven't been vast measles outbreaks among vaccinated people in their thirties/forties/fifties seems to be a pretty good indication that immunity from the single measles shot is still holding up pretty well at this point.  The outbreaks we have had, the vast majority of the illness has been among the small percentage of people who are not vaccinated, not among older people whose vaccines may be wearing off.  

[kathymuggle]

nm

Edited by kathymuggle - 10/13/12 at 12:37pm

[Shanesmom]

Originally Posted by WildKingdom 

Please name one vaccine that is injected "straight into the bloodstream."  Just one.

Please go back and reread my post so you have the correct information, it says muscle tissue, not bloodstream. Thanks for playing

[WildKingdom]

Originally Posted by Shanesmom 


Please go back and reread my post so you have the correct information, it says muscle tissue, not bloodstream. Thanks for playing

Oh, you mean here, where you edited your post AFTER my response?

Quote:

Edited by Shanesmom - Yesterday at 1:13 pm

Luckily, I quoted you in my response, and I'll do it again.

Quote:

1 day, 1 hour ago

 

• 

• WildKingdom
• 
•  
• online

• 541 Posts. Joined 3/2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shanesmom 


I won't even mention how vaccines are injected straight into the bloodstream, thereby completely missing the mucus membranes, which would never happen if they were to encounter the real deal. That's another thread. Good luck

Please name one vaccine that is injected "straight into the bloodstream."  Just one.

So, thank YOU for playing. 

Edited by WildKingdom - 10/14/12 at 1:41pm

[Shanesmom]

LOL!!!

It's so easy to ruffle some people's feathers. lets get back to the OP......

[WildKingdom]

Originally Posted by Shanesmom 

LOL!!!
It's so easy to ruffle some people's feathers. lets get back to the OP......

Oh, thanks for letting me in on the joke! You're so funny! :eyeroll:

[HappyHappyMommy]

Hi Everyone,

Several of the posts in this thread include personal attacks, including references that someone is personally attacking. Please remember MDC's User Agreement and specifically that personal attacks are not allowed. If you post contains a personal attack, please edit it within the next 24 hours. If you have a concern after that about a post being attacking, please report it.

Thank you.

[prosciencemum]

Originally Posted by emma1325 

"...the pharmaceutical industry has a long track record about lying about safety/efficacy of their products.  Proven fact, that."

ScienceMom, have you thoroughly investigated this issue, and how do you feel about it?
 

Emma - sorry I missed this question. Although it's a bit off topic, I suppose it might help the OP in his debate, so I will answer with my opinions on this. 

I do agree that a lot of large companies, particularly in the US have some concerning practices - pharmaceutical companies included. Having recently watched "Food INC" the food companies are amazingly worrying.  

 However I think vaccines are likely to be one of the places where they are least able to hid safety issues - they're used around the world with a variety of governmental and scientific safety checks. Safety records are checked. Doctors vaccinate thousands of patients and would be noticing if serious side effects were really common. In fact vaccines are (ie. have been) changed when serious side effects are found to occur too frequently (e.g. going to inactivated polio vaccine). All of this gives me confidence that the vaccines recommended today are the safest and most effective which are available, even if they are produced by large pharmaceutical companies. 

 I also think the amount of money involved in vaccines (for pharmaceutical companies) is too small to make it worth their while to lie and risk being found out if they actually knew a vaccine was causing serious harm. And I think too many doctors and scientists are involved to keep such a thing hidden anyway. 

[prosciencemum]

Originally Posted by shardfilterbox 

All good stuff.  Hasn't helped me come to a decision :DDDD but very good discussion.  I have a belief that I live by.  That truth, and fact, and knowledge, cannot be two sided.  If you have 2 views on one point, you have not debated enough.  Either biases stil exist, there is a miscommunication, or there is not enough information.  Unfortunately I feel that the vaccine debate is filled with much of all 3 of those.  But onward.

