Talk:Vaccine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
To-do list for Vaccine: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
    		This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
    See also: Wikipedia:Notice board for vaccine-related topics

    Contents

    [edit] Old talk

    What about use of the avian leukemia virus to manufacture vaccinations in chicken eggs and then the subsequent vaccine allergies associated with people who are allergic to eggs?

    There are a number of different media for manufacturing avian viruses, it's just that chicken eggs are one of the easiest to obtain and work with. Other options include insect cells and eggs from other species whose proteins are less likely to stimulate an allergic response. These other media are economically difficult to use, though.

    "Despite the lck of evidence". *Snort* What suddenly makes mercury utterly harmless just because "Thimerosal" has been written on a label? I do wish folx like the FDA would treat their pharmochemicals with as much skepticism as they try to instill in us about medicines they can't make money on.

    I'm sorry, this is just silly. It's based on a common misunderstanding. Thimerosal contains mercury in the same way that table salt contains chlorine. Chlorine is a poisonous gas used during the First World War as a chemical agent to kill or disable enemy troops.
    Evidence that chlorine is dangerous doesn't mean that table salt is dangerous. To discover the dangers of salt you need to study salt, not chlorine! To discover the dangers of thimerosal, study thimerosal, not mercury. Nothing 'suddenly makes mercury utterly harmless', but nobody has claimed mercury to be safe. It's poisonous by ingestion and by breathing its vapour. But Thimerosal is not mercury! (Chris Jefferies, 6th December 2003)
    So how come those who are looking at the the long-term effects of Thimerosal - ie "studying" it - and finding things you don't like, aren't looking at "evidence"? Why are they wrong, and not the politicised FDA (you think it's apolitical? Explain its tantrum about Canadian drugs)? I know perfectly well the difference between elements and their compounds - but we're not talking about an ionic compound essential to life as we know it. What's the proof this heavy metal has a bond in thimerosal strong enough to carry the Hg all the way through metabolism to excretion without side effects, esp and particularly in the several large per-body-mass doses given the developmentally sensitive very young? (I remind you that what little pharmochemical testing is done is in the main done in adults, not children, even in products targeted for children?) Your analogy with salt is as facile and misleading as that made by MSG lovers who say it's on the GRAS list, so are salt and vinegar so it must be safe (w/o regard for the scientifically dubious process by which the GRAS is maintained).
    Thimerosal may be safe. But there're enough historical failings and worse by things like the FDA that I, personally, no longer trust authoritarian pronouncements. I want empirical science. I don't know if the rise in asthma, autism, "hyperactivity", etc are caused by inoculants, or the preservatives, or the pollution, or food additives, or leachates from the containers, or growth hormones, or TV, or the combination. But I see no good evidence anointed "proper authorities" are bothering to look or even "want" to look.
    (And be careful writing (parroting?) phrases like "lack of evidence." I snicker every time i hear pronouncements about "lack of evidence" because a second look usually reveals there's no evidence because nobody's bothered to look for evidence. "Lack of evidence" is not equivalent to "null results.")
    What I'm asking for, of course, is long-term blind large-sample science. It's unfortunate that the only way to get that for pharmochemicals like Thimerosal is to dump them on the market and watch what happens. Unfortunate, because it's treating people as guinea pigs instead of informed-consent patients, and because when contraindications do turn up the entities in charge of approving the release in the first place have every practical motive run contrary to telling the truth.
    I stand by what I wrote, 'To discover the dangers of thimerosal, study thimerosal'; and most of your comment above agrees with that. Whether I (or you) 'like' the findings is not relevant - if studies of thimerosal show it to be unsafe then we all need to know. But to write, as you did, 'What suddenly makes mercury utterly harmless just because "Thimerosal" has been written on a label?', is silly. I don't believe anyone has claimed mercury to be safe because the word 'thimerosal' is written on a label! Please try to be more rational and people may take you more seriously. (Chris Jefferies, 11th December 2003)


    [edit] Autism

    The MMR vacine has never contained thimerosal. It would not work if it did. While you could claim that thimerosal contains ethly mercury you can see from it's structure[1] that it contains a phenyl ring and a carboxcilic acid salt. It's like claiming polystyrene contians benzene.

