Do you know how vaccines are evaluated for safety? Prepare to be surprised. - Page 2

[DreamsInDigital]

LI, when I showed this thread to DP his eyes bugged out and he said to me "Thank you for not vaccinating our children."

Thank you for this reassurance.

[Goddess3_2005]

If I am grasping this correctly the tests are run this way becasue if they ran the test comparing a salene injection over a longer peroid of time those test would prove the appaling rate of injury, illness and death casueed by a vaccine.:

[LongIsland]

Originally Posted by ccohenou

More later, but suffice to say that package inserts do not contain a complete rundown of every study conducted on a drug. So putting these few out there as if This Is It is misleading.

We are not concerned with post-marketing studies relating to efficacy or immunogenicity . . . this is a thread regarding the PROPER AND ETHICAL evaluation of pre-marketing SAFETY.

Ya know, what pharmaceutical companies should be doing BEFORE a vaccine is licensed for use.

This thread is not misleading.

[Momtezuma Tuatara]

Hate to butt in when you are on a roll, but I just want to mention something else.

1) First vaccines are tested in animals.

But as we all realise, and our provaccine friends do not, even FDA/CDC http://www.fda.gov/cber/minutes/tox120202.htm admits that first, these vaccines are NOT tested for toxicity because they have always been presumed safe, and in this FDA/CDC discussion about that they couldn't agree on animal models on which to toxicity test vaccines, which would mimic new born babies, becuase they didn't know enough about newborn animals to know if using them to test vaccines would be comparable to humans.

2) In all vaccine trials children are specially selected. No children are allowed who have chronic illness, intercurrent illness, family histories of immunodeficiency or allergy, who were under a certain weight at birth, experience anoxia or other birth problems... the list is endless.

Usually this knocks out about 60% of children, leaving 40% supposedly pristine useful kids to prove a vaccine safe.

Then when the vaccine supposedly comes through as safe, and EVEN THERE there will have been reactions which are also called "coincidental" and dismissed... the vaccine is licensed.

At which point if you are a mother of a baby who was underweight at birth, had anoxia, but is coming right, but you have a family history of immunodefiency and allergies you are then told that your child especially needs this vaccine because your child is so much more at risk.

And yes, the vaccine tested safe in trials using children.

Except they never tested it on kids like yours, did they?

[krissi]

This is a great thread. DH trusts my judgment about vaxes already but I may have him read it anyway just to underline the point.

[Momtezuma Tuatara]

Originally Posted by ccohenou

More later, but suffice to say that package inserts do not contain a complete rundown of every study conducted on a drug. So putting these few out there as if This Is It is misleading.

Absolute CRAP.

So here will be your next post

fictious post by ccohenou and I am in the honoured priviledged position where I get to see all the trial results and the studies which say totally different things to what they give you the parent to see

You have the classic provacciners shift the goal post syndrome.

As your president so loves to say Bring... it... on!!!


:nana: laughup

[Momtezuma Tuatara]

Originally Posted by ccohenou

More later, but suffice to say that package inserts do not contain a complete rundown of every study conducted on a drug. So putting these few out there as if This Is It is misleading.

Right, now that I'm back to normal, please explain why?

If parents are given this information upon which to make a decision, why is it misleading?

After all, the fabricated fictious post I attributed to you, is pretty much tantamount to what you are saying, and it is quite outrageous to suggest that vaccine companies say one thing in their studies and publish bull dust.

Either their published material, which they write and is approved by FDA is accurate or it is not.

So cough up, if you are privy to information that we aren't... spit it out woman!

[LongIsland]

Originally Posted by ccohenou

package inserts do not contain a complete rundown of every study conducted on a drug

Unless you know something I don't, vaccine product inserts contain data on all efficacy and safety trials conducted prior to the FDA's licensure of a vaccine. The trials contained in this thread are the very trials the FDA used to determine the vaccine's safety.

[Momtezuma Tuatara]

Originally Posted by LongIsland

The FDA, CDC and pharma don't encourage the insert's routine distribution and know the trial data won't be read and scrutinized by the "average" parent.

They are around every vial in the doc's fridge in this country. If they aren't for distribution what are they for? To give the nurse some arm exercise as she chucks each one out?

[LongIsland]

Originally Posted by Momtezuma Tuatara

They are around every vial in the doc's fridge in this country. If they aren't for distribution what are they for? To give the nurse some arm exercise as she chucks each one out?

To line the doc's kitty litter?

We've heard some stories here of the docs and nurses using some interesting tactics in order to discourage parents from reading the insert. For instance, some have said things like:

"Oh, you wouldn't understand it anyway"

"You can read it, but you can't take it with you b/c it's the last one we have"

"Don't you trust me?"


.

[Momtezuma Tuatara]

Oh yeah... we've had the "Oh you wouldn't understand it anyway!" Best response to that it to read out a part, and ask them a question using medical terminology and watch them gulp as they realise you understood it, and they didn't.

Never had the second excuse.

Oh yeah, the trust me one. Simple repost is "No, why should I?"

[Annikate]

: Please make this a sticky - - I'm running out of room to save threads.

Come on ccohenou, this is just starting to get interesting ...

[bdavis337]

Originally Posted by LongIsland

I'd feel bad taking the Lone Ranger of Vaccine Defense title away from ccohenou . . . for she is the only one who will dare venture into this thread in attempt to defend pharma and the FDA.

