Edited by Rrrrrachel - 1/16/13 at 2:37pm
"While the report found that a randomized study would be the best way to conclusively compare the health of children who have had immunizations with those who haven’t, it also recommended against performing such as a study. That is because it would raise ethical concerns."
Seems like only in the pharm world is it unethical to do a randomized study. They don't want to open up that can of worms.
Obvious who is paying the bills.
Oh, well, this may never come to a reality of finding out what really works.
Working on it for a year isn't the point. It's the timing of its release to try and head off any backlash from the Vaccine Court's recent decisions that is relevant.
Just because vaccination is established medical treatment, doesn't make it beneficial. Blood letting was established medical treatment. They really don't want to know the differences between the health of vaxed vs unvaxed, so yet again they bring up the old unethical chestnut!
His gripes (paraphrased for those who don't like the author):
1. NO NEW INFORMATION. They did nothing new to conclude that the current vaccine schedule is safe or safer than an alternative one. They just examined what was currently available and made their determination from that there is no evidence the current schedule is unsafe. Wow and it took them a whole year to do it.
2. The IOM admits that a vax vs unvax study would provide the most useful information, and is "the strongest study design type". That's why the Jackson State study is so important.
3. The claim that a vaxed vs unvaxed is unethical, but until this done, parents will continue to refuse vaccines over the safety issue. The horse left the barn already, and people are wising up.
4. He doesn't agree with what the IOM states that there is an inadequate number of of unvaxed children (1%), and feels it is more like 5% or even as high as 10%. There is a new international study that shows 10%of households had completely unvaxed children.
The end result of this IOM report is that nothing has changed. Worried parents don’t have any new research or information to consider. The CDC has declared loud and clear that they won’t begin any new research on vaccine safety, especially involving a comparative unvaccinated control group. The debate over vaccine safety will continue on.
The deal is managing public perception on the safety of vaccines.
They did nothing NEW to establish the vaccine schedule is safe. Same old, same old........
This was a PR exercise. Nothing more.
Well, my child suffered an obvious vaccine reaction which resulted in some of those afflictions, there have been settlement awards for other vaccine injured children with the symptoms they claim have no link to vaccines, and the most recent study of VAERS found vaccines to be of significant risk. But of course, things of that nature don't pad the bottom line so they don't need consideration.
So they are just rehashing the old stuff, which isn't all that convincing without a real vaxed vs nonvaxed study.
I have no idea what you are talking about: "The most recent misuse and abuse of VAERS"?
I found it pretty reassuring too. It's nice to see a genuine independent look at the research out there and a set of recommendations on safety tests which would be good to do which aren't coming from websites which appear to have huge anti-vaccination agendas hidden under a veneer of "it's all about safety testing". That's my opinion anyway.
I don't think the IoM is as independent as you would imagine. They are funded by the federal government, as well as independent contributors.
Government Departments that fund the IoM:
• Department of Homeland Security
• Department of Defense
• Department of Health and Human Services
• EPA (in charge of allowing corporate pollution of our nation)
• USDA (the pro-Monsanto, pro-GMO sellout)
• Social Security Administration
• Monsanto Company
"The IoM receives millions of dollars in grant money from pharmaceutical companies, using that money to create new staff positions which claim to be "providing the nation with sound advice grounded in scientific evidence, to improve people’s health and well-being."