Why the University of Google bothers pro-vaxers so much - Page 9

[LoveChild421]

Originally Posted by xmasbaby7

And p.s. pro-science, pro-evolution non-vaxing moms here can fill a stadium.

I'm one of those

I did not make my decision to not vaccinate my child based on websites with agendas or unsubstantiated claims. (well to be fair "official" government websites such as the CDC and pharma company websites do have just as much or more of an agenda and propoganda as anti-vax websites)

From reading the CDC's website (ingredients lists, information sheets on each disease, and graphs of how common all of the diseases are in my region) , Manufacturer's product information inserts, and reading the VAERS reports I came to the conclusion that 1) the risk of my child catching the diseases and 2) my child actually suffering permanent damange from "vaccine preventable" diseases was small and I will take that chance rather than inject my child with products which (straight from the product inserts) "have not been tested for carcinogenic, mutagenic, or fertility impairment potential" as well as contain several toxic chemicals that do not belong in the human body.


From the Prevnar vaccine product insert:

WARNINGS
THIS VACCINE WILL NOT PROTECT AGAINST S. PNEUMONIAE DISEASE CAUSED BY SEROTYPES UNRELATED TO THOSE IN THE VACCINE, NOR WILL IT PROTECT AGAINST OTHER MICROORGANISMS THAT CAUSE INVASIVE INFECTIONS SUCH AS BACTEREMIA AND MENINGITIS OR NON-INVASIVE INFECTIONS SUCH AS OTITIS MEDIA.

CARCINOGENESIS, MUTAGENESIS, IMPAIRMENT OF FERTILITY
Prevnar® has not been evaluated for any carcinogenic or mutagenic potential, or impairment of
fertility.
PREGNANCY
Pregnancy Category C
Animal reproductive studies have not been conducted with this product. It is not known whether
Prevnar® can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman or whether it can affect
reproductive capacity. This vaccine is not recommended for use in pregnant women.
Nursing Mothers
It is not known whether vaccine antigens or antibodies are excreted in human milk. This vaccine
is not recommended for use in a nursing mother.
PEDIATRIC USE
Prevnar® has been shown to be usually well-tolerated and immunogenic in infants. The safety
and effectiveness of Prevnar® in children below the age of 6 weeks or on or after the 10th
birthday have not been established. Immune responses elicited by Prevnar® among infants born
prematurely have not been adequately studied. See DOSAGE AND ADMINISTRATION for
the recommended pediatric dosage.

CDC vaccine ingredients list:
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pin...nt-table-2.pdf

CDC vaccine info page: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/default.htm
"Vaccine-preventable disease levels are at or near record lows."

Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System: http://www.vaers.hhs.gov/info.htm

[Science Mom]

Originally Posted by mamakay

This is from NZ:

http://eprints.maths.ox.ac.uk/375/01/157.pdf

Routine childhood immunization started in 1960. Three doses were given at 3, 4 and 5 months of age, respectively. In 1971, the policy was altered to two doses of vaccine given at 3 and 5 months of age. Following this schedule change there was a progressive increase in hospitalizations in 1974, 1978
and 1982, and consequently a third dose given at 6 weeks of age was added in 1984 to provide earlier protection.

The same thing has happened everywhere...

The above quote from the same article you cited. I am not talking about the epidemiology of pertussis, the vaccine is not adequate to provide herd immunity. I am referring to the reduction of severe clinical disease/death, due to pertussis infection, by the administration of the vaccine. I think you will agree that there is a difference.

SM

[Deborah]

This is just a meaningless statement:

Vaccination is effective and safer than not vaccinating (or any other variations thereof). Vaccinations are of several different types, are supposed to protect against a variety of diseases and no single statement will cover everything and still be "scientific."

Just to be fair, I'll also say that blanket statements against vaccination aren't "scientific" either.

