Vil bare nevne dette. Ikke alltid man kan stole på forskere

[Anonym bruker]

http://www.forskning.no/Artikler/2005/oktober/1129810362.78

[TheNatural]

Denne artikkelen omhandler en gjennomgang av studier som viste skader ved MMR og konkluderte med at slike skader ikke eksisterer (autisme m.fl.).

 

På bakgrunn av at barnevaksinasjonsprogrammene rundt omkring i verden ble truet når noe forskning viste til sammenhenger mellom MMR vaksinen og autisme, kom det flere "brannslukkingsstudier" som skulle gjenopprette tilliten.

 

Hvis man leser konklusjonene i denne rapporten, får man en følelse av at dette er et rent forsvarsverk for MMR vaksiner og andre vaksiner siden det blir uderstreket så sterkt hvor fantastiske og sikre vaksiner er. En kan ikke få tilgang til hele studien, så jeg kan ikke gi utfyllende kommentarer til det som kommer frem.

Men jeg stiller meg spørsmålet om hvem som bestilte denne studien og ikke minst, hvem som finansierte den.

 

Sitat:

"Measles, mumps and rubella are three very dangerous infectious diseases which cause a heavy disease, disability and death burden in the developing world."

 

En typisk uttalelse fra vaksineforkjempere. Sannheten er at disse sykdommene og mange flere oppstår på grunn av under/feilernæring, urent vann og dårlig hygiene. Men å sørge for at u-land får forbedret disse livsbetingelsene gir jo ingen profitt til legemiddelindustrien.

 

Sitat:

"The evidence of adverse events following immunisation with MMR cannot be separated from its role in preventing the target diseases."

 

Her sier forfatteren egentlig at man ikke kan lage omelett uten å knuse noen egg. Eller sagt på en mere direkte måte, så lenge en tror at sykdommene som det vaksineres mot hindres, aksepterer man at det følger bivirkninger av MMR vaksinen.

Helt utrolig etter min mening, i og med at det dreier seg om stort sett ufarlige barnesykdommer som kanskje til og med er gunstig å få i en naturlig form i barndommen.

 

Ja, en bør alltid være kritisk til enhver forskning og ikke umiddelbart ta alt som god fisk uten videre undersøkelse. Men det gjelder i tilfelle vaksiner for begge sidene i denne følelsesmessige kontroversen.

[blond og blid straks fødeklar]

Men det går jo ikke an å få konklusjoner i studier der man bare har med 12 barn!

Jeg skjønner ikke at dere kan ta en slik raport for god fisk. Men det er ikke første gangen at den raporten blir slaktet for å si det slik.

[Gjest]

Hvilket studie er det du referer til Blond og blid?

[blond og blid straks fødeklar]

Linken ovenfor.

 

MMR og autisme.

[Gjest]

Da kan du sikkert trekke konlusjoner ut fra disse meta analysene også?

 

1: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005 Oct 19;(4):CD004407. Related Articles, Links

 

Vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella in children.

 

Demicheli V, Jefferson T, Rivetti A, Price D.

 

Servizo Sovrazonale di Epidemiologia, ASL 20, Via Venezia 6, Alessandria, Piemonte, Italy 15100. [email protected]

 

BACKGROUND: Public debate over the safety of the trivalent measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine, and the resultant drop in vaccination rates in several countries, persists despite its almost universal use and accepted effectiveness. OBJECTIVES: We carried out a systematic review to assess the evidence of effectiveness and unintended effects associated with MMR. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2004), MEDLINE (1966 to December 2004), EMBASE (1974 to December 2004), Biological Abstracts (from 1985 to December 2004), and Science Citation Index (from 1980 to December 2004). Results from reviews, handsearching and from the consultation of manufacturers and authors were also used. SELECTION CRITERIA: Eligible studies were comparative prospective or retrospective trials testing the effects of MMR compared to placebo, do-nothing or a combination of measles, mumps and rubella antigens on healthy individuals up to 15 years of age. These studies were carried out or published by 2004. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We identified 139 articles possibly satisfying our inclusion criteria and included 31 in the review. MAIN RESULTS: MMR was associated with a lower incidence of upper respiratory tract infections, a higher incidence of irritability, and similar incidence of other adverse effects compared to placebo. The vaccine was likely to be associated with benign thrombocytopenic purpura, parotitis, joint and limb complaints, febrile convulsions within two weeks of vaccination and aseptic meningitis (mumps) (Urabe strain-containing MMR). Exposure to MMR was unlikely to be associated with Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, autism or aseptic meningitis (mumps) (Jeryl-Lynn strain-containing MMR). We could not identify studies assessing the effectiveness of MMR that fulfilled our inclusion criteria even though the impact of mass immunisation on the elimination of the diseases has been largely demonstrated. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both pre- and post-marketing, are largely inadequate. The evidence of adverse events following immunisation with MMR cannot be separated from its role in preventing the target diseases.

 

Publication Types:

Meta-Analysis

Review

 

PMID: 16235361 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

1: Vaccine. 2005 Jun 10;23(30):3876-86. Epub 2005 Apr 7. Related Articles, Links

 

 

Consequence or coincidence? The occurrence, pathogenesis and significance of autoimmune manifestations after viral vaccines.

 

Schattner A.

 

Department of Medicine, University of Cambridge, School of Clinical Medicine, Level 5, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Hills Road, Cambridge CB2 2QQ, UK. [email protected]

 

BACKGROUND: Viruses and virus-induced lymphokines may have an important role in the pathogenesis of autoimmunity (Schattner A. Clin Immunol Immunopathol; 1994). The occurrence and significance of autoimmune manifestations after the administration of viral vaccines remain controversial. METHODS: Medline search of all relevant publications from 1966 through June 2004 with special emphasis on search of each individual autoimmune manifestation and vaccination, as well as specifically searching each viral vaccine for all potential autoimmune syndromes reported. All relevant publications were retrieved and critically analyzed. RESULTS: The most frequently reported autoimmune manifestations for the various vaccinations, were: hepatitis A virus (HAV)--none; hepatitis B virus (HBV)--rheumatoid arthritis, reactive arthritis, vasculitis, encephalitis, neuropathy, thrombocytopenia; measles, mumps and rubella vaccine (MMR)--acute arthritis or arthralgia, chronic arthritis, thrombocytopenia; influenza--Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS), vasculitis; polio--GBS; varicella--mainly neurological syndromes. Even these 'frequent' associations relate to a relatively small number of patients. Whenever controlled studies of autoimmunity following viral vaccines were undertaken, no evidence of an association was found. CONCLUSIONS: Very few patients may develop some autoimmune diseases following viral vaccination (in particular - arthropathy, vasculitis, neurological dysfunction and thrombocytopenia). For the overwhelming majority of people, vaccines are safe and no evidence linking viral vaccines with type 1 diabetes, multiple sclerosis (MS) or inflammatory bowel disease can be found.

 

Publication Types:

Meta-Analysis

Review

 

PMID: 15917108 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1: Biostatistics. 2005 Jul;6(3):450-64. Epub 2005 Apr 14. Related Articles, Links

 

 

Accuracy of MSI testing in predicting germline mutations of MSH2 and MLH1: a case study in Bayesian meta-analysis of diagnostic tests without a gold standard.

 

Chen S, Watson P, Parmigiani G.

 

Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA. [email protected]

 

Microsatellite instability (MSI) testing is a common screening procedure used to identify families that may harbor mutations of a mismatch repair (MMR) gene and therefore may be at high risk for hereditary colorectal cancer. A reliable estimate of sensitivity and specificity of MSI for detecting germline mutations of MMR genes is critical in genetic counseling and colorectal cancer prevention. Several studies published results of both MSI and mutation analysis on the same subjects. In this article we perform a meta-analysis of these studies and obtain estimates that can be directly used in counseling and screening. In particular, we estimate the sensitivity of MSI for detecting mutations of MSH2 and MLH1 to be 0.81 (0.73-0.89). Statistically, challenges arise from the following: (a) traditional mutation analysis methods used in these studies cannot be considered a gold standard for the identification of mutations; ( studies are heterogeneous in both the design and the populations considered; and © studies may include different patterns of missing data resulting from partial testing of the populations sampled. We address these challenges in the context of a Bayesian meta-analytic implementation of the Hui-Walter design, tailored to account for various forms of incomplete data. Posterior inference is handled via a Gibbs sampler.

 

Publication Types:

Meta-Analysis

 

PMID: 15831578 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1: Vaccine. 2003 Sep 8;21(25-26):3954-60. Related Articles, Links

 

 

Comment in:

Vaccine. 2004 Oct 22;22(31-32):4135-6.

 

Unintended events following immunization with MMR: a systematic review.

 

Jefferson T, Price D, Demicheli V, Bianco E; European Research Program for Improved Vaccine Safety Surveillance (EUSAFEVAC) Project.

 

Reparto Epidemiologia Clinica, Istituto Superiore di Sanita, Viale Regina Elena, 299-00161 Rome, Italy. [email protected]

 

Public debate over the safety of the trivalent measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine and the drop in vaccination rates in several countries persists despite its almost universal use and accepted effectiveness. We carried out a systematic review to assess the evidence of unintended effects (beneficial or harmful) associated with MMR and the applicability of systematic reviewing methods to the field of safety evaluation. Eligible studies were comparative prospective or retrospective on healthy individuals up to 15 years of age, carried out or published by 2003. We identified 120 articles satisfying our inclusion criteria and included 22. MMR is associated with a lower incidence of upper respiratory tract infections, a higher incidence of irritability, similar incidence of other adverse effects compared to placebo and is likely to be associated with benign thrombocytopenic purpura (TP), parotitis, joint and limb complaints and aseptic meningitis (mumps Urabe strain-containing MMR). Exposure to MMR is unlikely to be associated with Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, autism or aseptic meningitis (mumps Jeryl-Lynn strain-containing MMR). The design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both pre- and post-marketing, are largely inadequate. The evidence of adverse events following immunization with MMR cannot be separated from its role in preventing the target diseases.

 

Publication Types:

Meta-Analysis

Review

 

PMID: 12922131 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1: Lancet. 2002 Nov 16;360(9345):1596-9. Related Articles, Links

 

 

Factors affecting uptake of childhood immunisation: a Bayesian synthesis of qualitative and quantitative evidence.

 

Roberts KA, Dixon-Woods M, Fitzpatrick R, Abrams KR, Jones DR.

 

Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.

 

Falls in levels of measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) immunisation in the UK and the continuing debate on how to respond to this situation emphasise the importance of identifying and understanding the factors that affect the uptake of recommended childhood immunisations. Both qualitative and quantitative evidence could be useful in this process. We aimed to explore the feasibility and value of an approach to formal synthesis of qualitative and quantitative evidence in the context of factors affecting the uptake of childhood immunisation in developed countries. We used a Bayesian approach to meta-analysis. Evidence from 11 qualitative and 32 quantitative studies of factors affecting uptake of childhood immunisation was combined and assessed. We conclude that use of either qualitative or quantitative research alone might not identify all relevant factors, or might result in inappropriate judgments about their importance, and could thus lead to inappropriate formulation of evidence-based policy. Further development of our methods might enable rigorous synthesis of qualitative and quantitative evidence in this and other contexts.

 

Publication Types:

Meta-Analysis

 

PMID: 12443615 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1: Aten Primaria. 2000 Oct 31;26(7):439-45. Related Articles, Links

 

 

[Research activity on pediatric vaccines in Spain: descriptive analysis of prospective studies published between 1990 and 1998]

 

[Article in Spanish]

 

Dal-Re Saavedra R, Gil Miguel A, Hernandez-Sampelayo Matos T.

