Vaccine effectiveness

Merry - posted on 08/13/2012 ( 45 moms have responded )

9,274

169

263

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/0...
So from reading this article I gather that vaccines aren't very effective, and the testing done on them is minimal and seems inneffective.
This does not touch on vaccine related injuries, and yet I find it very supportive of the anti vaccine standpoint.
They admit the shots don't work as they claim they do, vaccinated kids are getting the disease more then unvaccinated ones, and the vaccines aren't doing the job they claim to do.
Does everyone still stand by their position that the CDC is to be trusted? Does this not make you slightly concerned about what other things they might not know before injecting these things into your infants and children?
Honestly my trust in the CDC is barely there at all.

MOST HELPFUL POSTS

Johnny - posted on 08/13/2012

8,686

26

322

Your first link is not working. "Page not found".

In my case, living in Canada, I pay little attantion to the CDC and more to my local health authorities who promote vaccination. Our system, being not for profit, makes me feel more comfortable that there are not "ulterior motives" or other such issues with their research. Medications and vaccinations approved for use in Canada must go through testing and monitoring on our own standards, and do not rely on the CDC. My aunt works for the BC Centre for Disease Control which is our local authority and I am very confident in her. She has nothing at all to gain by promoting products that don't work or are dangerous to her family.

Also, I've noticed that almost every other industrialized nation has a comprehensive vaccine program and employs it's own researchers and health authorities to test the efficacy and safety of those vaccines. It would have to be one rather ginormous conspiracy or scientific screw-up for multiple global agencies to all come up with the same supporting data.

And IMHO the "Natural News" website is full of unscientifically verified information and often promotes products and practices that are not backed up through any research or solid evidence, such as homeopathy. It's an exceedingly biased source.

So no, I feel confident continuing to vaccinate my children and myself.

Johnny - posted on 08/14/2012

8,686

26

322

My doctor gets paid the same if I come into the office, discuss the vaccination and leave without getting it done as he does if I come into the office, discuss the vaccination and get it done. The second takes more work and effort on his behalf and yet he still strongly encourages the practice and makes sure that vaccines are easily available to his patients.

My nephew gets paid the same as a biomedical researcher if his research supports vaccines as he does if his research suggests that they are ineffective. He is paid by Health Canada and the university, not a vaccine company. He would probably actually get published more and have more attention paid to his work by people looking for "controversy" if he claimed that vaccines were ineffective. Supportive research just doesn't excite the media. Yet he is a very strong proponent of vaccination, although he would also argue strongly that they can always and should always be subject to stringent testing and efforts to make improvements. His work on protein bacteria is actually designed to improve vaccinations.

My aunt who works for our local disease control agency does not benefit financially from vaccinations either. She gets paid the same wage regardless and the agency is funded by the provincial government through tax dollars.

As others have mentioned, sites like the Natural News have their own financial agenda. As do many of the vaccine researchers who have raised alarm bells in the past. Wakefield was reported to be developing and promoting a vaccine alternative when he published his MMR-Autism study. I do actually really understand the hesitancy of Americans to trust their authorities knowing full well that many are in conflicts of interest with big pharma or are even fully funded by vaccine manufacturers. But I would suggest looking beyond your doorstep to the global community where the system isn't quite so corrupt, and yet vaccines are still supported by most health agencies and health care providers.

I do think there needs to be improvements to vaccines. I've never met a person in the medical field who would disagree that virtually every aspect of medicine can improve and should be improved. That is really the very nature of the profession. Also, public health needs to do a better job reminding people to get boosters and making them aware of how long their vaccines are effective. I would have to guess that most people here assume they are vaccinated against pertussis despite not having had boosters since childhood. This is a failing of the public health campaign and also puts young babies and the immune comprimised at risk.

Minnie - posted on 08/16/2012

7,076

9

788

So she wasn't fully vaccinated at the time. Varicella has two rounds. 12 months and 4 years to build full immunity.



