What is the proof that vaccines work? - Mothering Forums

 57Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 53 Old 07-20-2012, 08:09 AM - Thread Starter
 
littlec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 310
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)

I get that it sounds like a silly question. It seems a simple answer:

 

1. Disease rates go down when vaccination rates go up.

 

2. Vaccinated individuals contract VPD's much less than a non-vaccinated person.

 

Is there any more to it? I am aware of antibody testing as well. I guess what I'm looking for is the evidence that you and I can tell they work. Is there more evidence than the above two statements?

applejuice likes this.

"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." ~Mark Twain

 


 
littlec is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#2 of 53 Old 07-21-2012, 11:43 AM
 
tonttu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 491
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I am sure , there are a lot more , but even those to facts are good enough for me thumb.gif

applejuice likes this.

vbac.gifafter 3 cs fambedsingle1.gifbfinfant.gifHappily single Momteapot2.GIFknit.gif

tonttu is offline  
#3 of 53 Old 07-22-2012, 08:52 PM
 
pers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 518
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)

I'm not sure what sort of evidence beyond that you would be looking for?  

 

New vaccines are tested against a placebo in randomized double-blind tests.  That really  fits under your second point of evidence that vaccinated people get the disease less often, but it's a bit more controlled than surveillance studies and investigation of outbreaks, I guess.  

 

Or, it still fits under your second point, but testing of animal vaccines go a step beyond that by deliberately exposing animals to the disease.  This can also be done, to some extent, with vaccines for diseases that can be passed back and forth between animals and humans.  The 2009 pandemic H1N1 vaccine was tested this way in ferrets.

pers is offline  
#4 of 53 Old 07-22-2012, 09:25 PM
 
proudMoMmy2634's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 154
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pers View Post

I'm not sure what sort of evidence beyond that you would be looking for?  

 

New vaccines are tested against a placebo in randomized double-blind tests.  That really  fits under your second point of evidence that vaccinated people get the disease less often, but it's a bit more controlled than surveillance studies and investigation of outbreaks, I guess.  

 

Or, it still fits under your second point, but testing of animal vaccines go a step beyond that by deliberately exposing animals to the disease.  This can also be done, to some extent, with vaccines for diseases that can be passed back and forth between animals and humans.  The 2009 pandemic H1N1 vaccine was tested this way in ferrets.

 

Very well said.

 

 

And in addition to this,  non-vaccinated person are more at risk when their is an occurence of a disease that could have been prevented if they had been vaccinated.

applejuice and prosciencemum like this.

Living is great but being a MOM is even better

proudMoMmy2634 is offline  
#5 of 53 Old 07-22-2012, 10:37 PM
 
ma2two's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,476
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pers View Post

New vaccines are tested against a placebo in randomized double-blind tests.  That really  fits under your second point of evidence that vaccinated people get the disease less often, but it's a bit more controlled than surveillance studies and investigation of outbreaks, I guess.  

Really? Are you sure about that?

 

What kinds of things do they use for the "placebos?" Do the tests show that the people getting the "placebos" get the disease at a higher rate? Can you provide links? These types of clinical trials don't last very long. So I don't see how, without purposely exposing the people to the disease, which they wouldn't be allowed to do, that they could determine the "unvaccinated" people get the disease more often.

applejuice, boomer78 and Taximom5 like this.
ma2two is offline  
#6 of 53 Old 07-22-2012, 10:39 PM
 
Bokonon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,948
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by littlec View Post

I get that it sounds like a silly question. It seems a simple answer:

 

1. Disease rates go down when vaccination rates go up.

 

2. Vaccinated individuals contract VPD's much less than a non-vaccinated person.

 

 

 

I thought correlation did not equal causation?  At least, that's what vaccine defenders say when a parent says that their child regressed developmentally immediately after vaccines and was later diagnosed with autism.  

 

If you argue that autism rates have gone up as vaccination rates have gone up, then how can your assertion #1 be a valid argument?

boomer78, Taximom5 and girlygaia like this.

A, jammin.gif mama to a boy (2005) and a girl (2009)
Bokonon is offline  
#7 of 53 Old 07-23-2012, 02:38 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: United Kingdom (have lived previously in the USA).
Posts: 2,007
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 276 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bokonon View Post

 

I thought correlation did not equal causation?  At least, that's what vaccine defenders say when a parent says that their child regressed developmentally immediately after vaccines and was later diagnosed with autism.  