So what about the herd immunity argument?

http://www.parade.com/health/2012/10/07-why-so-many-parents-are-delaying-vaccines.html?fb_ref=.UHGtGncHwcM.like&fb_source=home_multiline

OK. So I think this is really important, and an important part of why I think parents should all consider vaccinating their children even though the current day risk of VPD to their child is very small. Having a large fraction of the population immune to certain diseases does reduce the amount of the disease circulating. That means it's OK for a small number of people to not be immune - they will likely not be exposed to the disease (so Julianna Metcalfe from that story would not have caught bacterial meningitus, nor the 5 month old who got it before the standard age of vaccination). It is my personal opinion that the community minded thing to do is to get your children vaccinated.

I'm not suggesting anyone who has a reasonable suspicion their child will have a major side effect need to get them vaccinated. But the the vast majority of children will not have any major side effects. And in fact it's for the children who cannot get vaccinated due to risk of side effects or other health issues that I think all parents of normally healthy children should chose for them to be vaccinated.

I know a lot of parents look at the risks of vaccine side effects and the risk of catching a VPD today and make the assessment that not vaccinating is right for their family. However if everyone did that the risk of VPD would rise. I just hope we don't have to get to that point before the increase in fraction of parents not vaccinating starts to stop. 

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

I do agree that a lot of large companies, particularly in the US have some concerning practices - pharmaceutical companies included. Having recently watched "Food INC" the food companies are amazingly worrying.  

Agreed.

However I think vaccines are likely to be one of the places where they are least able to hid safety issues - they're used around the world with a variety of governmental and scientific safety checks.

They are used around the world, but I question their safety checks.  By and large IMHO vaccines are not rigorously tested.  It is considered unethical to leave children unvaccinated, so vaccinated children are not usually compared to unvaccinated children.   Most testing is done by the pharmaceutical industry itself - that is hardly reassuring as far as "conflict of interest goes."  Pharmaceutical companies sit on CDC advisory committees.  

Here is one example of pharmaceutical companies being charged with lying to the public about vaccines:

http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/27/47851.htm

Here is something from nvic. org (faq's):

"Large, prospective long term studies evaluating the health of infants and children given 69 doses of 16 vaccines from birth to age 18, which is the current federal recommendation, have never been conducted. There have never been studies to evaluate whether babies with a personal or family history or allergy and autoimmune disorders may be at higher risk than others for complications from use of multiple vaccines throughout childhood. There have never been large studies comparing the health of highly vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals to compare for all health outcomes and changes in immune and brain function over time."

 

Doctors vaccinate thousands of patients and would be noticing if serious side effects were really common.

"Really common" is a very subjective term.  What might be "too common" for a parent might not be "too common" for a doctor.  The parent gets to decide what is "too common"

I have also noticed a bit of a disturbing trend - many doctors who have come out against vaccines or are even vaccine questioning have been labeled quacks.  Some of them might - and in some cases it might be a witch hunt.  I suspect many doctors who quietly question vaccines or some aspects of vaccines keep mum about the whole thing.  This is an anti-vax website, but it does contain some quotes from doctors on professional repercussions of going against vaccines:

http://www.vaccinesuncensored.org/doctors.php#prof

I also think the amount of money involved in vaccines (for pharmaceutical companies) is too small to make it worth their while to lie and risk being found out if they actually knew a vaccine was causing serious harm. 

I never thought this argument was particularly valid.  Pharmaceutical companies are a business and as such they are in it for the money.  If they will lie or manipulate over big profit items, they will lie over smaller ones (And small by whose standards?  They still make billions of dollars - I bet their share holders are very interested in those profits. )

Edited by kathymuggle - 10/15/12 at 4:26pm

[WildKingdom]

 By and large vaccines are not rigorously tested.  It is considered unethical to leave children unvaccinated, thus vaccines are never tested against a placebo.  Vaccines are tested against other vaccines.

Not true.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22959989

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23032417

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22926209

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22796139

I'm not going to link anymore, but you get the idea.  If you do a pubmed search with the terms "vacccines and double blind placebo controlled trial" you get 1002 results.  So much for vaccines "never" being tested against a placebo.

