Vaccines: more good than harm? - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-14-2013, 07:18 AM - Thread Starter
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 156
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Hey everybody,

Currently there's a survey taking place (of just one question) to determine how parents perceive the vaccination of children. It's a very important topic. Answers will be useful for a forthcoming objective article on the topic. Please participate and invite your family and friends to do so as well.

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N68RTFD

bakunin is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 07-14-2013, 09:49 AM
 
HappyHappyMommy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,894
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)

I'm moving this to Vaccinations Discussions and Debate where it is better hosted. smile.gif bakunin, welcome to Mothering! Welcome.gif
 


hh2.gif Head over to the Holiday Helper forum and be a part of this wonderful Mothering tradition! joy.gif

Wondering about Mothering in general? Check out Mothering's User Agreement! smile.gif

HappyHappyMommy is offline  
Old 07-14-2013, 04:24 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,314
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)

What use is this survey?

Let's say that vaccines might prevent symptoms of whatever diseases in, oh, say, 60% of those who are vaccinated.  (Number pulled out of my hat for purpose of hypothetical example.)

 

And let's say that, in addition to protecting 60% from dreaded disease symptoms,  60 percent had either no adverse effects, or else very mild, transient effects.

 

But let's also say that between 25-40% had varying severe adverse effects, ranging from arthritis/arthralgia to intestinal problems to diabetes to autoimmune disorders to seizure disorders to brain damage to death, with only 1-2% actually dying.

 

In this hypothetical example, everyone would have to say that vaccines do more good than harm.

 

The real question is, at what point do we say that the benefit is not worth the harm?

 

What is an acceptable number for individuals harmed by an invasive treatment that was meant to protect? 5%?  10%?  25%?  40%?

And how does the answer to that question change when we realize that our health care providers have been trained to disbelieve reports of harm, and are literally trained to NOT recognize the harm when it occurs?

 

And what does it take to GET people to realize that HCPs are trained to not recognize vaccine-induced harm?  (I actually know the answer to that one: it takes their own child being affected.  Sad, but true.)

Taximom5 is online now  
Old 07-14-2013, 06:09 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,226
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 227 Post(s)

I think it is a very interesting question that could make for a decent discussion - but not survey.  The answer is too complicated and nuanced.

 

Two basic questions:  

-are we talking about more good than harm for society or the individual?   Answers may differ.

- which vaccines?  Is it appropriate to lump them all in together?


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
Old 07-14-2013, 09:11 PM - Thread Starter
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 156
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

@ HappyHappyMommy Thank you:)

 

@Taximom5 The purpose of the poll (technically is not a survey as I wrongfully wrote) is to measure the perception of parents about vaccinating their children. To be more specific parents who use the internet and social media.

In a few days an article will be released with lots of available evidence on benefits and risks. Although you make a valid point with your hypothetical numbers, what if the statistics are not as nontrivial and instead, there are markedly different statistics for benefits and risks? That's what will be explored in the article.

 

@kathymuggle Yes, the poll question is overly simple. But as replied to Taximom5:
"The purpose of the poll (technically is not a survey as I wrongfully wrote) is to measure the perception of parents about vaccinating their children. To be more specific parents who use the internet and social media."

 

Although I acknowledge that some parents only worry about some vaccines I want to infer about parents that worry about ALL vaccines. The article will summarize benefits and risks of several vaccines and provide adequate references for further information among other things :)

bakunin is offline  
Old 07-14-2013, 11:08 PM
 
dalia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,969
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Where is the article going to be published? Who is writing it?

Wife to one amazing husband superhero.gif, SAHM to DS bouncy.gif 10/09, DS babyboy.gif 10/19,  one furbaby dog2.gif, and lots of chicken3.gif!

 
joy.gif

dalia is offline  
Old 07-15-2013, 12:43 PM - Thread Starter
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 156
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Hi Dalia,

The article will be available on a website called Living Green with Baby by the end of the month or so. It will be written by Dr. Rivera, a statistician who conducts research on environmental statistics and asthma prevalence among other things. The goal of the article is to provide historical and scientific information about vaccines and tips for parents on how to gather their own information. Hopefully, this description of the article helps. This reply has been written in a such a way to minimize causing bias on the results of the poll above :)
 

bakunin is offline  
Old 07-15-2013, 12:52 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,226
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 227 Post(s)

Bakunin - a thumbs up for returning to this thread and answering questions.  A lot of people who want us to do surveys (and it seems to come up once a month at least) post the survey and fly, never to be heard from again.  


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
Old 07-15-2013, 01:52 PM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,828
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 144 Post(s)

bakunin - is your wish that this be reposted widely online in other groups we frequent, or are you after the majority viewpoint of those posting on the vaccination boards of MDC? Where else are you advertising this? 


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) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is offline  
Old 07-15-2013, 02:26 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 bakunin View Post

 

 

@Taximom5 The purpose of the poll (technically is not a survey as I wrongfully wrote) is to measure the perception of parents about vaccinating their children. To be more specific parents who use the internet and social media.

