ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags vaccines

Reply
Old 11th October 2010, 06:42 PM   #1
EatatJoes
Fundamental Atheist
 
EatatJoes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 339
"Vaccines are not properly tested"

I'm in the middle of an anti-vax debate. I'm having a hard time...The issue at the moment is the charge that vaccines are not tested properly. More specifically that they are not tested via a placebo group. I did find this website and it's good but it's very general. While I was looking for more information I came across this website. I have a feeling that those I am engaged with are either using this website or using information very similar to it.

So, I feel like I am left explaining why the vaxes weren't compared to placebos and on the surface it appears that those vaxes did not go through the procedure outlined in the first website I linked to. Is this because the product insert doesn't list all of the studies done? Are there post-release studies done?

Another "point" that was made is that the vaccines are not tested for "toxicity". I think I can explain this but it won't read as being a very confident explanation.

I think this boils down to them thinking these things are very big deals when in fact they are not. But I need to be able to convey these things to them. Whether or not they accept it is up to them but I need the information and feel confident in it in order to comfortably leave them in their ignorance (kind of like walking away from away from a creationist. You give them the evidence, they ignore it, so you just move on).

Anyone want to help me out?

Thanks!
__________________
"Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines." - John Benfield

"The only consequence of truth is liberation" - Unknown
EatatJoes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2010, 06:59 PM   #2
Dorian Gray
Hypocrisy Detector
 
Dorian Gray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 20,363
Tell them that waking up causes their alarms to go off.
__________________
"A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men." - Willy Wonka
"Rational arguments don't work on religious people. If they did, there wouldn't be any religious people." - House
Additionally to Carlin being funnier than Izzard, I think Dorian is funnier than the Marquis. - Ron Tomkins
Dorian Gray is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2010, 07:11 PM   #3
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,439
The proper tests are the tests that the FDA or relevant body in each country says should be done. Approved vaccines have been tested properly.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2010, 07:16 PM   #4
Sherman Bay
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posts: 2,102
Originally Posted by EatatJoes View Post
Another "point" that was made is that the vaccines are not tested for "toxicity". I think I can explain this but it won't read as being a very confident explanation.
"Toxic" is the latest woo buzzword. I have attended lectures where almost everything was defined as being toxic, and the solution was to buy the seller's products to "de-toxify." It's just snake oil under a different name.

This first link you gave says this:
Quote:
In the first level of human tests, a small group (usually less than 100) of volunteers are given the vaccine. If, over the next few months, there are no adverse effects noted in the small group compared to the population at large, then the vaccine can move on to the next level of clinical testing. In that level, a larger group (usually several hundred volunteers) is given the vaccine, and they are followed for up to two years. The rate of the disease in the testing group is compared to the rate for the nation as a whole. In addition, the rates of several health maladies in the testing group are compared to the rates of those maladies for the nation as a whole. If the rate of the disease is lower in the testing group as compared to the nation as a whole, and if the rates of the health maladies are no higher than the corresponding rates of the nation as a whole, then the vaccine is allowed to go to the final level of testing.
That would seem to indicate that "toxicity" was not overlooked, indeed, it was carefully watched for.
Sherman Bay is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2010, 07:20 PM   #5
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 16,457
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
The proper tests are the tests that the FDA or relevant body in each country says should be done. Approved vaccines have been tested properly.
There are plenty of vaccines that have been tested against placebo. In fact, most of the earliest studies of vaccines are done in that way. However, once they are established to work and be safe, then it is unethical to withhold them from patients in subsequent trials, and they are tested for both safety and efficacy against the currently used product.

In terms of the "not tested for safety" claim, it is completely bogus. Take a look at the inserts that come with any vaccine. It tells you exactly what safety issues have been found to occur with the vaccines, AND even how common those complications are! None of this "potential side effects could include anal leakage" crap that you get for many drugs - it will tell you "this has been observed to occur in 2 out of 10 000 times it is given." How the heck do these morons think that they can get such detailed descriptions of the types and frequencies of side effects without any safety studies?
__________________
I have a permanent room at the Home for the Chronically Groovy - Floyd from the Muppets
pgwenthold is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2010, 08:04 PM   #6
Emet
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,295
Bloody hell. This page is full of broken links:

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/resdev/test-approve.htm

Here's a little better page from the CDC:

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Vac...history.html#2
Emet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2010, 01:50 AM   #7
Deetee
Illuminator
 
Deetee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,788
A link to the debate, so we can join in?

