"Vaccines are not properly tested"

Deetee said:
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?
Click to expand...
Yes, a valid argument but I'd argue a lot is known the consequences of contaminants and zoonotic infections through vaccine development.
 
Lithrael said:
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.
Click to expand...
I am not against vaccination per say.

But for some time, there has been a spate of vaccines that are given to newborns, toddlers and kids.
We know that vaccines have proved to be very useful in past. But with every type of disease which rears up its head, a new vaccine is formulated in a hurry and the children are subjected to its inoculation.A staggering number of inoculations spins my mind.

It would be very interesting to read what people have to say on this.

I would be an interested reader here.
 
Nichiro said:
I am not against vaccination per say.

But for some time, there has been a spate of vaccines that are given to newborns, toddlers and kids.
We know that vaccines have proved to be very useful in past. But with every type of disease which rears up its head, a new vaccine is formulated in a hurry and the children are subjected to its inoculation.A staggering number of inoculations spins my mind.

It would be very interesting to read what people have to say on this.

I would be an interested reader here.
Click to expand...
You've made a statement, but not phrased it as a question. What part would you like to discuss and why?

Vaccines are developed as a reaction to an outbreak of an infection. What's a 'staggering number of innoculations'? In the UK kids get up to 6 'standard' jabs by the time they are four (two of which are boosters), and occasional jabs in reaction to outbreaks (such as swine flu):

5-in-1: Diphtheria, Tetanus, whooping cough, Polio and Hib.
PCV.
Meningitis C.
MMR

http://www.nhs.uk/Planners/vaccinations/Pages/childvaccines.aspx

Hardly a 'staggering number'.
 
And whilst the individual number of injections may be rising, the actual number of immunogenic components (antigens) has declined markedly.
In the 1970s there were around 3000 individual antigens or so (mainly because of whole cell pertussis and smallpox).
Nowadays, there are around 150.
We probably are exposed to that many antigens every time we brush our teeth.
So "immune overload" is a load of bunkum.

More injections does however mean that simple reactions like febrile illness are more common than with fewer injections. But these are pretty minor in the grand scheme of things, and a small price to pay for the protection.
 
Mikemcc said:
You've made a statement, but not phrased it as a question. What part would you like to discuss and why?

Vaccines are developed as a reaction to an outbreak of an infection. What's a 'staggering number of innoculations'? In the UK kids get up to 6 'standard' jabs by the time they are four (two of which are boosters), and occasional jabs in reaction to outbreaks (such as swine flu):

5-in-1: Diphtheria, Tetanus, whooping cough, Polio and Hib.
PCV.
Meningitis C.
MMR

http://www.nhs.uk/Planners/vaccinations/Pages/childvaccines.aspx

Hardly a 'staggering number'.
Click to expand...
Perhaps Nichiro is referring to the U.S. schedule which is a bit more stacked than many EU countries. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/recs/schedules/downloads/child/2010/10_0-6yrs-schedule-pr.pdf

Este
 
Nichiro said:
Yes. You are right indeed.
I am concerned about US scene which is really worrying parents.
Click to expand...

And which parents would those be? the ones who follow Jenny McCarthy?

The latest scientific paper I could find analyzed data from 2005:

CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 28% of children were not in compliance with the official vaccination recommendations. Missed doses accounted for approximately two thirds of noncompliance, with the remainder due to mis-timed doses and other requirements. Measuring compliance with all ACIP recommendations provides a valuable tool to assess and improve the quality of healthcare delivery and ensure that children and communities are optimally protected from vaccine-preventable diseases
Click to expand...
.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18471581



Here is an article from Time magazine online, dated Feb 25, 2010:

Though close to 80% of American children receive the standard battery of vaccinations, skepticism about their safety remains widespread, in part because of the antiscientific clamor of the McCarthy camp.

Nonvaccination rates among kindergartners in some California counties have been reported at 10%.
Click to expand...
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1967796,00.html
 
Last edited:
Nichiro said:
Yes. You are right indeed.
I am concerned about US scene which is really worrying parents.
Click to expand...

The possibility of their children contracting pertussis, or diphtheria, or meningitis, or hepatitis is what should be worrying parents. Vaccines are safe. Those diseases are not.
 
EatatJoes said:
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!
Click to expand...

Vaccines are not properly tested because they dont give you a vaccine and then infect you with the sickness to see if it really works. Like real controlled experimental conditions. And there is no doubt there are adverse reaction to vaccines.

Its just what can they get away with in the name of the dollar??

Why else would you set up Vaccine Adverse Effects Reporting System (VAERS)? Unless there was a problem that you had to keep under control??????????
From your link,
"That's not even the end of the story. Not only must a vaccine pass through one level of animal study and three levels of human studies in order to be licensed, it is then continually monitored through the Vaccine Adverse Effects Reporting System (VAERS). This system is specifically designed to look for problems with vaccines, no matter how rare."