    • smacks forehead* Yeah, I meant the DTP (Diphtheria Pertussis) vaccine, which DID contain thimerasol until the FDA revised their Mercury Containing Products act sometime in the late 1997. The MMR vaccine is supposedly immune-regulated. This is what happens when I "be bold" like they say in the help texts. *grins sheepishly*

    All of the largest studies (which contain over 10,000 patients each) shows no statistical evidence supporting any vaccines causing autism. The supporting studies for the vaccines and autism have fewer than 1,000 (and in most cases, only a dozen or so) patients, and even then the link is tenuous at best. The real issue, I feel, and this is in no way related to the article, is the changing relationships between doctor and patient, especially when it deals with consent. In many ways, this controversy is similar to the circumcision debate: Should we, as parents, allow doctors to do these things to our kids just because they say so? The answer, of course, is that measles, mumps, diphtheria and a whole host of other diseases used to be the most common cause of death among those in developed nations. Now it's heart disease and cancer. It's a calculated risk, to be sure, but it's one that should be provided by informed choice, with doctors as counselors and information providers, rather than as authority figures. Of course, with multiple sources of information (the media, anti-vaccination groups, family magazines) other than the medical community, parenting decisions certainly ain't easy anymore.


    Nothing about Pasteur?

    [edit] Cleanup

    I have gone through and removed the following from this article because it was either not npov, to specific for a general article on vaccines. *Kat* 08:04, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

    Intro
    Vaccines may also help the immune system to fight against degenerative cells (cancer).


    Developing Immunity
    More recent vaccine technologies have provided vaccines made of highly purified antigen components derived from the pathogens themselves (e.g., pertussis) or through recombinant DNA technology producing such antigens in yeast or mammalian cell cultures (e.g., hepatitis B), as well as conjugate vaccines that chemically bond "weak" antigens such as bacterial polysaccharides (complex sugars found in a "capsule" that surrounds a bacterium; they are usually specific to a bacterial serotype) to carrier proteins that yield a better, longer lasting immune response than is seen with the polysaccharide antigens alone (e.g., meningococcal and pneumococcal vaccines).

    I removed this because I thought that it was too technical as well as too convoluted. There was also another paragraph that said almost exactly the same thing (in simpler language). After doing some research (to translate the above paragraph) I more or less combined the two. The second, "simple" paragraph was left almost intact with a few things from the above paragraph included.

    Smallpox, for example, appears to have been completely eliminated in the wild.

    This had already been stated earlier in the article

    ==Smallpox==
    Vaccination against smallpox is an especially contentious issue. Dissenters suggest modern vaccines might result in developmental disorders, and suggest that infections in the past (as in the small vaccinia outbreak in England in 1961) were more lethal and/or were spread in greater proportion, among those who were vaccinated. They contend that improved sanitation and nutrition, not vaccine, account for most of the reduction in smallpox. Inoculation proponents dispute these allegations, while still recognizing the fact that the current vaccine has risks. As the current risk of the disease (barring germ warfare) is effectively zero, routine smallpox vaccination has not been recommended for many years.

    I removed this because it veer's off topic. The article is about vaccines in general, not the small pox vaccine in particular.

    The threat from smallpox as a biological weapon has, however, caused a reconsideration, though not a reversal, of this position. A 2003 US vaccination effort was unpopular. There was poor turnout among hospital staff who were designated to be the first to receive the vaccine. In addition to the known risks of the vaccine, several deaths were reported from cardiac causes among the immunized, suggesting that people with coronary artery disease might be at risk. Development of newer formulations that might avoid the newly discovered risks is underway. Illinois and New York suspended the program pending investigation of the apparent vaccine deaths of two healthcare workers (the main focus of the program). The California Nurses Association opposed the effort from the start.[2][3]

    Again, I think this is too specific for a general article on vaccines. There is an article on the Smallpox vaccine, perhaps it could be incorporated there.

    Vaccination against smallpox is an especially contentious issue. Dissenters suggest modern vaccines might result in developmental disorders, and suggest that infections in the past (as in the small vaccinia outbreak in England in 1961) were more lethal and/or were spread in greater proportion, among those who were vaccinated. They contend that improved sanitation and nutrition, not vaccine, account for most of the reduction in smallpox. Inoculation proponents dispute these allegations, while still recognizing the fact that the current vaccine has risks. As the current risk of the disease (barring germ warfare) is effectively zero, routine smallpox vaccination has not been recommended for many years. The possibility of smallpox being used as a biological weapon in the United States prompted the U.S. government to authorize the manufacture and injection of smallpox vaccine. Due to the number of deaths that resulted, the project has been discontinued.

    With the exception of the last sentence (which I wrote trying to make the paragraph relevant) this paragraph is about vaccinations

    The threat from smallpox as a biological weapon has, however, caused a reconsideration, though not a reversal, of this position. A 2003 US vaccination effort was unpopular. There was poor turnout among hospital staff who were designated to be the first to receive the vaccine. In addition to the known risks of the vaccine, several deaths were reported from cardiac causes among the immunized, suggesting that people with coronary artery disease might be at risk. Development of newer formulations that might avoid the newly discovered risks is underway. Illinois and New York suspended the program pending investigation of the apparent vaccine deaths of two healthcare workers (the main focus of the program). The California Nurses Association opposed the effort from the start.[4][5]

    This is about the smallpox vaccine

    Controversy'
    Some groups in the United States claimed a link due to a preservative called thimerosal. Thimerosal is a preservative that contains mercury. It was (and in some cases still is) used in some DTP (diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis) vaccine formulations.

    http://www.truthout.org/issues_05/032305EA.shtml|


    under the 1997 FDA Modernization Act. In its report of October 1, 2001, the Institute of Medicine's (IOM) Immunization Safety Review Committee concluded that the evidence is inadequate to either accept or reject a causal relationship between thimerosal exposure from childhood vaccines and autism. In a further report, of May 2004 [6]

    The reason why I removed this is because the 2004 report (mentioned in article) rendered this 2001 report moot.

    A second, parallel, controversy arose in the United Kingdom over the vaccine for measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR), another vaccine that is routinely administered to children under the age of 2 in developed nations, but which contains no preservative. A possible link to autism came to the forefront when in 1998, Wakefield and colleagues reviewed reports of children with bowel symptoms and regressive developmental disorders, mostly autism, in a small sample of 12 children. The study was criticized for its small sample size, and for failing to use healthy controls. In 2004, 10 of the 13 authors of the original Wakefield study retracted the paper's interpretation, stating that the data were insufficient to establish a causal link between MMR vaccine and autism. This followed an investigation by Brian Deer for the London Sunday Times, who reported that Wakefield had links to lawyers hoping to sue the vaccines' manufacturers [7]. Further allegations were made by Deer in a UK television documentary, MMR: What They Didn't Tell You, first broadcast in November 2004 [8].

    Since this said almost the same thing as the paragraph on the US's vaccine related controversy I more or less combined the two and did my best to make the end result more readable without changing the intent of either paragraph.

    In response to the US and UK controversies, which closely mirror the framing of litigation in the two countries, a number of studies with large sample sizes were researched in many developed nations. These studies have sparked criticism over conflicts of interest, which has even been expressed by at least two Republican congressmen in the US, Dan Burton [9] and Dave Weldon[10]. The majority of those studies, funded primarily by pharmaceutical interests, showed no correlation between the use of vaccines (including the MMR vaccine) and increased autism: -

    reincorporated in a [more] neutral form and as a result, I removed this line: The study also garnered criticism for its small sample size, and for failing to use healthy controls. A couple of the links have been placed in the External links section as well.


    The autism controversy highlights several issues pertaining to public health, biological science, ethical standards, and the medical community. First, it beckons greater attention to the value of large-scale, case-controlled scientific studies in proving or disproving a hypothesis (in this case, a link between autism and vaccines). Secondly, it demonstrates both the importance of medical professionals having the most solid and up-to-date information and the importance of communicating this information in a clear and unbiased fashion to patients. Thirdly, it suggests a possible need to change the role of the medical community, from authoritarian wardens to counselors who provide informed choices, which might influence evolution of the doctor-patient relationship to become more of a partnership. Lastly, it emphasizes how medical issues involve all aspects of modern culture and society, including the media, the affected families, and the scientific community at large.

    Seriously POV, but I'm not enough of an expert to make it NPOV

    External links
    • BrianDeer.com - Brian Deer's denunciation of MMR study by Dr. Andrew Wakefield
    - * NationalAutismAssociation.org - NAA library of pdf files
    - * NIH.gov - National Intitutes of Health
    - * RatBags.com - Anti-vaccination Liars
    - *

    [edit] Durability of inactivated vaccines

    On Immune Central[11], the entry on inactivated vaccines states that:

    However, most inactivated vaccines stimulate a relatively weak immune response and must be given more than once. A vaccine that requires several doses (boosters) has a limited usefulness, especially in areas where people have less access to regular health care.

    So why did Geni see fit to take that caveat out? I'm putting it back in. --Leifern 18:13, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)

    The word "most"? You made an absolute statement. I know there are exceptions.Geni 18:17, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    a) Most does not mean "all." B) Then edit the statement rather than take it out. --Leifern 18:20, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)
    Now I get it - "may" means "not necessarily" or "not always" which makes a statement such as "You may experience dizziness" equivalent to "some people will experience dizziness." Strictly speaking, "most people may experience dizziness" is a meaningless statement, since it implies that a minority of people definitely will not experience dizziness. But it's a common way to hedge, so I don't have any objections to the way it is now. --Leifern 18:48, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)

    [edit] Bowel Disorders

    What were the bowel disorders that the Lancet article identified? Are we talking IBD, IBS or something else? Just curious. I recognize the issues surrounding that study, so no need to defend/attack the study. --Westendgirl 07:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

    [edit] Vaccinia/Vacca

    In the book "Vaccines: Are they really safe and effective?: A Parent's Guide to Childhood Shoots" by Neil Z. Miller, on page 17 it says

    "The term "vaccine" is derived from "vacca," the Latin word for cow.

    In wikipedia we say "The term derives from vaccinia, the infectious viral agent of cowpox". - (unsigned)

    Both are correct, though our version, giving the closer derivation, is more informative. Vaccine, from French vaccin, from vaccine (cowpox) from New Latin vaccina (in variolae vaccinae = cowpox) from Latin, feminine of vaccinus, adjective, of or from cows, from vacca cow. - Nunh-huh 21:27, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

    [edit] "How its made" section

    Removed this section for lack of NPOV, unprofessional manner, non-specific language ("our..." instead of "the United States'...") Col.Kiwi 02:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


    ==How its made==
    It takes more than half a year for our antiquated system of producing flu vaccine to ramp up to develop a new vaccine. This is because flu vaccines are biological products, made fresh every year from eggs laid by real chickens. Yessiree, real chickens!
    The actual process goes like this:
    In late-February or early-March, the World Health Organization picks its three strains based on the virus going around. If it acts too soon, newly emerging strains can be missed, as in last year’s Fujian strain. By August, vaccine production begins on nearly 50 farms throughout Pennsylvania.
    The Associated Press was allowed inside Aventis, America’s only flu shot manufacturer for a rare, firsthand look at the process of making flu vaccine. Here’s what the AP reported:
    Egg laying starts in late-December, typically one a day. The fertilized eggs are collected and incubated for 7 to 12 days, and then brought to Aventis. A machine punches a tiny hole in each shell, and a needle inoculates the chick embryo with a single flu strain. The virus is allowed to multiply for about three days.
    Then the eggs are broken, and the fluid around the embryo containing the virus is collected and purified. Formaldehyde is added to inactivate the flu virus, and the mixture is centrifuged to separate out the part containing the virus.
    Once again, eggs are needed: A sample of the spun solution is put back in the eggs to see if any virus grows – a test to ensure the germ was inactivated. A few more processing steps turn it into a lot, or batch, of several hundred thousand doses of a single strain.
    Next comes sterility testing. This was how Chiron’s vaccine was discovered to have been tainted with serratia bacteria. As Aventis tests for sterility, samples also go to the Food and Drug Administration, which begins testing late-May or early-June. After that, three viral strains are combined to form the trivalent vaccine. Four weeks of potency and sterility tests follow. Then, the vaccine is packaged into single-dose syringes and 10-dose vials. A few more quality checks for potency are made before the doses are shipped by the end of September.


    Gah! I just linked to this section not 3 minutes ago as it's the only wiki description I could find on how viruses are "killed". And then it vanished :\ LadyPhi 03:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


    So our article stays without a "How it's made" section? Unfortunately I'm not aware of any trusted source to get this info. The guy in my yoga lessons was telling us (the attendants) that some kind of the vaccines is made by making slits in a living cow and waiting for the pus to be generated.. but i don't buy this story. perhaps this was true in the 1980s, but surely automated chemical processes are in effect these days. Ai.unit (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Influenza Vaccine, Thiomersal (*)

    Because the only safety study yet conducted for thimerosal containing vaccines (TCVs) 
took place in the 1930s, little is known about its neurotoxicity.

    We might or might not know about its neurotoxicity, but the reason adduced is not logically consistent.

    As a precaution, TCVs are gradually being phased out,

    I think they are being phased out as the need for them decreases because precision in production processes renders infection less likely.

    although most flu shots are still manufactured with the preservative.[10]

    In the UK, I have not seen any multiple dose containers of Influemza vaccine. Thiomersal(*) is not mentioned in the components of the one we use this year. (example Summary of Product Characteristics here: http://emc.medicines.org.uk/emc/assets/c/html/displaydoc.asp?documentid=2080 Patient Info leaflet: http://emc.medicines.org.uk/emc/assets/c/html/displaydoc.asp?documentid=3534 )

    In both UK and US I suspect the situation is as given at http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/thimerosal.htm with preservatives used in the production, but not deliberately included in the individual doses of finished product. 3 micrograms of Mercury remaining in a dose seems unlikely to cause trouble - it is more closely similar to the amount in 1 litre of body fluids in the population walking around than to a significant exposure.

    SO I'll edit that bit...


    • we spell it that way here. Humour us. Midgley 00:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
    Hi Midgley. I noticed that in your last edit, your change caused the "Preservatives" section to begin in the middle of a sentence. Could you take a look at this? --Arcadian 23:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    done


    Check out http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_7910416 195.38.117.220 (talk) 07:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Anti-vaccine movement

    Shouldn't we have an article about this? Not my field of expertize, so if there are volunteers here to write about it - treat it as an request :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

    A fairly recent development: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XS3mhjt7TrY This REALLY should be mentioned.

    [edit] Vaccine / vaccination

    This has been crossposted to the talk pages of both articles. Please respond on Talk:Vaccination.

    The content of these two article crosses over a great deal. Perhaps we should consider either merging them completely, or seperating them into independent articles (as much as is reasonable). I, personally, am in favor of the former, but am not wholly opposed to the alternative given an adequate rationale for that course of action. If there's no response, I'll likely just be bold in the next few days and merge them myself. – ClockworkSoul 19:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] DNA vaccination definition incorrect

    The definition is unfortunately totally incorrect. Actualy what happens is that the DNA inserted into the cells codes for proteins that are of pathogenic origin and the immunity does not come from the cells that are infected but from the cells of the adaptive immune system (T-cells and B-cells) that recognise the proteins. Usually the DNA construct inserted codes for genes that have tags for secretion so they can be recognised by B cells

    [edit] Odd!

    I goto wiki to invesigate Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, Fibromyalgia, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, and somehow end up at the vaccine entry. ALL articles with huge talk pages, btw. Alternative health woo-woo's know no bounds! --Kvuo 03:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] References, in the light of WP standards and policies

    So, is there an argument that WP:RS is satisfied, and WP:EL should not apply, to that link? If there is, and it is convincing once presented here on this talk page, then let's see it go back in by concensus. Otherwise, not. Midgley 13:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Therapeutic Vaccine

    • nytimes.com - 'Vaccine to Cut Risk of Shingles in Older People Is Approved'

    "Zostavax represents a significant breakthrough, several scientists said. It is the first therapeutic vaccine, meaning it prevents or eases the severity of the problems from an infection that has already occurred." Therapeutic vaccine deserves either its own wiki entry or at least discussion in Vaccine. 208.42.18.222 27 May 2006

    I'd suggest putting it in the Chickenpox article, where there is a discussion of the vaccine, and of Shingles. Smallpox and Rabies and Tetanus vaccines have been given when infection has already occurred and are effective, with luck, then. The oddity with Zoster is that the genetic elements of the virus are lying doggo in the cells for years. Midgley 23:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] New way of making oral vaccines

    By accident, a new way of making vaccines with plants has been discovered.[12] Probably it will take awhile before vaccines can be made, since this is a new approach.

    [edit] List of Vaccines Approved for US Distribution

    Does someone keep deleting a URL for this section due to the controversy over administering vaccines? I wonder if rewording the heading would help prevent deletion ... something like List of Vaccines Approved by the FDA for US Distribution.Keesiewonder 00:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Vaccine debate and NPOV

    I think that since the vaccine debate article has an NPOV tag, that the referring section that is a summary of that article should also have an NPOV and particularly for the Potential for adverse side effects in general section should have a weasel words tag, since there are not attributed sources to either side of the debate.

    [edit] POV in "Preservatives" section

    The last sentence of the section states: "Recently, the Bush Administration has taken measures to drastically ease many regulations preventing mercury from being put into vaccines, and also has taken measures to permit industrial producers to use levels of mercury in vaccines much higher than previously permitted."

