Yes, some in the general public paint eastern medicine, acupuncture, medications, vaccines, western medicine etc all with a broad brush

But I think a better starting point especially on an EBM Listserve would be to say something about what the specific hard outcomes are in high quality studies of specific interventions. With that information the proper info can be shared

Belief is something else and of course should be addressed but staring with actual evidence seems useful..,,

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 8, 2014, at 7:34 AM, Aicken, Catherine <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Good point Rich – but from patients’ perspectives, vaccines seem to be viewed as one ‘type’ of medication, and often tarred with the same brush. Media reports don’t help and the effects of mistrust in vaccinations are long-lasting. Where I live in Brighton (UK) it is not uncommon to hear educated parents still talking about the MMR-autism ‘link’.

So in addition to risk/benefits of each product, there’s the separate issue of how that evidence is conveyed to the public, and where that fits in their beliefs about health and healthcare (Juan made the point about sociology of vaccination).

Catherine

 

From: Evidence based health (EBH) [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Richard Saitz
Sent: 08 October 2014 12:17
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Risk of bias in vaccine safety research missed by Cochrane

 

I am confused about why the discussion is about "vaccines." We would never be so nonspecific and make sweeping statements about "medications" would we? That medications are harmful or helpful? Obviously there are risks and benefits that differ for specific medicine and they can be quantified. Each is different. Let's talk about specific risk benefit actual numbers for specific products. Wouldn't that be clearer?


Rich Saitz


On Oct 8, 2014, at 6:40 AM, Jacob Puliyel <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Juan writes
-it is no only questions of biology, also sociology ("social vaccunolgy"), see the adverse effect of HPV vaccine in Australia on the uptake of other vaccine:
The introduction of HPV vaccine may have adversely affected the uptake of Hepatitis B vaccine, given concurrently in the school program. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1753-6405.2009.00409.x/abstract

We have begun to see such a trend quite clearly in India following deaths from Pentavalent vaccine. The number of fully immunized children in Tamil Nadu (which formerly had 89% coverage with basic vaccines) has fallen by 25% between 2007-8 and 2012-3 according to the District Level Household Survey – DLHS 4: 2012-13 (https://nrhm-mis.nic.in/SitePages/DLHS-4.aspx )

 

The WHO promotes a combination vaccine called the Pentavalent Vaccine which combines DPT vaccine with Hepatitis B and Hib vaccines in developing countries. The combination is prone to cause deaths sporadically somewhat like anaphylactic deaths. We know that about 1 in 10,000 given the vaccine develops serious or fatal adverse events following immunization (AEFI). This is data from states with good surveillance of AEFI, obtained under the Right to Information (http://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/are-some-states-under-reporting-pentavalent-vaccine-deaths).

 

This has been happening in many countries using the vaccine. (‘Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety review of pentavalent safety concerns in four Asian countries’ http://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/committee/topics/hpv/GACVSstatement_pentavalent_June2013.pdf  ). Thorough investigation of all these deaths has not yielded an alternate explanation for the events. The WHO and CIOMS have had to change the Brighton classification and the way these reactions are classified (rather than admit that the reactions are 'probably causally related to the vaccination').

 

 Please see the PubMed-Commons responses to this change in the Brighton classification but you will notice the authors have maintained a studied silence perhaps confident that this too with blow over ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24021304 ). We don’t dare speak up for fear we will be labeled anti-vaccine.

 

Public faith in vaccines is eroded and real long term harm will be inflicted on all public health initiatives if we seen as not-trustworthy and we are not open and transparent regarding these adverse events.

 

Jacob Puliyel

 

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Juan Gérvas <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

-it is shocking that one can ask directly about, for example "harms by proton pump inhibitors", but about "harms of vaccines" one need first to establish a circle of hundreds of words to be sure no one can understand that you are "anti-vaccines"

-vaccines are medications and as such they offer benefit and harms

-vaccines have short and long term harms, and we know very little about boths

-but it is extremly important to know more; for example, about tuberculosis vaccine, we need to know more about host-pathogen coevolution, BCG and the ocurrence of Beijing/W strains
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/367/1590/850.full.pdf

-this is the case, also, with pertussis vaccination and its failure because new strains of pertcatin deficient B pertussis
USA. Pertussis evolution. More cases, because recent, dramatic increase in pertactin deficient B. pertussis isolates.
http://www.asm.org/images/Communications/tips/2013/1213pertussis.pdf
-it is no only questions of biology, also sociology ("social vaccunolgy"), see the adverse effect of HPV vaccine in Australia on the uptake of other vaccine:

The introduction of HPV vaccine may have adversely affected the uptake of Hepatitis B vaccine, given concurrently in the school program. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1753-6405.2009.00409.x/abstract

-un saludo

-juan gérvas

 

2014-10-07 18:56 GMT+02:00 Douglas Badenoch <[log in to unmask]>:

Thanks for replying Wouter

I am surprised to be regarded as part of an "overbearing tendency to question people if stepping out of the box." I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask for evidence about your claim.  Especially on an email list such as this!  We should always be asking for evidence.

