or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Unbiased information about vaccine safety/efficacy
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Unbiased information about vaccine safety/efficacy

post #1 of 76
Thread Starter 

This website http://www.14studies.org/question.html contains analyses of the fourteen studies used to support the idea that the pediatric vaccines currently in use are safe and effective. The authors examine the financial conflicts of interest concerning those who funded, directed, interpreted, (ghost)wrote, and marketed these 14 studies, and exposes serious flaws in the conclusions.

 

 

"By 6 months of age most American children receive 19 vaccines through 3 visits to the doctor. It’s worth noting that many [actually, nowadays, virtually all] kids also receive a birth dose of Hepatitis B, boosting this number to 20 vaccines.

So, of the first 20 shots given to kids, how many have been studied for their relationship to autism? The answer may surprise you: ZERO. That’s right, because only one vaccine, the MMR, has ever been studied for its relationship to autism. The MMR is a vaccine first administered to American children at 13 months of age.

But what about the 2, 4, and 6 month well-baby visits where children receive so many vaccines? The truth is they have never been studied or considered, so no one has any idea. This would be like trying to identify the source of a plane crash, suspecting mechanical failure, solely analyzing one of the wings, and then declaring the entire airplane free of culpability. But, that’s exactly what has happened.

Having spent the time to critically read every study produced to "prove" vaccines don’t cause autism, we were dumbfounded by their inadequacy. We find the comments public officials make about these studies to be even more absurd and unsupportable. Consider, from the studies, some of the actual questions that were asked:

Q: Do children receiving more thimerosal in their vaccines have different neurological outcomes from children receiving less thimerosal in their vaccines?

Q: Are autism rates different for children who received 62.5 mcg or 137.5 mcg of mercury?

Q: Did children who all received DTP vaccine with thimerosal have higher or lower rates of developmental disorders based on when they got the shots?

Q: Do Thimerosal containing vaccines administered to children raise mercury blood levels above safe standards?

Q: Does the use of RhoGam shots during pregnancy have a correlation with autism?

These 5 examples above come from 5 of the most commonly listed studies cited as "proof" that "vaccines do not cause autism." Yet, not one of them comes close to addressing this issue or answering the question we all really care about that goes something like this:

Our children receive 36 vaccines by the time they are five, including 20 by their first birthday. Is the administration of so many vaccines causing autism in certain children?

That question, so important to the health of our children and our nation, has never been asked, so it cannot yet be answered. Please look at the "fourteen studies" and see for yourself if you agree with our assessment."

***************************************************

 

http://www.14studies.org/studies_thimerosal.html discusses studies on thimerosal-preserved vaccines.

 

http://www.14studies.org/studies_mmr.html discusses studies on the MMR

http://www.14studies.org/ourstudies.html  discusses the published science supporting a link between vaccines and autism and other disorders as well.

post #2 of 76

 

 

Quote:

 

About Us

This website was compiled by the founders of Generation Rescue, Jenny McCarthy’s autism organization. Generation Rescue is a parent-founded and parent-led non-profit organization with more than 1,000 parent volunteers all over the world.

The Generation Rescue website provides a wealth of information about autism. Please consider taking the time to learn more about: biomedical intervention, finding a doctor, finding a rescue angel, learning about the success stories of others, and learning about vaccinating safely.

For more information, check out www.generationrescue.org

Um.  Jenny McCarthy's autism organization is unbiased? 

post #3 of 76

Is unbiased information even possible?

 

I think this site is interesting in concisely presenting conflicts of interest/funding of those studies.

post #4 of 76

i like nvic.org

post #5 of 76

Wikipedia says: 

 

"The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) is a private non-profit 501(c)(3) advocacy group which questions the safety and efficacy of commonly used vaccines.[1] The group was founded in 1982 by parents who blamed routine vaccination for the illness or death of a child.Michael Specter has described the NVIC as "the most powerful anti-vaccine organization in America, and its relationship with the U.S. government consists almost entirely of opposing federal efforts aimed at vaccinating children.""

