Frontline: The Vaccine War

[iNow]

Have a quick look into the history of aspartame, and you'll see a case of this.

 

Well, at least you're consistent. That, too, is irrelevant and unrelated to the argument you've presented.

[Double K]

Well, at least you're consistent. That, too, is irrelevant and unrelated to the argument you've presented.

 

You're consistent with your trolling also. I guess we have more in common than I thought.

 

But just for the record, I think you'll find that it addresses your complaint.

Aspartame was denied by the FDA for many many years, until one day the new head of the FDA decided to allow this substance into the market. The head of the FDA also happened to be the CEO of a company who made (surprise surprise) aspartame (nutrasweet). So as far as an "authority" bending the rules to pad their pockets regardless of data I think this demonstrates that it can and does happen.

Edited May 13, 2010 by Double K

[iNow]

So as far as an "authority" bending the rules to pad their pockets regardless of data I think this demonstrates that it can and does happen.

 

I never argued that it can't or does not happen. I stated that you have failed to demonstrate it did with vaccines.

Calling you out for unsupported arguments and poor logic [math]\ne[/math] trolling.

 

 

 

Until you can demonstrate that these enforcers gave false representations or let flawed results into the literature to pad their own bank accounts then you've got nothing but a bunch of well poisoning and insinuation. Sure, it's possible wrongs were done, but the possibility alone is not enough to negate the validity of the science demonstrating vaccines to be safe, effective, and also unrelated to autism and autistic spectrum disorders.

[Double K]

I never argued that it can't or does not happen. I stated that you have failed to demonstrate it did with vaccines.

Calling you out for unsupported arguments and poor logic [math]\ne[/math] trolling.

 

*yawn*

 

It is my understanding that some portion of this vaccine was untested.

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/28/2884576.htm

 

The Federal Government has been accused of making flawed decisions because of its overly "cosy" relationship with flu vaccine manufacturer CSL.

 

Health officials are investigating the death of a two-year-old Brisbane girl and more than 250 reports of adverse reactions among children who have received the seasonal flu vaccine, and Australia's chief medical officer has issued a warning to doctors to stop using the CSL shots on the under-fives.

 

http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/mr-yr10-dept-dept300410.htm

 

http://www.healthemergency.gov.au/internet/healthemergency/publishing.nsf/content/health-swine_influenza-index.htm

Health Authorities continue to put seasonal flu vaccine on hold for young children

 

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-04-28/csl-vaccine-probe-widens-in-australia-after-seizures-update2-.html

[iNow]

I advise you lookup the term red herring and then attempt to stop putting them into your posts.

[Double K]

I advise you lookup the term red herring and then attempt to stop putting them into your posts.

 

I'm answering your question, what exactly is your problem?

[CharonY]

Funny bit is that the conception of what scientists are or do in the eye of public appears to change depending on what one likes to be true. In case of vaccines all scientists (and hence the consensus) is getting paid off by the big industry, whereas in the case of global warming for some reasons the reverse is the case.

Apparently scientists are involved in dozens in global conspiracies that are backed/opposed to big money. Possibly both at the same time. And no one invited me

[ewmon]

Far too many people remember Thalidomide to take Pharmas word on "safety" at face value.

 

We do nothing perfectly, so we could say that today's drugs are "safer".

 

I see this debate as part of the larger mandatory "now-for-later" phenomenon. We will see it again when mandatory national healthcare insurance is instituted. We already see it now for other insurance ... pay a little now to avoid a possible catastrophe later. At some point we feel they're nickel-and-diming us to death ... we pay out so much for mandatory insurance that we have too little left for discretionary spending or for saving. So, with vaccines, take a very small risk now to avoid a catastrophe whose risk is debatable (seeing as how we've nearly eradicated the disease).

 

Remember too, that governments and pharmaceuticals seem to run on the "polio mentality". Less than 60 years ago, polio was the modern-day scourge of children, parents dreaded the summer months when the disease would strike, and folks rushed their children to get Salk's vaccine. "Splendid Solution" by Jeffrey Kluger is an excellent read. Also ...

