i got the h1n1 vaccine and....

[Maximum Jack]

A presentation on H1N1

People shouldn't have to feel they aren't allowed to express their opinion here about which actions are healthy, including receiving vaccines.

The point is more 'I expect the government to take care of my health'. I joined this forum because it requires that people take personal responsibility for their lives, the attitude implied in the post is at odds with the very concept of what is promoted here. I could be wrong about the reason for these forums but the benefits of personal responsibility still stand. If you don't know whats in a vaccine but take it anyway you will get whats coming to you.

[Beuford]

Originally Posted by Writertype

A lot of people on this forum seem to 'rage against the vaccine machine' without really understanding the science behind it.

I get injeced with a dead virus then my system supposedly builds an immunity to it. So, going by that theory, if I catch swine flu once and recover, I should have immunity to it even more so than the vaccination, because the virus was live. That makes sense I suppose, so I'll go purposely catch swine flu now so I don't catch it again later at an unfortunate time. That would be swine flu without thimerisol(50% mercury) in it. I'll also make sure I have proper nutrition and do not live in a crowded house with sick people.

[Writertype]

Originally Posted by Beuford

I get injeced with a dead virus then my system supposedly builds an immunity to it. So, going by that theory, if I catch swine flu once and recover, I should have immunity to it even more so than the vaccination, because the virus was live. That makes sense I suppose, so I'll go purposely catch swine flu now so I don't catch it again later at an unfortunate time. That would be swine flu without thimerisol(50% mercury) in it. I'll also make sure I have proper nutrition and do not live in a crowded house with sick people.

You are correct that catching swine flu now will provide better immunity later than a vaccine would. The trouble is catching any illness is not risk free. What if you spread that flu to your grandparents, or it ends up hitting you harder than you thought it would? Wouldn't it be easier to take a nearly painless injection and most likely have immunity from the flu anyhow?

I should also point out that when I see people rejecting the seasonal or swine flu vaccine it doesn't worry me much. I got the vaccine, but I haven't always in the past. I usually don't get the flu anyway, and if you get either seasonal or swine flu it's not that big of a deal (unless you are in a position to spread it, or you are unhealthy already). What worries me is when people start viewing vaccinations as categorically bad and refusing all vaccinations for their children. That could turn out just fine (the kid lucks out and never gets sick), or it could result in the kid catching a life-changing disease that could have been avoided.

No one is saying that you should not eat and live healthy. A healthy lifestyle is the best thing you can do for yourself. You should not let yourself be scared out of getting vaccinations for yourself and loved ones, though, because they are actually a very valuable tool against certain diseases.

[ThoughtAddict]

Originally Posted by bman

Vaccine frauds

Ah, the fine Dr. Horowitz. I recall his opinions on a vast, secretive Rockefeller conspiracy to create AIDS and ebola as a genocidal weapon to weaken Africa. A conspiracy so vast, involving hundreds or thousands of people, yet without a single whistle blower or credible informant that this genocide was occurring.

A former dentist, never trained as an epidemiologist, internist, or pathologist, yet who can come up with epidemiological theories based entirely on circumstantial and tenuous associations between people.

Believe what you will, but I've considered this source and found him lacking.

[liamona]

Originally Posted by Writertype

You go to a doctor who is against vaccinations!? That is insane! Not to mention wildly irresponsible. Your doctor opposes every vaccination that is out there?

How is that insane? It's not like he's the only one. The late Dr. Mendelsohn, who wrote "How To Raise a Healthy Child In Spite of Your Doctor" was very much against vaccines and said so in his book.

And he was a regular M.D. who spent 12 years as an Associate Professor of Pediatrics and Community Health blah blah blah at the University of Illinois College of Medicine.

BTW, his book is a must-read for parents who want to take a more proactive stance towards their children's health, especially those for whom the words "My doctor said" isn't the start of every conversation about their kids.

I go to a good medical school in the United States (ranked higher than a couple of the Ivy League med schools) where pharmaceutical companies are not allowed to give us as much as a pen. We cannot accept gifts in any form from these people.

Well that must be a new, much-lamented policy!

I have in my possession a wonderful folding colored map made in England for Eli Lilly, with a nice little ad for Prozac on the back.

