New with a question

[heathergirl67]

Hello. This is officially my first post on mothering.com after lurking for a while. Woo hoo!

I'm hoping someone can help me. I've been looking for vaccination studies. I don't want the articles about the studies, or the interpretations of the studies, just the studies themselves. I haven't had a lot of luck finding them, though. I was hoping someone here could help me out with a link or something that might be useful.

BTW, I don't care what side of the fence you are regarding vaccs, I'm happy to recieve scientifically reliable studies from anyone. TIA!

[lapis]

here is a link to a database of research papers from peer reviewed journals:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/

you said you didn't want articles or interpretations, which I just assumed meant you want the studies and findings from the researchers themselves and not from the sears vaccine book or a ny times article.

good luck with your research!
let us know if you find any other good resources

[Marnica]

Try google scholar as well

[xmasbaby7]

and pub med.

Welcome!

The CDC has great primary sources, too, about morbidity and mortality rates of diseases, too, that I found very helpful.

[ASusan]

www.fourteenstudies.org also has the primary studies - both pro-vax and vax-are-a-problem - listed. They have their interpretations, but they also link to or post the full text of the original article.

[Fyrestorm]

I think inside vaccines has links to all the studies that they site.

[hildare]

about google scholar

sometimes google scholar will direct you to publishers sites where you have to pay a fee.
universities and public libraries usually have databases that contain scholarly journal articles and you can access these for free. just a fyi!

[Turquesa]

One other tip: Do a little research on each study's authors and funding sources. Is there pharmaceutical backing? Do the authors hold a patent on a vaccine? Do the authors have any known anti-vax bias? Andrew Wakefield, who did the famous MMR=autism study, had ties to the defendants in a related court case.

[Deborah]

You can obtain copies of studies via your public library using the interlibrary loan system. A reference librarian can also help you hunt for studies on several of the systems mentioned above.

[heathergirl67]

Thank you!

I really appreciate the resources! I like science. Actually, I like good science. I like studies that have a large sampling, sound methods of testing, solid controls, and easy replication. If it has those things then I feel more confident that the position of the researcher won't affect it too much. It seems almost impossible to find a study where the researchers have NO opinion about the subject or its outcome. They're doing the sudy because they're interested in the topic and as humans, are likely to have formed an opinion about it. But when a study is carried out properly I think the results speak for themselves. People will skew it to agree with whatever they already agree with. But the numbers (if properly tested) don't lie. Thank you all so much for these resources!

[heathergirl67]

Originally Posted by Turquesa

One other tip: Do a little research on each study's authors and funding sources. Is there pharmaceutical backing? Do the authors hold a patent on a vaccine? Do the authors have any known anti-vax bias? Andrew Wakefield, who did the famous MMR=autism study, had ties to the defendants in a related court case.

Not to mention that that study has been repeatedly 100% debunked. I've learned something interesting: New research is showing that a disproportionate amount of people with autism have a metabolic disorder. This often causes their symptoms of autism to be more pronounced when they get a fever. Thus, those with autistic kids often first noticed symptoms after their kids got vaccinated because a common side effect of vaccination is fever. The original autism-vaccine-link studies were investigating that. People were noticing these symptoms after vaccinations (not just of MMR, every vax). Scientists remembered that some people who contracted the diseases that the kids were being vaxed against displayed the same atypical reactions. That's what got the whole ball of wax rolling.

[xmasbaby7]

Originally Posted by heathergirl67

I really appreciate the resources! I like science. Actually, I like good science. I like studies that have a large sampling, sound methods of testing, solid controls, and easy replication. If it has those things then I feel more confident that the position of the researcher won't affect it too much. It seems almost impossible to find a study where the researchers have NO opinion about the subject or its outcome. They're doing the sudy because they're interested in the topic and as humans, are likely to have formed an opinion about it. But when a study is carried out properly I think the results speak for themselves. People will skew it to agree with whatever they already agree with. But the numbers (if properly tested) don't lie. Thank you all so much for these resources!

For me, when I looked at what pathetic excuses for vaccine studies were out there, it changed my whole thinking about "science". I would have said before that I was really pro-science, but as I realized how subjective the safety and efficacy studies were for vaccines and prescription drugs, it was a real eye-opener; very disappointing. I am as skeptical of as many allopathic medicines as I am about various forms of alternative medicine.

I have had great conversations about this with scientists outside of the medical field, and I was very pleased to learn how poorly medical research methods are regarded, that the scientific method can be applied with greater objectivity in other hard sciences.