In a few days an article will be released with lots of available evidence on benefits and risks. Although you make a valid point with your hypothetical numbers, what if the statistics are not as nontrivial and instead, there are markedly different statistics for benefits and risks? That's what will be explored in the article.

 

 

 

Although I acknowledge that some parents only worry about some vaccines I want to infer about parents that worry about ALL vaccines. The article will summarize benefits and risks of several vaccines and provide adequate references for further information among other things :)

bakunin, thank you for answering the question, and yes, welcome aboard!

 

In reply to the bolded above, unfortunately,  the statistics are based on seriously flawed data.  The source of the flawed data is limited to:
1) data collected by an industry with a well-documented history of skewing, lying about, and hiding safety data

2) data collected by a VOLUNTARY reporting system

3) data reported by health care professionals who have been taught not to recognize vaccine reactions as such

 

Please take a look at reports by parents whose children do have documented serious adverse reactions to vaccines, including those whose injuries were admitted and compensated by the US Department of Health and Human Services.  You'll see many common threads, including this important one:  nearly all of them were initially told by their doctors that their child's reaction couldn't possibly have anything to do with the recent vaccination because "vaccines don't do that."

 

You might also take a look at recent reports from the Department of Health and Human Services;  in the last few months, they have admitted and compensated two more cases of vaccine-induced autism.  (For that matter, the Italian government just admitted and compensated a case as well.) There have been thousands of cases of vaccine-induced brain damage and other, lifelong serious problems, that have been admitted and compensated by HHS.  

 

Perhaps you were not aware of this?

 

I must say, I find your statement: "I want to infer about parents that worry about ALL vaccines," absolutely CHILLING. 

Taximom5 is online now  
Old 07-15-2013, 07:44 PM - Thread Starter
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 156
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

@kathymuggle: Thanks for the vote of confidence. I believe the topic of vaccines is an extremely important subject that needs attention

 

@prosciencemum: Thanks for the offer. Do you have any recommendations where I should notify parents about the poll? One thing though, I need these places to be UNBIASED. Specifically it should be a website visited by pro-vaccine parents, anti-vaccine parents and parents who are not sure. For example, if I ask for parents opinions at anti-vaccine forums and pro-vaccine forums then these will impact the results in different ways, depending on their traffic. I'd rather ask parents to participate at general forums and websites. So far I've posted here, babycenter, whattoexpect, the amazon parenting forum, and others. Some of these forums accepted my post but it never showed in the forum, perhaps it wasn't approved by the moderator. I've also posted through twitter, and on some facebook pages of some parenting magazines. Again, I'm open to recommendations of websites to consider

 

@Taximum5: Given the request I made of peoples opinion on the topic of vaccines, it would be inappropriate of my part to discuss information about vaccines here since this may affect the results. I will make a remark though on "the statistics are based on seriously flawed data". That is true! But actually that's the reason statistics exists. Different of a design experiment, from observational data one gets errors from all sorts of sources: measurement errors, microscale variability, uncontrolled factors and so forth. Statistical methods allows one to 'filter out the noise' allowing one to make useful inference. Regarding what I wrote: "I want to infer about parents that worry about ALL vaccines", I apologize and wrote that in a way that can lead to confusion. The more appropriate statement would be: "I want to infer about parents general perception about ALL vaccines and the standard vaccination program" 

bakunin is offline  
Old 07-15-2013, 08:29 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 bakunin View Post

Hey everybody,

Currently there's a survey taking place (of just one question) to determine how parents perceive the vaccination of children. It's a very important topic. Answers will be useful for a forthcoming objective article on the topic. Please participate and invite your family and friends to do so as well.

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N68RTFD

 

 

How objective can the article be, if whoever is writing it already has an opinion on the safety/efficacy/necessity of vaccines?
 
I'm sure prosciencemum would not consider any article I write on parents' views of vaccines to be objective, nor would I trust her to write objectively.  If you are already convinced that vaccines are safe, you are going to approach the whole idea of parents's questioning vaccine safety as though THOSE parents are mistaken.  Conversely, if you believe that vaccines are unsafe, your perception of parents who accept industry insistence of safety is going to be that those parents are kidding themselves.
 
Either way, I don't see how such an article can be truly objective, even if you attempt to show both sides.
 
I've read too many articles where the author claimed to be objectively representing both sides to be taken in again...
Taximom5 is online now  
Old 07-16-2013, 08:11 AM - Thread Starter
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 156
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

The initial opinion of the writer before writing the article is irrelevant if it's truly written in an objective way. Yes, it might 'choose a side', that would still be objective as long as the logic is there. There's a difference between objectiveness and neutrality. A neutral article would not reach a conclusion and would let it up to the reader. To be objective on must present evidence that leads to a conclusion. When someone is being subjective one has a conclusion and conjectures about arguments why the conclusion is true. Not every set of statements that claims to be objective really are so, sometimes the evidence is weak or even illogical.
 

bakunin is offline  
Old 07-16-2013, 10:06 AM
 
dinahx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,061
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

I think it is a very interesting question that could make for a decent discussion - but not survey.  The answer is too complicated and nuanced.