Hundreds of them were made for all the pill-pushers I mean doctors who came to a medical convention here in town in the 90s, and my husband got one from his ex-girlfriend who was a shrink.

She told him there was an open bar in this huge conference room, and everyone ate and drank so much on Eli Lilly's tab there was lots of vomiting in the bathrooms.

Well, at least the doctors will be much healthier without all that booze and high-end restaurant food! Thank goodness BigPharma is now more inclined to look after its own.

The science behind vaccines is sound, the antibody titers are very testable, and although vaccines are not 100% effective in all cases they are an excellent tool from a public health perspective. Those doctors who are getting paid more for getting kids vaccinated are getting paid because it reduces the disease burden (and thus the payments that must be made for treatment) in those children later.

I'm sure it reduces a burden all right—the burden of conscience for those "health" practitioners who have so few things in their bag of tricks. Pathetic! Or rather I'm more disposed to write:

P A T H E T I C.

No thanks! I'd rather go to my insane, wildly irresponsible doctor, who is so insane and irresponsible that he has a thriving practice in the affluent part of town.

It must be his insanity that prevents him from making so little money that he doesn't have to stoop to the meager HMO payments or having to put up pictures of waterfalls and other scenery instead of BigPharma poster ads.

So if vaccines are so wonderful, tell me again why no study has been done comparing a vaccinated group of children against a non-vaccinated one? At least in the interest of SCIENCE (I wish I could make the word all sparkly)?

I'd certainly be happy to be part of something that proved SCIENTIFICALLY how healthy my kid is, or my friends' kids who also don't vaccinate.

Any day now I'm expecting that call from the AMA or the AAP, or any other alphabet agency/organization which is so interested in SCIENCE and above all HEALTH in big shiny letters that it wants to see how healthy people stay healthy without all the pills and potions.

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by Maximum Jack

A presentation on H1N1

The point is more 'I expect the government to take care of my health'. I joined this forum because it requires that people take personal responsibility for their lives, the attitude implied in the post is at odds with the very concept of what is promoted here. I could be wrong about the reason for these forums but the benefits of personal responsibility still stand. If you don't know whats in a vaccine but take it anyway you will get whats coming to you.

This forum does not require that people take personal responsibility for their lives, and also, I don't think because a person decides to get a vaccine for himself and/or his kids necessarily means that he expects the government to take care of his health or that he is not taking personal responsibility. In fact, I imagine most people and parents of small children definitely believe they are taking personal responsibility for their lives by getting immunizations rather than not doing so.

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by liamona

So if vaccines are so wonderful, tell me again why no study has been done comparing a vaccinated group of children against a non-vaccinated one? At least in the interest of SCIENCE (I wish I could make the word all sparkly)?

There are bazillions of studies comparing vaccinated groups of children against non-vaccinated groups.

Association between type 1 diabetes and Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccination: birth cohort study

Routine Vaccination Against Pertussis and the Risk of Childhood Asthma: A Population-Based Cohort Study -- Spycher et al. 123 (3): 944 -- Pediatrics

Haemophilus influenzae type b antibodies in vaccinated and non-vaccinated children

Additionally, although there are some inherent flaws when doing historical comparisons, when researchers see sudden dramatic drops in illness rates after vaccination begins, they assume the vaccine works.

[stanmrak]

The Amish don't get vaccinated, and autism is totally absent in their communities. Coincidence?

Of course, it may also be that they are not exposed to electricity and the accompanying EMFs that it produces. A curious mind has to wonder.

[oscardelben]

It's funny to see how many of you are fighting against each other. From an outside point of view it looks like you are scared of this flu, which I believe is less dangerous than a seasonal flu.

I agree that it's risky to take a vaccine, but you should evaluate the pros and cons before taking it, or trust your doctor if you don't have the necessary knowledge.

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by stanmrak

The Amish don't get vaccinated, and autism is totally absent in their communities. Coincidence?

Of course, it may also be that they are not exposed to electricity and the accompanying EMFs that it produces. A curious mind has to wonder.

They also don't have a diet filled with synthetic food additives.

[Writertype]

The Amish do get vaccinated: Do The Amish Vaccinate? Indeed They Do, AND Their Autism Rates May be Lower.

