No, some gov't orgs lie sometimes, so be skeptical about his one too. mckenzievmd and Scott_Pryor provided peer-reviewed published references. I pointed out the limitations of those articles. Since you claim my research is flawed, you should provide references showing why or point out the flaws in my references. But then you complain I am challenging a non-immunologist ... If you are not frightened by what's in the vaccine, you should be!Thanks for helping me make my point, especially with that last bit. You point out that someone provided peer reviewed research and you showed us all what's wrong with. BUT YOU ARE NOT A PEER! If I were going to provide references they would be from peers and I would only accept the opinion of peers about them. Even if I were totally paranoid and had anecdotal information from a close friend, why would I go to a CFI forum to talk about it? I would want to know what immunologists thought, not random people on the internet. How do you not get that? Addendum: If I wanted to actually research vaccines and I had suspicions about what mainstream media was telling me, I might start with the Internet and look for as many studies as I could find, attempting to determine the consensus. With vaccines, GMOs, aliens, homeopathy, etc. there are also meta-studies that do some of that review for you. If that didn't satisfy me, I'd go to my own circle, looking for someone I trust who had the knowledge I wanted or someone I trust who knew someone with that knowledge. If that system doesn't work, then the scientific method doesn't work. If someone I know, who shows no sign of being indoctrinated or I have no reason to believe is lying and has the proper credentials, agrees with the mainstream view, then I trust the mainstream view. My other options, are: get an 8 year degree and challenge the mainstream view or trust some random person on the internet that I know nothing about. Do you see where you fit in here?
I recently got into this same argument with my cousin and sort of hurt our relationship by trying to show her the truth behind vaccines. Basically, she has invested many years of her life and has a circle of friends who are like-minded which makes any reasonable argument difficult to have. I didn’t really want to go round and round with someone again so I punched out of this thread early. I read somewhere that “You can’t use logic to convince someone that they need to be logical. You can’t use evidence to explain why evidence should be respected” or something along those lines.
Here’s a great article that goes into this very phenomenon from Mother Jones. This really pissed my cousin off since she is quite liberal and hearing a left-wing website that she likes equate anti-vaxxing with climate change denial or teaching creationism was a bit much for her.
Or stated another way “you can’t reason someone out of an unreasonable belief”
If you can’t accept that you might be wrong, then you’re not doing science. When it comes to friends and family however, you have to watch for clues that things are going south. I call them circuit breakers, points in a conversation where someone has quit thinking. Turning away or starting to walk away but then coming back with their finger in your face is never good. Saying things like, well it’s a free country you can believe what you want, are early warning signs. “I just saw this documentary” or “Dr. Oz said” is a red flag.
I already stated that I got a flu shot. If I did not want a flu vaccine I would not go around researching which one is better. So I don’t know why the “anti-vaxx” label keeps coming up …
At this time I agree that it is a good idea to get vaccinated. I am pointing out that not all vaccines are created equal. Choose carefully.
Kuno-Sakai H, Kimura M. Removal of gelatin from live vaccines and DTaP-an ultimate solution for vaccine-related gelatin allergy.Biologicals 2003;31:245-9.
Would you label the authors anti-vaxx because they are pointing out that there are problems with vaccines?
Today vaccines still contain gelatin.
and here is the effect in 2013:
http://www.acaai.org/allergist/news/New/Pages/AllergictoGummyBearsBeCautiousGettingtheFluShot.aspx
Does one need a PhD in immunology to figure that the system is not working?
About CDC flu deaths, it was brought to my attention that the 3000-49000 number is not the actual number of lab confirmed deaths.
The numbers are estimated by a statistical model that tries to predict the number of deaths due to other causes that may have been influenza associated.
http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/disease/us_flu-related_deaths.htm
Peer review is the best you can get but it is not flawless. That is why I keep asking, if you can find a flaw in my references, please let me know.
http://www.cochrane.org/news/blog/eminence-vs-evidence
concludes “keep asking questions and questioning answers.”
