Why has there never been a single controlled primate experiment of the entire vaccination schedule?

[mhatrw]

Can anyone here explain this to me?

You take 10-20 primates and give them vaccines on the currently recommended vaccination schedule. You have another 10-20 primates that you don't give any vaccines to. You equalize these groups for birth weight, sex, time of gestation and even genetic relationships, if possible. Then you test them for behavioral and other developmental differences blindly. You also note any differences in health outcomes that emerge. When any of these primates die, you do a full analysis of the tissues, especially the brain and nervous system tissues, and you quantify the differences between the vaccinated and control groups, if any.

So why hasn't anybody ever done one of these experiments?

[mzmolly]

1. Dunno.

That's a good question.

[Teaser]

2. Because primates are very expensive.

and most researchers are invested in more specific questions than that, and their primates are spoken for.

[mhatrw]

6. And the safety of all of our kids is not worth the cost of a few primates?

In 2006, and estimated 62,000+ primates were used in research in the United States.

[Teaser]

20. you want to study it?

write a grant.

[mhatrw]

23. And send it to whom? Who exactly funds studies on the safety of

the entire recommended vaccine regime?

[Teaser]

33. NIH.

.

[SoCalNative]

3. There has been

over decades with human beings. We are primates, you know.

[mhatrw]

4. You can't have a controlled experiments like this on humans because

it would be unethical to deny humans vaccines.

[TheMadMonk]

17. A sufficiently large population compensates quite nicely.

Humans deny themselves and their children vaccines all the time. Ecconomics denies some humans part or all of the vaccine shedule we ourselves take for granted.

Procedures exist to select samples from larger populations without introducing biases, or for recognising inevitable biases and duely compensating.

I think I know where you're trying to push with this, and what prompted it. Fergeddit.

I'm sorry, a study of a dozen cherry picked subjects in which there is ample evidence of considerable accademic amd medical malfeasance, does not rate any attention except as a teaching exercise in ethics.

Multiple studies which examined the medical histories of thousands to tens of thousands of children found no link between vaccines and autism, chronic bowel conditions, or anything else which wasn't already known of in the way of vaccination related syndromes.

I'm as ready as the next bloke to accept that pharmacutical companies do indulge in serious unethical practices, including having a big part to play in this particular mess. However, "bug up your arse" cases like these attract a hell of a lot of independent study which rather quickly reveals the truth of matters like Vioxx and related drugs. Thalidomide and other wonder drugs which turn into blunder drugs once they hit the markets. If something exists to be found it WILL be found. If someone is actively looking, then the finding comes that much sooner.

[mhatrw]

18. Link up the studies that compare vaccinated to unvaccinated people.

Let's see all these studies that you claim exist.

[Xipe Totec]

5. Because pigs are better clinical trial models

And cheaper to boot.

[mhatrw]

7. If you say so.

Where is the research on pigs, then?

[Xipe Totec]

10. My mistake

Mice are the better model, although certain genetically modified pigs are used for xenotransplantation experiments.


"In the U.S., the numbers of rats and mice used is estimated at 20 million a year. Other rodents commonly used are guinea pigs, hamsters, and gerbils. Mice are the most commonly used vertebrate species because of their size, low cost, ease of handling, and fast reproduction rate. Mice are widely considered to be the best model of inherited human disease and share 99% of their genes with humans. With the advent of genetic engineering technology, genetically modified mice can be generated to order and can provide models for a range of human diseases.<59> Rats are also widely used for physiology, toxicology and cancer research, but genetic manipulation is much harder in rats than in mice, which limits the use of these rodents in basic science.

...

"Xenotransplantation research involves transplanting tissues or organs from one species to another, as a way to overcome the shortage of human organs for use in organ transplants. Current research involves using primates as the recipients of organs from pigs that have been genetically-modified to reduce the primates' immune response against the pig tissue. Although transplant rejection remains a problem, recent clinical trials that involved implanting pig insulin-secreting cells into diabetics did reduce these people's need for insulin."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_testing

[mhatrw]

12. Somehow I doubt that the infant development rats or mice is a good surrogate

for that of humans.

[Xipe Totec]

13. If you say so

where is your research?

[mhatrw]

16. How are you supposed to mimic the recommended human vaccine regime in mice?

I am not trying to fight you. If you think there is a good way, please explain it.

