What would convince you that vaccines are safe?

[heathergirl67]

For example, I've seen people say that they would have more confidence in vaccines if they saw a long-term, double-blind study from an unbiased source comparing the health of unvaxed kids to that of vaxed kids. That would be a step in the right direction, IMO. I guess the only question would be: what aspects of health? Even the most comprehensive study couldn't compare EVERY disease, syndrome, and disorder. Are there a select few that you'd be satisfied in seeing the results of?

So here's the poll. Fill in the blank if you want to play along-

I would feel comfortable vaxing my kid(s) if favorable results were found in this/these studies: ___________________________

[changingseasons]

What would convince me? Absolutely NOTHING.

There are no unbiased studies.

[heathergirl67]

You don't think that that's what scientific method is for? I agree that nobody doing a study is ever unbiased. On any subject. But that's why I appreciate scientific method. If it's double-blind and can be replicated by anyone with similar results, then how is that not reliable?

[caned & able]

Nothing.

The gold standard of proof is the double blind, scientific study that studies LONG TERM the effects of one vaccine against a dummy vaccine and comparing the results, again, LONG TERM.

Many doctors have said in the media that this study will never be done because doctors do not want to deprive any child or person of the benefits of vaccination.

Of course, there is a growing population of parents who want to protect their children FROM the dangers of vaccination, dangers that parents see in their children and other children. - parents should never be discounted !

[heathergirl67]

So then wouldn't your answer be: a double-blind long term study?

[laohaire]

I don't know. It's not like I think vaccines are fine except XYZ ingredient, and if they just swapped that out they would be safe and I'd be happy. I am suspicious of / object to the whole concept of vaccines. I am also suspicious of the whole profit motive of pharmaceuticals. I am suspicious of science, because bias cannot be removed, and money rules science. But more than that, I am suspicious of MEDIA, because media looks at a scientific study and trumpets whatever conclusion they want, whatever makes a great headline AND doesn't piss off their (pharma) advertisers! (I used to work for one of the two big news magazines and my job was to deal with the advertisers, and one of my tasks was to make sure nothing embarrassing happened like running a Marlboro ad on the back cover of an issue about cancer. So this is not conjecture.)

Us anti-vax folks have been accused of being emotional about the topic, and you know, I think that's partly fair. But the other side to it is that nobody is being unbiased and unemotional about it. Some folks have much to gain from it, other folks prefer to go with the flow and not worry about such things, other folks are offended by the idea that medicine isn't pure good. I submit that nobody, NOBODY, is coming to the issue with an open mind and simply basing it on the science - and that's beside the point I made above that science is not free of bias.

ETA: I realized I didn't directly answer the question. I admit that I don't think I can be convinced. There are too many motives involved for me to trust the science. I trust the science when there's not much motivation - if a study shows that womp rats are hairer than minks, fine, I'll buy it, but vaccine science is about proving a point, not finding the truth.

[zinemama]

I don't think all vaccines are unsafe. I would stil like to see a double-blind, long-term study. I'd be interested in what it showed.

[ASusan]

I think I would be closer to convinced if there was a huge expose about the vaccine-pharmaceutical-government industry's corruption and lying about the damage that vaccines have caused and do cause. And then a completely open and transparent development of new vaccines.

Not likely to happen, but I can imagine this may come about sometime in the next 100 years or so.

[jeminijad]

Yes... transparency is the key, rather than a particular study or study finding.

The trouble is, even if studies do exist that found negative effects from one or more vaccines, I do not believe they would ever see the light of day, so my answer would be that if

1) Clinicians paid more attention to basic science research, and

2) Pharmaceutical companies had no/much less lobbying power w/govt, and

3) The infomation delivery system for Joe Public (the media) were reformed, and

4) The paradigm in Western medicine shifted to wellness, and strengthening the individual, and then finally

5) A double blind gold standard type study were conducted by groups and persons who did not stand to profit from the results, which did not find negative effects from a given vaccine...

... then I would vax away, thrilled that I could now trust my health care providers about vaccinations!

This is from a selective vaxer, btw.

[Deborah]

One thing that would help me to be a little more trusting would be an end to fearmongering about diseases. A tone more like the Pink Book and less like the CDC parent's pages, in other words. Informed consent, with real information.

The current system is so stocked with lies, from end to end, it is hard to imagine that anything open and honest will ever come out on the topic of vaccines from government or pharma.

[Romana]

Yep, long term, double blind, randomized, blah blah blah, and more than one. It would need to have excellent reporting during the course of the study and there is a bit of a laundry list of things I'd want them to be looking at. I couldn't even say what they ALL are since I haven't really thought about it - knowing that such studies will never happen, it's sort of a waste of time sitting down to think about how I'd like it designed, ideally, and what adverse effects or complications they're be looking for.

Even if it wasn't done perfectly and didn't look at absolutely everything, if it was well-designed and bias-controlled to some degree, I'd be thrilled just to have it to sit down and parse, and try and see what I could glean from whatever information there was.

But I'm the sort of person who absolutely could be convinced of the safety of vaccines, on one or more issues, given some reasonable data to review. As it is, though, I'm not really attached to the speculative vaccine risks, with the exception of autism spectrum disorders - and still, I don't make vaccination decisions based on concerns about autism. I'm not convinced vaccines are in part responsible for the autism epidemic, but it's a question that's on my mind and that I'd like resolved. That said, the actual demonstrated risks are bad enough in comparison with the benefits for me to not be a huge fan of vaccination. I don't need a spectre in the closet to convince me to not vaccinate, or delay or selectively vaccinate. What info there is is sufficient for me.

