Parade Article-Why So Many Parents Are Delaying or Skipping Vaccines - Page 3

[prosciencemum]

Originally Posted by kathymuggle 

I have never, ever seen a pro-vax site that did not underplay (some even scoff at) vaccine risks.  I understand why they do this - there is a lot riding on selling the message that vaccines are safe.  Whitewashing of information, however,  is condescending and leaves people angry and untrusting when they find out the truth.

But that's your opinion of how they present the risks - and as I understand it from your previous posts here you think the risks are major and serious, so I can understand you would think they're being downplayed elsewhere. Main stream sites about vaccinations present the risks as minor, because that's that the science and evidence suggests.

[Storm Bride]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

It's not belief - it's scientific study looking at an objective and unbiased way at the rates of side effects and the efficacy. No-one denies side effects can and do occur, but one parent saying "my child has been injured by this vaccine, so all vaccines are dangerous and should not be used" is not science. 

How is anyone looking at this in an objective and unbiased way when parent after parent is told "that's a coincidence", with no investigation into the facts? I don't trust the studies of risks, side effects, etc. in most of medicine, precisely because I've seen too many cases where incidents were completely disregarded. The saying "the plural of anecdote is not data" is a popular one, but it's also slightly flawed. Those anecdotes are data points - or should be. When side effects, reactions, etc. are completely disregarded by doctors, how is accurate data collection even possible? A scientific study without good data is completely worthless...and data is often overlooked or not collected in this area.

[emmy526]

i see it as more of a scare and selling tactic that is being used by pharma on the unknowing public....as in, 'see how dangerous this disease is, but we have the cure and our makers say it's safe-trust us' ...and the same can be said for any drug touted on mainstream media sites....how many ads have we seen for this or that birth control, antidepressant,  heart disease, or cholesterol drug  claiming it's safe and effective,  yet there are now lawsuits against them?

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

But that's your opinion of how they present the risks - and as I understand it from your previous posts here you think the risks are major and serious, so I can understand you would think they're being downplayed elsewhere. Main stream sites about vaccinations present the risks as minor, because that's that the science and evidence suggests.

[MountainMamaGC]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

But that's your opinion of how they present the risks - and as I understand it from your previous posts here you think the risks are major and serious, so I can understand you would think they're being downplayed elsewhere. Main stream sites about vaccinations present the risks as minor, because that's that the science and evidence suggests.

But how can the evidence suggest otherwise, when no true double blind placebo trials exist, and we have a passive reporting system where only 1-10% of reactions are reported, and doctors are trained to believe the correlation does not equal causation. So if my child has a seizure the next day, its not tied to the vaccine, and not reported to vaers. The whole system is set up to make it look safer than it is. 

[WildKingdom]

[quote name="MountainMamaGC"
url="/community/t/1365210/parade-article-why-so-many-parents-are-delaying-or-skipping-vaccines/40#post_17149448"]
But how can the evidence suggest otherwise, when no true double blind placebo trials exist, and we have a passive reporting system where only 1-10% of reactions are reported, and doctors are trained to believe the correlation does not equal causation. So if my child has a seizure the next day, its not tied to the vaccine, and not reported to vaers. The whole system is set up to make it look safer than it is. 
[/quote
Why? Why do people keep saying that double blind placebo trials do not exist????

http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1364533/found-you-in-quest-of-an-answer-to-the-vaccination-question/40

1002 double blind placebo controlled trials of vaccines.

[prosciencemum]

Originally Posted by MountainMamaGC 

doctors are trained to believe the correlation does not equal causation. 

Yeah. Because correlation doesn't equal causation.

The incidence of piracy in the caribbean correlates really well with global warming you know..... 

(source: http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/)

Anyone is free to submit reactions to VAERS. It's there as an early warning to catch significant side effects. And it's clear to me that there are researchers spending time looking into the adverse reactions which are reported, considering carefully the ones in which there could be a link and trying their best to make sure vaccines are as safe as they possibly can be. 

Also the studies Wildkingdom posted.

[Marnica]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

But that's your opinion of how they present the risks - and as I understand it from your previous posts here you think the risks are major and serious, so I can understand you would think they're being downplayed elsewhere. Main stream sites about vaccinations present the risks as minor, because that's that the science and evidence suggests.

[rachelsmama]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

Anyone is free to submit reactions to VAERS. It's there as an early warning to catch significant side effects. And it's clear to me that there are researchers spending time looking into the adverse reactions which are reported, considering carefully the ones in which there could be a link and trying their best to make sure vaccines are as safe as they possibly can be. 

Also the studies Wildkingdom posted.

Wouldn't it make more sense to make the trials longer so that the significant side effects are known before the vaccine is aggresively marketed to the general population? 

