Correlation and causation - Page 7 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#181 of 215 Old 10-06-2009, 03:28 AM - Thread Starter
 
ema-adama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,387
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
The OPV was used for decades in the USA, essentially eliminating polio virus from circulation in the population. Then the IPV was introduced into a population that did not have wild polio in circulation. So you would not expect to see a dramatic increase in polio cases. Also the modern IPV is not exactly the same as the IPV used in the 1950's in the USA. For one thing, you do not see the IPV causing polio like it did in the 1950's.

Yes, the OPV is more effective. The only concern is that in populations that are using the OPV, it itself causes paralysis and the authorities are also unsure of how to address the concern with vaccine derived polio virus that is now in circulation. It makes it kind of impossible to ever stop the OPV as the IPV is not a realistic option in developing countries. But that is a whole very different disussion.

In this thread I was interested to hear opinions on why the graph from the 1950's in the USA is taken as evidence of the efficacy of the Salk IPV.

Megan, mama to her little boy (Feb2008) and introducing our little girl (Dec 2010)
ema-adama is offline  
#182 of 215 Old 10-06-2009, 04:33 AM - Thread Starter
 
ema-adama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,387
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
How have I misrepresented the position of the Salk vaccine in the USA in the 1950's causing the reduction in the number of polio cases? What am I distorting?

Megan, mama to her little boy (Feb2008) and introducing our little girl (Dec 2010)
ema-adama is offline  
#183 of 215 Old 10-06-2009, 10:06 PM
 
an_domhan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 212
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah View Post
It is assumed that having measles, for example, is all risk and no benefit, but this is a question which hasn't really been studied.
Ah, but measles virus is being studied studied.... researchers are quite fascinated with it I'd say.
an_domhan is offline  
#184 of 215 Old 10-06-2009, 10:12 PM
 
an_domhan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 212
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by orangewallflower View Post
What is held up as evidence that vaccines work is not a vague historical view, it is clinical trials.
Which ones might those be?
an_domhan is offline  
#185 of 215 Old 10-06-2009, 10:25 PM
 
hippy mum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,556
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by carriebft View Post
I think the mechanism of how vaccines work is being dismissed in favor of a straw man to knock down. I don't know anyone who simply looks at a graph of polio cases and decides it's the vaccine just from that-- there is the mechanism of how the vaccine works (if indeed you accept germ theory I guess....)
Really? Unless I'm not understanding, you could ask any one who does vaccinate and looks at the chart and they'll prob say it was the vax. I hear it all the time. I get it a lot from family members who lived through it. They are die hard believers that the vaccine stopped polio. Niether one of those two groups I encounter care to take a look at anything further- for any of the vaccines.
hippy mum is online now  
#186 of 215 Old 10-06-2009, 10:28 PM
 
hippy mum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,556
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I'd like to see those trials as well that prove vaccines work.

an-domhan-I didn't read the spread, just the title. From the title alone-what did they do, watch I am Legand? Sorry, but it gave me a good chuckle. It's scary though too.
hippy mum is online now  
#187 of 215 Old 10-06-2009, 10:32 PM
 
an_domhan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 212
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pumpkinhead View Post
As an aside, how do you know for sure that vaccines maim and damage children? What sort of cellular evidence can you provide to support this hypothesis? Can you show me a picture of reactive aluminum actively destroying brain cells and tissues?
Odd timing for this question no? I mean, well after we've been introducing aluminum through the needle? (I realize aluminum is ubiquitous to the environment) But these kinds of animal models should absolutely exist prior to licensure of any biologic recommended or mandated for universal use. There should also be bona-fide control groups in the clinical trials used to demonstrate safety and efficacy (I'd settle for animals at this point, since it's clear we won't even get an observational study comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated people).

While we're at it, it might be nice if adverse events were not left to the vaccine maker to determine and someone other than the vaccinee were in charge of recording the post-challenge data. A little blinding might be nice as well... sigh, one can hope.