Two basic questions:  
-are we talking about more good than harm for society or the individual?   Answers may differ.
- which vaccines?  Is it appropriate to lump them all in together?

Yes: on an individual or societal level? IMO that question can only be answered on a population level OR on an individual level, for a specific vaccine, AFTER administration & a waiting period.
dinahx is offline  
Old 07-16-2013, 10:50 AM
 
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 bakunin View Post

The initial opinion of the writer before writing the article is irrelevant if it's truly written in an objective way. 
 

I'm sorry, I must disagree.  Even people who genuinely try to be as objective as possible are...human.  How we perceive things colors EVERYTHING.

 

I've read so many articles where the author claimed objectivity, and said, "I let both sides speak!"  But the part they quoted from Side A may have left out a portion of the truth taht might have seemed unimportant at the time--and the part they quoted from Side B might not have been what Side B felt was the most important issue.

 

For example, I often see Dr. Paul Offit cited as saying that babies are dying because they are not vaccinated.  He conveniently leaves out the fact that more babies in the US die from vaccine injuries than from vaccines.  If you are a fan of Dr. Offit, you might not realize that he's leaving out important information.

 

On the other side, vaccine critics have been interviewed--and the MD/PhD who has stacks of CDC studies showing harm from vaccines doesn't get quoted, but the uneducated mother with the hick accent gets quoted stating her concern about the baby having to endure needle sticks.

 

And the author of that one literally said, "I was objective!  I let both sides have their say."  And I'm sure that he believed that he did so.

 

I've seen a lot of cleverly-written propaganda that makes it appear that the author is being unbiased and objective.  That's Law School 101.  And Marketing 101.

Taximom5 is online now  
Old 07-16-2013, 01:08 PM - Thread Starter
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 156
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

It is is certainly possible to be subjective without perceptions getting in the way. Here is an example of an objective argument.

 

"BRFSS data shows that from 2000-2006 asthma prevalence was consistently higher in Puerto Rico than in any U.S state. (http://www.cdc.gov/asthma/brfss/default.htm#99)"

 

I could go into more details about this argument (it's something I do research on) but I won't. The point is that it's objective because I've provided a reference with the actual data for people to verify. Note that the reference is a reputable trusted agency. Many other references arguing the same thing can be found in the National Institute of Health website and scientific journals. If I provided a reference to kingkong.com then the data would not be trustworthy. Furthermore, if I wrote that same sentence without any reference at all then it would not be an objective argument, even if it mentions the well known BRFSS.

 

Would you be so kind to provide me several references to the following statement?:

"He conveniently leaves out the fact that more babies in the US die from vaccine injuries than from vaccines."

 

I searched the CDC, universities and journals and was not able to find verification of it.

bakunin is offline  
Old 07-16-2013, 02:11 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 bakunin View Post

It is is certainly possible to be subjective without perceptions getting in the way. Here is an example of an objective argument.

 

"BRFSS data shows that from 2000-2006 asthma prevalence was consistently higher in Puerto Rico than in any U.S state. (http://www.cdc.gov/asthma/brfss/default.htm#99)"

 

I could go into more details about this argument (it's something I do research on) but I won't. The point is that it's objective because I've provided a reference with the actual data for people to verify. Note that the reference is a reputable trusted agency. Many other references arguing the same thing can be found in the National Institute of Health website and scientific journals. If I provided a reference to kingkong.com then the data would not be trustworthy. Furthermore, if I wrote that same sentence without any reference at all then it would not be an objective argument, even if it mentions the well known BRFSS.

 

Would you be so kind to provide me several references to the following statement?:

"He conveniently leaves out the fact that more babies in the US die from vaccine injuries than from vaccines."

 

I searched the CDC, universities and journals and was not able to find verification of it.

ahhh but here is where there is a difference of opinion! 


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  
Old 07-16-2013, 02:19 PM - Thread Starter
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 156
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

@ Marnica - difference of opinion is good as long as the debate is constructive.

 

Note that two parties may make different objective arguments and reach opposing conclusions. This happens when the debate is about a topic of which not much is known.

bakunin is offline  
Old 07-16-2013, 06:21 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,314
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)

@bakunin, I think what Marnica is saying is that many of us no longer consider the CDC a reputable source.

 

Let me head off potential accusations of conspiracy theorism by saying that both the CDC and the FDA are rife with conflict of interest.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/health/policy/18cdc.html?_r=0

 

"A new report finds that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention did a poor job of screening medical experts for financial conflicts when it hired them to advise the agency on vaccine safety, officials said Thursday.

 

Most of the experts who served on advisory panels in 2007 to evaluate vaccines for flu and cervical cancerhad potential conflicts that were never resolved, the report said. Some were legally barred from considering the issues but did so anyway."