It looks like a lot of people here would like to follow the FDA/CDC, no questions asked …
CFI seemed like a place where people would be skeptical and question everything … not just my posts but the FDA/CDC positions as well …
I already stated that I got a flu shot. If I did not want a flu vaccine I would not go around researching which one is better. So I don't know why the "anti-vaxx" label keeps coming up ... At this time I agree that it is a good idea to get vaccinated. I am pointing out that not all vaccines are created equal. Choose carefully.We don't care if you got a shot. We also can't verify that you did, so maybe you are just saying that in an attempt to sound credible. Because most of what else you say agrees with ant-vaxxers.
Kuno-Sakai H, Kimura M. Removal of gelatin from live vaccines and DTaP-an ultimate solution for vaccine-related gelatin allergy.Biologicals 2003;31:245-9. Would you label the authors anti-vaxx because they are pointing out that there are problems with vaccines? Today vaccines still contain gelatin. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipient-table-2.pdf and here is the effect in 2013: http://www.acaai.org/allergist/news/New/Pages/AllergictoGummyBearsBeCautiousGettingtheFluShot.aspx Does one need a PhD in immunology to figure that the system is not working?Do you read the things you post? At the bottom it says who wrote that article, "The ACAAI is a professional medical organization of more than 5,700 allergists-immunologists and allied health professionals, headquartered in Arlington Heights, Ill." So, yes, you need a PhD in immunology to be qualified to write that article. That's how you now know that information. An immunologist told you. See? What doesn't say is, "the system is not working". It says, do you want to risk having some sniffles or risk dying of the flu? Do you want to be aware of your body's special conditions, like a rare allergy, because you should be.
Peer review is the best you can get but it is not flawless. That is why I keep asking, if you can find a flaw in my references, please let me know. http://www.cochrane.org/news/blog/eminence-vs-evidence concludes "keep asking questions and questioning answers."What is the difference between "peer review" and "asking questions and questioning answers". Both of those are exactly what scientists do. The difference between you and them is they are more qualified to understand the data. Peer review includes oversight boards that check factors other than the data like financial influence or the quality of the laboratory. Citizen review and input is also included, maybe you should look into that instead of trying to change the minds a couple dozen people here.
It looks like a lot of people here would like to follow the FDA/CDC, no questions asked ... CFI seemed like a place where people would be skeptical and question everything ... not just my posts but the FDA/CDC positions as well ...The old, "I thought you were open minded" defense. It's a double fallacy. It's special pleading, that somehow your argument is worthy of my consideration despite it being just like 1,000 other arguments just like it that are refuted in writing and it is an ad-hominem about my ability to process information.
I already stated that I got a flu shot. If I did not want a flu vaccine I would not go around researching which one is better. So I don't know why the "anti-vaxx" label keeps coming up ... At this time I agree that it is a good idea to get vaccinated. I am pointing out that not all vaccines are created equal. Choose carefully.We don't care if you got a shot. We also can't verify that you did, so maybe you are just saying that in an attempt to sound credible. Because most of what else you say agrees with ant-vaxxers.
Kuno-Sakai H, Kimura M. Removal of gelatin from live vaccines and DTaP-an ultimate solution for vaccine-related gelatin allergy.Biologicals 2003;31:245-9. Would you label the authors anti-vaxx because they are pointing out that there are problems with vaccines? Today vaccines still contain gelatin. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipient-table-2.pdf and here is the effect in 2013: http://www.acaai.org/allergist/news/New/Pages/AllergictoGummyBearsBeCautiousGettingtheFluShot.aspx Does one need a PhD in immunology to figure that the system is not working?Do you read the things you post? At the bottom it says who wrote that article, "The ACAAI is a professional medical organization of more than 5,700 allergists-immunologists and allied health professionals, headquartered in Arlington Heights, Ill." So, yes, you need a PhD in immunology to be qualified to write that article. That's how you now know that information. An immunologist told you. See? What doesn't say is, "the system is not working". It says, do you want to risk having some sniffles or risk dying of the flu? Do you want to be aware of your body's special conditions, like a rare allergy, because you should be.