This is a really interesting read:
http://cmmg.biosci.wayne.edu/asg/polly.html[/QUOTE]

Yes, good read.
an_domhan is offline  
#188 of 215 Old 10-06-2009, 10:39 PM
 
hippy mum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,556
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Before I forget-Ema you said
"I would not be so sure that because one child is more susceptible than another it is an issue of genes. I think that may be where epigenetics plays a role - something in the environment during pregnancy, birth or the neonatal period may be affecting the gene expression of the baby. And with the rather non existant understanding of how immune systems develop in a 'normal' way, it is hard to even know how to optimally support immune system development. Or to know when something is going wrong."

I agree. Just taking on the whole pre and neonatal issues could be one whole area of study, and a huge one at that.
hippy mum is online now  
#189 of 215 Old 10-06-2009, 10:40 PM
 
an_domhan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 212
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by carriebft View Post
I think the mechanism of how vaccines work is being dismissed in favor of a straw man to knock down. I don't know anyone who simply looks at a graph of polio cases and decides it's the vaccine just from that-- there is the mechanism of how the vaccine works (if indeed you accept germ theory I guess....)
Seroconversion? During vaccine challenges with animals, protective titres are measured when the animal stops exhibiting symptoms to the disease causing agent. An animal that doesn't exhibit symptoms, doesn't mean it's not a sick animal. At least that's what they say when they try to get you to take Valtrex for the rest of your life.
an_domhan is offline  
#190 of 215 Old 10-06-2009, 10:47 PM
 
an_domhan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 212
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbrandonsmom View Post
From the title alone-what did they do, watch I am Legand? Sorry, but it gave me a good chuckle. It's scary though too.
Here's a beauty:

In the 1970s, measles infections were observed to cause regression of pre- existing cancerous tumors in children. This information was noted, but nothing was done to study this phenomenon until the late 1990s, when, under the direction of Stephen Russell, M.D., Ph.D., Mayo Clinic Cancer Center's Molecular Medicine Program began investigating it. The current study and other related projects resulted.

Reduction of cancerous tumors? Oy... measles much more important to contain, wouldn't you say? Let's eradicate measles and have cancer instead . Oops, here I go confusing correlation and causation again.
an_domhan is offline  
#191 of 215 Old 10-06-2009, 10:52 PM
 
hippy mum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,556
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by an_domhan View Post
Odd timing for this question no? I mean, well after we've been introducing aluminum through the needle? (I realize aluminum is ubiquitous to the environment) But these kinds of animal models should absolutely exist prior to licensure of any biologic recommended or mandated for universal use. There should also be bona-fide control groups in the clinical trials used to demonstrate safety and efficacy (I'd settle for animals at this point, since it's clear we won't even get an observational study comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated people).

While we're at it, it might be nice if adverse events were not left to the vaccine maker to determine and someone other than the vaccinee were in charge of recording the post-challenge data. A little blinding might be nice as well... sigh, one can hope.
Yup. I don't see it happening though If the manufactures and doctors honestly believe that the vaxes, ingreds etc, were perfectly safe, shouldn't they be all over doing any number of studies that actually proved it's safety.
I think it was Dr Sears in his blog that said they knew mercury was harmful for 10yrs before deciding to pull it. He was talking about aluminum and it's effects on the body.
hippy mum is online now  
#192 of 215 Old 10-07-2009, 03:55 AM - Thread Starter
 
ema-adama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,387
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by an_domhan View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by orangewallflower View Post
What is held up as evidence that vaccines work is not a vague historical view, it is clinical trials.
Which ones might those be?
I think this is the crux. These studies just do not exist, and for some or other reason that does not pose a problem even to the most hardlined pro vax people who will only quote published scientific studies/opinions and use logic to support their claims. Perhaps because it is history and therefore has nothing to do with modern vaccination issues? I honestly do not understand why this does not pose more of a problem for people who use science to inform themselves on vaccines.

I would still like to understand how I have used a straw man aurgument. I do not think I have distorted any facts and I am not misrepresenting any claims. I am saying that there is no more to the claim that the Salk vaccine single handedly reduced polio incidence in the 1950's in the USA than a graph. This graph has no evidence supporting it. What is incorrect or misleading about this assertion?

Megan, mama to her little boy (Feb2008) and introducing our little girl (Dec 2010)
ema-adama is offline  
#193 of 215 Old 10-07-2009, 08:09 AM
 
carriebft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 6,947
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
So, no one tested the vaccine. No one used any science in developing the vaccine. They simply threw something together, used it, and then, by looking at a graph, decided it worked?


