"Vaccines are not properly tested"

[EatatJoes]

I'm in the middle of an anti-vax debate. I'm having a hard time...The issue at the moment is the charge that vaccines are not tested properly. More specifically that they are not tested via a placebo group. I did find this website and it's good but it's very general. While I was looking for more information I came across this website. I have a feeling that those I am engaged with are either using this website or using information very similar to it.

So, I feel like I am left explaining why the vaxes weren't compared to placebos and on the surface it appears that those vaxes did not go through the procedure outlined in the first website I linked to. Is this because the product insert doesn't list all of the studies done? Are there post-release studies done?

Another "point" that was made is that the vaccines are not tested for "toxicity". I think I can explain this but it won't read as being a very confident explanation.

I think this boils down to them thinking these things are very big deals when in fact they are not. But I need to be able to convey these things to them. Whether or not they accept it is up to them but I need the information and feel confident in it in order to comfortably leave them in their ignorance (kind of like walking away from away from a creationist. You give them the evidence, they ignore it, so you just move on).

Anyone want to help me out?

Thanks!

 

[Dorian Gray]

Tell them that waking up causes their alarms to go off.

 

[Puppycow]

The proper tests are the tests that the FDA or relevant body in each country says should be done. Approved vaccines have been tested properly.

 

[Sherman Bay]

Another "point" that was made is that the vaccines are not tested for "toxicity". I think I can explain this but it won't read as being a very confident explanation.

"Toxic" is the latest woo buzzword. I have attended lectures where almost everything was defined as being toxic, and the solution was to buy the seller's products to "de-toxify." It's just snake oil under a different name.

This first link you gave says this:

In the first level of human tests, a small group (usually less than 100) of volunteers are given the vaccine. If, over the next few months, there are no adverse effects noted in the small group compared to the population at large, then the vaccine can move on to the next level of clinical testing. In that level, a larger group (usually several hundred volunteers) is given the vaccine, and they are followed for up to two years. The rate of the disease in the testing group is compared to the rate for the nation as a whole. In addition, the rates of several health maladies in the testing group are compared to the rates of those maladies for the nation as a whole. If the rate of the disease is lower in the testing group as compared to the nation as a whole, and if the rates of the health maladies are no higher than the corresponding rates of the nation as a whole, then the vaccine is allowed to go to the final level of testing.

That would seem to indicate that "toxicity" was not overlooked, indeed, it was carefully watched for.

 

[pgwenthold]

The proper tests are the tests that the FDA or relevant body in each country says should be done. Approved vaccines have been tested properly.

There are plenty of vaccines that have been tested against placebo. In fact, most of the earliest studies of vaccines are done in that way. However, once they are established to work and be safe, then it is unethical to withhold them from patients in subsequent trials, and they are tested for both safety and efficacy against the currently used product.

In terms of the "not tested for safety" claim, it is completely bogus. Take a look at the inserts that come with any vaccine. It tells you exactly what safety issues have been found to occur with the vaccines, AND even how common those complications are! None of this "potential side effects could include anal leakage" crap that you get for many drugs - it will tell you "this has been observed to occur in 2 out of 10 000 times it is given." How the heck do these morons think that they can get such detailed descriptions of the types and frequencies of side effects without any safety studies?

 

[Emet]

Bloody hell. This page is full of broken links:

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/resdev/test-approve.htm

Here's a little better page from the CDC:

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Vaccine_Monitoring/history.html#2

 

[Deetee]

A link to the debate, so we can join in?

