Childhood Vaccinations – Necessary or Overkill?

Personally I'd trust the scientific and medical establishment with its system of checks and balances, stringent oversight and peer review in numerous journals over a website which looks like it was put together with lynx and has a very obvious axe to grind.An argument where your 'strictly science or tangible evidence' amounts in large part to web links to a source which is secondary at best seems to be exactly equivalent to a creationist coming here and posting 10 different links to the arguments they liked best at Answers in Genesis.Just to address one specific claim. The Urabe strain of mumps vaccine used in one of the earlier forms of MMR did produce incidents of aseptic meningitis(AM), but the rate of AM is lower than in the case of mumps infection (Bonnet et al., 2006). It is a side effect of being a form of mumps, not of being a vaccine.TTFN,WK

I'm not sure that people pointing out the hypocrisy of calling for scientific or tangible evidence and then providing absolutely no such standard in your own initial critique should really be considered apologetics. As yet you haven't presented any science to debate just a scattershot of claims backed up by at best secondary sources. And? There are issue in any developing technology including medical technology. We could all stop now and go back to the dark ages but why bother when the homeopaths have that covered. No, like I said its a problem of giving people the mumps even in a highly atenuated form. It isn't the fact its a vaccine that is the problem it is the fact that its the mumps!! There is work on safer mumps vaccines but nature doesn't seem to be working so hard on producing a kindler gentler mumps whatever your sources say.Up to 10% of people who get mumps can develop aseptic meningitis (Glazka et al., 1999), compare this to the 1:10,000 incidence rate as a side effect of innoculation with the urabe strain vaccine, thats 1:10 compared to 1:10,000. Even comparing it with the extreme outlying 1:4,000 chance which would you rather take?Care to tell us where the science is backing the claim that mumps is beneficial? I can see an orphaned reference to a paper from the sixties which sadly I would have to go to the university library to find (West, 1966), did medical science stop then? Oh, no it seems that there have been a number of subsequent studies which failed to support a protective effect (Golan et al., 1979) and some which suggest that mumps could in fact be a risk factor (Menczer et al. 1979; Cramer and Welch, 1983; Chen et al., 1992). And being withdrawn from use when strains with lesser side effects became available wasn't addressing this in some way.*On revisiting the site I noticed references to other regions where the Urabe strain was used subsequent to its being withdrawn from use in the UK. There is a paper studying the mass immunisation in San Salvador which covers the Brazilian governments reasons for preferring a MMR using the Urabe strain despite the risk levels for aseptic meningitis (Dourado et al., 2000). The level observed in the San Salvador mass immunisation was lower than the previous figures reported, being only 1:14,000.The real question is why do your sources whitewash the diseases and neglect to mention the incidence of aseptic meningitis as a result of the mumps infection they are encouraging parents to get their children to have while wailing an nashing their teeth over the miniscule comparative risk of the same infection from a vaccination? Not to mention peddling the idea of a cancer protective effect which doesn't seem to have had any scientific traction for 30 years.As an interesting aside there is some current research into using mumps and measles vaccines as agents to treat ovarian cancer (Myers et al., 2005).TTFN,WKEdited by Wounded King, : Added informatin from San Salvador study

No, I am working with second hand information because I am reading the actual research. You are working with third hand information at best and in the vast majority of cases possibly fourth hand at best, i.e. quotes from doctors about work which may or may not be their own such as that on ovarian cancer.What I talked about was that you were working from at best a secondary source as opposed to the actual published research which is a primary source.What you are doing is exactly what the creationists do. Posting multiple 'arguments' by link which may or may not actually have any scientific standing and then when I provide a rebuttal to a point with several references to the primary literature you say that that wasn't the point at all and provide yet another argument by link on a totally different point. How am I supposed to know what you think you are addressing when you argue by link instead of actually making a case? If your links aren't actually what you are addressing but are all you provide then what exactly is there to rebut? Your feelings are irrelevant to the scientific evidence. There is a lot of research done on vaccines the fact that you feel that there aren't any good answers counts for nothing if the only place you went looking for them was on anti-vaccination sites on the web. If the points and links at quackwathc did not convinve you then why not? What made you decide they had no more credibility than the anti-vaccination sites? It didn't cause another medical problem it caused the same medical problem intrinsically associated with the mumps virus, which is what the attenuated strain used in the vaccination still is. It certainly is a ridiculous example if you want to argue that the future problems for some children are likely to outweigh the future problems associated with actually contracting the disease.It isn't a question of perfecting vaccination it is a question of the balance of risk and by going for information to sites which blatantly ignore one entire side of that balancing equation you are making yourself incapable of assessing those risks.Just answer my question, would you prefer a vaccination with a 1:4,000 chance of inducing aseptic meningitis or to contract mumps and have a 1:10 chance of AM? That doesn't mean that any question that any layman asks is a reasonable basis for research.Do you actually want a debate using 'strictly science or tangible evidence' or are you are just going to keep posting propaganda and position statements from anti-vaccine websites?You asked earlier who should you trust? In fact that was the only question in your OP the rest being links which apparently weren't part of the debate and which you didn't want addressed. Do you really think you should trust people who will shriek about a 1:10,000 incidence of a problem associated with a vaccine while encouraging you to subject your children to a 1:10 risk of the same problem as a result of contracting mumps?Why not trust the body of work produce by people actually doing research rather than a collection of anecdotal evidence. That body of work shows overwhelmingly that there is no significant link between MMR and autism nor between thimerosal and autism. It may be that there are very rare genetic backgrounds in which thimerosal could induce developmental abnormalities but if they are so rare as to be undectectable statistically then I'm not sure how you propose to identify them in the first place.You parley a study on a genetic backgorund on susceptibility in mice into 'evidence that some may be genetically susceptible' for humans, which it isn't neccessarily. It shows there is a possibility that genetic backgrounds can make a difference but there is no evidence that there are human genetic backgrounds that do so. You then demand research be done to spot that 'susceptibility'. What susceptibility? A susceptibility that may or may not exist in humans but is not presented at a significant enough level in the population to actually allow it to be identified?How exactly do you imagine we can reliably identify such susceptibilities if they did exist other than by subjecting more children to the factors which are putatively damaging? Should we do a full genomic sequence for every child whose parent thinks their autism may be due to vaccination in the hopes that something will jump out at us? That is a good suggestion but I'm not sure it would work, I suppose it depends on what resolution of MRI was needed to identify and measure the relevant structures sufficiently accurately. The other problem is that this could only provide proof one way, that there was a specific pre-existing developmental abnormality. A negative result wouldn't implicate vaccination or even rule out a milder neurological effect. The features described in the Sci Am article definitely seem to be at the extreme end of the autistic spectrum. I agree but I happen to think that parents would be better served basing their judgements on scientific research rather than emotional anecdotal appeals and lies. I personally think vaccination uptake should be as close to 100% as it can be but I don't think people should be forced to have their children vaccinated. People should however be as aware of the risks inherent in opting out of vaccination as of those of opting in.TTFN,WK

This is certainly true. The natural way to keep the population down is to have a huge proportion of them die. Personally I'm all for avoiding that.TTFN,WK

I could suggest a possible reaon why castor oil could lead to an increase in T-cell count. A very low level of ricin contamination during the production process.Ricin is massively toxic in even moderate quantities but research suggests that even minute quantities can evoke a proliferative response in the t-cells, possibly even down to the picogram level.I know that the extraction process seperates the Ricin from the oil but there still seem to be some potential for a trace level of contamination.The main other problem with this is how the ricin would cross tansdermally, since it isn't fat soluble, I suppose if it was small enough it could be trafficked by something like a liposome.Totally made up explanation, all my own fault, shoot me now.This is what happens when addressing things outside one's area of expertise.TTFN,WK

Generally this would be done by looking at the published literature. If you look at Barrett's criticism of Pauling then what flaws do you see in it? He frequently references a number of studies which clearly contradict many of Pauling's claims for the efficacy of Vitamin C. If there is a comparable body of research supporting Pauling's claims then why not tell us where to find it?If there isn't a comparable body of research then we would have a good indication which MD was 'more correct'.This doesn't need to be a game of 'he said, she said' all you need to do is look and see what the actual scientific research shows, it may show that the question is still an open one or it may not.TTFN,WK

I assume what you mean is 'when I derail don't follow me', since my post directly addresses the post I was replying to. If discussing Linus Pauling is such a derail then why do it? Pointing to an area in which Barrett has a substantial body of literature to support his position is hardly a good way of emphasising your argument of him only using his own book as a reference.TTFN,WK

There is an extensive review of nutritional regulatory laws on the Harvard LEDA repository. One paper there, 'An Examination of the History and Current Regulatory Status of Dietary Supplements and Their Label Claims', references a paper by William Skinner in the Journal of Pharmacy and Law. So this isn't simply a claim that Barrett has made up.*ABE* Here is another source, a NY times article, which describes the lobbying efforts to represent the FDA as trying to restrict access to suplements. The article starts ... It mentions an advertisment produced by a lobbying group showing Mel Gibson being arrested for posession of vitamin C.And one of the lobbyist sets out their future roadmap ... So instead of dishonestly claiming that regulation is equivalent to criminalisation they switch to claiming that lying about your product is simply the exercise of free speech.*ABE*TTFN,WKEdited by Wounded King, : Added link to NY times article

See how good I am, I posted the information before you even asked me to. Just because Pauling had a couple of nobel's doesn't necessarily mean he couldn't be an unscientific quack when it came to Vitamin C and certainly doesn't mean he can't be wrong. I'm not saying that Pauling was wrong or that Vitamin C can't be beneficial, just that his having won the nobel doesn't prove that he is right.TTFN,WK

Why are you pissing and moaning about that specific reference if the claim that that reference supports is entirely irrelevant to your argument?Never mind testing avoidance what about your own point avoidance. If all of these things are unconnected to the argument why have you kept bringing them up?If the Supplements industry doesn't want to avoid strict regulation then why does it lobby so fervently to do just that? Why weren't they perfectly happy for their 3 year exemption to lapse and to adhere to the same strictures as food manufacturers that in order to make a health claim, the FDA requires "significant scientific agreement."What is the point of lobbying to be able to make unsubstantiated health claims other than the desire to be able to make such claims without sufficient testing to back them up?Given that the reason they used to mobilise consumers was specious what was their real motivation in your opinion?TTFN,WK

So even the producers who agree 'in principle' want to make claims which the FDA would consider to be lacking "significant scientific agreement".In what way is this not wishing to avoid testing to the standards required by the FDA to establish "significant scientific agreement"?It isn't even a question of not being classified as a drug, they don't even want their supplements classified as food. The standards they don't want to have to adhere to aren't those of a radical new drug therapy, they are those of a box of bran flakes. If bran flakes claims that they can make you more regular as part of a balanced diet then they need to have the same degree of "significant scientific agreement" which the supplement manufacturers do not wish to be held to.This isn't about being required to provide the level of evidence needed for a new cancer drug, just the level of evidence needed for a new breakfast cereal. Of course the more wild and outlandish the claims made the more work may be needed to get even that level of "significant scientific agreement".TTFN,WK

And would you agree that one of those problems was that they considered the FDA's standards of support for health claims too stringent?TTFN,WKEdited by Wounded King, : No reason given.

I think the word you were looking for in that case was, 'yes'. Unless you are drawing some peculiar distinction between stringent and restrictive Oh yes, you've totally convinced me now. The manufacturers don't want to avoid doing testing to demonstrate the efficacy or safety of their product. They just want the entire burden of proof to be on the FDA and to obviate themselves from having to provide any evidence to support their claims.Are you even reading what you are typing anymore? Your last couple of posts just seem to be agreeing with the points Schraf and I have been making all along, that these companies want to avoid complying with the same standards of evidence for efficacy that every other type of product making similar health claims does. So why you still act as if these manufacturers are a model of concern for the wellbeing and informed status of their consumers, I mean apart from the way they lie about the implications of proposed legislation which obviously just confirms their good character.TTFN,WK

Do you have some evidence to back that up?The point isn't that the safety of the supplements is in question but rather the efficacy of their health claims. The safety issue is a minor one in terms of why the industry doesn't want to be regulated. Their concern is not for being held to a too stingent standard of safety of consumption but of being held to a too stringent standard with regards to the health claims they make, the same standard to which food is held.What you are addressing is the sort of strawman spectre the industry used to push through the original DSHEA legislation, that of supplements being driven out of the market place by ludicrous safety standards equivalent to an experimental new drug therapy.As I pointed out previously that wasn't the standard they were going to be held to, it is a wholly specious argument.TTFN,WK

Read what I have actually posted previously and then reply. If you can still make this ludicrous claim then you obviously have missed about 3 of my posts which quite clearly point out that the standards they were to be held to were those for food not those for drugs. How can you still not understand this?Can you show me what source you have that says they were to be regulated as drugs rather than food?TTFN,WK