Debate on Vaccines

[Emsyboo]

I have seen a few threads where mums have an opinion pro or con vaccine and asking for more information I would like to know your reasons for being one or the other.
My MIL is very anti vaccine and told me 4 out of 30 children die from vaccinations - I don't believe this to be true think their may be a decimal point missing although I have seen some posts from people who seem to have backed up information about vaccines.

I am pro vaccine but like to see both sides before I make a decision so if anyone has any information pro or con and more importantly has info to back up I would be really interested.

Thanks

oh, you must have overlooked my post where I explained that - so

Would you clarify by "none of what they say has any value whatsoever."

The "they" in that sentence refers specifically to two sources that Rosi linked to - the first video with the interview of that German women who freely re-interprets the German RKI's data, and the Impfkritik folk.

Who are you talking about?

Specifically those two sources. I am sorry that did not become clear. I did spend a lot of time looking at their text and claims and in one of their forums - my statement is therefore very informed (but since I assume you don't speak German and I know "they" don't speak very good English, it would be hard for you to control my statement - that is why I asked you whether you agreed with things like "there is no such thing as a varicella virus and children get chicken bumps due to separation shock" - you will notice that Rosi mentioned separation anxiety as a reason for ear infections earlier today).

For example: your claim, and the claim by others, about rigorous testing to the highest safety levels. It is not difficult to challenge this : it's been done, and you have no response.

I have not been challenged - I had asked you to name a specific post in the 900+ post thread and you did not. Copy and paste the claim here and I will gladly look at it.

Your claim : nothing of value. Do you mean those who question vaccine safety?

Please read the above, which I have posted for the third time.

I highly doubt that even those who question vaccines, who also believe in the Mayan calendar, have "nothing of value to say" about vaccines.

It is not the Mayan calendar - it is the notion that the Mayans were right about the end of the world in 2012. It is also not just the Mayan calendar, it is the aggregation of every conspiracy and fringe theory on one web site which frames the vaccine-critical interview. I find it futile to discuss with people who don't believe in pathogenic germs. Is that really so arrogant?

the Cochrane report said safety testing was inadequate for the MMR vaccine.

how does htis tally with your claim that safety testing is rigorous?

So you accept that others who question vaccines have something to say of some value. And although there is just one poster who takes certain issues seriously, which you scorn and deride, you repeatedly engage because it's just.. what.. easy?

I didn't have the energy to post any more than Cochrane: "MMR testing was inadequate". I didn't see the need to explain further, what with you being so well read and that. You must have missed that.

Would you like to hear an example of rigorous safety testing?

A trial in south America. Thirteen babies die during the trial. The alarm is raised and dropped when it is realised (no doubt with much wiping of brows) that the number who died is no more than the average of "background deaths". So no need to examine whether the babies' deaths were actually linked to the vaccine. Of course, the number who died -because thirteen was a rough average - might under different circumstances outside any trial have been nine, or twenty. But we will never know: no one knows why those babies died, or if their deaths were linked to the vaccine trial.

"The highest standards". No.

So you accept that others who question vaccines have something to say of some value. And although there is just one poster who takes certain issues seriously, which you scorn and deride, you repeatedly engage because it's just.. what.. easy?

I apologized for my initial swearing. I am now refuting claims. I am looking at her sources.

I didn't have the energy to post any more than Cochrane: "MMR testing was inadequate". I didn't see the need to explain further, what with you being so well read and that. You must have missed that.

Ah - the Cochrane report (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16235361). It actually says "The design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both pre- and post-marketing, are largely inadequate." That is different from your telegram version. Cochrane has very very rigorous criteria - so rigerous that they find: "We could not identify studies assessing the effectiveness of MMR that fulfilled our inclusion criteria even though the impact of mass immunisation on the elimination of the diseases has been largely demonstrated."
The same report also states (based on the available evidence and testing):
"Exposure to MMR was unlikely to be associated with Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, autism or aseptic meningitis (mumps) (Jeryl-Lynn strain-containing MMR)."

Would you like to hear an example of rigorous safety testing?

I would like to see the link.