Peer review is the best you can get but it is not flawless. That is why I keep asking, if you can find a flaw in my references, please let me know. http://www.cochrane.org/news/blog/eminence-vs-evidence concludes "keep asking questions and questioning answers."What is the difference between "peer review" and "asking questions and questioning answers". Both of those are exactly what scientists do. The difference between you and them is they are more qualified to understand the data. Peer review includes oversight boards that check factors other than the data like financial influence or the quality of the laboratory. Citizen review and input is also included, maybe you should look into that instead of trying to change the minds a couple dozen people here.
It looks like a lot of people here would like to follow the FDA/CDC, no questions asked ... CFI seemed like a place where people would be skeptical and question everything ... not just my posts but the FDA/CDC positions as well ...The old, "I thought you were open minded" defense. It's a double fallacy. It's special pleading, that somehow your argument is worthy of my consideration despite it being just like 1,000 other arguments just like it that are refuted in writing and it is an ad-hominem about my ability to process information. I know what the ACAAI is. In 2003 the Japanese team warned of the dangers of gelatin in vaccines and recommended its removal. In 2013, the ACAAI/FDA/CDC are still injecting gelatin into our kids. Why? It is possible to make gelatin free vaccines. If you looked at my table it shows only some flu vaccines contain gelatin. So one can get flu protection without risking a life-threatening gelatin allergy. So what's the justification for continuing to allow gelatin in vaccines?
It’s a conspiracy. They want to destroy your child’s brains donchaknow. 
Of course RNs like me don’t care if our brains, and those of our children and grandchildren are destroyed. Because of course I don’t need brains to care for my ICU patients. Neither do the doctors I work with, which is why they get flu vaccines and so do their children. Brainless automatons is what we are all aiming for and you have found us out!
I already stated that I got a flu shot. If I did not want a flu vaccine I would not go around researching which one is better. So I don't know why the "anti-vaxx" label keeps coming up ... At this time I agree that it is a good idea to get vaccinated. I am pointing out that not all vaccines are created equal. Choose carefully.We don't care if you got a shot. We also can't verify that you did, so maybe you are just saying that in an attempt to sound credible. Because most of what else you say agrees with ant-vaxxers.
Kuno-Sakai H, Kimura M. Removal of gelatin from live vaccines and DTaP-an ultimate solution for vaccine-related gelatin allergy.Biologicals 2003;31:245-9. Would you label the authors anti-vaxx because they are pointing out that there are problems with vaccines? Today vaccines still contain gelatin. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipient-table-2.pdf and here is the effect in 2013: http://www.acaai.org/allergist/news/New/Pages/AllergictoGummyBearsBeCautiousGettingtheFluShot.aspx Does one need a PhD in immunology to figure that the system is not working?Do you read the things you post? At the bottom it says who wrote that article, "The ACAAI is a professional medical organization of more than 5,700 allergists-immunologists and allied health professionals, headquartered in Arlington Heights, Ill." So, yes, you need a PhD in immunology to be qualified to write that article. That's how you now know that information. An immunologist told you. See? What doesn't say is, "the system is not working". It says, do you want to risk having some sniffles or risk dying of the flu? Do you want to be aware of your body's special conditions, like a rare allergy, because you should be.
Peer review is the best you can get but it is not flawless. That is why I keep asking, if you can find a flaw in my references, please let me know. http://www.cochrane.org/news/blog/eminence-vs-evidence concludes "keep asking questions and questioning answers."What is the difference between "peer review" and "asking questions and questioning answers". Both of those are exactly what scientists do. The difference between you and them is they are more qualified to understand the data. Peer review includes oversight boards that check factors other than the data like financial influence or the quality of the laboratory. Citizen review and input is also included, maybe you should look into that instead of trying to change the minds a couple dozen people here.