 

If you argue that autism rates have gone up as vaccination rates have gone up, then how can your assertion #1 be a valid argument?

 

Correlation does not equal causation - it requires a plausible physical explanation as well. With vaccine trials, the plausible explanation is there. Scientists understand the mechanism by which vaccines can induce an immunity reponse without getting the person sick, and that this "trains" the immune systems to react more vigourously when exposed to the full disease. 

 

Time again it has been shown there are ways to develop autism without vaccines, and that autism rates are not well correlated with vaccination take up (e.g. different rates in different countries with similar vaccination programs). So the physical link does not exist.


Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences). Vaccines save lives.
prosciencemum is online now  
#8 of 53 Old 07-23-2012, 08:15 AM
 
tonttu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 491
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post
Time again it has been shown there are ways to develop autism without vaccines, and that autism rates are not well correlated with vaccination take up (e.g. different rates in different countries with similar vaccination programs). So the physical link does not exist.

Also , when saying , that autism rates have gone up , we always have to remember , that the way children are being checked for problems , have really advanced and many children , that may have been considered simply " misbehaving " ( I am not just talking about autism now ) a few years or decades ago , are now being looked at from a totally different angle


vbac.gifafter 3 cs fambedsingle1.gifbfinfant.gifHappily single Momteapot2.GIFknit.gif

tonttu is offline  
#9 of 53 Old 07-23-2012, 08:29 AM - Thread Starter
 
littlec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 310
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)

 If  disease rate declines and the fact that vaccinated individuals come down with the VPD less frequently than unvaccinated are accurate assessments of vaccine effectiveness, then I think it's safe to conclude the Pertussis vaccine no longer works. If I'm wrong, please help me understand.

 

 

From the CDC Pink Book:

Pertussis incidence has been gradually increasing since the early 1980s. A total of 25,827 cases was reported in 2004, the largest number since 1959. The reasons for the increase are not clear.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/pert.html

 

I'm not familiar with this site, but I read most of the links- they are just news reports discussing pertussis outbreaks among vaccinated individuals and areas with high vaccine coverage:

 

http://www.dailypaul.com/167931/a-collection-of-mainstream-news-reports-and-studies-exploding-the-whooping-cough-vaccine-myth

 

 

Our results indicate that children ages 5-6 years and possibly younger, ages 2-3 years, play a role as silent reservoirs in the transmission of pertussis in the community. More studies are needed to find the immunologic basis of protection against infection and colonization and thus an effective way to eradicate pertussis.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/414768_3

 

Vaccination Coverage over the last 30 years or so shows that the coverage has been high, between 94-96% since 1994:

http://apps.who.int/ghodata/?vid=80100

 

 

Disease Rates:

http://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/surv-reporting.html

 

Year Reported Cases*
2000 7,867
2001 7,580
2002 9,771
2003 11,647
2004 25,827
2005 25,616
2006 15,632
2007 10,454
2008 13,278
2009 16,858
2010 27,550
2011** 15,216

*Total reported cases include those with unknown age.
**2011 data are provisional


"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." ~Mark Twain

 


 
littlec is online now  
#10 of 53 Old 07-23-2012, 01:14 PM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: United Kingdom (have lived previously in the USA).
Posts: 2,007
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 276 Post(s)

As I understand it, Pertusiss is a complicated case. It was a challenge to make the vaccination for, and makes us sick with a lot of different triggers than (e.g.) diptheria, or other bacterial toxins (this was covered in one of the videos of that vaccine course I watched earlier today). I have also heard it's changing fast, and it's hard for the vaccine researchers to keep up. Dropping uptake of the vaccination in certain areas is not helping either (nor is totally to blame). It's not exactly the poster child for success of vaccinations, but the vaccination at least appears to be better than nothing in terms of protecting against pertussis. 

 

At least that's how I understand the situation with pertussis. 


Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences). Vaccines save lives.
prosciencemum is online now  
#11 of 53 Old 07-23-2012, 10:34 PM
 
pers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 518
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ma2two View Post

Really? Are you sure about that?