You may encounter the notion that vaccines are not studied for longterm safety - such as the risks of contributing to neurodevelopmental disorders later in childhood, like autism. It is true that many formal vaccine safety studies, often by the vaccine makers, are time limited to a few weeks to detect significant short-term reactions only. But there have also been numerous long term epidemiological/ecological studies assessing the risks of autism in vaccinated kids, and no-one has ever found any significant link to vaccination.
Such as this one here:
http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/MMR.pdf

A pubmed search for "vaccine" and "safety" reveals thousands of publications. Many of these are studies reporting on vaccine trials, in which they look at safety, immunogenicity and efficacy as part of the same study.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed

Here is a link to WHO info on vaccine safety:
http://www.who.int/immunization_monitoring/routine/en/
This leads to this document, which may give you some ammo:
http://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/wer2010_wer8530.pdf


The "inside vaccines" website is an antivax site which tries to dress itself up as being an objective, "just asking questions", "think of the children" type of enterprise. They cite reasonable sources but cherrypick like nobody's business to twist the facts to fit their agenda. I have had run-ins with them before about their dishonesty in the way they present data.
__________________
"Reci bobu bob a popu pop." - Tanja
"Everything is physics. This does not mean that physics is everything." - Cuddles
"The entire practice of homeopathy can be substituted with the advice to "take two aspirins and call me in the morning." - Linda
"Homeopathy: I never knew there was so little in it." - BSM

Last edited by Deetee; 12th October 2010 at 01:57 AM.
Deetee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2010, 04:23 AM   #8
Sherman Bay
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posts: 2,102
Originally Posted by EatatJoes View Post
I'm in the middle of an anti-vax debate.
You can't win. You are up against those who have their minds made up and facts won't change it. They want to believe.

It's a lot like religion.
Sherman Bay is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2010, 06:33 AM   #9
Nichiro
Critical Thinker
 
Nichiro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 268
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
The proper tests are the tests that the FDA or relevant body in each country says should be done. Approved vaccines have been tested properly.
FDA has some very "interested" people on its board. They are known to be affiliated to some pharmaceutical companies.
Following would make an interesting reading (if you have missed the bus earlier)

http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/04/04/01.php

QED: FDA cannot be relied upon totally.
__________________
We should remember that we are neither the smartest nor the last generation to live on earth.
Nichiro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2010, 06:40 AM   #10
EatatJoes
Fundamental Atheist
 
EatatJoes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 339
Originally Posted by Deetee View Post
A link to the debate, so we can join in?

You may encounter the notion that vaccines are not studied for longterm safety - such as the risks of contributing to neurodevelopmental disorders later in childhood, like autism. It is true that many formal vaccine safety studies, often by the vaccine makers, are time limited to a few weeks to detect significant short-term reactions only. But there have also been numerous long term epidemiological/ecological studies assessing the risks of autism in vaccinated kids, and no-one has ever found any significant link to vaccination.
Such as this one here:
http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/MMR.pdf

A pubmed search for "vaccine" and "safety" reveals thousands of publications. Many of these are studies reporting on vaccine trials, in which they look at safety, immunogenicity and efficacy as part of the same study.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed

Here is a link to WHO info on vaccine safety:
http://www.who.int/immunization_monitoring/routine/en/
This leads to this document, which may give you some ammo:
http://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/wer2010_wer8530.pdf


The "inside vaccines" website is an antivax site which tries to dress itself up as being an objective, "just asking questions", "think of the children" type of enterprise. They cite reasonable sources but cherrypick like nobody's business to twist the facts to fit their agenda. I have had run-ins with them before about their dishonesty in the way they present data.
Are you a mother to an uncircumcised boy? It's a private group.

Thank you (and others) for the information and links. This is going to be a pain in the arse.
__________________
"Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines." - John Benfield

"The only consequence of truth is liberation" - Unknown
EatatJoes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2010, 07:11 AM   #11
Nichiro
Critical Thinker
 
Nichiro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 268
At this point, I have a question that has been lurking in my mind for some time.
The question is,

ARE ALL HUMANS RESPONSIVE TO SAME DRUG IN SAME SPECIFIC MANNER?

For example, some respond to some meds and some do not.
Is this because of minute DNA Differences which we do not know about?

If such is the case, why do we have universal remedies?

It would be interesting to talk about this too here.
__________________
We should remember that we are neither the smartest nor the last generation to live on earth.
Nichiro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2010, 07:16 AM   #12
Deetee
Illuminator
 
Deetee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,788
Originally Posted by EatatJoes View Post
Are you a mother to an uncircumcised boy? It's a private group.
This is the internet.
I am whatever I want to be.
__________________
"Reci bobu bob a popu pop." - Tanja
"Everything is physics. This does not mean that physics is everything." - Cuddles
"The entire practice of homeopathy can be substituted with the advice to "take two aspirins and call me in the morning." - Linda
"Homeopathy: I never knew there was so little in it." - BSM
Deetee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2010, 07:22 AM   #13
Lithrael
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,231
Originally Posted by Nichiro View Post
ARE ALL HUMANS RESPONSIVE TO SAME DRUG IN SAME SPECIFIC MANNER?
Well of course not. Someone with a serious autoimmune disorder for example, will obviously react differently to a vaccine than the general population will react.

