@karliandjacko wrote:
@secondhand-wonderland wrote:
Clearly a bias opinion for someone who is involved in a research study of this kind... Infact I cant help but see the whole study as bias the introduction makes it perfectly clear:
Do you see the bias in the anti vaccination messengers output?
In fact, there doesn't seem to be a clinical study of any sort which concludes that non vaccination improves health outcomes
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
I tell you what would be great, if we can quit all the anti this and pro that rubbish. Why when a concerned person asks essential questions regarding their own or their childs healthcare (which many health care providers cannot answer) What would you reccommend one do? What is wrong with asking the question "Why do children need to have so many vaccinations before they are 2?" "What are the possible side effects of the vaccines that they "need" to have?" Just asking those two very reasonable, common questions one will be labelled an anti-vaxxer, anti-science, quack follower etc etc but the one that takes the cake.... child abuser. It's gone way beyond ridiculous.
Of course I can notice a bias in the so called anti vaccination messenger output. But one would expect to see that considering the viciousness with which some people approach those that ask the simple questions. Science should be impartial, unbiased and totally devoid of any conflicts of interest. Even a layperson such as myself can detect very clear bias and very possible conflict of interest problems with certain epidemiological studies, that try to "prove" vaccines are entirely safe and effective.
Heres a German study from 2011 that compares the health outcomes of the vaccinated vs the unvaccinated.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21412506
The conclusion was: The prevalence of allergic diseases and non-specific infections in children and adolescents was not found to depend on vaccination status.
So basically the incidence of infectious diseases was only slightly lower in the vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated in children aged 1-17 years old. I'd say thats a win for both sides of the debate... (Although the proportion of unvaccinated recorded in this study is only 0.7%)
Heres a study looking at the Association between varicella zoster virus infection and atopic dermatitis in early and late childhood
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20624648
The conclusion of this study states: WTVZV in childhood protects up to 10 years of age against AD, delays onset of AD symptoms, and decreases AD severity and office visits.
And one more study: Delay in diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus vaccination is associated with a reduced risk of childhood asthma.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18207561
Concludes: We found a negative association between delay in administration of the first dose of whole-cell DPT immunization in childhood and the development of asthma; the association was greater with delays in all of the first 3 doses. The mechanism for this phenomenon requires further research.
To MM12; You are really wanting me to answer this question:
why do all the world's professional medical bodies support vaccination programmes?, forget all, why even does our AMA?
So according to the AWA's; Position Statement on Vaccinations outside of General Practice
It states; GPs are regularly contracted by State Governments to deliver the childhood vaccination programs provided through schools and community centers.
They support it because it govt policy to do so.