But I see the blanket statement tactic used more often by the pro-vax authorities than by the vax critics. In public situations the vax critics are usually raising concerns about one particular vax, and the pro-vax authorities are usually trying to label them as "anti-vax" and therefore "nuts."

Note to self: When engaging in public arguments it is best to offer a scientific critique of one particular vaccination rather than a blanket condemnation of the practice.

[mamakay]

Originally Posted by Science Mom

The above quote from the same article you cited. I am not talking about the epidemiology of pertussis, the vaccine is not adequate to provide herd immunity. I am referring to the reduction of severe clinical disease/death, due to pertussis infection, by the administration of the vaccine. I think you will agree that there is a difference.

SM

Oooh...ok.

Well, the vaccine does apear to provide some individual protection. I thought you were comparing it to the situation with measles.

About that quote, though...
The US started the series at three months at one time, too, and expected moving it back to 2 months to change our hospitalization/mortality figures, but it didn't happen. And lots of places have experimented with starting it a 6 weeks, as well, but it hasn't really worked out.
So who knows what's up with that quote?
Expectations and diagnostic stuff could have influenced Israel at that time.

[WillyMom]

The reason why the adjuvant is added to the saline in control studies, is because that enables researchers to analyze the immune response (to adjuvant and antigen). It really is the control you are asking for because it shows that adjuvant alone does not elicit an immune response. It shows that the immune reaction is only elicited when the adjuvant is added with the antigen. It is the proper control.

[HerthElde]

Pertussis - I very strongly believe, although I have no proof, that I had it several times as a child. I've heard recordings, seen the videos, read the symptoms - and I've lived them. But, we were told at the time (the '80s) that it wasn't possible because I'd been vaccinated.
I was diagnosed with asthma instead. I definitely do NOT have asthma now, and don't believe I ever did.

[HerthElde]

Originally Posted by WillyMom

The reason why the adjuvant is added to the saline in control studies, is because that enables researchers to analyze the immune response (to adjuvant and antigen). It really is the control you are asking for because it shows that adjuvant alone does not elicit an immune response. It shows that the immune reaction is only elicited when the adjuvant is added with the antigen. It is the proper control.

Except that it is the adjuvant that is toxic to the body in most cases.

[applejuice]

Add smoking for asthma to that.

Add to that the former President of the United States doing the magazine ad. (Reagan)

[Deborah]

Originally Posted by WillyMom

The reason why the adjuvant is added to the saline in control studies, is because that enables researchers to analyze the immune response (to adjuvant and antigen). It really is the control you are asking for because it shows that adjuvant alone does not elicit an immune response. It shows that the immune reaction is only elicited when the adjuvant is added with the antigen. It is the proper control.

But not the right control if you are trying to judge the safety of the vaccine versus the safety of the "placebo."

There are two questions with vaccines and neither, IMO, has been answered adequately. Are they safe? Are they effective?

So far we know that some may be less dangerous than others. None are perfectly safe, the majority do not cause immediate fatality in all users. When it comes to effective, some seem to be pretty effective, some are temporarily effective (in two different ways*), and some seem to be minimally effective. Some we just don't know.

Looking at this as a whole, it isn't the greatest example of scientific evidence I've ever seen:

*some vaxes delay the onset of disease to the teenage years or adulthood. sometimes this problem can be dealt with by boosters, but this doesn't always work. Some vaccines do that wonderful "clear one flora to replace with another" thingee (serotype replacement), which doesn't solve the underlying problem for any length of time and burdens children's bodies with more and more and more vaccines.

[applejuice]

Originally Posted by Deborah

But not the right control if you are trying to judge the safety of the vaccine versus the safety of the "placebo."

Exactly. That is not a scientific study. That still leaves vaccines in the catagory of "unproven" and "quackery".

There are two questions with vaccines and neither, IMO, has been answered adequately. Are they safe? Are they effective?

Precisely. But then that would be too simple, and we would not want that.

[mamakay]

Originally Posted by Deborah

But not the right control if you are trying to judge the safety of the vaccine versus the safety of the "placebo."