Also, which studies are you referring to here? I have found that, many times, when people claim a certain type of study on vaccines does not exist that it usually does....(examples; studies on premies, studies on immune compromised, studies that are double blind placebo controlled, studies on pregnant women, etc)

Quote:
These studies just do not exist, and for some or other reason that does not pose a problem even to the most hardlined pro vax people who will only quote published scientific studies/opinions and use logic to support their claims.

"Parents are simply trustees; they do not own the bodies of their children"-Norm Cohen  Martial arts instructor intactlact.gifhomebirth.jpgnak.gif and mom to 4: DD1 (1/05) DS (7/06) DD2 (5/08) DD3 (2/11)
carriebft is offline  
#194 of 215 Old 10-07-2009, 08:25 AM
 
carriebft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 6,947
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbrandonsmom View Post
Really? Unless I'm not understanding, you could ask any one who does vaccinate and looks at the chart and they'll prob say it was the vax. I hear it all the time. I get it a lot from family members who lived through it. They are die hard believers that the vaccine stopped polio. Niether one of those two groups I encounter care to take a look at anything further- for any of the vaccines.
Someone may look at a graph and decide that was the case-- that specific person may be confusing how the graph "proves" vs "adds to the evidence".

But the fact remains that the salk vaccine was tested and was based on science. It was developed using the advances that came before it, involved 3 strains of the disease, built upon older ideas of creating immunity through vaccination with weakened germs. You can read a lot about these trials in various books, esp the field trial which had almost 1 million people-- I assume even some on the anti vaccine side talk about them. Offit has written extensively on them on the pro side. I am not saying it was great-- it had a lot of problems-- but I am viewing this from the scope of this specific debate-- was there evidence above and beyond "a graph" to show it worked.

I have never tried to find the field trial information online but I assume, due to the dates, you won't find much. But, like I said, many authors have tackled the issue. If don't mind reading Offit, I can even hook you up with a copy.

But PM me because I am not going to be around for a few days but I'll check my email

"Parents are simply trustees; they do not own the bodies of their children"-Norm Cohen  Martial arts instructor intactlact.gifhomebirth.jpgnak.gif and mom to 4: DD1 (1/05) DS (7/06) DD2 (5/08) DD3 (2/11)
carriebft is offline  
#195 of 215 Old 10-07-2009, 11:35 AM
 
Cristiaz's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 386
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
While were on the subject of polio, here's an excerpt from the book, The Truth About Childrens Health by Robert Bernardini, M.S.

(the vaccines he refers to are the ones by Salk and Sabin)
"These vaccines are credited for halting the polio epidemic. However, Dr. Mendelsohn reports that there is "...no credible scientific evidence exsists that the vaccine caused polio to disappear." In fact, polio epidemics ended in Europe around the same time as in the U.S., where the vaccines were not nearly as extensively used.
What's worse is that the polio vaccine itself can cause the very disease it's meant to prevent. Even Jonas Salk stated that most of the polio cases in the U.S. since the 1970s were caused by the live virus vaccine."

The section in this book on polio is HUGE and he talks about how they changed the diagnosis for it and such...He gives sources for all of his info. Its a great book. He also has pages and pages that give proof that the germ theory is incorrect.

"According to immunology, exposure creates immunity. But, also according to immunology, the only way you can get the disease is by being exposed. Which is it? If the laws of physics, chemistry, biology, and simple logic are followed, it cannot mean both.
As you can see, modern medicine and the pharmaceutical companies have the best of both worlds. They have convinced us that we need drugs to stop germs so they don't continue to multiply and kill us. And then they've convinced us we need vaccines to have these very same "killer" germs injected into us so we can have immunity so they never bother us! But as you see, the logic is flawed. And I was trained to believe that logic is the cornerstone to science- and medicine."

Veda 9/06
Cristiaz is offline  
#196 of 215 Old 10-07-2009, 11:37 AM - Thread Starter
 
ema-adama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,387
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by carriebft View Post
So, no one tested the vaccine. No one used any science in developing the vaccine. They simply threw something together, used it, and then, by looking at a graph, decided it worked?
I have not proposed that is what happened. If anything that I have posted leads you to think that, please bring that to my attention.