Originally Posted by Nichiro View Post
If such is the case, why do we have universal remedies?
We don't. There are some medicines that are very widely effective though, which we know, through careful testing, will work on a hell of a lot of people.

Originally Posted by Nichiro View Post
It would be interesting to talk about this too here.
It would be far better to start your own thread on the subject rather than derail this one.
Lithrael is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2010, 07:33 AM   #14
Nichiro
Critical Thinker
 
Nichiro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 268
Originally Posted by Lithrael View Post

It would be far better to start your own thread on the subject rather than derail this one.
I thought so initially but since vaccines are for universal use, the question arises if they should be universally used if human response to medication can be different .

Whatever results are derived after testing, are they reliable?
__________________
We should remember that we are neither the smartest nor the last generation to live on earth.
Nichiro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2010, 07:47 AM   #15
Gr8wight
red-shirted crewman
 
Gr8wight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,661
Originally Posted by EatatJoes View Post
I'm in the middle of an anti-vax debate. I'm having a hard time...The issue at the moment is the charge that vaccines are not tested properly. More specifically that they are not tested via a placebo group. I did find this website and it's good but it's very general. While I was looking for more information I came across this website. I have a feeling that those I am engaged with are either using this website or using information very similar to it.

So, I feel like I am left explaining why the vaxes weren't compared to placebos and on the surface it appears that those vaxes did not go through the procedure outlined in the first website I linked to. Is this because the product insert doesn't list all of the studies done? Are there post-release studies done?

Another "point" that was made is that the vaccines are not tested for "toxicity". I think I can explain this but it won't read as being a very confident explanation.

I think this boils down to them thinking these things are very big deals when in fact they are not. But I need to be able to convey these things to them. Whether or not they accept it is up to them but I need the information and feel confident in it in order to comfortably leave them in their ignorance (kind of like walking away from away from a creationist. You give them the evidence, they ignore it, so you just move on).

Anyone want to help me out?

Thanks!
Vaccines will be tested against a placebo for determining deleterious side effects only. They will not be tested against a placebo for determining effectiveness because that is not a subjective measure. For example, pain medication must be tested against a placebo for effectiveness because we rely upon the subjects to report their pain level. This subjective reporting can be biased by many factors, the placebo effect chief among them. However, we do not rely upon the test subjects to tell us if they have contracted polio or diptheria, or measles. That diagnosis is determined by an objective test, which cannot be biased by a placebo effect.
__________________
Aurora Walking Vacation

"A point of view can be a dangerous luxury when substituted for insight and understanding."--Marshall McLuhan
Gr8wight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2010, 08:37 AM   #16
EatatJoes
Fundamental Atheist
 
EatatJoes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 339
Originally Posted by Gr8wight View Post
Vaccines will be tested against a placebo for determining deleterious side effects only. They will not be tested against a placebo for determining effectiveness because that is not a subjective measure. For example, pain medication must be tested against a placebo for effectiveness because we rely upon the subjects to report their pain level. This subjective reporting can be biased by many factors, the placebo effect chief among them. However, we do not rely upon the test subjects to tell us if they have contracted polio or diptheria, or measles. That diagnosis is determined by an objective test, which cannot be biased by a placebo effect.
Can I basically quote you? This was good. =)
__________________
"Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines." - John Benfield

"The only consequence of truth is liberation" - Unknown
EatatJoes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2010, 08:49 AM   #17
Capsid
Graduate Poster
 
Capsid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,575
It also seems to be forgotten that there is a large amount of preclinical testing undertaken. All vaccines have to undergo toxicity testing in small mammals using multiple excessive doses of the vaccine. Further they will have been tested in animals for their ability to generate an appropriate immune response. Finally, each batch of licensed vaccine is tested independently by biochemical and animal tests and must be issued with a certificate before it is released for human use.

