|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Safety and Effectiveness of Herbs and Pharmaceuticals | |||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3478 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:When my grandson was born in 2006 he was given the HepB vaccine right out of the oven. I was there and it is listed on his vaccination record. My daughter didn't test positive for any type of Hepatitis.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Another question I have is the issue of trust; namely, how can I trust what the CDC says? Here is a case in point. For years they insisted that thimerosal was a safe additive to vaccines. Then they removed it from all childhood vaccines. Why? Because of pressure from anti-vax people spinning FUD about it, as you yourself do here. There was no clinical reason, no evidence of any damage all the evidence still says that thimerosal is safe, it was a political response. Thimerosal is only there as a preservative, if people won't get their children vaccinated because of its presence then it is responsible to remove it so that more people will vaccinate. It ends up costing more on vaccines in the long run because they go off quicker, but if it gets wider coverage of the vaccines that is a worthwhile trade off. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kitsune Member (Idle past 4321 days) Posts: 788 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
I don't think it was as clear-cut as this.
From Wiki:
Many parents took the action to remove thiomersal as indicating that the preservative was harmful, and there have been thousands of lawsuits filed in the U.S. to seek damages from alleged toxicity from vaccines, including those purportedly caused by thiomersal. I think it is highly unlikely that no one in the CDC or any of the other groups involved in the removal would not have anticipated this. Such a backlash, including lawsuits, is possibly a reason why the US will not ban mercury from dental fillings. No one wants to have to pay out billions in compensation. So why were they willing to open the can of worms here? According to Wiki, this was a "precautionary measure":
This action was based on the precautionary principle, which assumes that there is no harm in exercising caution even if it later turns out to be unnecessary. Very sensible. If the CDC were as convinced as you are that thimerosal poses no danger whatsoever, then they would have seen no need to "exercise caution." Keep in mind that in the US, the home of the CDC, vaccinations are mandatory apart from some rare exemptions, and in 2 states there are no exemptions at all. I don't believe they would have worried about people not getting vaccinated. Curiously the flu vaccines still have thimerosal, and people are allowed to use their personal discretion in deciding whether or not to get those. Most interesting is the statement from the FDA, CDC and 4 other bodies:
Our review revealed no evidence of harm caused by doses of thimerosal found in vaccines, except for local hypersensitivity reactions. At the time of our review, vaccines containing thimerosal as a preservative could expose infants to cumulative mercury at levels that exceed EPA recommendations during the first 6 months of life. The clinical significance of this conclusion is not currently known; EPA guidelines contain as much as a 10-fold safety factor and such guidelines are meant to be starting points for the evaluation of mercury exposure. However, reducing exposure to thimerosal from vaccines is merited given the goal of reducing human exposure to mercury from all sources, the feasibility of removing thimerosal as a vaccine preservative, and the desirability of ensuring public confidence in the safety of vaccines. (bold emphasis mine) So it was possible for an infant to be exposed to mercury levels that were higher than established safety limits. Not good. Reducing exposure to mercury from all sources: much better. I notice that you did not address my question about how much thimerosal is safe for a foetus of any age, when its mother gets the flu jab recommended by the CDC. (ABE) Seven US states have banned the use of thimerosal-containing vaccines in children and pregnant women: California, Delaware, lllinois, Missouri, New York and Washington. Edited by Kitsune, : No reason given. Edited by Kitsune, : No reason given. Edited by Kitsune, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
Hi Kitsune,
You are in error that the HepB vaccine is given 6 weeks after birth; the CDC says it should be administered at birth. In America. Where there is no thimerosal in vaccines. In the deveoping world, the monovalent Hep B vaccine is rarely used; the usual practice is to use combined vaccines, which are only given after six weeks. The drug they are testing is hardly used. In the US and Europe it is not used, since our vaccines do not contain thimerosal. Elsewhere, separate vaccines are much rarer. This makes it pretty clear that the study group where not interested in testing real-world situations, but rather in producing anti-vaccine propaganda. If the study is interested in thimerosal containing vaccines in the developing world, as they claim, why did they mimic the US vaccination schedule?