@liamona, hopefully your doctor is a good one. I have worked in a family practice residency for a summer, worked in an ER, worked in a cardiovascular postoperative unit, been through almost two years of medical school, shadowed on a psychiatric inpatient wing, and talked with many doctors in the community and I have yet to find one that opposes vaccines. Hearing a doctor fearmongering against vaccines raises a big red flag for me because in most scientific circles there is no debate-- vaccines do more good than harm, and are a wise decision for children.

moonrambler has posted some studies in children, I posted a study in an older cohort (which I found, by the way, by hitting CTRL+TAB and google searching for about five seconds), and if you actually wanted to see the studies out there you could google search as well. I think any articles you find, though, you will not believe. They will just be more confirmation for you that there is a big conspiracy out there on the part of modern medicine to harm you and your children.

Most doctors make enough money to hang pictures of waterfalls on their walls (an interesting measure of success).

[gigij]

It's very easy to be against vaccines for your children when 99% of the children they will come in contact with have been vaccinated. But would you still be against vaccinating your children if they were being exposed to whooping cough, diptheria, measles etc on a regular basis? And if children around you were dying of these diseases on a regular basis?
Of course your children don't need to be vaccinated - everyone elses children are - thus protecting your children by default.

[liamona]

Originally Posted by moonrambler

There are bazillions of studies comparing vaccinated groups of children against non-vaccinated groups.

Let me clarify: I want the same kind of study that is done on any other drug, where one group would be given a certain vaccine and the other group a placebo, and the outcome for both groups is measured.

Why hasn't THAT kind of study ever been done?

Or even a study comparing the health of 50,000 people who've never had vaccines to 50,000 who have?

Personally, I don't need a study to know the difference. It's a small sample, but in my local group of non-vaccinating families, only one child has asthma.

But everyone else I know who has asthma has been vaccinated.

Granted, my group is also extremely health-conscious, but that usually (not always, I know) goes with the decision to not vaccinate.

As for Routine Vaccination Against Pertussis and the Risk of Childhood Asthma: A Population-Based Cohort Study -- Spycher et al. 123 (3): 944 -- Pediatrics,

This study looked at diphtheria, tetanus, AND pertussis vaccines:

Effects of diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis or tetanus... [J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2000] - PubMed result

"The odds of having a history of asthma was twice as great among vaccinated subjects than among unvaccinated subjects (adjusted odds ratio, 2.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.59 to 6.74). The odds of having had any allergy-related respiratory symptom in the past 12 months was 63% greater among vaccinated subjects than unvaccinated subjects (adjusted odds ratio, 1.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.05 to 2.54). The associations between vaccination and subsequent allergies and symptoms were greatest among children aged 5 through 10 years.

CONCLUSIONS: DTP or tetanus vaccination appears to increase the risk of allergies and related respiratory symptoms in children and adolescents. Although it is unlikely that these results are entirely because of any sources of bias, the small number of unvaccinated subjects and the study design limit our ability to make firm causal inferences about the true magnitude of effect."

[liamona]

Originally Posted by Writertype

I have worked in a family practice residency for a summer, worked in an ER, worked in a cardiovascular postoperative unit, been through almost two years of medical school, shadowed on a psychiatric inpatient wing, and talked with many doctors in the community and I have yet to find one that opposes vaccines.

I'll bet. Those are the grunt doctors who probably have to deal with a large population of people who don't take care of their health well.

Hearing a doctor fearmongering against vaccines raises a big red flag for me because in most scientific circles there is no debate-- vaccines do more good than harm, and are a wise decision for children.

I think it raises a big red flag for those that don't know how to use supplements and other methods for boosting the immune system.

When you only have a hammer, all you see is nails. I'd rather have a doctor who has other tools, thank you.

They will just be more confirmation for you that there is a big conspiracy out there on the part of modern medicine to harm you and your children.

I like modern medicine for when I break my leg or hit my head. In those cases, I'd run (or limp!) to the emergency room.

But for HEALTH in big shiny letters, especially health without drugs, modern medicine is mostly ineffective.

That's why I'd rather see my expensive out-of-pocket doc who's a little more on the ball, and whose practice depends on people who are happy with his treatments working.