Moreover, the fact that millions of doses of vaccines have now been given to individuals for decades now ought to be giving us some confidence in vaccine manufacturing.
Capsid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2010, 09:36 AM   #18
Deetee
Illuminator
 
Deetee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,788
Originally Posted by Capsid View Post
Moreover, the fact that millions of doses of vaccines have now been given to individuals for decades now ought to be giving us some confidence in vaccine manufacturing.
True, but the antivaxers will always raise the spectre of rare instances of contamination (SV40 in polio, porcine circovirus in Rotavaccine) as a counterpoint to this quite reasonable generalisation. Even though neither of these has caused demonstrable harm, the issue is that vaccines have been contaminated, so the process is not perfect, and what if the next one is a contaminant that will do harm?
__________________
"Reci bobu bob a popu pop." - Tanja
"Everything is physics. This does not mean that physics is everything." - Cuddles
"The entire practice of homeopathy can be substituted with the advice to "take two aspirins and call me in the morning." - Linda
"Homeopathy: I never knew there was so little in it." - BSM
Deetee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2010, 10:46 AM   #19
Lithrael
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,231
Originally Posted by Nichiro View Post
(...) since vaccines are for universal use, the question arises if they should be universally used if human response to medication can be different.
The thing is, it is expected for vaccination to fail for some people, but that's not any sort of reason not to try to get everyone vaccinated. The point of widespread vaccination against a communicable disease is to get the percentage of the population that's at risk for that disease down to a minimum. That way, when a carrier of that disease arrives, it will spread much more slowly, maybe not at all, because there are only a few people in the population whose vaccination was not effective. If those few people are lucky enough to just not be nearby while the carrier is wandering around, no one will get ill.

Compare this to a completely unvaccinated population: when a carrier of that disease arrives, practically everyone who comes into contact is at risk of developing the disease and spreading it further through the population.

Originally Posted by Nichiro View Post
Whatever results are derived after testing, are they reliable?
As reliable as the testing suggests they are, generally. Which is why it's important to show exactly how the tests are done, so you can tell how much confidence the tests' conclusions deserve.
Lithrael is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2010, 10:52 AM   #20
JJM
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,853
Part way down this site there is info about vax testing http://justthevax.blogspot.com/2010/...x-friends.html
JJM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2010, 01:38 PM   #21
Capsid
Graduate Poster
 
Capsid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,575
Originally Posted by Deetee View Post
True, but the antivaxers will always raise the spectre of rare instances of contamination (SV40 in polio, porcine circovirus in Rotavaccine) as a counterpoint to this quite reasonable generalisation. Even though neither of these has caused demonstrable harm, the issue is that vaccines have been contaminated, so the process is not perfect, and what if the next one is a contaminant that will do harm?
Yes, a valid argument but I'd argue a lot is known the consequences of contaminants and zoonotic infections through vaccine development.
Capsid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2010, 01:48 PM   #22
Nichiro
Critical Thinker
 
Nichiro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 268
Originally Posted by Lithrael View Post
The thing is, it is expected for vaccination to fail for some people, but that's not any sort of reason not to try to get everyone vaccinated.
I am not against vaccination per say.

But for some time, there has been a spate of vaccines that are given to newborns, toddlers and kids.
We know that vaccines have proved to be very useful in past. But with every type of disease which rears up its head, a new vaccine is formulated in a hurry and the children are subjected to its inoculation.A staggering number of inoculations spins my mind.

It would be very interesting to read what people have to say on this.

I would be an interested reader here.
__________________
We should remember that we are neither the smartest nor the last generation to live on earth.
Nichiro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2010, 03:06 PM   #23
Mikemcc
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 1,610
Originally Posted by Nichiro View Post
I am not against vaccination per say.

But for some time, there has been a spate of vaccines that are given to newborns, toddlers and kids.
We know that vaccines have proved to be very useful in past. But with every type of disease which rears up its head, a new vaccine is formulated in a hurry and the children are subjected to its inoculation.A staggering number of inoculations spins my mind.

It would be very interesting to read what people have to say on this.

I would be an interested reader here.
You've made a statement, but not phrased it as a question. What part would you like to discuss and why?

Vaccines are developed as a reaction to an outbreak of an infection. What's a 'staggering number of innoculations'? In the UK kids get up to 6 'standard' jabs by the time they are four (two of which are boosters), and occasional jabs in reaction to outbreaks (such as swine flu):

5-in-1: Diphtheria, Tetanus, whooping cough, Polio and Hib.
PCV.
Meningitis C.
MMR

http://www.nhs.uk/Planners/vaccinati...dvaccines.aspx

Hardly a 'staggering number'.
Mikemcc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2010, 04:07 PM   #24
Deetee
Illuminator
 
Deetee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,788
And whilst the individual number of injections may be rising, the actual number of immunogenic components (antigens) has declined markedly.
In the 1970s there were around 3000 individual antigens or so (mainly because of whole cell pertussis and smallpox).
Nowadays, there are around 150.
We probably are exposed to that many antigens every time we brush our teeth.
So "immune overload" is a load of bunkum.

