Vacinations

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-24-2003
Vacinations
14
Mon, 08-25-2003 - 12:01pm
First I would like to say that I am a business major at college. One of the very first things I learned is that statistics can be made to say anything that you want them to. I know what the studies say about Autism and the MMR vacine. What is not said is that the Federal Government ruled that thimerisal be taken out of skin creams and eye drops and such. Why would it be taken out of such items if it is safe? Thimerisal is Mercury. Mercury is one of the most toxic substances on earth. Follow your own instints, and don't let anyone pressure you into doing something to your children you don't want.

Pages

Avatar for keeley_14383
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
In reply to: lschrom2000
Tue, 08-26-2003 - 9:04am
That's very true about statistics -- and that fact is a big part of why vaccination/VPD risk is so darned difficult to research accurately.

FYI, thimerosal is no longer used in childhood vaccines and has not been for several years (except I believe it is still in the Dt -- which is not the same as DTaP which is what most children receive). And regardless of the fact thimerosal in several studies has not been shown to cause any problems, I believe it was still a great idea to stop using it. (I did not personally begin vaccinating my boys until after the thimerosal was removed from vaccines.) There was apparently no problem removing it (i.e. didn't compromise vaccine safety -- it was a preservative) and this move has certainly eased minds. But from posts such as yours, it is obvious that the controversy is STILL raging, even so! I would guess the average American doesn't even know what thimerosal IS, but it sounds pretty bad when they hear there is "mercury in vaccines." Even though this is no longer true, it still sells. Also, the MMR vaccine has NEVER contained thimerosal. It would have inactivated this live-virus vaccine. The average person vaguely familiar with the MMR/autism controversy most likely does not know that. This is another reason vaccination is so hard to research -- there is a ton of misinformation out there.

Keeley

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
In reply to: lschrom2000
Tue, 08-26-2003 - 7:24pm
Yes, difficult to even put together anything like relevant stats, given the dirth of data on this subject!

And of course, any stats so compiled can be manipulated as noted.

On the mercury/MMR/autism issue, I consider them rather seperate issues.

Those who say, well, merc was removed and so lets look at the autism rates ignore the possibilty that vaccines may well be a factor in autism for reasons OTHER than mercury! Look at all the evidence suggestive of some connection between autism and dairy intolerance, possible deviant reaction to MMR based on that predisposition.

Don't get me wrong; I think merc. will eventually prove to have done its share of damage, but it is not the only mechanism by whioch vaccines can result in harm, and to focus on it as if it is is to distract from the wider picture.

Kimberly
Avatar for kidoctr
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
In reply to: lschrom2000
Wed, 08-27-2003 - 11:33pm
I find it so interesting that when a study refutes a claim by an anti-vaxer, it is deemed to be "statistical manipulation" whereas when a study seemingly supports the anti-vax cause, it is hailed as suddenly accurate (eg Geier garbage). LOL! FYI, thimerosal removal from products such as contact lens solution had nothing to do with mercury toxicity. Rather, thimerosal resulted in hypersensitivity reactions and local keratoconjunctivitis - probably compounded by the relatively hypoxic (low oxygen content) conditions of the eye when covered by a contact lens.

Eve

 
 
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
In reply to: lschrom2000
Fri, 08-29-2003 - 1:35pm
>>>I find it so interesting that when a study refutes a claim by an anti-vaxer, it is deemed to be "statistical manipulation" whereas when a study seemingly supports the anti-vax cause, it is hailed as suddenly accurate (eg Geier garbage). LOL! <<<

Yes, it works both ways, and is known as confirmation bias.

The more troublesome aspect, imo, is the paucity of data available, which makes it premature to draw conclusive determinations. (say, that vaccines do not cause or are not associated with such and such OR that vaccines are associated with such and such)

I personally do not place much stock in declarations that "there is no evidence of association", given the situation; that does not confirm or refute anything in itself.

Kimberly

Avatar for tiggernminnie
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
In reply to: lschrom2000
Fri, 08-29-2003 - 1:52pm
I totally agree. Frankly I don't think 90% of the "research" on either side is conclusive. Everything hints at "correlations" or "lack thereof" but nothing is definitive. Which is the reason that I read whatever I can get my hands on...balanced them all out and then make my decision on EACH vaccine.

It is going to take a comprehensive study of EACH vaccine that compares a child vaxed with that vaccine to one that is not vaxed with that vaccine ...FROM DAY ONE....not searching people down afterwards. It won't be THAT difficult to gather up some parents that are not vaxing or partially vaxing their children. Then long term studies could be done on the safety as well as the long term protection that each vaccine provides. Until the time that the vax companies will allow that to happen...I fear that the remaining research will be just as inconclusive.

