0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Certainly not all vaccines are the same.Vaccines are given for a variety of reasons including prevention of death and dibilitation, as well as preventing the inconvenience of illness itself. With many families having two working parents, the effects of illness and loss of school or work should not be underestimated. There have been a few resounding successes with vaccinations including the global elimination of Small Pox, and virtual eradication of Polio.That doesn't mean that all vaccines fall under the same categories as Small Pox and Polio. However, perhaps they shouldn't be lumped together either.According to the CDC, there is no link between SIDS and Vaccines. Even so, it has to be kept in perspective. Mumps, for example, has a mortality rate of 1 to 2%, Measels, about 0.3%, SIDS, about 0.6%. If a small portion of the SIDS deaths are related to vaccines, say 10%, that would reduce the prevalence to 0.06%, and thus the risk of vaccine associated SIDS would be much lower than the combined risk of no vaccines.Of course, there is the issue of "herd immunity". As more individuals are vaccinated, the prevalence of the disease in the population decreases, and thus, also the likelihood of morbidity/mortality for the unvaccinated from the disease also decreases. If nobody would be vaccinated, the prevalence would likely increase again.Some diseases such as chickenpox get to be more serious if contacted as an adult, and morbidity due to shingles caused by the same virus should not be underestimated. Rubella has low morbidity/mortality for all, but one population group, unborn fetuses. While technically one would only need to vaccinate teenage girls for the disease, by vaccinating all young children, the prevalence of the disease in the population can be reduced, and thus also reduce the risk to the unborn children.HPV is also a unique vaccine. The risk of transmission would be low for young children, so it is not recommended until age 11. While there is some morbidity from the disease, the main risk is a longterm cancer risk in women. Initially the vaccine was only offered to girls, but it is now recommended for both boys and girls. If the campaign is successful, potentially the number of PAP smears could be reduced, saving millions or billions of dollars per year, and, of course, reducing cancer and cancer treatments.Flu Shots?This may be one of the "optional" vaccines. They have to be repeated every year as strains of the flu change. While there are some high risk populations (very young children, and elderly), the majority of the population chooses the vaccine to reduce morbidity. It is not pleasant to be sick with the flu. One could certainly make an argument that the vaccine isn't necessary, but like other vaccines, the more people that are regularly vaccinated, the lower the prevalence of the disease is in the population. And, perhaps even a lower mutation rate for the disease. Of course, the flu vaccine doesn't prevent the common cold. I don't think anybody knows whether the immune system becomes stronger due to occasionally catching the full blown flu, vs periodic exposure to flu antigens from the vaccine.Anyway, the benefits of the MMR and DPT vaccines and reduction from disease risk far outweigh any potential vaccine associated risks.
This topic was moved out of QOTW because all discussions under QOTW are staff selected, and presented on the radio/podcasts. One thing I would mention about your links above is that it is very dangerous to combine and make cross comparisons between data collected in 2 different studies, using different data collection and analysis methods, and collected from different countries, with different socio-economic status, different urban/rural mix, and etc.
2) So you are saying the results are invalid because it is TWO different studies.now suppose you pretended one of the above 2 studies never was seen by you.Would the Result: "the death rate in vaccinated children against diphtheria, tetanus and whooping cough is twice as high as the unvaccinated children (10.5% versus 4.7%)" be approved by you?
The results of our survey with currently 11789 participants show that unvaccinated children are far less affected by common diseases than vaccinated children.[...]The prevalence of asthma among unvaccinated children in our study is around 2.5%, hayfever 3% and neurodermatitis 7%.
A recent German study with 17461 children between 0-17 years of age (KIGGS) showed that 4.7% of these children suffer from asthma, 10.7% of these children from hayfever and 13.2% from neurodermatitis. These numbers differ in western countries, i.e. the prevalence of asthma among children in the US is 6% whereas it is 14-16% in Australia (Australia’s Health 2004, AIHW)
you sound like an apologist for Big Business.you argument about theft sounds disingenuous at best. hey folks just saw this paper about wonder cancer drugs for rats.let's copy it.never mind it takes 2 years and 200 k to replicate the study.
Perhaps with internet publishing, more "negative" studies will get published in the near future. Keep in mind that studies are usually published with a 90% or 95% confidence interval. An 80% confidence interval doesn't necessarily mean that the phenomenon doesn't exist. It may in fact indicate a "trend" that just it isn't "statistically significant" with the trial size. And, usually the more marginal "trends" won't get published. The researcher may choose to increase the sample size, or use other methods to try to get data that can be published. Or, the trial may just become part of an unpublished pool.Publishing "trends" that aren't statistically significant may be more confusing to the readers of a study than it is worth.If there truly is no difference between the control and experimental group, that may in fact be worth publishing, but depending on the sample design and methods, the null result could also be due to some other experimental error.I worked one summer on a study injecting a modified adenovirus into the external carotid artery in rats. When we terminated the study, we couldn't find any evidence that the virus had made it into the brain. Heck, I don't know. It could have been too much time elapsed between injection and histology. Or, perhaps I either killed the viruses, or they weren't active enough at the time of the injection.Anyway, the null result would not have necessarily been indicative of a bad scientific basis of the study, but merely that the procedure needed revised, perhaps even something minor.And, of course, in the competitive scientific world, a lab may choose not to publish incomplete methods that might be stolen by another lab before the error is corrected and the study is completed.