Objective books/texts on Vaccines?

[therival58]

In seems that the vaccine debate is viewed on either side as black and white. Those in favor of vaccination see no negative effects (or if any are acknowledged, are seen as negligible) and those opposed see vaccines as a diabolical poison scheme by big pharma out to give everyone cancer and autism.

Where's the middle ground? I would like to know if anyone can recommend some books/texts that take the middle ground. Doing a search on amazon yields the black and white spectrum as one might have guessed.

[timhau]

Originally Posted by therival58

In seems that the vaccine debate on either side is black and white. Those in favor of vaccination see no negative effects

Who says that? Vaccination, like so much in the world, has pros and cons, but the pros by far outweigh the cons. Nobody in his/her right mind claims that medicines have no side effects; it's just that their benefits outweigh the trouble caused by those side effects. (Case in point: I took malaria medication on a recent trip, and it gave me a mild rash in my arms. I'd much rather have a mild rash for a week and a half than risk catching malaria.)

[ShadowSot]

I don't know of anyone who advocates that vaccines are perfectly safe, just that they're a much better alternative than the diseases themselves. Any good book dealing with vaccines will go over the pros and cons of vaccination.

Panic Virus by Seth Mnookin maybe?

[MRC_Hans]

Originally Posted by therival58

In seems that the vaccine debate is viewed on either side as black and white. Those in favor of vaccination see no negative effects (or if any are acknowledged, are seen as negligible) and those opposed see vaccines as a diabolical poison scheme by big pharma out to give everyone cancer and autism.

Where's the middle ground? I would like to know if anyone can recommend some books/texts that take the middle ground. Doing a search on amazon yields the black and white spectrum as one might have guessed.

There is plenty of middle ground, if these people you mention (in favor) exist at all. Personally, I have not met anybody claiming that vaccination has no negative effects at all.

It is generally acknowledged that various vaccination programmes have one or several of the following negative effects:

- Various general, usualy mild side effects.
- Occasional serious effects (infection, serious illness, allergy reactions).
- Limited coverage.

Some vaccination programmes have been vastly successful, e.g. smallpox, others have been doubtful, e.g. flu.

Hans

[therival58]

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

There is plenty of middle ground, if these people you mention (in favor) exist at all. Personally, I have not met anybody claiming that vaccination has no negative effects at all.

It is generally acknowledged that various vaccination programmes have one or several of the following negative effects:

- Various general, usualy mild side effects.
- Occasional serious effects (infection, serious illness, allergy reactions).
- Limited coverage.

Some vaccination programmes have been vastly successful, e.g. smallpox, others have been doubtful, e.g. flu.

Hans

Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but is the term "anti-vaxxer" applied to those who oppose some vaccines or all vaccines?

Also, in addition to that list, wouldnt other side effects be miscarriages? I remember reading about some miscarriage instances with women who took the H1N1 vaccine during the swine flu scare.

[Lamuella]

Originally Posted by therival58

In seems that the vaccine debate is viewed on either side as black and white. Those in favor of vaccination see no negative effects (or if any are acknowledged, are seen as negligible) and those opposed see vaccines as a diabolical poison scheme by big pharma out to give everyone cancer and autism.

Where's the middle ground? I would like to know if anyone can recommend some books/texts that take the middle ground. Doing a search on amazon yields the black and white spectrum as one might have guessed.

the thing to remember is that if one side of an argument is wrong and the other side is correct then the "middle ground" is still being wrong.

Don't look for what's in the middle. Look instead for what has evidence on its side. Look for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Here's a fairly good one on the effectiveness of influenza vaccine in healthy children:

http://cmbi.bjmu.edu.cn/news/report/2005/flu/108.pdf

Here's another good one on the claimed link between MMR and autism:

http://www.questgarden.com/20/02/4/0...les/Lancet.pdf

there's a lot more out there like this.

Meta-analyses and systematic reviews are good documents to go for, and they pool existing data into larger groups and thus reduce noise.

