Percieved danger in Vaccines.
I've talked about Vaccination here before, and how dangerous I think it is that many unknowing mothers have been persuaded not to vaccinate their children due to perceived dangers in vaccines. I find this perception of danger to be largely non-rational. I also blame public figures, such as Jenny McCarthy, with perpetuating unsubstantiated claims about dangers in vaccines that are completely unfounded Scientifically. I blame her for speaking so vociferously and arrogantly while being unqualified to do so, and I worry about the level of credibility that an alarming percentage of the population gives to her claims, and those like her.
A discussion on these matters and on the general dangers of vaccines started on another friends journal. (I'll link to it if she gives me permission to do so) This post was too long to fit in as a reply on that journal, so I proposed that we move to discussion to my journal, and am now posting the direct reply here. As I said, this is a post in the middle of the discussion, but I think it would be easy enough to jump in from it. Anyone who wishes to is welcome to do so.
Jenny McCarthy is qualified to advocate as a parent of an autistic child. She is qualified to advocate for alternative treatment options because they do work for some women.
She is qualified because she's famous and she brings attention to the disease so that other children can get the help that they need.
Jenny McCarthy is qualified to advocate as a parent of an autistic child. She is unqualified to determine whether or not alternative treatment programs work for some children, particularly as they have been found not to by the broader medical community. McCarthy's claims that they do work are based on anecdotal non-evidence alone, and that is not science. McCarthy has, in essence, declared that the work without any understanding of the complexities of Neurology to do so.
She is certainly qualified to open her mouth as a famous person, but she certainly is not qualified to talk as an expert of vaccines or autism. Whether or not she actually advocated not vaccinating, She is causing women to irrationally fear vaccines, and those women are putting their children at severe risk by not vaccinating them. She has blood on her hands for that reason. And again, why anyone would trust the opinions of a woman lacking all credibility in medicine, or even reasonable thought really, above those of the consensus of the medical community, I will never understand.
And scientists really don't study vaccines for all that long, as evidenced by the Rotavirus debacle. Vaccines, upon introduction, are only monitored for 6 to 8 weeks for acute reactions.
I'm sorry, but I really must tell you that you have been completely mislead as to the research into vaccines. Check out the page at the FDA The Vaccine product approval process follows the exact same path for testing and approval as any other drug, so claims that any other drug was better studied are patently false. And, via Vaccinateyourbaby.org:
"Because vaccines are given to healthy individuals, they undergo a more rigorous approval process than drugs which are given to cure sick people. Licensing of vaccines typically takes 15 years and an average of $800 million of manufacturers' money. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ensures the safety, purity, potency and effectiveness of vaccines.
But it doesn't stop there:
* Post-licensing monitoring is conducted - tracking any side-effects from the vaccine.
* Samples of every lot of medicine must be submitted to the FDA before it is sold. This ensures that each batch is as safe and effective as the last.
* Since 1990, the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) has collected statistics from more than 7 million people in health plans who have received vaccines. "
So Vaccines go through a process of study typically lasting for 15 years before approval. After approval, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) keeps track of any and all adverse reactions sustained at the time of an inoculation, in order to determine if a Vaccine is showing any danger. They do this forever, not for the 6 to 8 weeks that you quote. They also look for reports of less than acute reactions. Further:
"VAERS accepts any reported information without determining a cause and effect relationship. Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment Centers (CISA) were started in 2001. They conduct clinical research about vaccine adverse events (VAE) and the role of individual variation; provide clinicians with evidence-based counsel and empower them to make informed immunization decisions."
On this page you can find a a sample of the results from a few of the many vigorous and ongoing studies being performed on vaccines, even vaccines long associated with the CDC's vaccination schedule, including several on the MMR vaccine and on Thimerosal.
As for the Rotovirus debacle, the fact that the Vaccine was identified as a threat less than a year after it's introduction proves that the CDC's system of continuing review of an approved Vaccine, and its measures for removing it at the first sign of trouble are extremely effective. There were a few cases of intussusception suspected to be brought on by the vaccine, however statistically rare the chances were, the Vaccine was pulled. That's evidence that the CDC continues to study these Vaccines, not that it ignores them after releasing them to the public.
Julie is right about Gardasil. They went all gungho recommending the vaccine for girls from 9-26, but girls under 16 were incredibly susceptible to negative reactions.
The VAERS system has been monitoring adverse effects to the Gardasil vaccine since its release. Over 94% of those reported have been of a none serious nature, involving symptoms like mild pain, swelling or rash, and even some fainting (most likely brought on by aversion to needles). There has been no increase in susceptibility to girls under 16 monitored. Clearly, given the prevalence of HPV, and the serious risk of contracting cancer associated with it, it remains a very good idea to have ones daughter inoculated before the age of 16 if possible, and certainly before the age of the possibility of sexual activity. After all, the risks incurred by not doing so far outweigh the minimal chance of risk of a severe averse reaction.
The CDC recommends the schedule it does because they can line up the shots at appointments that might otherwise seem necessary, but they have never actually studied the schedule.
The CDC recommends the schedule it does because it wants your child to be immunized from dangerous diseases as soon as it is safe for them to do so. To say that they never actually studied that schedule is a gross misunderstanding of how the CDC's continued monitoring of all aspects of the schedule and the individual vaccines within it is managed, most prominently the the VAERS system, as I've demonstrated from the above links.
I hope everyone actually takes a look at them. It seems that a lot of you are receiving and trusting false information from uncredible sources.
A discussion on these matters and on the general dangers of vaccines started on another friends journal. (I'll link to it if she gives me permission to do so) This post was too long to fit in as a reply on that journal, so I proposed that we move to discussion to my journal, and am now posting the direct reply here. As I said, this is a post in the middle of the discussion, but I think it would be easy enough to jump in from it. Anyone who wishes to is welcome to do so.
Jenny McCarthy is qualified to advocate as a parent of an autistic child. She is qualified to advocate for alternative treatment options because they do work for some women.
She is qualified because she's famous and she brings attention to the disease so that other children can get the help that they need.
Jenny McCarthy is qualified to advocate as a parent of an autistic child. She is unqualified to determine whether or not alternative treatment programs work for some children, particularly as they have been found not to by the broader medical community. McCarthy's claims that they do work are based on anecdotal non-evidence alone, and that is not science. McCarthy has, in essence, declared that the work without any understanding of the complexities of Neurology to do so.
She is certainly qualified to open her mouth as a famous person, but she certainly is not qualified to talk as an expert of vaccines or autism. Whether or not she actually advocated not vaccinating, She is causing women to irrationally fear vaccines, and those women are putting their children at severe risk by not vaccinating them. She has blood on her hands for that reason. And again, why anyone would trust the opinions of a woman lacking all credibility in medicine, or even reasonable thought really, above those of the consensus of the medical community, I will never understand.
And scientists really don't study vaccines for all that long, as evidenced by the Rotavirus debacle. Vaccines, upon introduction, are only monitored for 6 to 8 weeks for acute reactions.
I'm sorry, but I really must tell you that you have been completely mislead as to the research into vaccines. Check out the page at the FDA The Vaccine product approval process follows the exact same path for testing and approval as any other drug, so claims that any other drug was better studied are patently false. And, via Vaccinateyourbaby.org:
"Because vaccines are given to healthy individuals, they undergo a more rigorous approval process than drugs which are given to cure sick people. Licensing of vaccines typically takes 15 years and an average of $800 million of manufacturers' money. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ensures the safety, purity, potency and effectiveness of vaccines.
But it doesn't stop there:
* Post-licensing monitoring is conducted - tracking any side-effects from the vaccine.
* Samples of every lot of medicine must be submitted to the FDA before it is sold. This ensures that each batch is as safe and effective as the last.
* Since 1990, the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) has collected statistics from more than 7 million people in health plans who have received vaccines. "
So Vaccines go through a process of study typically lasting for 15 years before approval. After approval, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) keeps track of any and all adverse reactions sustained at the time of an inoculation, in order to determine if a Vaccine is showing any danger. They do this forever, not for the 6 to 8 weeks that you quote. They also look for reports of less than acute reactions. Further:
"VAERS accepts any reported information without determining a cause and effect relationship. Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment Centers (CISA) were started in 2001. They conduct clinical research about vaccine adverse events (VAE) and the role of individual variation; provide clinicians with evidence-based counsel and empower them to make informed immunization decisions."
On this page you can find a a sample of the results from a few of the many vigorous and ongoing studies being performed on vaccines, even vaccines long associated with the CDC's vaccination schedule, including several on the MMR vaccine and on Thimerosal.
As for the Rotovirus debacle, the fact that the Vaccine was identified as a threat less than a year after it's introduction proves that the CDC's system of continuing review of an approved Vaccine, and its measures for removing it at the first sign of trouble are extremely effective. There were a few cases of intussusception suspected to be brought on by the vaccine, however statistically rare the chances were, the Vaccine was pulled. That's evidence that the CDC continues to study these Vaccines, not that it ignores them after releasing them to the public.
Julie is right about Gardasil. They went all gungho recommending the vaccine for girls from 9-26, but girls under 16 were incredibly susceptible to negative reactions.
The VAERS system has been monitoring adverse effects to the Gardasil vaccine since its release. Over 94% of those reported have been of a none serious nature, involving symptoms like mild pain, swelling or rash, and even some fainting (most likely brought on by aversion to needles). There has been no increase in susceptibility to girls under 16 monitored. Clearly, given the prevalence of HPV, and the serious risk of contracting cancer associated with it, it remains a very good idea to have ones daughter inoculated before the age of 16 if possible, and certainly before the age of the possibility of sexual activity. After all, the risks incurred by not doing so far outweigh the minimal chance of risk of a severe averse reaction.
The CDC recommends the schedule it does because they can line up the shots at appointments that might otherwise seem necessary, but they have never actually studied the schedule.
The CDC recommends the schedule it does because it wants your child to be immunized from dangerous diseases as soon as it is safe for them to do so. To say that they never actually studied that schedule is a gross misunderstanding of how the CDC's continued monitoring of all aspects of the schedule and the individual vaccines within it is managed, most prominently the the VAERS system, as I've demonstrated from the above links.
I hope everyone actually takes a look at them. It seems that a lot of you are receiving and trusting false information from uncredible sources.