    However, the sentence is sourced by www.dissidentvoice.org. The source states that "Research has now determined that the cause of the escalation is Thimerosal, a mercury-based product that until recently was added to childhood vaccines as a preservative in multi-dose bottles to increase profits for the drug companies that manufacture vaccines."...which has been later debunked by numerous other researches. Also, the last sentence states: "For autistic children, doomed to life-long suffering, the introduction of this new bill adds insult to injury. I can’t believe this corrupt band of Republicans can have the audacity to draft this kind of legislation and still sleep at night." I highly doubt that the source is neutral or qualified for use on Wikipedia.

    Also, the source never stated that the Bush Administration has eased regulations and allow for higher levels of Thimerosal in vaccines. The sentence is not sourced by the ref and uses an inappropriate source. I'm removing the sentence. Revert if you like, but please explain. Thanxs. =) Jumping cheese Cont@ct 06:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Side effects : why nothing about adjuvants ???

    Why does the "potential side effects" section ignore adjuvants ? Looking at the Immunologic Adjuvant article, it seems that this is a major concern regarding vaccines. As I remember, aluminium is a concern since years or more. The article about adjuvant is trying to give a balanced view : "generally reported as safe" - "but a recent paper suggest that "levels comparable to those administered to Gulf War veterans can cause motor neuron death". I had a quick look at the paper (Petrik et al., 2007), which is indeed very recent. It does not only suggest motor neuron death, but also cognitive impairment. In addition, it is not clear that these levels where "specific to the Gulf War", it seems that kids receive comparable if not large doses by comparison to their body weight (I did not check that carefully).

    I would not regard a single paper as the final proof that there is a serious risk. However, since the issue was already debated in the past is apparentlly not fully rulled out (as shown by the new publication), it seems to me that it should be mentionned here, as a potentially significant side effect of vaccines.

    Note : I have no training in medicine and would not like to suggest the contrary. However, I do not think that this automatically dismiss my remark / question. - unsigned

    Immunologic Adjuvants are not a necessary part of a vaccine any more than salt always must accompany meat. a discussion in meat about whether it is or is not harmful may mention and refer to the article salt but should not itself go into the issue of is salt harmful. We link articles. WAS 4.250 23:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

    Nice comparison but I think that it is exagerated and thus innapropriate. Low doses of NaCl are not at all harmfull (both elements are in fact needed buy the body in some form). The paper cited in the immunologic adjuvant article (see above) clearly concludes that these levels of aluminium components found in many vaccine (not just a minority) may be harmfull, i.e. it seems very likely to be harmfull provided that the effect on human is the same as on mice at comparable concentrations. I did not investigate the cited literature but it is not a new story and it appears in the peer reviewed litterature. My impression is that this aluminium issue is one of the most, if not the single, serious topic for a controversy regarding vaccine security. It seems to me that it is possible, really possible, that the aluminium found in usual vaccines may have adverse consequences on the exposed public - i.e. everyone, not just the gulf war soilders motivating the investigations. It is of course not sure but it does not need to be sure to be a major concern regarding vaccines. - unsigned

    I found Overview of Adjuvants interesting. I had read that chickens got an oil based adjuvant with bird flu vaccine but that it wasn't used for humans but until I read this I did not know more but was curious. WAS 4.250 18:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Veterinary vaccines

    This article needs to be completed with a vet's contribution. Vaccines are used in animals too, as you can see here 1. Doesn't any of you have a pet? Ask his vet about veterinary vaccines and their history. RO BlueMonday 22:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Scarring?

    Just wondering why some vaccinations cause scarring around the injection area while others do not? Perhaps an explanation could be added to the article. Thank you. JRWalko 22:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Vaccine Controversy

    In vaccine controversy, nothing is mentioned about the OPV_AIDS_hypothesis, which points to AIDS being created trough vaccin manufacturing in Belgian Congo. Please include information about the dangers, ... Also, in the documentairy I watched it was mentioned that now, vaccin manufacturing can be done without eggs and other animal products, which would eliminate the potential hazard of introuducing virusses, bacteria into the vaccin. Please include information about this too. I also found atleast 1 company that makes his vaccins this way. It is called Akzo Nobel and the site where it is doing it is in Boxmeer (the Netherlands). See this website—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.64.192.177 (talk) 09:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)