[EHocking]

Originally Posted by therival58

Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but is the term "anti-vaxxer" applied to those who oppose some vaccines or all vaccines?

Also, in addition to that list, wouldnt other side effects be miscarriages? I remember reading about some miscarriage instances with women who took the H1N1 vaccine during the swine flu scare.

This article, with reference to Lancet, may help you here.

What you remember reading smacks of interweb hysteria - typically from "alternative" "medicine" sites.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally Posted by therival58

Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but is the term "anti-vaxxer" applied to those who oppose some vaccines or all vaccines?

Also, in addition to that list, wouldnt other side effects be miscarriages? I remember reading about some miscarriage instances with women who took the H1N1 vaccine during the swine flu scare.

I suppose "anti-Vaxxer" means someone generally opposed to vaccines.

I would just add that in with the serious effects.

My distinction between serious and non-serious is as follows:

Non serious are temporary fever, rashes, temporary ... whatever that can be counted as a mere nuisance. This means that, while it may count in the individual's choice, it should not count in socioeconomic context, when deciding whether to approve and possibly offer a vaccine.

Serious effects are, death, miscarriage, lasting health deterioration. If such effects exist, they should enter into the cost-benefit calculation when approving the vaccine, and possibly limiting its use to certain groups (normally groups where the disease vaccinated against poses an increased risk in some way).

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Originally Posted by therival58

Also, in addition to that list, wouldnt other side effects be miscarriages? I remember reading about some miscarriage instances with women who took the H1N1 vaccine during the swine flu scare.

Ahh, and this. I don't know the figures, but remember that there will also be miscarriages (and deaths) because of a disease like swine flu.

This is what anti-vaxxers often ignore: The ill effects of vaccination must be weighed against the ill effects of the disease it prevents. - Of course, many anti-vaxxers like to claim that vaccination does not prevent disease at all, but luckily, evidence is against that claim.

Hans

[LarianLeQuella]

Originally Posted by therival58

Those in favor of vaccination see no negative effects (or if any are acknowledged, are seen as negligible)

As already pointed out, you are incorrect in that assertion. ALL of life is a risk analysis. Proponents of responsible vaccination understand that, and fully acknowledge that there are real risks...

Originally Posted by therival58

Where's the middle ground?

Being on the midle ground places you closer to wrong than it does to truth. Understand that one should follow evidence (with the caveat that one is required to understand what actually constitutes evidence)...

Originally Posted by therival58

Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but is the term "anti-vaxxer" applied to those who oppose some vaccines or all vaccines?

It's not about the opposition to a vaccine so much as it's about propping up bad rationalle for opposing a vaccine. Much like the hysteria you mention below...

Originally Posted by therival58

Also, in addition to that list, wouldnt other side effects be miscarriages? I remember reading about some miscarriage instances with women who took the H1N1 vaccine during the swine flu scare.

I haven't updated it in a while, but here is some light reading: http://factsnotfantasy.com/vaccines.php

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by therival58

Those in favor of vaccination see no negative effects (or if any are acknowledged, are seen as negligible)

I just want to point out that many of the diseases we vaccinate against were targetted for vaccination because they wiped out millions of people, sometimes whole cultures (smallpox, anyone?). Compared to wipping out the better part of the native population of a continent, a death here and there from an extremely rare allergy is a negligible impact. Sucks if you're the parent of the kid with such an allergy, and more so if you're the kid, but our options aren't to either do something that kills a few people or to let them live. Our options are to allow a small handful of people to die, or to see our entire culture be burried in a pile of rotting corpses such as hasn't been seen since the Black Death. We have NO immunity to many of the diseases we vaccinate against, save vaccination. If smallpox, or measles, or mumps, or any of a number of highly virulent diseases took hold they'd go through the Western world like fire through tissue paper--there'd be NOTHING to stop it. It's really hard to imagine any side effects of a vaccine that could possibly be worse than the potential consequences of not vaccinating.

Are there side effects? Sure. I remember when a buddy of mine went to Iraq for his first tour he had a series of vaccinations that put him essentially out of commission for a week. But considering the fact that many of the vaccinations were to protect against nasty bugs that the people over there live with all the time (no insult to them--the bugs we live with all the time would likely kill them too; it's a matter of acclimation), spending a week feeling ill was, in his opinion, a small price to pay. At least he came home.

Quote:

Where's the middle ground?

If someone says "1+1=4", and I say "1+1=2", does that mean that 1+1=3? After all, that's the middle ground.

Quote:

I would like to know if anyone can recommend some books/texts that take the middle ground. Doing a search on amazon yields the black and white spectrum as one might have guessed.

If you're honestly genuinely interested in this, the only place worth looking is the medical literature. It means you'll have to slog through some of the most information-dense and jargon-riddled material in print, but the reports for the clinical trials will give you the best information available. They'll include known side effects, success rates (never 100%, biology being what it is), etc. If you want popular press stuff, or stuff that tries to ballance truth with fiction, you may as well read The Hobbit.

[Sherman Bay]

What's the middle ground between truth and fiction? Half-truths? Is that really something worth seeking? Wouldn't it be better to determine the truth?

[godless dave]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

If someone says "1+1=4", and I say "1+1=2", does that mean that 1+1=3? After all, that's the middle ground.

The 1+1=2 people are technically correct, but they aren't helping their case by being so strident. A little humility goes a long way.

[Lamuella]

Originally Posted by godless dave

The 1+1=2 people are technically correct, but they aren't helping their case by being so strident. A little humility goes a long way.

I'm sorry, but it's painfully obvious that both 1 and 2 are corporatist tools of Big Number.

[Cuddles]

Originally Posted by Sherman Bay

Is that really something worth seeking? Wouldn't it be better to determine the truth?

But what if we can't handle it?

[casebro]

Originally Posted by Lamuella

I'm sorry, but it's painfully obvious that both 1 and 2 are corporatist tools of Big Number.

I guess they are using the incrementalism ploy ?

[casebro]

One idea that I've never seen debated or studied, and probably never will, is whether modern treatments negate the need for any vaccines. Oh sure, some treatments are very expensive, but what would be the net vs hundreds of millions of doses of vaccine- literally EVERYBODY? A few deaths, sure, but the vaccines are not 100% either, we STILL have a few deaths today.

The QALY for Gaurdasil is $45,000. But none of the old vacs will ever be compared to a MODERN survival rate, they all compare the death toll to relatively old fashioned treatments.

Just food for thought. Which makes me think of my food, I better go check the grill.

[Estellea]

Bad Science by Ben Goldacre
Do Vaccines Cause That?! by Myers and Pineda
Vaccine by Arthur Allen
Autism's False Prophets by Paul Offit
Deadly Choices by Paul Offit
Vaccines and Your Child: Separating Fact from Fiction by Offit and Moser
Panic Virus by Seth Mnookin

Este

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by therival58

In seems that the vaccine debate is viewed on either side as black and white. Those in favor of vaccination see no negative effects (or if any are acknowledged, are seen as negligible) and those opposed see vaccines as a diabolical poison scheme by big pharma out to give everyone cancer and autism.

Where's the middle ground? I would like to know if anyone can recommend some books/texts that take the middle ground. Doing a search on amazon yields the black and white spectrum as one might have guessed.

With vaccines, a percentage of people taking the vaccine will be harmed or die - the range is at most 1 to 5% having such reactions - I have never heard higher than that for any vaccines I have seen data on. As I am not a medical professional, I could be off a small amount. However, in target populations exposed to the infectious agent the vaccine is produced to prevent, the number badly harmed or dying is generally from 10% on up to 20% or more. I will take those odds and take the vaccine .

Note: there are a number of good books on infectious diseases and the history of treatment/prevention. None of them I have seen or heard of takes the middle ground you want because the odds do not ever break that way (in no case in an exposed population has the number of deaths/major effects of vaccination come near the number killed/harmed where no vaccinations are available/utilized).

