or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › IOM review find adverse events are rare and usually reversible
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

IOM review find adverse events are rare and usually reversible

post #1 of 31
Thread Starter 
I came across this today, it's from 2011 so maybe it's been discussed here before.

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=201629
post #2 of 31

It is interesting that this is worded so:

 

 

Quote:

They found less convincing evidence linking the vaccines to other events. For example, they found some evidence that the MMR vaccine can cause temporary joint pain in some women and children. 

 

When the MMR II product insert states that 1/4 - 1/8 teen and adult women receiving vaccine will experience that side effect, 12 - 20something % if I am remembering correctly.

post #3 of 31
Thread Starter 
Things are included in the packet information without very conclusive evidence at all, is my understanding. The IOM uses a different threshold and kind of evidence in their reviews.
post #4 of 31

I hope things included in vax product inserts do have satisfactory evidence, especially the clinical trial results.

 

Quote:

Following vaccination in children, reactions in joints are uncommon and generally of brief duration. In women, incidence rates for arthritis and arthralgia are generally higher than those seen in children (children: 0-3%; women: 12-26%),17,52,53
 and the reactions tend to be more marked and of longer duration. Symptoms may persist for a matter of months or on rare occasions for years.

footnotes:

17.  Unpublished data from the files of Merck Research Laboratories.

 

52.  Gershon, A.; et al: Live attenuated rubella virus vaccine: comparison of responses to HPV-77-DE5 and RA 27/3 strains, Am. J. Med. Sci. 279(2): 95-97, 1980. 
53.  Weibel, R.E.; et al: Clinical and laboratory studies of live attenuated RA 27/3 and HPV-77-DE rubella virus vaccines, Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med. 165: 44-49, 1980.
 
respectively 52 and 53:
post #5 of 31
Thread Starter 
The bar is much lower, on the theory that better to report it, and I don't think there has to be any evidence for causality, I think they just report everything that gets reported more than a certain number of times in the clinical study. It's been awhile since I read about it, though.

The iom uses a whole different kind of and criteria for evidence.
post #6 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

The bar is much lower, on the theory that better to report it, and I don't think there has to be any evidence for causality, I think they just report everything that gets reported more than a certain number of times in the clinical study. It's been awhile since I read about it, though.
The iom uses a whole different kind of and criteria for evidence.

 

I wonder where that information would be available? IOM's definition of arthritis and arthralgia (in multiple studies since this is a review of 1000+) vs. Merck's and the two studies ref'd in the Merck document.

 

Funny how Merck would exxagerate how bad their vaccine is. I mean, they can't get sued for it anyway!

post #7 of 31
Thread Starter 
I will try to remember where I read about it. It may have been in the vaccine book but that doesn't sound right.
post #8 of 31
Thread Starter 
Page 57 in the vaccine book talks about how irises of side effects are generated.
post #9 of 31

which vaccine book?

post #10 of 31
Thread Starter 
Sorry, the book titled "the vaccine book" by bob sears.
post #11 of 31

Lent out my copy. He really discusses how IOM's criteria for arthritis and arthralgia differs from Merck's and that of the two studies ref'd by Merck?

 

That is the info I was inquiring about.

post #12 of 31
Thread Starter 
No, he discusses how lists of possible side effects are generated that are used on packet inserts.

You asked about the discrepancy between the two statements. In my opinion it is easily explained by the fact that the two use different kinds and standards of evidence. Beyond that you are on your own.
post #13 of 31

ok. That explains no differences in criteria. I don't know what Sears discusses, probably why they use fever...crying...swelling... etc.? as the list of effects they look at in clinical trials?

 

Merck's own criteria and that of two different studies by different researchers they reference puts arthritis/arthralgia at 12-26% of teen and adult women.

 

I wonder what IOM's criteria lends to "some" 5% 12% 25%, 50%?

 

shrug.gif

post #14 of 31
Thread Starter 
That's what they observed in their study. That doesn't mean it was caused by the vaccine, just that it occurred that often in those studies. You can read the IOM methodology for yourself, but usually they look at all the studies on a particular topic, their methodologies, their biases, etc and kind of compile all the evidence into one big statement. They also pay more attention to causation.
post #15 of 31
Thread Starter 
I think (?) that this is the actual IOM study if you want to read more about it.

http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2011/Adverse-Effects-of-Vaccines-Evidence-and-Causality.aspx
post #16 of 31
Thread Starter 
post #17 of 31

Well maybe I am not understanding that link correctly, can you explain?

 

 

It looks like the adverse effects reviewed were ones that people filed in VICP for. I doubt many adult women filed for arthritis from MMR in VICP?? How would we know that?
 
It just looks like they reviewed evidence and conducted no study of their own. I wonder how many and which studies they reviewed to conclude what they did about arthritis from MMRII
 
(I would copy and paste but it has dark highlight)
post #18 of 31
Thread Starter 
Right, iom doesn't do studies, they examine the evidence that's already out there. It was over 100 studies. Apparently people do report joint pain since it was included.
post #19 of 31

So I wonder what studies they looked at that concluded arthrtitis and arthralgia occur less than what Merck states? 

 

Because without seeing that, I don't know how to quantify "some." 

post #20 of 31
Thread Starter 
I don't know but I bet if you read the review you'll find out.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › IOM review find adverse events are rare and usually reversible