Vaccination:friend or foe?

Oracle

I've always had an interest in the vaccine issue, especially as it relates to children and obligatory child vaccination. The reason is both personal and political. Unlike most people of my age, due to a previous adverse reaction, I've had no routine childhood vaccinations.

I've read a lot on the internet both positive and negative about vaccination. The recent publicity about the cervical cancer vaccination, called Gardasil, being introduced for girls has rekindled the debate. There's no doubt avoiding such a serious illness as cancer is an important objective. But I have read worrying information that the vaccines contain dangerous levels of Thiomersal, and other toxic substances. Opponents claim that these toxic compounds can cause auto-immune depressive diseases, such as MS, and could be a cause of Autism and ADD. Also there is very little evidence in favour of some of the vaccination regimens. For example, in the US all new born babies are vaccinated against Hepatitis B routinely, even though children are actually at very little risk of getting Hepatitis B. Yet this regime is recommended by the CDC (Centre for Disease Control) and the US medical organisations.

Links: http://thinktwice.com/ Anti-vaccine
http://www.gardasil.com/ Merck site promoting Gardasil

Kernel

AFAIK the only vaccination I've gotten has been the TB one. I'm not a big fan of vaccination either, since there have been links to autism (which has exponentially increased in recent years), although I'm not the most informed on this subject in fairness.

Having received none of the other vaccinations has done me no harm, although whooping cough was unpleasant!

stink_fist

Don't they arrest parents in the U.S. if they don't give those mercury injections to their kids?

MoominPapa

Kernel wrote: »

I'm not a big fan of vaccination either, since there have been links to autism (which has exponentially increased in recent years)

Recent studies have show there is no like between vaccination, specifically the mmr in Britain, and autism. Genetic mutations in the sperm of older fathers and too much tv at a young age have been show in studies as potential causes but this still needs more work. The original study by Andrew Wakefield which claimed the link was show to have no basis and led to him and his colleagues being charged with serious professional misconduct. Britain has now lost herd immunity to measles and some children will die because their parents weren't big fans either and believed the scare stories.

heres a couple of recent english independent articles:
Measles
Autism

oscarBravo

One of many reasons I dislike Patricia McKenna.

MoominPapa

oscarBravo wrote: »

One of many reasons I dislike Patricia McKenna.

Well its another reason for me;)

Oracle

The recent Independent article you linked to says that according to the Health Protection Agency (HPA) in the UK there's a measles "epidemic" in Britain. I wouldn't call 1 death from measles, in England and Wales, since 2006 an epidemic. To quote from the article itself:

A 17-year-old victim from West Yorkshire died from the disease in the first fatality since 2006.

The article also states that the actual number of people who contracted measles is 461 so far this year:

There were 95 cases confirmed in the capital and 35 in the rest of England and Wales bringing the total for the year to 461.

That's out of a population of 53.7 million people, 461 represents less than .001% of the population of England and Wales. I'd agree with you when you say there are "scare stories", these are the stories that are scaring people.

MoominPapa

Oracle wrote: »

The recent Independent article you linked to says that according to the Health Protection Agency (HPA) in the UK there's a measles "epidemic" in Britain.

No it doesn't. It states that measles is now "endemic" in Britian, it talks about previous epidemics occurring every two years in the 50s and 60s.

Oracle

True I mis-read the headline, it's still a story without much factual basis, in my opinion. Endemic means restricted or peculiar to a locality or region, I don't think measles is endemic in Britain with such a small amount of people affected.

Black Swan

I fly a lot to different parts of the world. Have taken a lot of shots for this and that, and had no adverse reaction.

MoominPapa

Oracle wrote: »

it's still a story without much factual basis

Here are the facts its based on: HPA report

Oracle wrote: »

Endemic means restricted or peculiar to a locality or region

No, it doesn't. An endemic disease is a disease which is constantly present in an area or population or subset within a population. Definition

That teenager who died would not have contracted the disease if vaccination rates were higher in his area. His was unable to get the vaccine due to a poor immune system. He and others like his are the potential victims of others baseless opinions and complacency. Article here

I don't think measles is endemic in Britain with such a small amount of people affected.

Got anything to back that up? I think you are wrong

Oracle

Despite the report and panic inducing publicity the figures show overall a very small percentage of measles cases. Also it's not necessarily true to say if the teenager was vaccinated they would not have gotten measles. This is becasue vaccination is not 100% per effective in every case and also vaccination can become ineffective or less effective over time. Also I don't know the particular health circumstances of this person, and I'm assuming you don't either. Perhaps there were other medical conditions, besides measles, that affected their health and complicated or worsened their prognosis.

In regard to vaccination in general it's widely accepted by both the medical establishment and anti-vaccination groups that adverse reactions are grossly under reported. This is for a variety of reasons, from patients simply not reporting adverse effects, to doctors too busy to actually document them. Whatever the reasons, I've read estimates that suggest the reported adverse reactions are about 50% of what actually occurs, meaning that at least half the time adverse reactions caused by vaccines go unreported. In my view that is worrying because the body of knowledge that is built up by the reporting of adverse reactions is incomplete, and therefore inaccurate and unreliable. Also the statistical prevalence of reactions happening is not reliable either.

Just to say I'm not suggesting everyone who gets a vacinne will experience an adverse reaction. But I also believe it's far higher than stated by vaccine manufacturers.

Another aspect of vaccines that troubles me are the side effects. Here I'm taking about the known side effects that manufacturers like Merck actually admit can happen, as well as the disputed side effects. For example, if you have a look at the web site for Gardasil, manufactured by Merck (see my first post above for the link) the web site promotional presentations and literature actually say, among other effects, that the Gardasil vaccine could cause "fainting." I have to say I find that alarming, for a number of reasons. First what kind of substance when injected into the body could cause fainting? I'm not sure but it can't be a very health promoting one. It's important to realise that what they are talking about here is not dizziness, feeling faint or light headed, but actually fainting. That is falling to the ground with no control and possible personal injury as a result, and this has happened. That sounds like a severe adverse reaction to me.

Also remember we're talking about girls possibly as young as 9, for whom Merck are recommending this vaccination. The second reason it's a worry is, as far as I'm concerned, it's an unacceptable side effect. Especially for a vaccine aimed at children, and a 9 year old girl is definitely still a child. It's also a side effect that I believe should be the subject of further research as to what is causing the fainting. Either way I believe this vaccine should be withdrawn because of this side effect alone. And that's just one of the unwanted effects that Merck are admitting to, who knows how many more they're brushing under the carpet.

oscarBravo

Did you know that seatbelts can cause severe bruising, and sometimes even fractures, in the event of an accident? There's no guarantee that everyone who survives an accident while wearing a seatbelt wouldn't have survived without them. Plus, lots of people wearing seatbelts die in accidents anyway!

And yet the law insists that we wear these lethal devices every time we drive. It's a conspiracy, I tells ya!

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

nah, that's just leftist authoritarianism.. and they're pretty brazen about it.

Mahatma coat

oscarBravo wrote: »

Did you know that seatbelts can cause severe bruising, and sometimes even fractures, in the event of an accident? There's no guarantee that everyone who survives an accident while wearing a seatbelt wouldn't have survived without them. Plus, lots of people wearing seatbelts die in accidents anyway!

And yet the law insists that we wear these lethal devices every time we drive. It's a conspiracy, I tells ya!

Mordeth has it right

In a free society I should be free to decide whether or not to wear a seatbelt, many may feel that the goverment has an obligation to inform me of the alleged safety benefits of these seatbelt devices or other such devices they mandate should be installed in motor vehicles.

I should be free to make my own decisions.

course in the case of Vaccinations tho its a diffferent argument, on the one hand if you've finished school and decide you wanna backpack across SE Asia then the risks are presented to you and you have the choice to vaccinate yerself against diseases that may be prevalent,

however at 6 months old yer not really in the position to decide whether the MMR vaccination is for you or not.




there is always the theory that the vaccinations do nothing and its all part of a NWO conspiracy to catalogue the population via DNA sampling :eek:

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

however at 6 months old yer not really in the position to decide whether the MMR vaccination is for you or not.

don't know how to feed yourself at that age either, but luckily we have parents to do that for us.

DubTony

Mahatma coat wrote: »

there is always the theory that the vaccinations do nothing and its all part of a NWO conspiracy to catalogue the population via DNA sampling :eek:

AHA!!! That explains what Peter Sutherland was doing pulling needles out of bins in the hospital last week. Damn, he's dedicated.

Oracle

Here's a link to the Gardasil Patient Product Information leaflet (pdf file) that lists the possible side effects: http://www.gardasil.com/downloads/gardasil_ppi.pdf

djpbarry

Oracle wrote: »

But I have read worrying information that the vaccines contain dangerous levels of Thiomersal, and other toxic substances.

I would be very surprised if Gardasil contains thiomersal - I was under the impression that this substance was no longer used in vaccines in the US and EU.

Oracle wrote: »

Whatever the reasons, I've read estimates that suggest the reported adverse reactions are about 50% of what actually occurs, meaning that at least half the time adverse reactions caused by vaccines go unreported.

What sort of adverse reactions are we talking about here? I mean, if someone feels slightly light-headed after receiving a vaccination, they're hardly going to rush to their doctor to report it. It's also important to remember that perceived side-effects and actual side-effects are two very different things; one may fell slightly light-headed after receiving a vaccination, but it may be totally unrelated to said vaccination.

Oracle wrote: »

For example, if you have a look at the web site for Gardasil, manufactured by Merck (see my first post above for the link) the web site promotional presentations and literature actually say, among other effects, that the Gardasil vaccine could cause "fainting." I have to say I find that alarming, for a number of reasons. First what kind of substance when injected into the body could cause fainting?

It's not terribly uncommon for girls to react in this way after receiving an injection:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/health/schoolgirls-ill-after-cervical-cancer-jabs/2007/05/22/1179601385261.html

Besides, if the vaccine actually prevents cancer, would you not say that the benefits greatly outweigh these adverse side-effects?

Mahatma coat wrote: »

In a free society I should be free to decide whether or not to wear a seatbelt...

Even if you're sharing the car with others and (in the event of a crash) putting their lives at risk?

Oracle

I said in my first post that I 've read vaccines contain dangerous levels of Thiomersal, and other toxic substances. That is correct, while the manufactures say Gardasil doesn't contain Thiomersal, other vaccines still contain this and other toxic substances. The manufacturer of Gardasil, Merck, says:

The main ingredients are purified inactive proteins that come from HPV Types 6, 11, 16, and 18. It also contains amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate, sodium chloride, L-histidine, polysorbate 80, sodium borate, and water for injection.

An article in Wikipedia admits adjuvents such as the one contained in Gardasil (amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate) are "the dirty little secret of vaccines" because so little is known about how they work. Either way I wouldn't want aluminum derived compounds injected into my body. One of the other ingredients, Sodium Borate otherwise known as Borax, is a chemical commonly used in detergent and insecticides.

Adverse reactions to vaccines could be anything from a mild headache to as severe as dying as a result of a vaccine. The point is no matter how mild or severe, they are grossly underreported. That has been found in many scientific reviews of the data. The CDC and the US FDA has an official database that contains all the vaccine adverse reaction reports notified to it by doctors, it's called VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) The database is online, so you can have a look at the data for yourself. Bear in mind it's a fraction of the number of adverse reactions that actually happen after vaccinations.

Adverse reactions shouldn't be confused with side effects. Side effects are known unwanted effects that have been found to happen during clinical trials. These are usually listed in the Product Information Leaflet available from the manufacturer. The difference is these are known effects of the vaccine and there is no dispute about their origin or cause. Fainting is a side effect listed by the manufacturer in the Patient Information Leaflet. My point is the side effect is not just dizziness, it's actually fainting. That's falling to the ground due to loss of consciousness. It's a serious side effect for a medical product marketed at children and young people between the age of 9 and 18.

