Why are vaccine threads always closed off? Mod warning post 176

gar32

So I will not go into my believe or the research I have done but why are vaccines unquestionable? Why can't people talk openly about them without getting beaten with a stick? Why is there so much fear of no being vaccinated. They are not tested like drugs. Yes they saved millions of lives but they also harmed many people. There is never any improvement or updates like any other medical service. Putting them all together in a 6 in 1 is not improving them. An example of someone trying to make them better.

New Quality-Control Investigations on Vaccines: Micro- and Nanocontamination. International Journal of Vaccines and Vaccination

http://medcraveonline.com/IJVV/IJVV-04-00072.pdf

Taco Chips

Nothing in science is unquestionable or above scrutiny. In regards to vaccines the quality of questioning is uniformly poor and betrays complete ignorance of the hierarchy of evidence upon which they are built on. None of the 'research' ever presented against vaccines is up to scratch. It's not a closed off topic, but the debate is not good enough on the anti side to take seriously.

sullivlo

They're closed off because the two main camps will never see eye to eye.

Pro-vaccine people will present the facts as they are available in scientific literature and medical reports. Anti-vaccine people will present their experiences (first/second/third hand) which is often present without any conclusive evidence.

Neither side will ever see eye to eye. I'm a scientist. I don't believe in hoo-do-whataboutery in terms of any vaccine/medication/homeopathy, but people who do believe in them are entitled to their opinion. HOWEVER my issue is when their opinion impacts the general wellbeing of the population.

Such as in the cases of when people cannot get vaccinated for genuine medical reasons, yet they end up catching the disease because their co-worker doesn't agree with vaccines and shared the love.

Neyite

They tend to get closed off because it's one of those contentions topics where posters are often incapable of keeping it as a civil debate. So the moderator needs to post warnings, delete posts, issue cards and bans and eventually has to shut down the discussion.

I'd like to see a reasoned discussion on vaccines. But I've never seen one anywhere on the internet yet.

Kurtosis

Vaccines certainly aren't unquestionable and reasoned debate and discussion on them is most welcome. As stated in the Health Sciences charter, claims should be backed up by high quality evidence, so any discussion here should be grounded in scientific fact.

On this point, I would contend that some of the points in your opening post are not true. In terms of testing, vaccines are studied in clinical trials before they are launched and undergo post-marketing surveillance, just like drugs. Also it is wrong to say they are never improved, take for example developments with HPV vaccination where a newer vaccine is available which prevents more strains of HPV than the earlier vaccine (details here).

So, you're welcome to debate vaccines here but it should be based on scientific facts and evidence.

sullivlo

Kurtosis wrote: »

Vaccines certainly aren't unquestionable and reasoned debate and discussion on them is most welcome. As stated in the Health Sciences charter, claims should be backed up by high quality evidence, so any discussion here should be grounded in scientific fact.

On this point, I would contend that some of the points in your opening post are not true. In terms of testing, vaccines are studied in clinical trials before they are launched and undergo post-marketing surveillance, just like drugs. Also it is wrong to say they are never improved, take for example developments with HPV vaccination where a newer vaccine is available which prevents more strains of HPV than the earlier vaccine (details here).

So, you're welcome to debate vaccines here but it should be based on scientific facts and evidence.

Also:
1) When the ebola vaccine was produced and being tested, it was accelerated because ebola is so fatal to anyone who catches it. Usually vaccines are subject to the same rigourous testing as any drug.
2) The flu vaccine is updated annually to match the predicted strain of flu.

Disclaimer: I work in vaccine development, so I'll obviously be biased towards vaccines. However, even before I was in my current position I always got the vaccines that were recommended to me.

sullivlo

Neyite wrote: »

They tend to get closed off because it's one of those contentions topics where posters are often incapable of keeping it as a civil debate. So the moderator needs to post warnings, delete posts, issue cards and bans and eventually has to shut down the discussion.

I'd like to see a reasoned discussion on vaccines. But I've never seen one anywhere on the internet yet.

I always try not to get drawn into arguments but when someone responds to my peer reviewed, non pharma funded, academically published scientific data, with something written by a quack who is high on snake oil, I find it difficult to keep things civil.

Which is why I tend to get warnings, have posts deleted and pick up cards :pac:

Neyite

sullivlo wrote: »

I always try not to get drawn into arguments but when someone responds to my peer reviewed, non pharma funded, academically published scientific data, with something written by a quack who is high on snake oil, I find it difficult to keep things civil.

Which is why I tend to get warnings, have posts deleted and pick up cards :pac:

gar32

Thanks for the in put. I am interest in both sides and know more but find conflicting information when I do. I find the passion in which the people who claim vaccines changed their children hard to ignore. I work in engineering and have always been interest in science.

I am trying to find a study comparing vaccinated children to none vaccinated. Any one know of one?

ScumLord

gar32 wrote: »

They are not tested like drugs.

How do they know they work then? They're not just picking bottles off the shelf and crossing their fingers, are they? They've had a remarkable run of luck if that's the case.

sullivlo

gar32 wrote: »

Thanks for the in put. I am interest in both sides and know more but find conflicting information when I do. I find the passion in which the people who claim vaccines changed their children hard to ignore. I work in engineering and have always been interest in science.

I am trying to find a study comparing vaccinated children to none vaccinated. Any one know of one?

Hard to compare like-with-like tbh. Do you mean people who are medically advised not to have vaccines? Or people who choose not to vaccinate?

There is very strong peer reviewed evidence FOR vaccines, and very little against vaccines.

And yes. It's hard to ignore parents who say their child changes. However it's also hard to ignore the fact that the original research that caused those concerns has been disproven many times, and has been rescinded with the researcher being struck off.

gar32

"[font=Open Sans, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]researcher being struck off?" Why are they ling for money ? Why would a researcher be pick on like that? If someone makes a mistake in work they are sacked? I know lives are at risk but what would these people gain from false information? Seems to me people who don't believe full in vaccines are getting a hard time. My interested as I am looking into vaccinating my child.[/font]

sullivlo

gar32 wrote: »

"[font=Open Sans, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]researcher being struck off?" Why are they ling for money ? Why would a researcher be pick on like that? If someone makes a mistake in work they are sacked? I know lives are at risk but what would these people gain from false information? Seems to me people who don't believe full in vaccines are getting a hard time. My interested as I am looking into vaccinating my child.[/font]

Because most people against vaccination quote this guy: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield

gar32

So let me get this straight. Professional researchers find an old and bad study which was proved to be wrong many times. They think hold on this is right and loss their job? I found a news Item on him and he was with Trump? I know Trump is mad what's going on with this? Also JFK brother ? this is getting interesting. Any idea's ?

sullivlo

gar32 wrote: »

So let me get this straight. Professional researchers find an old and bad study which was proved to be wrong many times. They think hold on this is right and loss their job? I found a news Item on him and he was with Trump? I know Trump is mad what's going on with this? Also JFK brother ? this is getting interesting. Any idea's ?

Wtf?

Wakefield is the researcher that has been struck off.

Before his publication there was a fantastic uptake in vaccines and a dramatic reduction in measles. He published falsified data. He said that vaccines cause autism. People stopped vaccinating. Measles came back with a vengeance.

As for Trump... absolutely no relevance to this discussion. I am happy to engage in a reasonable discussion about vaccines with you but you need to provide some sort of link to your claims. I think it's clear that you have your own opinions on vaccines - which is absolutely fine - however you're going to need to provide some references for what you're saying.

gar32

Measles came back with a vengeance. ? In Ireland ? How many deaths ?

As for link for what I am saying. I am asking questions. again.

"So let me get this straight. Professional researchers find an old and bad study which was proved to be wrong many times. Then quote it and get struck off?"

Tom Mann Centuria

Some people enjoy debate, and like the challenge of finding solid research to back their position, some prefer echo chambers where they can quote discredited research as fact and what someone in Hollywood or their next door neighbour says as validation of their "theory".

These approaches don't mesh well, and imo that's why discussions on a Health Science forum don't last long.


Edit: Sorry, see this point has already been made by sullivlo 3 days ago.

gar32

I just want a comparison study of children vaccinated to the plan VS Children not vaccinated ? It would help me in my choice. Any one know of one?

Fries-With-That

sullivlo wrote: »

Because most people against vaccination quote this guy: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield

This is exactly the problem when people try to discuss vaccines, people do quote this guy in the absence of any research that might otherwise prove their claims.

Fear is the biggest factor parents face when considering vaccines for their children, most new parents have heard stories from other parents about how their children were perfect until we got this vaccine or that vaccine.

The reason parents tell these stories is because the medical profession has not provided them with any answers as to why their children have autism.

