The Vaccine Safety Myth
by Jamie Deckoff-Jones, MD
Green Med Info. 10 February 2015
Vaccines are proven safe, right? You may be surprised to find how non-evidence based this belief really is....
A few days ago, The Washington Post published an op-ed piece by a medical ethicist who thinks that all doctors who have concerns about vaccines should lose their licenses. Last week, it was parents who don't vaccinate their children should be jailed or sued. There are case reports where not vaccinating has been used as proof of neglect for CPS to remove children and terminate parental rights. Whatever you think about vaccination, think hard before you endorse the idea that the government should be able to mandate a profitable but invasive medical procedure without informed consent. This is a very dangerous precedent to set and one you may not be happy about when vaccines are mandated for adults to protect our "herd immunity". It is not about the measles. It is about your freedom to choose what goes into your body and your child's body.
Although we keep hearing from the media and the medical establishment that vaccines are unquestionably safe, the supreme court has deemed them "unavoidably unsafe" as recently as 2011. Pharmaceutical companies are indemnified by the government against liability and pediatricians also cannot be sued for vaccine injury. Rather, there is a special vaccine court that compensates the very few patients who can prove their injury beyond a shadow of a doubt. The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has paid out over 3 billion dollars to date.
We keep hearing about the overwhelming proof that vaccines and the MMR in particular is safe. Anyone who questions this is being ridiculed. Concerned parents are stupid and concerned doctors don't understand the science. Well, here is the science, from the most recent Cochrane Review of the entire literature on the subject.
Cochrane Reviews are systematic reviews and meta-analyses which interpret the research and are generally recognised as the highest standard in evidence-based health care.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Feb 15;2:CD004407. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004407.pub3.Demicheli V1, Rivetti A, Debalini MG, Di Pietrantonj C.Partial AbstractBACKGROUND:Mumps, measles and rubella (MMR) are serious diseases that can lead to potentially fatal illness, disability and death. However, public debate over the safety of the trivalent MMR vaccine and the resultant drop in vaccination coverage in several countries persists, despite its almost universal use and accepted effectiveness.OBJECTIVES:To assess the effectiveness and adverse effects associated with the MMR vaccine in children up to 15 years of age.SEARCH METHODS:For this update we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 2), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, PubMed (July 2004 to May week 2, 2011) and Embase.com (July 2004 to May 2011).AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:The design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both pre- and post-marketing, are largely inadequate. The evidence of adverse events following immunisation with the MMR vaccine cannot be separated from its role in preventing the target diseases.
The full paper is behind a paywall, but I've read it in its entirety. The authors screened approximately 5000 papers, found 139 possible for inclusion and ended up with 31 papers that met their criteria. They rated 26 of 31 as having high or moderate risk of bias, most commonly selection bias. They concluded that there was no data to support efficacy, "We were disappointed by our inability to identify effectiveness studies with population or clinical outcomes. Given the existence of documented elimination of targeted diseases in large population by means of mass immunisation campaigns however, we have no reason to doubt the effectiveness of MMR." So we believe it, because we all saw it happen, not because there is a study which shows it to be true.
They state that there is no evidence for an association between MMR and autism, but the only included study which could possibly answer the question, comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated children, is Madsen 2002. One of the co-authors of that paper is Poul Thorsen, on the OIG's most wanted list for fraud. Thorsen is a co-author of 22 papers on autism and 5 papers on vaccine safety that still stand and are widely referenced by other authors. Even if including a paper co-authored by Thorsen doesn't bother you, their note on the Madsen study concludes: "The follow up of diagnostic records ends one year (31 Dec 1999) after the last day of admission to the cohort. Because of the length of time from birth to diagnosis, it becomes increasingly unlikely that those born later in the cohort could have a diagnosis." They noted the general absence of studies with unvaccinated controls. The reason given is that it would be unethical to have unvaccinated controls.
DeStefano 2004 is also included. One of the authors of that paper was reportedly granted official whistleblower status and immunity, alleging that the authors manipulated data to cover an association between the vaccine and autism in African American males vaccinated before the age of 36 months. Those authors are collectively responsible for a lot of the "indisputable" science we are hearing so much about. From a few months ago: The Fox Guarding The Henhouse.
To read the entire article, please click on the link provided below: