Growing distrust over vaccine safety has prompted the U.S. government to give critics an unprecedented say in how research is done for vaccine safety. The first of several meetings will focus on a possible link between vaccines and autism.
While federal health officials have said that the autism link is not the reason for the meetings it was on the top of the list Friday. "A crisis of trust is going to be a crisis of public health," said Dr. Bruce Gellin Head of the NVPO.
Vaccine related questions will be probed including rare side effects of the shingles vaccine and the possible mitochondria link with autism. One question not yet asked will be how many vaccines is safe to give at one time and at what age.
These critics have ideas vaccine manufacturers ignored in favour of science. Kind of like a self fulfilling interest of, "prove the vaccine is safe with these acceptable side effects" and don't waste time or money investigating potential reactions.
Hopefully this leads to healthier vaccine practices.
if the overseer is blind? Are these critics doctors? Have they done a study showing these vaccines cause these diseases? Have they checked how many children used to die from or be crippled by these diseases?
There is no proof of any form that MMR and autism are in any way related, and giving unqualified scare mongers a seat at the table will simply delay the introduction of new cures and KILL PEOPLE
Remember a lot of people believe there may be a link between mercury and autism. And since many US infant vaccines contain trace amounts of mercury, this could raise some concerns.
Dont forget that Bush vetoed a bill that would ban these drugs. I guess the pharmaco's have him in their pocket because I saw no reason for him to veto that bill except because investors would lose money over children's health...
Is their a study showing that any of these drugs cause or may cause autism?
Perhaps vetoed the bill because it was crap? Perhaps he thought that the slim, entirely nunfounded, possibility of a dozen autistic children was a cheap price to pay compared with 10,000 dead babies every year?
in infant vaccines does in fact cause autism then what would you say then? Would you argue against them or would you want to keep them in use? Personally I believe if there is an alternative, which by the way there is, that we should use it if there is even a slight chance of essentially taking away some kids life simple for profit.
I dont think I could have the nerve to argue for profits over a childs life when there are viable alternatives.
Could you tell a really tell a mother whose child has autism as a result of bad medicine, that it is worth it because we made a profit???
Would you argue against them or would you want to keep them in use?
I would keep them in use, because the number of lives saved by vaccination far outweighs the tiny few who may possibly get autism.
"Could you tell a really tell a mother whose child has autism as a result of bad medicine, that it is worth it because we made a profit???"
No, I'd tell her its worth it because her child and 199 others arent dead.
But the arguement is still irrelevent, there is no evidence to even suggest that these vaccines cause autism, the guy who first said it activly campaigns for these vaccines and bitterly regrets opening his mouth.
Once again. Do these critics have some new evidence? If not, why exactly is their opinion being considered? They are proven to be reactionary fools who have no idea what they are talking about
Wow I cant believe what kind of human being you are to be able to say that!
Im hoping you just didnt read what I said. I said that if bad medicine did cause a child to become autistic, would you tell a mother of the child this? And you still say YES?!?!?
So far there is some scientific evidence that links between autism and mercury exist. The science needs to prove it one way or the other. I hope that it does prove that it doesnt link between autism but their is a good chance that it does.
Clearly though you seem not to care about alternatives to this problem and simply making a profit off of peoples misery.
That would be why the story says they are checking a possible link between mitochondria and autism.
"Perhaps he thought that the slim, entirely nunfounded, possibility of a dozen autistic children was a cheap price to pay compared with 10,000 dead babies every year?"
A dozen? Autism has skyrocketed to 1 in 150 children I think that taking a look into if there is a link is a good thing.
"But the arguement is still irrelevent, there is no evidence to even suggest that these vaccines cause autism, the guy who first said it activly campaigns for these vaccines and bitterly regrets opening his mouth." Wrong. If the gov't felt there was no link the NVPO in the first place wouldn't exist. I personally worked with 2 young children that were being taken care of by the NVPO since they thought the vaccine was responsible.
For the record I am not anti-vaccine. I do believe that the schedule should be pushed ahead 6-9 months for the 18th month shots so that there can be a clearer understanding if there is a link since this age is when the majority of children are starting to show the most signs and are most often disgnosed with autism. I also think that there should be a schedule that is not forcing 9 combined vaccines at one time.
Asking for others input could in fact save as you say 10's of thousands of lives. Say that these meetings actually show the link isn't there, fantastic then there will be more people willing to not opt out of vaccinations. If it shows that there is a link, then figure out how to prevent it from occuring or lesson the risks greatly.
We are at risk with people opting out of the vaccines for their children since they do not trust what they are being told, working together is a positive thing.
I hope the critics involved are an independent group of scientists working for instance at universities and now sitting down with big pharm. scientists . Otherwise it's a waste of time like a soccer mom arguing with her doctor over something she does not understand. Unless you are a scientist/medical professional you are at best of little use to the discussion and you should either trust your doctor, get a second opinion, get a better highly recommended doctor or keep wearing your tin foil hat, because chances are you have NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. It's like when I hear people saying stupid shit in relation to my field of work (Programming/IT) and I'm sure those doctors and scientists feel like they are talking to highly annoying bull headed children.
Which one would you choose? I chose 1 autistic child.
Perhaps you should wonder what kind of person you are, since you'd rather 200 babies died than 1 developed autism.
Can you provide a link to this evidence? The only evidence I have ever found was a comment, not a scientific report, that was later retracted, often, by one man. If you have a report, please provide it.
Checking and doing further research is not new evidence.
Without these vaccines, children will die. That is a fact.
How many children will die in the years this research takes if these vaccines are witheld?
OneEightSeven seems to have understood my point. Are these people doctors? Or are they self appointed experts Do they evidence, or opinion?
If they have evidence, fine, lets review it, as I quite clearly said.
If they are ill informed scare mongers, why are we listening to them?