A trial in south America. Thirteen babies die during the trial. The alarm is raised and dropped when it is realised (no doubt with much wiping of brows) that the number who died is no more than the average of "background deaths". So no need to examine whether the babies' deaths were actually linked to the vaccine. Of course, the number who died -because thirteen was a rough average - might under different circumstances outside any trial have been nine, or twenty. But we will never know: no one knows why those babies died, or if their deaths were linked to the vaccine trial.

As I said - link please.

Silverfrog - see my response above.

I do have personal experience of someone being convince that alternative methods could cure Hodgkins lymphoma. They didn't.

imadgine - I am sorry :( same here for someone with breast cancer...

an MMR study that I like (massively underpowered to detect rare side effects of course) pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/106/5/e62.full

"Exposure to MMR was unlikely to be associated with Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, autism or aseptic meningitis (mumps) (Jeryl-Lynn strain-containing MMR)."

This is - quite literally - just something said based on the fact that MMR's global application (obviously that does not take account of under reporting) and on selected studies.

at tht response.

I would like to see you explain away the introduction of the Urabe mumps strain, please.

you know - the one known to have problems associated with it, which had been withdrawn elsewhere due to unacceptably high reaction rates, which was introduced nonetheless in the UK, following a full disclosure meeting...

and then swiftly withdrawn later, and the cover up and pro-mmr propaganda machine has been churning ever since...

"This is - quite literally - just something said based on the fact that MMR's global application (obviously that does not take account of under reporting) and on selected studies."

There is no credible evidence to the contrary after world wide use of the MMR.

From a public health and study perspective, it would have been preferable to phase the MMR in (possible in many countries due to existing administrative structures), especially since there were singles vaccines. So I actually agree with Cochrane.

how would I explain the introduction of the Urabe strain away and why would I do this? I am not here to defend public health misdecisions...

Gooseberrybushes - are you sure there is no link? I have read a similar story somewhere and I thought it was in a licencing document...what was the vaccine? Do you remember?

"There is no credible evidence to the contrary after world wide use of the MMR."

Well, there is actually. Just saying that doesn't make it true.

And your response on Cochrane?

I have never seen a link or looked for a link.

what about the rigorous safety testing?

what about the dept of health acting on previous reports of safety issues?

what abotu the dept of health ignoring known issues, and forging ahead anyway? how does this tally with your "rigorous safety testing" which means that no vaccine causes unacceptable damage (aside form "normal" rates of vaccine damage)

"I am not here to defend public health misdecisions..."

But you are doing that. Well, at least in this case you admit it was a "misdecision", more commonly known as a mistake.

And as these "misdecisions" affect real people's lives - unlike people who believe the world will end in 2012 - would you like to end your association with and defence of those who make them?

or maybe, Catherina, you actually mean that all vaccines have rigorous safety trials, but then problems which are highlighted are ignored, which is ok, because at least there were safety trials....

you cannot seriously be trying to claim rigorous safety trials on the one hand, and then waving away the biggest mistake in vaccine introduction in recent history, where known problems were ignored.

I think she's going to kinda try.

..and I was looking forward to catching up on crocheting news while we wait :)

Never mind. Good luck with the legals. Vibes and that.

oh, it might not come to it yet. but it probably will. is education based, which is a bummer, as thought we were sorted there for a while... thnks for the vibes

in other news, we are also gearing up (when I can face it!) for a trial of normal diet. dd1's gut has healed a lot over the last year, and small tests with previously forbidden foodstuffs have gone well (on the casein front. gluten is the biggie though. am scared). now there is somethign I never thought I'd get excited about pre-children - the thought of shopping in a normal supermarket, and not speciality foods R us. Greggs sausage rolls here we come

no you will never go that far - enough to upset anyone's gut

I'm off too, goodnight

Wakefield and friends are not credible, unreproduced.

Are you saying that "the design and reporting of safety progammes was largely inadequate" means something different to "the safety testing was inadequate"?

yes, it is less absolute.

Are you saying it means that testing was adequate, although the design and reporting of the testing was inadequate? On what grounds are you saying this?

In the case of the Urabe strain introduction, the test results were just plain ignored as far as I am aware. That is not really defendable.