Difference between revisions of "Talk:Vaccine"

Revision as of 17:47, November 5, 2009

I'm surprised. This is an acceptable article. Liπus the Turbogeek^{(contact me)} 13:37, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes. it is. It actually tells me something.--British_cons (talk) 13:49, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Blaylock Wellness Report

Parts of the paragraph that used the Blaylock Wellness Report as a source is very questionable. The website itself is a promotion for subscribing to a paid newsletter; it has "points" that says why vaccine is bad - but no logical evidence to back it up. Discover "the truth behind Gulf War Syndrome"? A website like that shouldn't be trusted, let alone used as a source. ATang 15:12, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

Gardasil

The source cited for the connection between Gardisil and deaths explicitly states that no connection has been proven. I'm going to remove this bullet. -- Aaronp

The bullet has been restored. If you had read the article further down, you would have seen that the article writer was improperly accepting as two-plus-two-equals-four-level fact the boilerplate from the manufacturer and from the health authority, each of whom has an ax to grind. And you would have seen dissenting opinions, from a patient advocacy group and from a general practitioner who expressed grave doubts about the applicability to adolescent girls of a safety study conducted on adult women.

The over-reliance on vaccination for the avoidance of diseases best avoided by other means will probably be the subject of an Essay someday. For now, the bullet stands, following a proper critical reading of the source.--TerryH^Talk 22:14, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Fletcher and Oakley - from the patient advocacy group, and a GP, respectively - simply stated that the effects of the vaccine on adolescents are unknown - meaning they themselves haven't established the link purported in this article. I'd like to see the actual report from Judicial Watch that the news article was referring to though; since the news article itself did not cite it, I find the entire Telegraph article suspect. ATang 12:36, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Sorry, but you miss a vital element in the Hippocratic Oath: Never bring harm upon anyone. In latin, primum non nocere. First of all, do no harm. By that standard, a physician who does anything to a patient without first verifying that that thing is safe is behaving in an irresponsible manner. But modern medicine has forgotten that lesson and in that manner has gone completely off the rails. And Gardasil is a prime example.--TerryH^Talk 14:00, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

This detracts from the point that I haven't seen what the "link" is - i.e. the cited article is a secondary source and therefore not strong enough to justify the statement in this article regarding vaccines.

The Oath also mentions not cutting out stones as well.

In all seriousness, it is simply impossible to verify the safety of any drugs completely before phase IV clinical trials - meaning after the drugs has been marketed. Unless you test the drug on every single person on earth and obtain a reading on it, no drug is "safe". Patient care is always riddled with uncertainty - and if physicians waits until he's 100% all the time, they'd actually do more harm to patients by their inaction. That's when professional judgment and experience comes in.

And to bring this back to our original discussion about _this_ article - all drugs have adverse reactions. Stating that Gardasil "has now been linked to a number of sudden deaths reported within days of its administration" from a news article (as opposed to a medical journal) is just a cheap, baseless way of attacking vaccines. ATang 15:08, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Would you give that drug to your daughter?

I've read medical journals. They are not the platinum standard of scientific inquiry that you believe them to be. I have personally seen The New England Journal of Medicine duped big-time by someone—at Duke University, no less—pulling a total dry-lab job. Imagine the mortification of the senior professor who signed off on that person's papers, and even put his name on them, when he found out years later what a puerile fraud his student had been, and had to issue retractions.

And I have seen other things get into The New England Journal of Medicine from "investigators" who were all on drug-company payrolls. I cite RU-486 as a prime example.

And that's just one journal, a journal that I might add already had developed an unsavory reputation among teaching-hospital staffers, from the chairman level through the attending level and on down to the residents, for scholarship that was less than sterling. I cannot even repeat their toilet-humor pun on the journal's name—at least, not here I can't.

Those who comment on, and especially those who make, public policy would be a lot more effective if they would just do a little bit of critical reading every now and then.--TerryH^Talk 15:19, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Again, I'm trying to improve the validity of this article by analyzing the references, not arguing for or against the efficacy or hazards of the vaccine. Why do you ask me whether I'd give the vaccine to my daughter? Unless my answer is going to be part of this article, it is absolutely irrelevant. (For your information, I do not have any children, and if I had a daughter I will not give her the shot before the age of 16. When she's reached that age she'll make her own decision regarding the shot.)

If you cite a primary source, it'd remove any potential bias that inherently exists in secondary sources. All I've been trying to say is that you should read that news article with the same attitude as you should with medical journals - with a grain of salt. Especially given the gravity of the statement - that the deaths has been linked to the vaccine - I believe we need something a little more than a news article. ATang 22:29, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

The article gives some damaging evidence of a correlation. And while correlation does not equal causation, those quoted as denying the causal link would be motivated frankly to lie about the causal link. They include the manufacturer and a health-authority bureaucrat who wants to protect the justification of his mandate and budget.

I asked you whether you'd give your daughter the shot, if you had one, because I wanted to put the matter into a perspective that, all too often, public policymakers ignore. I appreciate your stepping up to the plate—though if you want the advice of one who once associated with the white smocks on a regular basis, I'd say that the time to safeguard any young woman from the hazards either of the shot or the thing that the shot is supposed (har-de-har-har) to protect against is about ten years earlier than any age of hypothetical "emancipation." This after-the-fact pilltaking and muscle-jabbing and mainlining that doctors recommend these days is doing nothing to treat the underlying causes of sickness and, in my opinion as an "expert emeritus," is making our society even sicker.--TerryH^Talk 23:00, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

MMR

DouglasA. I am not 'pushing a socialist agenda' I am pointing out the facts. If THIS contradicts YOUR agenda then it is not my problem. The article originally cited makes no mention whatsoever of MMR which is exactly the topic under discussion in that section. That article may have in the NHS page but not here. To try and extend the point being made by the referenced article to MMR is purely speculation on your part and has no logical basis. However, it has been documented countless times that the decrease in MMR uptake is due to parents having opted out given the debunked claims over its links with autism. The reference I provided DOES actually mention MMR unlike the original. And as someone living in the UK I can tell you that there is no end of attempts by hte NHS to increase MMR uptake. You obviously don't approve of a socialized healthcare system, but to extend this to making purely speculative criticisms and claiming them as fact is uncalled for. There are valid criticisms of the NHS to be made, but this is not one of them. Is it so difficult to accept that even a system you so fundamentally disagree with has its advantages and is actually working to benefit people in this case? DWiggins 12:30, 5 November 2009 (EST)

DWiggins, if you please, can you find other sources that bolster your claim about no autism/vaccination link, such as papers from the scientific community? They would be better references than a single newspaper report. Karajou 12:39, 5 November 2009 (EST)

The link was long ago debunked as it says even on this very article! My point is not a question of whether the link is real, but that the supposed link is the reason why there has been a decrease in MMR uptake. DWiggins 12:41, 5 November 2009 (EST)

I think you better read this article [1], because there may not be an autism link within the vaccination's actual medical content, but there is a definate link between autism and thimerisol, which contains 49% mercury. Remember the "Mad Hatter" from Alice in Wonderland? Based on fact. Karajou 12:47, 5 November 2009 (EST)