There were no controls in place to ensure that the 40 studies in question were all independent.
IOM finds vaccines safe . . . Again - Page 3
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.
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.
- 3,074 Posts. Joined 1/2004
- Select All Posts By This User
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.)
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?
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.
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.