IOM finds vaccines safe . . . Again - Page 3

[Turquesa]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

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

There were no controls in place to ensure that the 40 studies in question were all independent.

[Turquesa]

By the way, IoM looked at existing research and said that they couldn't find evidence that the current vaccine schedule is NOT safe.

Disingenuous media spin not withstanding, that really, really is different from saying "vaccines are safe."

Also, I can't link it from here, but the 2011 IoM report did not say that vaccines are safe. If you look at page 541, they authors go out of it's way to say that they are not declaring that vaccines are safe.

[Rrrrrachel]

That's a very good point. There is a difference between saying no evidence of harm and that they are for sure safe. Very careless of me.

[Turquesa]

Originally Posted by chickabiddy 

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.

Actually, if you'll permit me one nitpick, at least 83% of VAERS reports come from vaccine manufacturers and health care professionals, per the VAERS FAQ page.

Maybe you weren't implying otherwise, but I just want to make sure that we're clear that most of those reports aren't individual laypeople making submissions.

[chickabiddy]

I didn't know the exact figure, but I did know many reports come from medical/pharma professionals.  Still, the people who report, in whatever capacity, have already determined that they believe a vax reaction occurred.  VAERS is a completely self-selected database.  It is valuable in many ways, but it is not something from which causation can be derived.  (Which I realize you weren't claiming, but there was discussion of this upthread.)

[littlest birds]

Since we have an extreme pro-vax bias in our society and among health professionals, and the VAERS data is self-selected, it would be expected to under report problems rather than over report them.  I'm not strongly pro- or anti- personally but am very skeptical about the completeness of our information. 

Those who believe vaccines are mostly safe are likely to overlook them as causative of anything unless there is foghorn blasting over the diagnosis.  That reaction would be severe and 100% obvious behaving 100% the way they expect and they can't think of any other possible cause.  I'm concerned about the quieter effects, the ones that look minor, the ones that involve mystery syndromes without known causes.

If vaccines contribute to later autoimmune problems that would not show up at all in VAERS as adverse reactions--we do not know how to identify causation at all for autoimmune disorders.  I do have a child on the autism spectrum and I do not blame the vaccines he received.  I remain skeptical about the wisdom of using vaccines.  They seem a clever trick--amazing-- but with some side effects beyond our ability to understand.

This study doesn't seem to say anything new at all.  If there are things we haven't been evaluating, we still aren't evaluating them.  If there are things we don't yet understand and can't measure, then they still aren't there, are they?

[Rrrrrachel]

Vaers data both under and over reports. Fortunately it is not our only method of investigating vaccine safety and adverse events.

This is a review, not original research. So by its nature it's "nothing new." Like the various cochrane reviews it reviews and examines the entire body of research on a topic, which is extremely valuable IMO.

[littlest birds]

I think the body of research has some value because it proves that certain types of negative reactions that we expect are fairly infrequent.  That is good to know.  It would obviously be tragic if there were lots of acute reactions of the type they were measuring and for us to have ignored them because we weren't keeping track enough to see the prevalence.

It is also important to acknowledge what is being completely ignored as impractical to measure or impossible to isolate in ALL of the studies.  If the immune system is altered by vaccines in the long term, we have no idea.  We don't even have a way to begin measuring that.  We know nothing about things like this and right now we don't seem equipped to change that.  All I am saying is we should acknowledge there is a substantial body of things that we don't know that may be very, very important.  A study like this should not be interpreted to apply to anything except what it has directly studied. 

To say vaccine were proven safe here is a misinterpretation of the information.  That is not a logical conclusion.

[Rrrrrachel]

Already been pointed out and acknowledged that it should of said they found no evidence of harm.

[emma1325]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

Already been pointed out and acknowledged that it should of said they found no evidence of harm.

I'm assuming you meant should have said?

Sorry, I'm a nitpicker I guess.  lol

[Rrrrrachel]

You'll get past it somehow I'm sure.

[emma1325]

Maybe, maybe not. Who knows?

[Jennyanydots]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

That's a very good point. There is a difference between saying no evidence of harm and that they are for sure safe. Very careless of me.

Yes. Or deliberately manipulative.

[Rrrrrachel]

That's pretty rude, Jenny.

[Jennyanydots]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

That's pretty rude, Jenny.

What, calling you out for your obvious agenda?

I guess I missed the part in the UA where it says you can be as rude and smug as you like and everyone else has to play nice.

[Cynthia Mosher]

Warning - personal accusations and attacks will get you removed from the discussion. Please review our guidelines for posting in this forum before you post again.