 

Departamento Medico, SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals, Madrid.

 

OBJECTIVE: To describe the overall characteristics of prospective studies on vaccines in children, performed by Spanish investigators and published between 1990 and 1998. METHODS: Through a bibliographic research on MEDLINE and EMBASE, 24 prospective studies, performed in Spain, published as original papers, and with objectives directly related to the administration of vaccines to children have been identified. These studies were grouped as: clinical trials (group A), studies performed on established vaccination programmes (group , and those that could not be included in the above mentioned groups (group C). RESULTS: 5, 9 and 10 studies belonged to groups A, B and C, respectively. More than 12,800 subjects participated in these studies, belonging to both normal population or specific risk groups. In 11 studies, the study population comprised newborns and infants. The vaccines under investigation were: hepatitis B (10 studies), DTPe/Pa (6), MMR (3), flu (2), Hib (1), hepatitis A (1), and meningococcus A and C (1) to address different objectives (in most of them, immunogenicity and/or reactogenicity). Nine had external financial support; 21 were performed by hospital and/or primary care investigators, and 18 in the Vasque Coutry, Madrid or Valencia. 13 publications reported obtaining informed consent, and 8 on the approval of the study protocol by an independent committee. Ten studies were published by international journals. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that most of the studies are conducted by clinicians, with vaccines targetted to newborns and infants, with no external financial support, in a small number of autonomous communities, and usually published in Spanish Journals. The submission of this type of studies to a research ethics committee is desirable, something done to a lesser extent than obtaining informed consent.

 

Publication Types:

Meta-Analysis

 

PMID: 11268542 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1: J Learn Disabil. 1996 Nov;29(6):570-81. Related Articles, Links

 

 

Learning disabilities, low achievement, and mild mental retardation: more alike than different?

 

Gresham FM, MacMillan DL, Bocian KM.

 

School Psychology Program, University of California, Riverside 92521, USA.

 

Children identified with learning disabilities (LD), low achievement (LA), or mild mental retardation (MMR) were contrasted on 41 measures of ability, academic achievement, social skills, problem behavior, academic engaged time, perceptual-motor skills, and school history. Both multivariate, univariate, and meta-analytic comparisons among the three groups showed relatively large differences on measures of aptitude and achievement, with the LD group scoring higher on measures of cognitive ability than the LA and MMR groups and the LA group showing higher tested academic achievement than the LD and MMR groups. Teacher ratings of academic competence showed similar levels of functioning for the LD and LA groups. No differences among the groups were found on measures of social skills, problem behaviors, or academic engaged time, or on most indices reflecting school history. Results were interpreted in light of studies contrasting LD and LA groups. Comparisons with earlier studies were difficult in light of demographic differences in samples and the lower cognitive and academic functioning of children in the present study. The current study showed that 61% of the LD group could be differentiated from the LA group, with LD-MMR and LA-MMR differentiation levels being 68.5% and 67.5%, respectively.

 

Publication Types:

Meta-Analysis

 

PMID: 8942301 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1: Q J Exp Physiol Cogn Med Sci. 1980 Apr;65(2):117-34. Related Articles, Links

 

 

Active intestinal transport of methyl red isomers.

 

Fisher RB.

 

Transport across the wall of rat jejunum of two isomers of methyl red has been studied. These isomers, meta-methyl red (MMR) and para-methyl red (PMR), are absorbed against a concentration gradient. Uptake consists of three components: rapid adsorption on to the mucosa, a steady uptake proportional to lumen concentration and a reflux which increases exponentially to a limiting value. A substantial part of the uptake is stored in the mucosa, and some of it is metabolized to colourless derivatives. If methyl red is washed out of the lumen after the mucosa has been loaded, there is some reflux into the lumen, but most of the stored methyl red passses into the secretion. The rate of this transport on to the serosal surface is not noticeably diminished until the adverse concentration gradient exceeds 13-14:1. Once the methyl red has been washed out of the lumen there is no further metabolism of methyl red to colourless derivatives. Shifting the lumen pH from 7.4 to 6.4 whilst keeping the tissue fluid pH constant increases the rate of uptake from the lumen by a factor of only 1.68 although the concentration of unionized methyl red is increased approximately 10-fold. It seems that at pH 7.4 about 90% of the uptake is of the ionized form, and that at pH 6.4 this percentage falls to 50. It is concluded that the methyl reds form fresh examples of foreign organic compounds which can be transported actively by the small intestine and that they can be taken up from the lumen into the mucosa in both ionized and unionized states.

 

PMID: 6902961 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HVIS DU FØLER AT DET ER GALT Å TREKKE KONKUSJONER SÅ KAN DU LES DISSE!!! IKKE EN KONKLUSJON, MEN FAKTA!!

 

 

1: J Long Term Eff Med Implants. 2005;15(1):91-114. Related Articles, Links

 

 

Vaccine information statements. Revolutionary but neglected educational advances in healthcare in the United States.

 

Edlich RF, Martin ML, Foley ML, Gebhart JH, Winters KL, Britt LD, Long WB 3rd, Gubler KD.

 

University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA. [email protected]

 

The purpose of this report is to provide further information about vaccine information statements (VISs) that are revolutionary but neglected educational advances in the United States. Because the use of VISs is mandated by the Federal Government in every individual being immunized, it is the goal of this report to further awaken health professionals and society to the mandatory use of these superb educational statements. With the passage of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, the Federal Government required that VISs would be given to all vaccine recipients. As of September 2001, the VISs that must be used are diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, (DTaP); diphtheria, tetanus (Td); measles, mumps, rubella (MMR); polio (IPV); hepatitis B; Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib); varicella; and pneumococcal conjugate. Copies of the VISs are available at www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/VIS. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 mandated that all health care providers report certain adverse events that occur following vaccination. As a result, the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) was established by the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in 1990. In order to reduce the liability of manufacturers and healthcare providers, the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 established the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP).This program is intended to compensate those individuals who have been injured by vaccines on a no-fault basis. While the use of VISs has been mandated since 1996, a national survey of private practice office settings has revealed that many immunized patients do not receive the VISs. When these forms were used, physicians rarely initiated discussions regarding contraindications to immunizations or the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Fortunately, the state boards of medical examiners, like the one in Oregon, are taking a strong stand for the use of VISs, with the warning that failure to use a VIS may result in disciplinary action. Our nation and practicing physicians must be awakened to the importance of the use of VISs to ensure that every vaccinated individual receives this statement at the time of vaccination.