If you run across any, though, - and I mean ones utilizing research and verified data/information - please let us know. I will make an effort to find and read it.

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by Lamuella

the thing to remember is that if one side of an argument is wrong and the other side is correct then the "middle ground" is still being wrong.

Don't look for what's in the middle. Look instead for what has evidence on its side. Look for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Here's a fairly good one on the effectiveness of influenza vaccine in healthy children:

http://cmbi.bjmu.edu.cn/news/report/2005/flu/108.pdf

Here's another good one on the claimed link between MMR and autism:

http://www.questgarden.com/20/02/4/0...les/Lancet.pdf

there's a lot more out there like this.

Meta-analyses and systematic reviews are good documents to go for, and they pool existing data into larger groups and thus reduce noise.

Not to mention this^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^.

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by therival58

Also, in addition to that list, wouldnt other side effects be miscarriages? I remember reading about some miscarriage instances with women who took the H1N1 vaccine during the swine flu scare.

Some people who took the H1N1 vaccine also suffered heart attacks or strokes... Or were killed in traffic accidents.

Given the number of flu vaccinations given each year, it's likely that some people also win the lottery immediately after getting vaccinated.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by therival58

In seems that the vaccine debate is viewed on either side as black and white. Those in favor of vaccination see no negative effects (or if any are acknowledged, are seen as negligible) and those opposed see vaccines as a diabolical poison scheme by big pharma out to give everyone cancer and autism.

Where's the middle ground? I would like to know if anyone can recommend some books/texts that take the middle ground. Doing a search on amazon yields the black and white spectrum as one might have guessed.

You're starting with a false underlying premise: "Those in favor of vaccination see no negative effects (or if any are acknowledged, are seen as negligible)"

Those who support vaccines believe in evidence that is obtained by the scientific process. Those opposed pick and choose evidence non-systematically giving a lot of weight to personal anecdotes without recognizing the problem with that.

When one looks at the evidence and uses the principle of risk/cost vs benefit (risk of not vaccinating), then some vaccines are well worth taking. It's safer to use a vaccine than to risk some natural diseases.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

...others have been doubtful, e.g. flu.

Hans

Bad example. There is some misconstrued research outcomes that people have thrown out there. But the vast majority of the research supports the unquestionable benefit of flu vaccine.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by therival58

Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but is the term "anti-vaxxer" applied to those who oppose some vaccines or all vaccines?

Also, in addition to that list, wouldnt other side effects be miscarriages? I remember reading about some miscarriage instances with women who took the H1N1 vaccine during the swine flu scare.

Not a known vaccine side effect. You need to find where you read that for us to evaluate the validity of it. 2009 H1N1v was particularly dangerous to pregnant women. They had a high fatality rate from that flu strain.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by godless dave

The 1+1=2 people are technically correct, but they aren't helping their case by being so strident. A little humility goes a long way.

So what? we should say, "but you never know, 3 might be correct"?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by casebro

One idea that I've never seen debated or studied, and probably never will, is whether modern treatments negate the need for any vaccines. Oh sure, some treatments are very expensive, but what would be the net vs hundreds of millions of doses of vaccine- literally EVERYBODY? A few deaths, sure, but the vaccines are not 100% either, we STILL have a few deaths today.

Sorry but there's very little evidence that modern treatments negate the need for vaccines. You might argue that acyclovir and related drugs treat varicella, but that's about the only one I can think of and I would still say the vaccine is preferable.

Originally Posted by casebro

The QALY for Gaurdasil is $45,000. But none of the old vacs will ever be compared to a MODERN survival rate, they all compare the death toll to relatively old fashioned treatments. ....

As usual, you spout unsupported facts.

I recall a long discussion on the supposed distorted view of the measles fatality rate. What do you know, current outbreaks in modern countries are turning out to be the same, ~1 death per 1,000 cases, (very high).

[godless dave]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

So what? we should say, "but you never know, 3 might be correct"?

