This explains my request for safety studies done in the US

amother

Green

Sat, Jun 22 2019, 11:23 pm

amother [ OP ] wrote:

It's something. But, no, it's not what I meant. And a year ago is way too recent for something that's been mandated for way longer than that.

You are asking that more studies are to be done 10 years ago?

amother

Magenta

Sun, Jun 23 2019, 12:51 am

I think she is asking WHY studies have not been done yet.

And again, the study you posted is simply analyzing whether vaccinations increase acute infections in the short term, and the study size is relatively small. A broad longitudinal and long-term study, including a true control group, is what would be helpful here.

Long-term effects will not be shown in a study that goes from ages 2 to 4. And unless the side effects we are looking for are ten times more common than measles deaths, a study size of 1,000 is far too small.

amother

Sun, Jun 23 2019, 8:00 am

amother [ Green ] wrote:

You are asking that more studies are to be done 10 years ago?

I am asking how government can mandate this schedule without having done rigorous testing on it?

amother

Sun, Jun 23 2019, 7:40 pm

I'm wondering where you all went? We're finally having a pretty civil discussion.

amother

Green

Sun, Jun 23 2019, 7:45 pm

amother [ OP ] wrote:

I'm wondering where you all went? We're finally having a pretty civil discussion.

I personally have nothing left to say.

You keep changing what you are seeking.

amother

Sun, Jun 23 2019, 8:04 pm

amother [ Green ] wrote:

I personally have nothing left to say.

You keep changing what you are seeking.

I am?
Here you go: My quotes from page 1:

Quote:

studies done in other countries, with their vaccines and their schedules, shouldn't be used as proof for the safety of our schedule and vaccines. Our government has an obligation to prove the safety of something before mandating it.

Quote:

My point is that because there are differences in the product and its administration, we need studies done by an independent researcher of our product and our administration of it. Our government should not be stopping to do research on a medical product that is mandated in its laws.

Page 2:

Quote:

I'd love to see more. Comparing cognitive regressions, neurological disorders, autoimmune conditions, cancer rates. I'm curious about why the study didn't compare the results in the ages of 0-23 months and only compared 24-47 months.

Page 3:

Quote:

I am asking how government can mandate this schedule without having done rigorous testing on it?

amother

Green

Sun, Jun 23 2019, 8:18 pm

Right.

Now you are looking for the answer to this question "I am asking how government can mandate this schedule without having done rigorous testing on it?"

Which is different than request for research.

Did you read this?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK206948/

amother

Sun, Jun 23 2019, 8:47 pm

Yes I did. Fascinating read. Here's what I found which is in agreement with my position here:

Quote:

In summary, few studies have comprehensively assessed the association between the entire immunization schedule or variations in the overall schedule and categories of health outcomes, and no study has directly examined health outcomes and stakeholder concerns in precisely the way that the committee was charged to address in its statement of task. No studies have compared the differences in health outcomes that some stakeholders questioned between entirely unimmunized populations of children and fully immunized children. Experts who addressed the committee pointed not to a body of evidence that had been overlooked but rather to the fact that existing research has not been designed to test the entire immunization schedule.
The committee believes that although the available evidence is reassuring, studies designed to examine the long-term effects of the cumulative number of vaccines or other aspects of the immunization schedule have not been conducted

Quote:

The committee acknowledges that large-scale, long-term studies of infants through adulthood would be informative for evaluating health outcomes associated with immunization.

Quote:

To more effectively implement immunization programs, a robust communication and engagement strategy that includes careful study of safety concerns is needed. Currently, the designs used in most studies of immunizations do not permit a detailed analysis of the impact of parental concerns on the decision to immunize their children. Most concerns about safety are expressed by parents, but multiple stakeholders should be included in NVPO efforts. For example, even health care providers with much knowledge about individual vaccines may have less information about the effects of administering multiple vaccines at a single visit or the timing of the immunizations.

Quote:

The committee encountered two major issues in its review of the findings in the scientific literature. First, the concept of the immunization “schedule” is not well developed. Most vaccine-related research focuses on the outcomes of single immunizations or combinations of vaccines administered at a single visit. Although each new vaccine is evaluated in the context of the overall immunization schedule that existed at the time of review of that vaccine, elements of the schedule are not evaluated once it is adjusted to accommodate a new vaccine. Thus, key elements of the entire schedule—the number, frequency, timing, order, and age at administration of vaccines—have not been systematically examined in research studies.

The second major issue that the committee encountered was uncertainty over whether the scientific literature has addressed all health outcomes and safety concerns. The committee could not tell whether its list was complete or whether a more comprehensive system of surveillance might have been able to identify other outcomes of potential significance to vaccine safety. In addition, the conditions of concern to some stakeholders, such as immunologic, neurologic, and developmental problems, are illnesses and conditions for which etiologies, in general, are not well understood.

