Hi, Hi, i have been reading your pro science anti quackery blog with interest and wondered if you had an axe to grind with alternative medicine in general or just false unsubstantiated claims, i only ask as i was recently given an NHS leaflet at my GP’s surgery about vaccination which states in answer to the question ‘but what about overloading my child’s immune system with three viruses all at once’ (in reference to the MMR jab) Answer: ‘A baby could respond safely and effectively to around 10,000 vaccines at any one time. So the baby’s immune system can easily cope with the MMR vaccine’. Now i am not a doctor but i cannot believe that any baby has been tested with 10,000 vaccines at once, so this would seem to be a bogus claim? This post is not about the MMR vaccine debate, but i would just be interested as to why you are spending so much time and energy crusading against a relatively small and harmless professions unsubstantiated claims and not trying to bring attention to the bad scientific claims that effect the majority of the population? Would you enter a complaint to the GMC regarding this NHS leaflet? Cheers Reply
@magpie555 The leaflet does not make the claim that a baby has been “tested with 10,000 vaccines at once”. The preceding paragraph explains what is already known about a baby’s immune system and how it already copes with “tens of thousands of bacteria and viruses that cover their skin, nose, throat and intestines.” Arguments from personal incredulity don’t hold any weight with the ASA or any other regulatory bodies, so far as I’m aware. Reply
Where’s the evidence to support the claim that is implicit in the leaflet that a baby could respond safely to around 10,000 vaccines at once? Could anyone point me to the research that proves this? Why not 10,000,000 at once? using ‘could’ and ‘around’ is speculation not science. The fact that there are tens of thousands of viruses and bacteria covering the skin is not relevant when talking about injecting 10,000 vaccines…you can cope with window cleaner on your skin but not injected into you bloodstream, the two paragraphs are not connected? Reply
magpie – it’s not that the bacteria and viruses stay on your skin or just rest around you – they are breathed in and swallowed by the baby. Our immune systems are quite remearkble – you should learn a bit about them and you might just be fascinated by how they work. Anyway, vaccines aren’t injected into your bloodstream. They are intramuscular injections, not intravenous. Reply
magpie The two paragraphs are indeed connected, though if you have a mistaken idea of what vaccines actually contain – and your analagy with window cleaner suggests that you do – then I can understand how you don’t see the connection. The assertion that a baby’s immune system can cope with “around 10,000 vaccines” isn’t speculation, it’s an estimate based on the number of antibodies typically generated by a baby after exposure to a vaccine. In a nutshell, if 10 vaccines were given to an infant at one time, that would only “use up” less than 0.1 per cent of the immune system. Here is a fairly comprehensive article with full references: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/109/1/124 However, as none of this has anything to do with Zeno’s blog and what he has said on it I don’t think it’s appropriate to discuss it any further here. If you have any further questions or thoughts on the subject, I suggest you take them to the Bad Science forum or Think Humanism. Here are the links: http://www.badscience.net/forum/ http://www.thinkhumanism.com/phpBB3/ Or you can always start your own blog, of course. 🙂 Regards… Reply
Will do, Thanks for your response Skepticat and for pointing me towards more relevant blogs, i will have a good old look at the links when i’ve a moment. i do find Tom P’s response a little patronising…i don’t know if it is intended to be. I am aware that vaccines are intramuscular which i believe has an extensive capillary network so in effect it is a direct route into the bloodstream? More direct than the lungs. Still Skepticat is right and this isn’t really the right blog. Regards Reply
Give us a break. The course content must be agreed and accredited by someone such as the University of Bournemouth or the like and I bet by someone in Europe to boot, and I bet it has a really chunky anatomy, pathology and the rest content. No, not only bet, but I went to the web site and found this: “For entry to Year 1 • Three A-Level passes to include Biology, Chemistry and one other academic subject (excluding General Studies) to a total of not less than 320 UCAS points (Grades ABB)” So, even taking into account A level hyperinflation this is an ask in anyone’s book – have you tried taking A level chemistry, I have an it really hurt. Then, the first year course consists of this: Year One Units Syllabus Unit Code Course Title 1.1 Anatomy 1.2 Biomechanics 1.3 Chiropractic Concepts 1.4 Clinical Problem Solving 1.5 Diagnosis 1.6 Molecular Physiology 1.7 Pathology 1.8 Physiology/Pharmacology 1.9 Psychosocial Concepts 1.10 Adjustive Techniques 1.11 Clinic Observation 1.12 Investigative Imaging 1.13 Radiography Which I think is a pretty science strong syllabus and I would have thought compared to Golf Course Studies at Milton Keynes or wherever merits a .ac.uk domain, don’t you? Reply
A close reading of the GCC legal rules shows that K. Adams cannot sit on the Investigating Committee whilst a compaint is registered against them and she is one of zeno’s 500+ names. All the other chiros will have to declare any prior or current knowledge of the indivuals being investigated and it be discussed and agreed whether this amounts to a conflict of evidence. This might be working in the same clinic or having a close personal friendship with the accused. College Tutors might remember many of their students but rarely would this be considered a conflict of evidence. Reply
@Aww Come On I could probably write a sylabus that includes all of the year 1 subjects but wouldn’t tax a hedgehog’s intelect. Just because they mention it, it doesn’t mean that they go into depth! Conflicts- I am a medical doctor and have been through what I thought was pretty hard-core stuff in med school. You graduate, start to work and then specialise and find out there’s a whole world full of even more specialised knowledge! I’m training in radiology and the sheer anatomical content is mind-numbing. So, after 5 years at met school, and over 5 years working as a doctor I can safely say (in the knowledge that it takes one hell of a lot of experience and scientific knowledge in all medical disciplines to be a good diagnostician) that a few years in woo-college learning how to crack someone’s back is in no way enough to diagnose anything like as much as they would like to think they can. Oh- accreditation- My wife has been teaching part of a business course that is accredited in the UK. I forget where. The kids know sweet FA, and the ‘school’ advises to effectively to let them pass. No matter if they can’t even spell her name properly. Monitoring by the accreditating institution is so far non-existent. A-level grades… Sadly, they don’t specify an A-level in maths with statistics. Perhaps then they might have a clue when it comes to research! Reply