I imagine it'd be difficult for him to pay for rent in an affluent area if he sucked at what he did.

Most doctors make enough money to hang pictures of waterfalls on their walls (an interesting measure of success).

Really? Then why don't they? I have yet to see a regular HMO doctor's office or waiting room that is blessedly free from BigPharma advertisements.

[liamona]

Originally Posted by gigij

It's very easy to be against vaccines for your children when 99% of the children they will come in contact with have been vaccinated.

That's a big assumption to make. How do you know my kid doesn't?

But would you still be against vaccinating your children if they were being exposed to whooping cough, diptheria, measles etc on a regular basis?

Yes, absolutely. In fact, I'm part of a group that lets members know when someone has the chicken pox. I'm very eager to expose mine to it.

And if children around you were dying of these diseases on a regular basis?

Well, if a bunch of kids were dying around us, I think vaccines would kind of be the last thing on my mind, but thanks for your concern.

Of course your children don't need to be vaccinated - everyone elses children are - thus protecting your children by default.

Yeah, I'm so grateful for all those vaccinated kids who are constantly throwing up, coughing, or sneezing on my kid in school. LOL.

It IS kind of tragic that despite being jabbed with all the vaccines, they're still throwing up, coughing and sneezing all the time, and having to be isolated at the "peanut-free zone" area at lunch, or having to go to the nurse's office to get the eczema lotion, asthma inhaler, and other BigPharma goodies.

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by liamona

Let me clarify: I want the same kind of study that is done on any other drug, where one group would be given a certain vaccine and the other group a placebo, and the outcome for both groups is measured.

Why hasn't THAT kind of study ever been done?

I can't understand why you insist placebo studies with vaccines have never been done.

"A calculated risk": the Salk polio vaccine field trials of 1954 -- Meldrum 317 (7167): 1233 -- BMJ

Expansion:

University of Michigan: Polio Vaccine Study Results

[liamona]

Originally Posted by moonrambler

I can't understand why you insist placebo studies with vaccines have never been done.

"A calculated risk": the Salk polio vaccine field trials of 1954 -- Meldrum 317 (7167): 1233 -- BMJ

One study from 1954? Wow that's recent.

Why aren't studies done on every new vaccine? Don't studies need to be done on every new drug? Why do vaccines get a pass?

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by liamona

One study from 1954? Wow that's recent.

Why aren't studies done on every new vaccine? Don't studies need to be done on every new drug? Why do vaccines get a pass?

Okay, now we've moved from "there have NEVER been any vaccine studies done including placebo groups" to "why aren't studies done on every new drug?"

NEJM -- A Novel Influenza A (H1N1) Vaccine in Various Age Groups

Q & A: Clinical Trials of 2009 H1N1 Influenza Vaccines Conducted by the NIAID-Supported Vaccine and Treatment Evaluation Units

[moonrambler]

They're everywhere.

Vaccines for post-exposure prophylaxis against varicella (chickenpox) in children and adults

How Effective Is the Quadrivalent HPV Vaccine at Preventing High-grade Cervical Lesions? -- Fimbres and Barton 18 (2): 16 -- AAP Grand Rounds

[Maximum Jack]

This article approaches some myths about conspiracy theories and adds some powerful points about the H1N1 vaccine components. Popularity Of Conspiracy Theories Online.

[stanmrak]

Just know that everything you've heard about the H1N1 vaccines in major media outlets is part of a marketing campaign to sell more vaccines — EVERYTHING. That doesn't mean that the info is accurate or not, but it's part a sales job, just like any kind of advertising or public relations.

This include the pieces run by CBS's 60 Minutes. Pure propaganda. They only interviewed the pro-vaccine experts, who defended the safety and efficacy of the flu vaccine. To represent the vaccine skeptics, they mentioned the names of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Bill Maher, as if to imply that only kooks or radicals question vaccine science.

Why no interviews with vaccine experts who are opposed to vaccines? Two reasons:

1. These experts know (from prior experience) that their 20-minute interview will be edited down to a minute or so, under the control of the CBS producers (and the corporate sponsors). Only the information they want you to hear will be shown.