So, that goes back to my point to the OP, people saying that vaccinated children are coming down with these infections, that it's evidence that vaccinations aren't effective. I suspect that these groups of infected 'vaccinated' children aren't -fully- vaccinated.



Of course they're not 100% effective. Acquiring chicken pox naturally isn't 100% effective either. But I'd say that vaccinations are sufficiently effective. :)

**Jackie** - posted on 08/15/2012

953

1

18

I haven't read any posts yet but I just wanted to share my experience. My daughter got her chicken pox vaccine at 12 months. At around 18ish months she went to a toddler's birthday party and it was packed with kids. One mother brought her child who seemed to have red bumps all over her face and neck area. She didn't seem to mind at all that her child was itching them and touching everything. I was concerned but my husband kept reminding me that our daughter got the vaccine. We left shortly after that because it didn't sit right with me and I had been told that no vaccine is 100% effective.



So about 5ish days later my daughter woke up with tiny bumps on her face and a few on her belly. None on her hands or feet and the bumps that she did have were so small they looked like bug bites but they weren't really itching her and she didn't seem to mess with them. I took her right over to the doctor and she told me that since Makenna had the vaccine that her chicken pox are very very mild. They went away within about 6 days.



So, I will definitely get the vaccine for my next child even though it's not 100% effective. I'm so glad she got through chicken pox without having an awful time :)

Jodi - posted on 08/15/2012

3,562

36

3907

" I would say that I am not convinced other countries do large scale research before allowing a vax. If the drugs come out of the USA and are tested there (and the CDC is a well respected institution amongst the medical world, despite my concerns with it) I doubt they go through oodles of testing in Canada or Australia before being allowed."



Actually, they do, and quite frequently, they will not approve a drug that has been tested and used in the US because their own testing says otherwise. How fucking arrogant does the US want to get? Sorry, but to suggest that other countries approve things just because the CDC says so is arrogance at its best. The fact is, they don't. They go through PLENTY of testing before being used here. In fact often, they are forced to CHANGE certain things before they can be released here.



ETA: I just read Johnny's post. Thanks for providing the links - I am typing on the fly at the moment. But honestly, I detest the arrogance of the attitude that just because the US say its okay that the rest of the world will go along with it. It is a really flawed and blind argument.

45 Comments

View replies by

Sally - posted on 08/30/2012

963

14

9

I should have said "are almost always" mild diseases when contracted naturally. The common cold can kill you if conditions are right. And age DOES matter in almost every one of the diseases we commonly vaccinate against (and many other diseases as well--the flu almost only kills the very young and very old, for example)

Epidemics caused by vaccines caused more of the paralyzing polio that the wild caught did (The majority of wild caught polio cases didn't even know they had it and the majority of polio paralysis cases (from wild caught) reversed themselves with proper treatment.). Statistically, the vaccine is more dangerous than the disease.

Measles is much more likely to be deadly (and to have scary, permanent side effects) if you contract it as an adult; unvaccinated populations almost always catch it as children; vaccinated ones almost always as adults. Mumps and Rubella do the same. Statistically, the vaccine is more dangerous than the disease.

Pertussis in only dangerous (to almost every one) if you catch it before one year (the most likely age to catch it in vaccinated populations); in unvaccinated populations, it is almost always caught between the ages of 2 and 4 when it almost always looks more like a bad cold. That's how the most of the public learned vaccines wear off. Adults who didn't even realize they had it were bringing it home to babies too young to be vaccinated.

Smallpox, has less info available because the vaccine came into common use a couple centuries before any other vaccines were invented and we no longer vaccinate for it. I'll look around and see it I can find you any info though. However, it was much more likely to cause scarring than death and (like most other diseases) was also much less likely to occur in populations with decent hygiene and nutrition.

Scarlet fever was as dangerous (if not more so) than any of the diseases we vaccinate for. We never bothered to make a vaccine for it. It's rarer now than any of the commonly vaccinated diseases are.

Please do a little research before getting "pissed off" by people who actually have taken the time to learn about something. Thanks

Stacy - posted on 08/30/2012

19

0

1

It pisses ME off when you said "Most of the diseases we vaccinate against are mild illnesses when contracted at the age people get them naturally." Ask anyone who's been paralyzed by polio if their disease was "mild" because they got when you think they were supposed to. Ask anyone in an IRON LUNG if their disease was "mild." Measles can be deadly. Pertussis can cause brain damage and seizure disorder. Smallpox killed. It does not matter THE AGE of people when they contracted these diseases, they're the same no matter what. They don't sound very "mild" to me.

Rosie - posted on 08/29/2012

8,657

30

321

sigh...do you know how immunity works? you get exposed to the virus/bacteria and your body becomes immune to it. because i had the chicken pox as a child (therefore exposed to it) doesn't mean i am a walking time bomb exposing other people to the virus so they better stay away...that is what you just said about vaccinated children being exposed to the viruses by vaccination.

and yes, your child is at more risk than mine by not being vaccinated. but with the numbers of these uneducated sheep going up in puts more and more risk for my child. what part of that do you not understand? i suggest reading actual science about how vaccines work instead of dr mercola and his website of disclaimers that say not to mistake his advice for actual medical science.

Jodi - posted on 08/29/2012

3,562

36

3907

I am not not talking about herd immunity. I am talking about logic. If more people are immunised, it is logical that fewer people get the disease, and that therefore there is less chance of GETTING the disease (and catching it). I repeat, your logic is flawed.

Sally - posted on 08/29/2012

963

14

9

The idea that vaccines confer "herd immunity" is based on assuming vaccines work the same way we thought diseases worked a few decades ago. We now know that both of those assumptions were wrong. It's possible that vaccines create herd immunity, but there is absolutely no proof of it. There never has been; it was just an educated guess based on what we now know to be faulty information.

Every epidemic since vaccines became common usage has been in almost entirely immunized populations with almost only immunized people catching the disease. In fact, most polio epidemics were later found to be directly caused by the vaccine. Most of the diseases we vaccinate against are mild illnesses when contracted at the age people get them naturally; they don't become dangerous until the unnatural "immunity" of vaccinations pushes their contraction outside those age ranges.

If vaccines really worked the way the "uneducated sheep" believe they did, my unvaccinated child would be at far greater risk from your vaccinated one that the other way round. How could someone who's never been in contact with a germ spread it to people who've been injected with it? If you really trusted them, you'd have no reason to be concerned.

Jodi - posted on 08/29/2012

3,562

36

3907

"Read the actual numbers on the little info sheets the doctor is supposed to give you that tells you how safe and neccessary each shot is. On most of them (while it is a very tiny number), you are more likely to die from the vaccine than to even catch the disease."



Um, only because most people are vaccinated, so therefore, the likelihood of you catching the disease is minimised - the disease is not as prevalent as it once was. If no-one was immunising, then believe me, the risk of catching the disease would be much higher. Can you see the flaw in your logic?

Rosie - posted on 08/29/2012

8,657

30

321

if that position were true wouldn't we have an epidemic of polio, HIB, chicken pox etc wince we vaccinate for those things?

as for vaccinated people getting the diseases, the answer to that is HERD IMMUNITY. vaccines are not 100%. they need a certain percentage of the population to be vaccinated for their effectiveness to take effect. with so many people NOT vaccinating, it's causing our vaccines to lose their effectiveness, and quite frankly i'm pissed about it. your riduclousness is causing problems with my childrens immunity, and i'm not at all happy about uneducated sheep possibly causing my children life threatening diseases.

Stacy - posted on 08/21/2012

19

0

1

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzbe...