It looks like a lot of people here would like to follow the FDA/CDC, no questions asked ... CFI seemed like a place where people would be skeptical and question everything ... not just my posts but the FDA/CDC positions as well ...The old, "I thought you were open minded" defense. It's a double fallacy. It's special pleading, that somehow your argument is worthy of my consideration despite it being just like 1,000 other arguments just like it that are refuted in writing and it is an ad-hominem about my ability to process information. I know what the ACAAI is. In 2003 the Japanese team warned of the dangers of gelatin in vaccines and recommended its removal. In 2013, the ACAAI/FDA/CDC are still injecting gelatin into our kids. Why? It is possible to make gelatin free vaccines. If you looked at my table it shows only some flu vaccines contain gelatin. So one can get flu protection without risking a life-threatening gelatin allergy. So what's the justification for continuing to allow gelatin in vaccines? Yes, it's possible to make gelatin-free vaccines, and when they do, the crazies will try to create panic over whatever replaces it. It will never end. Pharmaceutical companies and doctors know this. They try not to waste their time and talent on stupid mobs. Too bad there isn't a vaccine against stupidity. Of course the stupid would refuse to take it. They wouldn't want to take a chance on it working. Lois
So what's the justification for continuing to allow gelatin in vaccines?I don't know, why don't you google it? Why are you asking me?
I know what the ACAAI is. In 2003 the Japanese team warned of the dangers of gelatin in vaccines and recommended its removal. In 2013, the ACAAI/FDA/CDC are still injecting gelatin into our kids. Why? It is possible to make gelatin free vaccines. If you looked at my table it shows only some flu vaccines contain gelatin. So one can get flu protection without risking a life-threatening gelatin allergy. So what's the justification for continuing to allow gelatin in vaccines?I had vowed not to waste my time with this thread anymore but its hard to resist when the arguments here are so typical of someone who looks for evidence to support his fears rather than making a true effort to determine the truth. Its a short trip to the conspiracy theorist library of arguments from here. APV might as well be supporting the existence of extraterrestrial visitors. My explanation here is not for APV because he doesn't seem to listen to the points I try to make. I am simply answering this for everyone else. APV claims to be an engineer. He should try to use reason and logic. He asks a question. Why do manufacturers continue to use vaccines with gelatin in them? Clearly he thinks there is some nefarious reason why they do so. Its more profitable? They are too lazy to design a vaccine without this ingredient? I'm guessing here because as with many conspiracy theories its supporters think their brilliant conclusion is so obvious that they don't have to explain themselves. Lets consider a more sensible explanation especially considering the fact the the scientists and physicians who developed and continue to work on these vaccines give these very same vaccines to themselves and their own families. Perhaps the more sensible explanation is that the gelatin is in fact relatively harmless. As I tried to explain to APV earlier, a study that looks at one component of a vaccine in a very limited way does not provide much in the way of information on how that component will affect us when use as part of a vaccine in the real world. Anti-vaxxers use this argument all the time when they talk about thimerisol, aluminum, and formaldehyde as components in vaccines. We have two sides to this "debate" (I put the word debate in quotes because there is no debate about the safety and utility of vaccines in the arena that matters. Scientists and physicians don't debate this The only debate is among people who are not educated in the field and don't understand the science or the data) One side of this "debate" parades out limited studies done in the lab on isolated components in small numbers of individuals. The other side ( the medical community) has in its corner studies on actual human beings using the actual vaccines. What we see is that despite APV's fears, vaccines are not associated with high rates of allergic reactions. If this is so than whatever was found in the lab is irrelevant. I have been in practice for 25 years. During that time I have probably given out 30,000 vaccines. I have never once had a single patient develop an allergic reaction to a vaccine. To me that is pretty convincing since I doubt you could have 30,000 people bite an apple and not have one allergic reaction. Now that's not a controlled trial but its one heck of a lot of anecdotal evidence that they are pretty safe and relatively free of allergy inducing substances.