[WildKingdom]

Originally Posted by rachelsmama 

Wouldn't it make more sense to make the trials longer so that the significant side effects are known before the vaccine is aggresively marketed to the general population? 

How long is long enough?

Seriously.  Years?  Decades?  New drugs will never come to market with requirements like that.  Who is going to fund years and years of research with no return on investment.  As is, less than 1/5 of drugs that start the testing process actually come to fruition.

The US has one of the most stringent approval processes in the world.  Medications that come to market here have often already been extensively in use in other countries.

I'd really like to know how long is long enough.  For example, the MMR vaccine has been in use in the USA since 1971.  There is more than 40 years of post-market data on it.  And yet, we still debate its safety.  

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by WildKingdom 


 For example, the MMR vaccine has been in use in the USA since 1971.  There is more than 40 years of post-market data on it.  And yet, we still debate its safety.  

Hmm. Let's see. The MMR in use since 1971 in the USA has caused seizures resulting in brain damage. The Italian government recently conceded that it caused a child's autism. The US government seems to be compensating cases of MMR-induced autism as long as the plaintiffs don't actually use the word autism. And Merck's own virologists have launched a whistleblower lawsuit against Merck, citing a cover-up of the fact that Merck lied about the efficacy of the mumps portion of the MMR.

Oh, and Merck's own website reports that a significant percentage of adult females who get the MMR will develop arthritis/arthralgia as a side effect.

Yep--one has to wonder why anyone would debate its safety.

[Taximom5]

Maybe--just maybe--we don't NEED so many new drugs coming to market.

Maybe drugs aren't the answer.

Follow the profit--especially when you consider that the treatment for vaccine/drug reactions involves...more drugs.

[rachelsmama]

Originally Posted by WildKingdom 

How long is long enough?

Seriously.  Years?  Decades?  New drugs will never come to market with requirements like that.  Who is going to fund years and years of research with no return on investment.  As is, less than 1/5 of drugs that start the testing process actually come to fruition.

The US has one of the most stringent approval processes in the world.  Medications that come to market here have often already been extensively in use in other countries.

I'd really like to know how long is long enough.  For example, the MMR vaccine has been in use in the USA since 1971.  There is more than 40 years of post-market data on it.  And yet, we still debate its safety.  

If we were talking about a drug that cured a previously incurable cancer, sure, these short trial periods would make some sense in that case.  We're talking about something that is injected into a very large percentage of the previously healthy population though.   If things like the HPV vaccine came out and were made available to high risk groups, and then maybe in ten or twenty years made more widely available as an option, it wouldn't make me so nervous, but it's not just being made available to high risk groups, it's being aggressively marketed to a relatively large segment of the population pretty much immediately, which means that there are a lot of people who can be affected by any side effects that were missed by the trials, and not a whole lot of informed consent.

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by rachelsmama 

If we were talking about a drug that cured a previously incurable cancer, sure, these short trial periods would make some sense in that case.  We're talking about something that is injected into a very large percentage of the previously healthy population though.   If things like the HPV vaccine came out and were made available to high risk groups, and then maybe in ten or twenty years made more widely available as an option, it wouldn't make me so nervous, but it's not just being made available to high risk groups, it's being aggressively marketed to a relatively large segment of the population pretty much immediately, which means that there are a lot of people who can be affected by any side effects that were missed by the trials, and not a whole lot of informed consent.

I completely agree.

If we were talking about someone who was dying and wanted to try anything - great - go for it.  Fast track it if you like.

If we are talking about an ill adult who can understand that the drug has not been properly tested for long term issues, but looks promising - go for it.

We are not talking about that.  We are talking about injecting millions of healthy children and infants.  I think the requirements for such drugs should be higher.  A sick or dying person may have little to lose by using a fast tracked drug, a healthy infant has a lot to lose.

I also think that because vaccines in some places are mandatory or very close to mandatory (i.e good luck going to school or finding a doctor if you do not vax) the state has an responsibility to insist on long term testing.  

[WildKingdom]

Originally Posted by kathymuggle 

I completely agree.

If we were talking about someone who was dying and wanted to try anything - great - go for it.  Fast track it if you like.

If we are talking about an ill adult who can understand that the drug has not been properly tested for long term issues, but looks promising - go for it.

We are not talking about that.  We are talking about injecting millions of healthy children and infants.  I think the requirements for such drugs should be higher.  A sick or dying person may have little to lose by using a fast tracked drug, a healthy infant has a lot to lose.

I also think that because vaccines in some places are mandatory or very close to mandatory (i.e good luck going to school or finding a doctor if you do not vax) the state has an responsibility to insist on long term testing.  

