Is it really true that there are no tests like what he said? A bunch of vaxed kids versus a bunch of unvaxxed kids? Really? That can't be true. Vaccines are tested over and over right? My doc told me the shots have been thoroughly tested and are extremely safe. Please someone tell me he is wrong (that Rob is wrong lol, not my Dr!)
Is it really true that there are no tests like what he said? A bunch of vaxed kids versus a bunch of unvaxxed kids? Really? That can't be true. Vaccines are tested over and over right? My doc told me the shots have been thoroughly tested and are extremely safe. Please someone tell me he is wrong (that Rob is wrong lol, not my Dr!)
This is a really complicated but good question! I hope others chime in - and you might even want to cross post on the main vaccine page to get a more varied response.
There are no good studies that compare unvaxxed children to vaxxed children. The mainstream medical community considers it "unethical" to leave children unvaxxed. Ergo no good studies. Studies that exist often compare vaxxed children to vaxxed children - children vaxxed with this preservative in the vaccine, versus those without said preservative. That sort of thing.
There are some epidemilogical studies (which looks at data), however the number of truly nonvaxxed children in these studies are often quite small so it is hard to reach conclusions.
I believe much of the vaccine testing is done by the pharmaceutical industry itself - which is hardly without conflict of interest. Sadly, pharmaceutical companies are allowed to sit on CDC advisory panels. I will get a link for you later on that if you like (just ask).
Is it really true that there are no tests like what he said? A bunch of vaxed kids versus a bunch of unvaxxed kids? Really? That can't be true. Vaccines are tested over and over right? My doc told me the shots have been thoroughly tested and are extremely safe. Please someone tell me he is wrong (that Rob is wrong lol, not my Dr!)
I would not say that there are NO studies, they have to do some studies to please the FDA. What I *would* say is that there are insufficient studies on most vaccines. For example (mind you I am remembering this statistic from researchI did for a paper in nursing school about 5 years ago, so bear with me, I hope I get it right): Gardasil vaccine- the research was done mostly on women ages 15 or 16 up to 24 or 25. Yet, they are recommending it be given to girls as young as 11 years old who have not even gone through puberty yet. And they don't know the risks vs. benefits for girls that age because they didn't do the research on girls age 11-15. Also, the study was only 5 years long, and yet they called it a long-term study. We don't know the long-term effects of this vaccine, yet many women are reporting infertility, painful menses, on up to seizures, coma, and even ironically, cancer years on down the line. But they didn't do the research long enough to see that kind of stuff. If that is not insufficient research, I do not know what is, especially recommending it for an age group they didn't even test it on!
That's just one example, but there are many more like it on the vaccines for children under age 2. They do enough "studies" to cover their behinds, but it's really insufficient, at least to me, to prove that their benefits outweigh the risks.
This is a really complicated but good question! I hope others chime in - and you might even want to cross post on the main vaccine page to get a more varied response.
There are no good studies that compare unvaxxed children to vaxxed children. The mainstream medical community considers it "unethical" to leave children unvaxxed. Ergo no good studies. Studies that exist often compare vaxxed children to vaxxed children - children vaxxed with this preservative in the vaccine, versus those without said preservative. That sort of thing.
There are some epidemilogical studies (which looks at data), however the number of truly nonvaxxed children in these studies are often quite small so it is hard to reach conclusions.
I believe much of the vaccine testing is done by the pharmaceutical industry itself - which is hardly without conflict of interest. Sadly, pharmaceutical companies are allowed to sit on CDC advisory panels. I will get a link for you later on that if you like (just ask).
Listen to her. She answered you so much better. And I was talking about the actual vaccine research, not vaxxed vs. unvaxxed, my mistake.
I would not say that there are NO studies, they have to do some studies to please the FDA. What I *would* say is that there are insufficient studies on most vaccines. For example (mind you I am remembering this statistic from researchI did for a paper in nursing school about 5 years ago, so bear with me, I hope I get it right): Gardasil vaccine- the research was done mostly on women ages 15 or 16 up to 24 or 25. Yet, they are recommending it be given to girls as young as 11 years old who have not even gone through puberty yet. And they don't know the risks vs. benefits for girls that age because they didn't do the research on girls age 11-15. Also, the study was only 5 years long, and yet they called it a long-term study. We don't know the long-term effects of this vaccine, yet many women are reporting infertility, painful menses, on up to seizures, coma, and even ironically, cancer years on down the line. But they didn't do the research long enough to see that kind of stuff. If that is not insufficient research, I do not know what is, especially recommending it for an age group they didn't even test it on!
That's just one example, but there are many more like it on the vaccines for children under age 2. They do enough "studies" to cover their behinds, but it's really insufficient, at least to me, to prove that their benefits outweigh the risks.
Is it really true that there are no tests like what he said? A bunch of vaxed kids versus a bunch of unvaxxed kids? Really? That can't be true. Vaccines are tested over and over right? My doc told me the shots have been thoroughly tested and are extremely safe. Please someone tell me he is wrong (that Rob is wrong lol, not my Dr!)
I was born in 1988, and had the majority of vaxes in '89-95. I can tell you there are NO studies done which show the results of vaxing a child whose parent was so heavily vaccinated (with lots of mercury too). There have been no long-term studies done on the effects of vaccines (read: what happens when people who have been heavily vaccinated turn 50, 60 or 70?).