Your sarcasm detector needs calibration.

[TubbaBlubba]

By adherence to the Peano axioms, you're forgetting all the people and their feelings about the rules of arithmetic.

[Tomblvd]

Originally Posted by therival58

In seems that the vaccine debate is viewed on either side as black and white. Those in favor of vaccination see no negative effects (or if any are acknowledged, are seen as negligible) and those opposed see vaccines as a diabolical poison scheme by big pharma out to give everyone cancer and autism.

Where's the middle ground? I would like to know if anyone can recommend some books/texts that take the middle ground. Doing a search on amazon yields the black and white spectrum as one might have guessed.

Could you give a defintion of what "objective" or "middle ground" means to you in this instance?

[luchog]

Originally Posted by LarianLeQuella

Being on the midle ground places you closer to wrong than it does to truth. Understand that one should follow evidence (with the caveat that one is required to understand what actually constitutes evidence)...

In fact, this is what is known as the Middle Ground Fallacy, aka Golden Mean Fallacy, aka Argument to Moderation fallacy. It requires the unproven assumption that any extreme position is inherently false, or that, if they are both false, that they are equally false. In this case, there is very little middle ground between the two sides; as others have already noted in detail. Vaccines are largely safe, serious negative reactions being rare. That's a very long way from the anti-vax side, and only a very little way from a hypothetical "vaccines are always safe" side (which I have personally never seen).

Someone else on the forum has a quote from Isaac Azimov in their sig that illustrates this very well: "When people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."

[LarianLeQuella]

Originally Posted by luchog

Someone else on the forum has a quote from Isaac Azimov in their sig that illustrates this very well: "When people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."

I love that quote!

[luchog]

Originally Posted by LarianLeQuella

I love that quote!

I found the source of it, which is a very good read, and definitely applicable to this thread.

"The Relativity of Wrong" By Isaac Asimov.

[Mehdimentio]

Originally Posted by luchog

I found the source of it, which is a very good read, and definitely applicable to this thread.

"The Relativity of Wrong" By Isaac Asimov.

Oh, I love that text.

I have had people (including myself) express doubts about the necessity of the Swine Flu vaccine, arguing that the symptoms of the disease was too benign to take prevalence over the (supposed) risks of the vaccine to begin with (a number of reports have been made that claim that the vaccine caused narcolepsy in the people reported, although I'm not sure how much of it actually is significant, anecdotal as the reports were). How valid is this standpoint? Were the risks of taking the H1N1 about as harmless as the virus is stated to be, making it a good idea to take it anyway? Or was the influenza really that benign in actuality? Six people are reported to have died of the disease, but four of them were known to have complications in the first place (still, that's a matter).

I'm very ignorant about this, and a lot of the assumptions above are mainly hypothetical and are there for the sake of the question. It would be nice if someone could fill me in on all this.

[Toke]

Quote:

Those in favor of vaccination see no negative effects (or if any are acknowledged, are seen as negligible)

This is not my experience with Danish physicians.

[Estellea]

Mehdimentio, H1N1 was particularly pathogenic and had a high mortality rate (compared to other influenza strains) for pregnant women, babies and young adults in the U.S. I believe that there were over 200 infant deaths in 2009 but would have to consult the stats for that. The reason for that was these populations were naive to H1N1 and also may have been victims of 'cytokine storm' which is what was the primary factor for the young adult mortality during the Spanish flu pandemic.

Yes, the vaccines used in Finland, Sweden and Iceland did contribute to an increased risk of narcolepsy in teenagers but I haven't looked at the literature recently to see if the mechanism has been elucidated.

Este

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Mehdimentio

Oh, I love that text.

I have had people (including myself) express doubts about the necessity of the Swine Flu vaccine, arguing that the symptoms of the disease was too benign to take prevalence over the (supposed) risks of the vaccine to begin with (a number of reports have been made that claim that the vaccine caused narcolepsy in the people reported, although I'm not sure how much of it actually is significant, anecdotal as the reports were). How valid is this standpoint? Were the risks of taking the H1N1 about as harmless as the virus is stated to be, making it a good idea to take it anyway? Or was the influenza really that benign in actuality? Six people are reported to have died of the disease, but four of them were known to have complications in the first place (still, that's a matter).

