| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/26/2006 03:50:18 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by amber:
Like the Merck and Co and the Vioxx pain killer? |
Like the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. It’s not perfect, but “not perfect” is better than worthless. Trials and testing help to spot the benefits/risks/dangers and is vastly better than your run-of-the-mill quackery, pseudoscience and snake oil salesmen.
|
|
|
|
04/26/2006 03:59:18 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by amber:
Like the Merck and Co and the Vioxx pain killer? |
Like the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. It’s not perfect, but “not perfect” is better than worthless. Trials and testing help to spot the benefits/risks/dangers and is vastly better than your run-of-the-mill quackery, pseudoscience and snake oil salesmen. |
Like who? Who are the run-of- the mill quackery, pseudoscience and snake oil salesmen? In which court are they being sued for giving people heart attacks? And who mentionned the FDA??? Do you have shares in Merck? The FDA? Is it the equivalent to a baseball team? ( and yes I know full well what the FDA is) |
|
|
|
04/26/2006 04:08:41 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by amber:
Like who? Who are the run-of- the mill quackery, pseudoscience and snake oil salesmen? In which court are they being sued for giving people heart attacks? And who mentionned the FDA??? Do you have shares in Merck? The FDA? Is it the equivalent to a baseball team? ( and yes I know full well what the FDA is) |
Here’s a start at least - QuackWatch.
And, no, not that it’s any of your business, I don’t own any shares of Merck.
ETA: In the footsteps of DrAchoo: Full disclosure - I own under 100 shares of Abbott Laboratories - a 0.00000000002% owner.
Message edited by author 2006-04-26 16:17:28. |
|
|
|
04/26/2006 04:08:42 PM · #54 |
Wow, leave for an hour and the whole conversation changes. Bottom line take home message here for everybody reading:
1) Vaccines are the scientific achievement of the century.
2) Vaccines can have rare complications. It is no fun be the victim of these complications or a family member.
3) The benefit of vaccination greatly outweighs the risk.
I'm not about to get into the whole Vioxx argument. I'm no fan of big pharma either, although I do believe we have made strides (with the clinical trial registration requirement) to keep big pharma from failing to publish damaging studies.
EDIT: ooh, I see we need to disclose financial ties now. I own 124 shares of Pfizer. That makes me, um, a 0.00000000029% owner.
Message edited by author 2006-04-26 16:09:50. |
|
|
|
04/26/2006 04:30:18 PM · #55 |
I'm off to bed.. the 'have you shares in' was a rhetorical question...so thanks for the sarcastic remarks..much appreciated.
As for the vaccination stuff..do your own research or not, abolutely no skin off my nose. I have no monetary axe to grind. but ask yourself why children who have had boosters are getting mumps - seems contradictory doesn't it - like 'common sense'. Children immumised against mumps should not get mumps, no? So why are they getting mumps? Think about it. Then ask the experts what ingredients make up the vaccine...ask. |
|
|
|
04/26/2006 04:44:39 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by amber:
but ask yourself why children who have had boosters are getting mumps - seems contradictory doesn't it - like 'common sense'. Children immumised against mumps should not get mumps, no? So why are they getting mumps? Think about it. Then ask the experts what ingredients make up the vaccine...ask. |
I good place to start reading could be biology. Evolution â€Â¦ possibly a new strain of mumps not covered by current vaccinations, but more study is needed. Life is, after all, an evolutionary arms race.
|
|
|
|
04/26/2006 04:54:14 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by amber:
I'm off to bed.. the 'have you shares in' was a rhetorical question...so thanks for the sarcastic remarks..much appreciated.
As for the vaccination stuff..do your own research or not, abolutely no skin off my nose. I have no monetary axe to grind. but ask yourself why children who have had boosters are getting mumps - seems contradictory doesn't it - like 'common sense'. Children immumised against mumps should not get mumps, no? So why are they getting mumps? Think about it. Then ask the experts what ingredients make up the vaccine...ask. |
Children get the mumps still because it is only 90% effective. 90% effective is better than 0% effective.
The PDR lists the following ingredients for the Merck MMR vaccine:
Measles virus
mumps virus
rubella virus (I won't list the technical units on those)
sorbitol (14.5 mg)
sodium phosphate
sucrose (1.9 mg)
sodium chloride
hydrolyzed gelatin (14.5 mg) This is, BTW, what most allergic reactions are to. In MMR it is not egg.
human albumin (0.3 mg)
fetal bovine serum (< 1 ppm)
25 mcg of neomycin
This is a direct quote here "The product contains no preservative." So that means no thimerisol (mercury) or formaldahyde.
I'm not too concerned about any of those ingredients as they all exist in foods we eat with possible exception of the human albumin.
Message edited by author 2006-04-26 16:55:14. |
|
|
|
04/26/2006 11:42:19 PM · #58 |
MMR
Measles Mumps Rubella Live Viruse Vaccine
Merck & Co., Inc. 800-934-5556
Produced using sorbitol, neomycin, hydrolized gelatin.
Mediums: M&M - chick embryo.
Rubella - Human diploid cells (originating from human aborted fetal tissue).
The hydrolized gelatin - would be bovine? With BSE a risk, is that sane?
Message edited by author 2006-04-26 23:45:54. |
|
|
|
04/27/2006 12:59:32 AM · #59 |
Originally posted by amber:
MMR
Measles Mumps Rubella Live Viruse Vaccine
Merck & Co., Inc. 800-934-5556
Produced using sorbitol, neomycin, hydrolized gelatin.
Mediums: M&M - chick embryo.
Rubella - Human diploid cells (originating from human aborted fetal tissue).
The hydrolized gelatin - would be bovine? With BSE a risk, is that sane? |
Do you eat meat? Do you eat Jello?
Gelatin comes from bone, not brain. BSE come from brain, not bone. We're starting to scrape the barrel here for reasons to be scared. No mercury? dang, well, I can raise the spectre of BSE at least.
EDIT: Whoops, I missed a few foods there. If you fear gelatin, stay away from the following(according to wikipedia):
Common examples of foods that contain gelatin are gelatin desserts or jelly, trifles, aspic, marshmallows and confectioneries such as Peeps and gummy bears. Gelatin may be used as a stabilizer, thickener, or texturizer in foods such as ice cream, jams, yogurt, cream cheese, margarine; it is used, as well, in fat-reduced foods to simulate the mouth feel of fat and to create volume without adding calories.
Gelatin is used for the clarification of juices, such as apple juice, and of vinegar.
Message edited by author 2006-04-27 01:14:28. |
|
|
|
04/27/2006 06:47:46 AM · #60 |
Wow - had to leave yesterday and missed a great deal of VERY interesting discussion. Thank you DrAchoo and Amber and others for discussing the points I was concerned about and adding a great deal of information.
In England we are not allowed to have seperate jabs on the National Health system but if you pay and can find a doctor willing to give them, the jabs can be given in this way. The government is adamant that the MMR jab is safe and should be given to all children.The parents who are concerned and those who will not or cannot afford to pay, either go against their feelings and have the jab or do not have their children vaccinated at all. When single dose jabs are in some reports, supposed to result in fewer bad reactions, then I find this situation intolerable - finances seem to be a leading influence in this.
I think one of the problems that is paramount in this whole situation is that parents are naturally programmed to protect their child. The difficulty lies in a parent having to take their child to a doctor and asking for something to be injected into their child that may cause a serious problem. It is like personally putting your child in danger. If anything DOES go wrong and I agree the chances are small, the parent suffers the guilt. Unlike allowing your child to cross the road or try out a new sport, you are in complete control of the decision and the circumstances and that is the rub! Hence the difficulty in making the decision.
As an ex headteacher I have come across parents who have linked their child\'s autism, health problems and life changing experiences to the MMR. Their feelings are often \"if my child had caught mumps/measles/rubella and something happened then that would have been very bad luck and I could have coped. But I took my healthy baby to a doctor and asked him to do something that resulted in my child suffering. That is what I am living with.\"
As to trusting professionals - too many times we ( UK not necessarily US who I believe have a more stringent drug testing system) have been told something is safe only for this to be retracted at a later date when things go awry (thalidomide, BSE, recent drug tests). Hearing that Bird flu cannot be transmitted through the food chain was a case of deja vu! (No I am not going to stop eating chicken anymore than I stopped eating beef but the statement did cause a wry grin in our house!).
Out of interest, my dogs are jabbed each year. When one reacted badly after each jab ( sickness. off colour, lethargic) the vet tried splitting the jab and not giving her one annually but bi-annually. Her immunity was not altered ( he admitted that probably dogs did not need annual jabs but....) and she was more comfortable.
Sorry about this long thread, as usual I got carried away with my thoughts ( just thank heavens you can\'t hear me talk!!!!)
Pauline
|
|
|
|
04/27/2006 07:08:02 AM · #61 |
You summed it up perfectly Pauline;)
Dr...I was talking about vaccinations in general as regards the mercury. It is only recently that they've stopped using it..Why? It was safe for all those years in vaccines, but now it's not? In 30 years time is gelatin going to out the window too?
I will say again, I had my child immunised inspite of my reservations. I did as I was told. I told of my experience, but you seem to resent that...nothing I say or do will effect the decision another parent makes as regards immunising their child - I know, I've been in that position.
But calling parents who decide not to 'Kooks' is not really fair.
I'm done with this.
|
|
|
|
04/29/2006 08:14:06 PM · #62 |
I have seen a lot of evidence relating to the MMR claims in the UK. The case for it being linked to various illnesses and/or autism is extraordinarily weak, but sadly I cannot go into the details here.
|
|
|
|
04/29/2006 11:08:12 PM · #63 |
The link between Autism and MMR is bogus. In fact, the lead author who wrote the seminal journal article linking the two has recanted and says he believes there is no link now.
It's natural to see how the association could arise. MMR is given at one year of age which is the same time that kids normally begin to talk. Autism, being a primary problem with communication, often becomes apparent at this time because kids don't talk or communicate like their peers. One becomes linked to the other in parent's minds. |
|
|
|
05/04/2006 03:07:51 PM · #64 |
| Though I hate to drag this thread up again, I saw this today and found it apropos. Enjoy! |
|
|
|
05/07/2006 11:40:56 AM · #65 |
I'm not a doctor, but did study molecular bio, genetics, development, and the like in college on my way to an Aquatic Bio degree.
Question:
Viruses and bacteria are proven to mutate in response to changes in their environment. This is the same w/ all forms of life - we all mutate in order to adapt so we can continue to exist as a species. A new stimulus comes along - suppose it is a harmful one - and it kills off all but those w/ resistance to it. The resistant organisms are able to withstand it and able to propagate and send their DNA (also w/ resistance) to the next generation. Generation 2 then has the resistant organisms multiplying and thus strengthening the resistance more, and so on.
So, if we develop a vaccine that kills a particular illness, some of the illness survives and is able through successive generations to become stronger and thus resistant to the vaccine. . .???
I'm not of the camp that all vaccines are dangerous, but I do think there's a bit of overdoing it going on in the US these days. Have you seen all of the ads on TV for disinfectants? It's like we're not allowed to have our kids come in contact w/ any germs. What happens if we always sanitize their little world? They eventually turn into a generation of bubble-children, incapable of fighting ANY illness.
My kid is vaccinated, as am I. We're very healthy people, but we also eat well and get a lot of exercise and have good health and athleticism in our genes.
My wife grew up in a very poor village during a war and was never vaccinated against anything, despite being in an area w/ malaria, typhoid, dengue, and other very deadly illnesses. These days, she is the healthiest one of our family.
Why?
(note that I am not necessarily of an opinion opposite to what DrAchoo is expressing, I'm simply wanting to look at some additional information and dissect the subject logically to draw my own conclusions) |
|
|
|
05/07/2006 02:03:28 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by cycleboy:
So, if we develop a vaccine that kills a particular illness, some of the illness survives and is able through successive generations to become stronger and thus resistant to the vaccine. . .??? |
Yes and no. Viruses which mutate very quickly (e.g. HIV, influenza) are very difficult to come up with a vaccine for. Either they are ineffective (HIV) or they need to be changed each year to match the current strain (influenza). However, there are no examples that I'm aware of concerning the usual childhood vaccines where the virus becomes resistant and thus we are facing the same problem prevaccine but with a stronger virus.
Originally posted by cycleboy:
Have you seen all of the ads on TV for disinfectants? It's like we're not allowed to have our kids come in contact w/ any germs. What happens if we always sanitize their little world? They eventually turn into a generation of bubble-children, incapable of fighting ANY illness. |
You are confusing things a bit. There is evidence, but not proof (called the hygiene hypothesis) that our increasingly sanitized world has led to more allergy and asthma. This is a hot topic of research. There is ZERO evidence that a cleaner world leads to a weaker immune system. Our immune system does not work this way.
Originally posted by cycleboy:
My wife grew up in a very poor village during a war and was never vaccinated against anything, despite being in an area w/ malaria, typhoid, dengue, and other very deadly illnesses. These days, she is the healthiest one of our family.
Why? |
The answer is "who knows?". Your wife is an N of 1 and the body along with our environment is far too complex to be able to tell why she is the healthiest. It's also entirely possible she only seems to be the healthiest and recall bias has played a part in this impression.
|
|
|
|
05/07/2006 10:43:08 PM · #67 |
Having done some research in labs w/ this kind of stuff, I totally agree that there are way too many variables to determine whether my wife is healthier because of lack of medicine or something else.
I will say that she rarely gets sick and when she gets say a common cold, it lasts less than 2 days and is gone. For me, it is never less than a week. It just ain't fair I tell you! This is not a case of selective recall biasing my thoughts - I could document this difference.
I just tend to be someone who questions everything until I see proof myself. My grandfather was a doctor around here for over 40 years and had a lot of practices and ideals of an older generation when medicine was more about the people being treated than the dollars going to the insurance companies. He sometimes sent patients away with no prescription, arguing that "people want a pill for everything, but sometimes they are better off experiencing it and fighting it for themselves." He truly cared about and for his patients and did everything in his power to make them healthy people, even if it meant sometimes letting them sweat it out.
With regards to viruses that mutate slowly - do we know for certain we are not causing them to change through medicine or could it be that they are changing so slowly, we don't recognize it?
This is interesting conversation, I have not thought about my college studies in quite awhile since I am in a totally unrelated field.
Message edited by author 2006-05-07 22:44:00. |
|
|
|
05/07/2006 11:20:13 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by cycleboy:
With regards to viruses that mutate slowly - do we know for certain we are not causing them to change through medicine or could it be that they are changing so slowly, we don't recognize it?
|
Recall that viruses are very, very simple. Often then have only 9-12 genes. The mutations which make a virus more or less lethal or make a vaccine more or less effective are often on the genes responsible for outer shell proteins. These proteins act as the keys which allow access to various cells. The rest of the viral genome cannot handle mutations at the same rate as they are too often deleterious to the virus. The bottom line is we should be able to recognize a virus easily these days. Even the influlenza virus from 1919 is easily recognizable compared to the current influenza virus.
Message edited by author 2006-05-07 23:21:02. |
|
|
|
06/12/2006 06:16:36 AM · #69 |
The latest news...
//news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/health/5070670.stm
"The doctor who first suggested a link between the MMR vaccine and autism is to be charged with serious professional misconduct, it is reported.
...
a host of major studies has since failed to find any evidence of a link between MMR and autism.
...
However, the uptake rate for MMR - a triple jab which protects against measles, mumps and rubella - slumped in the wake of the controversy.
...
The number of measles cases has risen from 4,204 in 2003 to 56,390 in 2005"
|
|
|
|
06/12/2006 03:22:10 PM · #70 |
Only last week it was reported in the Telegraph that US scientists had found live measles strain in the bowels of autistic children - which could only have come from the MMR vaccine - duplicating the findings of the British experiments.
|
|
|
|
06/12/2006 03:28:58 PM · #71 |
| Why could it have only come from there? And is it found ONLY in autistic children? And is there any evidence that it caused the autism? |
|
|
|
06/12/2006 03:30:55 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by Riponlady:
Only last week it was reported in the Telegraph that US scientists had found live measles strain in the bowels of autistic children - which could only have come from the MMR vaccine - duplicating the findings of the British experiments. |
You are gonna have to find a citation for this for me. I smell some really bad science here... |
|
|
|
06/13/2006 01:43:46 PM · #73 |
Here is a link to the article in the Times
//www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-2201494,00.html
and from the Telegraph
//www.telegraph.co.uk/health/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=P8&xml=/health/2006/05/29/wmmr28.xml
and a couple of important quotes:
The research, which is being presented at the International Meeting for Autism Research in Montreal this week, has yet to be published in a scientific journal and subjected to peer review.
...
A recent analysis of 31 MMR studies by the Cochrane Library, one of the most authoritative sources of evidence-based medicine, showed no credible grounds for claims of serious harm.
Message edited by author 2006-06-13 13:44:40.
|
|
|
|
06/13/2006 04:48:07 PM · #74 |
Thanks for the links, Matthew. I've only just seen the new posts.
Mind you I think your quotes from the articles are not in context and I would prefer people to read ALL the report.
P
|
|
|
|
06/13/2006 04:59:19 PM · #75 |
Unpublished data, of course, needs to be taken with big grain of salt. All data, good or bad, is, of course, unpublished at one point, but tons of papers never make it past this point.
Although it may have been overlooked by the news articles, neither mentions a control group. Without such data, the paper is useless.
People present "abstracts" or mini-papers at scientific meetings all the time. Usually the acceptance criteria is fairly low with the good papers naturally separating themselves from the bad. An example is an abstract I saw at the national allergy meeting two years ago. It linked high IgE levels (the antibody responsible for allergies) with creative expression. The methodology was clearly put together by a 6-year-old and it was basically garbage; yet there it was for all to read.
The problem is, the general public and even the journalists reporting on such things don't understand the difference and take everything that comes down the pike as being on a level playing field.
|
|