There are two questions with vaccines and neither, IMO, has been answered adequately. Are they safe? Are they effective?

So far we know that some may be less dangerous than others. None are perfectly safe, the majority do not cause immediate fatality in all users. When it comes to effective, some seem to be pretty effective, some are temporarily effective (in two different ways*), and some seem to be minimally effective. Some we just don't know.

Looking at this as a whole, it isn't the greatest example of scientific evidence I've ever seen:

*some vaxes delay the onset of disease to the teenage years or adulthood. sometimes this problem can be dealt with by boosters, but this doesn't always work. Some vaccines do that wonderful "clear one flora to replace with another" thingee (serotype replacement), which doesn't solve the underlying problem for any length of time and burdens children's bodies with more and more and more vaccines.

My thoughts exactly.
The immunogenicity studies should be completely separate from the safety studies. And then actual "effectiveness" is a whole 'nother creature.
And then there are things like "overall cases of invasive bacterial disease" and specific endpoints lke bacterial meningitis with the conjugate vaccines that need to be looked at, as well.

[delphiniumpansy]

Originally Posted by mama de dos

Something to consider for ScienceMom and Holly, and others. I've noticed that at least one of you had a homebirth, and another has something in her sig about natural birth being best. I obviously agree wholeheartedly .

Since I am the natural childbirther mentioned, I will add my two cents. I do think that it is possible for scientists to consider the facts and come out antivax. I just think it is rare. I also think it is possible for an MD to lean more on the side of alternative meds . I also think people weigh pros and cons according to their own criteria and come up with different decisions while still being thoughtful and well educated. There are scientists who doubt global warming is real, aren't there? There are just more scientists and docs who believe in global warming and more who believe in vaccination.

[mykdsmomy]

Originally Posted by yellowpansy

Since I am the natural childbirther mentioned, I will add my two cents. I do think that it is possible for scientists to consider the facts and come out antivax. I just think it is rare. I also think it is possible for an MD to lean more on the side of alternative meds . I also think people weigh pros and cons according to their own criteria and come up with different decisions while still being thoughtful and well educated. There are scientists who doubt global warming is real, aren't there? There are just more scientists and docs who believe in global warming and more who believe in vaccination.

Again, I think the reason more scientists/people believe in global warming is because of all the campaigns going on now. More and more money can be made by "going green". $$$$$ It honestly comes down to that.

[HerthElde]

Originally Posted by mykdsmomy

Again, I think the reason more scientists/people believe in global warming is because of all the campaigns going on now. More and more money can be made by "going green". $$$$$ It honestly comes down to that.

I graduated from high school in '96, and my grade 12 chemistry teacher gave us a lecture on how global warming didn't exist. He had a PhD.

[delphiniumpansy]

Originally Posted by mykdsmomy

Again, I think the reason more scientists/people believe in global warming is because of all the campaigns going on now. More and more money can be made by "going green". $$$$$ It honestly comes down to that.

Having just read an article in Audubon magazine about how the ice is melting in antarctica and the arctic circle and how life is threatened for dozens or more species, the only thing I can say to that is :

:::

[delphiniumpansy]

Originally Posted by HerthElde

I graduated from high school in '96, and my grade 12 chemistry teacher gave us a lecture on how global warming didn't exist. He had a PhD.

how sad for you and your classmates to be taught by a teacher with so little grasp on reality.

[HerthElde]

Originally Posted by yellowpansy

how sad for you and your classmates to be taught by a teacher with so little grasp on reality.

Yes, it really was. Thankfully, I (unlike most of my classmates) had been raised to question everything critically. Many of my old classmates years later still believe every word the man said.
"Never let your schooling get in the way of your education."

[amnesiac]

Locking this since I've already reviewed it multiple times & I'm out for the afternoon. This thread has about outlived it's usefulness since we're into OT discussions & UAV territory now.