- Thirteen percent of parents are now using an alternative vaccination schedule, and two percent refuse all vaccines for their children. Still, 28 percent of parents following the childhood vaccination schedule think it would be safer to delay the use of vaccines.
- In German children, 11 percent of those vaccinated reported having ear infections, compared to less than 0.5 percent of unvaccinated children. Similarly, sinusitis was reported in over 32 percent of vaccinated children, while the prevalence in unvaccinated children was less than one percent.
- There are important, basic differences between naturally-acquired immunity and temporary vaccine-induced antibody production. As a parent, you need to educate yourself on each individual disease and corresponding vaccine in order to make an informed decision about the risks and benefits of the choices you make.
- An important vaccine safety review was issued by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) in August. According to this review of over 1,000 independent studies on vaccines, they were unable to determine whether or not vaccines are a causative factor in over 100 serious adverse health outcomes. In short: the research available is insufficient and cannot be used to confirm nor deny causation for many poor health outcomes and vaccinations.
By Dr. Mercola
In the first video above, Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder and president of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), summarizes one of the most important scientific reviews on vaccines that was just published in August.
Barbara has been a pioneer for the last 30 years in vaccine safety and informed consent, and this discussion is of grave importance to everyone, including pediatricians and doctors.
What You Must Know About the Latest Vaccine Safety Review by IOM
The report was released by the Institute of Medicine (IOM), which is part of the National Academy of Sciences.
They’ve been around for over 100 years. The institute analyzes health policies and issues advice to the US government.
They’re funded not just by the government but also by pharmaceutical companies and independent philanthropic organizations and individuals.
They are considered a very prestigious scientific body in the world.
In the last three decades, the IOM has reviewed vaccine safety several times.
Their first reports came out in 1991 and 1994.
However, the latest report on this issue, released in August 2011 is very significant, and many still do not understand its true importance.
Over a period of three years, they reviewed over 1,000 studies on vaccines. Interestingly, they excluded studies funded by the pharmaceutical industry, although some of the studies were funded by government agencies independently.
The review focused on eight vaccines:
|Hepatitis A-hepatitis B
||Measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine
|Diphtheria, tetanus, and acellular pertussis, also known as DTaP or Tdap
||Varicella zoster (chickenpox)
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:
||Encephalitis (brain inflammation)
||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)