More injections does however mean that simple reactions like febrile illness are more common than with fewer injections. But these are pretty minor in the grand scheme of things, and a small price to pay for the protection.
__________________
"Reci bobu bob a popu pop." - Tanja
"Everything is physics. This does not mean that physics is everything." - Cuddles
"The entire practice of homeopathy can be substituted with the advice to "take two aspirins and call me in the morning." - Linda
"Homeopathy: I never knew there was so little in it." - BSM
Deetee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2010, 06:27 PM   #25
Estellea
Graduate Poster
 
Estellea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,305
Originally Posted by Mikemcc View Post
You've made a statement, but not phrased it as a question. What part would you like to discuss and why?

Vaccines are developed as a reaction to an outbreak of an infection. What's a 'staggering number of innoculations'? In the UK kids get up to 6 'standard' jabs by the time they are four (two of which are boosters), and occasional jabs in reaction to outbreaks (such as swine flu):

5-in-1: Diphtheria, Tetanus, whooping cough, Polio and Hib.
PCV.
Meningitis C.
MMR

http://www.nhs.uk/Planners/vaccinati...dvaccines.aspx

Hardly a 'staggering number'.
Perhaps Nichiro is referring to the U.S. schedule which is a bit more stacked than many EU countries. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/recs/sch...chedule-pr.pdf

Este
Estellea is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2010, 07:13 PM   #26
Nichiro
Critical Thinker
 
Nichiro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 268
Originally Posted by Estellea View Post
Perhaps Nichiro is referring to the U.S. schedule which is a bit more stacked than many EU countries. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/recs/sch...chedule-pr.pdf

Este
Yes. You are right indeed.
I am concerned about US scene which is really worrying parents.
__________________
We should remember that we are neither the smartest nor the last generation to live on earth.
Nichiro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2010, 08:11 PM   #27
Emet
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,295
Originally Posted by Nichiro View Post
Yes. You are right indeed.
I am concerned about US scene which is really worrying parents.
And which parents would those be? the ones who follow Jenny McCarthy?

The latest scientific paper I could find analyzed data from 2005:

Quote:
CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 28% of children were not in compliance with the official vaccination recommendations. Missed doses accounted for approximately two thirds of noncompliance, with the remainder due to mis-timed doses and other requirements. Measuring compliance with all ACIP recommendations provides a valuable tool to assess and improve the quality of healthcare delivery and ensure that children and communities are optimally protected from vaccine-preventable diseases
.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18471581



Here is an article from Time magazine online, dated Feb 25, 2010:

Quote:
Though close to 80% of American children receive the standard battery of vaccinations, skepticism about their safety remains widespread, in part because of the antiscientific clamor of the McCarthy camp.

Nonvaccination rates among kindergartners in some California counties have been reported at 10%.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...967796,00.html

Last edited by Emet; 12th October 2010 at 08:41 PM.
Emet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2010, 09:34 PM   #28
Gr8wight
red-shirted crewman
 
Gr8wight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,661
Originally Posted by Nichiro View Post
Yes. You are right indeed.
I am concerned about US scene which is really worrying parents.
The possibility of their children contracting pertussis, or diphtheria, or meningitis, or hepatitis is what should be worrying parents. Vaccines are safe. Those diseases are not.
__________________
Aurora Walking Vacation

"A point of view can be a dangerous luxury when substituted for insight and understanding."--Marshall McLuhan
Gr8wight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2010, 11:03 PM   #29
brantc
Muse
 
brantc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 541
Originally Posted by EatatJoes View Post
I'm in the middle of an anti-vax debate. I'm having a hard time...The issue at the moment is the charge that vaccines are not tested properly. More specifically that they are not tested via a placebo group. I did find this website and it's good but it's very general. While I was looking for more information I came across this website. I have a feeling that those I am engaged with are either using this website or using information very similar to it.

So, I feel like I am left explaining why the vaxes weren't compared to placebos and on the surface it appears that those vaxes did not go through the procedure outlined in the first website I linked to. Is this because the product insert doesn't list all of the studies done? Are there post-release studies done?

Another "point" that was made is that the vaccines are not tested for "toxicity". I think I can explain this but it won't read as being a very confident explanation.

I think this boils down to them thinking these things are very big deals when in fact they are not. But I need to be able to convey these things to them. Whether or not they accept it is up to them but I need the information and feel confident in it in order to comfortably leave them in their ignorance (kind of like walking away from away from a creationist. You give them the evidence, they ignore it, so you just move on).

