The problem with flu vaccines in particular is that the influenza virus mutates rapidly and sometimes unpredictably. The vaccines are produced to battle the strains that scientists expect to become prominent several months later. From what I've seen, the H1N1 vaccine was about as effective as any other similar vaccine. There are conflicting studies about the side effects, but many studies show that it is as safe as similar vaccines. It is credited with preventing around 1 million illnesses and hundreds of deaths in the US. I would also point out that the vaccine was very similar in its production to seasonal flu vaccines, which makes me skeptical of most claims about major risks.
Actually, the problem with the flu vaccine is that it doesn't work. Please read what the Cochrane Review has to say about the flu shot--they are widely considered the gold standard of medical review.
"The results of this review seem to discourage the utilisation of vaccination against influenza in healthy adults as a routine public health measure. As healthy adults have a low risk of complications due to respiratory disease, the use of the vaccine may be only advised as an individual protection measure against symptoms in specific cases."
By "regressed," do you mean that they began to display autistic symptoms? It is known that autism commonly manifests before the age of 2 years.old, regardless of whether the child is fully, partially, or not at all vaccinated. It is apparently a coincidence that this also happens to be around the time at which a number of vaccines are provided. As I said, there is no scientific evidence that vaccines cause autism, despite numerous rigorous studies.
I don't even know where to start here. You state things as though you are absolutely correct, and you're...well, absolutely wrong.
Just because autism commonly manifests at around a certain age doesn't mean that it always manifests at that age, and just because some children develop autism as a result of vaccination does not mean that all cases are caused by vaccination. Nobody is saying that all cases are caused by vaccination, but you are apparently trying to say, "Look! There are cases weren't caused by vaccination, therefore NONE OF THEM ARE!!" And that's just ridiculous. And very unscientific.
It is not at all a coincidence that autism symptoms manifest shortly after vaccination. (Funny, nobody claims that their child's autism manifested "around " the time of vaccination, and certainly never right BEFORE a vaccine visit. They either notice an immediate reaction, or one that starts 10-21 days post-vaccination--which fits perfectly with vaccine0induced seizures described by Merck concerning the MMR.) Many parents have before-and-after video footage, showing a healthy, normal, and engaged toddler talking and laughing with his parents the day before a vaccine visit, and the same child flapping, spinning, screaming,and utterly unable to communicate the day after. And some vaccine-induced autism cases have been admitted and compensate just this year.
Perhaps you aren't aware that the US Department of Health and Human Services has also admitted and compensated a couple of thousand cases of vaccine-induced brain damage (including many cases of autism)? Kind of silly for anyone to think that yes, vaccines can cause brain damage, but no, not the brain damage known as autism.
There are also a few documented cases of slightly older children being given vaccines and regressing into autism.
The "numerous rigorous studies" you mention are not rigorous. They are seriously flawed in many ways. Read how here: http://www.fourteenstudies.org/studies.html, and please don't give us rants about how you don't like anti-vaccine sites. Their criticisms of the studies are valid, whether or not we like the site.
Perhaps the most serious flaw in those studies is the way that they are interpreted. Those studies are not designed to catch subgroups who might be affected by vaccines. They are designed to show no link, and that's exactly what they do. Children who might be predisposed to have vaccine reactions at all--children with family histories of autoimmune disorders, learning disabilities, seizures, food allergies, intestinal disorders, eczema, and, of course, vaccine reactions, are excluded from the studies.
The official conclusion by the epidemiologists is "Based on the current research, we can neither confirm nor deny a causal link between vaccines and autism."
In fact, that's exactly the position of the CDC: "WE CAN NEITHER CONFIRM NOR DENY A CAUSAL LINK."
That is not the same thing as saying, "There is no link." Not by a long shot.
So it seems like a good idea to take a closer look at the people who are saying "OMG!! Science! There is no link!" Are they saying this because they are parroting what they've read elsewhere? Or are they saying this because they believe it to be the case, in spite of the fact that "science" has NOT concluded that there is no link, "science" can neither confirm nor deny a link, because they have not investigated the link?
Sorry, taking two groups of vaccinated children with similar rates of autistic symptoms and comparing....(drum roll, please)....ONLY the number of antigens used in the vaccines received? No, that is NOT investigating the link. You don't investigate a link by examining a tiny, unimportant fraction of an environmental exposure (without a true control group, too), and then say "ha-ha! Absolutely no link whatsoever!"
And while we look at this, we need to remember that we are dealing with one of the most powerful and corrupt lobbies EVER. You think the banking industry was unethical? NOTHING compared to what Big Pharma has done, over and over and over again, and continues to do.
And those of us who actually think for ourselves, rather than relying on the media to tell us what to think, realize that we can't trust the studies designed and executed by such an industry, any more than we can trust cigarette/cancer studies designed by the tobacco industry.
Edited by Taximom5 - 6/21/13 at 4:01am