Vaccine Discussion Master Thread

[Achas Veachas]

@henche it's easy to cast stones at imaginary houses that you create! You haven't said one evidenced based claim yet, you simply cast aspersions. Make a credible, evidenced based claim and there can be room for discussion.

I'm surprised anyone following this thread for any length of time is taking henche seriously...

[henche]

do you have any source at all for the claim you made? The vaccine companies can show you lots of numbers just that the anti vaxers don't trust them.

For which claim?

That plague and tuberculosis and leprosy have largely disappeared, especially in the developed world?  You need a citation to a journal for that?

That it happened during the last hundred years? You need a citation to a journal for that?

Sorry, I'm not spending time looking that up. I don't really care enough.

[henche]

I'm surprised anyone following this thread for any length of time is taking henche seriously...

-1

[henche]

-1

-2

[Achas Veachas]

[YankyDoodle]

I'm surprised anyone following this thread for any length of time is taking henche seriously...

It's not about taking him seriously, it's about not allowing trolling comments to be posted without being fact checked. It's so easy as I mentioned to just attack doctors or modern medicine, there needs to be accountability.

[henche]

It's not about taking him seriously, it's about not allowing trolling comments to be posted without being fact checked. It's so easy as I mentioned to just attack doctors or modern medicine, there needs to be accountability.

So fact check me.

[YankyDoodle]

So fact check me.

Sure, just to make sure we are on the same page; You are arguing that just like some other diseases have become less rampant due to improved containment methods alone in the past 1000 years, so too the decreased incidence of smallpox, polio and measles is due to the same phenomena and that vaccines have done absolutely nothing to aid in their fall from prominence?

If this is not what you are saying please state a clear refutable hypothesis for what you are claiming so we can try to come to a clear conclusion.

[jaywhy]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidmaris/2012/10/10/fda-recall-points-to-serious-problems-at-the-fda/2/

[noturbizniss]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidmaris/2012/10/10/fda-recall-points-to-serious-problems-at-the-fda/2/

What does thiz have to do with vaccinations? Furthermore, as bad as this is, does this now invalidate all FDA approved drugs? Should we ditch modern medicine?

[Achas Veachas]

What does thiz have to do with vaccinations? Furthermore, as bad as this is, does this now invalidate all FDA approved drugs? Should we ditch modern medicine?

Yeah because all the homeopathic stuff were proven to work...

[YankyDoodle]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidmaris/2012/10/10/fda-recall-points-to-serious-problems-at-the-fda/2/

What a dumb article 

1) assuming that a 300 mg drug works at least as well as a 150 mg of the same drug is completely reasonable. Obviously there are exceptions to the rule (as was the case here) but I would be very curious to learn what the reason for the lack of bioequivalence was in this case. Regardless this is a very intersting concept and if proven out scientifically would absolutely change the way we think about pharmacokinetics (and I dare any high school student to try to explain what the article claims is so obvious).

2) To argue that they could have just filled the 300 mg version with no drug is a ridiculous statement. Tylenol can start giving out placebos instead of acetaminophen tomorrow, FDA testing years ago wouldn't have stopped that.

3) Someone will likely argue that they should have tested the 300 mg version in case it puts ppl at greater risk of adverse effects. Yes they should have and they probably did. There are different phases of drug testing and side effects are a different phase then efficacy testing.

4) The rest of the article re generic drugs is ridiculous. Everyone knows generic drugs are different than brand-name drugs. This can be for the good or the bad. Some ppl have bad reactions to brand-name but can tolerate generic and vice versa. The point is they are similar enough in how they treat the condition that they are considered equivalent to each other.

Next

[Achas Veachas]

Should we ditch modern medicine?

To plagiarize Churchill: "Indeed, it has been said that Modern Western Medicine is the worst form of medicine except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

[jaywhy]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidmaris/2012/10/10/fda-recall-points-to-serious-problems-at-the-fda/2/

The point is: the FDA has serious issues when it comes to regulating drug approvals and drug safety. At best, they are ineffective, at worst, deceptive and duplicitous.

[thaber]

The point is: the FDA has serious issues when it comes to regulating drug approvals and drug safety. At best, they are ineffective, at worst, deceptive and duplicitous.