Anyone want to help me out?

Thanks!
Vaccines are not properly tested because they dont give you a vaccine and then infect you with the sickness to see if it really works. Like real controlled experimental conditions. And there is no doubt there are adverse reaction to vaccines.

Its just what can they get away with in the name of the dollar??

Why else would you set up Vaccine Adverse Effects Reporting System (VAERS)? Unless there was a problem that you had to keep under control??????????
From your link,
"That's not even the end of the story. Not only must a vaccine pass through one level of animal study and three levels of human studies in order to be licensed, it is then continually monitored through the Vaccine Adverse Effects Reporting System (VAERS). This system is specifically designed to look for problems with vaccines, no matter how rare."



Vaccine contamination.


FDA Suspends Rotavirus Vaccine

* MARCH 23, 2010
"The Food and Drug Administration recommended Monday that doctors temporarily stop using GlaxoSmithKline PLC's Rotarix child vaccine after a virus was found in the product.

The agency said it needed to learn more about parts of an extraneous virus that was found in the vaccine. The FDA said there's currently no evidence of a safety risk associated with the vaccine.

"There is no evidence...that this poses any health risk," FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg said in a conference call with reporters. "We're simply asking that there be a pause in its use."

She also said Rotarix has a significant track record of being safe.

Rotarix, approved for use in the U.S. in 2008, is typically given to babies at two and four months of age and is designed to help protect infants from a gastrointestinal illness caused by rotavirus.

The FDA said it recently became aware that an independent U.S. academic research team has found DNA from porcine circovirus 1, or PCV-1, in Rotarix. PCV-1 is not known to cause illness in humans or other animals. The agency said follow-up testing has found that DNA from the PCV-1 virus has been in the product since early in development."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...893153322.html

So much for testing...... Millions of people have died from vaccine malfunction. All to protect the herd......

Flu vaccines are a guess as to which virus might be loose this year.
Yeah they might get close but there is nothing scientific about it.
They would never allow true scientific testing on humans.

You can draw conclusions about the data but you really dont know for sure.

And I certainty would not trust the pharmaceutical companies...

That being said however, there are useful vaccines. It would be better if they were made more carefully.

Last edited by brantc; 12th October 2010 at 11:05 PM.
brantc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2010, 11:13 PM   #30
Tatyana
Illuminator
 
Tatyana's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,701
Originally Posted by EatatJoes View Post
I'm in the middle of an anti-vax debate. I'm having a hard time...The issue at the moment is the charge that vaccines are not tested properly. More specifically that they are not tested via a placebo group. I did find this website and it's good but it's very general. While I was looking for more information I came across this website. I have a feeling that those I am engaged with are either using this website or using information very similar to it.

So, I feel like I am left explaining why the vaxes weren't compared to placebos and on the surface it appears that those vaxes did not go through the procedure outlined in the first website I linked to. Is this because the product insert doesn't list all of the studies done? Are there post-release studies done?

Another "point" that was made is that the vaccines are not tested for "toxicity". I think I can explain this but it won't read as being a very confident explanation.

I think this boils down to them thinking these things are very big deals when in fact they are not. But I need to be able to convey these things to them. Whether or not they accept it is up to them but I need the information and feel confident in it in order to comfortably leave them in their ignorance (kind of like walking away from away from a creationist. You give them the evidence, they ignore it, so you just move on).

Anyone want to help me out?

Thanks!
It wouldn't pass medical ethics if you had a placebo group.

After the 200+ years since Edward Jenner, we know they work, and would be considered unethical to with hold an effective medical procedure.

Although this has been violated in areas in Africa, as we know HAART drugs work for HIV infection, it is not ethical to have a placebo group for these drugs either.

Appeal to emotions:
Ask them how they would feel if they were dying of cancer, there was a new drug that looked promising, but they ended up in the placebo wing of the protocol.
Tatyana is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2010, 04:25 AM   #31
Capsid
Graduate Poster
 
Capsid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,575
Quote:
Vaccines are not properly tested because they dont give you a vaccine and then infect you with the sickness to see if it really works. Like real controlled experimental conditions. And there is no doubt there are adverse reaction to vaccines.
Malaria and flu vaccines have been tested in this way. But it is just a simple matter of vaccinating one group and not vaccinating another and see which group has the higher infection rates. If a large number are used this is statistically significant.