 

 

 

[swansont]

And you don't see a conflict between this and trusting a scientist who is for immunisation and who has also personally made millions out of vaccinations?

 

I happen to agree with him that the fact he made money is irrelevent, but the conflict of interest is obvious.

 

That's a problem if the only advocate has a conflict of interest. But if the need for the vaccine was something that has been independently established, (e.g. by the NIH in the US) why would this be a problem?

[JohnB]

While I appreciate your point, it is sort of not relevant. Until you can demonstrate that these enforcers gave false representations or let flawed results into the literature to pad their own bank accounts then you've got nothing but a bunch of well poisoning and insinuation.

 

Since it has been shown that such things have happened in the past, it is only prudent to ensure that it doesn't happen again. It is not enough that things be above board, they must be seen to be above board, which was my point.

 

Someone in an "approval" capacity leaving the FDA and going to work for Pharma is of course going to engender questions. The person may have done nothing wrong, but to not ask the question is the height of folly.

 

It's not possible, because no study will be good enough for people who've already made up their mind (they already 'know' from their personal anecdotes and emotional appeals).

 

Of course they know. It's not anecdotes, it's their sons and daughters. Real people, with real problems. Until you understand that, you will not understand what they are asking.

 

"Something" happened to their children and they want to know what. So they ask "Was it this?", when told no they ask "Okay, then was it that?" This isn't shifting the goalposts, they are trying, rather imperfectly, for a process of elimination.

 

As I said in the earlier post, the timing of the onset of autism does coincide with the vaccination, but this appears to be a pure coincidence. However, do you really think that a parent dealing with the sudden illness of a child is going to listen to "Correlation is not causation"? Try treating them like caring parents and hurting human beings rather than opponents in a logical debate.

 

To a great degree, science tells us that everything has a cause. These parents are getting 1 of 3 answers.

1. Random chance.

2. We have no idea.

3. Act of God.

 

If it were your child, would you find any of those sufficient? Of course not.

 

They are frightened, and not a little bit angry that there isn't an answer. Almost by definition, they will not be logical. Stop castigating and deriding them because their concern for their children overrides their logical mind. I also wonder how many of those parents are blaming themselves? How would it feel to think that you are doing the best thing for your child, only to have it go horribly wrong? Could you forgive yourself?

 

Please note that the above refers only to the parents of autistic and otherwise severely handicapped children. It does not apply to those parents who choose not to vaccinate their children. While the arguments used by the two groups are often the same and they certainly support each other, they are two distinct groups. Remember that in the case of the autistic children, those parents chose to vaccinate their children. Don't lump them in with parents who refuse vaccination.

 

ewmon, I'll see your Polio and raise you a Thalidomide.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-G7UKLczVaU

 

Any reasonable person would have to ask "How was this missed?" The drug was given to pregnant women for the treatment of morning sickness and nobody noticed the deformed children during the tests?

 

Mate, I'm old enough to know the value of the Polio vaccine, kids wore the leg braces when I was a boy, I've seen it first hand. I've also seen the results of Thalidomide first hand. I've seen the immense benefits of vaccination (which reminds me, I'm due for a Tetenus booster). WRT the improvement of quality of life and life expectancy, I would put vaccinations as second only to clean drinking water and good sanitation. But I've also seen that just because numerous Health Authorities declare something as "Safe" doesn't mean that it actually is.

 

One thing that did occur to me while watching the program. Since the Danish records are so complete, many of the arguments might be solved by comparing the illness rates of children fully vaccinated with those who are not. If there is no difference in the rates, both the vaccines and the innoculation regimens would be exonerated. It would take a lot of wind out of sails.

 

That's a problem if the only advocate has a conflict of interest. But if the need for the vaccine was something that has been independently established, (e.g. by the NIH in the US) why would this be a problem?

