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, going to sleep now - see you tomorrow :)

biggest mistake in vaccine introduction in recent history, where known problems were ignored.

not sure Cervarix vs Gardasil is not going to catch up on that very fast...

good luck, Silverfrog, both on the education battle and the dietary changes!

What we have in this discussion is that there are people who trust official reports and dismiss sources of individuals as they do not hold any official status.

I therefore want to put out a request.

I will copy here a link to a website about transparency in vaccination. It is again an unofficial group of people (anti-vaccination loonies as some might want to label them). But I want you to actually look at their figures and either prove me that they are wrong or give me an offical source of information where it is proven by comparison of real figures of vaccinated and unvaccinated children that vaccinated children are healthier. And I do not mean claims or statements, but official figures.

www.vaccineinjury.info/vaccinations-in-general/vaccinatedunvaccinated.html

Rosi,

the problem with this is that Bachmair's numbers are the result of an online questionnaire and anyone could have written anything into that form (both ways actually). While I don't want to discount parents' impressions on their kids' health, previous research has shown that parental impression of atopic diseases diverges from doctor diagnosed atopies and that non vaccinating parents have a tendency to take their kids to the doctor less (independent of health). I have a number of impressive (IMO) anecdotes in that respect that I won't bore you with.

The only study on the health of completely unvaccinated vs vaccinated children was done in Germany and is published here:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3057555/

The fact that it was pharma-cosponsored is giving me a massive tummy ache, the exhaustive RKI disclaimer reads reasonable, but I still would have prefered to see this entirely government/DFG or so sponsored.

'The only study on the health of completely unvaccinated vs vaccinated children was done in Germany and is published here:'

This is not a correct use of words, Catherina. You mean the only study done by any official body as there are studies, but you label them all as not valid.

The fact that this seems to be the only study on this topic brings me to a very simple question. The easiest way to prove that vaccination is efficient and supports people to stay healthy would be to do a simple comparison of those who have been and those who have not been vaccinated. You would expect that official bodies would have done that kind of research. Fact seems to be that beyond this German study there is nothing you can find in terms of official simple comparison. After so many years of vaccination it seems that they have not been able to deliver that kind of research and proof and have not even thought about doing this kind of research?

And this one study you mention that was done in Germany - this report only came out after and because this very stubborn anti-vaccination person whose contribution happens to be publicized by some 2012 loonies on the alpenparlament.tv went public with her own results after having compared the huge amount of data. She mentioned that she was disappointed that with all the data the Robert Koch Institut had produced, there were no figures comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated young people and children at all. They did not even think about comparing that.

After her figures had come out there was a huge outcry! And, of course, now we are being told that all of her calculations are wrong. Who holds the proof, Catherina, did you add up all the figures and make your own calculations? What convincing argument could make me believe that I could trust her figures less than those ?pharma-cosponsored? official figures?

I have asked the Deutsche Ärzteblatt for more detailed information to this article, as in it there is no reference to clear figures. - So far they haven?t come back to me.

Where is the proof, Catherina that the studies in Austria, New Zealand and the Longterm Study in Guinea-Bissau are wrong?

Unless I have missed it, the studies you mention only talk about children's vaccination status. They don't say how the children were selected, they don't say whether the children came fromsimilar backgrounds, anything abouth their diet, or living conditions, whether htye were breastfed.....there are so many variables which these studies don;t seem to mention.

I would put money, for example, on the 'anti-vacciantion} parents also being very careful about thier children's dies, being more liektly to bf adn for longer.

"children's diet" obviously.

Rosi - the Bachmair numbers are not a "study". Angelika likes to over-estimate her influence on German vaccine policy. The RKI has published a huge report in German on their website which is free for all to download.

yes, seeker, other studies have recruited a lot from anthroposophical communities, known to be very careful with antibiotics (early antibiotics use is a known risk factor for atopies). I am sure the communities (vaccinating and non vaccinating) differ quite a bit in these parameters.

Catherina, I asked neither for your comment nor your opinion on Angelika and Bachmair. I asked for evidence through numbers and figures which states that the results presented are wrong - even if you might not call them a study.

So where is this evidence?

Rosi - I posted the RKI paper, which is a study. How can I prove a collection of anecdotes wrong? No one can use these figures - they are like online polls, easily manipulated and not reliable. I could make up loads of severely sick unvaccinated kids and enter them now to skew the results. How do I know that no one has made up a bunch of really healthy kids and added them? There is no quality control or follow up as far as I know (I do get Bachmair's newletter and I don't recall anything to that effect).

I do not want comments Catherina, where are the facts

Rosi, indeed - where are the facts? Certainly not in that cute survey you posted.

Catherina, where are the fact that prove that this 'cute survey' is wrong?

all you give is opinions. I asked for facts

Rosi - I have posted the RKI article in my first response - I have pointed you to their page (rki.de) for more info on the study. They have conducted a study. Read it, the whole thing, then get back to me. (and yes, I did read your survey when the newsletter came in a couple of weeks ago).

You claim the results of the studies are wrong. Where is your evidence which proves your statement?

The RKI article is about something different and has nothing to do with your claim that the studies are wrong.

So again where is the proof that these 'cute survey' is wrong?

in the previous thread (as you know) there were peer-reviewed links supporting the work of Wakefield's team

And I believe it was noted on the previous thread that "peer-reviewed" is the pro-vaccine brigade's mothership :)

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?

Can you answer this question instead of avoiding it?

As these "misdecisions" - let's call them deliberate mistakes - affect real people's lives, perhaps you would take them rather more seriously than people who believe the end of the world is nigh.

I think we should clear up the question of the rigorous safety testing of which you speak. You've tried to be flippant to avoid it (hilarious joke about Gardasil damage by the way) and I think it's because it's not a very easy subject for you.

'
in the previous thread (as you know) there were peer-reviewed links supporting the work of Wakefield's team'

OK. Assume I'm stupid. Provide me with a link to one peer reviewed, properly constituted study that supports Wakefield's team.

Seeker, they're on the thread I linked earlier, I believe that's the thread where you were caught out a number of times claiming various bits of nonsense for which you ended up apologising at one point.

You always do this. Give me a link, give me a link. You've been given links loads of times and I swear you never look at 'em cos you're back later going, give me the link, give me the link. There were loads of links on that other thread you were on. I bet you never looked. Now's your chance.

psst seeker (for future reference - you are right, not one)

justthevax.blogspot.com/2010/02/independent-wakefield-way-really.html

justthevax.blogspot.com/2011/05/still-no-independent-confirmation-of.html

Squirming much. You have to resort to untruths and chidishness Caterina?

How very not surprising.

It's sometimes the simplest questions which are the trickiest. But when you do feel you want to try to answer them I might be here to read your attempt - as opposed to your jokes, your changing the subject, your silliness..

or I might not. Perhaps you are like Seeker and it doesn't matter how many times you are shown evidence - you are still going to stick your fingers in your ears and go la la la.

Although I don't think Seeker ever actually looks for it, or would know what to do with it.