You’re demanding unrealistic safety standards exclusively for vaccines.
You’re demanding that my healthy children receive multiple medical interventions during their most vulnerable years. Of course vaccines should be held to the highest standard.
We can’t possibly evaluate the effect of vaccination on every possible side effect.
If you can’t even evaluate possible side effects, at the very least you have to disclose as much up front, and you most-certainly can’t claim vaccines are blanket “safe.”
And although we can’t evaluate every possible adverse event, can we at least do better than capturing 1-10% of adverse events? Can we do better than “largely inadequate” long term safety studies and decades of giving the MMR before realizing 1/640 kids has a MMR-related seizure?
There is nothing you put on or in body — from the foods you eat to the shampoo and and deodorant you use to prescription meds — which undergo more rigorous safety evaluations than vaccines.
Cochrane review disagrees with you.
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 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.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
What exactly is your safety standard? Which risk factors should be assessed and for which vaccines?
My safety standard is proof that the benefit of vaccination will be greater then harm. This could start with an analysis of population-level and individual risk factors (both for the vaccine and disease) and available treatment options, and at a minimum, “adequate” evaluation and monitoring of long term safety. This should be done for all vaccines.
What population sizes would you consider sufficient and why?
The sufficiency of a population size in a study depends on several factors, including the type of study, the expected effect size, the rarity of the event, and the statistical power required. As such, one important step is to carefully and ACTIVELY monitor long term adverse reactions in a placebo group in order to establish a baseline.
What effect size do you plan statistically for? What type of epidemiological study designs do you propose and why? Should we only consider cohort studies? If we adjust for a dozen covariates and use propensity score matching, you’ll find another dozen what-ifs to whine about. It’s an argument from ignorance based on conceivable/theoretical harms without any consideration for plausible mechanisms and the limitations of reality.
I don’t have to make up a bunch of what-it’s, you can’t even address the major concerns I’ve already laid out. All you’re doing is ignoring what I write and the evidence I post (including respected scientific review) like a child throwing a fit.
I have a general understanding of scientific research and what makes a good/bad study. I won’t pretend to be able to answer all of your questions… luckily, I’m not relying on my own knowledge, but instead able to read what independent well respected scientists know and their findings and concerns. In the case of the MMR, long term safety data is unfortunately missing despite 60+ years of use.
It’s not unreasonable to understand individual risk factors, or to expect active versus passive surveillance, or to expect careful evaluation of long term safety outcomes.