2. One of the world's leading anti-vaccine experts, Dr. Russell Blaylock, has been blacklisted by every media outlet in the country by corporate sponsors. The only stations that will have him on are Christian outlets, who are not afraid of corporate backlash.

You can listen to an interview with Dr. Blaylock on the truth about the swine flu vaccine here:

Swine Flu -- One of Most Massive Cover-ups in American History

[gigij]

Originally Posted by liamona

That's a big assumption to make. How do you know my kid doesn't?

My point is that the majority of children have been vaccinated against major deadly childhood illnesses - thus vastly reducing the risk of unvaccinated children contracting said illnessess. You really gonna dispute that?

Originally Posted by liamona

Yes, absolutely. In fact, I'm part of a group that lets members know when someone has the chicken pox. I'm very eager to expose mine to it. .

Good for you - have a pox party - make your children sick. Chances are they will be fine - mine were. However when I was a kid (pre-vaccine days) my cousin died of chicken pox, it's rare, but there is some risk there too you know.

Originally Posted by liamona

Well, if a bunch of kids were dying around us, I think vaccines would kind of be the last thing on my mind, but thanks for your concern. .

If a bunch of kids were dying from vaccine preventable diseases vaccines would be the last thing on your mind? That's odd.

Originally Posted by liamona

Yeah, I'm so grateful for all those vaccinated kids who are constantly throwing up, coughing, or sneezing on my kid in school. LOL..

Yes - because the common cold is exactly what I was referring too.

[liamona]

Originally Posted by moonrambler

Okay, now we've moved from "there have NEVER been any vaccine studies done including placebo groups" to "why aren't studies done on every new drug?"

Believe me, I really appreciate you dusting off a decades-old study in order to prove me wrong, LOL, but I still want to know why the same studies that are required to approve drugs for sale aren't done on every single vaccine that are on the market.

As for the "studies":

NEJM -- A Novel Influenza A (H1N1) Vaccine in Various Age Groups

"Serologic analysis was performed at baseline and on days 21 and 35."

That's a good start, but I want to know what the long-term health effects are.

Q & A: Clinical Trials of 2009 H1N1 Influenza Vaccines Conducted by the NIAID-Supported Vaccine and Treatment Evaluation Units[/QUOTE]

These clinical trials are interesting, but are they the equivalent to the sort of testing that drugs have to undergo in order to be approved for sale?

[liamona]

Originally Posted by stanmrak

Just know that everything you've heard about the H1N1 vaccines in major media outlets is part of a marketing campaign to sell more vaccines — EVERYTHING. That doesn't mean that the info is accurate or not, but it's part a sales job, just like any kind of advertising or public relations.

Yep. and to be sure the sheeple get the message through their thick skulls, the CDC has to hold hands with the mainstream media and spoon-feed it the right information about vaccines and drugs it wants to see on teevee:

CDC Health Marketing | Entertainment Education

The CDC recognizes the power of popular entertainment in shaping the perceptions and practices of its viewers. Television shows, movies, and music not only command the attention of their audiences, but also reinforce existing behavior, demonstrate new behavior, and affect audience emotions. The CDC often partners with Hollywood executives and academic, public health, and advocacy organizations to share information with writers and producers about the nation's pressing health issues.

The CDC Entertainment Education Program works in partnership with Hollywood, Health & Society (HH&S) at the University of Southern California's Norman Lear Center to provide expert consultation, education and resources for writers and producers who develop scripts with health storylines and information.

Popular entertainment provides an ideal outlet for sharing health information and affecting behavior. We are interested in providing information that covers a variety of topics including violence against women, suicide, lead poisoning, hospital infection, bioterrorism, youth health issues, HIV/AIDS and much more. Knowing that 88 percent of people in America learn about health issues from television, we believe that prime time and daytime television programs, movies, talk shows and more, are great outlets for our health messages.