 

PMID: 15715520 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1: Immunol Allergy Clin North Am. 2003 Nov;23(4):589-603. Related Articles, Links

 

 

Vaccine safety.

 

Jacobson RM.

 

Mayo Clinic Vaccine Research Group, Department of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA. [email protected]

 

Rates of reported adverse events are remarkably low. VAERS identifies an adverse event rate approximating 11.4 reports per 100,000 vaccine doses. Approximately 15% of these reports represent SAEs, but less than 2% involve death; in most cases, reviews have shown no causal relation between the events and the vaccine. Across the spectrum of vaccines in use (including those directed against influenza and hepatitis B virus), many claims of adverse events regarding vaccines represent typical reactions to vaccinations. These reactions can be thought of as foreign-body reactions and predominate among the inactivated vaccines. In controlled studies, the adverse event rates that occur with vaccination resemble those that occur with placebo injections. Typical reactions associated with live viral and bacterial vaccines, such as MMR and varicella vaccines, may resemble attenuated forms of the disease for which the vaccine is directed. Other claims against vaccines represent chance-coincidence or misunderstood data; further studies of claims have vindicated the overall safety of the vaccines in most cases. Two documented safety concerns with vaccines, however, have demonstrated that vaccines (like other biologics and pharmacologic) can result in harm (eg, rotavirus and OPV vaccines). The denouement with these vaccines indicates the broad postmarketing data collection and evaluation that extends efforts made with prelicensure study to balance the benefits from vaccination with the risk for harm. Overall, measures including prelicensure study and postlicensure surveillance, such as VAERS, the Vaccine Safety Datalink Project, and the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment Centers, have resulted in an exceptional safety profile for the vaccines in use.

 

Publication Types:

Review

 

PMID: 14753382 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1: Pediatrics. 2002 Dec;110(6):e71. Related Articles, Links

 

 

Comment in:

Pediatrics. 2004 Jan;113(1 Pt 1):170-1; author reply 170-1.

 

Prevalence of anti-gelatin IgE antibodies in people with anaphylaxis after measles-mumps rubella vaccine in the United States.

 

Pool V, Braun MM, Kelso JM, Mootrey G, Chen RT, Yunginger JW, Jacobson RM, Gargiullo PM; VAERS Team. US Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.

 

Vaccine Safety and Development Activity, Epidemiology and Surveillance Division, National Immunization Program, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia 30333, USA. [email protected]

 

OBJECTIVE: Anaphylaxis after immunization, although rare, is serious and potentially life-threatening. Understanding risk factors for this reaction is therefore important. Gelatin is added to many vaccines as a heat stabilizer. Japanese researchers have demonstrated a strong association between immediate hypersensitivity reactions to measles, mumps, rubella, varicella, and Japanese encephalitis immunizations and subsequent detection of anti-gelatin immunoglobulin E (IgE) antibodies. They suggested that previous receipt by these patients of diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis vaccines with trace amounts of gelatin was responsible for the sensitization. We aimed to assess whether a similar association exists for vaccinees in the United States who reported anaphylaxis after receipt of measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) or measles vaccines and to review recent trends in reporting of hypersensitivity reactions. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective case-control study. Cases of anaphylaxis that met a predefined case definition were identified from the US Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). Mayo Clinic patients who received MMR vaccine uneventfully served as controls. The study subjects were interviewed to obtain the history of allergies. Sera from study subjects and their matched controls were tested for IgE antibodies to gelatin, whole egg, and vaccine viral antigens using solid-phase radioimmunoassay. Data from the Biologics Surveillance System on annual numbers of doses of MMR and varicella vaccines distributed in the United States were used to evaluate possible changes in reporting of selected allergic adverse events. RESULTS: Fifty-seven study subjects were recruited into the study and interviewed. Of these, 22 provided serum samples for IgE testing. Twenty-seven subjects served as a comparison group and provided a sample for IgE testing; 21 of these completed an allergy history questionnaire. Self-reported history of food allergies was present more frequently in the interviewed study subjects than in the controls, whereas the proportions of people with other characteristics were similar in both groups. None of the interviewed people had a history of food allergy to gelatin. The level of anti-gelatin IgE antibodies was significantly higher among study subjects than among controls, whereas the levels of IgE antibodies against egg and all 3 viral antigens did not differ significantly. Of 22 study subjects, 6 (27%) tested positive for anti-gelatin IgE, whereas none of the 27 controls did. The rate of anaphylactic reactions reported to VAERS after measles virus-containing immunization in the United States between 1991 and 1997 is 1.8 per 1 million doses distributed. No substantial increase in the number of reported allergic events after frequently used gelatin containing MMR and varicella vaccines could be observed during the first 4 years (1997-2000) since the introduction of diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis vaccines for use in infancy. CONCLUSION: Anaphylactic reactions to MMR in the United States are rare. The reporting rate has the same order of magnitude as estimates from other countries. Almost one fourth of patients with reported anaphylaxis after MMR seem to have hypersensitivity to gelatin in the vaccine. They may be at higher risk of developing anaphylaxis to subsequent doses of other gelatin-containing vaccines. These people should seek an allergy evaluation before such immunization.

 

Publication Types:

Case Reports

 

PMID: 12456938 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Her er det både for og motargumenter til gjeldende vaksine!

