Safety of Infant Vaccine Schedule Affirmed - Page 2

[Jugs]

Originally Posted by heathergirl67

Because they're still part of the current vax recommendations. So if people are worried about vaxes causing neurological disorders they can cross these off their lists. Much fewer to investigate. And it's over a decade ago because they're trying to look at the long(er) term results. Most people want to see more vax studies include long-term results.

Right, but they are comparing vaccinated vs. vaccinated, and handpicked which neurodevelopmental outcomes were to be compared. As pointed out by pp, they did not include those with neurological disorders, particularly those with possibly vaccine-related neurological disorders.

[ASusan]

Originally Posted by mambera

I think that's their point, yes? No difference between the early-full-vax and delayed-vax groups.

Yes, that was their point

Right. They didn't even bother discussing the two measures in which full-vax outperformed delayed-vax (NEPSY speeded naming and WAIS) in their conclusions section, because the effect is small, probably a statistical burp, and not central to the authors' point, which is no *adverse neurological outcomes* associated with early full vax.

I'm curious as to why you say this study doesn't count as evidence?



But they adjusted for SES, etc... so their results don't depend on that. I'm not clear on the concern here.

The study doesn't count as evidence of vaccine safety. It is evidence that lesser-but-still-fully-vaxed-as-infants perform the same as vaxed-according-to-schedule infants on cogntive and psychomotor tests.

I like it. It makes me a little more comfortable. But it's not evidence of vaccine safety.

[heathergirl67]

Originally Posted by ASusan

Yes, that was their point



The study doesn't count as evidence of vaccine safety. It is evidence that lesser-but-still-fully-vaxed-as-infants perform the same as vaxed-according-to-schedule infants on cogntive and psychomotor tests.

I like it. It makes me a little more comfortable. But it's not evidence of vaccine safety.

I agree. Maybe the scope wasn't as broad as some people would have liked. And of course it doesn't prove the safety of vaxes in every area. But it does answer some questions. Especially for those who were wondering about vaxing on schedule versus delaying/selective vaxing. Not as much help for those who were wondering about no vaxing vs vaxing on schedule. Or no vaxing vs selective/delayed vaxing. But I guess they can't do a study that includes every possible situation and outcome. I think it will just be pieces at a time.

[KorbanJ08]

Originally Posted by Jugs

Right, but they are comparing vaccinated vs. vaccinated, and handpicked which neurodevelopmental outcomes were to be compared. As pointed out by pp, they did not include those with neurological disorders, particularly those with possibly vaccine-related neurological disorders.

I think it was already mentioned, but the data they used is the same data they used to disprove thermisol has any effect on children/babies and does not cause autism. I actually had to find the full report on PDF, to see the true numbers. And we all know that study excluded any children who had a neurological disorder whether vaccine related or not. They are using the same slanted and questionable data, with a new twist.

It's increasingly difficult to believe these "studies", they assume if you don't have a medical degree your to stupid to understand the data and should keep your mouth shut and offer over your child's arm. I CAN understand, and I think they have made a good case when it comes to shots causing autism, that is not my main concern any longer.

But, you can't use the autism study to convince me that 40 shots by one years old has no neurological, physiological, biological and emotional consequences. Thats not what the original data was for, is it that hard to comapre non-vax to vax kids.

Mama to a baby boy

[Sileree]

Hilary Butler's take:

http://www.beyondconformity.org.nz/_...ical_Outcomes/

http://www.beyondconformity.co.nz/_b...be_withdrawn_/

[caned & able]

Originally Posted by Turquesa

You're kidding, right? In the past 30 years, they could have been conducting a well-designed longitudinal study.... Wow.

...and according to Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, doctors do not want to deprive any child of the benefits of vaccination, so yes, that study will NEVER be done.

[mamadelbosque]

Oh, I know thats how they do it. I'm just saying its stupid, and very bad science. I would love to see a true, double-blind, TRUE placebo (saline vs vax) controlled vax study, but I know it'll never happen. But, thats what I'd have to see in order to vax. Untill you show me a *REAL* safety study, theres no way I'm injecting my kid with something. We don't let them get away w/ not doing real placebo-based studies for any other medication, so why do they get away w/ it when it comes to vaccines??

[ma2two]

This study is extremely misleading, and I can't explain it better than Ginger Taylor of Adventures in Autism, so I'll just link to her blog post, titled, "Thomas Maugh Can't Read." http://adventuresinautism.blogspot.com/

[caned & able]

Originally Posted by mamadelbosque

Oh, I know thats how they do it. I'm just saying its stupid, and very bad science. I would love to see a true, double-blind, TRUE placebo (saline vs vax) controlled vax study, but I know it'll never happen. But, thats what I'd have to see in order to vax. Untill you show me a *REAL* safety study, theres no way I'm injecting my kid with something. We don't let them get away w/ not doing real placebo-based studies for any other medication, so why do they get away w/ it when it comes to vaccines??

Another reason (excuse) for not doing a double blind study between vaxed and unvaxed persons is that an immune response cannot be faked.

MMMM, O.K. Whatever.