As far as including thimerosal in the vaccinations in the monkey study, I see no problem with this since this is what indeed happened until recently; any person older than age 9 will have had it in their jab. This is absurd. It's a little bit late to help those people. Anyone interested in actual medicine should be looking at current practice. It is of no value to discover that something is unsafe when no-one is doing it anyway. It is even more absurd to do this and then use it to spread vague fears about vaccines. Speaking of vagueness, here's your original mention of the primate study;
Did the study you cited above use controls who were never vaccinated with MMR? No. Did you read what Dr. Wakefield said in his own defence about the study on monkeys? No. And you are making assumptions about the chicken pox virus without looking into any of the facts either, though I bet you're not past quote mining something from Quackwatch. You don't mention it in any context that makes sense. You just throw it in there, with no attempt to place it into any proper context, right next to a claim about MMR. This is exactly the kind of vague scaremongering that I am talking about.
I think it is reasonable to be concerned that there was a conflict of interest with one of the study administrators, and there are no doubt improvements that could be made to the study (though why the publishers decided not to go ahead with the paper is not something you or I can know, and it is speculation to say that it is because the study was rubbish). My own criticism is that what the monkeys were given was not anything close to the 36 vaccines administered over 2 years, nor was the study done over a long enough time span. I agree.
What you cannot do is reject this study and subsequently claim that it is safe for everybody to receive all of those vaccines before age 2. The study you cited of 4 vaccines being administered to 11-25 year olds does not come close to addressing this issue either. But you haven't even taken the first step of pointing out a legitimate concern. You have done nothing to show that we even need to fear combined vaccinations. You claimed that there were no studies into vaccine combinations. You were wrong, but now that you see there are such studies, you call them insufficient. It's no use calling for studies when you can't even point to a legitimate concern. You provide us with nothing to distinguish your concern over vaccines from paranoia.
Another question I have is the issue of trust; namely, how can I trust what the CDC says? Here is a case in point. For years they insisted that thimerosal was a safe additive to vaccines. Then they removed it from all childhood vaccines. Why? WK has dealt with this already. Thimerosal was removed as a marketing effort. Besides, no-one ever claimed that the CDC was infallible. Your objection is bizarre.
But it's still in flu shots. And the CDC recommend flu shots to pregnant women, which means foetuses at all stages of development will be exposed to thimerosal. If thimerosal was (once?) safe in vaccines, who is to say that it's OK for a 4-week-old foetus? Where are the studies? Who is talking about flu shots? I am not. You are attempting to lead us off-topic. You are using the usual alt-med/vaccine denial strategy off throwing as much shit at the wall as possible and hoping that some of it sticks.
To end this portion of the post about vaccines, I would like to give a link to a paper by Russell Blaylock. Is that the same Russell Blaylock who thinks that monosodium glutamate, aspartame and sucralose are toxic? Russell Blaylock places the term "evidence-based medicine" inn inverted commas as though this were somehow a crime. I am not going to wade through this very long article just for the sake of a blind link. Why don't you point out the salient bits for me? It doesn't start out well I have to say. Blaylock slates epidemiological studies but is happy to go on about the supposed coincidence between autism rises and changes in vaccination (which he does not specify). The section "The Compelling Link Between Autism and the Vaccination Program" has no links of any kind. So where is the meat? I did notice this in there though;
quote: Ouch.
Alt med is not a "system"; it's an umbrella term for non-mainstream health and medicine. Herbs and vitamins are classed as dietary supplements, so your question really amounts to, how do you report adverse effects from food or drink? The same way as the Yellow Card Scheme, by centralised patient reporting and subsequent analysis. There is no excuse for this in the case of herbals; they should be treated just as drugs of any kind. In failing to do this herbalists and others are being irresponsible and show no regard for patient safety.
