A different question for anti-vaxers

amother

Wed, Apr 10 2019, 10:52 pm

Would you re-think your position if you were to learn that much anti-vax views that have influenced you actually originate with a Russian disinformation campaign, designed to sow discord among Americans and suspicion of the US government?

https://www.businessinsider.co.....-tFac

Sebastian

Wed, Apr 10 2019, 10:55 pm

no they wouldn't.

veiznisht

Wed, Apr 10 2019, 11:09 pm

I'm going to assume the answer is "no".

CLEARLY they've done their personal research which is equivalent to an MD; why would any of that matter?

trixx

Wed, Apr 10 2019, 11:41 pm

Did you guys read the article? You seriously think an intelligent person who chooses not to vaccinate is doing so because of this:

In one round of keystrokes, a Russian-backed account lashed out: "#vaccines are a parent's choice. Choice of a color of a little coffin #VaccinateUS."
Another went with: "Did you know there was a secret government database of #vaccine-damaged children? #VaccinateUS."

potatoes

Wed, Apr 10 2019, 11:43 pm

no.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist.
I want hard fact science-
and that doesn't exist for vaccines.
not one safety study done in the last 30 years.
not one double blind placebo vaccine study, ever, done.
technically, it shouldn't be FDA approved, as it didnt/doesnt go through the rigorous testing process (third party) as all other drugs due before they come on the market.

amother

Azure

Wed, Apr 10 2019, 11:52 pm

potatoes wrote:

What would you like to see isolated in the study?

flowerpower

Wed, Apr 10 2019, 11:58 pm

As long as they follow a “spiritual guidance” nothing will change their mind.

amother

Oak

Thu, Apr 11 2019, 12:06 am

veiznisht wrote:

I'm going to assume the answer is "no".

CLEARLY they've done their personal research which is equivalent to an MD; why would any of that matter?

How many years do you think your MD studied vaccines in medical school?

amother

Periwinkle

Thu, Apr 11 2019, 12:50 am

Um, no. I didn't come to this because of social media campaigns or anti-vax magazines.

I had a scare with one of my kids that I thought might be vaccine-related (B"H was just a virus), plus I got pretty skeptical of the honesty of the CDC when I saw how the varicella vaccine was marketed.

I went and dug deeper and found out that the diseases were usually not as bad as they claimed, that herd immunity did not apply to every disease, that vaccine side effects were routinely denied and ignored, and that most studies were not unbiased and did not include proper controls.

Nothing to do with Russia.

To convince me to vaccinate, if you so desired, you would need to:
1) Provide unbiased studies, with true placebos.
2) Investigate ways to minimize vaccine damage, as it is impossible to eradicate completely (of course, VPDs also carry serious risks). Things like spacing, using single-dose vials (less preservatives), postponing vaccination if the child is ill, vitamin supplementation, etc.
3) Don't make it all or nothing. Allow me to vaccinate for measles only if I am uncomfortable with mumps and rubella, allow me to only give varicella if my child does not have natural immunity before adulthood.
4) Be honest. About the actual risks of the disease in a child, about the likelihood my child might pass it on and how the vaccine might help, about the risks of the vaccine itself.

Incidentally, I do give MMR, albeit very delayed. Not because of measles scare campaigns, but because of how very highly contagious it is, and therefore the increased risk to the immunocompromised. Still, I give it very hesitantly, cautiously, and grudgingly.

Sebastian

Thu, Apr 11 2019, 7:13 am

:shrug ppl like you who don't vaccinate are causing outbreaks. Pretty soon you won't have a choice unless you homeschool.

amother

Taupe

Thu, Apr 11 2019, 7:21 am

potatoes wrote:

Because essential oils have soooooooo much scientific background.

You know what has good backing? Measles is very very bad and super contagious. And fatal in some cases.

ggdm

Fri, Apr 12 2019, 4:34 am

potatoes wrote:

How is this not a rigorous proces?
https://www.chop.edu/centers-p.....pment

Also, how do existing studies differ from whatyou would like to test?
https://www.skepticalraptor.co.....king/

FranticFrummie

Fri, Apr 12 2019, 5:33 am

How would you justify the medical ethics of giving an infant a placebo vaccine? If the child gets sick and dies, there's going to me a major lawsuit in the works. Nobody would touch that clinical trial with a ten foot pole.

What parent would consent to giving a child the chance of a placebo if they want their child to be immunized, and what parent would risk the chance of giving a vaccine to a child that they don't want vaccinated?

How would you proof the trial, would you have to infect all of the participants intentionally, and see how well they do (or don't) react?

