This explains my request for safety studies done in the US

southernbubby

Mon, Jun 24 2019, 8:23 am

JoyInTheMorning 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.

But what if the factors that influence access to vaccines make one population vastly different from another, such as tribal communities with small gene pools?

Also we have to acknowledge that vaccines may not be totally win-win but it is like the bungalow residents who choose pesticides over pests; what will yield the best overall outcome?

amother

Green

Mon, Jun 24 2019, 8:31 am

amother [ Magenta ] wrote:

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

Which lab are you affiliated with?

amother

Mon, Jun 24 2019, 8:42 am

JoyInTheMorning wrote:

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.

Thanks for your comprehensive take on the link in my OP. My purpose in posting it, however, you only addressed in your #2 which was a request for comprehensive study of the effects of the current US vaccine schedule on US children.

I can't accept the response that the vaccine schedule keeps changing. Studies ought to be done before adding/changing a vaccine on the schedule. As for the combination of drugs, it's unfortunate that we don't test that extensively. However, in your example of BC and antibiotic, while both are popular drugs, neither is mandated by the government, so to a certain extent we *can* put the onus on the person to beware when taking multiple drugs.

Yet, when it comes to vaccines, which are mandated by our government, assumptions aren't good enough. No evidence of harm being done and evidence of likely benefit doesn't cut it. If we're working with these assumptions we should be making vaccines optional and those who'd like to make use of the likely benefit can do so, knowing that there's some unknown regarding the possible harm being done. For the rest of us who are rightly concerned, our concerns are valid and should be addressed/researched/proven right or wrong.

amother

Mon, Jun 24 2019, 8:44 am

southernbubby wrote:

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?

And yet none of these are mandated by law.

southernbubby

Mon, Jun 24 2019, 9:39 am

amother [ OP ] wrote:

And yet none of these are mandated by law.

The epidemics of the past were crippling to society in a variety of ways and had to be eliminated. We have to have laws to protect society
If you don't like the speed limit you still have to obey it.

amother

Sienna

Mon, Jun 24 2019, 9:56 am

amother [ OP ] wrote:

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.

I’m all for research, but I’m stuck on one thing: how was the government supposed to test this entire vaccination schedule, ethically, before it was mandated? Who was signing up for their kids to be the guinea pigs?

amother

Mon, Jun 24 2019, 10:03 am

southernbubby wrote:

The epidemics of the past were crippling to society in a variety of ways and had to be eliminated. We have to have laws to protect society
If you don't like the speed limit you still have to obey it.

Yet obeying the speed limit doesn't have any possible inherent risk.

I assume the epidemics you refer to are polio and diptheria but not chickenpox, tetanus, hep b, or mumps.

amother

Mon, Jun 24 2019, 10:04 am

amother [ Sienna ] wrote:

Seriously? So the alternative is mandate the entire schedule so that all our kids are guinea pigs???? I'm baffled by such conclusions.

How about using the people who want their kids to be protected from these diseases?

amother

Sienna

Mon, Jun 24 2019, 10:05 am

amother [ OP ] wrote:

Yet obeying the speed limit doesn't have any possible inherent risk.

I assume the epidemics you refer to are polio and diptheria but not chickenpox, tetanus, hep b, or mumps.

Are you saying the second group of diseases have no risks?

amother

Sienna

Mon, Jun 24 2019, 10:10 am

amother [ OP ] wrote:

But they did research on individual vaccines, and they already knew the risks of the diseases. And I know this is anecdotal, but I have never encountered a single child who was seriously affected by vaccines.

Yes, perfect research would be nice. But in the meantime, many children were not living to adulthood or living with serious consequences of these diseases. I think they are making the best decisions possible.

DrMom

Mon, Jun 24 2019, 10:14 am

OP, I'm just trying to understand:

Have you researched the scientific and medical literature on this topic? Do you know that the studies you are interested have never been done?

amother

Mon, Jun 24 2019, 10:19 am

amother [ Sienna ] wrote:

Are you saying the second group of diseases have no risks?

No. But they were never epidemics that crippled society (to quote southernbubby)

amother

Smokey

Mon, Jun 24 2019, 10:20 am

http://vaccinepapers.org/alleg.....nked/

amother

Mon, Jun 24 2019, 10:24 am

amother [ Sienna ] wrote:

So I gather that you agree with the conclusion that today's schedule is based on people's opinions instead of on solid science that vaccines are "safe and effective"?

(Your anecdotal evidence can compete with my anecdotal evidence because I know first-hand of two vaccine-injured children and second-hand of many many more who are injured or no longer alive. So I think we should leave that out of the discussion here.)

amother

Mon, Jun 24 2019, 10:28 am

DrMom wrote:

OP, I'm just trying to understand:

Have you researched the scientific and medical literature on this topic? Do you know that the studies you are interested have never been done?

No, I don't know; it's just that I've never seen them. I would love for someone to show me if they know of anything.

amother

Green

Mon, Jun 24 2019, 10:47 am

amother [ OP ] wrote:

No, I don't know; it's just that I've never seen them. I would love for someone to show me if they know of anything.

https://www.oatext.com/pdf/JTS-3-186.pdf

Here is one you'll enjoy.

peony

Mon, Jun 24 2019, 11:46 am

Wow! I’m new to imamother. I must say that seeing women who I’m sure are busy enough do such serious research really inspires me. I used to vaccinate fully but after experiencing a worrisome episode I took a back seat. I’m kind of waiting for Hashem to guide me to our next step. I wish more reputable and accurate safety studies would exist. I wish parents can unite with a common goal of just wanting to do the best for our children. I wish people would have the ability to place their defenses aside for a bit just to honestly hear what is going on here and over there... may Hashem protect us all and may the power of love overcome the love of power! Hashem is in charge of everything.. everyone tries to do what is best for their child. It is natural instinct for parents to do so.... nobody should be blamed or harassed. Do what is best for you and your family and thank Hashem if he send you a clear direction. Maybe when we see each other’s as humans we would appreciate different opinions without giving the person a label. Every human being wants to be understood and validated for their unique path. What is true for me isn’t true for you. May we see the truth shine brightly and may we have the capacity to realize that in every argument there is a deeper truth that holds true for all in this case it’s protection for our kids and ourselves and nobody should be bashed or blamed for the way they choose to go about it. If someone is ignorant in your opinion . Be happy for them. Hashem didn’t challenge them or open their eyes they obviously don’t need to or can’t to better.

DrMom

Mon, Jun 24 2019, 12:59 pm

amother [ OP ] wrote:

No, I don't know; it's just that I've never seen them. I would love for someone to show me if they know of anything.

Why don't you go to a university library? You're likely to get better information there.

amother

Magenta

Mon, Jun 24 2019, 1:49 pm

amother [ Green ] wrote:

https://www.oatext.com/pdf/JTS-3-186.pdf

Here is one you'll enjoy.

666 participants.
Ages 6-12.

Although this is better than only checking the 2-4 age range, the study size is FAR TOO SMALL.

Again, a study of measles patients with this sample size would conclude (erroneously) that measles is HARMLESS.

However, it did conclude that "vaccinated homeschool children were found to have a higher rate of allergies and NDD (learning disability, ADHD, or Autism) than unvaccinated homeschool children." FWIW

Quote:

There are very few randomized trials on any existing vaccine recommended for children in terms of morbidity and mortality ...

southernbubby

Mon, Jun 24 2019, 2:47 pm

amother [ OP ] wrote:

Yet obeying the speed limit doesn't have any possible inherent risk.

I assume the epidemics you refer to are polio and diptheria but not chickenpox, tetanus, hep b, or mumps.

You have a point but when the measles outbreak resulted in a number of patients in the ICU, the staunch anti-vaxers refused to budge. Maybe the government should mandate vaccines for highly contagious diseases and if everyone cooperates, they won't mandate the other ones. It would basically mean monovalent vaccines.

Of course employers and private schools could set whatever standard that they choose.