Ingen grunn til å trekke konklusjoner, men en god grunn til å ikke stole ensidig på Folkehelseintituttet og helsesøstre (Som tydelig har konkludert) på vaksinens fortreffelighet.

 

Det var en av de anonyme som mente at vaksinasjonsprogrammet hadde vært mer troverdig dersom man hadde opplyst om faremomentene og risikoen for skade eller død!! Den anonyme hadde også ett barn som var blitt rammet av en eventuell komplikasjon pga vaksine.

 

Hvorfor skal ikke småbarnsforeldre kjenne til risikoene med vaksiner?

Hva med antibiotika og andre medisiner?

Medisiner kan gi bivirkninger som bla bla bla, men vaksiner gir i Norge kun bivirkninger som lett rødhet, hevelse og lett feber!! Reiser man over Atlanteren, så er de nøyaktig samme vaksinene ført opp som nødvendig og hensiktsmessig, men gir skader som død, encefalitt, meningitt, Hjerneskader, epilepsi, unormale barn, kraftige alleriske reaksjoner, kronisk tretthetssyndrom, mave tarmsykdommer, hudsykdommer, neuralgiske og psykiatriske lidelser, kreft, barneleukemi etc,etc,etc!!

Horfor er det farlig i USA, men ikke i Norge? Samme produsenter, samme vaksiner!

Er de amerikanske barna svakere enn de norske? de dør jo som fluer og får alskens sykdommer på andre siden av havet.

Har de norske barna sterke "vikinggener" som gjør oss i stand til å tåle vaksinene med lett rødhet, hevelse og lett feber?

 

 

[Anonym bruker]

En forskjell mellom Norge og Usa er jo at for å unngå søksmål så lister man opp laaaange lister med mulige og umulige bivirkninger på alt fra plastikkhansker til vaksiner... det erikke dermed sagt at det er sant.

[Gjest]

Om du ikke fikk det med deg, eller at engelsken ikke er oppdatert, så er dette europeiske meta-analyser! Som bekrefter USAs VAERS innrapporteringer!

Og så vidt jeg vet, så ligger Norge i Europa!

[Anonym bruker]

Men uansett kan man ikke konkludere noe som helst når en kun har 12 barn med i en analyse.

Alle må jo skjønne at det ikke går an, med et så lite antall blir det jo umulig å konkludere.

Den rapporten der her jo blitt slaktet gjentatte ganger, men det er det tydeligvis flere her som har problemer med å akseptere..

 

Og det er sant at de i USA opplyser om alle slags mulige og umulige bivirkninger for å slippe å bli saksøkt..

Det er helt hysteriske tilstander der borte, og summene for bagateller er gigantiske, så det må vi ta med i beregningen.

[Himmel og hav]

Hvorfor så sint og spydig? Les slutten av innlegget det er svart på før du raser...

"Hvorfor skal ikke småbarnsforeldre kjenne til risikoene med vaksiner?

Hva med antibiotika og andre medisiner?

Medisiner kan gi bivirkninger som bla bla bla, men vaksiner gir i Norge kun bivirkninger som lett rødhet, hevelse og lett feber!! Reiser man over Atlanteren, så er de nøyaktig samme vaksinene ført opp som nødvendig og hensiktsmessig, men gir skader som død, encefalitt, meningitt, Hjerneskader, epilepsi, unormale barn, kraftige alleriske reaksjoner, kronisk tretthetssyndrom, mave tarmsykdommer, hudsykdommer, neuralgiske og psykiatriske lidelser, kreft, barneleukemi etc,etc,etc!!

Horfor er det farlig i USA, men ikke i Norge? Samme produsenter, samme vaksiner!

Er de amerikanske barna svakere enn de norske? de dør jo som fluer og får alskens sykdommer på andre siden av havet.

Har de norske barna sterke "vikinggener" som gjør oss i stand til å tåle vaksinene med lett rødhet, hevelse og lett feber?"

 

Såvidt jeg forstår - så var det dette anonym over (ikke jeg) viste til.

 

[Himmel og hav]

dette var et svar til midas som ikke havnet der jeg trodde....

[TheNatural]

Argumentet om at det opplyses om mulige og umulige bivirkninger av vaksiner i USA for å unngå å bli saksøkt, er ikke tilfelle. Produsentene har sørget for å bli immune (pun intended) mot søksmål som følge av vaksineskader. Disse blir dekket av en avgift for hver vaksine som blir satt av i et fond for å dekke erstatninger. Det er altså det offentlige som må dekke det, eventuelt i tillegg de som selv betaler for sine vaksiner.

[Anonym bruker]

Men at raporten ikke holder mål vil dere ikke komentere altså....

 

Tenkte jeg det ikke, her tar man bare inn den forskingen som passer...

[Gjest]

Hvilke rapporter er det ikke som holder mål?

Gå gjennom disse så vil de 12 ubetydelige det eventuelt refereres til få en betydelig støtte!! Kansje du som er anonym kan prøve å (VISE TIL NOE SOM LIKNER)

Eller skal du fortsett å støtte deg til de som kaller seg forskere på Forskning.no?

 

Du kan vel prøve å spørre en som sitter i redaksjonen der om denne personen vet noe om vaksiner?

Jeg gjorde det en gang og ble henvist til spesialistene på Nasjonalt Folkehelseinstitutt (som heller ikke har så mye å vise til).

 

NB: vi må faktisk få lov til å ha fritid i debatt også, jeg bor ikke på pcn heller, så det kan ta litt tid før jeg svarer i debatten! Har jo både vaksinerte og uvaksinerte barn jeg må ta meg av:-)

 

•Vaccine. 2004 Aug 13;22(23-24):2965.

•Vaccine. 2004 Jul 29;22(21-22):2681-4; author reply 2685.

 

Systematic review of the effects of pertussis vaccines in children.

 

Jefferson T, Rudin M, DiPietrantonj C.

 

Health Reviews Ltd., Via Adige 28a, 00061 Anguillara Sabazia, Rome, Italy. [email protected]

 

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of whole-cell and acellular pertussis vaccines administered to children singly or within diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis (DTP) vaccines. DATA SOURCES: We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Biological Abstracts and Science Citation Index to December 2001. Specialised websites and bibliographies of retrieved articles and reviews were assessed. Vaccine manufacturers and investigators were contacted for additional data. REVIEW METHODS: We included randomised and cohort studies comparing efficacy and/or safety of pertussis vaccines with placebo, DT, no intervention or each other. RESULTS: We included 52 studies (49 randomised controlled trials (RCTs), 3 cohort studies). All tested whole-cell and acellular vaccines were significantly more effective than placebo against pertussis. Absolute efficacy of whole-cell DTP varied from 37 to 92%. One- and two-component acellular vaccines had lower absolute efficacy (67-70%), than vaccines with >/=3 components (80-84%). Whole-cell vaccines were associated with significantly higher incidences of swelling and induration (odds ratio (OR) 11.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 8.83-15.44), fever (OR for fever >39 degrees C 3.36, 95% CI 2.06-5.49) and crying for >2h (OR 4.72, 95% CI 2.94-7.59) than placebo or DT. Differences in incidence of hypotonic hyporesponsive episodes (HHE) and convulsions were not statistically significant. Acellular pertussis vaccines did not cause a higher incidence of local signs, fever, convulsions, HHE or prolonged crying than placebo or DT. CONCLUSION: All tested pertussis vaccines were efficacious. Whole-cell vaccines show variable efficacy, making interpretation of direct comparisons unreliable. Acellular vaccines with >/=3 antigenic components showed higher efficacy than one- and two-component vaccines. The adverse event profile of acellular vaccines was similar to that of placebo and considerably better than that of whole-cell vaccines.

 

Publication Types:

•Review

PMID: 12706690 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------

• Lancet Infect Dis. 2004 Jun;4(6):324; discussion 325.

 

Adverse events after immunisation with aluminium-containing DTP vaccines: systematic review of the evidence.

 

Jefferson T, Rudin M, Di Pietrantonj C.

 

Cochrane Vaccines Field and Health Reviews Ltd, Rome, Italy. [email protected]

 

We have reviewed evidence of adverse events after exposure to aluminium-containing vaccines against diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis (DTP), alone or in combination, compared with identical vaccines, either without aluminium or containing aluminium in different concentrations. The study is a systematic review with meta-analysis. We searched the Cochrane Vaccines Field Register, the Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, Biological Abstracts, Science Citation Index, and the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System website for relevant studies. Reference lists of retrieved articles were scanned for further studies. We included randomised and semi-randomised trials and comparative cohort studies if the report gave sufficient information for us to extract aluminium concentration, vaccine composition, and safety outcomes. Two reviewers extracted data in a standard way from all included studies and assessed the methodological quality of the studies. We identified 35 reports of studies and included three randomised trials, four semi-randomised trials, and one cohort study. We did a meta-analysis of data from five studies around two main comparisons (vaccines containing aluminium hydroxide vs no adjuvant in children aged up to 18 months and vaccines containing different types of aluminium vs no adjuvants in children aged 10-16 years). In young children, vaccines with aluminium hydroxide caused significantly more erythema and induration than plain vaccines (odds ratio 1.87 [95% CI 1.57-2.24]) and significantly fewer reactions of all types (0.21 [0.15-0.28]). The frequencies of local reactions of all types, collapse or convulsions, and persistent crying or screaming did not differ between the two cohorts of the trials. In older children, there was no association between exposure to aluminium-containing vaccines and onset of (local) induration, swelling, or a raised temperature, but there was an association with local pain lasting up to 14 days (2.05 [1.25-3.38]). We found no evidence that aluminium salts in vaccines cause any serious or long-lasting adverse events. Despite a lack of good-quality evidence we do not recommend that any further research on this topic is undertaken.

 

Publication Types:

• Meta-Analysis

• Review

 

PMID: 14871632 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

________________________________________

 

1: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005 Oct 19;(4):CD004407. Related Articles, Links

 

 

Vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella in children.

 

Demicheli V, Jefferson T, Rivetti A, Price D.

 

Servizo Sovrazonale di Epidemiologia, ASL 20, Via Venezia 6, Alessandria, Piemonte, Italy 15100. [email protected]

 

BACKGROUND: Public debate over the safety of the trivalent measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine, and the resultant drop in vaccination rates in several countries, persists despite its almost universal use and accepted effectiveness. OBJECTIVES: We carried out a systematic review to assess the evidence of effectiveness and unintended effects associated with MMR. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2004), MEDLINE (1966 to December 2004), EMBASE (1974 to December 2004), Biological Abstracts (from 1985 to December 2004), and Science Citation Index (from 1980 to December 2004). Results from reviews, handsearching and from the consultation of manufacturers and authors were also used. SELECTION CRITERIA: Eligible studies were comparative prospective or retrospective trials testing the effects of MMR compared to placebo, do-nothing or a combination of measles, mumps and rubella antigens on healthy individuals up to 15 years of age. These studies were carried out or published by 2004. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We identified 139 articles possibly satisfying our inclusion criteria and included 31 in the review. MAIN RESULTS: MMR was associated with a lower incidence of upper respiratory tract infections, a higher incidence of irritability, and similar incidence of other adverse effects compared to placebo. The vaccine was likely to be associated with benign thrombocytopenic purpura, parotitis, joint and limb complaints, febrile convulsions within two weeks of vaccination and aseptic meningitis (mumps) (Urabe strain-containing MMR). Exposure to MMR was unlikely to be associated with Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, autism or aseptic meningitis (mumps) (Jeryl-Lynn strain-containing MMR). We could not identify studies assessing the effectiveness of MMR that fulfilled our inclusion criteria even though the impact of mass immunisation on the elimination of the diseases has been largely demonstrated. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both pre- and post-marketing, are largely inadequate. The evidence of adverse events following immunisation with MMR cannot be separated from its role in preventing the target diseases.

