5 ms·

Honestly, how many times does the link between vaccines and autism have to be disproven before people get it? On the other hand, there is a direct link between

Honestly, how many times does the link between vaccines and autism have to be disproven before people get it? On the other hand, there is a direct link between not being vaccinated and getting sick. Probably why they want to vaccinate against everything. Even chicken pox can cause more severe disease like shingles [1]. You wouldn't want your kids riding in a car with only the safety features that existed when you were a child. Why would you do the same for their health? [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herpes_zoster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herpes_zoster

fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
>Honestly, how many times does the link between vaccines and autism have to be disproven before people get it? Honestly, there are many possible adverse reactions, and honestly, I want to see lots of good data. I know it may be costly, I don't care. I want to see the little bumps and dips in the plots of efficacy and safety for various vaccines. I want continuous quality control. I want it published publicly where the incidences of vaccine related injury were investigated, a cause found, and a problem corrected. I don't question the science or the public benefit of vaccination. I question whether the safety of vaccines as they are manufactured, transported, and stored is as advertised. This is from the product insert for DTaP, note it cannot be considered conclusive, because the data collection methodology is crap. Would the manufacturer or FDA allow autism to be in the following list if either could conclusively exclude it? Honestly, I hope these guys have it right[1]. I think it would be fantastic if the solution were so simple. "Adverse events reported during post-approval use of Tripedia vaccine include idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, SIDS, anaphylactic reaction, cellulitis, autism, convulsion/grand mal convulsion, encephalopathy, hypotonia, neuropathy, somnolence and apnea. Events were included in this list because of the seriousness or frequency of reporting. Because these events are reported voluntarily from a population of uncertain size, it is not always possible to reliably estimate their frequencies or to establish a causal relationship to components of Tripedia vaccine." source: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/ucm101580.pdf http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines... [1] http://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/10/30/iodine-deficiency-cause-autism http://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/10/30/iodine-deficien...
- dalke 13y ago
  "I know it may be costly, I don't care." This is all part of the cost/benefit analysis. How much do we need to spend in order to say that the data is good enough to use? "I want it published publicly where the incidences of vaccine related injury were investigated, a cause found, and a problem corrected." It is published publicly. Download the entire data set yourself. It's available at http://vaers.hhs.gov/data/index http://vaers.hhs.gov/data/index in CSV format and through the CDC WONDER on-line tool at http://wonder.cdc.gov/vaers.html http://wonder.cdc.gov/vaers.html . Make sure to read the big warning messages. It's not possible to establish a cause from this data. > More than 10 million vaccines per year are given to children less than 1 year old, usually between 2 and 6 months of age. At this age, infants are at greatest risk for certain medical adverse events, including high fevers, seizures, and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). Some infants will experience these medical events shortly after a vaccination by coincidence. > These coincidences make it difficult to know whether a particular adverse event resulted from a medical condition or from a vaccination. Therefore, vaccine providers are encouraged to report all adverse events following vaccination, whether or not they believe the vaccination was the cause. How much money and time should we spend to determine a causal relationship? More importantly, what do we do when we don't have those resources? This is all part of the cost/benefit analysis. "it cannot be considered conclusive, because the data collection methodology is crap. Would the manufacturer or FDA allow autism to be in the following list if either could conclusively exclude it?" You have misunderstood the list. It's a complete list of serious and uncommonly high occurrences. They are not allowed to exclude autism. More importantly, if they excluded something only to find that it shouldn't have been excluded, then they can be sued.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

fnordfnordfnord 13y ago

>Honestly, how many times does the link between vaccines and autism have to be disproven before people get it? Honestly, there are many possible adverse reactions, and honestly, I want to see lots of good data. I know it may be costly, I don't care. I want to see the little bumps and dips in the plots of efficacy and safety for various vaccines. I want continuous quality control. I want it published publicly where the incidences of vaccine related injury were investigated, a cause found, and a problem corrected. I don't question the science or the public benefit of vaccination. I question whether the safety of vaccines as they are manufactured, transported, and stored is as advertised. This is from the product insert for DTaP, note it cannot be considered conclusive, because the data collection methodology is crap. Would the manufacturer or FDA allow autism to be in the following list if either could conclusively exclude it? Honestly, I hope these guys have it right[1]. I think it would be fantastic if the solution were so simple. "Adverse events reported during post-approval use of Tripedia vaccine include idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, SIDS, anaphylactic reaction, cellulitis, autism, convulsion/grand mal convulsion, encephalopathy, hypotonia, neuropathy, somnolence and apnea. Events were included in this list because of the seriousness or frequency of reporting. Because these events are reported voluntarily from a population of uncertain size, it is not always possible to reliably estimate their frequencies or to establish a causal relationship to components of Tripedia vaccine." source: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/ucm101580.pdf http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines... [1] http://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/10/30/iodine-deficiency-cause-autism http://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/10/30/iodine-deficien...

dalke 13y ago
"I know it may be costly, I don't care." This is all part of the cost/benefit analysis. How much do we need to spend in order to say that the data is good enough to use? "I want it published publicly where the incidences of vaccine related injury were investigated, a cause found, and a problem corrected." It is published publicly. Download the entire data set yourself. It's available at http://vaers.hhs.gov/data/index http://vaers.hhs.gov/data/index in CSV format and through the CDC WONDER on-line tool at http://wonder.cdc.gov/vaers.html http://wonder.cdc.gov/vaers.html . Make sure to read the big warning messages. It's not possible to establish a cause from this data. > More than 10 million vaccines per year are given to children less than 1 year old, usually between 2 and 6 months of age. At this age, infants are at greatest risk for certain medical adverse events, including high fevers, seizures, and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). Some infants will experience these medical events shortly after a vaccination by coincidence. > These coincidences make it difficult to know whether a particular adverse event resulted from a medical condition or from a vaccination. Therefore, vaccine providers are encouraged to report all adverse events following vaccination, whether or not they believe the vaccination was the cause. How much money and time should we spend to determine a causal relationship? More importantly, what do we do when we don't have those resources? This is all part of the cost/benefit analysis. "it cannot be considered conclusive, because the data collection methodology is crap. Would the manufacturer or FDA allow autism to be in the following list if either could conclusively exclude it?" You have misunderstood the list. It's a complete list of serious and uncommonly high occurrences. They are not allowed to exclude autism. More importantly, if they excluded something only to find that it shouldn't have been excluded, then they can be sued.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]