I've a little more to say on the subject of fainting. Perhaps as you say djpbarry, "It's not terribly uncommon for girls to react in this way after receiving an injection.... " However I get the feeling there's a touch of the old fashioned Victorian Female Hysteria prejudice about this side effect. Despite the apparent political correctness, and appeal to womens autonomy and independence of the Gardasil web site ("I chose." slogan etc...) There seems to be a heavy dose of sexism about this issue. It's as if it's acceptable because it's happens to girls and young women. It's not an acceptable side effect for anyone, especially those under 18.

r3nu4l

Oracle wrote: »

The manufacturer of Gardasil, Merck, says:

An article in Wikipedia admits adjuvents such as the one contained in Gardasil (amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate) are "the dirty little secret of vaccines" because so little is known about how they work. Either way I wouldn't want aluminum derived compounds injected into my body. One of the other ingredients, Sodium Borate otherwise known as Borax, is a chemical commonly used in detergent and insecticides.

Adjuvants are hardly a dirty little secret, there's tons of research done on vaccine adjuvants all the time

Type "vaccine adjuvants" into Pubmed and you'll get 27,446 scientific papers reporting on them. Hardly a dirty little secret, is it

I myself did research on the adjuvant currently used in the GSK version of the cervical cancer vaccine, about 11 years ago now.

Read this review on the effect of currently used adjuvants against a portion of HPV 16.

When you don't know a lot about vaccines they can seem pretty scary, especially when you get so much misinformed tripe on the net. On top of this you get vested interest groups who like to blow certain facts out of proportion. For example, let's take the "seatbelt" example above.

Let's say I manufacture a new type of seatbelt and I want to maximise sales. How do I do this? Well I could advertise...but I could also take the one example of someone being badly hurt by a seatbelt and blow the risk out of proportion and blog about it online in the hope that others will pick up on it. Then I could write a wiki article, create several Wiki accounts and back up my own claims.

There's no doubt about it, some vaccines have side-effects and produce certain adverse events, manufacturers dislike this and dislike reporting them but they have to and they do. I've seen plenty of raw data from vaccine studies and spoken to the study head investigators about certain adverse events. I would argue that vaccine trials are even more rigorous than regular drug trials as the FDA/EMEA enforce stricter criteria for vaccination because it is prophylactic rather than therapeutic.

As for not wanting aluminium derived compounds injected into your body...do you spray anti-perspirant deodorant under your arms? Check to make sure it doesn't have aluminium compounds that may get absorbed by the skin, some of them do... :eek: (There's a new conspiracy theory for you ).

EDIT: As for under-reporting, if you look at the actual manuscripts published by vaccine study investigators you get a better idea of the real levels of adverse events. Why? Well the study investigators are obliged to record every single event and they usually do. They then investigate possible causes for the event.Adverse events can include itching at the site of injection, fever, vomiting, oedema (swelling), death etc. These are recorded and any link to the vaccine is looked for. The reason many reactions are under-reported 'in the wild' is because some people get vaccinated, go home, get a mild fever, take some tablets for it and forget about it.

However, the number of deaths would not go unreported or be under-represented. Why? Well, a patient gets a vaccine, goes home and dies within 24-48 hours, the medical records show a recent vaccination, an autopsy is performed (in most cases of sudden unexplained death where a vaccine or recent medical intervention has occurred, this happens) and any link to medical intervention is sought. So for mild adverse events, the scale of reporting may be low but for seriosu adverse events, the scale of events is usually spot on.

I see vaccination as a friend but not one to be taken for granted. We have strict monitoring that is more than satisfactory imo.

buddyonair

Mahatma coat wrote: »

however at 6 months old yer not really in the position to decide whether the MMR vaccination is for you or not.

That is why we have our parents, who are making the decisions for us and hopefully they are informed enough to make the right ones. :P

I am just a little devided in my opinion about vaccination.
We all know that a baby's body is working on 100%. Many say that is the reason why they sleep so much, because the body is working hard all the time.
There are many reasons why, but most of all, it is because the baby is confronted with many influences fo the outside world to which it has to adapt to.
Let's assume this is right.

With the vaccination they are even attacking the baby on purpose. Beside the changes of evolving, growing, fighting against bacteria and sickness in the nearest surroundings of the baby, it is confronted with poison. Pure poison called vaccine. One of you said ealier that babies getting vaccines for things they don't even get in the early ages. So why is this in the vaccines of babies if it is not necessary? That is why I call it "poison". Why forcing the baby to fight sicknesses, creating anti bodies, if is not mandatory? Wouldn't it be better to let the baby fight his own fights before we force him to fight against other stuff (very strong stuff)?

r3nu4l

buddyonair wrote: »

With the vaccination they are even attacking the baby on purpose. Beside the changes of evolving, growing, fighting against bacteria and sickness in the nearest surroundings of the baby, it is confronted with poison. Pure poison called vaccine. One of you said ealier that babies getting vaccines for things they don't even get in the early ages. So why is this in the vaccines of babies if it is not necessary? That is why I call it "poison". Why forcing the baby to fight sicknesses, creating anti bodies, if is not mandatory? Wouldn't it be better to let the baby fight his own fights before we force him to fight against other stuff (very strong stuff)?

Yeah, absolutely right, by not vaccinating and allowing babies to fight their own fight then they will develop strong, healthy immune systems without interference from vaccines. Or at least, those babies and kids that survive the diseases they get will have strong healthy immune systems. The rest will either die or at best recover after long illness or maybe be horribly disfigured for life.

We vaccinate against polio. It's a nasty disease. In the past it killed and disfigured thousands of children in Ireland. Of those that survived many went on to develop post-polio syndrome many years later, characterised by muscle weakness, spinal problems etc. Thanks to vaccination against polio we don't have that problem any more.

So, by all means stop the vaccine programs and don't vaccinate any kids, just make sure you buy a black suit and keep it handy. Be prepared to go to lots more infant funerals or at least to explain to your own children or kids in a classroom why they walk with a limp or why they are suffering from the complications of diseases that they needn't have suffered from had they received some "poison".

Now you might say, "but I wasn't vaccinated against disease X and I never caught it". That's because of a process called "Herd Immunity". Basically, the more people in a population that are vaccinated against a disease, the less people there are carrying that disease around and spreading it, so if a small proportion of people aren't vaccinated against that disease it's not that important because it can't even get a foothold in the population. However, at a certain point if enough people aren't vaccinated then the disease can get a foothold. When that happens it spreads quickly amongst those not vaccinated because herd immunity no longer applies.

Unfortunately disease doesn't wait for a baby to develop a strong immune system before attacking, it doesn't enter a babies body and say "Oh, this child won't be able to mount an effective immune response to me, I'd better leave it alone".

Forgive my sarcastic tone but I'm trying to get a point across about the ridiculousness of stopping vaccination or referring to it as "poison".

iPlop

stink_fist wrote: »

Don't they arrest parents in the U.S. if they don't give those mercury injections to their kids?

yes they do and another little known fact is that when the americans turn up in africa to give vaccinations to villages ,all the people run like hell cos the last time they tried to do large scale vaccinations in africa HIV and AIDS exploded onto the scene and the poor africans now believe the yanks are tryin' to kill them

meglome

Septic Leper wrote: »

yes they do and another little known fact is that when the americans turn up in africa to give vaccinations to villages ,all the people run like hell cos the last time they tried to do large scale vaccinations in africa HIV and AIDS exploded onto the scene and the poor africans now believe the yanks are tryin' to kill them

Many a western nation has exploited the poor and vulnerable. Many Africans also believe in Witch doctors. But I'd be more inclined to think the fact that many Africans believe that sex with a virgin will cure HIV and other such scientific beliefs might be nearer to the truth.

buddyonair

thank god we all live in ireland which is far away from any threat whatsoever.
And the fact that it is an island is even more beneficial... :rolleyes:

Kama

Ehm, no island is far away from anywhere given air travel.

I had a convo with my sister, who is a doctor, a while back. She agreed that adverse reactions were under-reported, and an issue, but that you should never say that openly because it would feed into anti-vaccine hysteria. Most people don't want to hear about how it saved several thousand lives if you tell em it will kill 5 people and crippled 10.

And no, I don't use anti-perspirant, and thats an old CT now. I believe in excreting, thank you very much.

bigtime

Septic Leper wrote: »

yes they do and another little known fact is that when the americans turn up in africa to give vaccinations to villages ,all the people run like hell cos the last time they tried to do large scale vaccinations in africa HIV and AIDS exploded onto the scene and the poor africans now believe the yanks are tryin' to kill them

When the good guys force the shots on the people, the smart africans remove the arm that has been injected. Better to lose an arm than lose your life.

If young Leo Blair does not get the shots, my little johnny will not get them either.

Skeptic_Desu

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/08/22/antivaxxers-must-be-stopped-now/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/21/us-measles-cases-highest_n_120493.html
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5733a1.htm

djpbarry

bigtime wrote: »

When the good guys force the shots on the people, the smart africans remove the arm that has been injected. Better to lose an arm than lose your life.

What in the name of jaysus are you talking about?

bigtime wrote: »

If young Leo Blair does not get the shots, my little johnny will not get them either.

Who the **** is Leo Blair?

MoominPapa

bigtime wrote: »

the smart africans remove the arm that has been injected. Better to lose an arm than lose your life.

Good job they don't inject vaccinations into the neck, head or genitals then. But anyway are you not getting mixed up with Col. Kurtz admiration for the Viet Cong chopping the arm off vaccinated children in Apocalypse Now!? They didn't do that for medicinal reasons you know...

ulysses1

What people should consider about national vaccine programs is their effectiveness. It should be said that most doctors these days are avid proponents of vaccines. What people seem to forget, is that doctors are extrememly busy people. It's safe to say, that the only people truely informed on vaccine therapy are those who concoct them and those medical experts who are funded to trial vaccines. In scientific fields, it's all too easy to sway professional opinion with funding. Many doctors simply do not have time to read every article depicting the dangers of vaccines.

What I haven't seen mentioned and which should be considered, is the dramatic fall in numbers of illnesses in the developed world which the very vaccines were created to prevent. The problem with this is, these diseases fell markedly even before vaccine programs were around. Such evidence may be circumstantial but what should be remembered here is that vaccines were not responsible for the rapid decline -- nutrition, hygiene and general awareness were.

Thimerisol is still being used in vaccines today (despite calls for its ban) and other preservatives containing heavy metals are prevalent. This was a bad idea from the start but those in for profit (Merck et al.) simply don't give a damn. You'd be daft if you think they do.

From the days of Jenner, vaccines were a novel idea but sadly these days, they are superfluous and may indeed be more damaging than good. The only vaccine I had was for 'flu one year and a day later I 'caught' the worst dose of it I've ever suffered. Safe to say it'll be my last and my children's.

MoominPapa

ulysses1 wrote: »

What people should consider about national vaccine programs is their effectiveness. It should be said that most doctors these days are avid proponents of vaccines. What people seem to forget, is that doctors are extrememly busy people. It's safe to say, that the only people truely informed on vaccine therapy are those who concoct them and those medical experts who are funded to trial vaccines. In scientific fields, it's all too easy to sway professional opinion with funding. Many doctors simply do not have time to read every article depicting the dangers of vaccines.

What I haven't seen mentioned and which should be considered, is the dramatic fall in numbers of illnesses in the developed world which the very vaccines were created to prevent. The problem with this is, these diseases fell markedly even before vaccine programs were around. Such evidence may be circumstantial but what should be remembered here is that vaccines were not responsible for the rapid decline -- nutrition, hygiene and general awareness were.

Thimerisol is still being used in vaccines today (despite calls for its ban) and other preservatives containing heavy metals are prevalent. This was a bad idea from the start but those in for profit (Merck et al.) simply don't give a damn. You'd be daft if you think they do.

From the days of Jenner, vaccines were a novel idea but sadly these days, they are superfluous and may indeed be more damaging than good. The only vaccine I had was for 'flu one year and a day later I 'caught' the worst dose of it I've ever suffered. Safe to say it'll be my last and my children's.

Since you're rehashing whats already been claimed I refer you to r3nu4ls excellent post.