Vaccine contamination.

FDA Suspends Rotavirus Vaccine
* MARCH 23, 2010
"The Food and Drug Administration recommended Monday that doctors temporarily stop using GlaxoSmithKline PLC's Rotarix child vaccine after a virus was found in the product.

The agency said it needed to learn more about parts of an extraneous virus that was found in the vaccine. The FDA said there's currently no evidence of a safety risk associated with the vaccine.

"There is no evidence...that this poses any health risk," FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg said in a conference call with reporters. "We're simply asking that there be a pause in its use."

She also said Rotarix has a significant track record of being safe.

Rotarix, approved for use in the U.S. in 2008, is typically given to babies at two and four months of age and is designed to help protect infants from a gastrointestinal illness caused by rotavirus.

The FDA said it recently became aware that an independent U.S. academic research team has found DNA from porcine circovirus 1, or PCV-1, in Rotarix. PCV-1 is not known to cause illness in humans or other animals. The agency said follow-up testing has found that DNA from the PCV-1 virus has been in the product since early in development."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704117304575137993893153322.html

So much for testing...... Millions of people have died from vaccine malfunction. All to protect the herd......

Flu vaccines are a guess as to which virus might be loose this year.
Yeah they might get close but there is nothing scientific about it.
They would never allow true scientific testing on humans.

You can draw conclusions about the data but you really dont know for sure.

And I certainty would not trust the pharmaceutical companies...:boggled:

That being said however, there are useful vaccines. It would be better if they were made more carefully.
 
Last edited:
EatatJoes said:
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!
Click to expand...

It wouldn't pass medical ethics if you had a placebo group.

After the 200+ years since Edward Jenner, we know they work, and would be considered unethical to with hold an effective medical procedure.

Although this has been violated in areas in Africa, as we know HAART drugs work for HIV infection, it is not ethical to have a placebo group for these drugs either.

Appeal to emotions:
Ask them how they would feel if they were dying of cancer, there was a new drug that looked promising, but they ended up in the placebo wing of the protocol. ;)
 
Vaccines are not properly tested because they dont give you a vaccine and then infect you with the sickness to see if it really works. Like real controlled experimental conditions. And there is no doubt there are adverse reaction to vaccines.
Click to expand...
Malaria and flu vaccines have been tested in this way. But it is just a simple matter of vaccinating one group and not vaccinating another and see which group has the higher infection rates. If a large number are used this is statistically significant.

Moreover, much is known about the immune response that is need to provide protection. Antibodies raised against vaccines can be passively administered to animals which are then challenged with the pathogen to test that they are effective. These animal models are very predictive of outcomes in humans.
 
Capsid said:
Malaria and flu vaccines have been tested in this way. But it is just a simple matter of vaccinating one group and not vaccinating another and see which group has the higher infection rates. If a large number are used this is statistically significant.
Click to expand...

Yes there are trials of this type, and there have been randomised, double blind placebo trials.
Here is one for flu vaccine, which used another vaccine (Hepatitis A) as a placebo flu vaccine. It was ethically justified because it would at least be providing protection against something (although have no influence on the incidence of flu).
 
brantc said:
Vaccines are not properly tested because they dont give you a vaccine and then infect you with the sickness to see if it really works. Like real controlled experimental conditions. And there is no doubt there are adverse reaction to vaccines.

Its just what can they get away with in the name of the dollar??

Why else would you set up Vaccine Adverse Effects Reporting System (VAERS)? Unless there was a problem that you had to keep under control??????????
Click to expand...
I guess its damned if they do, damned if they don't. If the CDC did not have a vaccine reaction surveillance system, they would rightly be criticised for trying to pretend there were no problems with vaccines. But set up a reporting system, and people like you suddenly jump to the conclusion there are big problems...
:confused:

brantc said:
From your link,
"That's not even the end of the story. Not only must a vaccine pass through one level of animal study and three levels of human studies in order to be licensed, it is then continually monitored through the Vaccine Adverse Effects Reporting System (VAERS). This system is specifically designed to look for problems with vaccines, no matter how rare."



Vaccine contamination.

FDA Suspends Rotavirus Vaccine
* MARCH 23, 2010
"The Food and Drug Administration recommended Monday that doctors temporarily stop using GlaxoSmithKline PLC's Rotarix child vaccine after a virus was found in the product.

The agency said it needed to learn more about parts of an extraneous virus that was found in the vaccine. The FDA said there's currently no evidence of a safety risk associated with the vaccine.

"There is no evidence...that this poses any health risk," FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg said in a conference call with reporters. "We're simply asking that there be a pause in its use."

She also said Rotarix has a significant track record of being safe.