Christine

Avatar for kidoctr
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
In reply to: lschrom2000
Fri, 08-29-2003 - 4:14pm
No, I typically don't see it working both ways. As I suggested, anti-vaxers complain about studies being "manipulated", or "bought", or victims of "bias" whereas any study seemingly anti-vax is welcome with open arms - no questions asked. I've not ever seen pro-vaxers doing that. There's more than just confirmation bias going on here imo.

There is no such thing as "the perfect study" for *anything* - vax related or not. Humans and human conditions are limited by the fact that we are HUMAN subject to biases, subject to error, subject to practical limitations.

For many of the vaccines and issues there is NOT a paucity of data - meaningful conclusions can be drawn from various studies (note that I'm not saying "conclusive determination") and although a single study is not generally absolute evidence, when multiple studies suggest the safety of vaccination and the benefits outweighing the risks, it's not something to ignore and simply blame on "paucity of data". That's too much of a generalization to be able to take seriously. You can make what you will out of the phrase "no evidence of association" but it's about as meaningful as debating the accuracy of the terms "half full" and "half empty".

Eve

 
 
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
In reply to: lschrom2000
Sun, 08-31-2003 - 6:24pm
>>>No, I typically don't see it working both ways.<<<

LOL! Of course you don’t; those with a particular bias don’t “see it working”. If they did, it would just be a case of lying, not "confirmation bias." The whole point.

>>>As I suggested, anti-vaxers complain about studies being "manipulated", or "bought", or victims of "bias" <<<

Well, the reality is that many, if not most, of the studies undertaken on the subject are funded and even conducted by interests with financial, professional, and/or political stakes in the promotion of vaccines. This does make the issue of conflict of interest a valid one. No comparable charge, of ties to a multi-billion dollar industry with the force of government policy behind it, can be made against the “anti-vax” interests. Be real.

Recent concerns wrt to the CDC’s role fit in this same arena; here we have an organization, (heavily vested, politically, professionally, and financially, in the promotion of vaccines,) which regularly undertakes studies and reviews of the literature with the admitted assumption that “the benefit of vaccines outweighs their risks and that it is imperative that vaccine coverage remains at high levels” and the stated intention of “reassuring parents of the safety of vaccines” to that end. (paraphrasing here, but not by much; the exact quotes are very close)

I would consider that a definite bias, and so would you, if a similar but opposite statement of intent preceded a study which reached “anti-vax” conclusions (“The purpose of this study is to convince parents that vaccines are unsafe based on our assumptions that they do more harm than good.”)

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030718-012134-4422r

UPI Investigates: The vaccine conflict

“But a four-month investigation by United Press International found a pattern

of serious problems linked to vaccines recommended by the CDC -- and a web

of close ties between the agency and the companies that make vaccines. “

>>>whereas any study seemingly anti-vax is welcome with open arms - no questions asked. I've not ever seen pro-vaxers doing that. There's more than just confirmation bias going on here imo. <<<

What a generalization! IMO, that is just your bias at work again; you’ve “not ever seen” pro-vaxers blindly accepting studies which seem to support their pov. I have, probably with about the same frequency as I have seen anti-vaxers doing so. I have seen poorly done studies presented by BOTH sides, and, speaking for myself, I do not “welcome with open arms” ANY study at face value.

>>>For many of the vaccines and issues there is NOT a paucity of data - meaningful conclusions can be drawn from various studies (note that I'm not saying "conclusive determination") and although a single study is not generally absolute evidence, when multiple studies suggest the safety of vaccination and the benefits outweighing the risks, it's not something to ignore and simply blame on "paucity of data". That's too much of a generalization to be able to take seriously. You can make what you will out of the phrase "no evidence of association" but it's about as meaningful as debating the accuracy of the terms "half full" and "half empty". <<<

I disagree, and so do many scientists. The IOM committees which have reviewed the research on vaccine safety have consistently concluded that the lack of conclusive data, soundly collected data, or ANY data in some cases, prevents them from reaching meaningful findings.