Problem is - it can't be defended no matter how much she Googles because the safety data to license the vaccine is all there in the product insert.

Unfortunately, it's all in there for nobody to read. The FDA, CDC and pharma do not encourage the insert's routine distribution and therefore the trial data won't be read and scrutinized by the "average" parent.

I have NEVER seen a vax insert, and my kids are both fully vaxxed. I thought, in honest ignorance, that the "info" sheet on each vax that my pedi handed out contained all the relevant info I needed. And I never knew that vaxes contain toxic metals......damn I don't have the time and energy to do all this research, and with the search feature disabled....I've got 2 months to my baby's 15 month wbv, and I'd like to be able to discuss w/our pedi, who to this point has been very workable and user-friendly, why I want to stop vaxxing my son when we has reached the state req. minimums, but I'm not armed well enough yet.

[Plummeting]

Originally Posted by ccohenou

More later, but suffice to say that package inserts do not contain a complete rundown of every study conducted on a drug. So putting these few out there as if This Is It is misleading.

So are you suggesting that they pick the worst studies, the ones least likely to show that the products are safe, to include in the package insert? They purposely pick and choose between the multitudes of studies, and choose the only research that wasn't properly conducted using a placebo? The research that makes their product seem more dangerous and less effective? They have better studies to choose from, but they use the worst ones to describe their drugs in the package inserts?

That defies all logic, and it's also complete bullsh*t. Drug companies choose the studies that make their products look more effective, safer and better researched. That's how they do business. They're out to make money and sell product. That means they put their best face forward, not their worst.

[ripcurlgirl26]

LI, you wrote prepare to be surprised in the title, but I'm never surprised when it comes to the government and its agencies.

Now I wish I would have paid more attention in my university Stats I and II classes! : But seriously, some of these groups were monitored for only 4 or 5 days? That alone just blows my mind.

[Momtezuma Tuatara]

Originally Posted by ripcurlgirl26

LI, you wrote prepare to be surprised in the title, but I'm never surprised when it comes to the government and its agencies.

Now I wish I would have paid more attention in my university Stats I and II classes! : But seriously, some of these groups were monitored for only 4 or 5 days? That alone just blows my mind.

Ripcurl, I know one of the people who was in the DBS (now FDA) at the time the Rubella vaccine was first trialled. They had, I think, 20,000 people who WERE supposed to be followed for 40 years. Five years later, the records were unable to be found, to locate the people.

To vaccine proponents, such an idea is ridiculous anyway, since ipso facto, according to Dear Dr Midsun in the 2002 FDA vaccine meeting URL up above in one of my posts, they've always assumed vaccines were safe.

[Momtezuma Tuatara]

Originally Posted by Plummeting

So are you suggesting that they pick the worst studies, the ones least likely to show that the products are safe, to include in the package insert? They purposely pick and choose between the multitudes of studies, and choose the only research that wasn't properly conducted using a placebo? The research that makes their product seem more dangerous and less effective? They have better studies to choose from, but they use the worst ones to describe their drugs in the package inserts?

That defies all logic, and it's also complete bullsh*t. Drug companies choose the studies that make their products look more effective, safer and better researched. That's how they do business. They're out to make money and sell product. That means they put their best face forward, not their worst.

Furthermore if their trials were so good, and they were allowed to by law, they would pay millions in order to do direct to customer advertising of the results of trials.

That they don't, and never had, actually shows what they got to hide rather than being the paragon of transparency.

Even the original Francis trials for the SALK polio vaccine were fraudulently analysed, though I notice its only in the last few years, that they've had the courage to admit it. Sort of like... "Oh well, its academic, since the problems were solved and what clever little boys were we?" So they think.

[ripcurlgirl26]

NAK, but N=20,000 people over 40 years, now that would have been a significant longitudinal study. I have a psych degree and have studied longitudinal research experiments in college where the participants have been followed for longer than 40 years and, barring those participants who died during that time, no records were ever lost! So very interesting.

And although I do realize (sadly) that vaccines are routinely considered safe, I feel that the FDA should impose a much longer post-vaccination monitoring period for any new vaccination, even if it's just a different pathogen but has the same ingredients/adjuvants as other vaccines already given their "seal" of approval. But then again, the real post-vaccination monitoring occurs after the vaccination is already approved and in use. And of course what I feel doesn't mean jack squat, obviously.

[LongIsland]

Originally Posted by ripcurlgirl26

LI, you wrote prepare to be surprised in the title, but I'm never surprised when it comes to the government and its agencies.

I hear ya. You know what's really surprising . . . that they actually printed this part for the ActHIB trial. They're comparing SIDS deaths among the vaccine group and the control group . . . which also received two vaccines concomitantly . . . and then try to minimize the SIDS deaths. Take a look:

Originally Posted by LongIsland

In a randomized, double-blind US clinical trial, ActHIB® was given concomitantly with DTP to more than 5,000 infants and Hepatitis B vaccine was given with DTP to a similar number.

In this large study, deaths due to sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) and other causes were observed but were not different in the two groups.

I'm going to use a common NY phrase: Are they fa real?

[LongIsland]

Originally Posted by Plummeting

They have better studies to choose from, but they use the worst ones to describe their drugs in the package inserts?

Yes, that is quite amusing.

. . . then I suppose they conduct post-marketing safety trials and the trials turn out so good, they forget to update the product insert in order to include them in there.