Moreover, much is known about the immune response that is need to provide protection. Antibodies raised against vaccines can be passively administered to animals which are then challenged with the pathogen to test that they are effective. These animal models are very predictive of outcomes in humans.
Capsid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2010, 04:41 AM   #32
Deetee
Illuminator
 
Deetee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,788
Originally Posted by Capsid View Post
Malaria and flu vaccines have been tested in this way. But it is just a simple matter of vaccinating one group and not vaccinating another and see which group has the higher infection rates. If a large number are used this is statistically significant.
Yes there are trials of this type, and there have been randomised, double blind placebo trials.
Here is one for flu vaccine, which used another vaccine (Hepatitis A) as a placebo flu vaccine. It was ethically justified because it would at least be providing protection against something (although have no influence on the incidence of flu).
__________________
"Reci bobu bob a popu pop." - Tanja
"Everything is physics. This does not mean that physics is everything." - Cuddles
"The entire practice of homeopathy can be substituted with the advice to "take two aspirins and call me in the morning." - Linda
"Homeopathy: I never knew there was so little in it." - BSM
Deetee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2010, 05:04 AM   #33
Deetee
Illuminator
 
Deetee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,788
Originally Posted by brantc View Post
Vaccines are not properly tested because they dont give you a vaccine and then infect you with the sickness to see if it really works. Like real controlled experimental conditions. And there is no doubt there are adverse reaction to vaccines.

Its just what can they get away with in the name of the dollar??

Why else would you set up Vaccine Adverse Effects Reporting System (VAERS)? Unless there was a problem that you had to keep under control??????????
I guess its damned if they do, damned if they don't. If the CDC did not have a vaccine reaction surveillance system, they would rightly be criticised for trying to pretend there were no problems with vaccines. But set up a reporting system, and people like you suddenly jump to the conclusion there are big problems...


Originally Posted by brantc View Post
From your link,
"That's not even the end of the story. Not only must a vaccine pass through one level of animal study and three levels of human studies in order to be licensed, it is then continually monitored through the Vaccine Adverse Effects Reporting System (VAERS). This system is specifically designed to look for problems with vaccines, no matter how rare."



Vaccine contamination.

FDA Suspends Rotavirus Vaccine
* MARCH 23, 2010
"The Food and Drug Administration recommended Monday that doctors temporarily stop using GlaxoSmithKline PLC's Rotarix child vaccine after a virus was found in the product.

The agency said it needed to learn more about parts of an extraneous virus that was found in the vaccine. The FDA said there's currently no evidence of a safety risk associated with the vaccine.

"There is no evidence...that this poses any health risk," FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg said in a conference call with reporters. "We're simply asking that there be a pause in its use."

She also said Rotarix has a significant track record of being safe.

Rotarix, approved for use in the U.S. in 2008, is typically given to babies at two and four months of age and is designed to help protect infants from a gastrointestinal illness caused by rotavirus.

The FDA said it recently became aware that an independent U.S. academic research team has found DNA from porcine circovirus 1, or PCV-1, in Rotarix. PCV-1 is not known to cause illness in humans or other animals. The agency said follow-up testing has found that DNA from the PCV-1 virus has been in the product since early in development."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704117304575137993893153322.html
Rotarix and Rotateq are oral vaccines. Contamination of Rotavirus vaccines with a harmless virus that the kids would be swallowing in their hundreds of different varieties everyday anyhow is not really a significant problem, except in the tiny little minds of the antivaxers

Originally Posted by brantc View Post
So much for testing...... Millions of people have died from vaccine malfunction. All to protect the herd......
You are correct in that people do die in their millions if they have a certain type of "vaccine malfunction" - namely that of not getting the vaccine, following which they succumb to the disease, which could have been prevented.

Originally Posted by brantc View Post
Flu vaccines are a guess as to which virus might be loose this year.
Yeah they might get close but there is nothing scientific about it.
They would never allow true scientific testing on humans.
All the flu viruses are tested on humans. Last year one of the reasons for the delays in getting swine flu vax available quickly was because they had to await the preliminary studies of H1N1 vaccine safety and efficacy in humans.
The tailoring of the next year's seasonal influenza vaccine types to the predicted prevalent influenza strains is quite a scientific process. Its like climatology. There is lots of science, but even then its not guaranteed to be 100% accurate at predicting everything. Most years the flu scientists do a great job in forecasting flu types.

Originally Posted by brantc View Post
And I certainty would not trust the pharmaceutical companies...
In what sense? If your child was dying from meningitis, would you say: "No antibiotics for him, please! I don't trust the pharma companies!"