Finally, the committee found that evidence assessing outcomes in subpopulations of children who may be potentially susceptible to adverse reactions to vaccines (such as children with a family history of autoimmune disease or allergies or children born prematurely) was limited and is characterized by uncertainty about the definition of populations of interest and definitions of exposures and outcomes.

And yet the conclusion is based on untruths:

Quote:

Moreover, existing adverse event detection systems provide confidence that the existing childhood immunization schedule is safe, and the committee recognizes that the federal government invests considerable resources to ensure vaccine safety.

When many doctors dismiss adverse reactions as "coincidental" we don't have confidence in existing adverse event detection systems.

And still with all of the above, we continue to maintain that vaccines are safe and effective and are mandated by all except children with cancer or those who suffered anaphylaxis to a previous dose of that vaccine (and are possibly no longer alive).

amother

Magenta

Sun, Jun 23 2019, 8:47 pm

Amother Green, did you read it? Did you read and understand the previous study you posted?

This book does not tackle long-term safety of vaccinations. It simply outlines suggested methodologies to assess safety.

The three data sources used fail to address OP's request for broad long-term studies with controls.

For example, VAERS, one of the main sources of data on adverse vaccine reactions, is self-reported, and many claim that over 90% of reactions go unreported.

Additionally, many are less concerned about the short-term acute illnesses, the serious of which are admittedly rare, and more the potential long-term effects that may come out in autoimmune diseases, cancers, or other. The only way to screen for those would be to undertake a full study comparing a vaccinated to an unvaccinated population over a lifetime.

But unless those types of effects are frighteningly common, it would need to be a very large study to pick up patterns. (If it picks up a 1/20,000 chance of death from vaccine-acquired cancer, for example, the risks would still be lower than a 1/10,000 chance of measles fatality. Unless the study is large enough to demonstrate comparative risk factors, it is less reassuring.)

amother

Green

Sun, Jun 23 2019, 8:51 pm

amother [ OP ] wrote:

Yes I did. Fascinating read.

Great. I was beginning to worry that you thought that only "anti-vaxxers" were thinking about these things - given your first post.

So do you think people are working on it?

amother

Green

Sun, Jun 23 2019, 8:53 pm

amother [ Magenta ] wrote:

Did you read it? Did you read and understand the previous study you posted?

This book does not tackle long-term safety of vaccinations. It simply outlines suggested methodologies to assess safety.

The three data sources used fail to address OP's request for broad long-term studies with controls.

For example, VAERS, one of the main sources of data on adverse vaccine reactions, is self-reported, and many claim that over 90% of reactions go unreported.

Additionally, many are less concerned about the short-term acute illnesses, the serious of which are admittedly rare, and more the potential long-term effects that may come out in autoimmune diseases, cancers, or other. The only way to screen for those would be to undertake a full study comparing a vaccinated to an unvaccinated population over a lifetime.

But unless those types of effects are frighteningly common, it would need to be a very large study to pick up patterns. (If it picks up a 1/20,000 chance of death from vaccine-acquired cancer, for example, the risks would still be lower than a 1/10,000 chance of measles fatality. Unless the study is large enough to demonstrate comparative risk factors, it is less reassuring.)

I didn't read either. I don't really care for this topic.

amother

Sun, Jun 23 2019, 8:55 pm

[quote="amother [ Green ]"]

amother [ OP ] wrote:

Yes I did. Fascinating read.

Great. I was beginning to worry that you thought that only "anti-vaxxers" were thinking about these things - given your first post.

So do you think people are working on it?

Generally speaking being pro-vax is the default, so yes, forgive me for thinking that it's mostly (not only) anti-vaxxers who are concerned with the lack of safety studies.

I'm glad people are working on it. I need them to have worked on it here in the US BEFORE making this schedule mandated. Not providing Danish studies and Japanese studies AFTER these vaccines are law.

amother

Sun, Jun 23 2019, 8:57 pm

amother [ Green ] wrote:

I didn't read either. I don't really care for this topic.

Oh. So I won't be responding to your posts any longer. You aren't here to discuss my topic. You're here with an agenda to prove that I'm not the only one to think about these things. That I shouldn't feel like I'm so smart to have these questions. Got it.

Now can anyone who is really learned about vaccines step in?

amother

Green

Sun, Jun 23 2019, 9:00 pm

amother [ OP ] wrote:

I forgive you. This took me again less than 2 minutes to find on google.

Now you are back to the wishing something once was - which really isn't much of a conversation starter.

amother

Green

Sun, Jun 23 2019, 9:12 pm

amother [ OP ] wrote:

I still don't really know what your topic is. Good luck.

My agenda?

1) to respond to requests for research in response to an article by someone whose credibility may be questionable.

2) to respond to the comment that there is no research.

3) to stop making this about anti-vaxx vs vaxx.

amother

Magenta

Sun, Jun 23 2019, 9:14 pm

Unfortunately for your agenda, however, although the need for research is admitted, it has not actually been undertaken.

amother

Sun, Jun 23 2019, 9:17 pm

amother [ Magenta ] wrote:

Unfortunately for your agenda, however, although the need for research is admitted, it has not actually been undertaken.

And yet the vaccines are already mandated.

When I question vaccine safety and I'm told "vaccines are safe and effective" because of this or that study... No, I'm not satisfied. If government requires a certain medical treatment, the onus is on them to prove its safety and effectiveness PRIOR to mandating.

JoyInTheMorning

Mon, Jun 24 2019, 12:39 am

OP:

1. Regarding Theresa Deisher's paper: I have read the critique on the Respectful Insolence website (posts written by an MD/surgeon) that amother Green linked, and it's pretty damning. As I have said repeatedly, I am not a biologist, let alone a molecular biologist, so my understanding of the critique is somewhat limited, but I think I got some of the main points. Here are three of the critiques:

(I) While Dr. Deisher has hypothesized a multi-step mechanism that could explain how human DNA in vaccines causes autism, the mechanism is highly, highly unlikely because each of the events in the causal chain that she hypothesizes is unlikely in the extreme, and when multiplied together (as you would have to do when calculating the probability of a sequence (or even just a set) of events) is vanishingly small.

(ii) The data that Deisher uses to support her hypothesis that a lower rate of MMR causes a lower rate of autism has been collected haphazardly and sloppily. While purportedly from three separate countries, the data is munged together sloppily (not taking into account, for example, differences in population between Sweden and Norway); for some years, the data seems to be cherry-picked from just one country (UK).

(iii) The graphs that "support" Deisher's hypothesis actually don't support the hypothesis. Deisher uses the famous trick of using different scales for y-axes so that a graph that is basically flat looks like it has much more ups and downs, and therefore seems to correlate with another graph drawn at a different scale.

There are other critiques as well. After reading the post, I was convinced that Deisher's article was more of a curiosity than anything else. I would be open to revisiting her hypotheses if supporting valid experiments (for the hypothesis on human DNA in vaccines causing autism) and analyses (for the hypothesis on correlation between change in MMR and change in autism) were performed, but not from the evidence that she presents.

2. Regarding OP's request that there be a comprehensive study of the effects of the current US vaccine schedule on US children: I haven't seen any discussion of this in the literature, but I haven't read very much. So take this as just my off-the-cuff thoughts: I think it's impossible to design an experiment that you would find satisfactory because the vaccine schedule keeps changing. There are more things on the schedule now than when my kids were getting vaccines. Vaccines keep getting improved also, in response to patient reactions. For example, the DTP was modified to the DTaP and Tdap. Even individual vaccines are changed. So I don't see how any comprehensive experiment or analysis could be performed.

I think, also -- and I'm not saying that it's a good thing -- that combinations of multiple drugs are rarely studied extensively. It took a long time even to find out that birth control pills and some antibiotics don't mix well; that the antibiotic can actually interfere with the BC so that the BC doesn't prevent pregnancy. And that's just how two drugs interact. I know that there is an extensive literature on interactions between pairs of drugs, but I don't know whether they've studied how three or more drugs interact. And probably not longitudinally. Yet, despite our best efforts, the fact is that as we approach middle age, many of us will be on three or more medications. Who knows how it will affect us?

I'm not saying it wouldn't be good to find out. Of course it would. But it's unlikely to happen, and I think a lot of us have to proceed -- for our children as well as for ourselves -- with the assumption that if there's no evidence that harm is being done, and there is evidence of likely benefit, that that's good enough.

southernbubby

Mon, Jun 24 2019, 4:19 am

Because we encounter so many things that impact our health, population studies between vaccinated and non-vaccinated populations might not yield much accurate information about the long term effects on human health.
There is usually a price to be paid for everything we do. X-RAYS are a healthy diagnostic tool but at what point do we get too much exposure? And air travel also gives us whopping doses of radiation. Are studies being done on airline personnel?
People in the bungalow colonies are asking the colonies to spray pesticides to kill mosquitoes and ticks so which is safer, the spray or the bugs?
We also have to look at history. What caused breast cancer when it was first described a thousand years ago in medical literature? What caused autism when it was first noted in 1911 and only the smallpox vaccine existed?

JoyInTheMorning

Mon, Jun 24 2019, 5:11 am

southernbubby wrote:

In response to the bolded: The things you are concerned about are known as confounding factors. Scientists know how to control (as much as possible) for confounding factors in their experiments or in their retrospective analyses. Well-done studies do in fact control for such factors.

I haven't had a chance to read the PubMed article that OP linked -- I just noted from the abstract that since it's generally acknowledged that vaccines are safe, these are just guidelines for future studies, not a recommendation to do such studies now -- but I am sure that controlling for confounding factors is mentioned in the article.