Vaksine"diskusjonen"

[mamma-x-3]

Godt sagt :-D:

 

A plea for a balanced discussion on immunisation

Richard T Halvorsen, GP

WC1N 3NA

 

"Any hope for a rational discussion on the benefits and risks of vaccination was not helped by Rebecca Coombes' less than objective critique of what she refers to as the "anti-vaccination lobby".[1] I, too, deplore personal attacks that are made on Paul Offit, David Salisbury or any other enthusiastic proponent of vaccines. But I am also concerned when I hear that those who simply question the value of vaccines, like many of the parents I meet every week in my immunisation clinic, have been patronized and bullied into vaccinating their children by my fellow health professionals.

 

Any discussion about vaccines is liable to get heated - on both sides of the debate; and that's a great shame because it prevents us from having the open, honest discussion that this important subject demands. Those who speak determinedly in favour of vaccines are just as much to blame as the "anti-vaccination lobby". In the same edition of the BMJ, Iona Heath challenges the benefits of breast screening and the one-sided propaganda that is put out to encourage women to have their mammograms.[2] Many of Dr Health's arguments could equally apply to vaccination. In particular, she quotes David Sackett's description of the arrogance of preventive medicine, of which immunisation must be the pre-eminent example. "Preventive medicine displays all 3 elements of arrogance.

 

First, it is aggressively assertive, pursuing symptomless individuals and telling them what they must do to remain healthy . . . Second, preventive medicine is presumptuous, confident that the interventions it espouses will, on average, do more good than harm to those who accept and adhere to them. Finally, preventive medicine is overbearing, attacking those who question the value of its recommendations." All 3 elements apply to immunisation.

 

There is an arrogance amongst some doctors that doubters simply need to be told "the facts" to be persuaded of the clear and overwhelming benefits of immunisation. I have spent much time studying "the facts" in the form of published peer-reviewed research papers. These, in general, do demonstrate the benefits of vaccines, but these benefits are usually less than widely claimed, the risks greater than admitted, and the diseases that vaccines aim to prevent often less serious than portrayed.

 

The disease Ms. Coombes mentions most in her feature is measles, a disease that can be serious and fatal. However, when I was a child, in the 1960s, we all caught measles and certainly did not live in fear of it. A BMJ editorial of 1963, prior to the introduction of the single measles vaccine, whilst asserting the need for the vaccine in underdeveloped countries, stated, "But the need or desire for a vaccine for the general population of Great Britain is much les certain.

 

Measles is now a mild disease, and many parents and doctors may feel that no protection against it is required."[3] It is true that during that period between 50 and 150 people died every year from measles (many of these suffered form chronic health problems, for whom the case for immunisation was stronger), but these figures must be balanced against the evidence that catching measles prevents allergic disease - including asthma, which kills over 1,000 people every year in the UK.[4]

 

The case for vaccination needs to be put in perspective. And why are we immunising the whole population against mumps when a 10-year survey of 2,482 of the most serious cases of mumps (those admitted to hospital), found just five cases of long-term complications - of deafness due to involvement of the eighth cranial nerve? The authors concluded, "It seems clear from the results of this survey that there is little need for general vaccination against mumps."[5]

 

Just as with breast screening, the current public health message is unequivocally in favour of vaccination and never puts the counter argument. Ms Coombes' assertion that JABS is "anti-vaccine" is incorrect. Indeed the JABS web site clearly states this. And yes, the JABS web site does still maintain - correctly - that "some children have and will continue to be damaged by combined and single dose vaccines." If this were not the case, the UK Vaccine Damage Payments Unit would not have paid out 1367 vaccine damage awards between 1978 and 2005. It is an unspoken truth that mass vaccination programmes necessitate sacrificing the few to protect the majority.

 

Those who question the benefit of mass immunisation are not all irrational non-believers. Most support vaccination but are concerned at - and question the necessity for - the large number of vaccines and the early ages at which these are given. Many have studied the research, only to find - as I have - contradiction and uncertainty. They deserve to be treated with respect and given the opportunity for an open and honest debate.

 

[1] Coombes R. Vaccine Disputes. BMJ 2009;338:1528-31.

 

[2] Heath I. It is not wrong to say no. BMJ 2009;338:1534.

 

[3] Anonymous. Vaccination against measles. BMJ 1963;5360-1.

 

[4] Rosenlund H et al. Allergic Disease and Atopic Sensitization in Children in Relation to Measles Vaccnation and Measles Infection. Pediatrics 2009;123:771-778.

 

[5] Anonymous. A retrospective survey of the complications of mumps. Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners 1974; 24:552-6.

 

Competing interests: Author of The Truth about Vaccines. Medical Director of BabyJabs children's immunisation service.

 

Innlegg fra denne linken:

http://www.bmj.com/content/338/bmj.b2435/reply

[mamma-x-3]

Vil gjerne framheve dette avsnittet. Beskriver kort og godt den aggressive tonen til pro-debatantene i dette foraet:

 

 

".....First, it is aggressively assertive, pursuing symptomless individuals and telling them what they must do to remain healthy . . . Second, preventive medicine is presumptuous, confident that the interventions it espouses will, on average, do more good than harm to those who accept and adhere to them. Finally, preventive medicine is overbearing, attacking those who question the value of its recommendations."

 

 

...."Those who question the benefit of mass immunisation are not all irrational non-believers. Most support vaccination but are concerned at - and question the necessity for - the large number of vaccines and the early ages at which these are given. Many have studied the research, only to find - as I have - contradiction and uncertainty. They deserve to be treated with respect and given the opportunity for an open and honest debate"....

[modernemann]

Richard Halvorsen skrev ett par skikkelig ekle artikler i Daily Fail for drøyt ett år siden, rundt dødsfallet til Natalie Morton. Ellevill spekulasjon over ett dødsfall man på den tiden ikke ante hva skyldtes, og som man altså i dag vet ikke skyldtes vaksinen.

En mann som kynisk forsøker å utnytte ett ungt menneskes dødsfall i sin sak, lenge før man vet hva dødsfallet skyldes er ikke akkurat den rette til å komme med "A plea for a balanced discussion on immunisation".

 

Les her, f.eks:

http://layscience.net/node/652

 

Ellers er det en grei regel å forsøke å vise mennesker respekt, og holde seg til sannheten, hvis man ønsker det samme tilbake, og det at du gjentatte ganger blir tatt i løgn, og nekter å forholde deg til studier som gir ett annet resultat enn det du ønsker, gjør at det er litt vanskelig å ta deg på alvor; du fremstår som svært useriøs.

 

 

[ostepop123]

Problemet, mamma-x-3, er at du selv forventer å bli behandlet med respekt og bli tatt alvorlig, mens du i et innlegg hvor du indirekte ber om mer balanse blant debattantene, presiserer at dine motstandere er umulige å snakke med. Flott det .

 

Hva angår innlegget du kopierer inn, må jeg igjen presisere at jeg på ingen måte er svoren vaksinetilhenger - jeg er svoren dokumentasjonstilhenger. Såvidt jeg har forstått er mine meningsfeller også det. Nå er det vel et halvt års tid vi har holdt på å diskutere her inne, og du har ennå ikke skjønt det.

 

Når forfatteren av innlegget presterer å si at han har gjennomgått all tilgjengelig dokumentasjon, og funnet at den generelt overvurderer vaksineeffekt og undervurdere bivirkninger - ja, da lurer jeg veldig på hvordan han kan trekke en slik slutning. Har han kanskje egen forskning å vise til? Hvordan kan han vite at all forskningen tar feil?

 

Jeg har ikke tenkt å gå gjennom alt han sier, men legger merke til at han mener vaksinering er "sacrificing the few to protect the majority", og altså ikke OK. Han sier samtidig at "It is true that during that period between 50 and 150 people died every year from measles" og spesifiserer at dette gjaldt barn med kroniske sykdommer - men mener at dette bør balanseres mot at meslinger - visstnok - beskytter mot astma! Snakk om "sacrificing the few". Studien han viser til vedr. astma er forøvrig gjort av bl.a. steinerlegen Jackie Schwartz, og er på ingen måte egnet til å si noe om hvorvidt meslinginfeksjon beskytter mot astma. Nå skal jeg forklare deg hvorfor, mamma-x-3, så slipper du å lese hele den kjedelige studien selv. For det første viser andre studier at meslingvaksinen faktisk beskytter mot astma. For det andre er denne studien ikke spesielt godt utført. Det står nemlig ikke hvem som har innhentet data om barnas sykdom dersom dette ikke er bekreftet ved blodprøver eller diagnose av lege. Om du derfor sjekker tabell 1, finner du at ved alle diagnoser som er stilt via blodprøve eller legebesøk, er det ingen (eller nesten ingen) forskjell mellom gruppene. Du finner dessuten at for nesten alle tallene for dem som er uvaksinerte og har gjennomgått meslinginfeksjon krysser konfidensintervallet 1, og er dermed ikke bevis for noen som helst sammenheng.

 

Det å med vitende og vilje godta 50-150 meslingedødsfall per år basert på astmarisiko i denne studien, er dermed enn ganske kjip beslutning for de 50-150 barna som beviselig vil dø av meslinger.

[mamma-x-3]

..."There is an arrogance amongst some doctors that doubters simply need to be told "the facts" to be persuaded of the clear and overwhelming benefits of immunisation. I have spent much time studying "the facts" in the form of published peer-reviewed research papers. These, in general, do demonstrate the benefits of vaccines, but these benefits are usually less than widely claimed, the risks greater than admitted, and the diseases that vaccines aim to prevent often less serious than portrayed!."...

 

:-)

[ostepop123]

Ja, nettopp. Hvordan tror du, mamma-x-3, at denne mannen kan vite at all forskningen han påstår å ha lest overdriver virkningene og undervurderer bivirkninger av vaksiner? Hva baserer han seg på?

[ostepop123]

Og er ikke du minst like arrogant som noen her inne, mamma-x-3? Kan du eventuelt fortelle meg når du har tatt inn over deg noe som helst av hva jeg har skrevet?