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Vaccine_Information_Center

 

Doesn't sound unbiased to me...

post #6 of 76
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

Wikipedia says: 

 

"The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) is a private non-profit 501(c)(3) advocacy group which questions the safety and efficacy of commonly used vaccines.[1] The group was founded in 1982 by parents who blamed routine vaccination for the illness or death of a child.Michael Specter has described the NVIC as "the most powerful anti-vaccine organization in America, and its relationship with the U.S. government consists almost entirely of opposing federal efforts aimed at vaccinating children.""

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Vaccine_Information_Center

 

Doesn't sound unbiased to me...


If people are injured by vaccines, how would you suggest an unbiased way to both report the reactions and advocate for those who are injured, against a government that systematically looks the other way and denies the injuries?

 

Would a group supporting concentration camp survivors be considered biased or unbiased, by your definition?

 

post #7 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

Would a group supporting concentration camp survivors be considered biased or unbiased, by your definition?

 


This statement is completely inappropriate and quite offensive.
post #8 of 76
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TCMoulton View Post


This statement is completely inappropriate and quite offensive.


As a child of a Holocaust survivor, I disagree.

post #9 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post



As a child of a Holocaust survivor, I disagree.


How exactly can you find comparing survivors of the holocaust to a not for profit advocacy group founded by persons who blame vaccines for the injury or death of their children appropriate and relevant to this discussion.
post #10 of 76
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TCMoulton View Post


How exactly can you find comparing survivors of the holocaust to a not for profit advocacy group founded by persons who blame vaccines for the injury or death of their children appropriate and relevant to this discussion.


I'm glad you asked that question.

 

I'm not comparing survivors of the holocaust to anything.


I'm comparing an advocacy group supporting holocaust survivors--who had to deal with a government looking the other way as they were mistreated--with an advocacy group supporting people injured by vaccines--who have to deal with a government looking the other way as they are mistreated.

 

It's both appropriate and relevant.

 

post #11 of 76

Yes.  Vaccines are totally like mass-scale genocide.  Except f***ing NOT.  Did you run this one by your holocaust-surviving parent?

post #12 of 76

Well this thread turned itself into Goodwin's Rule quicker than expected (for those unfamiliar, this is a comment made by a man called Mike Goodwin that all internet discussions will eventually end up with someone comparing someone's beliefs to Hitler or the Nazi's!).

 

My comments that NVIC are a biased source of information were based on the last sentence of the segment I quoted: 

 

"Michael Specter has described the NVIC as "the most powerful anti-vaccine organization in America, and its relationship with the U.S. government consists almost entirely of opposing federal efforts aimed at vaccinating children."

 

That's what doesn't sound unbiased.  I'll say it again "the most powerful anti-vaccine organization in America" is not going to provide you with a fair picture weighing the pros and cons of vaccination.

 

I included the background about who founded the organization out of interest. 

 

And I am actually speechless than anyone would honestly compare the millions of doctors across the world who provide vaccinations to save children from uneccessary and deadly diseases to Nazi's running concentration camps. I can only resort to point out this post: 

 

All Anti-Vaccination Rhetoric is Conspiricy Theory. Yes you too

 

(which I admit has a fairly inflammatory title, but is well worth a read unless you're happy to believe in a mass conspiricy). 

 

post #13 of 76

I don't think there is any unbiased information about vaccines out there. 

 

NVIC's mission is concerned with vaccine safety and to educate about informed consent.

 

 

 

Quote:
As an independent clearinghouse for information on diseases and vaccines, NVIC does not advocate for or against the use of vaccines. We support the availability of all preventive health care options, including vaccines, and the right of consumers to make educated, voluntary health care choices.

 

I think it is a big mistake to label them "antivax." I think it is a big mistake for pro-vax side to label anyone wanting to delay hep B or skip chicken pox as "anti-vax" and "conspiracy theorists." I think this is only alienating parents who want to know more about vax. You want to select/delay a little and then experience the vehemency of mainstream medical establish, I really think this encourages more suspicion. Even worse, just asking questions or wanting to learn about vax ingredients, history, safety - seems like just asking makes you "anti-vax."

 

I think NVIC's site has a lot of good information, well presented. Personally, I don't find the stance that they are telling parents to do one thing or another in regards to vax decision. But then again, I'm biased, and so is everyone else here.

post #14 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelly1101 View Post

Yes.  Vaccines are totally like mass-scale genocide.  Except f***ing NOT.  Did you run this one by your holocaust-surviving parent?


