Can a vax study actually be done?

[bbrandonsmom]

So while on vacation, the topic of vaxes came up. I mentioned that the nvic was wanting to do a study on if they are safe or not, and some primate studies have been done already. My aunt wanted to know how they would do such a study. Some of her points-
-they couldn't pull past info, since non of it was controlled
-they can't do a control study now, because how do you make each person live the exact same way, be exposed to the same things, eat the same things etc-or have the same genetics
-can't use primates, because Someone will say that humans react differently, if they were to use primates in a controlled study, and that any studies already done w/ primates didn't mean a thing
-to get long term effects, we won't have answers for 10yrs anyhow, if they could do such a study
-they would have to separate each ingredient for the studies to find out what exact one is causing the health problems, which would mean not 1 study, but how ever many ingredients there were + the control groups etc

So, she was saying such a study couldn't be done, at least based on "good science", and that any studies already done are bad, since they aren't actually controlled studies. We sort of let the topic drop, because I don't know how the study will be done from the nvic. She's pro vax.

After talking w/ her, I'm wondering how a study would be done, wether it was the pharm companies or private companies doing the studies. Maybe I'm just not seeing the answer right now. Has anyone else come up against this?

[ASusan]

I think the biggest hurdles is/are the political ones.

Any scientist who wants to advance their career will avoid this area.

The findings would bring down the pharm industry and make them (ethically, not necessarily legally) responsible for the expense of treating/educating/caring for children harmed by vaxes.
and on and on and on...

Won't happen.

[ema-adama]

I think a case control study. This is how evidence was gathered for the harm induced by smoking and DES. Double blind placebo is not realistic as there are too many variables when you are studying safety over years.

I would be curious as to what a scientist would recommend in terms of best study design to study such a contoversial topic.

[Deborah]

Originally Posted by ema-adama

I think a case control study. This is how evidence was gathered for the harm induced by smoking and DES. Double blind placebo is not realistic as there are too many variables when you are studying safety over years.

I would be curious as to what a scientist would recommend in terms of best study design to study such a contoversial topic.

That the scientist running the study be prepared to retire after completing the study and not mind having his/her reputation totally trashed.

[bbrandonsmom]

What I'm trying to figure out, is if the NVIC said they were going to do a study, how, according to my aunt, would they do a "good science" study? Would each ingredient have it's own case controlled study? How would that work?

[miriam]

Originally Posted by ema-adama

I think a case control study. This is how evidence was gathered for the harm induced by smoking and DES. Double blind placebo is not realistic as there are too many variables when you are studying safety over years.

The DES study done in the late 1940s at the University of Chicago showed that it was not at all effective against miscarriage, yet it was still prescribed for another generation. It was only thirty years later that the damage was seen anecdotally in the daughters and sons when they reached maturity. There are now third generation children being born with damage from a drug given to their grandmothers and great-grandmothers. http://www.cdc.gov/DES/

Originally Posted by bbrandonsmom

What I'm trying to figure out, is if the NVIC said they were going to do a study, how, according to my aunt, would they do a "good science" study? Would each ingredient have it's own case controlled study? How would that work?

I agree. I asked this very question when I read about the plans to do the study.

[katelove]

Originally Posted by bbrandonsmom

What I'm trying to figure out, is if the NVIC said they were going to do a study, how, according to my aunt, would they do a "good science" study? Would each ingredient have it's own case controlled study? How would that work?

I think your aunt makes some good points about why it would be difficult to do good research. But, I also think that good research *could* be done if there was anyone with a real incentive.

As far as each ingredient needing to be tested individually then, yes I think that should happen - that way if an individual ingredient is identified as the problem then we can start looking for a way to make the vaccine without it.

But, I also think that whole vaccines should be tested as well, as some of the ingredients may interact with others. So, the studies on individual ingredients would show no problems but, two or more ingredients in combination may be the problem.

Creating a comprehensive body of data on vaccine safety would be a *huge* undertaking and, as others have mentioned, we wouldn't have all the results for a long time. If we started now, probably 20 years or more by the time studies were designed, approved, pilots were conducted etc etc.

[ema-adama]

Originally Posted by miriam

The DES study done in the late 1940s at the University of Chicago showed that it was not at all effective against miscarriage, yet it was still prescribed for another generation. It was only thirty years later that the damage was seen anecdotally in the daughters and sons when they reached maturity. There are now third generation children being born with damage from a drug given to their grandmothers and great-grandmothers. http://www.cdc.gov/DES/

I used the case control study on DES as an example of a study that got the attention of the medical and scientific community with regards to a medical intervention with long reaching negative side effects.

This study was from the 1970's and yes, the drug was prescribed despite evidence that it was not safe going back decades. Yet somehow this study (which I now can't find on line) got the medical and scientific establishment to sit up and take note.

I am interested to know what kind of study design would help to get scientists and doctors taking note of the outcomes today. A study that would address the long term safety and efficacy.