Clear the FDA of people who are in the pockets of drug manufacturers and make it the truly independent watchdog that it was supposed to be in the first place. Then make a division in charge of overseeing the effects and the safety of dietary supplements. That is along the right lines I think, but I see no need to treat "food supplements" as anything other than a drug. Mutate and Survive Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Apothecus writes: As they say, "it don't make no nevermind" to my position on the whole, Buz. My point is that all of these "alternative" therapies may, from either "mind over matter" effects on mental and/or emotional well being or possible actual physical effects, exert some benefit. I say this while openly describing some of them (I said some, Buz) as hoo-haw at best. It's great that you support integrated therapy, Buz. But when you make statements like this in response to Coragyp's post: Buz writes:No alternative suppliments are a silver bullet for cancer. Going at it naturally would require a very stringent and well guided regimen. Also, it depends on how advanced the cancer was before beginning any program. There comes a point where nothing outside of a miracle will be able to bring remission or cure. ... it makes me think you would never support mainstream therapies for any situation as primary treatment. I'm talking chemotherapy, Buz. I know, it's probably anathema to you to consider this, but what if it were your wife and the physician stated it was either chemo or 3 months? Would you resort to prayer and woo? Or would you truthfully, as you state, support therapy integrated with mainstream and alternative therapies, as I'd support? I'm just wondering, because quite frankly, your statements are confusing and somewhat contradictory. Hi Apothecus. Thanks for sharing that you're undergoing chemotherapy. Yesterday at church I requested prayer on your behalf and we prayed for you. No matter what course of action you have taken, nothing is impossible with God, if in his providence he chooses to heal you miraculously. We pray for your recovery as prayer has been sent up for our cyber-friend, RAZD, who also underwent these treatments. Thank God, he's still with us. As to whether I'd support chemo, it is my understanding that the integrated Wellness Clinic in Ventura, Ca, the largest of it's kind in the US, where MD Dr. Julian Whitaker and his five colleague MDs under him apply some chemo in certain cases to their mainly wholistic health regimes which they advocate. The wholistic approach is to build up the immune system so as to overcome the cancer cells rather than to destroy it, killing both good and bad cells. No matter which way one chooses to go, I would suppose that neither would be very effective if undertaken in a halfhearted lacadaisical manner. Perhaps for you, once the chemo is completed, then is the time to rebuild your impaired immune systems via a vigorous wholeistic health regime, applying the necessary nutrients the body's systems need to keep the cancer cells at bay. Certainly, regardless of what you do, the more knowledge you acqure relative to all aspects of health, the less you will be in the dark as to what where to go from here. May your life be prolonged and your future bright. Go with God and the principles set forth in his book. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2972 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Hi Apothecus. Thanks for sharing that you're undergoing chemotherapy. Yesterday at church I requested prayer on your behalf and we prayed for you. No matter what course of action you have taken, nothing is impossible with God, if in his providence he chooses to heal you miraculously. He said:
Apothcus writes: I'm talking chemotherapy, Buz. Talking, not taking. Can you and the church get your money back on those prayers? - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Apothecus Member (Idle past 2432 days) Posts: 275 From: CA USA Joined: |
Thanks anyway, Buz. Seriously, I appreciate the thoughtfulness.
Perhaps for you, once the chemo is completed, then is the time to rebuild your impaired immune systems via a vigorous wholeistic health regime, applying the necessary nutrients the body's systems need to keep the cancer cells at bay. It's good to know that (if I'm getting you correctly, here) you'd not throw the baby out with the bathwater, at least not totally anyway. I see the only difference between you and me as one of degree. I wouldn't be totally against alternative therapies adjunct to mainstream treatment, and you wouldn't be totaly against mainstream treatment adjunct to alternative therapies, no?
Certainly, regardless of what you do, the more knowledge you acqure relative to all aspects of health, the less you will be in the dark as to what where to go from here. Of course although I'd not be so arrogant as to suggest I don't learn new things daily, I think I have most of my bases covered here, Buz. Thanks, though. Have a good one, and thanks again for the prayers. Maybe god'll let me save them for a later unfortunate turn in life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3478 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:I also wonder about how vaccinations affect our immune system and how it will eventually affect future generations. Historical Medical research on how vaccines affect the immune system. Vaccination replaces recovery from infections with a rather different type of immunological stimulus. This can have unexpected effects. In the measles system, both vaccination and the infection itself have profound and long-lasting effects on the immune system, but these effects are not the same. For example, recovery from natural measles infection reduces the incidence of atopy, and of allergic reactions to house dust mite to half the incidence seen in vaccinated children, suggesting a systemic and non-specific switch to Th1 activity. Are vaccines moving our Th1 driven immune system to a "Th2 driven" immune system?
