Perhaps the most important thing IOM did in this review is that they looked at two categories of science:
• Epidemiological research (large studies comparing different groups of people against each other)
• Bench science (research into the biological mechanisms at work within cells and molecules)
“This is very important because a lot of the studies that the CDC relies on as evidence that vaccines don’t cause any problems are epidemiological studies. This report is important because they looked at both kinds of science,” Barbara explains. “The most shocking conclusion of this report is that for more than a hundred bad health outcomes that have been reported after these eight vaccines have been given to people, they could not come to a conclusion as to whether or not those vaccines did or did not cause those adverse events!”
Some of those serious health problems included:
• Multiple sclerosis
•Lupus
• Encephalitis (brain inflammation)
•Rheumatoid arthritis
•Autism
• Encephalopathy, involving permanent brain damage
Why Couldn’t IOM Conclude Whether Vaccines Are Causative Factors?
Why is it that the IOM was unable to determine whether there was a direct causative link between vaccines and the many serious health outcomes indicated in these studies? Barbara suggests four potential explanations:
• The studies were not available in the published literature
• There were too few studies showing the same link
• The available studies were methodologically unsound
• The available studies were conflicting (i.e. there was evidence both for and against)
Says Barbara:
“What I call this category is the ‘We Don’t Know’ category. When you think about it, these vaccines are mandated for children, and yet in most instances the scientific evidence [of safety] is so poor, they don’t know! When the report came out there were a lot of organizations like the American Academy of Pediatrics that came forth and said, ‘They didn’t find causation… So vaccines are safe.’ That’s NOT what that report said at all. I think people need to understand the significance of it… [T]he category of ‘We Don’t Know’ is a very important category…”
Individual Susceptibility Was Discussed as a Co-Factor
The IOM report also discussed individual susceptibility; the fact that some people are more susceptible for biological reasons, including genetic reasons, to having an adverse event after a vaccination. According to the report, both epidemiologic and mechanistic research suggests that most individuals who experience an adverse reaction to vaccines have a preexisting susceptibility. However, the report also states that in most cases they don’t know what those individual susceptibilities are.
“They have taken a look and listed some that they believe are important,” Barbara says
Potential predispositions suggested in the report include:
• Genetic variation
• Age
• Coinciding illness
• Environmental factors
“Every physician who gives a vaccine should read this 600-page report,” Barbara says. “That it is their responsibility because this is the latest report on the science of vaccination; of what’s in the published literature.
They really need to take it seriously because if a patient that they vaccinate, whether it’s an adult or a child, has a deterioration in health after a vaccination… [the doctor] needs to not blow that off and say that’s just a coincidence. They need to take it seriously and make a report to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), not to the manufacturer (who we know doesn’t give the CDC and FDA the proper information for them to follow up). You need to report to the government.
And you need to not give that person another vaccination, unless you know for sure that that health problem was not caused by the vaccine. And guess what? Science says in all these categories they don’t know. So the precautionary principle of ‘first do no harm,’ that has got to be responsibility of every physician giving a vaccine.”
Many Parents Now Buck the System
About 13 percent of parents are now using an “alternative” vaccination schedule for their young children, according to a recent survey. And two percent of parents are refusing vaccines altogether for their children.
According to Reuters:1
“The Internet survey included 748 parents of kids between the ages of six months and six years. Of those, 13 percent said they used some type of vaccination schedule that differed from the CDC recommendations. That included refusing some vaccines or delaying vaccines until kids were older — mostly because parents thought that ‘seemed safer.'”
Among the parents who do follow the recommended childhood vaccination schedule, 28 percent still stated they think it would indeed be safer to delay the use of vaccines, and that the current vaccination schedule is far from ideal.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) vaccination schedule for children aged six and younger2 includes vaccines for measles, mumps, rubella, whooping cough, chicken pox, hepatitis, seasonal flu, and others. All in all, U.S. children are expected to get 48 doses of 14 vaccines by the time they’re six years old. By age 18, federal public health officials say they should have gotten a total of 69 doses of 16 vaccines.
Is this safe and beneficial in the short- and/or long-term? No one really knows, primarily because large studies comparing the health outcomes of vaccinated versus unvaccinated children have not been a priority for vaccine researchers. Most vaccine studies are about developing more vaccines for children and adults to use.
Some claim studies comparing the health of highly vaccinated and unvaccinated children cannot be done because it would be “unethical” to leave children participating in the study unvaccinated in order to do the comparison.
But since there are numbers of American parents who are already delaying or avoiding vaccinating their children altogether, this hardly seems like a reasonable excuse. It seems more likely that comparing the health of vaccinated and unvaccinated children in appropriately designed studies are avoided because the results might upset the proverbial apple cart.