Quote:
Also, which studies are you referring to here? I have found that, many times, when people claim a certain type of study on vaccines does not exist that it usually does....(examples; studies on premies, studies on immune compromised, studies that are double blind placebo controlled, studies on pregnant women, etc)
The studies that are able to isolate the Salk vaccine as the sole reason why there was such a dramatic decline in the incidence of polio in the USA in the 1950's.
Quote:
But the fact remains that the salk vaccine was tested and was based on science. It was developed using the advances that came before it, involved 3 strains of the disease, built upon older ideas of creating immunity through vaccination with weakened germs. You can read a lot about these trials in various books, esp the field trial which had almost 2 million kids-- I assume even some on the anti vaccine side talk about them. Offit has written extensively on them on the pro side.
The Salk vaccine was tested and based on the science of the day, which is certainly not the science of today. It involved the 3 polio viruses. But no, it used killed virus, not weakened virus. (OPV is weakened virus) I am sure that much of the hype around the vaccine can be attributed to the celebration of science overcoming the dread of the disease polio. I haven't had time to read Paul Offit and his book on the Cutter Incident. One day....

This study sheds light on some questions regarding the efficacy of the Salk vaccine in 1955 and 1956. The study is from 1960.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pag...08&pageindex=6

From page 536
Quote:
On inspection of the figures, no striking difference between the vaccinated and unvaccinated children is apparent.
Page 540 and 541 are pretty amazing when it comes to questioning why there has been such a dramatic decline in the incidence of polio. The final plausible reason put forward by the authors is:

Quote:
3. The decreased incidence of poliomyelitis may be unrelated to vaccination, but due solely to the unexplained natural fluctuation of the disease.
p541
Quote:
All three possibilities are suggested on speculative grounds and are not susceptible of proof in the present state of our knowledge. However, it would seem wise at this time to assume that vaccination with killed virus will not limit to a significant degree spread of the poliovirus.

Megan, mama to her little boy (Feb2008) and introducing our little girl (Dec 2010)
ema-adama is offline  
#197 of 215 Old 10-07-2009, 11:51 AM
 
carriebft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 6,947
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
The Cutter Incident touches on it but more is in Vaccinated: One Man's...

Quote:
I have not proposed that is what happened. If anything that I have posted leads you to think that, please bring that to my attention.
you said:
Quote:
I am saying that there is no more to the claim that the Salk vaccine single handedly reduced polio incidence in the 1950's in the USA than a graph.
You are saying that the only evidence that exists for this vaccine's effectiveness is a graph.

Not the trials, the field trials, the science behind vaccination with (more fault on wording before, sorry) inactived virus/particles, etc.....a graph.

though we may know more about how the immune system responds to the inactived vaccine NOW, that doesn't change how it worked THEN-- it's still the same principles.

"Parents are simply trustees; they do not own the bodies of their children"-Norm Cohen  Martial arts instructor intactlact.gifhomebirth.jpgnak.gif and mom to 4: DD1 (1/05) DS (7/06) DD2 (5/08) DD3 (2/11)
carriebft is offline  
#198 of 215 Old 10-07-2009, 12:01 PM
 
carriebft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 6,947
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Although, if you are placeing your emphasis on the words "single handedly" then maybe I am arguing a different point than you are.

I am saying:
We know the vaccine played a role in the reduction of polio because we have the connection and the mechanism for that connection. We know how the vaccine works, how it creates immunity and the results of that immunity in the subjects it was tested/used in (and all the science that goes along with that). Then we have more evidence in the reduction of polio (ie, "the graph"). If someone says the graph is the sole reason for their belief, then, yes, they are being narrow minded about the subject. One needs to find the mechanism of the correlation to create the causation. The mechanism is found in how the vaccine works to create immunity.


BTW: the oral vaccine is the one that prevents multiplication of the virus in the gut, so obviously research on IPV will not show such an effect.