You'll note that I said I agreed with him that it was irrelevent, however possible conflicts of interest should never be ignored. Like justice should not only be done, but be seen to be done, so financial interests should be seen to be acknowledged. I mean just that, nothing more, nothing less.

 

Just in case you missed it, I'll quote myself concerning immunisation and money;

I'll add that Oz began it's Gardasil immunisation program a couple years ago. We immunised all girls at High School and we will continue to do so. Each young woman will be immunised in their first year at High School from now on. It will cost us around $50 million a year to do so' date=' but we will have a nation where Cervical Cancer is going to join Polio, [i']in the history books[/i]. This is a Federal Government funded program that once we got past the initial "Gov is forcing us to do this" debate, is widely approved of.

 

We view this, like Universal HealthCare as simply another benefit of living in an advanced, civilised society. A national future without Cervical Cancer is worth a measly $50 million/year to us. Yes, "Big Pharma" will make a profit financially, but we make a societal profit, so we both win.

 

While I agree it would be a problem if the only advocate had a financial interest, in medicine this is generally not the case. The guy made a great vaccine, preventing much illness and made a quid out of it. Good on him.

[ewmon]

ewmon, I'll see your Polio and raise you a Thalidomide.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-G7UKLczVaU

 

Absolutely. And America's earlier sulfanilamide disaster enlightened us in time to prevent the thalidomide disaster here. America did not miss it.

 

I'm in biopharmaceuticals, and I'm all for Phase IV studies.

 

It concerns me that a drug may have dire consequences regarding the reproductive success of future generations as with DES (diethylstilbestrol). It might happen with a reproduction-specific drug such as Gardasil, but not necessarily. Ironically, Gardasil is basically lauded as essential to reproduction, but it could horribly backfire ... the stuff of disaster films. I'm always skeptical of wonder drugs.

 

Do animal trials consider the offspring born to the test subjects? It would be a less disastrous if a drug administered to the entire world caused everyone to produce a mentally deficient monoculture of offspring. So maybe it sets the world back to the Stone Age. But the ultimate disaster to me is a sterile monoculture, where there is no future for humans except for a handful who are artificially fertilized and gestated.

[JohnB]

It would be a less disastrous if a drug administered to the entire world caused everyone to produce a mentally deficient monoculture of offspring. So maybe it sets the world back to the Stone Age. But the ultimate disaster to me is a sterile monoculture, where there is no future for humans except for a handful who are artificially fertilized and gestated.

 

With your background, your nightmares must be doozys.

 

I found the sulfanilamide thing interesting. How could a chemist not know that adding a poison to something makes it poisonous? Joe Blogs would know that since you shouldn't drink anti-freeze, you shouldn't drink it no matter what was mixed into it. It seems a remarkable oversight. How could he not know the properties of the solution he is using?

 

In some ways, this is part of the debate on vaccinations. People look at the ingredients and then look up their local FDA equivalent to see what they say about the various substances included or used as fillers. It comes as a bit of a shock to find a number of the fillers are declared as "toxic".

 

Many have trouble understanding that one part of a Health Dept. is saying "Inject these into your children", while another part of the same Dept is saying "These substances are toxic". The vital difference is of course the concentrations, but if you think about it for a second, asking caring parents to have known toxic substances injected into their children is a big ask.

 

I know a number of parents who are "on the fence", so to speak. They acknowledge the benefits of vaccination, but are concerned about injecting known toxic substances into their children. The medical fraternity doesn't really help the situation by saying that "severe" side effects are rare. Rare or not, it is still an evident, avoidable danger from the parents POV.

 

It's all about weighing the risks, side effects v. getting the disease, etc., but when your childs health is at stake, it can be like asking to choose between two different versions of Russian Roulette. It's a small wonder that many are confused and worried.

[CharonY]

A nice cartoon regarding Wakefield (the guy who "found" a link between autism and vaccines): http://tallguywrites.livejournal.com/148012.html