 

What kinds of things do they use for the "placebos?" Do the tests show that the people getting the "placebos" get the disease at a higher rate? Can you provide links? These types of clinical trials don't last very long. So I don't see how, without purposely exposing the people to the disease, which they wouldn't be allowed to do, that they could determine the "unvaccinated" people get the disease more often.

 

 

Yes, I am sure about that. Here is a page that describes the vaccine development process and the phases of vaccine trials.  As the page mentions, while the placebo can be something innocuous such as saline solution, often it is tested against another vaccine.  I understand why people may object to this for safety testing since the other vaccine could be causing the same bad reactions, but when testing for efficacy, it doesn't really matter much whether the placebo is saline or the rabies vaccine unless we're going to consider that the rabies vaccine is magically protecting against HIV or some disease it wasn't designed to - extremely unlikely.  

 

For very rare diseases such as tetanus and rabies, yes it would be hard to test them against natural exposure.  I'm not  sure how those are handled, but I'm guessing evidence supporting them relies mainly on animal tests,  tests of antibodies after vaccination in humans, and long term observation of vaccinated populations.  These are the only two vaccines I can think of off the top of my head for which this would be a problem. Oh, and smallpox vaccine, if they ever try to make a safer one.  

 

For most vaccines though, the diseases were common enough pre-vaccine that reasonably large studies could have enough exposure to see a significant difference (or lack there of) of disease between the vaccinated group and the placebo group. 

 

I am talking about vaccines for diseases not previously vaccinated for, by the way.  A new measles vaccine would be tested against existing measles vaccine (still in double-blind tests) as it is considered unethical to give a placebo when there exists a vaccine known to be effective.  There have been relatively recent tests of different measles vaccines in areas where measles is still endemic... there has also been a fair amount of controversy over at least one of these tests as the parents of children enrolled may not have been fully informed :(   I think (but am not sure) that the procedure is also different for combination vaccines that combine vaccines that were already known to be effective rather than entirely new vaccines.  

 

A few examples:

 

Here is a really long but interesting paper on the creation and testing of the Salk vaccine, including background information on polio and other vaccine attempts.  Discussion of designing the trial begins on page 8, and description of the final design on page 13.  There were over 450,000 children in the double-blind placebo study.  There was also a non-blind study of over 560,000 children where 220,000 or so were given the vaccine and the rest served as controls.  The results showed that while cases of polio still occurred in the vaccinated group, the rate of infection was less than half the rate of infection in both the placebo and the control group.  Also, the disease was more severe in the control group - none of the vaccinated children died of polio, but there were fifteen fatal cases in the control groups.  The numbers are at the bottom of page 19 & top of 20.  The placebo used was a saline injection. 

 

Here is a brief description of the random  double blind trial for an HIV vaccine that unfortunately revealed that it was not effective.

 

Section 14 of this document describes pre-license trials of Rotarix.  

 

The clinical evaluation section of this gives a brief description a double-blind placebo trial of a HIB vaccine and its results.  

 

Abstract discussing a double blind trial of inactivated measles vaccine alone and inactivated measles vaccine + live measles vaccine against a placebo in the early '60s.  

 

Zostavax package insert (shingles vaccine). Section 14, which begins near the bottom of page 8, outlines the clinical trials.  

 

Prevnar7 package insert.  Clinical evaluation begins on page 3.  This one mentions that a MenC vaccine was used as the control in the US study and HepB vaccine in Finland.  

prosciencemum likes this.
pers is offline  
#12 of 53 Old 07-24-2012, 11:58 AM
 
MamaMunchkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 406
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)

The short anwer is yes, what's not clear is at what cost.

MamaMunchkin is offline  
#13 of 53 Old 08-19-2012, 03:06 AM
 
marsupial-mom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 827
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MamaMunchkin View Post

The short anwer is yes, what's not clear is at what cost.

In other words, there is NOT clear and compelling evidence that the risks of vaccines outweigh the benefits. In fact, the opposite is true.
applejuice likes this.
marsupial-mom is offline  
#14 of 53 Old 08-20-2012, 01:32 PM
 
MamaMunchkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 406
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)

Quote:

Originally Posted by MamaMunchkin View Post

The short anwer is yes, what's not clear is at what cost.

 

Originally Posted by marsupial-mom View Post


In other words, there is NOT clear and compelling evidence that the risks of vaccines outweigh the benefits. In fact, the opposite is true.