"Parents are simply trustees; they do not own the bodies of their children"-Norm Cohen  Martial arts instructor intactlact.gifhomebirth.jpgnak.gif and mom to 4: DD1 (1/05) DS (7/06) DD2 (5/08) DD3 (2/11)
carriebft is offline  
#199 of 215 Old 10-07-2009, 12:19 PM
 
an_domhan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 212
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by carriebft View Post
So, no one tested the vaccine. No one used any science in developing the vaccine. They simply threw something together, used it, and then, by looking at a graph, decided it worked?
Of course they tested it... with two vaccinated groups of people/children, if they tested it at all (if the vaccines were similar to other vaccines being tested, then they may have been granted a waiver from having to much at all). Of course they used "science" to develop it.... and are using a single part of what happens inside of an organism when presented with a challenge and claiming it works. Some see the glass half empty, others half full.

There isn't a shred of science to support the increased administration of vaccines under the age of two in the last 40 years though, other than the hypothetical capacity of the human immune system. It's all about perceived tolerance (or the magic that can accompany epidemiology) - if you have evidence otherwise, I'm very interested to see it. Exactly what happens inside of a 24 hour old infant when vaccinated against Hep B before leaving the hospital? Nobody knows really, but it didn't stop the implentation of this absurd practice.
an_domhan is offline  
#200 of 215 Old 10-07-2009, 12:27 PM
 
an_domhan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 212
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by carriebft View Post

Not the trials, the field trials, the science behind vaccination
Comparing vaccinated people to other vaccinated people proves what exactly? Showing that person develops protective titre levels proves what exactly? We've been injecting attenuated, dead, accompanied by, a little of this, a little of that, foreign proteins, allergy inducing materials into human beings for how long?

Scientists have conceded the rate of evolution to be approximately .5% per million years. Pardon my French, but the roughly 200 years we've been vaccinating (if we can even count the barabaric days of Jenner) isn't even a piss shake.... However, we are positively confident there are no deleterious effects and anyone that dare question the possibility that there just might be... is a tin-foil-hat-wearing, conspiracy-theory-promoting nutbag. About right? We are to either change with this artificial environment we have created, or it will change us - it's all about adaptation. Manipulating the eco-system both within human beings, and outside of them, should involve choice. Sadly, that is not the case.
an_domhan is offline  
#201 of 215 Old 10-07-2009, 12:29 PM
 
an_domhan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 212
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by carriebft View Post
We know the vaccine played a role in the reduction of polio because we have the connection and the mechanism for that connection.
Please explain the mechanism. TIA
an_domhan is offline  
#202 of 215 Old 10-07-2009, 12:35 PM
 
carriebft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 6,947
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
your first post: what information are you looking for? what would this evidence look like to you? I can try and provide once I know what it is you are looking for. I admit I am not quite sure.

your second post: You might want to read up on this specific vaccine- I think maybe that might help you understand how it was tested. Also, there are many vaccine studies with placebo controls- saline placebo at that. I can start a new thread if you want examples. on your second paragraph: I am not sure where that came from. I would not say those things. I also support choice in vaccination.

Your third post: again, you want information on how vaccines create immunity? do you mean something along the lines of an explanation of what happens once the vaccine is given and lymph takes over? or how immunity can prevent disease? this are pretty broad and in depth topics. maybe we should start a new thread on them!

"Parents are simply trustees; they do not own the bodies of their children"-Norm Cohen  Martial arts instructor intactlact.gifhomebirth.jpgnak.gif and mom to 4: DD1 (1/05) DS (7/06) DD2 (5/08) DD3 (2/11)
carriebft is offline  
#203 of 215 Old 10-07-2009, 01:29 PM
 
Scattershoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Round Rock, TX
Posts: 876
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by carriebft View Post
Also, there are many vaccine studies with placebo controls- saline placebo at that. !
I am interested in these studies. I admittedly have not looked at all that many studies in the past few years. I kind of got burned out. I can't ever recall one study that used a true placebo that I had looked at. They would mention placebo, but it had something in it, such as aluminum. If you have easy access to these (I know how time consuming it is to go back and post research), I'd be interested in reading these.

Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation. - Oscar Wilde
Scattershoot is offline  
#204 of 215 Old 10-07-2009, 03:01 PM
 
an_domhan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 212
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by carriebft View Post
your first post: what information are you looking for? what would this evidence look like to you? I can try and provide once I know what it is you are looking for. I admit I am not quite sure.
? You've repeated stated that the mechanism for which vaccines have been proven to "work" has been demonstrated.