Evidence to the contrary. Your immunity wanes after a certain amount of time and people don't get boosters. You're supposed to get DTaP boosters every 15 years (diphtheria, tetanus, and acellular pertussis). Pertussis is spreading to these people as well as the unvaccinated. What ever the reason for people not getting vaccinated, whether it be the whole autism mass hysteria (even though the researcher involved, Andrew Wakefield, admitted he made the whole thing up and has subsequently lost his medical license), or the reasons stated above, it is proven that the unvaccinated are definitely part of the cause of this epidemic. If these vaccines actually cause more people to get the disease rather than prevent them, we would have seen more cases of pertussis and other disease before now. It would have happened many, many years ago. As stated in my last post, polio hasn't been see in the US since 1979, and smallpox has been eradicated all over the world. No one has received the smallpox vaccine since 1972. My bottom line is, the benefit of vaccination outweighs the risk.

Sally - posted on 08/20/2012

963

14

9

Actually, regardless of the media yelling about unvaccinated people "causing" epidemics, according to the CDC's own numbers it IS the FULLY vaccinated who are being contracting the diseases in far greater numbers than the unvaccinated. AND according to the CDC and the testing companies, most of our common vaccines cause the disease more often than they prevent them. Read the actual numbers on the little info sheets the doctor is supposed to give you that tells you how safe and neccessary each shot is. On most of them (while it is a very tiny number), you are more likely to die from the vaccine than to even catch the disease.

Stacy - posted on 08/20/2012

19

0

1

Agree with Johnny. I live in the states and both my children have had all vaccinations that were scheduled for their ages. Some of my friends spread out the vaccinations because of allergies. I don't know what you mean about vaccinated people getting these diseases more than unvaccinated ones. That's completely untrue. For instance, there has been an increase in pertussis cases in the US, mainly in Washington state, and these cases are not caused by people getting the vaccine, they're caused by people who are NOT getting the vaccine. Cases of these diseases have decreased dramatically because of vaccines. Don't you think if vaccines really caused the diseases they're meant to protect against, that there would be an increase in cases? There hasn't been a case of polio in the US since the late 70s, and smallpox is eradicated throughout the world. The reason is vaccine. And the number one adverse event related to vaccination? Injection site reaction. A little bump under the skin that lasts a few days. So before you believe any of this Natural News bullhockey and choose not to have your children vaccinated, think about what will happen if enough people do the same. We'll see all of these diseases again, and a lot of them can be deadly and/or cause permanent injury. Not something I'd like to go back to.

Sally - posted on 08/19/2012

963

14

9

The school lied. Some doctors will tell the same lies.
Some states offer exemptions for medical reasons, some for religious reasons, and some because the government should not usurp a parents authority except in clear cases of abuse. Most offer it for all three. Private schools and day cares can keep you out in some places, but state funded ones cannot.
All you have to do is fill out a waiver that you can get from your doctor or from your school. Some of them will pretend they don't have one or even that it doesn't exist. Look up and cite the relevant law and offer to talk to a lawyer. They produce it pretty quickly.

Kathy - posted on 08/19/2012

0

0

3

Patience: Most places have exemptions. My children have one. Where do you live?



Sorry the school lied to you about the need for vaccination :(



here is a list out of the USA:http://www.nvic.org/Vaccine-Laws/state-v...



If you are in Canada, you only need exemptions for ON, MB, and NB (I think). I am in Ontario and it was really easy to get.



When you do figure out what exemption applies where you live - share a copy with the school. They might think twice about telling another mother "there are no exemptions" after that!

Patience - posted on 08/19/2012

15

26

0

How would you get your children into school without their shots? They would not allow my child into school without his shots so I had no choice. I didn't want him to have the chicken pox vaccine because I do not trust it however it was required and I had no choice if I wanted him in school.

Sally - posted on 08/18/2012

963

14

9

The more research I do into the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, the fewer of them my children get.
The CDC's own numbers admit that most of the diseases we vaccinate against were far more strongly on the wane before vaccines than after; most vaccines are more likely to give you complications than most of the diseases they protect against (though it is a very tiny number either way); scary childhood diseases that we never made vaccines for have disappeared as fast or faster than the ones we did; since vaccination became common, all epidemics have happened in places where both the general population and those who contracted the disease were at least 80% fully vaccinated (in most of them it was more than 90%); the appropriate authorities are notorious for not reporting adverse vaccination reactions or for not reporting cases of disease in fully vaccinated individuals; many vaccines are much harder to store safely (and most doctor offices are less eaqupped to do so) than we've been led to believe; the more we vaccinate, the more common ages of diseases move up and/or down to ages where the disease is much more dangerous to contract; most of the preservatives in vaccines are not safe for human consumption; etc. When the people pushing the drug publish the data that you're probably safer without it, I don't think my family needs that drug. .
YMMV

**Jackie** - posted on 08/16/2012

953

1

18

I know that there is a round 2 dose of the vaccine but I was also told by our pediatrician that it is never 100% effective. So she wouldn't have been 'fully" immune either way.

I can tell you though, the first thing I thought of when I found out she had chicken pox and was already given her first vaccine...THANK GOD.

Like MeMe said, giving her the first vaccine saved her from some serious illness.

I didn't have the vaccine either and when I got it...we were in Disney World. I was in so much pain and screaming and itching. My parents didn't know whether to stay there and try and make me comfortable or get on a plane and infect other children and take that trip all the way home with me screaming. They couldn't get a flight back home so we stayed the trip but I wasn't allowed in the pools or in a lot of the restaurants. My mom said I looked so bad and was just so miserable.

Momma (MeMe) - posted on 08/16/2012

76

0

1

I agree Minnie...

Part of the issue with people saying vaccines are not effective, is due to the person not being "fully" vaccinated at the time. The other part, of course, is that they are not 100%, in most cases. Which is why herd immunity is so very important. However, they are claiming that the HPV vaccine is 96%. That is a fairly high efficacy rate.

Momma (MeMe) - posted on 08/15/2012

76

0

1

Absolutely, Jackie. I contracted the chickenpox at 18 years of age. There was no vaccine, when I was small (not until 1998 and wasn't provided via UHC until 2000 and I was already 14). I fell pretty darn ill. I would never want my children (or any ones) to go through what I did. You cannot determine if and when they will get the chickenpox. If you do not vaccinate, you could be setting them up to a world of hurt, later in the life.

Kathy - posted on 08/15/2012

0

0

3

Becky…"The Gawker" is hardly a reliable source. They seem really sensationalist to me.

Maybe Natural News is a conspiracy site and maybe it isn't…but what the Gawker says has no bearing on it.

Kathy - posted on 08/15/2012

0

0

3

"ETA: I just read Johnny's post. Thanks for providing the links - I am typing on the fly at the moment. But honestly, I detest the arrogance of the attitude that just because the US say its okay that the rest of the world will go along with it. It is a really flawed and blind argument." JODI



Jodi - I am new, so maybe this has not come across clearly: I am Canadian, not American. My suspicions come not from arrogance, but from reality.



You may detest the idea that "because the USA says it is Ok the rest of the world will go along with it" but I think it has an element of truth to it.



I think it is naive to think countries that are allies of the USA do not sometimes go along with the USA to keep peace, promote economic ties, etc, etc. There is a reason they are called a super-power. I will not speak for Australia, but I believe that Canada has indeed done things to "not make waves" with the USA. Things I suspect Canada has done (that the majority of citizens oppose) to keep the peace with the USA:



-sending troops to the middle east

-not legalising marijuana

-a lot of stuff around free trade.



ETA: There are areas where Canada is firm on doing things our way - universal healthcare and social safety network issues come to mind. I don't think asking the question "are Canadian interests/policies being influenced by American policies" is wrong however, as it does happen sometimes.

Kathy - posted on 08/14/2012

0

0

3

Johnny - very informative, thanks!



I was happy to see Canada does have its own approval process for vaccines - particularly this part:



"The manufacturer must also provide samples of the vaccine for testing in Health Canada laboratories."