My job doesn't depend on what people do regarding vaccination by the way.

I suspect that you weren't directing that accusation at me, but were generally accusing public health profession at large of neglecting this issue.  I have to say that approach (accusing a profession of neglect, saying that people don't care about children) doesn't do your argument any favours in the eyes of a neutral.

You seem to be saying that in your clinical experience there may be a link between vaccines and NCDs. You also have some theoretical papers that you think support this proposition (even though they don't mention vaccines) and that has set off some alarm bells for you.  Is that an unfair assessment?

I did read the link you posted by the way.  My first impression was that you were citing yourself rather a lot, and that set off some alarm bells of my own.  The other articles are mostly theoretical papers that don't address vaccine safety.  So I don't see any evidence there to support your proposition.

Please forgive my scepticism but I feel that we have seen already too many examples of the harm from unsubstantiated theories.

cheers

Douglas



On 06/10/2014 21:39, Wouter Havinga wrote:

Hi Amy and Douglas,

As a GP I am expected to vaccinate every child. Public health needs to provide the reassurance that on balance their children (the people that I am expected to safeguard) after vaccination are not more at risk to develop asthma, eczema, hayfever, inflammatory bowel disease, autoimmune diseases, ADHD, depression or pervasive developmental disorders.

A better question is what evidence does public health have to prove to the parents and me as GP, that taking an acute infectious disease and life long NCDs the mort/morb balance is favourable - in view of the endemic increase of all of those NCDs mentioned above?

I do not want to compare myself with Semmelweis but I worked in a practice where the population was less keen on vaccination and parents opted to vaccinate only at one year old and with fewer vaccinations. What I observed was that there are less NCDs in the children in this population.

Furthermore I work in the OOH (Out of Hours service) of the area that also covers this practice. Hardly any patients of this practice contact the OOH. I hardly every see any needing a nebuliser.

If I was public health I would jump on this and do research! As a Public Health specialist I would take pride in keeping the population healthy, and do any kind of research to do my job for society properly. Unfortunately, just like in Semmelweis's time, there seems to be an overbearing tendency to question people if stepping out of the box: "where is your evidence" and subsequently don't interact because they want to keep their job. The health of children seems less important? To me it seem that this area of research (NCD/vaccination) doesn't feature on any conferences of public health, WHO, Unicef or GaviAlliance.

It is unthinkable not to discuss possible side effects when it concerns adults, take statins, HRT, COC, but when it concerns children nobody seems to care?

To actually answer your question "where is your evidence", did you take time to read my link of 2012 and did you read it with interest or did you scanned it through to check if it sounded acceptable - rather than be stimulated to help think about whether vaccines are causing the endemic increase in NCD. This is important because I believe it not an academic exercise but the most pressing humanitarian research topic of our time.http://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e3769/rr/593438

Of course I am emotionally involved because I handle the needle and syringe, so therefore I value your scientific input and look forward to both your thoughts!

 

--
Douglas Badenoch
Director, Minervation Ltd
-------------------------
T: +44 131 441 4699
M: +44 781 742 3262
www.minervation.com
@DBadenoch


---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

 

 

 

BMJ advances healthcare worldwide by sharing knowledge and expertise to improve experiences, outcomes and value. This email and any attachments are confidential. If you have received this email in error, please delete it and kindly notify us. If the email contains personal views then BMJ accepts no responsibility for these statements. The recipient should check this email and attachments for viruses because the BMJ accepts no liability for any damage caused by viruses. Emails sent or received by BMJ may be monitored for size, traffic, distribution and content. BMJ Publishing Group Limited trading as BMJ. A private limited company, registered in England and Wales under registration number 03102371. Registered office: BMA House, Tavistock Square, London WC1H 9JR, UK.


BMJ advances healthcare worldwide by sharing knowledge and expertise to improve experiences, outcomes and value. This email and any attachments are confidential. If you have received this email in error, please delete it and kindly notify us. If the email contains personal views then BMJ accepts no responsibility for these statements. The recipient should check this email and attachments for viruses because the BMJ accepts no liability for any damage caused by viruses. Emails sent or received by BMJ may be monitored for size, traffic, distribution and content. BMJ Publishing Group Limited trading as BMJ. A private limited company, registered in England and Wales under registration number 03102371. Registered office: BMA House, Tavistock Square, London WC1H 9JR, UK.