When a mother is pregnant, her pregnancy is controlled by cytokines, and requires a predominance of Th2 cytokines in order not to reject the baby. (Acta Paediatra 1997; 86: 916-918) A Th1 driven immune system would treat the baby as a graft, thereby miscarrying. Drugs are used to suppress the immune systems of transplant recipients for the same reason. When a baby is born, it’s immune system is initially Th2-skewed, by virtue of the mother’s immune system. The mother’s immune system changes very quickly, and her breastmilk will help to change the baby’s balance, and will also buffer and assist in the development of the baby’s immune system. The first years of life if the time when the difference between vaccine and natural immunity is so important, because most diseases promote a Th1 immunity. The portal of entry, and learning pathways teaches and matures the immune system, and helps in the prevention of both allergy-development and auto-immune disease. The antigen is processed, with the help of immunological factors in breastmilk and the baby’s cued-in immune system through the mucous membranes and the various layers of the immune system, producing an end-point called antibodies. Are we creating weaker humans? Wouldn't it be better to find a way to help children through the diseases instead of avoiding them? Yes, some people die from disease, but that's part of evolution. Yes, it would bother me if it were my child, but that isn't the issue. If vaccines are supposedly for the greater good, how is it good to weaken mankind's immune system? I guess we'll only know through hind sight, well the future will anyway.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Apothecus writes: Have a good one, and thanks again for the prayers. Maybe god'll let me save them for a later unfortunate turn in life. My apologies for missapplying you to the sick list, Bud. I see I need to brush up on reading and comprehension skills. Anyhow, now that you're near the top of my prayer list, I'll just keep you there a spell. God knows whatever other needs you may have. Perhaps there's a need of understanding relative to the Biblical scriptures your personal salvation, a financial or other special need that we could re-apply the prayers to. I'll just make it apply to God (Jehovah, the Biblical god, that is) effecting in your life whatever is best for you and yours. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kitsune Member (Idle past 4321 days) Posts: 788 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
Dr. Blaylock's paper, which I linked to a few posts ago, explains this in more detail. (By the way you will notice that this is supported by information from peer reviewed journals, as is Purpledawn's quote about cytokine types above, though I suspect once it is known that her citation is from the Whale site people will dismiss it out of hand.)
Infants are stuck in the Th2 mode during intrauterine life, so as to prevent being immunologically rejected by the mother during pregnancy (much like transplant rejection), since the baby is seen as a foreign body to the mother’s immune system. Upon birth, the baby remains in a Th2 mode, but has a limited ability to switch to the Th1 defensive mode if the need arises, say from an infection. Months later the baby switches to the adult Th1 mode. If the baby’s immune system remains in a Th2 mode, it has a high risk of developing an autoimmune disorder, such as eczema, asthma or other allergies. Presently, vaccine authorities recommend every baby be vaccinated with the Hepatitis B vaccine at birth. But, is this safe? A recent study looked at the immune reaction in newborn infants up to the age of one year who had received the HepB vaccine to see if their immune reaction differed from adults getting the same vaccine.27 What they found was that the infant, even after age one year, did react differently. Their antibody levels were substantially higher than adults (3-fold higher) and it remained higher throughout the study. In essence, they found that the babies responded to the vaccine by having an intense Th2 response that persisted long after it should have disappeared, a completely abnormal response. Autistic Children More Prone to Develop Autoimmune Diseases and Infections Autistic children have been described as having a Th2 predominance, which would explain their propensity to developing autoimmune diseases and being more susceptible to infections early in life.20,28-30 Blaylock talks for some time about the effects of this kind of immunosuppression. As far as I am aware, studies that claim vaccines are safe do not follow up on the long-term general health of the study participants; what they want to see is that no one has any immediate adverse reactions that can obviously be linked to the vaccine. IMO this is very simplistic. I particularly wanted to address this comment though, which stands out from the content of the rest of Purpledawn's post:
Yes, some people die from disease, but that's part of evolution. Erm . . . no. "Survival of the fittest" does not mean that we let the weakest humans die. Surely it is our moral duty to look after each other in the best way possible. My argument here is that vaccines may sometimes do more harm than good. This has got nothing to do with evolution. Edited by Kitsune, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3478 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:I understand your argument, but I do think vaccines impact our evolution. That's why I feel humans would be better served to find a way to help humans survive the disease instead of avoid it. Find a better way to augment a weak immune system. I don't see vaccines as making us stronger from an evolutionary standpoint. I agree with you that they need to investigate the potential overload of vaccines given to our children.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
In essence, they found that the babies responded to the vaccine by having an intense Th2 response that persisted long after it should have disappeared Funnily the actual paper, (Martin et al, 2003), doesn't see it quite that way ...