I'm familiar with this vaccine. I'm also familiar with how the stroke of a pen reduced incidence of this disease overnight.

Please post studies (any vaccine will do) with bona-fide control groups.... don't forget the exclusion criteria.
an_domhan is offline  
#205 of 215 Old 10-07-2009, 03:07 PM
 
an_domhan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 212
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scattershoot View Post
I kind of got burned out. I can't ever recall one study that used a true placebo that I had looked at. They would mention placebo, but it had something in it, such as aluminum.
Or, those in the control group were already vaccinated.... Comparing people vaccinated with X against people vaccinated with Y.... and so on.
an_domhan is offline  
#206 of 215 Old 10-07-2009, 03:22 PM
 
an_domhan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 212
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by carriebft View Post
Your third post: again, you want information on how vaccines create immunity? do you mean something along the lines of an explanation of what happens once the vaccine is given and lymph takes over? or how immunity can prevent disease? this are pretty broad and in depth topics. maybe we should start a new thread on them!
It's very likely they've been discussed ad nausem here. I wouldn't know, I don't come here that often unless I need a dose of hostility. (Not that you're hostile, this topic makes me that way)

Immunity is a relative term depending on how robust the host is. There is also no accurate way to control for variables in the real world. I'm sorry you're not following what I previously posted (seriopositivity), let me try again:

Before vaccines enter the clinical trial circus for human use, they undergo animal testing. When animals are presented with the disease causing agent, "immunity" is measured when the animal ceases to exhibit symptoms to said agent. A person that does not exhibit symptoms, is not a person that is immune (a definition riddled with holes). It is a person that is simply not presenting in the same fashion as one would if they had never been challenged. And they are definitely off the radar as a person that might be asymptomatically, and quietly, spreading disease among the herd. Should an unvaccinated person come into contact with them, the unvaccinated is very likely to present with classic symptoms and go on to be clinically diagnosed based on both symptomology and their vaccination status.

Dealing with and overcoming disease also creates immunity. Vaccines are not the only method of disease prevention.
an_domhan is offline  
#207 of 215 Old 10-07-2009, 05:06 PM - Thread Starter
 
ema-adama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,387
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by carriebft View Post
The Cutter Incident touches on it but more is in Vaccinated: One Man's...

you said:
Quote:
I am saying that there is no more to the claim that the Salk vaccine single handedly reduced polio incidence in the 1950's in the USA than a graph.
You are saying that the only evidence that exists for this vaccine's effectiveness is a graph.

Not the trials, the field trials, the science behind vaccination with (more fault on wording before, sorry) inactived virus/particles, etc.....a graph.

though we may know more about how the immune system responds to the inactived vaccine NOW, that doesn't change how it worked THEN-- it's still the same principles.
I want to respond to the IPV of then and the IPV of now. From what I have understood the IPV has been dramatically improved on since 1955. It is definitely not the same vaccine in use. The idea of mounting an immune response by introducing a killed virus is still pretty much the same. The vaccine itself not so much. It is impossible to compare todays' IPV with the IPV available in the USA in the 1950's.

Quote:
Originally Posted by carriebft View Post
Although, if you are placeing your emphasis on the words "single handedly" then maybe I am arguing a different point than you are.

I am saying:
We know the vaccine played a role in the reduction of polio because we have the connection and the mechanism for that connection. We know how the vaccine works, how it creates immunity and the results of that immunity in the subjects it was tested/used in (and all the science that goes along with that). Then we have more evidence in the reduction of polio (ie, "the graph"). If someone says the graph is the sole reason for their belief, then, yes, they are being narrow minded about the subject. One needs to find the mechanism of the correlation to create the causation. The mechanism is found in how the vaccine works to create immunity.


BTW: the oral vaccine is the one that prevents multiplication of the virus in the gut, so obviously research on IPV will not show such an effect.
The key to my question does lie in the phrase 'single handedly'.