[kathymuggle]

 

Originally Posted by WildKingdom 

Not true.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22959989

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23032417

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22926209

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22796139

I'm not going to link anymore, but you get the idea.  If you do a pubmed search with the terms "vacccines and double blind placebo controlled trial" you get 1002 results.  So much for vaccines "never" being tested against a placebo.

I removed the line in question, but really, whatev.  The rest holds.

Edited by kathymuggle - 10/15/12 at 4:24pm

[crayfishgirl]

Originally Posted by WildKingdom 

Originally Posted by Shanesmom 


Please go back and reread my post so you have the correct information, it says muscle tissue, not bloodstream. Thanks for playing

Oh, you mean here, where you edited your post AFTER my response?

Quote:

Edited by Shanesmom - Yesterday at 1:13 pm

Luckily, I quoted you in my response, and I'll do it again.

Quote:

1 day, 1 hour ago

 

• 

• WildKingdom
• 
•  
• online

• 541 Posts. Joined 3/2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shanesmom 


I won't even mention how vaccines are injected straight into the bloodstream, thereby completely missing the mucus membranes, which would never happen if they were to encounter the real deal. That's another thread. Good luck

Please name one vaccine that is injected "straight into the bloodstream."  Just one.

So, thank YOU for playing. 

And SNAP!! 

[emmy526]

it was posted in another post on here..i didn't have time to find it

Originally Posted by pers 

Where is the 1% statistic from?  Which vaccines were counted?  If a person skips a recommended flu shot one year, are they now part of the 99% who are not up to date? 

You really can't make a blanket statement like that.  When considering herd immunity, you need to look at the individual disease.  IIRC from statistics I've seen in the past, one of the vaccines adults were most likely to not be up to date on was tetanus.  This may put the individual at risk if the last tetanus vaccine they got has worn off, but it doesn't put anyone else at risk as it is not a comunicable disease.  Another vaccine that it was common to not have gotten was the shingles vaccine for older adults.  While it is possible to catch chickenpox from someone with shingles, it is not common, and so again they are mostly putting just themselves at risk.   HPV vaccine is another one many younger adult woman haven't gotten, and obviously the disease is still around and we haven't achieved herd immunity, though just the percentage of people who have been vaxed may be slowing the circulation of the disease somewhat through the herd immunity effect. 

That's another thing, it's not all or nothing.  Even when we haven't or can't achieve herd immunity,  the more people are immune to the disease, the less can spread it, and the slower the disease will circulate, thus decreasing the chance of exposure to it for a child too young for the vaccine, for someone whose medical condition means they can't be vaccinated, for a cancer patient whose immune system has been wiped out by measles, etc.  

Many adults are behind on tetanus, shingles, or gardasil, but most received the recommended vaccines as a child.  Most adults either had the MMR or are old enough that they would have gotten the diseases, and so are not behind for those.  Herd immunity seems to be working quite well for measles in particular.  I don't know if herd immunity can ever be reached for chickenpox, but if it could it would depend on the vaccination rate of younger people as most adults would have had chickenpox already.  

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by WildKingdom 

Not true.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22959989

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23032417

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22926209

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22796139

I'm not going to link anymore, but you get the idea.  If you do a pubmed search with the terms "vacccines and double blind placebo controlled trial" you get 1002 results.  So much for vaccines "never" being tested against a placebo.

First of all, none of those vaccines are on the current schedule.

Secondly, how do we know what "placebo" was used in those studies you linked?  Just because they CALLED it a placebo doesn't mean that it is a non-reactive, true placebo.

Vaccines on today's schedule have, in nearly all cases, been tested against "placebos" which were actually other vaccines, complete with antigens, adjuvants, preservatives, and other ingredients known to cause harmful effects on a small minority.  Those "placebos" were simply listed as "placebo."  The conclusions in the safety studies involving those vaccines compare side effects from the new vaccines to the "placebo."  It is understood that a true placebo would not cause side effects, so seeing a death rate from a vaccine "as compared to placebo" would wrongly indicate that a similar rate in the new vaccine would be perfectly safe.