 

http://www.nvic.org/nvic-archives/conflicts-of-interest.aspx

Conflicts of Interest in Vaccine Policy Making
Majority Staff Report
Committee on Government Reform
U.S. House of Representatives
June 15, 2000

 

Also please note that the former director of the CDC, Julie Geberding, is now vice president of Merck's vaccine division.

 

Perhaps you might like to ask MotheringDotCom member Michael Belkin his thoughts?  I strongly suggest you read transcripts of his speeches, as you'll find the answer to one of your previous questions there:

 

Here is his testimony to Congress, after his 5-week-old daughter died from an unnecessary hepatitis B vaccine:

http://www.laleva.org/eng/2012/10/michael_belkins_congressional_testimony_on_hepatitis_b_vaccine.html

 

Here is his presentation to the 2nd International Public Conference on Vaccination 2000, Arlington Virginia (10-15-2000)

http://www.laleva.cc/choice/vaccine_bekin.html

 

As far as I can tell, very little has changed in the last 13 years, except that perhaps the conflicts of interest are better hidden.  I am told by scientist/researcher friends that you can design a study to show whatever results you want--but that the CDC only funds studies that are designed to show that vaccines are safe and effective.

Taximom5 is online now  
Old 07-16-2013, 07:32 PM - Thread Starter
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 156
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

@taximom5 Yes, CDC did not follow proper protocol with their advisers. In fact, FDA has messed up before too. Recently a report came out that FDA had approved a generic antidepressant drug that did not work and was in the market for years (http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/PostmarketDrugSafetyInformationforPatientsandProviders/ucm322161.htm). What happened? FDA extrapolated data from the 150mg version of the drug when testing for its effectiveness. This is not a proper procedure. BUT, remember that we are trying to be objective here. Andrew Wakefield, the researcher that claimed to find a link between autism and MMR was found to have financial conflicts when he published his study in 1998 http://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/timelines/measles

Other anti-vaccine leaders are also making a profit, take Jenny McCarthy and her books (and her new 'The View' gig).

 

Regards to Mr Belkin's baby that is very unfortunate. Proving that an extreme event was a side effect of a vaccine is not trivial. I would need to double check the side effects of the hepatitis B vaccine (I don't recall by memory what they are).

 

I think that the point of being objective is not to say that vaccines are perfect or completely useless, neither statement is true. The question one must ask is: whether the benefits outweigh the risks. To do this one must gather stats of benefits and risks and look at them together. That is the purpose of the article.
 

bakunin is offline  
Old 07-17-2013, 05:26 AM
 
dinahx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,061
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
But it is wrong to ignore the fact that that benefit vs. risk analysis is being made on a POPULATION level. To an individual, they are generally mostly benefit or carry mostly risk, like it is pretty meaningless to be 'protected from Diptheria' while seizing. According to Nuremburg/Helsinki, medicine must be practiced first considering the individual BEFORE society. The crucial moral/ethical consideration regarding our current Vax supply is whether it is morally okay to conscript children into a 'war on disease' & whether it is okay to have a 'some gave all' situation.

I find 'risk vs. benefit' to be a very shifting & relativistic standard anyway.

Please also note that the accusations against Wakefield's CASE REPORTS (not a study & he does not actually overtly make a MMR/Autism declaration) were ply'ed by Brian Deer, a journalist with Pharma ties. He is the British equivalent of Seth McNookin: i.e. not a doctor, not a scientist, just a journalist/Pharma apologist with Pharm connections & an axe to grind, who is cited too frequently by those who tell us we are *supposed* to only be listening to MDs & Scientists.
dinahx is offline  
Old 07-17-2013, 08:50 AM
 
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 bakunin View Post

@taximom5 Yes, CDC did not follow proper protocol with their advisers. In fact, FDA has messed up before too. Recently a report came out that FDA had approved a generic antidepressant drug that did not work and was in the market for years (http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/PostmarketDrugSafetyInformationforPatientsandProviders/ucm322161.htm). What happened? FDA extrapolated data from the 150mg version of the drug when testing for its effectiveness. This is not a proper procedure. BUT, remember that we are trying to be objective here. Andrew Wakefield, the researcher that claimed to find a link between autism and MMR was found to have financial conflicts when he published his study in 1998 http://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/timelines/measles

Other anti-vaccine leaders are also making a profit, take Jenny McCarthy and her books (and her new 'The View' gig).

 

Regards to Mr Belkin's baby that is very unfortunate. Proving that an extreme event was a side effect of a vaccine is not trivial. I would need to double check the side effects of the hepatitis B vaccine (I don't recall by memory what they are).

 

I think that the point of being objective is not to say that vaccines are perfect or completely useless, neither statement is true. The question one must ask is: whether the benefits outweigh the risks. To do this one must gather stats of benefits and risks and look at them together. That is the purpose of the article.
 

This is something that will differ on an individual level as dinahx pointed out. The risk/benefits for my child and family may be totally different than for yours. On a population level a risk/benefit analysis means nothing to me. I am not willing to throw my child under the bus for the good of "society" and that would be if I felt that the benefits outweighed the risks on a pppulation level, which I actually don't. 


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  
Old 07-17-2013, 12:08 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 bakunin View Post

@taximom5 Yes, CDC did not follow proper protocol with their advisers. In fact, FDA has messed up before too. Recently a report came out that FDA had approved a generic antidepressant drug that did not work and was in the market for years (http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/PostmarketDrugSafetyInformationforPatientsandProviders/ucm322161.htm). What happened? FDA extrapolated data from the 150mg version of the drug when testing for its effectiveness. This is not a proper procedure. BUT, remember that we are trying to be objective here. Andrew Wakefield, the researcher that claimed to find a link between autism and MMR was found to have financial conflicts when he published his study in 1998 http://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/timelines/measles

Other anti-vaccine leaders are also making a profit, take Jenny McCarthy and her books (and her new 'The View' gig).

 

Regards to Mr Belkin's baby that is very unfortunate. Proving that an extreme event was a side effect of a vaccine is not trivial. I would need to double check the side effects of the hepatitis B vaccine (I don't recall by memory what they are).

 

I think that the point of being objective is not to say that vaccines are perfect or completely useless, neither statement is true. The question one must ask is: whether the benefits outweigh the risks. To do this one must gather stats of benefits and risks and look at them together. That is the purpose of the article.
 

OK, you have convinced me that you are not objective in this matter.  You actually compare the CDC and FDA to... Andrew Wakefield and Jenny McCarthy???? ANd you really think that they are "anti-vaccine leaders" to those who question and/or criticize vaccine safety?


Good Lord.

 

I don't doubt that your intentions are good. I'm sure you think that you are being objective.   But your last post showed that you have not bothered to research the issue (unless you call comparing the CDC and Jenny McCarthy "research"), yet you have already formed strong opinions.

 

Wakefield

While I don't know anyone who considers Andrew Wakefield a leader, I think it's most important to counter your assumptions about what you call his "study."

The exact words of the conclusion of Andrew Wakefield's 1998 paper (he never claimed it was a study--it was a case series):   "We did not prove an association between measles mumps and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described."  

 

"Further investigations are needed to examine this syndrome and its possible relation to the vaccine."

 

Perhaps you should actually read the paper before you comment on it.  And if you're going to be objective, you should not only read his perspective, but you should read what the parents of the children involved in that case series have to say. I'll give you a hint:  every single parent in that group supports Wakefield, and claims that Brian Deer, the reporter who supposedly broke the case, lied to them, lied about them, and lied about their children, and also published details of their children's medical records without their permission--and only published  the early histories, quoting doctors who didn't believe that their children had intestinal problems.  

 

And that's the problem in a nutshell, really; in 1988, Wakefield and his colleagues were the only doctors who actually listened to the parents who reported severe intestinal problems in their autistic children.  Until then, and even as recently as 5-10 years ago, the vast majority of doctors claimed that autistic children didn't have intestinal problems, they just acted that way because they were autistic.  And that was their excuse to avoid doing admittedly difficult exams.

 

Nowadays, it's generally accepted that autistic children DO have a high rate of intestinal disorders, and that those disorders contribute greatly to behavioral symptoms of autism, as well as to neurological function.  The most recent peer-reviewed studies confirm this, hence the acceptance.

 

And Wakefield's co-author, Dr. John Walker-Smith, appealed the GMC's ruling--and won.  Wakefield chose to sue for defamation rather than appeal, as his insurance would not cover the costs of his appeal as it did for John Walker-Smith.  His case is pending.

 

Jenny McCarthy

I don't think anybody who questions or criticizes vaccines considers Jenny McCarthy to be a leader of a movement--except for that portion of the pro-vaccine contingent that is intent on trashing anyone who calls for safer vaccines.   For that matter, nobody considers Amanda Peet to be a leader of the pro-vaccine movement.  Your assumption that J McC is a leader, and the "go-to" person for information is, well, ridiculous.  It's also extremely insulting.

 

Hepatitis B Vaccine and Michael Belkin's testimony

 

Hepatitis B vaccine side effects are listed here:  http://www.drugs.com/sfx/hepatitis-b-vaccine-side-effects.html  Please note that in 1996, there were 47 deaths from hepatitis B vaccine reported, JUST in the 0-1 age group.

 

"The hepatitis B vaccine was effectively mandated in 1991 for universal immunization of newborn babies by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) — an adjunct of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Paradoxically, the CDC’s own Fact Sheet on the hepatitis B disease does not include newborn babies as a risk group for that disease. That Fact Sheet lists the risk groups as injection drug users, homosexual men, sexually active heterosexuals, infant/children of immigrants from disease-endemic areas, low socio-economic level, sexual/household contacts of infected persons, infants born to infected mothers, health care workers and hemodialysis patients NOT NEWBORN BABIES."

 

"In 1996 only 54 cases of the disease were reported to the CDC in the 0-1 age group. There were 3.9 million births that year, so the observed incidence of hepatitis B in the 0-1 age group was just 0.001%. In the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), there were 1,080 total reports of adverse reactions from hepatitis B vaccine in 1996 in the 0-1 age group, with 47 deaths reported. Total VAERS hepatitis B reports for the 0-1 age group outnumber reported cases of the disease 20 to 1."