I would think it makes sense to establish if there is any basis to the assertion that vaccines are causing harm in some children, and then study how vaccines can cause damage in those children and whether the timing and combination of vaccines makes a difference, if there is evidence that vaccines are indeed harming some children.

With regards to establishing long term safety, I do not think there is another way to ethically study the effects of vaccines other than through a case control study.

bbrandonsmom - what does your aunt think of comparing fully vaccinated with unvaccinated children? Not randomised, but case control?

I have to admit, I have not read the NVIC proposal, so I have no idea what they are planning.

[karika]

I believe it is possible by using unvaccinated populations in the US such as the Amish and perhaps some other groups, some from other countries too, the ones of us that do not vaccinate or eat many chemicals at all, some that do not vaccinate, yet allow their children aspartame, food colorings, corn syrup, etc... and those that vaccinate yet eat organic with no chemicals, and a group that vaccinates and has all the chemicals. tv usage, video game play, etc would have to be taken into effect... or the best way.... stop all vaccinations, have all babies born to extended breastfeeding, co sleeping, baby wearing attached mommies that only eat natural, organic food mostly consisting of fruits, veggies, nuts and seeds, low on grains with only limited fermented dairy if any....avoiding all chemicals in food.... and watch the rate of all illnesses steep decline, obesity, diabetes, autism, adhd, all mental health issues.... ok it is a nice dream

[Deborah]

There are a few studies done in Europe, focusing on the anthroposophical/waldorf community--I think they are all tagged Parsifal--which are trying to measure some of the approaches you describe. I know fermented foods are common in that community, TV is limited, breastfeeding rates are higher (but generally not extended beyond 9 months to a year) and vaccination is either limited or non-existent.

Here is one study--a search in pubmed on Parsifal turned up 21-- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...&ordinalpos=12

And yes, the studies I've glanced at show lower rates of all kinds of health problems.

My grandchildren would fit into such a study. They eat fermented foods, don't watch TV, get enough sleep, have a consistent rhythm to their day, mostly eat organic and only got a couple of vaccines, fairly late. So far, no asthma, no allergies, no obesity, no auto-immune stuff. Knock on wood.

On a lighter note, yesterday I was hanging out with my grandson and made a remark about needing to exercise so I wouldn't get fat. He said cheerfully: "I don't exercise!" and continued to bounce around the room. He is not only thin, he is solid muscle and hardly ever still. (No, he doesn't have attention problems, he can concentrate really well, he is just a normal boy with lots of energy.)

[bbrandonsmom]

Ema-I think if they could actually do such a study, that would make sense to my aunt. But then there's the argument of genetics.
(ex-I believe ds1 immune system was compromised due to the vaxes when I compare our two boys health, but dh says it's all genetic. But, how do we know something in his genetic make up wasn't triggered by the vaxes? we don't)

As with the DES study-have there been any case controlled studies on vaccines done at all, that can be used to see the long term effects over the past years? What did they do to determine the harmful effects of mercury in the vaccines? If they did it to determine a "safe" level of mercury, why can't they do it for the other ingredients? Or have they, but just not the build up over time of how much is accumulated in our bodies in the harm it does?

I didn't think about them having to do whole vaccines as well, since don't some of the ingredients need each other to react properly with the virus in the vaccine? My aunt's point on this one, is that they would have to do multiple whole vaccine studies going backwards- (not good science)-since some of the vaccines have changed over the years. So how do they compare a vaccine that has changed and it's effects with one that is today's vaccine and the damage it causes? An example would be DTP vs DTAP I guess, or the different Roto vaccines, or if the levels of any of the ingredients have changed over the years.

One thing I was thinking of, is if they are able to do this study will people start pointing out genetic make up or even the diet of the mother during pregnancy, as well as if the child was bf or not? If you start factoring those in, or like miriam pointed out about the long term generational effects of DES, how would some one know if something like that factored into our children's genetics and vaccine reactions? It makes the study almost seem impossible to do.
Though I still think they should be able to show the harm the ingredients do to the human body. If they can do it for things like hfcs, or pesticides, why can't they do it for vaccines. Putting the profiting issues aside.

[Deborah]

Let's flip this one.

Where are the long-term studies demonstrating the safety of vaccines on a population level? And what about the assumptions about background rates of this or that condition in the general population? If the background rate of say, asthma, is based on the assumption that everyone or nearly everyone is vaccinated, then it isn't a real background rate, it is a background rate in a (say) 99.8% vaccinated population.

I wouldn't use any drug where the safety and efficacy testing were as weak as they are for vaccines.

[miriam]

Another reason such a study will never be done is because doctors feel that vaccines are a genuine benefit for children and would never consider withholding any vaccine from any child. It would be immoral in their mind to withhold such a wonderful miracle from any one child.

So there will never be a double blind scientifically controlled study to establish the efficacy of vaccines. Doctors feel that vaccines are exempt from the gold standard of scientific proof for most drugs and procedures.