I don't consider vaccines to be "bad" or "good." I think of them as a health tool that one may or may not wish to utilize under various circumstances.

[ammiga]

In addition to what a lot of other posters have said, I would need for there to be a focus on overall health and how the illnesses affect a healthy individual. There would need to be real numbers with real information that matters. I think including information like breastfeeding, overall diet, use of fever reducers, overall health, use of western medicines, and countless variables all add up significantly when determining how people respond to illness.

I would need to see honest information on what diseases are truly like and what really happens to people when they catch the disease. This would require accurate serotype replacement information, accurate tracking of disease cases, accurate statistics on how the disease ran its course, and what the long term effects of having caught the disease are. And probably other stats too, but I'm running out of the ability to think. Maybe, in summary, I would like to know given my specific child's exact lifestyle, what are the odds of catching the disease in question and what are the likely consequences of having the disease. Then compare that to the risks of the vaccination (having used the testing methods that pp's have described).

I would also need to see a shift in focus from western medicine to prevention through more natural means. Educate parents on the benefits of breastfeeding, and really push for that protection. Talk about the benefits of a healthy diet, whole foods, no artificial ingredients, etc. As it stands, doctors and the CDC just sound like salesmen for vaccines and a variety of other pharmaceuticals. I don't need a sales pitch for what will keep me and my family healthy. I need accurate information that isn't motivated by money.

Odds of any of that happening are slim to none.

[MyBoysBlue]

Any study I would like to see would track these children into adulthood until senior years. If such a study began then I would be too old to benifit from the results.

[KistheMum]

I could not be convinced they are safe.

[caned & able]

Originally Posted by heathergirl67

So then wouldn't your answer be: a double-blind long term study?

Do you honestly believe that such a study could be done? That in some way the drug companie$ would not have a hand in the process thereof? Do not answer for me.

Look at who finances, directs and sets up such $tudie$. It is a closed club. Nepotism abounds. The drug companies are incestuous.

You, if you are not connected to the medical or pharmaceutical field, should know that from looking at the way other studies are conducted.

[zinemama]

For those who would say they wouldn't trust any study: does this apply only to vaccine studies, or do you disbelieve the validity of scientific studies in general?

[caned & able]

In the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.

There is plenty of politics in medicine. The marriage of the two is dangerous to your health.

Think about vaccines when you read this:

1. Never allow the public to cool off
2. never admit a fault or wrong
3. never concede that there may be some good in your enemy
4. never leave room for alternatives
5. never accept blame
6. concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong. People will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat the lie frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.

Those who do not learn from the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them.

I prefer to be original in my errors.

[ema-adama]

Originally Posted by heathergirl67

So then wouldn't your answer be: a double-blind long term study?

It is my understanding that a randomised double blind control trial would be pretty useless over the long term. Too many variables introduced over the years. And, no one would agree to randomised vaccination. I would not let my child be exposed to the vaccines, and there are parents who would not let their child *not* be exposed. So that is not going to happen. (although maybe in Africa, unethical studies seem to be OK there )

I would be interested in a case control study comparing vaxed on schedule to completely unvaxed children.

I do not think ONE study is going to 'prove' anything. It's a matter of the weight of evidence lying on one direction of another. Today, if one study did show vaccines unfavourably, it would only be one study in a sea of studies that have concluded that vaccines are safe (whether the question asked was relevant, the method sound etc or not). No study is 'perfect', and every study will have people who accept the results and those who don't. Sometimes on scientific merit(or lack of it), and sometimes for political reasons.

It seems when it comes to vaccines it's much more about the politics and not really about the science. I have seen very eloquent critisism of studies that might highlight problems with the vaccine schedule. And somehow the ability to criticize studies that are favourable to vaccines does not happen. There with no analysis of the methodology and the results are accepted and promoted. I have seen this time and time again. The message is more important that the science. I know that even the most provaccine person who has an understanding of science can tear apart a study that they do not like, and accept a study that scientifically is very weak. So long as the mantra that vaccines are safe and effective and the the most effective public health tool is not disturbed.

So, I am not waiting for ONE study to convince me that vaccines are safe. I am waiting for more studies to compare unvaccinated and vaccinated on schedule children. I will be looking at where the evidence lies over time. I do not expect to be reassured on the safety of vaccines while my children are children.

And a case control study would certainly be a good tool for studying the long term effects. The same kind of study design that found DES to be causing cancer in some women.

[heathergirl67]

Originally Posted by caned & able

Do you honestly believe that such a study could be done? That in some way the drug companie$ would not have a hand in the process thereof? Do not answer for me.

Look at who finances, directs and sets up such $tudie$. It is a closed club. Nepotism abounds. The drug companies are incestuous.

You, if you are not connected to the medical or pharmaceutical field, should know that from looking at the way other studies are conducted.

Relax. I wasn't attempting to answer for you. I was trying to clarify for my understanding. I'm sorry if I didn't do a good job conveying that.

[Deborah]

So that is not going to happen. (although maybe in Africa, unethical studies seem to be OK there )

Unfortunately--perhaps getting sued that one time will cause drug companies to take more care in study design?