[an_domhan]

Originally Posted by mamadelbosque

I would love to see a true, double-blind, TRUE placebo (saline vs vax) controlled vax study, but I know it'll never happen.

There's no conceivable reason that they can't do this in an animal model, but the last time I said that to a skeptic they told me I couldn't extrapolate the data to humans. We do it all the time... otherwise no drugs would enter the marketplace.

[an_domhan]

Originally Posted by Sileree

Hilary Butler's take:

http://www.beyondconformity.org.nz/_...ical_Outcomes/

http://www.beyondconformity.co.nz/_b...be_withdrawn_/

Great posts, thanks for sharing.

[Sileree]

Originally Posted by ma2two

This study is extremely misleading, and I can't explain it better than Ginger Taylor of Adventures in Autism, so I'll just link to her blog post, titled, "Thomas Maugh Can't Read." http://adventuresinautism.blogspot.com/

Ugh. The way the mainstream media and doctors lie about this issue really gets under my skin.

[Marnica]

Originally Posted by ma2two

This study is extremely misleading, and I can't explain it better than Ginger Taylor of Adventures in Autism, so I'll just link to her blog post, titled, "Thomas Maugh Can't Read." http://adventuresinautism.blogspot.com/

awesome piece...read the link about the bias of the writer as well.....

[Ambystoma]

Originally Posted by ASusan

I read the study quickly last night.

Two words: Bonferroni adjustment.

That's what I was going to say and you beat me to it!

My grad Stats class was basically how to spot a statistical "lie", how you could do one, and how you better not do it b/c it's unethical. It's sad to me that my peer biologists publishing in Journal of Morph or even Copeia hold each other up to a higher accountability statistically.

Originally Posted by an_domhan

There's no conceivable reason that they can't do this in an animal model, but the last time I said that to a skeptic they told me I couldn't extrapolate the data to humans. We do it all the time... otherwise no drugs would enter the marketplace.

I would like to see this.

[crunchy_mommy]

Only had time to skim it but this part really stood out:

"There were some significant differences between the children who received timely vaccination and those who did not. Those with on-time vaccinations were slightly younger at the time of neuropsychological assessment (mean 9.2 versus 9.4 years), their mothers were better educated, and they came from higher-income households...
Not one of the 42 tests showed better outcomes for those who did not have timely vaccine administration."

So the less-timely vaxed kids were lower income, mothers were less educated, etc? That doesn't really seem like a great comparison group... Where is the 'unvaxed kids' group for comparison? Then they say the timely vaxed kids performed slightly better on the tests... maybe because they had advantages -- slightly older & better economic conditions?? And there are way more shots now than in the 1993 schedule... The study pretty much is useless in my opinion...

[Deborah]

One of the major questions people have is on the safety of several vaccines at one time. This study wasn't set up to address that because they didn't actually look at how many vaccines children received at one visit.

Also, I'd like to point out that it isn't the journalists who spin this stuff. They just go along with whatever the press release says.

So we really need to get hold of the original press release. I'm pretty sure that the misleading spin was in there...not added by the people writing the articles and blogs.

[Deborah]

how this is being presented to doctors and clinicians:
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/722594

http://www.medpagetoday.com/Pediatrics/Vaccines/20249

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/ma...iclekey=116587

if anyone has a tough tummy, they can read all the way through all three of them and get a pretty good picture of the original press release sent out by Pediatrics to announce this "new" study.

[ema-adama]

I haven't read all of that Deborah, but I started here:

May 27, 2010 — Delaying childhood vaccinations, or not getting immunized at all, does not provide any neuropsychological benefits for children at 7 to 10 years of age and might even result in poorer outcomes on some measures, a new study suggests.

No mention made of the exclusion criteria. It is a pretty confident statement to make given that this sample can in no way be representative of the population that is vaccinated. And the fact that adverse events like encephalitis are excluded. And that as far I have understood, Autism as an outomce was not included.

"Parents may have heard that it's not safe to give their children all these vaccines in the first year of life, but we actually looked at kids 7 to 10 years later and they’re absolutely fine," Dr. Smith said in an interview. "That's a talking point for pediatricians to have with families in the office, although it may not convince everyone."

Yes, all of them were fine. Excpet for the ones who were excluded from the study. ANd of course the vaccines are repsonsible for the improved performace in the testing? It couldn't possibly be socioeconomic status? (to be fair a secondary analysis did find the socioeconomic status was a factor)

And I am sure this will be the take home message paediatricians get. And most will not read the study, let alone read it critically. (not becuase they are bad people, they just are very busy people)

And finally, this is not everything, but IMO it is relevant:

Dr. Smith and Charles R. Woods, MD, MS, are or have been unfunded subinvestigators for cross-coverage purposes on vaccine clinical trials for which their colleagues receive funding from Wyeth, Sanofi Pasteur, GSK, MedImmune, and Novartis. Dr Woods has received honoraria for speaking engagements from Merck, Sanofi Pasteur, Pfizer, and MedImmune and has received research funding from Wyeth and Sanofi Pasteur.