 

Publication Types:

• Meta-Analysis

• Review

 

PMID: 16235361 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------

1: Vaccine. 2005 Jun 10;23(30):3876-86. Epub 2005 Apr 7. Related Articles, Links

 

 

Consequence or coincidence? The occurrence, pathogenesis and significance of autoimmune manifestations after viral vaccines.

 

Schattner A.

 

Department of Medicine, University of Cambridge, School of Clinical Medicine, Level 5, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Hills Road, Cambridge CB2 2QQ, UK. [email protected]

 

BACKGROUND: Viruses and virus-induced lymphokines may have an important role in the pathogenesis of autoimmunity (Schattner A. Clin Immunol Immunopathol; 1994). The occurrence and significance of autoimmune manifestations after the administration of viral vaccines remain controversial. METHODS: Medline search of all relevant publications from 1966 through June 2004 with special emphasis on search of each individual autoimmune manifestation and vaccination, as well as specifically searching each viral vaccine for all potential autoimmune syndromes reported. All relevant publications were retrieved and critically analyzed. RESULTS: The most frequently reported autoimmune manifestations for the various vaccinations, were: hepatitis A virus (HAV)--none; hepatitis B virus (HBV)--rheumatoid arthritis, reactive arthritis, vasculitis, encephalitis, neuropathy, thrombocytopenia; measles, mumps and rubella vaccine (MMR)--acute arthritis or arthralgia, chronic arthritis, thrombocytopenia; influenza--Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS), vasculitis; polio--GBS; varicella--mainly neurological syndromes. Even these 'frequent' associations relate to a relatively small number of patients. Whenever controlled studies of autoimmunity following viral vaccines were undertaken, no evidence of an association was found. CONCLUSIONS: Very few patients may develop some autoimmune diseases following viral vaccination (in particular - arthropathy, vasculitis, neurological dysfunction and thrombocytopenia). For the overwhelming majority of people, vaccines are safe and no evidence linking viral vaccines with type 1 diabetes, multiple sclerosis (MS) or inflammatory bowel disease can be found.

 

Publication Types:

• Meta-Analysis

• Review

 

PMID: 15917108 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------

1: Med Clin (Barc). 1996 May 4;106(17):649-52.

Related Articles, Links

 

 

[DTP vaccine and infant sudden death syndrome. Meta-analysis]

 

[Article in Spanish]

 

Carvajal A, Caro-Paton T, Martin de Diego I, Martin Arias LH, Alvarez Requejo A, Lobato A.

 

Centro Regional de Farmacovigilancia de Castilla y Leon, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de Valladolid.

 

BACKGROUND: At the beginning of 1994, five cases of sudden infant death syndrome after DTP immunization appeared in Spain. In order to study a causal relationship a meta-analysis of the different studies that assess this possibility has been conducted. METHODS: The selection criteria was epidemiological study, case-control or cohort, assessing risk of sudden infant death syndrome in immunized versus non-immunized infants or risk of sudden infant death syndrome in recently immunized infants versus immunized infants beyond 30 days. Pooled risk ratios were calculated from adjusted risk ratios, when available, of the different studies, by a meta-analysis according the method described by Greenland. RESULTS: One cohort and four case-control studies were selected. Pooled risk ratio for immunized versus non-immunized infants was 0.67 (95% CI = 0.60-0.75). When comparing risk of sudden death syndrome in up to 30 days immunized infants versus more than 30 days immunized infants, the pooled risk ratio was 1.00 (95% CI = 0.84-1.20). CONCLUSIONS: DTP-immunization does not seem to increase the risk of sudden infant death syndrome. The risk of sudden infant death syndrome is not greater in the first thirty days following immunization. These data indicate a lack of association between DTP immunization and sudden infant death syndrome.

 

Publication Types:

• Meta-Analysis

 

PMID: 8691909 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------

1: Pediatrics. 1998 Oct;102(4 Pt 1):909-12.

Related Articles, Links

 

 

Comment in:

• Pediatrics. 1999 Oct;104(4 Pt 1):997-8.

• Pediatrics. 1999 Sep;104(3 Pt 1):577-8.

• Pediatrics. 2001 Mar;107(3):611-2.

 

The effect of investigator compliance (observer bias) on calculated efficacy in a pertussis vaccine trial.

 

Cherry JD, Heininger U, Stehr K, Christenson P.

 

Department of Pediatrics and the University of California, Los Angeles Center for Vaccine Research, University of California, Los Angeles School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California, USA.

 

BACKGROUND: In the course of a large pertussis vaccine efficacy trial we realized that investigator compliance could have a major impact on calculated vaccine efficacy. DESIGN: In our pertussis vaccine efficacy trial, the study investigators were to monitor illness in study families by telephone every 2 weeks. If a cough illness of >/=7 days duration was noted, the study child was to be evaluated. If the cough illness persisted for >/=14 days, the child was to be referred to a central investigator. For this report we analyzed study physician evaluation rates and rates of referral to the central investigators. Physician practices were separated into three compliance categories: high, intermediate, and low. We analyzed vaccine efficacy of an acellular pertussis component DTP vaccine (DTaP) and a whole cell pertussis component DTP vaccine (DTP) by compliance category. Bordetella pertussis infection was documented by culture of the organism in the study child or in a household contact or by a significant antibody response to pertussis toxin determined by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. RESULTS: Using a clinical case definition that included both mild and typical pertussis (cough illness >/=7 days duration) efficacy of DTaP vaccine was 40% (95% confidence interval [CI] = -3-65) in the high compliance category and 78% (95% CI = 65-86) and 75% (95% CI = 53-87) in the intermediate and low compliance groups, respectively. Similar, but less marked, differences in efficacy were noted with DTP vaccine recipients. Using a clinical case definition that required >/=21 days of cough with paroxysms, whoop, or vomiting (typical pertussis) the efficacy of DTaP vaccine was 69% (95% CI = 41-83) in the high compliance category and 86% (95% CI = 76-92) and 84% (95% CI = 64-93) in the intermediate and low compliance groups, respectively. In contrast, the efficacy of DTP vaccine did not vary by compliance category using this case definition. The attack rate in children vaccinated with diphtheria and tetanus toxoids vaccine (DT) was twofold less in low compliance physician practices when compared with the rates in high and intermediate groups. The DT/DTaP and DT/DTP fold-change differences were less in the high compliance group compared with the intermediate and low compliance groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that observer compliance (observer bias), can significantly inflate calculated vaccine efficacy. It is likely that all recently completed efficacy trials have been effected by this type of observer bias and all vaccines have considerably less efficacy against mild disease than published data suggest.

