Sisyphus and the Conjugate Vaccines III

March 27, 2008 by · 3 Comments
Filed under: Vaccine/Disease Analysis 

Part III of a three part series. Parts one and two can be found here and here.

________________________________________________________________

The big question with these conjugate vaccines is “What is the overall effect?”

How many fewer cases of invasive bacterial disease are happening after replacement is accounted for?

The more narrowly you look, the better these conjugate vaccines look. The more broadly you look, the more the apparent effects melt away to nothing. With Hib and “replacement disease”, if you just compare h influenza serotype B to serotype A, it would appear that killing off Hib via mass vaccination was extremely successful in the grand scheme of things. When you look at nontypeable (also known as “non capsulated”) h influenzae plus Hia and Hif, that’s when you start seeing that we’re not really any better off now than we were before the Hib conjugate vaccine. Read more

The Situation has Changed–For the Better?

March 24, 2008 by · Comments Off
Filed under: News 

Insidevaccines will be posting occasional news stories related to vaccines with commentary by our team of editors. Here we go–
In 2002 Robert Goldberg wrote:

Despite significant activity in the area of vaccine design, vaccinology and immunology, vaccine development is on the verge of becoming a brackish backwater of other biotechnology and pharmaceutical enterprises. The market for vaccines is dominated by government purchasers that drive prices down to commodity levels, the regulations for the development and production of new vaccines are mired in the 1950s and sometimes cost more than producing vaccines themselves.

Public health officials and politicians are — depending on the day — either indifferent or outright hostile to the [sic] providing private companies with incentives for investing in new vaccines for a wide range of diseases. Indeed the solution de jour is to have the government — perhaps the Department of Defense (DOD) or some offshoot of the public health service — take over the development and production of vaccines, as if a U.S. government run National Vaccine Authority could magically and efficiently construct and operate billion dollar facilities without any glitches or major disruptions. Only scientists whose only brush with business is food shopping could concoct such an idiotic scheme.

Read more

Eradicate Chickenpox? Sure! Why Not?

March 20, 2008 by · 9 Comments
Filed under: Vaccine/Disease Analysis 

garbh-eilean.jpg

Chickenpox

Look back to the time of the earliest humans and you’ll find chickenpox. Anywhere you go on the planet, you find human beings who carry and share the virus. No remote village or tribe on Earth has ever been discovered to be free of this virus. Quite an achievement! For the virus…

Scientists have studied small, isolated populations, trying to understand how the virus survives; it has a unique survival strategy we call “shingles”.
Read more

Common Anti-Vaccination Myths and Misconceptions

March 13, 2008 by · 19 Comments
Filed under: General, News, Vaccine Myths, Vaccine Science 

error-function.JPG

1. Antifreeze is an ingredient in vaccines: (False) Antifreeze is ethylene glycol. I have not seen ethylene glycol listed on one single vaccine ingredients list ever. What I have seen are:

Phenoxyethanol is in DTaP, Hep A and B,Td, IPV but is not the same chemical makeup as ethylene glycol and is an organic chemical compound. We found information pointing to phenoxyethanol as toxic. http://truthinaging.com/ingredient-spotlight/what-is-it-phenoxyethanol-and-is-it-safe

Here is the MSDS: http://www.sciencelab.com/xMSDS-2_Phenoxyethanol-9926486

This isn’t antifreeze. Do you want it injected into your infant? Many thanks to Helen Tucker’s helpful comment below.

EDTA (ethylene-diamine-tetraacetic-acid ) is an amino acid, also used as a preservative in the Rabies and Varicella (chickenpox) vaccines.
Read more

Vaccines for public good or private profit?

March 7, 2008 by · 17 Comments
Filed under: WHO Watch 

who-flag.jpg

Those of us used to trawling medical literature have long since come to the view that disease prevalence rates used to justify a vaccine’s introduction, have about as much credibility as a self-combusted crystal ball. The numbers quoted are usually imaginatively inflated, or a result of appallingly badly designed studies. This has been a provable pattern since statistical sculpturing tactics, which were used to inflate polio infection data during the 1950’s, were first revealed in 1960 (PMID 13857182). With previous jury-rigging in mind, the recent announcement that the number of AIDS cases in India, is only half of the earlier estimates, came as no surprise. Neither were we surprised to find that when the formula which the CDC used to over-inflate the numbers of hepatitis B cases in India was asked for, the CDC had to admit that it had gone “missing”. (PMID 15547938) Also, while the WHO used to advise mass vaccination for hepatitis B if the prevalence was more than 2 per 100, that advice has been dropped in favour of mass vaccination everywhere, regardless of disease incidence.

Read more

VAERS: What we really know about the reporting of adverse events.

March 5, 2008 by · 1 Comment
Filed under: Uncategorized 

The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is currently the only method of post-licensure surveillance for adverse reactions to vaccines in the United States. VAERS is a passive reporting system that allows physicians and parents to submit reports of potential adverse events post-vaccination. Unlike the mandatory reporting system for vaccine preventable diseases, there is no mandated system for the reporting of adverse events following vaccination. The FDA and CDC utilize VAERS for identifying adverse events associated with licensed vaccines (Chen, Rastogi, & Mullen, et al., 1994). Rosenthal and Chen (1995) note that vaccine trials “have sample sizes that are insufficient to detect rare adverse events” and “are usually carried out in well-defined, homogeneous populations with relatively short follow-up periods which may limit their generalizability (p.1706)”. Therefore, it can be assumed that accurate reporting of adverse events to VAERS is a critical issue in indentifying adverse events that occur in the general population. Unfortunately, current literature suggests that VAERS is, at best, poorly utilized (Rosenthal & Chen, 1995).

Read more

© 2010-2014 Inside Vaccines All Rights Reserved -- Copyright notice by Blog Copyright