The Salk vaccine was not consistently translating into protection from polio. And there was/is a fair amount of controversy about how to inactivate the polio viruses. Salk had his opinion, and other scientists had their opinions. This study from Sweden looks at why the Salk vaccine might have been experiencing problems when it came to causing polio. The study is from 1957.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pag...23&pageindex=1

It appears Salk assumed formalin would inactivate the virus according to the methodology he was using, while there is evidence that this was not the case.

Back to the graph. Yes, 'narrow minded' would describe the people I know who like to use the graph as evidence. So, I am curious as to how someone can establish what impact the Salk vaccine had on the decline in incidence. Two confounding variables that interest me is a) the reclassication of polio the disease. If the disease had not been reclassified, would we still see such dramatic numbers post Salk vaccine? and b) the removal of DDT from public use. If DDT continued to be in use, would we have seen such a dramatic decrease in polio with the Salk vaccine? I think these are reasonable questions to ask. And to the best of my knowledge, there is no way to actually get an answer.

I think it is worth noting that inherent to my question is the possibility that the Salk vaccine may have worked for some people and that it might have played some role in the reduction of incidence in polio. My concern is that there are other important variables that have the potential to seriously impact on the numbers. I do not think that such a dramatic graph can be attributed to the Salk vaccine alone.

The comments I quoted from the study on gut immunity following IPV were following this:
Quote:
Some comment should be made concerning the antibody levels observed in the sera of vaccinated children. It will be recalled that the sera for antibody determination were obtained in the late summer and, in most instances, the vaccine had been administered the previous spring. Our failure to find any clear-cut differences between the vaccinated and unvaccinated children either in regard to the presence of antibody or level of antibody is somewhat disturbing.
Quote:
If the findings of our study indicate the true situation, it might well be asked why the incidence of poliomyelitis in the United States has fallen so dramatically within the past two years, coincident with the introduction of the vaccine. Amoung the significant number of persons not yet immunized cases should occur if vaccination has not reduced the opportunity for exposure.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pag...8&pageindex=10

Megan, mama to her little boy (Feb2008) and introducing our little girl (Dec 2010)
ema-adama is offline  
#208 of 215 Old 10-07-2009, 05:15 PM
 
Scattershoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Round Rock, TX
Posts: 876
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by an_domhan View Post
Or, those in the control group were already vaccinated.... Comparing people vaccinated with X against people vaccinated with Y.... and so on.
Very true.

Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation. - Oscar Wilde
Scattershoot is offline  
#209 of 215 Old 10-09-2009, 09:26 PM
 
hippy mum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,556
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Ema-I found this just now, has to do w/ the first IPV I guess and not after they changed it. It might be the reason they did change it? I'm not up to par on my polio facts.
http://www.iom.edu/?id=6014
hippy mum is online now  
#210 of 215 Old 10-10-2009, 03:19 AM - Thread Starter
 
ema-adama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,387
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
This link is taking me to the IOM homepage. I didn't see anything specific to polio?

I am still learning about the IPV from 1955. It really is facinating to understand more about it all. I used to think that tonsillectomy was a bit of a red herring when it came to understanding polio in the 1940's and 50's. I also used to think that DDT and reclassification of the disease were intended to distract questioning parents from the truth that the vaccine saved us. I cannot say with any certainty that the vaccine hype is just a myth, but neither can I say with any certainty that the IPV of 1955 really did achieve all that has been claimed.

A 92% decrease in incidence of polio is a mighty claim, and so far I am not findng the evidence that the Salk vaccine did indeed do that. In fact I am finding evidence that brings this claim very much into question. At least questionong the role of the vaccine in single handedly reducing polio so dramatically.

The knowledge and resources scientists had at their disposal in the 1950's was remarkably reduced compared to today. The science may have been good for it's day (or not if Salk was not actually using formalin effectively). But the argument that it was all scientificaaly sound is not really relevant. Jenner was also considered to be scientifically sound in his day. The first live measles vaccine was also scientifically sound, the Edmonston B strain. And yet it was so virulent, that it was removed from use and replaced with further attenuated strains. Just because the science of the day supports something, does not mean that it holds true forever. Or cannot be improved upon.

That graph is very problematic.

Megan, mama to her little boy (Feb2008) and introducing our little girl (Dec 2010)
ema-adama is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may 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