In the late 1960s/ early 1970s there were 3 shots to protect against seven diseases. http://www.chop.edu/service/vaccine-education-center/vaccine-schedule/history-of-vaccine-schedule.html There are now 35 shots for 14 different vaccines by the age of 6 http://www.nvic.org/downloads/49-doses-posterb.aspx ( 35 v 49 as the page states because of combo shots). We simply have not been vaccinating long enough to really know the long-term side effects.
There are no reputable vaxed vs unvaxed studies because it is generally considered unethical to "withhold" vaccines from children in order to perform these studies.
Yes, there are many safety studies done on vaccines but most are done by the companies that produce/profit from the vaccines. Many of the safety studies also exclude MANY segments of the population (children whose mothers had ANY complications in pregnancy, and premature babies, babies with low birth rates, babies or children with any health problems- lots and lots of children who still receive the vaccines every day). They do not test new vaccines in conjunction with the rest of the vaccines on the schedule- they are tested singularly and given together (read: more than one shot per visit).
Personally, I think most of the safety studies are a joke and do not vaccinate my daughter. This is only my opinion and is what I have chosen for my family. I strongly suggest you look into the studies yourself- it is very time consuming but you are the only one who can make the vaccine decision for your child. I have some great links to starting sites for research if you would like to PM me.
Is it really true that there are no tests like what he said? A bunch of vaxed kids versus a bunch of unvaxxed kids? Really? That can't be true. Vaccines are tested over and over right? My doc told me the shots have been thoroughly tested and are extremely safe. Please someone tell me he is wrong (that Rob is wrong lol, not my Dr!)
Please watch this interview to understand why your doctor told you this.
Is it really true that there are no tests like what he said? A bunch of vaxed kids versus a bunch of unvaxxed kids? Really? That can't be true. Vaccines are tested over and over right? My doc told me the shots have been thoroughly tested and are extremely safe. Please someone tell me he is wrong (that Rob is wrong lol, not my Dr!)
Not only are there no studies comparing never vaccinated kids to kids vaccinated on the regular schedule, but the studies your doctor is referring to test vaccines against injections of mercury, aluminum, another vaccine, or everything in the vaccine except the antigen. They never use a real placebo.
So a new vaccine being tested might only have a slight increase in side effects compared to an injection of aluminum, or a different vaccine, but that's not what normal people want to know. They want to know, what are the side effects compared to not getting the vaccine at all? And there are never answers to that question, because they never use a real placebo.
Negative outcomes are often ignored or covered up and because of big money & influence medical studies are either not allowed into the data, or the results are not reported accurately, if it's not favorable, which is the case.
Here are a few articles. Hopefully you can find something helpful in them which answers your questions.
This is a really complicated but good question! I hope others chime in - and you might even want to cross post on the main vaccine page to get a more varied response.
There are no good studies that compare unvaxxed children to vaxxed children. The mainstream medical community considers it "unethical" to leave children unvaxxed. Ergo no good studies. Studies that exist often compare vaxxed children to vaxxed children - children vaxxed with this preservative in the vaccine, versus those without said preservative. That sort of thing.
There are some epidemilogical studies (which looks at data), however the number of truly nonvaxxed children in these studies are often quite small so it is hard to reach conclusions.
I believe much of the vaccine testing is done by the pharmaceutical industry itself - which is hardly without conflict of interest. Sadly, pharmaceutical companies are allowed to sit on CDC advisory panels. I will get a link for you later on that if you like (just ask).
You know what they say about Epidemilogical studies - " Epidemiology is like a bikini. What is revealed is interesting. What is concealed is crucial"
Is it really true that there are no tests like what he said? A bunch of vaxed kids versus a bunch of unvaxxed kids? Really? That can't be true. Vaccines are tested over and over right? My doc told me the shots have been thoroughly tested and are extremely safe. Please someone tell me he is wrong (that Rob is wrong lol, not my Dr!)
It was shocking the first time I heard it ...
As a clarification, while I realize it would be fairly ridiculous to mandate that all medications undergo trial/test periods in the decades to see the life long effects, any attempts to forcibly mandate medication (Let alone 70) should require real scientific studies.
It was shocking the first time I heard it ...
Is it really true that there are no tests like what he said? A bunch of vaxed kids versus a bunch of unvaxxed kids? Really? That can't be true. Vaccines are tested over and over right? My doc told me the shots have been thoroughly tested and are extremely safe. Please someone tell me he is wrong (that Rob is wrong lol, not my Dr!)
and I am still shocked.
Sometimes even the registration trials for vaccines are ridiculous, eg. Tetanol pure was only tested on a total of 52 people!!! The benefit-risk-ratio is calculated according to the side effects observed in this tiny group. Plus only the side effects that occured in these 52 people make it into the product information. What does that tell us? Nothing!
And given that some of these trials are maybe run only for a period of a few weeks some only until antibodies can be found.
Even in clinical trials with up to 20 000 people, no risks that are rarer than 1 in 3000 are listed. So staying with the tetanus shot example, lets say 600 000 children will be vaccinated 4 times against tetanus and assuming that every 5000th vaccination series leads to the death of one child. This would have only been recognized during the trials by coincidence. When you do the math though and add this up, hypothetically there could be up to 120 death annually without this certain risk being recognized during the trials and consequently it would not be included in the product information. So much for safety of vaccines.
Follow Mothering