I'm very ignorant about this, and a lot of the assumptions above are mainly hypothetical and are there for the sake of the question. It would be nice if someone could fill me in on all this.

Influenza is what it is a potentially lethal infection. There were a large number of reported deaths and severe cases in Mexico which stirred up concerns that it would be similarly lethal. Those were proved unfounded.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by Mehdimentio

I have had people (including myself) express doubts about the necessity of the Swine Flu vaccine, arguing that the symptoms of the disease was too benign to take prevalence over the (supposed) risks of the vaccine to begin with (a number of reports have been made that claim that the vaccine caused narcolepsy in the people reported, although I'm not sure how much of it actually is significant, anecdotal as the reports were). How valid is this standpoint? Were the risks of taking the H1N1 about as harmless as the virus is stated to be, making it a good idea to take it anyway? Or was the influenza really that benign in actuality?

IN RETROSPECT we learned that the elderly, the population generally most susceptible to the flu, generally carried immunity to H1N1 due to exposure to similar strain 50 odd years ago. That is fortunate, because the other populations were hurt especially hard by H1N1, as the flu goes. As noted, pregnant women were hit especially hard. And the younger populations were also hit harder than by the normal flu. It's just that the flu doesn't tend to do real serious damage to the young and healthy, so being worse than the normal flu still doesn't have to amount to much.

Had the elderly not had that immunity, however, the damage would have been far, far worse. We were fortunate that they did, and no one could have foreseen that. Vaccinating was absolutely the smart thing to do.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Estellea

Mehdimentio, H1N1 was particularly pathogenic and had a high mortality rate (compared to other influenza strains) for pregnant women, babies and young adults in the U.S. I believe that there were over 200 infant deaths in 2009 but would have to consult the stats for that. The reason for that was these populations were naive to H1N1 and also may have been victims of 'cytokine storm' which is what was the primary factor for the young adult mortality during the Spanish flu pandemic.

Yes, the vaccines used in Finland, Sweden and Iceland did contribute to an increased risk of narcolepsy in teenagers but I haven't looked at the literature recently to see if the mechanism has been elucidated.

Este

A large increase in a very rare problem amounts to very few additional cases. Even so, the problem was carefully investigated and the vaccine responsible discontinued**.

Finnish National Narcolepsy Task Force’s final report published

Quote:

In its final report, published on 31 August 2011, the Task Force concluded that vaccination with Pandemrix® vaccine contributed to increased incidence of narcolepsy observed among vaccinees 4-19 years of age. The report indicated a 12.7-fold increase of narcolepsy among vaccinated individuals, compared to unvaccinated individuals of the same age. Occurrence of narcolepsy within an eight-month period following immunization with Pandemrix® remains a rare event of 6 cases per 100 000 vaccinated persons aged 4-19 years. No increased incidence of narcolepsy was observed among children aged under four years and among adults over age 19. ...

... Finland reports pandemic influenza vaccination in 2009-2010 prevented approximately 80 000 cases of influenza A H1N1 (2009).

**

Quote:

In response to these recent cases in Europe, CDC has reviewed information from the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and found no signals or concerns suggesting an association between U.S.-licensed H1N1 or seasonal influenza vaccines and narcolepsy in the United States. CDC has enhanced its surveillance for cases of narcolepsy occurring after 2010-11 seasonal influenza vaccine and will continue to monitor the situation and take appropriate action as needed.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by therival58

Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but is the term "anti-vaxxer" applied to those who oppose some vaccines or all vaccines?

I would define it as anyone who opposes the use of one or more vaccines for psuedoscientific reasons.

[Stomatopoda]

A vaccine thread and no one has mentioned http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/tag/vaccines/ yet? For shame!