IOM finds vaccines safe . . . Again - Page 2

[Rrrrrachel]

Where would you like their funding to come from? In a perfect world?

[emma1325]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

The most recent misuse and abuse of vaers, maybe.

Of course they didn't do new research. That's not what IOM does.

Misuse and abuse because it didn't support a specific dogma?

[Rrrrrachel]

You cannot conclude causation from vaers. Period. It's a terrible data set for drawing those kinds of conclusions.

[BeckyBird]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

Where would you like their funding to come from? In a perfect world?

I don't know. That's not the point I'm trying to make. The point is that I believe the financial ties to this organization are questionable to me. I believe the funding sources might have an influence on the findings of the IoM.  I'm interested in disclosing this information to others, so they can decide if they find the IoM trustworthy or not. It doesn't matter if I can find acceptable funding sources--the reality is that the IoM is receiving funding from these sources, and the findings are always in their favor. How can we know for sure that the IoM isn't influenced by their supporters? Knowing who funds them, I'm not surprised at all that they are in favor of the current vaccine schedule.

[Rrrrrachel]

I'm just curious what funding sources wouldn't be suspect.

[BeckyBird]

It doesn't matter what groups I would hypothetically choose. Let's stick to the facts, alright?  The FACT is that the IoM is and has been funded by the same groups that are directly involved with vaccines and vaccination policy.

Question: Knowing the sources of funding, how independent and unbiased can they really be? That's a real question, not "who does Miss BeckyBird want to fund the IoM? See the difference? One is real, and one is hypothetical and pointless.

By asking me about my personal choices in a hypothetical scenario, you are trying to redirect our attention off the issue of IoM's funding. Again, the issue is not about me or my decisions, but about the actual groups who have funded and are currently funding the IoM.

[prosciencemum]

Looks like you (or I) can donate money to support the IoM: http://www.iom.edu/About-IOM/Support-IOM.aspx

Sounds like a good way to remove any concerns over influence from pharmaceutical companies would be to help them raise so much money that those contributions are not needed or are negligible....

The full list of donors and sponsors can be found in their 2012 report: http://www.iom.edu/About-IOM/~/media/Files/About%20the%20IOM/President-Supplement-2012.pdf

Pgs 69-84 list individual donors in order of the amount they have given. A long list...

Pgs 85-88 list the organizations. 

You missed out several (I wonder why). 

For example 

Academy Consortium for Complementary & Alternative Health Care 

American Diabetes Association

American Hospital Association

American Medical Association

American Nurses Association 

Lance Armstrong Foundation  (oh dear - I guess they're about to report doping is safe?). 

It's a long list and I can't be bothered to pick out any more.

And it's irrelevent if the IoM just take the money and then conduct themselves with integrity. The two are not linked in my opinion. It's not always the case that donations would buy the desired results.

[Rrrrrachel]

I'm not trying to deflect, I'm honestly curious. Where is an organization like this supposed to come up with their funding?

I find their funding sources completely acceptable, so I see no need for deflection.

[Turquesa]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

Oh, well, if NVIC doesn't like it . . .

NVIC didn't even come close to saying that.

[Turquesa]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

Looks like you (or I) can donate money to support the IoM: http://www.iom.edu/About-IOM/Support-IOM.aspx
Sounds like a good way to remove any concerns over influence from pharmaceutical companies would be to help them raise so much money that those contributions are not needed or are negligible....

The full list of donors and sponsors can be found in their 2012 report: http://www.iom.edu/About-IOM/~/media/Files/About%20the%20IOM/President-Supplement-2012.pdf

Pgs 69-84 list individual donors in order of the amount they have given. A long list...

Pgs 85-88 list the organizations. 

You missed out several (I wonder why). 

For example 





Academy Consortium for Complementary & Alternative Health Care 
American Diabetes Association



American Hospital Association
American Medical Association
American Nurses Association 
Lance Armstrong Foundation  (oh dear - I guess they're about to report doping is safe?). 

It's a long list and I can't be bothered to pick out any more.

And it's irrelevent if the IoM just take the money and then conduct themselves with integrity. The two are not linked in my opinion. It's not always the case that donations would buy the desired results.

There's no need for mockery. (ie Lance Armstrong comment).

I would start by reading the books and articles of former New England Journal of Medicine editor Marcia Angell, MD, who has extensively investigated how corporate funding affects research outcomes.

[Rrrrrachel]

Their primary funding isn't corporate and this report was not corporately funded.

[emma1325]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

I'm just curious what funding sources wouldn't be suspect.

I'm curious which kind of reporting system would be adequate for determining causation.

[Rrrrrachel]

I don't think a reporting system alone could be adequate.

[emma1325]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

I don't think a reporting system alone could be adequate.

I see.

[Rrrrrachel]

Reporting systems are designed to raise red flags. That's all. Because they require opting in there's always going to be a lot of bias with the data. You can't use data like that to prove causation. It's nearly impossible to establish proper controls, just for starters.

[chickabiddy]

There is no place for me to go to VAERS and report that I was fine after my flu shot.

[emmy526]

Originally Posted by chickabiddy 

There is no place for me to go to VAERS and report that I was fine after my flu shot.

that's because it's for reporting adverse events associated with receiving a vaccine, not to report there isn't a problem with what vaccine you received.

[emmy526]

Institute of Medicine adverse reactions report admits MMR vaccines cause measles, seizures, anaphylaxis and other health problems

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/033447_Institute_of_Medicine_vaccines.html#ixzz2IZRFEmx5

[Rrrrrachel]

Uh, yes.  Vaccinations can cause serious adverse events.  This is not news.

[chickabiddy]

Originally Posted by emmy526 

that's because it's for reporting adverse events associated with receiving a vaccine, not to report there isn't a problem with what vaccine you received.

Right, I actually understand that, since it's named Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.  The point is that it is not a comprehensive database but a self-selected, self-reported collection of claims.