Tip Sheets for TV Writers and Producers

Tip Sheets for TV Writers and Producers contain easy-to-use, credible information on the nation's most pressing health issues and topics of interest to writers. Each tip sheet includes a description of who's at risk, typical symptoms, prevention messages, case examples, and a list of other resources. Over 130 tip sheets are currently in development at Hollywood, Health & Society, with many of these already available online. The broad range of topics includes skin cancer, sudden infant death syndrome, smallpox, and antibiotic resistance.

http://www.cdc.gov/healthmarketing/entertainment_education/tips/immuniz.htm

Resources for TV Writers and Producers

Low Immunization Rates
Tips for Scripts

EDUCATE parents about the importance of immunization and what can happen if children are not vaccinated.

INFORM viewers that vaccine-preventable diseases caused hundreds of thousands of cases of illness and thousands of deaths every year in the United States before the 1920s when vaccines were not available. Cases of measles, diphtheria, and pertussis exceeded half a million per year; deaths from these diseases totaled about 20,000 annually. Hib meningitis used to strike 12,000 children a year, leaving many either dead or with permanent brain damage.

REASSURE viewers that we can now protect children from eleven diseases. Polio has not circulated in the U. S. since 1979, and disease and death from diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, measles, mumps, rubella, and Haemophilus influenzae type b are at or near record lows.

REMIND viewers that children should not have to suffer and possibly die from a vaccine-preventable disease and that their doctor or clinic can advise them on childhood immunization schedules beginning within the first year of life.

[liamona]

Originally Posted by stanmrak

Why no interviews with vaccine experts who are opposed to vaccines?

The t.v. is a lousy place to get this kind of information.

But my doctor isn't the only one who is against vaccines or at least will support a parent's decision to not vaccinate, although I admit that they're a small minority.

Dr. Jim Sears and Dr. Jay Gordon are some of the better-known pediatricians who support parents' choice.

Dr. Jim's dad, the original Dr. Sears was very pro-vaccine in his famous Baby Book, but I heard that privately, he's against them and I think most of his kids weren't vaccinated or were selectively vaccinated.

His son Dr. Jim has a listing of what he calls vaccine-friendly doctors:

AskDrSears - Vaccine Friendly Doctors

One of the world's leading anti-vaccine experts, Dr. Russell Blaylock, has been blacklisted by every media outlet in the country by corporate sponsors. The only stations that will have him on are Christian outlets, who are not afraid of corporate backlash.

Is that right? Suzanne Summers has a long interview with him in her latest book. I highly recommend it for anyone who wants to be healthy without drugs.

She interviews a lot of anti-aging specialists in her book. I've always wanted to see one, but they're out of my budget at the moment (the one I want to see charges $350 a visit). A friend of mine managed to see him, and she said the waiting room was filled with smooth-skinned elderly people who obviously had a lot of money to spend.

Hmmm, why don't you ever see these people at your local HMO doctor's office?

When you go on the anti-aging doctor's websites, they rarely mention vaccines, if they do at all. They're too busy keeping their patients young and healthy, I guess.

[liamona]

Originally Posted by gigij

My point is that the majority of children have been vaccinated against major deadly childhood illnesses - thus vastly reducing the risk of unvaccinated children contracting said illnessess. You really gonna dispute that?

You don't know where I live. I don't like to disclose it online, but I assure you we often go visit a ghetto-ish area that is filled with immigrants, some illegal and who avoid the doctor's office out of some irrational fear of being exposed to law enforcement.

The type of people for whom getting vaccines are kind of the last thing on the "to do" list. But am I scared of them or any exotic diseases they may carry? No.

Good for you - have a pox party - make your children sick. Chances are they will be fine - mine were. However when I was a kid (pre-vaccine days) my cousin died of chicken pox, it's rare, but there is some risk there too you know.

There's a risk every time I walk out the door, or get in my car. Should I carry some blood bags in a cooler in case I'm in an accident? Should I strap on a big piece of foam to my kid's head in case something heavy comes flying out of the sky? I guess I could, but it's a tad inconvenient, and not very fun.

But again, thanks for your obvious caring and concern, LOL.

If a bunch of kids were dying from vaccine preventable diseases vaccines would be the last thing on your mind? That's odd.

What's odd is for you to propose such a scenario in the U.S., when you harp on how there's no one dying from the diseases because of all the vaccine jabs they get.

Ironically, like I mentioned, I am exposed to the kind of people that could possibly be dying from such things, but strangely enough, so far no one I know has. I'm sure you're really sad about that.