So looking at it from a parents perspective my child was born perfect and now its not perfect anymore, what happened to my baby, the parent as a natural response blames something, and its vaccines that gets the blame.

There are many many research papers out there to prove the theory that vaccines do not cause autism, in the absence of a proper theory as to what causes autism, parents are always going to blame an outside influence

I would love to see all these researchers turn their attention to a study or research that might point parents in the direction of an actual cause for the condition. I know there are companies spending millions searching for a cure or cures, but that is not the same thing as providing parents with answers.

gar32

I will take that as there is no study then to compare. Why not I ask. Is that not what most if not all drug test do. Sugar water VS Drug. I just want the best for my child.

zl1whqvjs75cdy

gar32 wrote: »

I will take that as there is no study then to compare. Why not I ask. Is that not what most if not all drug test do. Sugar water VS Drug. I just want the best for my child.

What exactly do you want to see compared? The success rate of the vaccine or something else?

mulbot

donkeyoaty0099 wrote: »

What exactly do you want to see compared? The success rate of the vaccine or something else?

Success rates,data showing the rates of diseases in non-vaccinated children,also showing the comparison rates between the two groups of certain "side-effects" that are most commonly spoken about would be helpful

jh79

mulbot wrote: »

Success rates,data showing the rates of diseases in non-vaccinated children,also showing the comparison rates between the two groups of certain "side-effects" that are most commonly spoken about would be helpful

http://www.cochrane.org/CD004407/ARI_using-combined-vaccine-protection-children-against-measles-mumps-and-rubella

Kurtosis

gar32 wrote: »

I will take that as there is no study then to compare. Why not I ask. Is that not what most if not all drug test do. Sugar water VS Drug. I just want the best for my child.

What particular vaccine(s) are you looking for evidence on? And where have you searched for such studies so far? You can search Pubes or Google Scholar using the terms trial, placebo, and the vaccines you are interested in to see what studies there are.

A randomised controlled trial is only conducted where there is genuine uncertainty surrounding which of two different options is better. Placebo controlled trials aren't carried out when there is already evidence that a treatment (be it drug or vaccine) is better than doing nothing.

Kurtosis

gar32 wrote: »

Measles came back with a vengeance. ? In Ireland ? How many deaths ?

As for link for what I am saying. I am asking questions. again.

"So let me get this straight. Professional researchers find an old and bad study which was proved to be wrong many times. Then quote it and get struck off?"

There have been some spikes in Measles incidence over the last 10 years (again, these are easily searchable, but here is a link to the surveillance report) and similar, if not a more pronounced pattern with mumps

mulbot

jh79 wrote: »

http://www.cochrane.org/CD004407/ARI_using-combined-vaccine-protection-children-against-measles-mumps-and-rubella

I think the previous poster meant a complete comparison between the two groups,Vaccinated/Non-vaccinated

jh79

mulbot wrote: »

I think the previous poster meant a complete comparison between the two groups,Vaccinated/Non-vaccinated

Click on the highlighted text and the type of study is explained. You'll see comparisons with no intervention are included in the meta analysis.

mulbot

mulbot wrote: »

Success rates,data showing the rates of diseases in non-vaccinated children,also showing the comparison rates between the two groups of certain "side-effects" that are most commonly spoken about would be helpful

Go to Clinicaltrials.gov and there are over 7000 vaccine trials. These are necessary before the vaccines get approval. Results will be in the vaccine approval dossiers on FDA site.

Similar in Europe on the European Medicines Agency.

mulbot

jh79 wrote: »

Click on the highlighted text and the type of study is explained. You'll see comparisons with no intervention are included in the meta analysis.

I can't open up a sub-link in your link for some reason. The Author's conclusion at the bottom is interesting.

jh79

mulbot wrote: »

I can't open up a sub-link in your link for some reason. The Author's conclusion at the bottom is interesting.

Just read it fully first , saying studies in to adverse effects need to improve doesn't validate the opinions of anti-vaxxers.

The vaccine is extremely effective against what are serious illnesses, to dismiss that based on a couple of lines taken out of contest isn't the wisest approach.

mulbot

Deleted User wrote: »

Go to Clinicaltrials.gov and there are over 7000 vaccine trials. These are necessary before the vaccines get approval. Results will be in the vaccine approval dossiers on FDA site.

Similar in Europe on the European Medicines Agency.

Are there any post vaccine research studies done to compare between the two groups? ( To show possible side-effects in one group v's the other, or to show the rates of occurrence( of these diseases) in groups who have been vaccinated v's non-vaccinated)

jh79

mulbot wrote: »

Are there any post vaccine research studies done to compare between the two groups? ( To show possible side-effects in one group v's the other, or to show the rates of occurrence( of these diseases) in groups who have been vaccinated v's non-vaccinated,

Yes it is in the Cochrane review i posted.

mulbot

jh79 wrote: »

Yes it is in the Cochrane review i posted.

Can you direct me to it,I genuinely can't find it. Also,what do you think of the Author's conclusion?

cnocbui

gar32 wrote: »

So I will not go into my believe or the research I have done but why are vaccines unquestionable? Why can't people talk openly about them without getting beaten with a stick? Why is there so much fear of no being vaccinated. They are not tested like drugs. Yes they saved millions of lives but they also harmed many people. There is never any improvement or updates like any other medical service. Putting them all together in a 6 in 1 is not improving them. An example of someone trying to make them better.

New Quality-Control Investigations on Vaccines: Micro- and Nanocontamination. International Journal of Vaccines and Vaccination

http://medcraveonline.com/IJVV/IJVV-04-00072.pdf

Maybe if people posted their anti-vaccine bait in the conspiracies forum the threads might last longer.

I have a smallpox vaccine mark on my arm. My children don't, thankfully, because I am not the only person to have such a mark on my arm. When I went to school, we had an English teacher who had had polio as a kid. Perhaps if we had more people like him about we wouldn't have these stupid threads.

jh79

mulbot wrote: »

Can you direct me to it,I genuinely can't find it. Also,what do you think of the Author's conclusion?

Vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella in children - Demicheli - 2012 - The Cochrane Library - Wiley Online Library
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD004407.pub3/full

I won't comment until i read it first.

mulbot

jh79 wrote: »

Vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella in children - Demicheli - 2012 - The Cochrane Library - Wiley Online Library
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD004407.pub3/full

I won't comment until i read it first.

"The design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both pre- and post-marketing, are largely inadequate. The evidence of adverse events following immunisation with the MMR vaccine cannot be separated from its role in preventing the target diseases"

That's the Author's conclusion from the link you sent,do you agree/disagree?

mulbot

jh79 wrote: »

Vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella in children - Demicheli - 2012 - The Cochrane Library - Wiley Online Library
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD004407.pub3/full

I won't comment until i read it first.

"We identified no studies assessing the effectiveness of MMR vaccine against clinical or laboratory-confirmed rubella"

That's another quote from your link.

"Results from two very large case series studies involving about 1,500,000 children who were given the MMR vaccine containing Urabe or Leningrad-Zagreb strains show this vaccine to be associated with aseptic meningitis; whereas administration of the vaccine containing Moraten, Jeryl Lynn, Wistar RA, RIT 4385 strains is associated with febrile convulsion in children aged below five years"

And another.

jh79

mulbot wrote: »

"The design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both pre- and post-marketing, are largely inadequate. The evidence of adverse events following immunisation with the MMR vaccine cannot be separated from its role in preventing the target diseases"

That's the Author's conclusion from the link you sent,do you agree/disagree?

That is his conclusiom for researchers, the following us his conclusion for practice;

"Existing evidence on the safety and effectiveness of MMR vaccine supports current policies of mass immunisation aimed at global measles eradication and in order to reduce morbidity and mortality associated with mumps and rubella."

I agree with both , how about you? If not why not?

mulbot

jh79 wrote: »

That is his conclusiom for researchers, the following us his conclusion for practice;

"Existing evidence on the safety and effectiveness of MMR vaccine supports current policies of mass immunisation aimed at global measles eradication and in order to reduce morbidity and mortality associated with mumps and rubella."

I agree with both , how about you? If not why not?

"We identified no studies assessing the effectiveness of MMR vaccine against clinical or laboratory-confirmed rubella" That's also from your link.

jh79

mulbot wrote: »

jh79 wrote: »

That is his conclusiom for researchers, the following us his conclusion for practice;

"Existing evidence on the safety and effectiveness of MMR vaccine supports current policies of mass immunisation aimed at global measles eradication and in order to reduce morbidity and mortality associated with mumps and rubella."

I agree with both , how about you? If not why not?

"We identified no studies assessing the effectiveness of MMR vaccine against clinical or laboratory-confirmed rubella" That's also from your link.

What point are you trying to make?

mulbot

jh79 wrote: »

What point are you trying to make?

That your link appears to have contrasting conclusions

jh79

mulbot wrote: »

That your link appears to have contrasting conclusions

How so? The vaccine is effective , adverse effects are reported , no link with autism and in future the studies could be better designed, overall immunisation worldwide should continue. Where are the contradictions?

Samuel T. Cogley

What I've never quite understood about the vaccination debate is even if all the mumbo-jumbo that anti-vaccination groups propose is true it would still be overwhelmingly in the individual and public interest to vaccinate.

Could someone enlighten me here?

jh79

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

What I've never quite understood about the vaccination debate is even if all the mumbo-jumbo that anti-vaccination groups propose is true it would still be overwhelmingly in the individual and public interest to vaccinate.

Could someone enlighten me here?

The more extreme elements either are religous fundamentalists and believe god decides who gets ill or alternative medicine types who think everything can be cured from the organic veg aisle in the supermarket. Either extreme has no interest in the truth.

mulbot

jh79 wrote: »

How so? The vaccine is effective , adverse effects are reported , no link with autism and in future the studies could be better designed, overall immunisation worldwide should continue. Where are the contradictions?

"We identified no studies assessing the effectiveness of MMR vaccine against clinical or laboratory-confirmed rubella" Maybe you can explain this link more clearly

cnocbui

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

What I've never quite understood about the vaccination debate is even if all the mumbo-jumbo that anti-vaccination groups propose is true it would still be overwhelmingly in the individual and public interest to vaccinate.

Could someone enlighten me here?

There are a lot of thick people about.

jh79

mulbot wrote: »

"We identified no studies assessing the effectiveness of MMR vaccine against clinical or laboratory-confirmed rubella" Maybe you can explain this link more clearly

I'm not a clinical scientist so i can't explain this but it definitely works for the 2 M's. So i'm not that concerned.

mulbot

jh79 wrote: »

I'm not a clinical scientist so i can't explain this but it definitely works for the 2 M's. So i'm not that concerned.

Neither am I but if the conclusion is correct then I would ask why still use it? Maybe just use what is showing to be effective?

Kurtosis

mulbot wrote: »

"We identified no studies assessing the effectiveness of MMR vaccine against clinical or laboratory-confirmed rubella" Maybe you can explain this link more clearly

I would assume that the lone rubella vaccine had its effectiveness established in clinical trials, and this was the incorporated into the MMR vaccine when this was first launched. Rubella is thankfully a very rare disease now, far less common the measles/mumps (there were 3 cases in Ireland in 2014). The fact it is so rare is likely why rubella infection has not been evaluated as an outcome in MMR trials, as the number of children that would have to be studied to detect a change in the rate of rubella would be huge.

Bicycle

I'm the parent of a teenager with autism. And I follow the debates with interest. I remember Gar from previous discussions here on the vaccines.

I am totally in favour of vaccinations because I genuinely believe that autism is genetic, not acquired via vaccinations or other pathogens. You can see patterns of autism or "autistic style behaviours" in certain families, my own included. I'm also a member of an on-line mother's support group and many families have more than one person with an ASD diagnosis.

But - EVEN IF Vaccinations caused autism (and just be clear, I don't agree with this statement) I would infinitely prefer to have a live child on the spectrum, than a dead child not on the spectrum.

There is ample evidence to show a strong positive correlation between the increased incidence of vaccination against measles and the drop in deaths from measles. More children die each year from measles than from autism.

mulbot

Bicycle wrote: »

I'm the parent of a teenager with autism. And I follow the debates with interest. I remember Gar from previous discussions here on the vaccines.

I am totally in favour of vaccinations because I genuinely believe that autism is genetic, not acquired via vaccinations or other pathogens. You can see patterns of autism or "autistic style behaviours" in certain families, my own included. I'm also a member of an on-line mother's support group and many families have more than one person with an ASD diagnosis.

But - EVEN IF Vaccinations caused autism (and just be clear, I don't agree with this statement) I would infinitely prefer to have a live child on the spectrum, than a dead child not on the spectrum.

There is ample evidence to show a strong positive correlation between the increased incidence of vaccination against measles and the drop in deaths from measles. More children die each year from measles than from autism.

Why do you draw this line of thought if you don't mind me asking? Is there scientific evidence? (BTW I'm not anti-vaccine)