Wouldn't all the children from non-vaxxing families be the de facto control group anyway? It's the same thing as giving a placebo.

JoyInTheMorning

Fri, Apr 12 2019, 6:20 am

FranticFrummie wrote:

I agree that there's no ethical way to do a double-blind study to test the safety or efficacy of vaccines.

I think it's important for both pro and anti vax people to realize that many of our medical protocols are not based on double-blind studies. They may be the gold standard, but often the gold standard is not achievable, sometimes because they are not possible.

Here are some examples of cases where double blind studies are impossible:
Hip (or other joint) replacement
Cardiac bypass surgery
Organ transplants
Impacted wisdom tooth removal
Any kind of talk therapy (which includes most psychotherapy)

Obviously, the patient knows what group he or she is in.
(Similarly, FF, a child's family knows whether or not he's been vaxxed, so it's not a blind study.)

There are many other types of studies, besides single-blind or double-blind, that show that something is safe or effective. One way to demonstrate effectiveness is measuring incidence of death or other serious consequence of disease in populations that are vaccinated vs populations that are not vaccinated. By that standard, it's clear that vaccines have been wildly successful in greatly reducing polio, diphtheria, tetanus, measles, mumps, rubella, and more.

In terms of demonstrating safety, studies like the large-scale study (over 600,000 children) done in Denmark showed that there was no increased risk for autism diagnosis between those who received the MMR vax and those who did not. See https://www.npr.org/sections/h.....utism

I am sympathetic to those whose children experienced reactions to vaccines. I have a child who reacted to the DTaP vaccine at 5 months: he had fever and was much less responsive than usual for over a day. Basically, he became sick.But it went away. Like FF, there were no future reactions. Most reactions to vaccines are minor and transient. They are certainly not evidence that vaccines cause permanent harm to children.

I think it would be wise for medical professionals to validate parents' concern. Yes, vaccines can cause reactions. But almost always the reactions are not life or quality-of-life threatening, and almost always, they go away. In contrast, the consequences from diseases like measles, such as encephalitis, are horrific and damage often lasts a lifetime.

I think medical professionals need to put out a point-by-point rejoinder to the PEACH pamphlet. Yes, it will take time to do so. Yes, many parents will be confused by all the statistics involved. It's still worthwhile doing it.

amother

Periwinkle

Fri, Apr 12 2019, 7:31 am

However, studies investigating how to make vaccines SAFER (spreading out doses, screening for factors that seem to increase risk of side effects) COULD be done, and SHOULD be done.

There seems to be so much emphasis on "VACCINES ARE SAFE LALALALA" that there simply is not enough research being done on WHY some people react badly and HOW we can minimize that.

FranticFrummie

Fri, Apr 12 2019, 9:41 am

amother [ Periwinkle ] wrote:

I'm all for single dose vaccines, and spacing. It will mean more co-pays for more doctor's appointments though. You'd think the insurance companies would be happy about that, anyway.

You could choose to do the traditional compounded vaccines and an early schedule, or the single vaccine with a spaced schedule. That way if you have any concerns, you can monitor each vaccine dose for side effects, and know exactly which one is causing a problem. When they are bundled, it's much harder to figure out.

FranticFrummie

Fri, Apr 12 2019, 9:43 am

JoyInTheMorning wrote:

(Similarly, FF, a child's family knows whether or not he's been vaxxed, so it's not a blind study.)

I was thinking that the placebo group would be injected with saline, so the parent would not know if they were in the control group or not. That's why I mentioned that no parent would agree to that uncertainty.

Little Susie gets a shot, and the next day she's running a fever and super cranky. It turns out that she got the placebo, and she's just teething, or coming down with an ear infection, or has the flu. The parents are SURE that their baby got the real vaccine, and blame all the reactions on the shot.

Little Dovi gets a shot, and then the parents find out that a disease has broken out in play group. Is Dovi immune from the disease, or is he still at risk? Did he get the real shot or not? What should they do next?

JoyInTheMorning

Fri, Apr 12 2019, 9:56 am

FranticFrummie wrote:

Okay. Double blind, just not ethical (to withhold vaccines).

ggdm

Fri, Apr 12 2019, 10:36 am

amother [ Periwinkle ] wrote:

AFAIK these studies are done. There is constant research and new versions of vaccines come out sometimes. For example the viral content in today's infant vaccines is much lower than it used to be. Which is good, because it makes the vaccine easier for the body, but on the other hand you need more doses.

Ema of 5

Fri, Apr 12 2019, 10:41 am

FranticFrummie wrote:

This is exactly what I do. And I also don’t start at 2 months, because my kids are home with me.