10 Vaccines That Saved The World
- Thread starter User Name
- Start date
- Status
1PeaceMaker
New member
Good video, elo.
What's good about it? What exactly did you hear that you thought was good?
At the 1:55 mark, Dr. Geier states, "I am not anti-vaccine. One of my papers is why we cannot stop giving polio vaccines--because it would be too dangerous." Do you agree with that statement, or do you think he is a "Trojan horse"?
elohiym
Well-known member
Trojan horse? I don't know. He seems sincere and obviously believes some vaccines are useful. I disagree with him regarding the polio vaccine, and apparently so does the establishment, but for a different reason. I'm also skeptical that any vaccines are useful. Nevertheless, the video showed how the flu vaccine is flawed. You can take that to heart or blow it off and continue to promote the flu vaccine while you hypocritically refuse to get it.
Tyrathca
New member
As a pro-vaccine advocate I actually agree with the video mostly. My main caveats being his use of the word poison (since I think it is easily misinterpreted, not because I disagree with what I think he meant) and that guillianne-barre is an ongoing high risk with influenza vaccines (to my knowledge that was an issue with earlier vaccines against flu strains that also carried such a risk if contracted). Not big disagreements since I agree with him that the flu vaccine is uniquely flawed due to the way it is developed, tested and the flu virus itself (as he explains quite well) and because of those flaws the problem of significant guillianne-barre rates could recur and it has ongoing issues with efficacy and mortality/morbidity benefit. I also agree with him that this is not a problem with (as he said) "all the other vaccines" which have had appropriate testing of efficacy and long term safety.
For these reasons I don't think that flu vaccines should be mandatory (they aren't in australia) and should be mainly reserved for specific groups rather than the whole population. Disclaimer: I actually get the vaccine because I am an outlier (I have a very high exposure risk and if I get it I will unwittingly expose people in whom influenza has a very high lethality). I'm fairly sure I may have even said on this forum that I hold flu vaccines as an exception (though I can't recall what, if anything, I have said about it on this thread)
elohiym
Well-known member
Hopefully poster UserName will agree, too.
You're both mistaken. Gardasil is one example of an inappropriately tested vaccine with questionable efficacy and no long term safety studies.
Agreed. If you want to receive flawed vaccines with little evidence for safety or efficacy because you hope and wish they will protect the vulnerable people you work with, that's your choice.
elohiym
Well-known member
For example ...
It's good to hear pro-vaccine people sound reasonable.
gcthomas
New member
Try these long term efficacy and safety studies:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4262378/
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2014/08/12/peds.2013-4144.abstract
elohiym
Well-known member
It states:
Interpreting the results of long-term efficacy studies for the two HPV vaccines can be puzzling, due to the heterogeneity of studies, different methods used in the assessment of immunogenicity, histopathological and virological end points, and statistical power issues. Moreover, an immunologic correlate of protection has not yet been established, and it is unknown whether higher antibody levels will really result in a longer duration of protection.
gcthomas
New member
You left out:
"Efficacy has been widely demonstrated for both vaccines. "
and
"The vaccine continues to be immunogenic and well tolerated up to 9 years following vaccination. "
with
"CONCLUSIONS: When administered to adolescents, the HPV4 vaccine demonstrated durability in clinically effective protection and sustained antibody titers over 8 years."
Seems like efficacy and safety has been confirmed for at least a decade, and your claim there was no such study seems a little less honest now.
elohiym
Well-known member
It stated, "...an immunologic correlate of protection has not yet been established, and it is unknown whether higher antibody levels will really result in a longer duration of protection." Therefore, the conclusion is necessarily speculative and wrong, and the statements you are relying on can't be true.
And yet you and your anti-vaccine cohorts have yet to produce the slightest shred of evidence at all that non-vaccinated populations are healthier or live longer than populations that are thoroughly vaccinated. But if vaccinations were so harmful, such evidence should be abundantly available. You haven't produced that evidence because you can't because it doesn't exist because you're talking nonsense and I genuinely suspect that on some level, you know you're talking nonsense. You have an irrational yet compulsive anti-vaccination agenda.
Post for me the quote I made in which I promoted the flu vaccine.
Tyrathca
New member
I'm not quite sure what point is trying to be made here with flu vaccines.
Vaccines aren't perfect? That had never been claimed.
It says something about other vaccines? The reasons for the flu vaccines deficiencies are unique to the flu virus. Even with that the flu vaccines are still quite safe, the concerns are not of large risks but whether they are worth their very very small risk - the answer I think is "depends" and I put my money where my mouth is (so to speak, I don't actually pay anything) and get the vaccine myself despite the issues I have raised.
Vaccines aren't perfect? That had never been claimed.
It says something about other vaccines? The reasons for the flu vaccines deficiencies are unique to the flu virus. Even with that the flu vaccines are still quite safe, the concerns are not of large risks but whether they are worth their very very small risk - the answer I think is "depends" and I put my money where my mouth is (so to speak, I don't actually pay anything) and get the vaccine myself despite the issues I have raised.
Last edited:
elohiym
Well-known member
People rarely get any of the diseases we vaccinate for, so I don't see much point in bothering with any vaccination.
Tyrathca
New member
Yeah no one ever gets smallpox anymore, so why did we ever bother vaccinating against it?
gcthomas
New member
The conclusion is that you don't understand the phrase you have quoted. It refers to the very specific question of whether stronger immunological responses translated into longer protection, compared to weaker responses, not that they don't know if it works or is safe.
You are just so desperate to ignore the evidence you will misrepresent clear research conclusions. Why do folks here spend so much time on dishonest quote-mining instead of reading the clear meanings of what is written?
elohiym
Well-known member
No. You are the one having difficulty understanding. It stated, "...an immunologic correlate of protection has not yet been established..."
Correlates of immunity/protection to a virus or other infectious pathogen are measurable signs that a person (or other potential host) is immune, in the sense of being protected against becoming infected and/or developing disease.
ClimateSanity
New member
I don't think the quote means what you think it means.
ClimateSanity
New member
Actually, they are contradicting themselves. They say it is immunogenic and has efficacy out of one side of their mouth and then say a correlate of protection has not been established out of the other side of their mouth.
It reminds me of the climate change papers that make it through peer review. On the one hand, they cite strong evidence undermining one of the pillars of their hypothesis. Then, they equivocate and say it does not change the fact that anthropogenic co2 is warming the planet at an alarming rate.
It reminds me of the climate change papers that make it through peer review. On the one hand, they cite strong evidence undermining one of the pillars of their hypothesis. Then, they equivocate and say it does not change the fact that anthropogenic co2 is warming the planet at an alarming rate.
gcthomas
New member
A lack of identified correlate of protection is not 'proof of not protection'. The protection has been proved in the long term trials by the absence of the disease in those with the vaccination. The correlate is an identifiable difference in the immune system. It is not necessary to find one to demonstrate immunity.
See here: http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/47/3/401.full
The ascertainment of correlates of immunity is one of the most controversial areas of infectious diseases. Aside from its basic scientific interest, determination of a correlate is often the first step in the development of strategies of vaccination against a disease, it provides an objective criterion for protection of individual vaccinees, and even more practically, it permits the licensure of a vaccine without demonstration of field efficacy in situations where clinical trials are dangerous or when new combinations of existing vaccines are tested. Although the literature is rich in attempts to define correlates for particular vaccines, few synthetic analyses have been published.
So correlates are useful as an alternative to field studies of efficacy, but in the vaccine being discussed field studies have been widely carried out, so a surrogate measure of immunity is not necessary.You are so keen to distrust vaccines that you are misreading everything referenced.
- Status