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

Do you have any evidence to show Gooseberrybushes?

Where is your evidence, Catherina?

Er what? You made a claim about safety testing - I'm asking you to stand it up. In the process you've addmitted to indefensible mistakes, tried to change the subject, made "jokes".. You can just try to respond to my questions any time you like.

Yes, there's lots of evidence, you read the other thread, I'm not re reading and re posting because there's enough there for you to chew on.TThis is how board conversations with people like you tend to go:

You have no evidence.
Yes we do here it is.

Yes but no but you have no "credible" evidence.
Yes we do here it is.

Yes but no but you have no peer reviewed papers.
Yes we do here they are.

Yes but no but yes but peer-reviewed doesn't always count

Really - I don't need to prove anything. I think there's enough evidence, case studies, clinical, circumstantial, peer-reviewed, laboratory etc etc to indicate there could be a link between certain kinds of damage to children and vaccines to merit question of the vaccine schedule and allowing parents to make decisions not to vaccinate without being ridiculed.

Whereas you think there is no evidence (not true) and that vaccines are tested to the highest safety standards (not true either). You believe there is no link (prove it) and no evidence of a link (not true). Your absolutism is your downfall.

Gooseberrybushes - as far as I know the risks of the Urabe strain were perfectly known, and we are not talking "untested vaccine" we are talking "poor public health decision, despite all the information".

The problems with Urabe strain were not discovered during testing. It was withdrawn after a country-wide roll out.

Aside from that, you seem to be ridiculing parents' concerns about vaccines because although safety testing can be ignored, at least it takes place.

And aside from that, Cochrane is talking about safety testing being inadequate, not poor policy decisions.

And aside from that, you still haven't explained why you think "testing design and outcome reporting was inadequate" means something different to "safety testing was inadequate".

I don't really know what your argument is on this but it looks very flimsy from here.

Anyone fancy commenting on the relatively recent news that vaccine manufacturers have been using human tissue to create vaccines and not telling anyone?

The problem is that when I ask for a peer reviewed, properly constituted study that replicates Wakefield's findings, I get a blizzard of links, some of which are anecdotal, some of which are obviously wacky and some of which may be relevant. What I'm asking for is the one that you consider the best one - you are the expert here, not me. Give me a link to one study. Your best, most convincing one. I've asked this loads of times and it never happens.

"you were caught out a number of times claiming various bits of nonsense for which you ended up apologising at one point." Well, if I got something wrong and someone corrected me, of course I would have apologized!

I dont know enough to comment on the human DNA story, but it is obviously speculative. Even the person putting the case forward says something like "There's no proof that it is involved, but no proof that it isn't either"

Human tissue is used in the testing of most drugs to be used on humans, isn;t it?

Well as the guy said "it's a review of theories". That is what the title says. Like an essay by an undergrad. Reviews of theories are not science.
Her ideas, or at least as they are reported in the media, about DNA and the brain sound pretty bizarre. You'd get this interesting effect after blood transfusions then, no doubt. And come to think of it, we share most of our DNA with other mammals, so when i eat some lamb, does the sheep DNA invade my brain?
Here's a blog from an immunologist who thinks its completely crazy.
scienceblogs.com/erv/2011/04/homologous_recombinaltion_tini.php
I agree, nothing about this batty DNA idea makes a crumb of sense.
If I can summon up the fortitude later I will try to see where she gets that from...
But it is an interesting logical leap from "some vaccines contain human DNA" to your "vaccine manufacturers have been using human tissue" - where did that come from? DNA and tissue not the same thing.

Er no, Seeker, you were given peer-reviewed links in conventional publications. Don't lie. On the last thread you were on there were many links.
I don't think any of them were wacky at all.

One answer was very simple: saying something like here are peer reviewed links, and a list of six or so. Nothing complicated.

In fact most had the link names in the link, or at least "pubmed" I do believe, so not hard to miss.

If you don't read the links, if you're not interested, it's no one's fault but yours. You are not here out of genuine interst or you would have read the links.

You don't read the links. Not even the peer-reviewed links. God knows why you ask for them. Are you just trying to score points or something? over people with vaccine-damaged children? Good luck with that.

"Are you just trying to score points or something? over people with vaccine-damaged children? Good luck with that."

That is an outrageous thing to say. Withdraw it immediately.

Hoity. No. Why do you keep asking for links you never read?

I do read them. I am at the moment searching back trying to find the 6 you mention - I don't remember seeing the post concerned.

But please refrain from personal abuse, there's a love. It does your cause no favours.

Excellent. Shame you missed them all first time round, and on the thread before that too, I do believe.

If you think that's personal abuse you can report me, by the way. Accusing someone of point-scoring because they don't - repeatedly - read stuff and just keep asking for it over and over again, when people give them what they ask for despite having incredibly busy lives, some of them looking after vaccine-damaged children, that's not personal abuse. That's an accusation which you can deny or not deny, up to you.

seeker, if you spent even half the time you spend asking for links actually reading the ones provided, then you would have the info you want by now. I know for certain that the last thread I was on with Beachcomber we discussed a very useful overview paper, which discussed a lot of the recent studies.

Catherina: Gooseberry has said what I wanted to - namely that the Urabe strain issues were not picked up at testing ,but only after rollout. how was this acceptable in any way (and how does it fit with your claims of stringent safety testing)? Nothing to do with the later introduction to the UK even though there were known problems - how did it even get to market in the first place?

you cannot seriously be arguing what you are arguing: that vaccines have really very good safety trials, that they are researched and tested thoroughly. but then those tests are ignored and they are sent to market. but that is ok (well, not in a public health kind of way) because the safety testing is top notch.

is that really what you are saying? that the vaccines are properly tested, but then the public health decisions made are the problem?

even if it is, how is that supposed ot give anyone confidence in the vaccine schedule? does that just not support what non-vaxxers claim - that you cannot get the proper info, that the info you are given is a whitewash, that the vaccines are not as safe as they are claimed to be?

Gooseberry - will take off on vacation for a couple of weeks. Will look into the Urabe issue. Might be wrong, but always thought that the issues were known before introduction in the UK.

Cochrane Collaboration did not speak on public health in that report, but I did hear Sir Iain Chalmers a couple of years ago talk about MMR introduction and public health concerns and that was very interesting and certainly went beyond what was published by his organisation.

They were known before introduction into the UK. It was rolled out in Canada, I believe. Withdrawn after multiple problems.

Cochrane: that's not relevant to your maintained and declared confidence in rigorous safety testing. You have spoken about safety testing: Cochrane spoke about safety testing. Cochrane contradicts you. You've tried to change the subject to policy decisions, tried to change the subject to all sorts.

Sensible idea to go away and think about it. I can't think of any other response for you to give except: ok, you're right.

I'm going to google Iain Chalmers anyway.

Catherina, you still have not delivered the evidence that the surveys comparing vaccinated with unvaccinated children showing that unvaccinated children are healthier are wrong as you claimed.

To conduct such a comparison properly would be very expensive and difficult.
Here's an almost perfect natural experiment that has already been performed.
Compare childhood health of cohorts born in 1701, 1801, 1901, 1951 and 2001. In 1801 a few might have received smallpox vaccination. 1901 most would have had it. 2001 most would have had a lot more.

Are there enough unvaccinated children in the UK to make meaningful comparisons? Particularly as non-vaccinating parents who are prepared to take part in such a study are generally going to be self selecting as parents who are likely to breastfeed and to be aware of the need for healthy diet and lifestyles?

Quite, it would be hard to find 2 identical groups and then what comparison criteria would you choose?
At least in my natural experiment the sample sizes are huge, the genetic background and climate are the same...

My children are practically never ill, but I think that's largely because I have an extremely .erm ..robust....attitude. If you can't show me a symptom, or preferably 2 symptoms you're not ill. I suspect the are actually "ill" as often as other children, but I don't take any notice of most of them!

imadgeine - are you actually suggesting that it is a fair comparison to lol at child health from 200 years ago and compare it to now? Do we really need to mention the differences in availability of clean water/sanitation/living conditions/healthcare again?