Originally Posted by brantc View Post
That being said however, there are useful vaccines. It would be better if they were made more carefully.
At least something you say has a vague ring of accuracy.
__________________
"Reci bobu bob a popu pop." - Tanja
"Everything is physics. This does not mean that physics is everything." - Cuddles
"The entire practice of homeopathy can be substituted with the advice to "take two aspirins and call me in the morning." - Linda
"Homeopathy: I never knew there was so little in it." - BSM

Last edited by Deetee; 13th October 2010 at 05:08 AM.
Deetee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2010, 08:21 AM   #34
Estellea
Graduate Poster
 
Estellea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,305
Originally Posted by Emet
Originally Posted by Nichiro View Post
Yes. You are right indeed.
I am concerned about US scene which is really worrying parents.
And which parents would those be? the ones who follow Jenny McCarthy?

The latest scientific paper I could find analyzed data from 2005:

Quote:
CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 28% of children were not in compliance with the official vaccination recommendations. Missed doses accounted for approximately two thirds of noncompliance, with the remainder due to mis-timed doses and other requirements. Measuring compliance with all ACIP recommendations provides a valuable tool to assess and improve the quality of healthcare delivery and ensure that children and communities are optimally protected from vaccine-preventable diseases
.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18471581
That is part but that is the sector of parents that have gone over the cliff in their beliefs that vaccines cause every malady known to humans, vast conspiracies, yada yada yada. However, there are some parents that have been frightened by these loudmouth, self-proclaimed experts and need to be talked off the edge, so to speak. They need to be addressed differently and not shamed or berated for not following the CDC schedule in its entirety. For, to be honest, there are some rather questionable recommendations and also some 'wiggle-room' for individuals to be able to consider when vaccinating their children. They need solid information from solid sources however.

Quote:
Here is an article from Time magazine online, dated Feb 25, 2010:

Quote:
Though close to 80% of American children receive the standard battery of vaccinations, skepticism about their safety remains widespread, in part because of the antiscientific clamor of the McCarthy camp.

Nonvaccination rates among kindergartners in some California counties have been reported at 10%.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...967796,00.html
Oh it is much worse than that: http://projects.latimes.com/schools/...anking/page/1/

Este
Estellea is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2010, 08:33 AM   #35
Beerina
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
 
Beerina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 28,916
Originally Posted by Sherman Bay View Post
"Toxic" is the latest woo buzzword. I have attended lectures where almost everything was defined as being toxic, and the solution was to buy the seller's products to "de-toxify." It's just snake oil under a different name.

This first link you gave says this:That would seem to indicate that "toxicity" was not overlooked, indeed, it was carefully watched for.
Even "toxicity" is a trade-off vs. benefit. Heck, cancer treatments rely on toxicity to kill the more fragile cancer cells before the rest of the body dies too much.
__________________
"Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson

The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales now! More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?
Beerina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2010, 08:36 AM   #36
Beerina
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
 
Beerina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 28,916
Originally Posted by Nichiro View Post
I thought so initially but since vaccines are for universal use, the question arises if they should be universally used if human response to medication can be different .

Whatever results are derived after testing, are they reliable?
This is where statistics come into play -- you test thousands of people, or more.


BTW, this is how they are determining many vitamin pills are useless, or actually harmful. But it requires 10+ year studies of a hundred thousand people split into two groups: Those with the treatment, and those without.
__________________
"Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson

The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales now! More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?
Beerina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2010, 03:31 PM   #37
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 19,126
Originally Posted by Nichiro View Post
Yes. You are right indeed.
I am concerned about US scene which is really worrying parents.
Actually is the ludicrous scaremongering of a small fringe of fanatics that is worrying parents.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2010, 03:34 PM   #38
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 19,126
Originally Posted by brantc View Post
So much for testing...... Millions of people have died from vaccine malfunction. All to protect the herd......

I assume you will be providing proof of this ridiculous assertion?
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2010, 06:23 AM   #39
LarianLeQuella
Elf Wino
 
LarianLeQuella's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,066
I need to add some info on this to my Facts, not Fantasy site. Thanks all for pulling together my research.
LarianLeQuella is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2010, 10:19 AM   #40
Deetee
Illuminator
 
Deetee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,788
Interesting WHO data on vaccination for anyone interested.
http://apps.who.int/immunization_mon...overagemcv.htm

This app enables you to select a vaccination along the top menu to display comparative data on vax uptake for all the global countries for comparison.

Click on the name of a country down the lefthand menu, and you get all the vax rates for that country for all its vaccines. For instance here is that for the USA.

There is a lot of useful info in this section of the WHO website. Browse around the sections from the topmost menu.
__________________
"Reci bobu bob a popu pop." - Tanja
"Everything is physics. This does not mean that physics is everything." - Cuddles
"The entire practice of homeopathy can be substituted with the advice to "take two aspirins and call me in the morning." - Linda
"Homeopathy: I never knew there was so little in it." - BSM
Deetee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:05 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.