Rotarix, approved for use in the U.S. in 2008, is typically given to babies at two and four months of age and is designed to help protect infants from a gastrointestinal illness caused by rotavirus.

The FDA said it recently became aware that an independent U.S. academic research team has found DNA from porcine circovirus 1, or PCV-1, in Rotarix. PCV-1 is not known to cause illness in humans or other animals. The agency said follow-up testing has found that DNA from the PCV-1 virus has been in the product since early in development."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704117304575137993893153322.html
Click to expand...
Rotarix and Rotateq are oral vaccines. Contamination of Rotavirus vaccines with a harmless virus that the kids would be swallowing in their hundreds of different varieties everyday anyhow is not really a significant problem, except in the tiny little minds of the antivaxers

brantc said:
So much for testing...... Millions of people have died from vaccine malfunction. All to protect the herd......
Click to expand...
You are correct in that people do die in their millions if they have a certain type of "vaccine malfunction" - namely that of not getting the vaccine, following which they succumb to the disease, which could have been prevented.

brantc said:
Flu vaccines are a guess as to which virus might be loose this year.
Yeah they might get close but there is nothing scientific about it.
They would never allow true scientific testing on humans.
Click to expand...
All the flu viruses are tested on humans. Last year one of the reasons for the delays in getting swine flu vax available quickly was because they had to await the preliminary studies of H1N1 vaccine safety and efficacy in humans.
The tailoring of the next year's seasonal influenza vaccine types to the predicted prevalent influenza strains is quite a scientific process. Its like climatology. There is lots of science, but even then its not guaranteed to be 100% accurate at predicting everything. Most years the flu scientists do a great job in forecasting flu types.

brantc said:
And I certainty would not trust the pharmaceutical companies...:boggled:
Click to expand...
In what sense? If your child was dying from meningitis, would you say: "No antibiotics for him, please! I don't trust the pharma companies!"

brantc said:
That being said however, there are useful vaccines. It would be better if they were made more carefully.
Click to expand...
At least something you say has a vague ring of accuracy.
 
Last edited:
Emet said:
Nichiro said:
Yes. You are right indeed.
I am concerned about US scene which is really worrying parents.
Click to expand...

And which parents would those be? the ones who follow Jenny McCarthy?

The latest scientific paper I could find analyzed data from 2005:

CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 28% of children were not in compliance with the official vaccination recommendations. Missed doses accounted for approximately two thirds of noncompliance, with the remainder due to mis-timed doses and other requirements. Measuring compliance with all ACIP recommendations provides a valuable tool to assess and improve the quality of healthcare delivery and ensure that children and communities are optimally protected from vaccine-preventable diseases
Click to expand...
.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18471581
Click to expand...
That is part but that is the sector of parents that have gone over the cliff in their beliefs that vaccines cause every malady known to humans, vast conspiracies, yada yada yada. However, there are some parents that have been frightened by these loudmouth, self-proclaimed experts and need to be talked off the edge, so to speak. They need to be addressed differently and not shamed or berated for not following the CDC schedule in its entirety. For, to be honest, there are some rather questionable recommendations and also some 'wiggle-room' for individuals to be able to consider when vaccinating their children. They need solid information from solid sources however.

Here is an article from Time magazine online, dated Feb 25, 2010:

Though close to 80% of American children receive the standard battery of vaccinations, skepticism about their safety remains widespread, in part because of the antiscientific clamor of the McCarthy camp.

Nonvaccination rates among kindergartners in some California counties have been reported at 10%.
Click to expand...
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1967796,00.html
Click to expand...
Oh it is much worse than that: http://projects.latimes.com/schools/2008-immunization-exemption-rate/ranking/page/1/

Este
 
Sherman Bay said:
"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:That would seem to indicate that "toxicity" was not overlooked, indeed, it was carefully watched for.
Click to expand...

Even "toxicity" is a trade-off vs. benefit. Heck, cancer treatments rely on toxicity to kill the more fragile cancer cells before the rest of the body dies too much.
 
Nichiro said:
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?
Click to expand...

This is where statistics come into play -- you test thousands of people, or more.


BTW, this is how they are determining many vitamin pills are useless, or actually harmful. But it requires 10+ year studies of a hundred thousand people split into two groups: Those with the treatment, and those without.
 
I need to add some info on this to my Facts, not Fantasy site. Thanks all for pulling together my research. :)
 
Interesting WHO data on vaccination for anyone interested.
http://apps.who.int/immunization_monitoring/en/globalsummary/timeseries/tscoveragemcv.htm

This app enables you to select a vaccination along the top menu to display comparative data on vax uptake for all the global countries for comparison.

Click on the name of a country down the lefthand menu, and you get all the vax rates for that country for all its vaccines. For instance here is that for the USA.

There is a lot of useful info in this section of the WHO website. Browse around the sections from the topmost menu.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom