What are good, scientific sources about human vaccines ?

[koti]

I appologize if I put this is in the wrong section.

 

We got a 5 month old, we did 3 out of 4 dosages of a 5 in 1 "Pentaxim" vaccine which is mandatory here. 4th and last dosage will be at 18 months. Up untill now fortunately - zero side effects appart from a very slight temperature increase but this is negligible.
I've been all over the internet looking for legitimate information on vaccinations but there is so much missinformation that it's easy to go nuts. Some of my friends who have children, already went from taking a scientific stance to full nuts due to the crap that is outthere.

I'm looking for websites based on scientific sources and scientific opinions based on studies.

 

 

[StringJunky]

I don't know where you reside but on the UK's NHS site an article, made by Public Health England, has this to say:

 

 

As soon as babies are born they come into contact with a huge number of different bacteria and viruses every day and by the first week of life, the child's skin, nose, throat and intestines are covered with tens of thousands of different bacteria. The baby's immune system copes very well with thousands and thousands of bacteria and viruses. The bacteria and viruses contained in vaccines are weakened or killed. Vaccines help a child's immune system fight diseases when they come into contact with them. The vaccines that a baby has in the first year of life are a tiny number compared to the thousands of wild bacteria and viruses it will meet at the same time. Scientific study has shown that the vaccines we use do not weaken a child's system. If a child was given 11 vaccines at one time, it would only use a thousandth, 0.1%, of the immune system.

A 5-in-1 vaccine is not half that.

 

The main thing is though that those that are ill at the same time as given a vaccine could have been ill anyway without it; the very small % of adverse events recorded fall within the boundary of them being pure coincidence. You have to bear in mind there are many millions of these vaccines given every year (10 million in the US alone), so it's not hard to see that at least some children will fall ill at the same time as having it. The odds are relatively high, especially the really young ones, of falling ill independently because their immune systems are still adapting to their environment and threats not yet encountered by them or other adverse events they are uniquely predisposed to, genetically for example, that happen to be expressed at that time. What I've posted here is a distillation of past discussions on the subject on SFN - you might want to search.

Edited October 5, 2016 by StringJunky

[koti]

I don't know where you reside but on the UK's NHS site an article, made by Public Health England, has this to say:

Warsaw/Poland

 

A 5-in-1 vaccine is not half that.

Yep, I was aware of the facts you wrote that draw to this conclusion and I agree ofcourse.

 

The main thing is though that those that are ill at the same time as given a vaccine could have been ill anyway without it; the very small % of adverse events recorded fall within the boundary of them being pure coincidence. You have to bear in mind there are many millions of these vaccines given every year (10 million in the US alone), so it's not hard to see that at least some children will fall ill at the same time as having it. The odds are relatively high, especially the really young ones, of falling ill independently because their immune systems are still adapting to their environment and threats not yet encountered by them or other adverse events they are uniquely predisposed to, genetically for example, that happen to be expressed at that time. What I've posted here is a distillation of past discussions on the subject on SFN - you might want to search.

Thanks for the distillation, I will look for those threads.

The main gripe many people have with vaccines is that vaccines sometimes do not undergo the same, rigorous processes of testing that drugs do before being released. The legislation most probably varies for different countries on this but I assume (not sure about that) that the EU regulates this. I just found something which seems a good source of legitimate information:

http://vk.ovg.ox.ac.uk/

 

 

[StringJunky]

You are under European rules then which is what the UK is. The US is pretty much aligned as well in these areas.

 

Vaccine development and testing undergoes the same process and rigor as those for drugs:

 

Vaccine development cycle:

 

 

Development of New Vaccines

 

The general stages of the development cycle of a vaccine are:

Exploratory stage

Pre-clinical stage

Clinical development

Regulatory review and approval

Manufacturing

Quality control

Clinical development is a three-phase process. During Phase I, small groups of people receive the trial vaccine. In Phase II, the clinical study is expanded and vaccine is given to people who have characteristics (such as age and physical health) similar to those for whom the new vaccine is intended. In Phase III, the vaccine is given to thousands of people and tested for efficacy and safety.