Actually, from what i have witnessed and researched for 25 years, i have come to see it as a mass-scale dumbing down of our own bodies and human immune systems....at pharma's profit. And the gov looks the other way....even as people/children die or become permanently damaged, within hours/days after receiving a vax,  any correlation going back to the vaccine that killed the individual is denied.   

An advocacy group for these people would not be of interest to the government. 

post #15 of 76

There is no such thing as unbiased information.  Though recently I have found it nice that If I feel like believing something off the wall I can find all sorts of information that will coincide with my beliefs for the week. 

post #16 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

Well this thread turned itself into Goodwin's Rule quicker than expected (for those unfamiliar, this is a comment made by a man called Mike Goodwin that all internet discussions will eventually end up with someone comparing someone's beliefs to Hitler or the Nazi's!).

 

 

 



or…the ad hominem attack!

 

Someone said something we can pick on!  Lets collectively attack that or her and not discuss the topic.  

 

Perhaps if we make her look bad enough it will have a halo effect - and people will discredit other things she says.

 

It is a classic fallacious argument.  

 

 

The Goodwins rule thing is cool, though, thanks for that.

 

post #17 of 76

Lastly, I would like it if the pro-vax camp listed their resources.  I find that these forums are dominated by the selective or non-vax crowd posting studies, resources, etc and then the pro-vax people come on and try to discredit them.  They rarely post their own resources - just bash others.  

 

Fwiw, my own resource is the CDC website plus whatever mainstream information I can dig up on the internet with regard to Canadian statistics.  Crunching the numbers of incidence rates of serious diseases compared to the stated rate of reaction of vaccines has made me decide  not to vaccinate.  

 

Here is a link to the CDC pink book:

 

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/index.html


Edited by purslaine - 2/7/12 at 7:01am
post #18 of 76
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

 

And I am actually speechless than anyone would honestly compare the millions of doctors across the world who provide vaccinations to save children from uneccessary and deadly diseases to Nazi's running concentration camps. I can only resort to point out this post: 

 

 



 You are not speechless.  You are using words, and you are using them to misquote me.  I never compared doctors to Nazis;  I never even mentioned either doctors or Nazis.

 

Let's look at what I said again, shall we?
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

 

I'm comparing an advocacy group supporting holocaust survivors--who had to deal with a government looking the other way as they were mistreated--with an advocacy group supporting people injured by vaccines--who have to deal with a government looking the other way as they are mistreated.

 

 

 



 

post #19 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imakcerka View Post

There is no such thing as unbiased information.  Though recently I have found it nice that If I feel like believing something off the wall I can find all sorts of information that will coincide with my beliefs for the week. 



You are right about this. and if any parents are starting the vax research/decision 100%pro or 100%anti, fully decided, well, i'm sure they will find plenty of "sources" for whatever their view.

 

I started reseraching vax before my dd was born. I was leaning pro vax but had questions. I was overwhelmed in the beginning. I started with the Dr. Sears book, NVIC site, cdc pinkbook, and WHO site (since I live outside US). To a certain extent, I was frustrated that neither the Dr. Sears book, nor NVIC, clearly says "no" or "yes." I wanted an easy choice. I think both Sears book and NVIC do a good job of laying out lots of information - the disease, the vax, scarying you both ways and then leaving you to decide. That is why I would call both "unbiased" although clearly, there is no unbiased info.

 

I don't see NVIC as a disreputable source because they support informed consent, vaccine safety, and advocate for vaccine injured. 

 

...and I don't think anyone can say 100% that 100% of the time patients are given 100% informed consent, that vaccines have always been and are currently 100% safe, and that there has never, ever ever, in the whole entire world, ever been a vaccine reaction or permanent injury caused by vaccines. 

 

NVIC exists for a reason.

post #20 of 76

I trust the NHS website on vaccination. http://www.nhs.uk/Planners/vaccinations/Pages/Landing.aspx

 

I also like to talk to my Doctor. 

 

I find this blog interesting for the real life stories, and it also links to some resources. http://momswhovax.blogspot.com/

This post in particular is interesting to me: http://momswhovax.blogspot.com/2011/11/from-anti-vax-to-pro-vax-one-moms-story.html

 

 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Unbiased information about vaccine safety/efficacy