Originally Posted by emmy526
easy to fix when any link between the two is denied constantly? i doubt somehow pharma would print a retraction, 'oops, sorry we were wrong, vaccines can cause intestinal problems' i don't see that as an option for pharma anytime in my lifetime. The only fix is not to get any vaccines until it is proved they don't cause gut problems. Pharma won't go for that.
I disagree. I see evidence (examples in history) that when good evidence of serious side effects is found vaccine recommendations are changed. The shift to IPV from OPV is an example of this. The recent problems over the H1N1 flu vax used in parts of Europe also illustrate it. If there were any good evidence of a link between vaccines and autism things would change. But over and over again no evidence is found.
The thing with scientists is they change their opinions based on the current available evidence...
I disagree with both of you.
Emmy, I think the vaccine/gut problem is too complicated for them to figure out, the way they go about things these days. Unless the vaccines are directly introducing clostridium into the body, they're not gonna find a link with vaccines, because they're not looking at the vaccine as a trigger for an at-risk subset.
Prosciencemum, the thing with scientists is that they seem to only see what they want to see, especially if that's how they are trained.
Look at how you've phrased things yourself: "over and over again no evidence is found." That's not true. There IS evidence found, and you've ignored it in favor of the strongly marketed (and flawed) studies that either don't show evidence, or change their conclusions/marketing spiel to make it appear that they show no evidence.
I think we can all agree that ALL the studies, on both sides, have flaws.
But one side also has a history of massive cover-up of harm, as well as a ridiculous amount of control over what studies get funded, how they're run, how they're interpreted, how they're published, and how they're marketed. That side is also the most powerful political lobby in the US. Look how the Governer of Texas (whose political campaign was funded by Merck) tried to MANDATE Gardasil for 9-year-old girls.
It's well-known in the US scientific community that if you take on the pharmaceutical industry, you are committing career suicide.
And, really, the change from OPV to IPV is NOT evidence that serious side effects are always recognized and addressed. Its only evidence that THAT issue was addressed. There are plenty of examples to the contrary: Urabe MMR is the most obvious that I can think of off the top of my head, but I'm sure people will chime in with other examples. There is clearly an issue with female athletes and vaccines (particularly Gardasil, but also including flu shots) that has gone in admitted and unaddressed. And these are the same companies who said that Vioxx, Lipitor, etc were safe.
So let's be scientific in how WE look at the issue.
Yes, there is evidence that some serious health concerns were addressed for the polio vaccine. There is also evidence that other, equally serious health concerns were not even admitted, let alone addressed. There is evidence of cover-up, from both government and industry.
Yes, there are studies that conclude that there is no evidence of harm from vaccines. Those studies are seriously flawed, every single one.
There is are studies that conclude that there is evidence of harm. These studies are flawed as well, although from my perspective, not as outrageously as the pro-vaccine studies. Still, there are flaws.
The bottom line--the whole system is seriously flawed.
So what should we do?
Well, for starters, we should be looking at the children whose parents are screaming that they've observed an important link.
That hasn't been done.
The pro-vaccine studies have been purposely manipulated to NOT show a link; people likely to have a reaction are dropped from the study. Reactions that do occur often go unreported, particularly when reactions are only tracked fora few days, and subjects are told told to expect things like swelling and redness, NOT seizures, encephalopathy, neurological disorders, autoimmune reactions, etc.
There haven't been studies done with real (unvaxxed) controls. Don't parrot "but it would be unethical," because even if that were true (it's not, but that's an argument for another thread), you can't change the fact that it completely distorts the safety issue. If the vaccines are causing harm, just switching out one antigen for another and then comparing those two groups isn't going to show whether the other ingredients might be causing harm. And that renders the safety studies completely useless.
It needs to be admitted that there is still too much that remains unknown and/or incompletely understood about vaccine reactions.
You're a SCIENTIST, prosciencemum. You know what I'm saying is true.