Many vaccines undergo Phase IV formal, ongoing studies after the vaccine is approved and licensed.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/basics/test-approve.html

 

Drug development cycle:

 

The Drug Development Process

Step 1

Discovery and

DevelopmentDiscovery and Development

Research for a new drug begins in the laboratory.

More Information

Step 2

Preclinical ResearchPreclinical Research

Drugs undergo laboratory and animal testing to answer basic questions about safety.

More Information

Step 3

Clinical ResearchClinical Research

Drugs are tested on people to make sure they are safe and effective.

More Information

Step 4

FDA ReviewFDA Review

FDA review teams thoroughly examine all of the submitted data related to the drug or device and make a decision to approve or not to approve it.

More Information

Step 5

FDA Post-Market

Safety MonitoringFDA Post-Market Safety Monitoring

FDA monitors all drug and device safety once products are available for use by the public.

http://www.fda.gov/ForPatients/Approvals/Drugs/default.htm

European protocol is the same process. I think the disquiet lies in the fact that it is mainly children that receive vaccines and there's only so much information that can be garnered from animal testing models before they are tested on humans. With drug testing it involves lots of adults so there's less concern even though the problems are the same.

Edited October 5, 2016 by StringJunky

[koti]

Yep, I agree StringJunky. Especially on the psychological issue of the fact that vaccines tied to children health is a subject that goes ballistic very quickly.
I was thinking that maybe some biologist could give me me some inside info but I presume this has been mowed here a lot so I will do go look for those threads.

[iNow]

Here's the elevator version: Give your kid every vaccination your doctor suggests, and consider giving some even if they don't suggest them. Avoiding vaccines is 50-kiloton theromostupid despite your reasons for considering avoidance being a desire for your child to be safe and protected. It truly is that simple. End thread.

 

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/index.html

 

 

[StringJunky]

Yep, I agree StringJunky. Especially on the psychological issue of the fact that vaccines tied to children health is a subject that goes ballistic very quickly.

I was thinking that maybe some biologist could give me me some inside info but I presume this has been mowed here a lot so I will do go look for those threads.

Here's the background story that lead to this situation: How the vaccine crisis was meant to make money - BMJ article

 

Here's an SFN thread from 2014: Anti vaccer movement

[koti]

Here's the elevator version: Give your kid every vaccination your doctor suggests, and consider giving some even if they don't suggest them. Avoiding vaccines is 50-kiloton theromostupid despite your reasons for considering avoidance being a desire for your child to be safe and protected. It truly is that simple. End thread.

 

Thanks iNow, the elevator version is simple but spot on.

 

 

Here's an SFN thread from 2014: Anti vaccer movement

 

Thanks so much StringJunky for linking to that thread. I just went throgugh the whole thing and found all the sources I need.

Too bad for "too-open-minded" in that thread. When he started that thread he seemed to think straight and after a while...

 

[StringJunky]

Good. That thread covered a few areas of contention and illustrates how problematic it is.

[koti]

Good. That thread covered a few areas of contention and illustrates how problematic it is.

 

Since you mentioned "a few" I will bite. There's a core issue to this whole thing which I don't was adressed (or at least not adressed enough) in that thread.

People are emotional beings. I don't think one can expect for a person to behave rationally all the time because this just doesn't happen especially when dealing with issues like well being of our offspring. I wonder (it is certailny plausable) maybe that "too-open-minded" guy had to make a decision - bow to his wife's irrationality or risk a divorce. If you put that scenario into the equation of probability of his kid's well being then suddenly the equation of vaccinations being obviously the right way, stops being so obvious.

[John Cuthber]

 

I'm looking for websites based on scientific sources and scientific opinions based on studies.

 

 

 

Broadly, the answer to you question is

Here

http://www.cochrane.org/

[StringJunky]

 

Since you mentioned "a few" I will bite. There's a core issue to this whole thing which I don't was adressed (or at least not adressed enough) in that thread.

People are emotional beings. I don't think one can expect for a person to behave rationally all the time because this just doesn't happen especially when dealing with issues like well being of our offspring. I wonder (it is certailny plausable) maybe that "too-open-minded" guy had to make a decision - bow to his wife's irrationality or risk a divorce.

Yes, its possible because he wandered from a neutralish position to 'anti'. Something or someone caused that. The fact is, this is a science site and the overarching attitude is to go with the evidence.

 

 

If you put that scenario into the equation of probability of his kid's well being then suddenly the equation of vaccinations being obviously the right way, stops being so obvious.

Only if one chooses to ignore the evidence.

Broadly, the answer to you question is

Here

http://www.cochrane.org/

From there:

 

 

Using the combined vaccine for protection of children against measles, mumps and rubella

 

.....We could assess no significant association between MMR immunisation and the following conditions: autism, asthma, leukaemia, hay fever, type 1 diabetes, gait disturbance, Crohn's disease, demyelinating diseases, or bacterial or viral infections. The methodological quality of many of the included studies made it difficult to generalise their results.

 

http://www.cochrane.org/CD004407/ARI_using-combined-vaccine-protection-children-against-measles-mumps-and-rubella

All this is moot really when the root cause of the problem was down to the dubious motives and methods of Wakefield et al, of whom have been entirely discredited.

Edited October 6, 2016 by StringJunky

[Phi for All]

People are emotional beings. I don't think one can expect for a person to behave rationally all the time because this just doesn't happen especially when dealing with issues like well being of our offspring.

 

I think it's important to realize when being emotional is helpful and when it's not, the same as being rational. When your child's health is in question, and you're consulting a medical professional, your emotions are telling you something must be done. That's when you must let your rational brain take over. If your doctor is telling you to immunize, who would know better? Do you think people on the internet know better than this professional who is actually examining your child? Does your concern over anecdotal fears really override the professional judgement of this doctor you'd probably heed if it were about you, or your wife?

 

Ignorance breeds fear, and knowledge puts it in perspective. When we don't know, we fear everything. When we learn, we figure out what needs to be feared, and how to more appropriately apply our emotions. With our kids, we can't afford to be ignorant. We need to know when to be rational, and when standing over them protectively and growling at anything that comes near is appropriate.

[koti]

 

I think it's important to realize when being emotional is helpful and when it's not, the same as being rational. When your child's health is in question, and you're consulting a medical professional, your emotions are telling you something must be done. That's when you must let your rational brain take over. If your doctor is telling you to immunize, who would know better? Do you think people on the internet know better than this professional who is actually examining your child? Does your concern over anecdotal fears really override the professional judgement of this doctor you'd probably heed if it were about you, or your wife?

 

Ignorance breeds fear, and knowledge puts it in perspective. When we don't know, we fear everything. When we learn, we figure out what needs to be feared, and how to more appropriately apply our emotions. With our kids, we can't afford to be ignorant. We need to know when to be rational, and when standing over them protectively and growling at anything that comes near is appropriate.

 

I agree, well said. Too bad the world around us doesn't agree with you on so many occasions. I've personally spoken to an MD who was against vaccinations of any kind and promoted homeopathy. These kinds of encounters are a high risk for me, I haven't yet been but I fear that I might be charged with assault one day.

[Arete]

I have taken to telling anti-vaxxers that similarly, I have decided to no longer stop at red lights. I believe stopping at red lights is the root cause of cancer, and by not stopping at red lights I am promoting the health and safety of my family. My not stopping at red lights doesn't endanger anyone else, or prevent others from choosing to stop at red lights, so it's my right to choose not to stop.

Edited November 2, 2016 by Arete

[koti]

I have taken to telling anti-vaxxers that similarly, I have decided to no longer stop at red lights. I believe stopping at red lights is the root cause of cancer, and by not stopping at red lights I am promoting the health and safety of my family. My not stopping at red lights doesn't endanger anyone else, or prevent others from choosing to stop at red lights, so it's my right to choose not to stop.

I've found that similar analogies used by me in these situations do not resonate in an anticipated manner and bring me closer to a higher risk of assault charges. I've found that smaltalk and changing the subject (and the doctor) is a more beneficial solution for me and my family.

Edited November 2, 2016 by koti

[Phi for All]

I've personally spoken to an MD who was against vaccinations of any kind and because he promoted homeopathy.