I was still curious as to whether or not pharmaceutical companies were allowed to sit on approval committees (as they are in the USA). Take a look at this article which say those with direct financial gain will not be allowed to sit on the committee, period, but affiliates will be. It is better (much better!) than the USA, but I am not sure I want affiliates sitting on committees. It might depend on what they mean by "affiliate." I would not want a pharmacy company voting on a vaccine, even if it is not their vaccine. I think it can open the door to nepotism and too much bias. I think pharmacy companies and their representatives should be able to make reports and answer questions, but not vote.



quote:



"A new guidance document clarifies our practices in managing advice from external experts, including the fact that anyone with a direct financial interest in the outcome of a product review will be barred from participating in an advisory body involved in that review. Unlike the FDA's policy, this is a blanket exclusion, and there are no waivers.



Health Canada places a high value on the expertise that it receives from its advisors, who can be in limited supply. The new policy and the guidance document make clear that only direct financial interest is a bar to participation and that not all affiliations and interests are conflicts. Affiliations may, in some instances, be desirable (e.g., valuable clinical or research experience with a particular drug). Rather than exclusion, our policy supports diversity of perspective, and a range of affiliations and interests in the membership of our advisory bodies, in an effort to obtain comprehensive, credible advice."



http://www.cmaj.ca/content/177/8/900.1.f...

Momma (MeMe) - posted on 08/14/2012

76

0

1

Johnny--We are just now seeing Rotavirus vaccine introduced where I live and Hep A is not routine (for special communities only).



Exactly. The Rotavirus is so new that it is NOT covered under our UHC, where I live. I paid $110 to immunize my son with the 3 dose version of the vaccine. And, neither of my kids have had Hep A. It is not standard in NS, Canada.

Lady Heather - posted on 08/14/2012

2,448

17

91

To get rota for free my daughter needed to be born 11 days later. Ha.

Johnny - posted on 08/14/2012

8,686

26

322

Kathy, there are numerous drugs approved for use in the US that are not approved here in Canada. Conversely, we have some that are approved here that aren't in the US. We also have different procedures and approvals for off label usage than the US does that is subjected to a separate monitoring process. Canada has been instrumental in the development of the HIV vacccine and were pioneers in the 50's of the orignial polio vaccine. There is plenty of research on vaccines that goes on outside the US.



ETA: there are several vaccines that seem to be common in the US that are just now coming into use in Canada, as they were subjected to more research and the government was awaiting more clinical trials on effectiveness. We are just now seeing Rotavirus vaccine introduced where I live and Hep A is not routine (for special communities only).

Johnny - posted on 08/14/2012

8,686

26

322

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/iyh-vsv/med...

Canada, like many other countries worldwide, exercises tight scrutiny (or regulatory oversight) over vaccines. All vaccines intended for use by Canadians are subject to the provisions of the Food and Drugs Act and the Food and Drug Regulations. Before a new vaccine is authorized for the Canadian market, the manufacturer must submit scientific and clinical evidence that demonstrates the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine and that its manufacture meets high standards of quality for Canadians.

As part of the approval process, Health Canada experts do an on-site evaluation of the manufacturer's facilities to check the quality of the vaccine manufacturing process and to make sure that the manufacturer is able to carry out the necessary quality controls for the vaccine. The manufacturer must also provide samples of the vaccine for testing in Health Canada laboratories.

Rarely, when a vaccine not yet authorized for use in Canada is needed urgently to deal with outbreaks of a specific disease (as happened during the H1N1 influenza pandemic), Health Canada has ways of completing the review of submissions for these vaccines in a shorter period of time. However, no matter how urgently the vaccine is needed, it will not be authorized until Health Canada has determined that the available evidence meets its strict criteria for safety and effectiveness. Authorized vaccines are also subject to ongoing evaluations by Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada.


My nephew's lab is part of those that do testing of vaccines in Canada for Health Canada. They test samples from both company submission and from the regular batches manufactured for use. Apparently there are numerous labs across the country that do these tests. He isn't involved in this process, he does pure research that is directed at working on new formulizations and improvements.


http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/im/vs-sv/vs-f...


How are vaccines made and licensed in Canada?