 

Incidentally, your link to historyofvaccines.org?  That link is put out by The College of Physicians of Philadelphia, which awarded Paul Offit the Distinguished Medical Achievement Award.  Among their stated goals:  

  • Improve the health of the public through service to health professionals
  • Enhance appreciation of the heritage of medicine

 

What does that mean, to enhance appreciation of the heritage of medicine?  And, if you're really looking at both sides, what do you think that means to someone who suffered a disabling condition as a direct result of...medicine?

Taximom5 is online now  
Old 07-17-2013, 12:11 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,226
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 227 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

OK, you have convinced me that you are not objective in this matter.  You actually compare the CDC and FDA to... Andrew Wakefield and Jenny McCarthy???? ANd you really think that they are "anti-vaccine leaders" to those who question and/or criticize vaccine safety?


 

Agreed.  I think she is fairly pro-vax.  That is Ok.  it is Ok to be non-vax, too.  I am not sure a pro-vax or non-vax person can write an unbiased article, though.  It is a real issue and it extends well beyond this thread. 


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
Old 07-17-2013, 12:35 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 kathymuggle View Post

Agreed.  I think she is fairly pro-vax.  That is Ok.  it is Ok to be non-vax, too.  I am not sure a pro-vax or non-vax person can write an unbiased article, though.  It is a real issue and it extends well beyond this thread. 

I don't have a problem with anybody being pro-vax.  I do think it's a major problem when someone claims that they can be objective when they've demonstrated that they have completely misunderstood one side of the issue.

Taximom5 is online now  
Old 07-17-2013, 03:25 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,314
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)

I admit that I could be more patient, more gentle in my approach, the whole "you can catch more flies with honey" sort of thing.  

 

The thing is, I've gotten to a point where I'm really, really tired of having to do that.  And I've done an awful lot it.

 

I've been able to convince some people; I've been able to get others to at least admit that there is an entirely different side to the issue that they had not seen before.  And some people come to the table unwilling to ever admit that there could possibly be another side.

 

And I'm just TIRED of having to prove the entire thing, from beginning to end.  Every.  Single Time.

 

Imagine someone being injured in a hit-and-run accident.  He can describe the car that hit him, he even has the license plate, and his injuries are consistent with injuries known to be caused by being hit by a car.  And a security camera across the street caught the car on that street--but wasn't aimed at the actual accident.

 

The car has dents and scratches consistent with hitting a pedestrian.  The driver of the car even admits that he just barely brushed the pedestrian--but denies causing any injury.  The driver says, "it was a coincidence!  I've brushed thousands of pedestrians and nobody's EVER been hurt!  And if I did hurt him?  Such incidents are vanishingly rare in my experience.  Doesn't count.  And the pedestrian is so clumsy, he would have tripped and fallen and gotten hurt anyway!  And cars do so much good in this world, I AM NOT LIABLE."

And then the driver spends billions of dollars on studies attempting to show that pedestrians are genetically predisposed to injuries.  And spends a lot of time and energy attempting to discredit anyone who questions or criticizes his driving.

 

After a while, the pedestrian gets awfully tired of trying to explain to people who have never seen such an accident, who have talked to the driver or his representatives, read the driver-funded-and-directed Center for Driver Control (CDC) studies, and what do you know?  The people can't believe that it could possibly happen the way the pedestrian said--even though it happened exactly that way. The pedestrian gets tired of producing studies that say, yes, it COULD possibly happen, and of producing studies where some doctors, researchers, and even the government (quietly) ADMIT that it happened (a few times).  Even when thousands of other pedestrian say that they have experienced the same thing with the same driver, nobody believes them. In fact, the driver's friends start taunting them and making fun of them.

 

And the pedestrian loses patience.

 

So bakunin, I hope you can understand.  I'm not angry with you.  I'm just out of patience.  It's not your fault.

Taximom5 is online now  
Old 07-17-2013, 10:29 PM - Thread Starter
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 156
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Ahh, ..... my long, long reply was just lost. I will not reproduce it :(

@taximom5 I will only remind you that there is a difference between being objective and neutral. It appears that you think I am not objective because I haven't said that vaccines are completely evil. On the other hand, your arguments are not objective at all:

1. Don't refer to Andrew Wakefield's study (case study/series is still a study) for evidence. It was retracted by the publishing journal after all experts agreed it wasn't scientifically valid.

2. To be objective refer to well established entities (such as CDC. Sure they're not perfect but they are very transparent and have never denied side effects from vaccines.) or to scientific journal papers. Can you refer to papers in the Lancet, Pediatrics or other reputable journals (with high impact factor) that collaborate your arguments (and I really mean refer to multiple papers)

3. It is awful, awful as a parent to see your child suffer, and I say this from the heart as a parent. As a scientist I must say that the testimony of a parent, or two, or three is often not enough to be taken as scientific evidence (at least in these scenarios of vaccines). Data must be gathered and analyzed as a whole to reach a valid conclusion. Be aware, that CDC DOES gather testimony from parents just for this purpose.

If someone gives me a pill to loose weight and I take it, and loose 3 pounds right afterwards. Does that mean that the pill worked? The pill might work. But the fact that I took it and lost weight is not enough to be considered scientific proof. I can go around and tell everyone that I lost weight thanks to this pill but that's just an anecdote. In reality there can be many other reasons why I might of lost the weight

4. Sorry, the car example does not hold to the test of logic. What the driver said... that he spent billions.... everything.

 

Thank your everyone for the lively debate.

bakunin is offline  
Old 07-17-2013, 11:04 PM
 
dinahx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,061
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
So what you are saying is: there is no point in taking this survey, because the article is being written from a ProVax perspective, using the same tired ProVax arguments. The CDC is not 'just a little less than perfect' & 'transparent'. Hardly, they are absolutely riddled with severe conflicts of interest & share a revolving door with Pharma. They are maybe IDK, slightly less corrupt than Monsanto's USDA?

Case Reports are not 'a study'. The plural of anecdote is not data, RIGHT? So 10 case reports is not a study.

Wakefield's coauthor was vindicated in British Courts, the case against Wakefield was made by a Pharma-tied journalist with next to no real science background. Brian Deer is on par with Seth McNookin: industry hit men hired to attack,
dinahx is offline  
Old 07-18-2013, 06:41 AM
 
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 bakunin View Post

Ahh, ..... my long, long reply was just lost. I will not reproduce it greensad.gif
@taximom5 I will only remind you that there is a difference between being objective and neutral. It appears that you think I am not objective because I haven't said that vaccines are completely evil. On the other hand, your arguments are not objective at all:
1. Don't refer to Andrew Wakefield's study (case study/series is still a study) for evidence. It was retracted by the publishing journal after all experts agreed it wasn't scientifically valid.
2. To be objective refer to well established entities (such as CDC. Sure they're not perfect but they are very transparent and have never denied side effects from vaccines.) or to scientific journal papers. Can you refer to papers in the Lancet, Pediatrics or other reputable journals (with high impact factor) that collaborate your arguments (and I really mean refer to multiple papers)
3. It is awful, awful as a parent to see your child suffer, and I say this from the heart as a parent. As a scientist I must say that the testimony of a parent, or two, or three is often not enough to be taken as scientific evidence (at least in these scenarios of vaccines). Data must be gathered and analyzed as a whole to reach a valid conclusion. Be aware, that CDC DOES gather testimony from parents just for this purpose.
If someone gives me a pill to loose weight and I take it, and loose 3 pounds right afterwards. Does that mean that the pill worked? The pill might work. But the fact that I took it and lost weight is not enough to be considered scientific proof. I can go around and tell everyone that I lost weight thanks to this pill but that's just an anecdote. In reality there can be many other reasons why I might of lost the weight
4. Sorry, the car example does not hold to the test of logic. What the driver said... that he spent billions.... everything.

Thank your everyone for the lively debate.

I think you're not objective because you have not done proper research. You are completely unaware of many important and relative facts.

1) I didn't bring up Wakefield's position, YOU did. I countered your misunderstanding that his case series claimed that the MMR caused autism by quoting his conclusion, where he and his co-authors wrote that they had NOT proved such an association, and called for further study.

Your response is that I shouldn't refer to it because it's not evidence.

You did not respond to the fact that his co-author won his appeal.

2). The Lancet started out as a way to help monitor safety and efficacy of medical practices, but is now funded, and to some extent controlled by the pharmaceutical industry. The Cochrane Collaborative, widely considered the gold standard in mainstream review, has complained that published studies are of poor quality, and suffer greatly from selection bias, with positive studies indicating safety and efficacy consistently being selected over equally valid negative studies.

This means that "reputable" no longer applies.

3). The testimony of 2 or 3 parents who have lost a child to vaccine injury is just as much evidence as the testimony of 2 or 3 parents who have lost a child to disease.

Be aware that the CDC has not studied the subgroup of children who have had seizure reactions to vaccines leading to brain damage/autism, even when the US government has admitted that vaccines caused their injuries and compensated them. Nor have they gathered testimony from the thousands of parents who reported the same reactions, or from the doctors involved.

Instead, the CDC repeats their official position: "We can neither confirm nor deny a causal relationship between vaccines and autism."

Please note, that is very different from saying that vaccines DON'T cause autism, or even that there is no link--despite what the media says.

If you are a scientist, then you already know that it's possible to set up a study showing just about anything. We could gather 1,000 smokers who don't have lung cancer, study them, and conclude that smoking does not cause lung cancer, if we set it up that way.

The vaccine/autism studies held up as "proof" of no link are deeply flawed.

For example, the last CDC study? Check it out: http://jpeds.com/webfiles/images/journals/ympd/JPEDSDeStefano.pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Concerns/Autism/antigens.html

First of all, they compare the number of antigens between two groups of children getting many shots. The cumulative number of antigens is not thought by anyone to be the cause of autism. The cumulative amount of thimerosal, aluminum, and their relationship to other vaccine ingredients and predisposing factors in the child are thought to be key--but the study did not look at that.