You may encounter the notion that vaccines are not studied for longterm safety - such as the risks of contributing to neurodevelopmental disorders later in childhood, like autism. It is true that many formal vaccine safety studies, often by the vaccine makers, are time limited to a few weeks to detect significant short-term reactions only. But there have also been numerous long term epidemiological/ecological studies assessing the risks of autism in vaccinated kids, and no-one has ever found any significant link to vaccination.
Such as this one here:
http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/MMR.pdf

A pubmed search for "vaccine" and "safety" reveals thousands of publications. Many of these are studies reporting on vaccine trials, in which they look at safety, immunogenicity and efficacy as part of the same study.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed

Here is a link to WHO info on vaccine safety:
http://www.who.int/immunization_monitoring/routine/en/
This leads to this document, which may give you some ammo:
http://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/wer2010_wer8530.pdf


The "inside vaccines" website is an antivax site which tries to dress itself up as being an objective, "just asking questions", "think of the children" type of enterprise. They cite reasonable sources but cherrypick like nobody's business to twist the facts to fit their agenda. I have had run-ins with them before about their dishonesty in the way they present data.

 

[Sherman Bay]

I'm in the middle of an anti-vax debate.

You can't win. You are up against those who have their minds made up and facts won't change it. They want to believe.

It's a lot like religion.

 

[Nichiro]

The proper tests are the tests that the FDA or relevant body in each country says should be done. Approved vaccines have been tested properly.

FDA has some very "interested" people on its board. They are known to be affiliated to some pharmaceutical companies.
Following would make an interesting reading (if you have missed the bus earlier)

http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/04/04/01.php

QED: FDA cannot be relied upon totally.

 

[EatatJoes]

A link to the debate, so we can join in?

You may encounter the notion that vaccines are not studied for longterm safety - such as the risks of contributing to neurodevelopmental disorders later in childhood, like autism. It is true that many formal vaccine safety studies, often by the vaccine makers, are time limited to a few weeks to detect significant short-term reactions only. But there have also been numerous long term epidemiological/ecological studies assessing the risks of autism in vaccinated kids, and no-one has ever found any significant link to vaccination.
Such as this one here:
http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/MMR.pdf

A pubmed search for "vaccine" and "safety" reveals thousands of publications. Many of these are studies reporting on vaccine trials, in which they look at safety, immunogenicity and efficacy as part of the same study.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed

Here is a link to WHO info on vaccine safety:
http://www.who.int/immunization_monitoring/routine/en/
This leads to this document, which may give you some ammo:
http://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/wer2010_wer8530.pdf


The "inside vaccines" website is an antivax site which tries to dress itself up as being an objective, "just asking questions", "think of the children" type of enterprise. They cite reasonable sources but cherrypick like nobody's business to twist the facts to fit their agenda. I have had run-ins with them before about their dishonesty in the way they present data.

Are you a mother to an uncircumcised boy? It's a private group.

Thank you (and others) for the information and links. This is going to be a pain in the arse.

 

[Nichiro]

At this point, I have a question that has been lurking in my mind for some time.
The question is,

ARE ALL HUMANS RESPONSIVE TO SAME DRUG IN SAME SPECIFIC MANNER?

For example, some respond to some meds and some do not.
Is this because of minute DNA Differences which we do not know about?

If such is the case, why do we have universal remedies?

It would be interesting to talk about this too here.

 

[Deetee]

Are you a mother to an uncircumcised boy? It's a private group.

This is the internet.
I am whatever I want to be.

 

[Lithrael]

ARE ALL HUMANS RESPONSIVE TO SAME DRUG IN SAME SPECIFIC MANNER?

Well of course not. Someone with a serious autoimmune disorder for example, will obviously react differently to a vaccine than the general population will react.

If such is the case, why do we have universal remedies?

We don't. There are some medicines that are very widely effective though, which we know, through careful testing, will work on a hell of a lot of people.

It would be interesting to talk about this too here.

It would be far better to start your own thread on the subject rather than derail this one.

 

[Nichiro]

It would be far better to start your own thread on the subject rather than derail this one.

I thought so initially but since vaccines are for universal use, the question arises if they should be universally used if human response to medication can be different .

Whatever results are derived after testing, are they reliable?

 

[Gr8wight]

I'm in the middle of an anti-vax debate. I'm having a hard time...The issue at the moment is the charge that vaccines are not tested properly. More specifically that they are not tested via a placebo group. I did find this website and it's good but it's very general. While I was looking for more information I came across this website. I have a feeling that those I am engaged with are either using this website or using information very similar to it.

So, I feel like I am left explaining why the vaxes weren't compared to placebos and on the surface it appears that those vaxes did not go through the procedure outlined in the first website I linked to. Is this because the product insert doesn't list all of the studies done? Are there post-release studies done?

Another "point" that was made is that the vaccines are not tested for "toxicity". I think I can explain this but it won't read as being a very confident explanation.

I think this boils down to them thinking these things are very big deals when in fact they are not. But I need to be able to convey these things to them. Whether or not they accept it is up to them but I need the information and feel confident in it in order to comfortably leave them in their ignorance (kind of like walking away from away from a creationist. You give them the evidence, they ignore it, so you just move on).

Anyone want to help me out?

Thanks!

Vaccines will be tested against a placebo for determining deleterious side effects only. They will not be tested against a placebo for determining effectiveness because that is not a subjective measure. For example, pain medication must be tested against a placebo for effectiveness because we rely upon the subjects to report their pain level. This subjective reporting can be biased by many factors, the placebo effect chief among them. However, we do not rely upon the test subjects to tell us if they have contracted polio or diptheria, or measles. That diagnosis is determined by an objective test, which cannot be biased by a placebo effect.

 

[EatatJoes]

Vaccines will be tested against a placebo for determining deleterious side effects only. They will not be tested against a placebo for determining effectiveness because that is not a subjective measure. For example, pain medication must be tested against a placebo for effectiveness because we rely upon the subjects to report their pain level. This subjective reporting can be biased by many factors, the placebo effect chief among them. However, we do not rely upon the test subjects to tell us if they have contracted polio or diptheria, or measles. That diagnosis is determined by an objective test, which cannot be biased by a placebo effect.

Can I basically quote you? This was good. =)

 

[Capsid]

It also seems to be forgotten that there is a large amount of preclinical testing undertaken. All vaccines have to undergo toxicity testing in small mammals using multiple excessive doses of the vaccine. Further they will have been tested in animals for their ability to generate an appropriate immune response. Finally, each batch of licensed vaccine is tested independently by biochemical and animal tests and must be issued with a certificate before it is released for human use.

Moreover, the fact that millions of doses of vaccines have now been given to individuals for decades now ought to be giving us some confidence in vaccine manufacturing.

 

[Deetee]

Moreover, the fact that millions of doses of vaccines have now been given to individuals for decades now ought to be giving us some confidence in vaccine manufacturing.

True, but the antivaxers will always raise the spectre of rare instances of contamination (SV40 in polio, porcine circovirus in Rotavaccine) as a counterpoint to this quite reasonable generalisation. Even though neither of these has caused demonstrable harm, the issue is that vaccines have been contaminated, so the process is not perfect, and what if the next one is a contaminant that will do harm?

 

[Lithrael]

(...) since vaccines are for universal use, the question arises if they should be universally used if human response to medication can be different.

The thing is, it is expected for vaccination to fail for some people, but that's not any sort of reason not to try to get everyone vaccinated. The point of widespread vaccination against a communicable disease is to get the percentage of the population that's at risk for that disease down to a minimum. That way, when a carrier of that disease arrives, it will spread much more slowly, maybe not at all, because there are only a few people in the population whose vaccination was not effective. If those few people are lucky enough to just not be nearby while the carrier is wandering around, no one will get ill.

Compare this to a completely unvaccinated population: when a carrier of that disease arrives, practically everyone who comes into contact is at risk of developing the disease and spreading it further through the population.

Whatever results are derived after testing, are they reliable?

As reliable as the testing suggests they are, generally. Which is why it's important to show exactly how the tests are done, so you can tell how much confidence the tests' conclusions deserve.

 

[JJM]

Part way down this site there is info about vax testing http://justthevax.blogspot.com/2010/10/dr-bob-sears-and-fox-friends.html