Just to clarify one thing. I meant to put this in above but got off track. Gelatin is used as a stabilizing agent in many vaccines and has been for years. While its true that some of the allergic reactions people have to vaccines are due to the gelatin component the overall incidence of allergic reactions is extremely low. There is no evidence that injecting vaccines with gelatin in them causes patients to be more allergic in general but simply that patients who are already allergic to gelatin will then react to a vaccine if there is gelatin in the vaccine.
While its true that other stabilizing agents could be used in vaccines these would have to be researched and tested in large numbers of people with no guarantee that the rate of allergic reactions would be any lower. In addition its possible that we may discover some other unwanted and more serious side effect of the new stabilizer.
There will never be a vaccine, or a medicine, or even a food that is 100% safe. That is a fact of the universe we live in. If 999,990 out of 1 million people who take a vaccine do not get a severe allergic reaction as is the case with the Hep B vaccine are we going to risk trying out a new agent on the population in the hopes of making it 999,991 out of a million? For the MMR vaccine ( Measles Mumps Rubella) the incidence of severe allergic reactions is even lower. Only 2 reactions were reported per 10 million doses.
Vaccine critics want to live in a world with NO vaccine risk although they only seem to apply this standard to vaccines and not the food they eat or the cars they drive in or often even the cigarettes they smoke. People need to understand we can never eliminate all risk and any attempt to do so is a foolish and misguided exercise in ever diminishing returns. We need to eliminate unreasonable risk and when we have done that we move on to the next problem. Vaccine critics need to move on.
I am simply answering this for everyone else.And I for one appreciate that. We really don't know how many people view these threads, since they can do so without logging in. I guess somebody knows if they look at server stats, but anyway, APV has continued to asked for scientific arguments and links, despite showing an aversion to trusting them. I find this thread informative, mostly by the links that he himself has provided. It is also informed by the responses he has received that discuss the form of his argument. That he doesn't respond to those, but just keeps putting up links and misinterpreting them is part of that feedback.
I wonder if vaccine companies could create a limited supply of vaccines without whatever the crazies are carrying on about and charge them accordingly? Say an extra $200 for the specially formulated vaccine to cover expenses. Would that shut them up? Would they pay for it? It might be worth trying it to see how they would react.
Lois
There is a NOVA episode on at 7 PM on KVCR in Southern California on “the science behind vaccinations, tracking epidemics, the human costs of refusing a vaccine.”
It may be on other PBS stations across the country either today or during the week. Check your listings. I’d like to know what you all think about what they have to say.
Lois
Its actually a very good show. It was on a few weeks back and the video is online at pbs.org. I put a link to it on my professional web site after watching it. Its something everyone should watch
Its actually a very good show. It was on a few weeks back and the video is online at pbs.org. I put a link to it on my professional web site after watching it. Its something everyone should watchThanks, I hadn't noticed it was on before. Lois
Agreed. It was very understandable and they address where the controversy has come from and admit mistakes made in the past.