Answer:

Vaccines for humans are regulated in Canada by the Biologics and Genetic Therapeutics Directorate of Health Canada. Like all medicines, vaccines must undergo several stages of rigorous testing before they are approved for use. The Bureau also supervises all aspects of vaccine production by the manufacturers. Before any vaccine is licensed and approved for use in Canada, the factory where it is manufactured must be inspected to ensure that all stages of production meet the requirements for safety, sterility and quality control. Before release by the manufacturer, each batch of vaccine is tested for safety and quality under guidelines specified by the Biologics and Radiopharmaceuticals Evaluation Centre. Most safety tests are carried out by both the manufacturer and, independently, by the laboratory of the Bureau. Once vaccines are in use, Canada has several systems in place to ensure that they are carefully monitored and that any problems are dealt with quickly. These systems are described in the section "Adverse Events" in the Canadian Immunization Guide, 7th Edition 2006.

Kathy - posted on 08/14/2012

0

0

3

Little Miss Can't Be Wrong:



A few links showing doctors are given bonuses/incentives for vaccination:



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/articl...

http://www.ias.org.nz/informed-consent/m...

http://hpm.org/en/Surveys/PRAXIS_-_Eston...

http://spon.ca/healthy-incentives-bonus-...



(the bottom link mentions some Canadian doctors getting bonuses per flu shots)



Edited to add: I am not hugely disturbed by doctors getting bonuses, although I would prefer it if they did not. Most docs are pro-vax, so the incentives probably just serve as reminders to offer people flu shots, than have them do something they are opposed to.



I am much more concerned with things like pharmacy companies sitting on CDC advisory committees.



As per the poster who said "well, what about other countries who do independent research?" I would say that I am not convinced other countries do large scale research before allowing a vax. If the drugs come out of the USA and are tested there (and the CDC is a well respected institution amongst the medical world, despite my concerns with it) I doubt they go through oodles of testing in Canada or Australia before being allowed.



I am open to being proven wrong. I actually hope I am proven wrong - but I would need to see some firm links.

Johnny - posted on 08/14/2012

8,686

26

322

Exactly Minnie. I had mine done at the beginning of my pregnancy and all my levels were fine. I last was vaccinated for most things at age 13. The only vaccines I have received in the mean time are Hep A and Hep B because of my previous job. I recently had a pertussis booster just in case. As has my husband, my mother, my father, and a few other family members. No one wants to spread anything to the new baby and we are struggling with an outbreak here.

Minnie - posted on 08/14/2012

7,076

9

788

Yeah, never use natural news. Remember, they're the ones who insisted two years ago that the US was banning all birthing tubs. And this year insisted that aborted fetal cells are found in your can of coke.



When I hear people saying that vaccinated children are coming down with a particular disease I wonder if the truth is being fully reported- are the children -fully- vaccinated, or did they just have one dose years ago (and thus that suffices as being vaccinated for the sake of the argument)?



I had my titres done in April of this year and my antibody response is far and above the minimums required to determine immunity and protected status. I'd say that the vaccines I received were very effective.

~♥Little Miss - posted on 08/14/2012

21,273

9

3058

And who says a doctor gets a bonus per vaccination? I would like some hard proof on that one.

~♥Little Miss - posted on 08/14/2012

21,273

9

3058

If vaccines did not work, then we would still have huge epidemics. They work.

Tracey - posted on 08/14/2012

1,094

2

58

My son had the MMR, He also had measles.
Why should I believe a doctor who gets a bonus if a certain percentage of children are vaccinated, who told us that the vaccines would stop my kids getting the illness?

Stifler's - posted on 08/14/2012

15,141

154

604

Still laughing at 'whackadoo" ! Vaccines don't always stop you from getting the disease. They build antibodies to the disease, reduce the severity and stop you from dying a painful death from the disease, such as whooping cough.



Plus I agree with Johnny I live in Australia and the government pays/gives incentives to parents for vaccinating. There's no big pharma making money from people off it. The government are far too scungy to just take a company that presents a vaccination's word for it and vaccinate the people without doing their own tests.