The "control" group being compared with the autistic children included a significant group of children with symptoms of...autism. These were children with developmental regression, speech delay, ADD/ADHD, tics, an IEP, etc., they just didn't have an official diagnosis. So the study looked at 2 groups of children with similar, perhaps even identical issues, but called one group "autistic" and the other group "non-autistic."

Most importantly, only 19% of the autistic children in the study had regressive autism. Regressive autism is the type of autism thought to be linked with vaccines.

Also problematic is their conclusion: "It can be argued that ASD with regression, in which children usually lose developmental skills during the second year of life, could be related to exposures in infancy, including vaccines; however, we found no association between expo- sure to antigens from vaccines during infancy and the development of ASD with regression."

Remember? Only 19% of the autistic kids had regressive autism. They didn't compare that group of children with unvaccinated children. They didn't also compare autistic children with neurotypical children. And they never looked at children who had vaccine reactions.

The studies on both sides of the issue are flawed. (Yes, there are peer-reviewed studies linking vaccines and autism. They are listed on this blog: http://adventuresinautism.blogspot.com/2007/06/no-evidence-of-any-link.html).

At the end of the day, what matters is that we can't say the link has been disproven, because it hasn't. And we can't say that vaccine are the one and only cause of autism, or that vaccines will cause autism in every child, because they haven't.

What we do know is that they are implicated in a subgroup--and that the CDC has abandoned that subgroup, and done everything they can to move the focus away from that subgroup, even as that subgroup is increasing.

That is unacceptable, and shoud be recognized as unacceptable by every scientist.
Taximom5 is online now  
Old 07-18-2013, 07:01 AM - Thread Starter
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 156
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I have not really stated my arguments about vaccines fully. Allow me to give a better summary of them. Notice that I have so far suggested a critical view of vaccination. And that someone who does it correctly, will find that VACCINES ARE NOT PERFECT, THEY DO HAVE SIDE EFFECTS. But for most people side effects are mild. Severe side effects are possible but they occur very rarely (and the evidence does not show any link between autism and vaccines).

 

People with some medical conditions need to avoid some vaccines. Pregnant women need to avoid some vaccines as well.

 

In SHORT (without going into details of benefits and risks), I argue that in light of benefits and risks of vaccines MOST PEOPLE are better off getting vaccinated. Does the conclusion mean, that EVERYONE is better off getting vaccinated? No, just like any medicine one must take precautions.

Does the conclusion mean that most people do not have to worry at all about vaccines? ABSOLUTELY NOT, New vaccines and formulations come all the time. This may potentially change the benefit risk spectrum of the vaccines. One must always be on top of the latest data on each vaccine. Does the conclusion mean, that all current vaccines have more benefits than risks? NOT NECESSARILY. Current debate among experts circles around two vaccines (or versions of them). One of them is Gardasil. Some experts argue that it is too early to know the benefits and risks of this vaccine. Does the conclusion mean that what scientists agree on is always right? No, it doesn't. But often than not, they are.

 

I find it amusing, that at the beginning of this thread I DID NOT mention the conclusions that I had reached. Still, I did mention: CDC, BRFSS and being objective on some of the posts here. It appears that these words were code for some that meant that I was pro-vaccine. As the paragraph above shows, I consider the pro-vaccine label to be inappropriate. A better label would be "pro health through objective criticism". I admit this proposed label is a bit too long. But I hope that by the paragraph above you see that quite clearly that I have been objective.

 

@dinahx. Poll is over. I will place results here shortly. Thanks to everyone who participated. And yes dear, case reports are studies. They may fall under the research umbrella as applied research (as opposed to basic research which is more theoretical). Look it up, scientific journals publish case studies all the time. Case reports are step BEFORE being published in a journal and have not been peer reviewed. Once published in a journal it has been reviewed by peers. You have tried to diminish the weight of the Wakefield arguments by calling it a Case report (although it is not) while simultaneously arguing about the results validity. I'm afraid that is impossible.

About Wakefield, here we go again. Wakefield and coauthors study was flawed and it is generally considered a disgrace among the scientific community. You can search yourself well regarded universities who refer to that publication in a positive tone (do a search on google on his name and autism with "site:edu" no quotes at the end). You will find a general consensus that his study was flawed. Also, keep in mind, that the link between MMR and autism was conjectured to be due to mercury content (through thimerosal). As a preventive method, thimeserol WAS reduced or eliminated in many vaccines. This change DID NOT CAUSE ANY CHANGE IN AUTISM RATES.

 

 

@dinahx and taximom5 have refuted here the use of vaccines by simply arguing that vaccines are bad without mentioning benefits. When you are objective you acknowledge the advantages and disadvantages of a method. dinahx and taximom5 have only claimed disadvantages of vaccinating children AND do so without referring to well regarded studies.

bakunin 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