The stronger antibody responses to hepatitis B vaccine were not associated to higher induction of Th2 responses during the primary phase of the response ... And it would certainly be misleading to make out this is some general trend from vaccination, the paper goes on to note ...
Indeed, young infants produce lower concentrations of antibodies in response to diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, Haemophilus influenzae type B and measles vaccines than adults The antibody levels also were not persistently substantially higher, they were higher in response to a repeated immune challenge. In other words these children were not immunosupressed in any way, in fact they had a more intense immune response, in terms of antibody levels, to repeated challenges than did the adults in the study. To call it a completely abnormal response is like saying that having all one's teeth fall out is abnormal, and yet all children have this happen. Recognising a difference in immune responses between newborns and adults doesn't make one normal and the other abnormal. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kitsune Member (Idle past 4321 days) Posts: 788 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
Hi Wounded King,
You've got an advantage in that you are able to access these papers to read. From the abstract all I can see is that they concluded that babies naturally have different immune responses, which for me does not directly address the issue of how a vaccine affects their immune response. Do you know if there is any way that I can access the full paper on the internet? Edited by Kitsune, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kitsune Member (Idle past 4321 days) Posts: 788 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
I'm curious about one thing, if anyone would like to answer.
My main concern is that we don't actually know a lot about what vaccines and the ingredients in them do to the body. Common sense tells me, for example, that injecting poisons such as mercury or aluminium (in any amount) into the body is not a desirable thing. Then there's the fact that many vaccines are cultured from non-human cells, and again those are being injected into the body. The number of vaccines that US children receive has more than tripled over the past few decades. The incidences of autism, autoimmune diseases, and ADHD have soared, though I don't doubt that the causes for this are complex. But I am not satisfied that anyone has proved that vaccines have no part to play in this at all. People here who believe that vaccines are perfectly safe and who would not be worried about putting your children through recommended vaccine schedules -- a question for you. How many vaccines are you willing to inject? Should we allow the recommended schedule to continue to add more vaccines as they are developed? Look here for some possible future vaccine targets. More than 30 more vaccines -- would that be OK with you? Vaccines for obesity, smoking, diabetes and addictions too? Should we keep adding them indefinitely with the goal of eradicating all illnesses (as well as issues clearly linked to lifestyle and genetics)? Edited by Kitsune, : No reason given. Edited by Kitsune, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
I doubt it will be available on the internet, unless one of the authors has a copy posted somewhere.
I'm not sure what you are asking about how vaccination affects their immune response. A study comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated children for HBV infection and chronic infection shows that they have, as you would expect, higher levels of antibody to HBV and lower rates of infection (Van der Sande et al., 2007). Other than that I'm not sure what sort of things you think they should be looking at. I'm not sure how viable the very general assessment of 'health' you want is, there is a very high likelihood that unless you go in with a quite specific hypothesis your analysis may well turn up something different between vaccinated and un-vaccinated groups, but the chances of it being significant are massively reduced. It is also going to be a nightmare to control a study like this since rates of vaccination are by no means consistent across different segments of society. In the meantime there is an open access review (Marchant and Goldman, 200) which looks at several different immune responses and how they differ between adults and newborns, the Martin paper is one of the cases they cover. TTFN, WK Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024