 

FTFY. At one point, I was against carbon dioxide fire extinguishers because I promoted halon gas.

 

Vaccinations are a victim of modern media coverage that insists on making all issues look like two equal groups yelling at each other over a fence. It's the easiest news format to manage, it stimulates our curiosity for sensationalism, which keeps us reading/watching, which gives high ratings, which gives bigger profit for the media company.

 

Fear pushes people to listen to what-if instead of what-is. Knowledge dispels fear. You can learn for yourself, you can learn from your doctor, or you can do both. Or you can be afraid.

[koti]

 

FTFY. At one point, I was against carbon dioxide fire extinguishers because I promoted halon gas.

 

 

I assure you this wasn't the case. That pediatrician was a clear nutcase with a strong religious agenda to his rhetoric on top of things. He couldn't promote ice water to a dehydrated person in the middle of the desert but...he is an MD in the EU.

Let's assume you are right for a second and that was the case. There's a clear difference in the level of cynicism between owning say a production of halon gas fire extinguishers and as a result being against CO2 extinguishers and being an MD who took an oath to save lives being against the use of vaccines because he owns a homeopathic drug company. Although my tolerance threshold for cynicism and hypocrisy has risen over time/age/experience, I still can't get used to things like this. I will never learn I guess (I hope).

 

PS. Your view on fear I completely share (Yoda voice)

Edited November 2, 2016 by koti

[Phi for All]

I always think of the homeopathic doctors in terms of not doing harm simply because they don't do anything. Like the doctors who uses their "cold lasers" on the cyst on your foot, and when it eventually goes away on its own they declare they've healed you.

 

It is different when a doctor advises you against a protocol like vaccination. That's not doing no harm.

[John Cuthber]

"I always think of the homeopathic doctors in terms of not doing harm simply because they don't do anything."

I think of them in these terms

 

And they are doing harm by diverting resources from something more useful.

[Delta1212]

 

I assure you this wasn't the case. That pediatrician was a clear nutcase with a strong religious agenda to his rhetoric on top of things. He couldn't promote ice water to a dehydrated person in the middle of the desert but...he is an MD in the EU.

Let's assume you are right for a second and that was the case. There's a clear difference in the level of cynicism between owning say a production of halon gas fire extinguishers and as a result being against CO2 extinguishers and being an MD who took an oath to save lives being against the use of vaccines because he owns a homeopathic drug company. Although my tolerance threshold for cynicism and hypocrisy has risen over time/age/experience, I still can't get used to things like this. I will never learn I guess (I hope).

 

PS. Your view on fear I completely share (Yoda voice)

It doesn't have to be cynicism. It's very easy for people to convince themselves of things that, we're they not true, would cost them a lot of money.

 

It's less "I'll pretend this is true because my livelihood depends on other people believing it" and more "my livelihood depends on this being true so it must be true."

[koti]

"I always think of the homeopathic doctors in terms of not doing harm simply because they don't do anything."

I think of them in these terms

 

 

And they are doing harm by diverting resources from something more useful.

 

The clip is hilarious but I think Phi's point is still valid as homeopathy in vast majority of cases is not used to try to cure serious conditions (at least I hope it's not)

[John Cuthber]

The clip is hilarious but I think Phi's point is still valid as homeopathy in vast majority of cases is not used to try to cure serious conditions (at least I hope it's not)

Two problems; firstly, yes some idiots do try to use it to treat things that are serious and secondly, I'm a taxpayer and I don't want my money wasted on utter shit.

The set of circumstances where homeopathy is valid is the same as the set of circumstances where it works.

Both sets are empty.

The only good thing about it is the supply of jokes it provides

http://xkcd.com/765/

 

Incidentally, this has little or nothing to do with the OP's question

Edited November 2, 2016 by John Cuthber

[Delta1212]

As a tax payer, I would welcome my money being spent on homeopathy if it meant it was also being spent on healthcare in general.

[John Cuthber]

As a tax payer, I would welcome my money being spent on homeopathy if it meant it was also being spent on healthcare in general.

You can't spend the same money twice.