So, again, how long is long enough?  Even a fast track drug takes years to come to market.  A vaccine can take decades.  When I was a med student in the  90's, they were in Phase 2 testing of the HPV vaccine (a lot of my classmates participated in it).  And yes, it WAS a double blind placebo controlled study.  That means that the vaccine was in development and testing for years before that point.  Approval still was not obtained until the completion of Phase 3 testing in 2006.  So, we're talking about at least 15-20 years of R&D before Gardisil hit the market.  

And again, I bring up the MMR, with 40 years of post-market data.  It's still not good enough for some people.  So do we just put a moratorium on the whole thing?

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by WildKingdom 

So, again, how long is long enough?  

This is somewhat off the cuff and open to change, but….

I would like to see about 15 years between a large, well constructed trial and a vaccine going to market.   It sounds like a long time, but if we are talking about a drug like gardasil, it is going to take time for any long term issues to show up. 

If we look at an issue like newborns and Hep B, it took at least 10 years to determine there was a correlation between newborn boys receiving Hep B at birth and increased autism rates.   http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21058170.

As for MMR, I think there has been enough time (now, probably not when it was first introduced) to draw some conclusions.  I am pretty sure our conclusions vary, but it is not a time issue.

[WildKingdom]

Originally Posted by kathymuggle 

This is somewhat off the cuff and open to change, but….

I would like to see about 15 years between a large, well constructed trial and a vaccine going to market.   It sounds like a long time, but if we are talking about a drug like gardasil, it is going to take time for any long term issues to show up. 

If we look at an issue like newborns and Hep B, it took at least 10 years to determine there was a correlation between newborn boys receiving Hep B at birth and increased autism rates.   http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21058170.

As for MMR, I think there has been enough time (now, probably not when it was first introduced) to draw some conclusions.  I am pretty sure our conclusions vary, but it is not a time issue.

You think a well constructed phase 3 trial should take place, have good outcomes, and then a drug should sit on a shelf for 15 years before coming to market?

I hope to god you never have need of a novel drug treatment, because under your rules there will be no pharmaceutical development. It costs between $4 billion and $11 billion to bring a new drug to market. I don't think there is an industry in the world that can sink that kind of money into an investment and then wait 15 years for any return on it. http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2012/02/10/the-truly-staggering-cost-of-inventing-new-drugs/

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by WildKingdom 



I hope to god you never have need of a novel drug treatment, because under your rules there will be no pharmaceutical development. It costs between $4 billion and $11 billion to bring a new drug to market. I don't think there is an industry in the world that can sink that kind of money into an investment and then wait 15 years for any return on it. http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2012/02/10/the-truly-staggering-cost-of-inventing-new-drugs/

Vaccines are preventative and injected into healthy people - they are far from a needed novel drug treatment for a currently ill person.

Edited by kathymuggle - 10/26/12 at 11:28am

[Taximom5]

[quote name="WildKingdom" url="/community/t/1365210/parade-article-why-so-many-parents-are-delaying-or-skipping-vaccines/40#post_17152039" 

And again, I bring up the MMR, with 40 years of post-market data.  It's still not good enough for some people.
[/quote]

Yes, the MMR. The post-market data from those 40 years were twisted to hide the evidence of serious reactions. Most of the seizure-brain damage cases admitted and compensated by the US Dept of Health and Human Services were from the MMR, but they're not listed as side effects on the informed consent form.

Merck's own virologists say that there was a massive cover-up concerning efficacy of the mumps portion of the MMR.

And Merck admits that adult females have a high chance of developing arthritis/arthralgia as a side effect from the MMR.

But you won't read about this on the "informed consent form." It only mentions redness and swelling at the injection site, mild fever, and irritability.

It's amazing, really, how effective it is to say the reassuring words "there are 40 years of safety data on the MMR"--until one learns of how many lies have been hidden.

[prosciencemum]

Originally Posted by Taximom5 

It's amazing, really, how effective it is to say the reassuring words "there are 40 years of safety data on the MMR"--until one learns of how many lies have been hidden.

There are just too many players in medicine, epidemiology, pharmacology to hide such things on the scale you suggest. It cannot be possible. These people are real people, just like you and me, and most of them have devoted their lives to trying to either keep people healthy or search for cures from diseases. So suggesting they are all colluding to hide major side effects which are seriously injuring major numbers of people from over 40 years of MMR is in my opinion frankly ridiculous, and also rather offensive. 

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

 

There are just too many players in medicine, epidemiology, pharmacology to hide such things on the scale you suggest. It cannot be possible. These people are real people, just like you and me, and most of them have devoted their lives to trying to either keep people healthy or search for cures from diseases. So suggesting they are all colluding to hide major side effects which are seriously injuring major numbers of people from over 40 years of MMR is in my opinion frankly ridiculous, and also rather offensive. 

You have no idea. You do not need millions of people in collusion to achieve evil. You need a just a minute percentage of people without the slightest bit of human compassion and empathy to be able to control others via programming and essentially mind control.