A few days ago we interviewed Carlos Gonzalez on the occasion of the recent publication of his book In defense of vaccines. After two entries dedicated to answering the most frequently asked questions related to what could be called the anti-vaccine movement we left the door open to a possible third entry with questions from our readers, which they could leave in the comments of the second part of the interview.
After a few days some of you cheered up and asked several questions. Carlos González agreed to answer them and today I bring you here both the questions you left for him, and his answers.
The question of Gleibys Lugones
“I respect what Carlos says but I make an observation in his opinion about homeopathy: I don't understand that he recognizes its use as a preventive medicine and then compares him to drinking water. It seems to me a derogatory opinion towards a treatment that in many cases helps the conditions not to evolve further. In addition to using it with allopathic medicine, it has no side effects. I think that in the case of vaccines they should be treated as complementary and not as exclusive, both have more pros than cons and that is for the benefit of our children. I have been using homeopathy for me and my 2 young children for years (right now my baby is doing wonders for teething pain). From my experience I encourage parents to go deeper into this field, it can be a pleasant surprise. Greetings.“
No, you have not understood me well. I do not "recognize" the use of homeopathy as a preventive medicine. Homeopathy is useless.
Teething does not hurt. I know from experience, because although I do not remember what happened when my baby teeth came out, the truth is that I had another 28 teeth between 6 and 15 years old and nothing hurt.
Various questions of Stefan Cambiasso
“Is there any type of nephrological, neurological study, acid-base balance values, effect of antibiotics, plasma and tissue concentrations, electrolyte concentration, oncotic pressure, in a newly vaccinated baby? If so, have you read and valued them? And if not, do you assume that they do not affect the health of the healthy baby at all?“
Exactly what kind of studies would you like to do, and what do you hope to find out with them? Plasma and tissue concentrations of what? Here you can see, as an example, a summary of the studies prior to the commercialization of a specific vaccine, Gardasil (papilloma). The report was prepared and made available to the public by the experts of the European Medicines Agency.
As you will see, vaccine safety was studied in twelve placebo-controlled studies, with a total of 16,000 subjects. All of them were followed up clinically, and of course the necessary analytical tests were done in those who presented symptoms. I do not assume that vaccines do not affect the health of a healthy baby at all. I know, and not for taking it for granted, but because there are studies that prove it, that vaccines improve health, by decreasing the risk of suffering the corresponding diseases. If vaccines did not affect health, they would be useless.
Apparently, what you propose (or have I not understood correctly?) Is to draw blood to those 16,000 people to measure the acid-base balance and plasma concentrations (of what?), And I have not understood well how you intend to measure the tissue concentrations (of what, in which tissues? multiple biopsies?). Apart from ridiculous and unethical, such studies would be useless. For example, the acid-base balance varies mainly (within normal limits) with the crying of the child. It would not depend on which vaccine has been given, but on how much he has cried. But, a variation of the basic acid balance within normal limits, how important is it, and why do we want to know? And if it goes beyond normal limits, the child will have symptoms and will have the necessary tests. It is absurd to prick clinically healthy children to make them unnecessary tests.
"Is it known exactly how they affect the mitochondrial, cellular level, adjuvants that include vaccines?"
Are you referring to Dr. Blaylock's publications, basically in dubious quality magazines? The curious reader can read them here, and also acquire their "brain repair formula." From what I have seen, they are more opinions than studies.
“Is formaldehyde used as an adjuvant in vaccines? You said that no carcinogenic substances are used and this compound is considered carcinogenic. ”
No, formaldehyde is not an adjuvant nor has it ever been. The only adjuvants used in vaccines today are aluminum salts and, in some flu vaccines, squalene. Formaldehyde is used in some vaccines during the manufacturing process, and some vaccines contain residues. The amount of formaldehyde in vaccines is very small, in fact less than the amount that the human body itself synthesizes throughout the day in its metabolic processes. Name many possible sources of formaldehyde, but do not mention vaccines because, as a source, it is negligible. Let me draw your attention to the following paragraph:
You can see a report on the carcinogenic effect of formaldehyde here.
In fact, because formaldehyde is ubiquitous, it has been suggested that occupational exposure to formaldehyde occurs in all work places. Formaldehyde is also ubiquitous in the environment and has been detected in indoor and outdoor air; in treated drinking water, bottled drinking water, surface water, and groundwater; on land and in the soil; and in numerous types of food. The primary source of exposure is from inhalation of formaldehyde gas in indoor settings (both residential and occupational); however, formaldehyde also may adsorb to respirable particles, providing a source of additional exposure. Major sources of formaldehyde exposure for the general public have included combustion sources (both indoor and outdoor sources including industrial and automobile emissions, home cooking and heating, and cigarette smoke), off-gassing from numerous construction and home furnishing products, and off-gassing from numerous consumer goods. Ingestion of food and water can also be a significant source of exposure to formaldehyde.
It is ubiquitous and has been found in the air, both indoors and outdoors, in tap and bottled water, in rivers and lakes and in groundwater, in the soil and in many foods. Undoubtedly, those who can not breathe, do not drink water and do not eat will greatly reduce their exposure to formaldehyde.
"How is it that you, an" expert "in breastfeeding, deny the protective properties of this and obviate naming the protection that the mother transmits to the baby via transplacental route against various diseases and infections and to title (never better) of concentration of antibodies and that lasts several months? ”
I have not ignored the protective properties of breastfeeding. But I do not think to magnify. Breastfeeding does not protect against whooping cough, measles or many other diseases. And its protection against Haemophilus or pneumococcus is only partial. Children who breastfeed have as much right to get vaccinated as others, and need to get vaccinated at the same age. And he doesn't mention the antibodies received transplacentally because they've asked me about breastfeeding, and that's what I answer. Antibodies received by the transplacental route are the cause of the triple viral vaccine being normally given annually. Before, maternal antibodies can inactivate it and make it less effective (although in case of an epidemic they can be put at nine or even six months, then it must be repeated a year, because it is easy that it has not been effective).
Each vaccine is put at the age at which it is more convenient to put it, and that of the transplacental antibodies has already been taken into account.
"How can you be in favor and say that strategically-logistically it is very expensive to analyze if the mother is a carrier of hepatitis B when a thousand tests are done during pregnancy and would save a vaccine for the newborn child?"
I have not said such a thing. These tests are already done and will continue. I have only tried to explain why in some countries, although they have done these tests, they have decided to vaccinate hepatitis B for all newborns.
"Why do you try to convince that it does not work against pneumococcus if you do not recommend this vaccine?"
I have not understood the question. The pneumococcal vaccine works, and I have not tried to convince otherwise. The Spanish health authorities (except in a couple of autonomous communities) have decided that, given the epidemiological situation of our country, the effectiveness of the vaccine and its cost, at the moment it is not necessary to vaccinate all children. It is possible that in the future some of these factors will change, and therefore change your decision.
"... And against measles if you know that if the mother is immune, does she transmit immunity to the child for at least 6 months?"
Yes. That's why you never get vaccinated for measles before six months. In fact, it is usually vaccinated at 12 or 15 months.
"... And tetanus when it is practically impossible for a baby to cut if he does not know how to crawl?"
True, the risk of a baby being cut at four months is very small. But it happens. In addition, full protection requires at least three vaccines, if we put the first at six months, babies would crawl when they only take one or two doses. And also it would have to puncture them more times.
"Why don't you protect breastfeeding by saying you don't do it completely, maybe vaccines do?"
And hit him with the ninguneo. Breastfeeding is approximately 50% effective as protection against Haemophilus. The vaccine is more than 90% effective with three doses, and 100% when the booster dose is set. It is what it is.
"Then why don't you name about natural immunity as it used to happen with diphtheria, measles or chicken pox and that thanks to vaccines, almost no one has nor transmits?"
I do not understand the question. Before there was only natural immunity in those who had already passed those diseases. The goal of vaccines is not to get immunized. The goal of vaccines is to avoid the disease. Passing measles leaves immunized, but does not prevent the disease, since you have already passed it.
“How do you think of ironing with your health by making comparisons between lettuce or between multi-million dollar pharmaceutical profits (according to yourself, 225 million euros per year for vaccination gains without counting Prevenares Y Rotavirus) minimizing these by comparing them with profits from even bigger companies like the ticket office of a soccer team precisely the best and the one with the biggest stadium in the world? Luckily he has not compared it to IKEA ... "
It occurs to me because I am a very ingenious person, thank you. I am not ironic with health, which is a serious thing. I am ironing, in case it has not been caught, with certain anti-vaccines that believe that vaccines are only put in to make money, and that governments and doctors only recommend vaccines because laboratories have bribed them. I make comparisons so that it is seen that the money that moves with the vaccines is little compared to that which moves with other things. With those 225 million, in Spain it would be necessary to bribe a minister, 17 regional councilors, several dozen professors, several dozen epidemiologists, several hundreds of heads of pediatrics or infectious diseases ... It is not that I say they are unbearable, What I am saying is that there is not enough money to bribe them all. Not even the tobacco industry (which has hundreds of times more money) has succeeded. I'm sorry you don't like Barça. If you prefer Depor, your 2010/2011 budget is almost 53 million, and that has dropped a lot. I don't have time to do the sums, but I would say so by the eye that with the budget of the first division of Spanish football there is enough to vaccinate all the children of Africa, and perhaps also those of India. But, of course, first things first (now I am ironing).
"Do you defend the policy followed by WHO and governments for the H1N1 flu? ... No comments."
Do you propose a different policy? Laboratories do not manufacture vaccines that they will not sell. The process of manufacturing a new vaccine is long and expensive, and governments have to sign contracts for a certain number of vaccines well in advance for laboratories to do the
expenditure. Either that, or that it is the governments that directly manufacture the vaccines, something that nobody prevents them, and if they do not do it, it will be because they find it cheaper to outsource. The governments decided to order several million vaccines when there had only been several hundred dead. You can discuss the cutoff point. For the next pandemic, how many dead do you propose to wait before giving the order to start manufacturing the vaccine? (knowing that it will take several months to do it) Do we start when there are already a thousand dead, or a hundred thousand, or a million?
“How can you say that with vaccines you don't earn money and then you don't get some optional vaccines for their price among other things? Weren't we left that with them the pharmacists did not earn money? ”
I repeat, I do not say that you do not earn money, what I say is that you do not earn enough to bribe all the governments of the world (including the Swedish, the Norwegian or the Canadian, which I think are more expensive governments than ours in the world ranking of bribes).
“How can you say as you said in an interview that the triple viral is given to allergic children (to the egg) who stay a while later as a precaution and that nothing happens when it is stated that its administration to patients allergic to the egg can cause severe anaphylactic reactions? ”
I can say it because it is the truth. You can see it here and here.
"How do you publish a book in defense of" vaccines "when it is later disregarded, not recommended, or gives data from groups, according to you" reliable ", of doctors or authorities who deny the suitability or effectiveness of vaccines such as papilloma human, Preventflu A Rotavirus… ”
The effectiveness of these vaccines is proven. Another thing is that it is convenient or necessary to administer at this time, in this country, to all children. Of course, I got a flu shot.
Nrp73's questions
“It seems to me that this man is getting into a shirt of eleven rods. He is an expert in breastfeeding, not in vaccination. The book is a compendium of comparisons without feet or head, such as pharmaceuticals and lettuce ... without words. It is a pity, because before I thought very well of him, his work for breastfeeding and raising with attachment is interesting and beneficial. I agree with the previous user regarding what he says about breastfeeding. I would love to answer the questions presented in the previous entry. I would also like you to answer the following: Why do all the children I know not vaccinated, including my daughter, of different ages, never seem to get sick, and others always have something? It is a perception as a mother. ”
How many children has the study done? Was the vaccine application double blind? How have diseases been assessed in each group of children? Are your data available for other researchers to analyze?
Studies done by eye and without adequate controls are very unreliable.
"I am reading it (the book" In Defense of Vaccines "). And frankly it seems to me that it should be called "Discrediting Marin and Uriarte" or something like that. And I do see a relationship. Today, too many children seem to be constantly sick. A few years ago we did not know what was the bronchitis / bronchitis of repetition… for example. ”
No, Uriarte and Marín the desjections. To discredit themselves, they already do it alone.
Another comment by Stefan Cambiasso
Stefan Cambiasso speaks first of all about the prospects that include autism as a possible side effect. After exchanging messages with me (Armando) (you can read these comments here), just saying:
“The prospectus passes from the scientific department to the legal department, from the legal department to the marketing department, afterwards it has to be approved by a governing council, and finally approved by the assembly of committing partners of the pharmaceutical company. We are going to put it in a way that when it happens abarate a little compensation because "already warned" (they had no choice but to admit it), but without panic ... "
You are wrong. The prospectus is not approved by the assembly of partners, but by the Ministry of Health (now, the European Medicines Agency). The laboratories no longer put in the leaflet what they want, but what they are forced to put, period.
Thank you, Carlos González
I want to thank the pediatrician for the time dedicated to answering the questions we asked him for the interview, as well as the time dedicated to answering our readers. No doubt it is a detail that helps everyone to be a little more informed about an issue as important as vaccination of our children.