Yes - because the common cold is exactly what I was referring too.

Besides the recurring chronic common cold don't forget the asthma, eczema, allergies etc. etc., never mind the autism, ADD and other weird behavioral issues.

The kind of things that were practically non-existent when I was a kid in the 70s.

For those that don't believe me, if you have kids, take a visit to the nurse's office the next time there's a field trip, because s/he'll haul out all the drug prescriptions and asthma inhalers the kids need in case something happens on the trip.

I was floored when I saw how many there were.

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by liamona

Believe me, I really appreciate you dusting off a decades-old study in order to prove me wrong, LOL, but I still want to know why the same studies that are required to approve drugs for sale aren't done on every single vaccine that are on the market.

Well, you didn't specify a time frame or state it had to be a new vaccine. I just did a quick Google search on a vaccine that came into my mind, polio, to show that researchers do placebo studies on vaccines that have been developed. The study is certainly relevant since kids are vaccinated for polio today.

As for the "studies":

NEJM -- A Novel Influenza A (H1N1) Vaccine in Various Age Groups

"Serologic analysis was performed at baseline and on days 21 and 35."

That's a good start, but I want to know what the long-term health effects are.

They don't know what the long-term health effects are because they just developed the damn thing. They say it's equivalent to a regular flu shot. I think a lot of people who are ok with the regular flu shot still shy away from this one because they're not so sure it can be the equivalent.

So you can put "studies" in "quotes" if you want and decide it isn't actually a "study," although it fits the criteria you specified -- it's a placebo-group controlled study. The polio one is too old, and the H1N1 is too new, and I don't have the ambition to go looking for the Haemophilus influenzae type B placebo-group studies, which you can find if you actually are interested.

The only interest I had here was pointing out that placebo-controlled studies are indeed performed on vaccines, after you flat-out stated that has NEVER happened. The extreme views on this subject go in both directions.

Q & A: Clinical Trials of 2009 H1N1 Influenza Vaccines Conducted by the NIAID-Supported Vaccine and Treatment Evaluation Units

These clinical trials are interesting, but are they the equivalent to the sort of testing that drugs have to undergo in order to be approved for sale?

H1N1 vaccine -- no. How can it be? They have obviously decided that the rate of serious side effects will be relatively rare, because the vaccine probably is extremely similar to other flu shots. And they are working on the assumption that the rate of serious side effects will be enormously low compared to the rate of serious life-threatening complications resulting from H1N1 infection.

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by liamona

Besides the recurring chronic common cold don't forget the asthma, eczema, allergies etc. etc., never mind the autism, ADD and other weird behavioral issues.

The kind of things that were practically non-existent when I was a kid in the 70s.

Then why do you link them to vaccinations, when kids were vaccinated throughout the 1960s?

The CDC points out that the rate of autism among vaccinated kids is no higher than the rate of autism among non-vaccinated kids. The anti-vaccine camp points out the increased rate of autism since vaccinations have become routine. Does the anti-vaccine group look at other things that have changed since the 1960s?

Do food dyes affect kids' behavior? - Los Angeles Times

[liamona]

Originally Posted by moonrambler

The only interest I had here was pointing out that placebo-controlled studies are indeed performed on vaccines, after you flat-out stated that has NEVER happened.

I think the only interest you have is proving me wrong in some way, and since you have, I hope you feel happy and successful about it. LOL.

However, it is still true, isn't it, that the regular sort of drug test and trial isn't done on every single vaccine that is developed and put on the market.

Speaking of polio, has anyone else read researcher Janine Roberts' books or articles? She has some interesting ones:

Trouble with poliovirus

The start of the hunt for the polio vaccine Virus

WHO hides the continuing polio epidemic

I have been told again and again by health authorities that the polio vaccine is a marvellous lifesaver - and I had accepted this on trust. As no one I knew doubted this, I had no reason to question it. I knew however that it is easy to invent history. If a false history is repeated often enough, the chances are that people will believe it. It is simply a matter of most of us not having time to check all the facts for ourselves.


But - now I knew of the possibility that pesticides might cause polio, I had a very clear question to answer. There were no great American polio epidemics after 1956. What stopped them: the withdrawal of the pesticides - or the introduction of the vaccine?