Jenny - posted on 08/14/2012

842

5

28

I've heard that vaccine works better in packs. The more children that get vaccinated, the stronger their barrier. With this in mind, I could see how sometimes, in societies where the number of unvaccinated children matches those vaccinated the vaccine will not work as intended.

Jodi - posted on 08/14/2012

3,562

36

3907

@ Laura
If you are researching vaccines, please don't rely on sites like "Natural News" - they are pushing their own agenda.

Jodi - posted on 08/14/2012

3,562

36

3907

@ Kathy,
But what about the countries who do their OWN research on the vaccines and don't rely on the CDC's information? I know that here in Australia, the vaccines are separately tested. The CDC isn't the only authority in the world to test them. And in some cases, our authorities request modifications (which are then made) to comply with our regulations.

Lady Heather - posted on 08/13/2012

2,448

17

91

Also for a site claiming to be "powered by the people" they sure have a buttload of advertisers trying to get us to buy the latest remedy. I really don't know how this differs from big pharma other than the bit about the whackadoos getting less money because most people don't buy into it. Delete Pfizer, insert Oxy-Powder, Wellness Resources Thyroid Helper, Mesosilver. How do we know any of that shit works? How do we know that shit isn't poisoning us? We don't.

And don't get me wrong - I am not big into medicating everything. I have been down the natural meds path for my fibromyalgia and I'll tell you what - the stuff they gave me at the health food store fucked me up worse than the drug the doctor gave me. Everybody is getting paid by somebody.

Lady Heather - posted on 08/13/2012

2,448

17

91

I don't think I trust naturalnews tbh. Most of that stuff sounds pretty whackadoo.

Kathy - posted on 08/13/2012

0

0

3

Do I trust the CDC? Yes and no.



Yes: I think the CDC gets baseline numbers right. I think both reactions to vaccines and prevalence of disease (particularly mild diseases and mild reactions) are under-reported. This is not their fault, though, and does not decrease my trust.



I think they do a better job reporting short term reactions versus long term reactions.



It is pretty easy to see if a baby has an allergic reaction or seizure in front of your eyes after a shot…It is much, much harder to know if the rise in xyz is also related to a new vaccine. You get into the whole "is it correlation or causation" thing and it is much trickier.



I think the CDC pink book is great and I use it all the time. It is much more useful than any parent brochure (which I find too watered down to make an informed decision)



http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkboo...



Here is where the "No" part comes in:



The CDC allows vaccine manufacturers on its advisory committees. In my opinion, that is a complete conflict of interest. Those who stand to make financial gains should not be on advisory committees that set the guidelines for a nation!



Here is one link from a mainstream source:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/health...



Lastly, I do think vaccines are effective to varying degrees - you can look up the rates in the pink book:) I do not think efficacy is the be all and end all, though. Efficacy rates relate to how many unvaxxed get a disease in relation to vaxxed. The rate is determined as such:



unvaxxed cases-vaxxed case

= ---------------------------------- (over)

unvaxxed cases



So, if there are 100 people, and 5 unvaxxed get the flu and 1 vaxxed get the flu, the efficacy rate is 5-1 / 5 4/5 or 80%. Keep in mind 95 people did not get the flu. Alternately, if out of 100 people, 50 unvaxxed get measles, but only 10 vaxxed get it, the effectiveness is still 80%, even though your chances of getting the disease are much higher in the second scenario



Prevalence is as important as efficacy in my humble opinion (and if you worry about diseases coming back, contagiousness as well).



Here is a link:



https://www.hidionline.com/hidi/Document...

Momma (MeMe) - posted on 08/13/2012

76

0

1

Yep, I agree with Johnny. It works differently in Canada than the States. They have no reason or gained benefit, to be corrupt and lie, here.

I feel completely safe giving my children, myself and husband, vaccines.

Join Circle of Moms

Sign up for Circle of Moms and be a part of this community! Membership is just one click away.

Join Circle of Moms