It is worth noting that the IOM prohibits committee members from having current financial or professional ties to vaccine manufacturers, whereas the CDC panels of experts are top-heavy with such conflicts of interest. (“To avoid any conflict of interest, that panel specifically excludes "anyone who had participated in research on vaccine safety, received funding from vaccine manufacturers or their parent companies, or served on Vaccine Advisory Committees." http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030718-012134-4422r) I would tend to place more faith in the conclusions of the IOM based on that factor. Unfortunately, their conclusions are limited by the available data to the point that there is, ultimately, not a great deal to put faith IN.

According to those charged with investigating the matter, there is a consensus that the existing data is insufficient to determine one way or the other wrt many of the issues before them, and that more and better conducted (including studies of longer duration, involving larger numbers and studies involving never vaccinated controls to determine actual background rates of conditions) research is imperative.

Those who read “no evidence of association” as a reassurance of safety do so in error, given the reality.


http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030718-012134-4422r

(on thimerosal/autism)

“In October 2001, the Institute of Medicine panel… found that it is "biologically plausible" that thimerosal causes autism, but that, "current scientific evidence neither proves nor disproves a link."


http://www.iom.edu/report.asp?id=5391

(on SIDS)

“The evidence regarding biological mechanisms is essentially theoretical, reflecting in large measure the lack of knowledge concerning the pathogenesis of SIDS. Anaphylaxis related to vaccination has been discussed in detail in previous IOM reports and is reexamined in the report; the committee observed that anaphylaxis is known to be a rare but causally related adverse event following the administration of some vaccines. Fatal anaphylaxis in infants is extraordinarily rare. The committee found no basis for a review of current immunization policies, but saw a clear need for continued research on adverse event following vaccination and on the biological basis for sudden unexpected infant deaths.”

http://www.iom.edu/report.asp?id=4435

(on hep b and demyelinating conditions)

“However, the evidence was inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship between the hepatitis B vaccine and all other demyelinating conditions.

Because of the lack of epidemiological data on conditions other than MS in adults, the committee recommends further attention in the form of research and communication”

http://www.iom.edu/report.asp?id=4432

(on multiple immunizations and possible adverse effects)

“The committee found that evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between multiple immunizations and increased risk for infections and for type I diabetes. They also found that epidemiological evidence regarding risk for allergic disease, particularly asthma, was inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship. “

http://www.iom.edu/report.asp?id=4317

(on SV40 and cancer)

“Although SV40 has biological properties consistent with a cancer-causing virus, it has not been conclusively established whether it might have caused cancer in humans. Studies of groups of people who received polio vaccine during 1955-1963 provide evidence of no increased cancer risk.

However, because these epidemiologic studies are sufficiently flawed, the committee concluded in this report that the evidence was inadequate to conclude whether or not the contaminated polio vaccine caused cancer. In light of the biological evidence supporting the theory that SV40-contamination of polio vaccines could contribute to human cancers, the committee recommends continued public health attention in the form of policy analysis, communication, and targeted biological research.”



On the general "paucity" of data;


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8182813&dopt=Abstract


“In September 1993, the Institute of Medicine released a report entitled Adverse Events Associated With Childhood Vaccines: Evidence Bearing on Causality..

The committee spent 18 months reviewing all available scientific and medical data, from individual case reports (published and unpublished) to controlled clinical trials….For five vaccine-related adverse events, there was no evidence identified. For the remaining 33 vaccine-related adverse events, the evidence was inadequate to accept or reject a causal relation.”

From this same study; (don’t have the link at hand, but all quotes are from the study linked to above.)

>>>IOM Report Reveals Lack Of Adequate Scientific Studies - In Adverse Events Associated with Childhood Vaccines published in 1994 by the Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences, observations about the limitations of hepatitis B vaccine studies included the statements that "it is important to note that individual trials usually involved a few hundred subjects for study...when larger vaccination programs were monitored, observations of adverse events were necessarily less detailed and less accurately reported" and "the studies were not designed to assess serious, rare adverse events; the total number of recipients is too small and the follow-up generally too short to detect rare or delayed serious adverse reactions."

The IOM report also noted that no controlled observational studies or controlled clinical trials have ever been held to evaluate repeated reports that hepatitis B vaccine can cause Guillain-Barre syndrome; arthritis; transverse myelitis, optic neuritis, multiple sclerosis and other central demyelinating diseases of the nervous system (degeneration of the myelin sheath of the brain that helps transmit nerve impulses); or sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).

A major conclusion of the Institute of Medicine report was that almost no basic science research has been undertaken to define at the cellular and molecular level the biological mechanism of vaccine-induced injury and death. The report concluded that "The lack of adequate data regarding many of the adverse events under study was of major concern to the committee...the committee encountered many gaps and limitations in knowledge bearing directly or indirectly on the safety of vaccines. These include inadequate understanding of the biologic mechanisms underlying adverse events following natural infection or immunization, insufficient or inconsistent information from case reports and case series...and inadequate size or length of follow-up of many population-based epidemiologic studies…."

http://www.vaccineinfocenter.org/PressReleases/pr022002IOM.htm

“The report, issued by the IOM's Immunization Safety Review Committee, found that scientific evidence from epidemiological studies on whether allergy, including asthma, can be caused by multiple vaccinations was conflicting and concluded that the evidence "was inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship." The Committee concluded that epidemiological studies to date "favor rejection of a causal relationship between multiple immunizations and increased risk for infections and for type 1 diabetes." However, the Committee also concluded that they did find some biological mechanism evidence that vaccines could increase the risk of immune dysfunction in some children that could lead to increased infections and allergy, including asthma. They stated that "the biological mechanisms evidence regarding increased risk for infections is strong."…"The Committee was unable to address the concern that repeated exposure of a susceptible child to multiple immunizations over the developmental period may also produce atypical or non-specific immune or nervous system injury that could lead to severe disability or death. (Fisher, 2001). There are no epidemiological studies that address this. Thus, the committee recognizes with some discomfort that this report addresses only part of the overall set of concerns of some of those most wary about the safety of childhood immunizations."…

http://www.vaccineinfocenter.org/Loe_Fisher/blftestimony_iom_safety.htm

(from BLF's statement to the IOM committee, 1/11/01)



“The two previous IOM committees charged by Congress with evaluating the medical literature for evidence that vaccines can cause injury and death pointed out “There are many gaps and limitations in knowledge bearing directly or indirectly on the safety of vaccines.” Little has changed in the landscape of vaccine reaction research since that assessment was made.”



Kimberly

Avatar for kidoctr
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
In reply to: lschrom2000
Mon, 09-01-2003 - 1:06am
>>"LOL! Of course you don’t; those with a particular bias don’t “see it working”. If they did, it would just be a case of lying, not "confirmation bias." The whole point."<<

No, not the point I was making. My bias has nothing to do with the clear fact that the anti-vaxers rely very heavily on the conspiracy theories in order to propogate much of the anti-vax accusations and beliefs. Rather than rely on science, the scientific method, and peer-review, scientific articles that are seemingly pro-vax are simply dismissed based on these conspiracy theories. When presented with a study that is seemingly anti-vax, no such conspiracies are pointed out. That has NOTHING to do with "confirmation bias". Have YOU ever seen an anti-vaxer dismiss a seemingly anti-vax scientific article on the basis of some conspiracy? This is the what I was referring to wrt bias working "both ways" - it doesn't in this instance.

>>"No comparable charge, of ties to a multi-billion dollar industry with the force of government policy behind it, can be made against the “anti-vax” interests"<<

I never said there was. My point was wrt scientific studies and how they are treated differently by anti-vaxers depending on the apparent outcome of the study. Explain to me why government or industry sponsored study that seemingly supports the anti-vax POV is suddenly NOT part of a conspiracy? Simply because it produces a result that anti-vaxers "expect" thereby making it "on the up and up"? Maybe YOU should get real Kimberly and try following what it is that I'm pointing out rather than throwing in your own red herrings.

I've never denied the existence of bias but differ from you in how much that bias really affects a study (and supposedly alters the result) that follows the scientific method and is peer-reviewed. That's the beauty of the scientific method and peer-review - reproducibility and controlling for any inherent bias.

>>"The IOM committees which have reviewed the research on vaccine safety have consistently concluded that the lack of conclusive data, soundly collected data, or ANY data in some cases, prevents them from reaching meaningful findings."<<

You appear to be talking out both sides of your mouth, Kimberly. Offering the IOM conclusions as evidence to support your contentions ("paucity of data") all the while suggesting that any entity that is "biased" in their intentions prior to conducting a study ("vaccine benefits outweigh the risks") should not be trusted. LOL! Have you not noted what the IOM's executive summaries typically start with? "Immunization is widely regarded as one of the most effective and beneficial tools for protecting the public's health. In the United States, immunization programs have resulted in the eradication of smallpox, the elimination of polio, and the control and near elimination of once-common, often debilitating and potentially life-threatening diseases, including measles, mumps, rubella, diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, and Haemophilus influenzae type b." Hm, seems you just can't win - there's NOBODY to trust!

Ah, on the other hand, the conclusions that the IOM *has* reached is STILL, apparently, debatable:

http://books.nap.edu/books/0309074479/html/60.html#pagetop

"The Immunization Safety Review committee concludes that the evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship at the population level between MMR vaccine and ASD."

http://books.nap.edu/books/0309083281/html/110.html#pagetop

"A review....favors rejection of a causal relationship between multiple immunizations and risk of infection and type I diabetes"

http://www.nap.edu/execsumm/0309084695.html

"the committee concludes that the evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between hepatitis B vaccine administered to adults and incident multiple sclerosis. The committee also concludes that the evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between hepatitis B vaccine administered to adults and multiple sclerosis relapse."

"the committee does not recommend a policy review of the hepatitis B vaccine by any of the national and federal vaccine advisory bodies on the basis of concerns about demyelinating neurological disorders."

http://books.nap.edu/books/0309088860/html/11.html#pagetop

"There is no basis for a change in the prior conclusions that the evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between DTwP vaccine and SIDS."

"The evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between exposure to multiple vaccines and sudden unexpected death infancy, other than SIDS."

In the instance where the IOM finds the evidence to be inadequate to accept/reject a hypothesis, I think you confuse the IOM's conclusions with a "paucity of data" (unless, of course, your definition of "paucity" is somehow different than the dictionary definition, lol). It's not as though all the scientists in the world come together to coordinate their studies in order to provide the IOM with enough data to draw conclusions nor is there some conspiracy to suppress scientific study from actually confirming what anti-vaxers believe. The IOM reports have references that can span up to 10 pages! What number, exactly, do you consider a "paucity"? In reality, the issues of vaccinology and adverse reactions is so complex that literally thousands of studies may not be enough to provide an adequate amount of evidence to draw final conclusions. This neither confirms nor denies anyone's point.

For a financially and professionally "bias free" committee, it's interesting that NOT A SINGLE conclusion has been reached to FAVOR a causal relationship between the vaccines on the currently recommended schedule and adverse reactions to the point where the committee has recommended that vaccination be suspended. Whereas there have been the conclusions listed above to REJECT some of those hypotheses. The explanation? Of course it's based on some conspiracy to NOT provide the data necessary to make favorable causality conclusions, right? Goodness Kimberly, there is always some excuse isn't there? Forget about the fact that there's a distinct possibility that further study will establish a REJECTION of these hypotheses.

>>"Those who read “no evidence of association” as a reassurance of safety do so in error, given the reality"<<

As do those who hold the IOM's conclusion as confirmatory evidence that a causal relationship MUST exist.

>>"“There are many gaps and limitations in knowledge bearing directly or indirectly on the safety of vaccines.”"<<

Yes, there are. There are far fewer gaps in the knowledge concerning the efficacy and impact of vaccination. That's a comparison between the known and the unknown and, as I've stated before, I'll always tend to opt for the known over the unknown.

Eve






 
 
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
In reply to: lschrom2000
Wed, 09-03-2003 - 2:58pm
First, my point regarding confirmation bias was my own, not an attempted distortion of YOUR point, which I disagreed with. IME, there are those on both sides who accept seemingly confirming evidence of their bias, and there are those who examine evidence critically, no matter its source.

Secondly, I included many of the passages you cling to wrt the IOM's findings on particular vaccine associations (MS, type 1 diabetes, to name two. Do not attempt to create the impression that I deleted those passages, requiring you to post them) You are just repeating what I posted. And I posted the links to the studies as well, so anyone can look them up and read them in their entirety.

Thirdly, I never said the IOM was not operating with a bias in favor of vaccination, only that they are, by all accounts, less likely to allow that bias to distort their findings as compared to the CDC and many researchers more intimately connected to the vaccine industry. Their policy wrt such associations for committe members speaks to this, as does the typically more conservative results they produce, imo. (less likely to issue "reassurring" statements on vaccine safety and more likely to admit to "inadequate data" to "prove or disprove" associations.)

It does not matter if they have 10 or 100 pages of references to look at; what matters is the value of those references in reaching a conclusion, and the IOM has consintently pointed out the need for more and better research and their inability to draw conclusions based on what is currently available to them.

I am not talking about "conspiracy theories" here, Eve, that is YOUR habitual red herring. I am talking about facts. That you cannot even accept the words of the IOM, who are "on your side", so to speak, as valid suggests an unwillingness to admit to the weaknesses in your all or nothing position, imo. I am willing to consider information from a wide variety of sources, educate myself on the biases and agendas involved with each, and strive for a balanced perspective. I do not limit myself to material which seems to support my personal views.