[claddaghmom]

Originally Posted by xmasbaby7

For me, when I looked at what pathetic excuses for vaccine studies were out there, it changed my whole thinking about "science". I would have said before that I was really pro-science, but as I realized how subjective the safety and efficacy studies were for vaccines and prescription drugs, it was a real eye-opener; very disappointing. I am as skeptical of as many allopathic medicines as I am about various forms of alternative medicine.

I have had great conversations about this with scientists outside of the medical field, and I was very pleased to learn how poorly medical research methods is regarded, that the scientific method can be applied with greater objectivity in other hard sciences.

DH and I actually have a marriage-hobby. We get a few vaccine studies and read them together. Laughing and going "WTH" all the way through them.

I suppose it would work with many other subjects, too.

[heathergirl67]

[QUOTE=xmasbaby7;15259238]For me, when I looked at what pathetic excuses for vaccine studies were out there, it changed my whole thinking about "science". I would have said before that I was really pro-science, but as I realized how subjective the safety and efficacy studies were for vaccines and prescription drugs, it was a real eye-opener; very disappointing. [QUOTE]

That's what I'm saying. But I think it extends FAR beyond just vaccine and prescription studies. I feel that bias is included in every study. That's why I like to look at the studies themselves. I want to make sure that they're not excluding relevant data, using a limited pool of subjects, etc. No matter what the opinions of the researchers, however, I feel like if the methodology is sound, the results are accurate. I think some people believe that the researchers are lying about the results based on their biases. I'm sure that has happened, but I think it's rare.

[heathergirl67]

Originally Posted by claddaghmom

DH and I actually have a marriage-hobby. We get a few vaccine studies and read them together. Laughing and going "WTH" all the way through them.

I suppose it would work with many other subjects, too.

Do you have examples you wouldn't mind sharing?

[claddaghmom]

Originally Posted by heathergirl67

Do you have examples you wouldn't mind sharing?

I do, I have gobs of strange studies. But they are on my IBM and it is out of commission.

I know there are some good ones if you scan the Archives. You can also pick up some fun ones to dig into by going to NVIC.org and CDC.gov.

They don't even have to be, well, altogether flawed. For example the last one we read was the newest study on flu vaccines for infants >6 months of age. It was even a placebo study! But if you break it down, you will laugh at several parts.

[alegna]

What was frustrating to me was that there were studies that I wanted to see that just didn't exist. I want to see LONG term studies of vaccines vs. NO vaccine (not vs. a different vaccine...) and they simply don't exist.

-Angela

[Marnica]

[QUOTE=heathergirl67;15260059][QUOTE=xmasbaby7;15259238]For me, when I looked at what pathetic excuses for vaccine studies were out there, it changed my whole thinking about "science". I would have said before that I was really pro-science, but as I realized how subjective the safety and efficacy studies were for vaccines and prescription drugs, it was a real eye-opener; very disappointing.

That's what I'm saying. But I think it extends FAR beyond just vaccine and prescription studies. I feel that bias is included in every study. That's why I like to look at the studies themselves. I want to make sure that they're not excluding relevant data, using a limited pool of subjects, etc. No matter what the opinions of the researchers, however, I feel like if the methodology is sound, the results are accurate. I think some people believe that the researchers are lying about the results based on their biases. I'm sure that has happened, but I think it's rare.

IMO Not as rare as you would like to believe. I wish I could have your optimism

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:...l.pone.0005738

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/fea....brownlee.html

http://www.publications.parliament.u...alth/42/42.pdf

http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/PRC/15964

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/303/12/1196

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig10/gale-null1.1.1.html

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22237

http://emord.com/media/video/Part_I.wmv (fda corruption videos)
http://emord.com/media/video/Part_II.wmv

[Turquesa]

What an eye-opener, Marnica! Thanks for posting!!

While we're discussing vaccine research, do any of you have inside knowledge on the peer-review process for science and medical journals? My background is in liberal arts, and the peer review committees for history journals often spend over a year reviewing the submissions. Why shouldn't they? All of the people in those articles will still be dead in a year!

But medical research is more urgent and time-sensitive. Does that ever lead the committees to rush through the screening process?

[Marnica]

Originally Posted by Turquesa

What an eye-opener, Marnica! Thanks for posting!!

While we're discussing vaccine research, do any of you have inside knowledge on the peer-review process for science and medical journals? My background is in liberal arts, and the peer review committees for history journals often spend over a year reviewing the submissions. Why shouldn't they? All of the people in those articles will still be dead in a year!

But medical research is more urgent and time-sensitive. Does that ever lead the committees to rush through the screening process?

I know I learned alot about the peer review process by reading this book
http://www.amazon.com/Virus-Vaccine-.../dp/0312278721

Scientists involved in trying to publish stuff about SV-40 spoke about how politics is involved in the peer review process. So disturbing.....