And as I said regarding the first article you posted on the subject, this is not vaccine specific, even if true. It should be in the blood thinner thread.
back to henche vs. yanky doodle

[YankyDoodle]

The point is: the FDA has serious issues when it comes to regulating drug approvals and drug safety. At best, they are ineffective, at worst, deceptive and duplicitous.

It is a government organization, did you expect them to be swift and infallible? Overall they do an important job. If you can suggest fixes or ways to improve oversight, by all means. If the FDA is guilty of something it is the complete and utter disregard for the testing and regulations needed in the alternative medicine community. While pharmaceutical companies must run the gauntlet in order to prove their medication is safe and effective (as they should!) supplements and pseudo-healthcare is free to market as they see fit until an official complaint is made. No, the FDA is not perfect but overall they do a good job.

If this is supposed to show that vaccines are more dangerous than we thought, that's where I draw the line. I do not use or prescribe vaccines because the FDA says to do so. I do it because science, doctors and clear-thinking people for > half a century have come to that consensus.

Unfortunately as it relates to medication that we use to treat sick people, we must weigh the pros and cons of using newer less-thoroughly tested drugs on an individual basis. We rely on the FDA initially and on scientific research throughout to determine what's best for patient care.

[aygart]

What a dumb article 

1) assuming that a 300 mg drug works at least as well as a 150 mg of the same drug is completely reasonable. Obviously there are exceptions to the rule (as was the case here) but I would be very curious to learn what the reason for the lack of bioequivalence was in this case. Regardless this is a very intersting concept and if proven out scientifically would absolutely change the way we think about pharmacokinetics (and I dare any high school student to try to explain what the article claims is so obvious).

2) To argue that they could have just filled the 300 mg version with no drug is a ridiculous statement. Tylenol can start giving out placebos instead of acetaminophen tomorrow, FDA testing years ago wouldn't have stopped that.

+1 I was struck by the same points

4) The rest of the article re generic drugs is ridiculous. Everyone knows generic drugs are different than brand-name drugs. This can be for the good or the bad. Some ppl have bad reactions to brand-name but can tolerate generic and vice versa. The point is they are similar enough in how they treat the condition that they are considered equivalent to each other.

I think you should speak for yourself. The article is likely correct in stating that most people think that generics are the same as the brand name drugs. I always thought they were chemically equal. I once had a case where a generic said not to eat dairy for an hour after taking the machine while the brand name did not. I asked the doctor who said it must be in the inactive ingredients since the medicine is the same. It seems he was unaware that they are different.

The point is: the FDA has serious issues when it comes to regulating drug approvals and drug safety. At best, they are ineffective, at worst, deceptive and duplicitous.

This article fails to make that point. They have in general with some exceptions been proven to be quite effective and are generally stricter than regulators in other jurisdictions.

[YankyDoodle]

+1 I was struck by the same points
I think you should speak for yourself. The article is likely correct in stating that most people think that generics are the same as the brand name drugs. I always thought they were chemically equal. I once had a case where a generic said not to eat dairy for an hour after taking the machine while the brand name did not. I asked the doctor who said it must be in the inactive ingredients since the medicine is the same. It seems he was unaware that they are different. This article fails to make that point. They have in general with some exceptions been proven to be quite effective and are generally stricter than regulators in other jurisdictions.

Your doctor was correct. The active ingredients as well as the major pharmaceutical parameters are equivalent to the brand name. They are created in a different lab with different inactive ingredients and production technique and therefore may have some slightly different properties.

[henche]

And as I said regarding the first article you posted on the subject, this is not vaccine specific, even if true. It should be in the blood thinner thread.
back to henche vs. yanky doodle

Agreed! Back to henche vs. yanky doodle.

I now bring forth evidence.  If I am wrong, let the tree jump 400 cubits. And let there be a price mistake to BOS for a DDF DO.

[Achas Veachas]

Agreed! Back to henche vs. yanky doodle.

I now bring forth evidence.  If I am wrong, let the tree jump 400 cubits. And let there be a price mistake to BOS for a DDF DO.

Evidence is flawed: regarding the tree "אין מביאין ראיה מן החרוב" and regarding the price mistake "לא בשמים היא".
– מסכת בבא מציעא נט, ב