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

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-16-2012, 12:01 PM
 
Marnica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,470
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildKingdom View Post

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

 

 duh.gif 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.


If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." Thomas Jefferson.

Marnica is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 10-16-2012, 04:55 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,314
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)

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 is offline  
Old 10-16-2012, 05:07 PM
 
WildKingdom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 667
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

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.  

WildKingdom is offline  
Old 10-16-2012, 06:56 PM
 
emmy526's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,666
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)

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. 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

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.

emmy526 is offline  
Old 10-16-2012, 07:19 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,314
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildKingdom View Post

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.

Taximom5 is offline  
 
User Tag List

Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off