I know what the ACAAI is. In 2003 the Japanese team warned of the dangers of gelatin in vaccines and recommended its removal. In 2013, the ACAAI/FDA/CDC are still injecting gelatin into our kids. Why? It is possible to make gelatin free vaccines. If you looked at my table it shows only some flu vaccines contain gelatin. So one can get flu protection without risking a life-threatening gelatin allergy. So what's the justification for continuing to allow gelatin in vaccines?I had vowed not to waste my time with this thread anymore but its hard to resist when the arguments here are so typical of someone who looks for evidence to support his fears rather than making a true effort to determine the truth. Its a short trip to the conspiracy theorist library of arguments from here. APV might as well be supporting the existence of extraterrestrial visitors. My explanation here is not for APV because he doesn't seem to listen to the points I try to make. I am simply answering this for everyone else. APV claims to be an engineer. He should try to use reason and logic. He asks a question. Why do manufacturers continue to use vaccines with gelatin in them? Clearly he thinks there is some nefarious reason why they do so. Its more profitable? They are too lazy to design a vaccine without this ingredient? I'm guessing here because as with many conspiracy theories its supporters think their brilliant conclusion is so obvious that they don't have to explain themselves. Lets consider a more sensible explanation especially considering the fact the the scientists and physicians who developed and continue to work on these vaccines give these very same vaccines to themselves and their own families. Perhaps the more sensible explanation is that the gelatin is in fact relatively harmless. As I tried to explain to APV earlier, a study that looks at one component of a vaccine in a very limited way does not provide much in the way of information on how that component will affect us when use as part of a vaccine in the real world. Anti-vaxxers use this argument all the time when they talk about thimerisol, aluminum, and formaldehyde as components in vaccines. We have two sides to this "debate" (I put the word debate in quotes because there is no debate about the safety and utility of vaccines in the arena that matters. Scientists and physicians don't debate this The only debate is among people who are not educated in the field and don't understand the science or the data) One side of this "debate" parades out limited studies done in the lab on isolated components in small numbers of individuals. The other side ( the medical community) has in its corner studies on actual human beings using the actual vaccines. What we see is that despite APV's fears, vaccines are not associated with high rates of allergic reactions. If this is so than whatever was found in the lab is irrelevant. I have been in practice for 25 years. During that time I have probably given out 30,000 vaccines. I have never once had a single patient develop an allergic reaction to a vaccine. To me that is pretty convincing since I doubt you could have 30,000 people bite an apple and not have one allergic reaction. Now that's not a controlled trial but its one heck of a lot of anecdotal evidence that they are pretty safe and relatively free of allergy inducing substances. I don't know if you even read my post completely. If you look at my table, in flu vaccines, only Sanofi Pasteur's trivalent vaccines contains gelatin. All other manufacturers don't have it. Even Sanofi's other flu vaccines don't have gelatin. My son has egg allergy. He gets the flu shots (containing egg protein) every year. We wait at the allergy clinic for 30 min. to check for any reaction. He has not had any. I am not surprised by your 30,000 vaccines experience. But here is the detail. Sensitization needs a lot less allergen than elicitation. If you had kept a record of how many of them developed an allergy a few weeks after the vaccine, that would have been very useful. I don't have the references handy. DTap contains micrograms of gelatin. MMR contains milligrams of gelatin. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8977505 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9949325 The study found that a vaccine schedule where DTap was followed by MMR caused an allergic reaction. MMR followed by DTap did not. In other words, the micrograms of gelatin in DTap was enough to cause sensitization but not enough to cause elicitation. MMR had enough gelatin to cause sensitization and elicitation. When you are slamming an "anti-vaxxer" who cares about such inconvenient details ... I wrote a similar post to the immunology list at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases/National Institutes of Health. Here's the response I got from Dr. Matzinger: https://list.nih.gov/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind1305&L=immuni-l&F=&S=&P=37286 Dr. Calman Prussin also of the NIAID/NIH wrote: "Could parenteral exposure to proteins in vaccines cause allergy? Sure. Of course it is possible. Parenteral injection of many proteins can be done in such a way as to induce IgE." Food allergy has been called the enigmatic epidemic. Even with all this evidence, no researcher wants to even consider vaccines as a cause. So much for open-minded scientific research. Given the response on this thread it is understandable. No one wants to commit career suicide. So food allergy will remain an enigmatic epidemic. If some people here like to have vaccines with thiomersal and allergen proteins, fine. My post was for people who are more picky about what gets injected into their bodies.
Yes, it's possible to make gelatin-free vaccines, and when they do, the crazies will try to create panic over whatever replaces it. It will never end. Pharmaceutical companies and doctors know this. They try not to waste their time and talent on stupid mobs. Too bad there isn't a vaccine against stupidity. Of course the stupid would refuse to take it. They wouldn't want to take a chance on it working. LoisLois, it doesn't matter what they take out. People would just latch on to another ingredient to focus on. They would move that goal post down to the other end of the field until there is no vaccine left.