 

Publication Types:

• Clinical Trial

• Randomized Controlled Trial

 

PMID: 9755264 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------

 

PS: Har du sjekket opp hvem som har finasiert dine dokumentasjoner??

 

Merck&co revulosjonerte hele verden i sine egne studier om Vioxx. Det var ikke med måte hvor effektiv den var, samt hvor ufarlig den var. Her hadde produsenten i flere studier og meta-analyser bekreftet Vioxx sikkerhet og effektivitet.

I dag kommer det frem en skremmende statistikk hvor mange som døde eller ble invalidisert pga denne vidundermedisinen!

Merck&co holdt tilbake faremomentene!

 

GlaxoSmithKline! har vel den samme historien med den fantastiske lykkepillen Seroxat. Her kommer det også frem alvorlige beskldninger mot 2 av de fremste produsenter av vaksiner i verden!!

 

Mulig noen mener at vi kan stole på disse, men prøv meg, så skal jeg legge frem dokumentasjon på medisinprodusenter og vaksineprodusenter hvor gjennomsyret og pillråttent hele det medisinske systemet er.

 

 

 

[Anonym bruker]

I følge forskerteamet bak Cochrane-rapporten stammer mistankene til MMR nemlig i stor grad fra ett, enkelt studie av bare 12 barn. Flere av forfatterne trakk også påstandene sine i ettertid.

 

Det viser seg i det hele tatt at de fleste av undersøkelsene av vaksinen ikke holder mål, vitenskapelig sett. Da Cochrane-teamet kuttet vekk rapportene som ikke kunne utelukke skjeve fremstillinger og feil, stod de til slutt igjen med bare 31 studier.

 

 

[Gjest]

Dagens forskere har vel nødt til å tilpasse sine funn og studier ut i fra ønsket resultat!! En ser vel hva som blir resultatet av forskere som er uheldige å publiserer funn som ikke er i samråd med den medisinske elite! Prisen å betale slik som Wakefield måtte, er vel en liten ønsket situasjon hos forskere generelt!

Selvfølgelig blir studier trukket tilbake, er vel mer merkelig at 10 studier som forsvarte Wakefields funn på dagen ble trukket tilbake..

 

En kan jo spekulere i om de 10 uavhengige forskerrapportene ble presset til å trekke studiene sine? (ikke en dom, bare en mistanke)!!

 

Disse her bekrefter iallefall hvem som "styrer skuta" innen medisinen!!

http://pub.tv2.no/nettavisen/okonomi/article230694.ece

http://pub.tv2.no/nettavisen/verden/article231397.ece

http://pub.tv2.no/nettavisen/verden/article209968.ece

http://pub.tv2.no/nettavisen/okonomi/privat/article164424.ece

http://pub.tv2.no/dyn-nettavisen/okonomi/?archiveSection=4&archiveItem=172442

http://pub.tv2.no/nettavisen/okonomi/article444201.ece

 

Holder for i dag, men ingen får meg til å stole på korrupte forskere eller legemiddelprodusenter!

[Anonym bruker]

Jeg forstår ikke hvorfor forskere som er "for" vaksiner er medlemmer av mafiaen, mens de som er "mot" er guds englebarn??

 

Ok ok, hvis den "forskninga" med de 12 barna var riktig ville det likevel kunne forsvare å vaksinere med MMR, ettersom en oppblomstring av meslinger ville gitt flere barn med hjerneskade enn vaksinen gir autister.

[Anonym bruker]

Javel: Og hvor er din dokumentasjon på denne påstanden?

[TheNatural]

Sitat:

"Ok ok, hvis den "forskninga" med de 12 barna var riktig ville det likevel kunne forsvare å vaksinere med MMR, ettersom en oppblomstring av meslinger ville gitt flere barn med hjerneskade enn vaksinen gir autister."

 

Denne holdningen minner om religiøs ofring av barn i en tro på at noen må ofres for å redde resten.

Hvordan kan man i det hele tatt forsvare at noen skal få lov til å leke Gud på denne måten?

 

Det er skremmende å tenke på hva folk som aksepterer denne tankegangen eventuelt kan gå med på dersom dette prinsippet videreføres.

Hvor mange barns liv og helse kan ofres for å "redde" resten av befolkningen? 0.1%, eller kan man se stort på det og si 10%?

[Gjest]

sitat: av Anonym.

"Jeg forstår ikke hvorfor forskere som er "for" vaksiner er medlemmer av mafiaen, mens de som er "mot" er guds englebarn??"

 

Det problemet må du ta opp med forskerne:-)

 

Men at det ligger noe religiøst over dette, ser det iallefall ut til at vi er enige om!!

 

Vi som ikke tror på noenting om vaksiner blir kalt religiøse! Jeg er ren ateist, og tror faktisk ikke på verken presten eller legemiddelprodusenten! Begge kan bevise noe ut i fra ulike vitenskaper, men jeg tror ikke på det.

 

Men jeg har lagt merke til at mange her er blitt frelst av denne troen og benekter andre vinklinger i debatten og spesielt den som taler negativt om den "hellige vaksinen" eller olje eller hva det no heter!