- advertisement -

Vaccines: Discredited Theory Thrown Out

Discussion in 'Other Hot Topics' started by sooz, Jun 2, 2010.

  1. SueM

    SueM Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    380

    Recalled on the fact that it contains pig virus DNA. One of two things happened here. One, the pig virus material has always been in the vaccine but has just recently been able to be detected (better testing, etc.). In which case, the vaccine should be recalled. Two, when it was tested previously, the material didn't exist and now for some reason, it does exist... In which case, it should be recalled until further studies are done. Unless you know of safety studies of pig virus DNA in vaccines that you can link to...?

    My "riddle" was in response to your "riddle" because the only way to respond to a nonsensical riddle is of course with another riddle. Got it? :) But yes, it was directed towards Dr. Offit.
     
  2. swellman

    swellman Approved members

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2008
    Messages:
    3,544
    If the DNA was present from the beginning then the vaccine safety study would be a suitable surrogate, if not a primary, safety study in and of itself.
     
  3. Charlotte'sMom

    Charlotte'sMom Approved members

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2008
    Messages:
    1,215
    Sorry, but I'm not okay with pig viruses accidentally showing up in my children's vaccines. What kind of lab allows that kind of contamination? Who cares if the vaccine passed the safety studies anyway. I don't want pig viruses injected into my children.
     
  4. swellman

    swellman Approved members

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2008
    Messages:
    3,544
    I don't care for it either ... I was just answering a question.
     
  5. Charlotte'sMom

    Charlotte'sMom Approved members

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2008
    Messages:
    1,215
    The way you answered it sounded like you were okay with that.
     
  6. swellman

    swellman Approved members

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2008
    Messages:
    3,544
    Because I answered it or because I didn't specifically say that I didn't care for it?

    For what it's worth I'm comfortable with it. If it were a vaccine I felt was necessary I don't think I would hesitate to use it. Just because it has pig virus DNA in it doesn't mean squat. We inhale or ingest foreign DNA every single day. I would rather it not be in a vaccine but there's no evidence that it causes problems.
     
  7. Charlotte'sMom

    Charlotte'sMom Approved members

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2008
    Messages:
    1,215
    Because you said it would be a suitable safety study. Didn't sound like you had a problem with the pig virus if it still passed safety studies.

    And FWIW, inhaling and ingesting is a whole lot different than injecting in your body.
     
  8. swellman

    swellman Approved members

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2008
    Messages:
    3,544
    I don't agree. I would love to read anything that differentiates them - specifically referring to pig virus fragments.
     
  9. Lisa P.

    Lisa P. Approved members

    Joined:
    May 19, 2008
    Messages:
    5,380
    Well, and I hate to say this because I know this will push your buttons, but it's just common sense that inhaling and digesting is different than injecting. Sure, often common sense doesn't work in the realm of complicated scientific work because reality can be counterintuitive. But in this case, the body is set up specifically to allow matter to enter the respiratory and digestive system and to be able to protect against that common event. The body has defenses against invaders under the skin or into the bloodstream, but everything about the body is set up to keep parts of the environment from wandering into fatty tissue or blood in the first place. Certainly there's a difference. How important that difference is would depend upon a number of factors, but as parents of kids with diabetes we certainly know the difference between injecting and ingesting or inhaling a substance, eh?:rolleyes:

    What you're getting at is that it might be just fine to inject pig DNA. And it might. Frankly, there are probably substances that pose a much greater risk and seem much more benign, the whole "pig DNA" thing just has an ick factor. What you're saying, I think, is just because it is "icky" doesn't mean it's necessarily more dangerous. Which is true. But that doesn't then make it "safe unless a study says it isn't". It makes it "potentially unsafe unless a study says it is" and that would have to be, for me, a study by people I have some confidence in, confidence that they are deciding whether the pig DNA has bad affects on the body rather than deciding (for me) that whatever the affects are they are worth the risk. Same as injecting -- I don't know -- what -- yummy milk chocolate?

    We can't avoid, in the modern world and probably to a lesser degree in any world, getting stuff in our body that hurts it. When I worked in the greenhouse, we talked about how we probably got more carcinogens breathing the exhaust fumes from the guy in front of us on the way to work than we did from the pesticides at work (which actually wasn't true, but it was funny). But the thing is, do I want to add one to the other? I think we need to have some level of consciousness about everything we put in our bodies, and especially into our kids bodies.
     
  10. Sportsrep

    Sportsrep Approved members

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2007
    Messages:
    51
    Sue, I'm not ignoring you but while I was sleeping this thread seems to have degenerated into yet another endless argument about the pros and cons of vaccination. I'm not personally hugely interested in that so I think I'm going to duck out.

    FWIW, my personal opinion is that we shouldn't discount further research into possible links between bowel irregularities and vaccinations, and that it warrants investigation and study.

    However, I think Andrew Wakefield as a person is a dangerous loon whose methods were shoddy, who ignored (or even covered up) anything which did not support the theory he had been paid to espouse and who had more than one conflict of interest. In short, he?s not the Messiah, he?s a very naughty boy.

    And yes, I guess this is just my opinion, but it's one based on extensive reading on both sides of the 'argument', and one with which the GMC seems to be in accord. Nice talking with you.
     
  11. SueM

    SueM Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    380
    Isn't the key here though... Just because there is no evidence of harm (as of now....) this does not correlate to NO HARM. We simply don't know. PCV2 has been shown to be associated with "postweaning multisystemic wasting syndrome (PMWS)" in piglets. Now, sure it may be safe for humans... but I'm just not one to just fall for that... just because "they" say so. :)

    Also, would anyone really consider a Rotavirus vaccine to be one of those necessary vaccines in the US? It's diarrhea.
     
  12. swellman

    swellman Approved members

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2008
    Messages:
    3,544
    I need to be less lazy and use more words.

    I agree. In fact, the one and only thing I have issue with in your post is:

    I would use "can be" - all the rest I am in agreement with.

    Of course there can be a difference - in some cases a world of difference, however, it's not "common sense" that there will, necessarily, be a difference. I don't think it's intuitively obvious that injecting pig virus DNA ( and we don't even know the concentration ) either will or can cause any deleterious effects. If one is inclined to trust such people several heads of health organizations have concluded as much.

    Have we used the vaccine in question? No.
    Will we? Probably not.
    Would I ever use one that had pig virus DNA in it? If it were the only one available for, say, polio? Yup.

    Just because I dislike gross generalizations and global assumptions doesn't necessarily mean I'm an advocate for the opposite.

    Any way, this post was supposed to be about Wakefield and we've been duly spanked by and, sadly, ran off Sportsrep.
     
  13. SueM

    SueM Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    380
    I understand Sportsrep. Trust me, I never consider non-responses from people to mean that they have suddenly changed their opinions.

    As for your opinion of Dr. Wakefield... that's cool. I understand that everyone has their opinions. Personally, I would disagree with you on that and I think that the story is a lot different from Brian Deer's take on it (which is where most of your information comes from). Certainly the case is not closed and I see that we are in agreement on that.

    ps. A "Messiah"? Yikes, don't think that I would consider anyone a Messiah... A researcher with a hypothesis that needs to be studied more maybe, but "Messiah", not so much....
     
  14. swellman

    swellman Approved members

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2008
    Messages:
    3,544
    I guess I need to say this because it appears, from Lisa P's post, I have been tagged as a believer of "safe until proven otherwise". This is absolutely and completely untrue. When I say "no evidence" I mean, at the very least, "evidence to the contrary".

    As for your statement, yes, it is true that there is current evidence to the contrary that it will cause harm. Yes, it's true that at some point in the future it might come to pass that it could cause harm. Yes, judgment at this point is a personal decision.

    You say that as if it's a big joke "they" are trying to pull on you.

    Yea, sure .... just diarrhea that kills 500,000 children a year but I'm sure the US version of it is a lot safer. :rolleyes:

    FWIW and as previously mentioned we haven't used it yet - my wife and I have had it and it SUCKS - really, really, really bad. I can't even imagine a child with it and even more so a child with diabetes. I very well may have just typed myself into getting it for him.
     
  15. SueM

    SueM Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    380
    No, not a joke... Sorry if that was confusing. What I meant was that at this point, seeing that "they" don't seem to know much (if anything) about these pig virus questions, I personally wouldn't trust them to tell me that this vaccine is safe and that the pig virus situation is a non-issue. But I recognize that I am overly cautious when it comes to that.


    Well, perhaps the US version is a lot safer considering the CDC estimates that before the vaccine, there were approximately 20-60 children whose deaths may be attributed to Rotavirus.... Obviously, it has more to do with our conditions here... In other words, it is extremely rare for people to die from diarrhea in this country. Thank you for showing us how sometimes our medical establishment tends to use the worldwide numbers of deaths to try to justify recommending certain vaccines.


    Hey, good luck with that... Would it be rude to end this comment with a "Oink, Oink"....
     
  16. Lisa P.

    Lisa P. Approved members

    Joined:
    May 19, 2008
    Messages:
    5,380

    How about this, there is a difference, and it can be material?

    But I don't know anything at all about Wakefield, so I'd have to shut up, and I'm not sure I'm able. Wait, I could just make stuff up. . .

    I read that Wakefield and Offit (?) are actually never seen in the same room at the same time. I call for DNA testing to make sure they are separate people. . .How's that?
     

Share This Page

- advertisement -

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice