Sanofi lists Autism as side effect/risk for Tripedia... In package insert! - Page 4

[In Exile]

Originally Posted by 1littlebit

wouldn't it be prudent to spend tax money on studies to test the safety of vaccines in hopes of protecting the children from vaccine damages?

It would be prudent to AT LEAST weed out those in the FDA and CDC who also have a personal interest an approving certain pharmaceuticals. Talk about conflict of interest. (Offit is just one name, the FDA is full of conflict of interest like that)

The taxpayer pays for Offit so that he can line his own wallet being a patent holder for a vax? UNREAL.

In every licensing business the company has to pay for testing by set forth by the Government who will take the liberty to demand this test, that test etc. And we're not talking about those statistical nightmares that vaccine testing is. Come on. Just scanning the insert from the OP makes you recoil in horror- nowhere else in science can you get away with "we did not test is therefore is must be safe in reproductive systems". WTF??

If you want to supply planes with a certain part you will have to jump through many hoops in order to get that part on the market. And you as company will have to not only pay for this but you also have to oblige to any additional testing the FAA will demand- but hey, let's throw Gardasil on the market without them even proving what it's claiming to do.

[1littlebit]

thats what i don't get about vaccines. its not like its any harder to study then anything else. get a whole crap load of people and give half of them the vax and half not. watch for 5 yrs. compare. obviously they would have to analyze data a do several studies to be sure.. but its not exactly rocket science.

[claddaghmom]

Originally Posted by 1littlebit

thats what i don't get about vaccines. its not like its any harder to study then anything else. get a whole crap load of people and give half of them the vax and half not. watch for 5 yrs. compare. obviously they would have to analyze data a do several studies to be sure.. but its not exactly rocket science.

But that would be unethical because even though vaccines have never been proven to work and to be safe...they are so therefore no child should be deprived of vaccines while we try to find out if they are safe and effective...

It's really really hard to follow. My eyes glass over.

[1littlebit]

when it comes up with the in laws i tell them i gave birth to a baby not a guinea pig so we will wait to vax until i have enough information to feel comfortable doing so.

most people just tell me its safe or they wouldn't be allowed to do it. they are either incredibly naive or incredibly well.. yeah

[anewmama]

Originally Posted by claddaghmom

But that would be unethical because even though vaccines have never been proven to work and to be safe...

work part, not true in all cases. safe? questionable.

[Jugs]

Originally Posted by 1littlebit

i don't understand why the tax payers pay. and why are people not enraged by that? people are generally really picky about where their tax dollars go.. and many don't even know there are kids out there who are vaccine damaged (i know this for a fact.. i asked several people who did not believe me when i tried to tell them )

My guess is because the average citizen doesn't know, and those that do know aren't concerned because the tax is indirectly levied; their insurance is "paying" for the vax so technically the insurance is "paying" the tax. The devil, of course, is in the details.

[Deborah]

Sorry I didn't get back sooner.

So, Carrie, you found some studies that went longer than six weeks.

Then Cloak said that those are not safety studies but efficacy studies.

Any safety studies that go longer than six weeks?

[carriebft]

couple thoughts:

1) the rota one was safety-Safety and Efficacy of a Pentavalent Human–Bovine (WC3) Reassortant Rotavirus Vaccine- it was a one year study link http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/354/1/23-- I haven't looked back at the full of the other two, not sure what they looked at re:safety. found this same night I did those other ones.

http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retri...40673604173984

We randomised 1113 women between 15–25 years of age to receive three doses of either the vaccine formulated with AS04 adjuvant or placebo on a 0 month, 1 month, and 6 month schedule in North America and Brazil. Women were assessed for HPV infection by cervical cytology and self-obtained cervicovaginal samples for up to 27 months, and for vaccine safety and immunogenicity.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...035049caf61e41

This one looks at 2 months post dose 1, which is more than 6 weeks:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...2f8bd48b235920

This one looks at safety and efficacy for 12 weeks post PCV:
http://journals.lww.com/pidj/pages/a...&type=abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12494258

Some of these I have not read completely just throwing out anything I see in my folders of more than 6 weeks.

Not sure what this exercise is for though...which leads me to this:

2) I am not sure how else they can do this because as you get further from the vaccine you aren't going to have accurate results as well as exponentially rising things to control for. We have many studies that look retrospectively and some that look at things like diabetes and hib and autoimmune disease and Hep B vaccine which tend to be more than 6 weeks. If they are looking for one thing, I assume it is easier. you look at the groups and see if one group is higher than the other.

but also, since they serial list anything that happens in the study period-- which is the subject of this thread-- if you have study that looks at doses at 2, 4, 6 months and then 12 and 18 months like DTaP or something, you are getting surveillance from 2-18 months and all of the things that happen are gonna be in that laundry list, including car accidents and teething apparently!


sorry this post is probably not put together very well but I am off and I will be back sometime next week!

[claddaghmom]

Originally Posted by anewmama

work part, not true in all cases. safe? questionable.

??

[Deborah]

Okay, thanks for the explanation Carrie. See you when you get back.

[carriebft]

http://www.docguide.com/news/content...2575D500756786

A total of 1,500 healthy children aged 2 to 10 years were randomised 2:1 to received either MenACWY-CRM or the polysaccharide unconjugated vaccine. The study group collected immunogenicity, local, and systemic reaction data and serious adverse events for 6 months post vaccination.

[Deborah]

Okay, why I'm concerned about the follow up.

That study that showed an increase in asthma in kids who were given DTP early as opposed to kids who got their shots late. This is a HUGE negative outcome. I know of a kid who died from asthma after struggling with it from 18 months until he died aged 13. His life was a horrendous struggle. So asthma isn't a minor problem.

There are all sorts of unexamined assumptions about the safety of vaccines. There are all sorts of unexamined possibilities about what vaccines may be doing to the developing immune system.

The current vaccine safety system is very unlikely to catch anything like the asthma situation.

And there is a blanket denial, generally, that vaccines might be doing anything negative at all.

Don't look, don't find.

What, me worry?

[Deborah]

http://journals.lww.com/co-rheumatol...unity_.15.aspx

An interesting example...some infections may help protect against autoimmune diseases...who would have thought?

[mkmoro311]

What page is it on , I feel like I'm reading greek!