It's just another example of the dishonesty and corruption of the vaccine manufacturers: "Let's twist things to make it look like we're comparing our new, unsafe vaccine with serious side effects to a placebo by actually comparing it to a vaccine with known serious side effects!  We'll just CALL the old one a placebo!  No one will know the difference!  And we can always pretend that it would be unethical to deny someone the benefits of our old unsafe vaccine!"

[prosciencemum]

Originally Posted by Taximom5 

Vaccines on today's schedule have, in nearly all cases, been tested against "placebos" which were actually other vaccines, complete with antigens, adjuvants, preservatives, and other ingredients known to cause harmful effects on a small minority.  Those "placebos" were simply listed as "placebo."  The conclusions in the safety studies involving those vaccines compare side effects from the new vaccines to the "placebo."  It is understood that a true placebo would not cause side effects, so seeing a death rate from a vaccine "as compared to placebo" would wrongly indicate that a similar rate in the new vaccine would be perfectly safe.

The definition of a placebo is something which has no positive medical effect, but makes the patient think they (could) have had the medicine (or preventative in the case of a vaccine). So in order for something to be a placebo in a vaccination trial it has to be injected like a vaccine. 

There was a trial which was mentioned in the free online vaccine course I did which I keep meaning to read more about. It was done in 1950s through the March of Dimes. My notes say: 

Salk trial in 1950s (through March of Dimes)

420,000 children got polio vaccine (thimerosol preserved)

200,000 children got placebo (with thimerosol but not attenuated polio)

1.2 million children in the control sample not innoculated

I keep meaning to look up if the groups which got the vaccination have been studied relative to the control to see if there is any difference in their health (other than polio). That would be a great long baseline for safety study of thimerosol it seems to me. Anyone know of anything? 

[WildKingdom]

Originally Posted by Taximom5 

First of all, none of those vaccines are on the current schedule.

Secondly, how do we know what "placebo" was used in those studies you linked?  Just because they CALLED it a placebo doesn't mean that it is a non-reactive, true placebo.

Vaccines on today's schedule have, in nearly all cases, been tested against "placebos" which were actually other vaccines, complete with antigens, adjuvants, preservatives, and other ingredients known to cause harmful effects on a small minority.  Those "placebos" were simply listed as "placebo."  The conclusions in the safety studies involving those vaccines compare side effects from the new vaccines to the "placebo."  It is understood that a true placebo would not cause side effects, so seeing a death rate from a vaccine "as compared to placebo" would wrongly indicate that a similar rate in the new vaccine would be perfectly safe.

It's just another example of the dishonesty and corruption of the vaccine manufacturers: "Let's twist things to make it look like we're comparing our new, unsafe vaccine with serious side effects to a placebo by actually comparing it to a vaccine with known serious side effects!  We'll just CALL the old one a placebo!  No one will know the difference!  And we can always pretend that it would be unethical to deny someone the benefits of our old unsafe vaccine!"

A placebo is an inactive substance, by definition.  If they call it a placebo, it's a placebo.  What do you want them to test it against?  Nothing?  Then it's not a double blind study.

Oh, here's a study testing the rotavirus vaccine against a placebo.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16394298

Here's another. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22520136  I found 195.

Here's the Cochrane review for the haemophilus vaccine- it shows 6 studies that were either randomized placebo studies or no vaccine at all.  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17443509

HPV vaccine:  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22433961

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21860731

 64 randomized placebo controlled trials for the HPV vaccine.  There might be more.  That was just my lazy, 8 AM 2 second pubmed search.

[Marnica]

I think there are 2 issues being discussed here. The definition of a placebo and the safety of whatever placebo is used. I think many people feel a true placebo is something like saline. By definition placebos can be all kinds of things besides saline. So we need to be clear on what is being discussed.

[WildKingdom]

Well, it really doesn't matter what people "feel" a placebo is. A placebo has a definition that I posted above.