Kimberly

Avatar for kidoctr
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
In reply to: lschrom2000
Sun, 09-07-2003 - 11:29pm
>>"First, my point regarding confirmation bias was my own, not an attempted distortion of YOUR point, which I disagreed with."<<

BULL-oney. You quoted ME and responded with this confirmation bias bit which had NOTHING to do with my point.

>>"IME, there are those on both sides who accept seemingly confirming evidence of their bias, and there are those who examine evidence critically, no matter its source."<<

Yes, but again, that wasn't my point. It's simple and has nothing to do with confirmation bias - antivaxers who complain about studies that might be funded by pharmaceutical companies or government agencies or published in organizational journals yet accept studies that confirm their POV - even studies done by pharmaceutical companies. As long as their own POV is seemingly substantiated, "critical examination" goes out the window. You simply don't see the provaxers doing this. This is not confirmation bias - it's more like fanatical behavior.



>>"Secondly, I included many of the passages you cling to wrt the IOM's findings on particular vaccine associations (MS, type 1 diabetes, to name two. Do not attempt to create the impression that I deleted those passages, requiring you to post them) You are just repeating what I posted. And I posted the links to the studies as well, so anyone can look them up and read them in their entirety."<<

So what? Should I stand up and applaud? I pointed out that those passages should be noted as CONCLUSIONS by the IOM, based on sound and plentiful evidence, yet continue to be debated - even by you. Whatever impression you think was there was simply in your own mind. It was just another example where you used the IOM info as evidence to support your claim ("paucity" of studies) but have, in the past, rejected their conclusions when there is PLENTY of studies. So, what's it going to be? You can't just cherry pick what you like and toss out the rest.

>>"Thirdly, I never said the IOM was not operating with a bias in favor of vaccination, only that they are, by all accounts, less likely to allow that bias to distort their findings as compared to the CDC and many researchers more intimately connected to the vaccine industry. Their policy wrt such associations for committe members speaks to this, as does the typically more conservative results they produce, imo. (less likely to issue "reassurring" statements on vaccine safety and more likely to admit to "inadequate data" to "prove or disprove" associations.)"<<

Yes, and being so "conservative" it's still interesting that they have NOT concluded that the available evidence supports accepting any of their hypotheses. I suppose that the ones soundly rejected can just be chalked up to bias then? It wouldn't be surprising for antivaxers such as yourself to take this position.

>>"It does not matter if they have 10 or 100 pages of references to look at; what matters is the value of those references in reaching a conclusion, and the IOM has consintently pointed out the need for more and better research and their inability to draw conclusions based on what is currently available to them."<<

Yes, and why is that? Because these are simple issues that can be easily proved/disproved with the wave of a magic wand where the scientists devise the PERFECT SINGLE study to do that? Uh, no. The issues of autism alone are so extremely complex that I think it is likely that we'll NEVER see "enough" studies conducted for the IOM to draw conclusions - and that's not for the lack of trying. It just doesn't work that way no matter the simplistic manner in which you approach it. That reminds me of the call I get several times a year where a parent is unhappy with (child's weight, series of illnesses, odd behavior, etc) and demand that "tests" be run. LOL! I sure wish that parent could tell me exactly what test they wanted me to run....

>>"I am not talking about "conspiracy theories" here, Eve, that is YOUR habitual red herring."<<

No, it's the antivaxers typical red herring, as in the typical technique that antivaxers use to draw attention away from the main issue. Can't dispute a scientific article based on the science? Just chalk it up to conspiracy and move on! <--- RED HERRING ALERT! LOL!

>>"I am talking about facts. That you cannot even accept the words of the IOM, who are "on your side", so to speak, as valid suggests an unwillingness to admit to the weaknesses in your all or nothing position, imo."<<

Valid?? When have I ever suggested that the IOM's conclusions were not VALID?? By all accounts, I would the one more likely than YOU to view their conclusions as valid! They are, after all, PROvax!

>>"I am willing to consider information from a wide variety of sources, educate myself on the biases and agendas involved with each, and strive for a balanced perspective. I do not limit myself to material which seems to support my personal views."<<

LOL - right. Have you read medical textbooks in lieu of Mendelssohn? I lurk on about 1/2 a dozen anti-vax listservs just to see and understand their POV/biases/agendas. It's been very enlightening so, no, you can't say that I only limit myself to the material that support my own POV. So what's your point?

Eve

 
 

Pages