Found you in quest of an answer to the vaccination question - Page 4

[Marnica]

Originally Posted by WildKingdom 

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

  I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm trying to clarify that when the safety of a placebo issue gets discussed (which it does periodically here) that it is important to differentiate between the definition of a placebo and what many people think (perhaps feel was the wrong choice of words) is a true placebo (ie saline).  Nobody is questioning your defition of a placebo.

[Taximom5]

What is the point of safety-testing a vaccination against a "placebo" that just happens to have ingredients (such as preservatives and/or adjuvants) that are known to cause neurological damage?  If it's known to cause neurological damage, then it isn't an inactive substance. Therefore, it's not a true placebo.

[WildKingdom]

Originally Posted by Taximom5 

What is the point of safety-testing a vaccination against a "placebo" that just happens to have ingredients (such as preservatives and/or adjuvants) that are known to cause neurological damage?  If it's known to cause neurological damage, then it isn't an inactive substance. Therefore, it's not a true placebo.

Yes, it IS.  You are testing the antigenic substance in the vaccine, not the preservatives.  That's the whole point.

The only difference in the placebo and the true drug/vaccine (depending on what's being tested) should be the active substance.  That way, if there's an adverse effect, you know it's from the active substance, not from the preservatives, carrier substances, etc.  

[emmy526]

maybe we should test those preservatives and adjuvants before doing anything else further on the vaccine making front..let's test them against saline and see what happens... have all the experts who claim no harm can come from using them in vaccines, can volunteer for a blind study.  They won't know what or if they are getting anything and will be left to wonder. 

Originally Posted by Taximom5 

What is the point of safety-testing a vaccination against a "placebo" that just happens to have ingredients (such as preservatives and/or adjuvants) that are known to cause neurological damage?  If it's known to cause neurological damage, then it isn't an inactive substance. Therefore, it's not a true placebo.

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by WildKingdom 

Yes, it IS.  You are testing the antigenic substance in the vaccine, not the preservatives.  That's the whole point.

The only difference in the placebo and the true drug/vaccine (depending on what's being tested) should be the active substance.  That way, if there's an adverse effect, you know it's from the active substance, not from the preservatives, carrier substances, etc.  

But when there are adverse effects from both "placebo" and "true vaccine being tested," ALL THAT'S REPORTED IS SOMETHING LIKE: "true vaccine being tested did not have significantly different rate of adverse effects than placebo," WHICH IS GROSSLY MISLEADING.

It's not a true safety test if you are not looking at the adverse effects from the ingredients other than the antigenic substance.

In many cases, it's not the antigenic substance that is the biggest trigger of adverse effects.  It's the adjuvant, or the preservative, or a combination of either/both with other ingredients or other environmental factors.

Which offers a plausible explanation of why some of us are able to fight off the flu just fine, but become extremely ill from flu shots.  And no, I'm not talking about getting "the flu" from the flu shots.  I'm talking about having one or more autoimmune disorders triggered by vaccines when various illnesses like the flu did not trigger them.