Most modern histories of the polio vaccine say its launch went smoothly - although many mention a brief hiccup early on called the ‘Cutter Incident,' describing this as a simple error that was quickly rectified. But what I learnt from reading contemporary newspapers and medical reports was very different.


I found the triumph and relief accompanying the launch of the Salk vaccine was extremely short-lived. A medical historian of the time, Dr. M. Beddow Baily, reported: ‘Only 13 days after the vaccine had been acclaimed by the whole of the US press and radio as one of the greatest medical discoveries of the century, and 2 days after the British ministry of health had announced it would go right ahead with the manufacture of the vaccine, came the first news of disaster. Children inoculated with one brand of the vaccine [the Cutter] had developed poliomyelitis. In the following days more and more cases were reported, some of them after inoculation with other brands.'

Within two weeks nearly 200 vaccinated children had gone down with polio. This produced near panic in the White House. It was not yet summer. Polio normally did not strike at this time. President Eisenhower had publicly endorsed this vaccine - and did not want any failures on his watch. US Health Secretary Oveta Hobby thus went to see the Surgeon General to sternly say the president needed to be spared further embarrassment!


Within days, on 8 May 1955, the Surgeon General suspended the entire US production of the vaccine and called for emergency meetings with Salk and the manufacturers. They then agreed that these cases were caused by polioviruses surviving the formaldehyde poisoning by being inside ‘lumps in the vaccine'. The manufacturers agreed to stir their vaccine better, the public were told they had no further need to worry, and the distribution of the vaccine resumed after only a five-day break.


However this was not the end of the trouble. It was now reported by the media that the vaccine still seemed to be causing a polio epidemic rather than preventing it.

In Boston during the next 4 months, more than 2,000 of the vaccinated went down with polio - yet in the previous year there were only 273 cases. The number of cases doubled in vaccinated New York State and Connecticut, and tripled in Vermont. There was a five-fold increase in polio in vaccinated Rhode Island and Wisconsin. Many children were paralyzed in the vaccine-injected arm.

I hadn't heard about the Cutter Incident until I read this excerpt from Roberts' book.

Here's some more information from Wikipedia:

Cutter Laboratories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Cutter incident

In 1955 Cutter Laboratories was one of several companies licensed by the United States government to produce Salk polio vaccine. In what came to be known as the Cutter Incident, a production error caused some lots of the Cutter vaccine to be tainted with live polio virus.


The Cutter incident was one of the worst pharmaceutical disasters in U.S. history and caused several thousand children to be exposed to live polio virus upon vaccination.[1]

Numbers affected

The mistake resulted in the production of 120,000 doses of polio vaccine that contained live polio virus. Of the children who received the vaccine 40,000 developed abortive poliomyelitis (a form of the disease that does not involve the central nervous system), 56 developed paralytic poliomyelitis and of these 5 children died as a result of polio infection.[2]

Other incidents

In the 1980s Cutter Laboratories produced unsafe blood products to treat hemophilia. The pharmaceutical product, which was produced from blood given by donors all across the US, was contaminated with HIV. These problems were the subject of lawsuits over the next twenty years.[3]

I wonder what fresh Cutter-type incident is in the works today? I'm glad I don't have to worry about it.

[gigij]

Originally Posted by liamona

What's odd is for you to propose such a scenario in the U.S., when you harp on how there's no one dying from the diseases because of all the vaccine jabs they get.

I'm not actually in the U.S - but OK. And I'm not harping on anything. Just seems to me that it's easy to make the decision not to vaccinate after mass vaccinations have pretty much eliminated the need for it. And I'm not proposing that scenario. I am saying historically many children died from vaccine preventable illness in the pre-vaccine days. That's a fact and you can argue with me until your blue in the face and it won't change it. And under those circumstances parents would jump at the chance to have their children vaccinated, and they did, and now you don't have to. Get it?

You seem pretty defensive about it btw - seems your the one harping ...

I do apologize for assuming on your whereabouts though - for some reason I assumed you were in a country where vaccines were routine - don't know why. (Maybe cause you were commenting on vaccine issues.) Obviously my comments apply to those places - don't know where you are or what the health care circumstances are.