 

It's also - not - clear that the benefits outweigh the risks.  Some of us are in the process of figuring out if 'the opposite is true' is true/false/unknown/unknowable at this point.

MamaMunchkin is offline  
#15 of 53 Old 10-09-2012, 07:36 PM
 
Pookietooth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 5,016
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Actually, new vaccines are not tested against a placebo, they are tested against an existing vaccine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pers View Post

 

New vaccines are tested against a placebo in randomized double-blind tests.  That really  fits under your second point of evidence that vaccinated people get the disease less often, but it's a bit more controlled than surveillance studies and investigation of outbreaks, I guess.  

 


Jen 47 DS C 2/03  angel.gif04/29/08/ DD S 10/28/09 DH Bill '97.

mighty-mama and her sister Kundalini-Mamacandle.gif

Pookietooth is offline  
#16 of 53 Old 10-11-2012, 09:37 AM
 
pers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 518
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pookietooth View Post

Actually, new vaccines are not tested against a placebo, they are tested against an existing vaccine.

 

Some have been tested against just saline or some against  a different non-vaccine such as an injection with just a bit of adjuvant so it will have the same sting to prevent the subject from being able to tell if they have had the vaccine or the placebo.  While I understand the objection to using another vaccine (or even the just adjuvant injection) for safety, as far as effectiveness testing goes, it functions as a placebo since unless somehow the rabies vaccine prevented HIV or whatever.  See my previous post in this thread just a few posts up from this one. 

pers is offline  
#17 of 53 Old 10-11-2012, 12:09 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,341
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 106 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by marsupial-mom View Post


In other words, there is NOT clear and compelling evidence that the risks of vaccines outweigh the benefits. In fact, the opposite is true.

For myself, my children, and thousands and thousands of others who have had serious adverse reactions to vaccines, the risks outweighed the benefits--and we can never, ever take back our foolish decision to vaccinate.

 

Neither can the 2000 people whose brain damage was admitted to be vaccine-induced by the US government, nor the 40+ people whose vaccine-induced autoimmune disorders were admitted by the US government to be caused by vaccines.  

 

Of course, as long as the pharmaceutical industry continues their massive effort to cover up the evidence of such reactions, there will be people who continue to believe that such reactions are rare and therefore acceptable.

 

They are not nearly as rare as you think, and they are not acceptable.

Taximom5 is offline  
#18 of 53 Old 10-11-2012, 12:11 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,341
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 106 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pers View Post

 

Some have been tested against just saline or some against  a different non-vaccine such as an injection with just a bit of adjuvant so it will have the same sting to prevent the subject from being able to tell if they have had the vaccine or the placebo.  While I understand the objection to using another vaccine (or even the just adjuvant injection) for safety, as far as effectiveness testing goes, it functions as a placebo since unless somehow the rabies vaccine prevented HIV or whatever.  See my previous post in this thread just a few posts up from this one. 

As long as it contains ANYTHING that could (and does) have a harmful effect on a subgroup of people, it is not a placebo, and no amount of twisting the truth will make it one.  Saying that "it functions as a placebo" does not minimize the harmful effects; it just confuses people into believing so.

BeckyBird and boomer78 like this.
Taximom5 is offline  
#19 of 53 Old 10-11-2012, 04:29 PM
 
pers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 518
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

As long as it contains ANYTHING that could (and does) have a harmful effect on a subgroup of people, it is not a placebo, and no amount of twisting the truth will make it one.  Saying that "it functions as a placebo" does not minimize the harmful effects; it just confuses people into believing so.

 

Once again, I understand the objections to testing against another vaccine in regards to vaccine safety.  But this thread was not asking if vaccines were safe, it was asking if vaccines work.  Is there any reason to believe or suspect that the rabies vaccine is any better than saline solution at preventing HIV, dengue fever, or any other disease unrelated to rabies?  Has it ever been used with intent to prevent or treat these things?  No? Then it can function as a placebo for testing how effective an HIV vaccine or dengue fever vaccine is.  

pers is offline  
#20 of 53 Old 10-11-2012, 11:21 PM
 
Shanesmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 201
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

For myself, my children, and thousands and thousands of others who have had serious adverse reactions to vaccines, the risks outweighed the benefits--and we can never, ever take back our foolish decision to vaccinate.

Neither can the 2000 people whose brain damage was admitted to be vaccine-induced by the US government, nor the 40+ people whose vaccine-induced autoimmune disorders were admitted by the US government to be caused by vaccines.  

Of course, as long as the pharmaceutical industry continues their massive effort to cover up the evidence of such reactions, there will be people who continue to believe that such reactions are rare and therefore acceptable.

They are not nearly as rare as you think, and they are not acceptable.

I 100% agree

Crunchy Christian mama to my home birthed, unvaxed, uncirc boys Shane and Cody!!joy.gif
Shanesmom is offline  
#21 of 53 Old 10-12-2012, 05:55 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: United Kingdom (have lived previously in the USA).
Posts: 2,007
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 276 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

As long as it contains ANYTHING that could (and does) have a harmful effect on a subgroup of people, it is not a placebo, and no amount of twisting the truth will make it one.  Saying that "it functions as a placebo" does not minimize the harmful effects; it just confuses people into believing so.

 

No. The definition of a placebo is "a simulated or otherwise medically ineffectual treatment for a disease or other medical condition intended to deceive the recipient." (that's from wikipedia at least). 

 

So it has to be something that the person thinks is medicine (or prevention) for the disease, but actually isn't. Research ethics would say it should also be something which the researcher believe is not harmful based on the best available evidence, but that has nothing to do with it being called a placebo.

 

A placebo is something which has no positive medical effects, and anyone who thinks otherwise just has a misconception. 


Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences). Vaccines save lives.
prosciencemum is online now  
#22 of 53 Old 10-12-2012, 05:57 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: United Kingdom (have lived previously in the USA).
Posts: 2,007
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 276 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

 

Neither can the 2000 people whose brain damage was admitted to be vaccine-induced by the US government, nor the 40+ people whose vaccine-induced autoimmune disorders were admitted by the US government to be caused by vaccines.  

 

 

You've posted those figures before (http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1359577/newborn-vaccines-eye-drops-vitamin-k-and-hep-b/20 for example). I'm curious to follow them up. Where do they come from? Over what date range? 


Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences). Vaccines save lives.
prosciencemum is online now  
#23 of 53 Old 10-12-2012, 07:21 PM
 
Pookietooth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 5,016
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

The fact that I have talked to people whose children were vaccine damaged whose doctors refused to do anything or report their children's adverse vaccine reactions leads me to suspect that the figures are vastly under-reported. Situations like the child went into convulsions and passed out, then continued to have regular convulsions (with no family history of seizure disorder) and eventually die (a few years later). 

I do know that I am still immune to rubella, and I probably had that vaccine 40 years ago or so. At least I was 3 years ago when I was getting pregnant with my dd. I also was vaccinated for mumps, but got it anyway when I was 8 or so, which makes me wonder about how effective they are.


Jen 47 DS C 2/03  angel.gif04/29/08/ DD S 10/28/09 DH Bill '97.

mighty-mama and her sister Kundalini-Mamacandle.gif

Pookietooth is offline  
#24 of 53 Old 10-13-2012, 11:05 AM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,341
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 106 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonttu View Post

Also , when saying , that autism rates have gone up , we always have to remember , that the way children are being checked for problems , have really advanced and many children , that may have been considered simply " misbehaving " ( I am not just talking about autism now ) a few years or decades ago , are now being looked at from a totally different angle

Not true.

The diagnostic criteria changed in 1994 with DSM IV. Nothing has changed in terms of diagnosis in nearly 20 years. But those who deny a vaccine-autism link like to pretend that it has so that they can justify the enormous increase in autism.
Taximom5 is offline  
#25 of 53 Old 02-24-2015, 01:08 AM
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 11
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
"Some have been tested against just saline or some against a different non-vaccine such as an injection with just a bit of adjuvant so it will have the same sting to prevent the subject from being able to tell if they have had the vaccine or the placebo. While I understand the objection to using another vaccine (or even the just adjuvant injection) for safety, as far as effectiveness testing goes, it functions as a placebo since unless somehow the rabies vaccine prevented HIV or whatever. See my previous post in this thread just a few posts up from this one. "


To be scientific, you have to be 100% sure before you rule something out.

Because most health professionals cannot think of another reason for the salk vaccine placebo test not to be a reliable test is that "unless somehow the rabies vaccine prevented against HIV" they assume it is reliable.

If philosophers were as good in medical procedures as doctors, it wouldn't be fair to doctors. lol

If doctors were as good at reasoning as philosophers, it wouldn't be fair to philosophers. lol

Each has his expertise.

What if the placebo weakens the immune system and makes more vulnerable to any disease? You would get a higher rate of infection on the placebo side even if the vaccine is useless.

That's why it's so easy to screw doctors mind for the huge industry that financed the Nazi concentration camps and had offices and labs right on site. They are very smart and very qualified. They have memorized a whole lot. But they haven't spent that time learning to reason beyond the obvious. Can't be an expert in everything! lol

That's why it is so important to go on with your own research rather than just trust people who just trust people who just trust people etc..

Peter Moore is offline  
#26 of 53 Old 02-24-2015, 07:06 AM
 
EMRguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: FEMA Zone 4
Posts: 1,162
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 420 Post(s)
Oh hello new guy! great post!
applejuice likes this.

“Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”


― Benjamin Franklin
EMRguy is offline  
#27 of 53 Old 02-24-2015, 07:19 AM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 7,611
Mentioned: 42 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 567 Post(s)
Actually, there is an interesting example of the placebo problem with the rotavirus vaccines.

I'm not going to dig up the links, I'll just share what I remember.

This vaccine is made using, among other ingredients, fetal bovine serum. This serum can be and sometimes is contaminated, due to the way it is collected. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11971757

The placebo for the rotavirus vaccine included all of the ingredients except the actual live viral particles, including the FBS

This was the first oral vaccine using this ingredient. Was the safety of oral FBS tested in infants before it became a vaccine ingredient?

A placebo that may be contaminated? Doesn't sound neutral to me.

But yes, that would affect safety testing but not efficacy testing.
applejuice and EMRguy like this.
Deborah is online now  
#28 of 53 Old 02-25-2015, 11:00 PM
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 11
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Wow! I just found this study in the Oxford Journal. I'm not crazy.

Dr. Cowling conducted a real placebo test. This is RARE. I mean te placebo was an inactive saline solution. The vaccinated group got an influenza vaccine.

The vaccinated were 5 to 6 times more likely to get a respiratory disease (other than influenza (suggesting efficacy))!!!

Meaning that the vaccine weakens your immune system. So giving an active vaccine as a placebo becomes un-scientific even for testing efficacy.

http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/conten.../13/cid.cis307

Peace,
applejuice and Chicharronita like this.

Last edited by Peter Moore; 02-26-2015 at 11:24 AM.
Peter Moore is offline  
#29 of 53 Old 02-26-2015, 03:06 AM
 
mama24-7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: with the dust bunnies
Posts: 2,543
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Moore View Post
Wow! I just found this study in the Oxford Journal. I'm not crazy.

Dr. Cowling conducted a real placebo test. This is RARE. I mean te placebo was an inactive saline solution. The vaccinated group got an influenza vaccine.

The vaccinated were 5 to 6 times more likely to get a respiratory disease (other than influenza (suggesting efficacy))!!!

Meaning that the vaccine weakens your immune system. So giving an active vaccine as a placebo becomes un-scientific even for testing efficacy.

Peace,
Have a link? And welcome.

Sus
mama24-7 is online now  
#30 of 53 Old 02-26-2015, 06:33 AM
 
Chicharronita's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: In the Candyland of my Imagination
Posts: 1,613
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Is it this study?

Increased Risk of Noninfluenza Respiratory Virus Infections Associated With Receipt of Inactivated Influenza Vaccine

Quote:
Abstract

We randomized 115 children to trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV) or placebo. Over the following 9 months, TIV recipients had an increased risk of virologically-confirmed non-influenza infections (relative risk: 4.40; 95% confidence interval: 1.31-14.8). Being protected against influenza, TIV recipients may lack temporary non-specific immunity that protected against other respiratory viruses.
I'm reading Heidi Stevenson's analysis of the study on Health Impact News:

Study: Flu Vaccine Causes 5.5 Times More Respiratory Infections – A True Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Study

____________________________________________
Start organizing against vaccine mandate laws. Check NVIC.org for proposed legislation in your state.
No on SB277. Where there is a risk, there MUST be a choice.
Chicharronita is offline  
Reply

User Tag List

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



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