Like in this blog article*, titled Vaccines are Very Safe.
"Finally, the Vaccine Adverse Effect Reporting System (VAERS) investigates all reported cases of what appear to be reactions to a vaccination."
In 2009, the Vaccine Adverse Reporting System had 32,821 reports of adverse reactions after a vaccine was given. VAERS states that, "In one instance, VAERS detected reports for intussusception over that what would be expected to occur by chance alone after the RotaShield rotavirus vaccine in 1999. Epidemiologic studies confirmed an increased risk, and these data contributed to the product's removal from the US market. In another example, VAERS determined that there may be a potential for a small increase in risk for Guillain-Barre syndrome after the meningococcal conjugate vaccine, Menactra. As a result of this finding, a history of Guillain-Barre syndrome became a contraindication to the vaccine and further controlled studies are currently underway to research this issue."
Apparently, the RotaShield rotavirus and the meningococcal conjugate vaccine were determined to be unsafe. After the fact.
I included the number of reports in 2009 not to show how big a number it is.
- Underreporting- Underreporting is common to all surveillance systems which require someone to complete and send a report. However we also know that underreporting occurs more often with less serious adverse events and that more serious vaccine adverse event are more likely to be reported to VAERS."
Would every case of adverse reaction to vaccines be documented? Of course not. As far as the claim that VAERS "investigates all reported cases of what appear to be reactions to vaccine reactions", it's really quite absurd. "VAERS does not determine causality." How would it even be feasible to investigate all reported cases?
This PBS article gives insight about the Sabin polio vaccine: "In the U.S., cases of polio are now extremely rare, and ironically, are almost always caused by the Sabin vaccine itself -- being live, the virus can mutate to a stronger form."
The CDC gives some background on the relationship between the virus SV40 and the polio vaccine. (It would be interesting to find out how each vaccine was derived. Maybe a future post.) History indicates that even when a known problem exists, the government is not always there to protect us. (Surprise, surprise!)
From the same article cited in this paragraph, "In 1961, the virus was found to cause tumors in rodents (Eddy et al., 1961). That same year, the federal government required that new stocks of polio vaccine be free of SV40. However, existing polio vaccine stocks were not recalled and were used until 1963." And the excuse given? "When SV40 was discovered, researchers did not know if the virus could negatively affect people's health." And yet we depend on these researchers to impact our lives. Lest you think that this may have been a little tiny problem, the article gives these statistics, "More than 98 million Americans received one or more doses of IPV (the injected form of the polio vaccine) during the period (1955–1963) when some of the vaccine was contaminated with SV40." And what does that translate to in terms of people's health?
"SV40 is known to cause tumors in rodents. Have research studies found an association between SV40 and cancer in humans?
Yes. An association has been found between SV40 and certain types of cancer in humans."
In case there are any doubts to the veracity of my refutations of the safety of vaccines, please note that I made sure to only use sources that are pro-vaccinations. Government sponsored websites, no less. So although, yes, of course, I am biased. Extremely biased. I am a Christian, after all. And I have 7 children to answer to. I am, unashamedly, among those in the anti-vaccination movement. However, I am using not anti-vaccination propaganda, but rather, pro-vaccination propaganda to cite historical statistics.
*I do apologize to those who believe I am mis-characterizing Dr. Jay Wile. Or giving him a bad name. I don't doubt his sincerity. I have been citing his blog on vaccinations because of the fact that he has written the articles on vaccinations. There is information to be examined and to be compared. He is a highly respected Christian author of many textbooks and most would never question the validity of any of his writings. Because his blog mentions anti-vaccination propagandists repeatedly, I felt his claims should be explored to see just how blatant and insidious are the "lies" of the propaganda movement.
I think what I am learning from all of this is that anyone can take any statistic, any resource and make it fit according to his paradigm. Lynne Born has a different paradigm towards health and disease and naturally, her take is completely different from Dr. Jay Wile's. It's wonderful, isn't it, that we live in a country where we still have the liberty to access different sources of information and decide for ourselves what the course of action we will take regarding our own health. Or did you think that you had no choice in whether you lived a healthful and abundant life? No, our government allows us the right to take responsibility of our health and that of our children's. As of now, anyway.
I'm certainly not holding my breath, but I wonder if in my lifetime certain medical practices that most wouldn't even question today would become as ludicrous and unbelievable as how we perceive blood-letting to be now. Poor George Washington needn't have died from blood loss if the medical experts of his day were willing to be open-minded and made a paradigm shift in their thinking on health and maintained the basic principle of treating a patient: first, do no harm.
No comments:
Post a Comment