[ET Awful]

8. Because without real world exposure to societal elements, it would be a meaningless study. n/t

[mhatrw]

11. So basic toxicological animal studies are meaningless because they are not perfect?

That's an interesting take.

[ET Awful]

14. The study you described is not a "basic toxicological test" by any stretch

of the imagination.

As has already been stated there has been an ongoing primate study for decades, with humans being the primates.

And many humans have been denied the vaccines you describe for many and varied reasons.

Of course you knew that didn't you?

[mhatrw]

15. Show me the basic toxicological experiments that have been done on the

entire currently recommended vaccine regime.

For that matter, show me any basic toxicological experiments that have ever been done on the aluminum adjuvants that are in most vaccines in the history of medical science.

Show me the double blind controlled experiments that have been done on humans comparing the overall health outcomes of those vaccinated vs. those not vaccinated.

[ET Awful]

19. See "World population" for your answer. n/t

[mhatrw]

24. so correlation = causation? That's certainly a rigorous experiment!

[freshwest]

9. These are rushed to meet whatever the demand is said to be.

What you're suggesting would be wise, but it would take time and money to do this properly

I don't agree that we should be the guinea pigs, it defeats the stated purpose, to save lives to give an experimental drug of any kind.

And it's dishonest to offer it and say it's been tested if it hasn't been.

Other than that, just guessing. IDK.


:shrug:

[trotsky]

21. Because, CLEARLY...

it's a GLOBAL CONSPIRACY among MILLIONS of government officials, scientists, health professionals, researchers, and graduate students to produce POISONOUS VACCINES that KILL US and CAUSE DISEASE. MUAH HA HA HA HA HA HA!

Oh no, I've said too much...

[Name removed]

25. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MineralMan]

22. Humans are primates, you know. Many studies have been

done on the human primates.

[mhatrw]

26. Show me any controlled studies that have been on the health outcomes

of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children.

[trotsky]

27. Here's a well controlled study.

Go look at a cemetery that has grave markers going back at least 100 years. Preferably 150. Compare the ages of the dead from 150 years ago to the ones today. Plot on a graph the mean and median ages of death from 150 years ago versus today. Kthxbye.

[mhatrw]

28. so correlation = causation? That's certainly a rigorous experiment!

I guess that proves that vaccines cause autism as well. Kthxbye.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MineralMan]

29. OK. Here's a collection of them you can look at:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=human+vaccine+studies

[mhatrw]

30. None are controlled studies of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children.

http://www.hhs.gov/nvpo/nvac/documents/NVACVaccineSafetyWGReport041409.pdf

Feasibility study of Vaccinated/Unvaccinated/Alternatively Vaccinated Children

Members of the public, stakeholders, and the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC) have articulated interest in a study of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children to determine if there are differences in health outcomes between groups with varying exposures to vaccines. The Working Group considered drafting a recommendation for an IOM review of the science, epidemiology and feasibility of studies of unvaccinated, vaccine delayed, and vaccinated children. The Writing Group Draft Document on Gaps in Research Agenda further developed this idea. The Working Group wishes to clarify several points on this topic. First, the Working Group believes that the strongest study design, a randomized clinical trial that includes a study arm receiving no vaccine or vaccine not given in accord with the current recommended schedule, is not ethical, would not pass IRB review, and cannot be done. The type of study that is being suggested would be an observational study of populations looking at natural variation in vaccination schedules including some children where vaccination is declined through parental intent. All children in the study should be recommended to receive the standard immunization schedule. The Working Group endorses the Writing Group’s recommendation for an external expert committee, such as the Institute of Medicine, with broad methodological, design, and ethical expertise to consider “strengths and weaknesses, ethical issues and feasibility including timelines and cost of various study designs to examine outcomes in unvaccinated, vaccine delayed and vaccinated children and report back to the NVAC.”

[trotsky]

34. Because as your link notes, such a study would be ethically repulsive.

You would be intentionally condemning some children to suffering and possibly dying from an easily preventable disease.

Go look at that graveyard. Tell me, even if your wildest, craziest fears about vaccines were true, why were there SO MANY MORE children who died 100 years ago of diseases we no longer even know? If vaccines were as dangerous as you keep screaming, why aren't children still dying, only now from vaccines instead of the illnesses they prevent?

[mhatrw]

35. That's why we need to do these studies on primates, which is this point of the OP.

Do you support primate research on the entire vaccination schedule or not?

[trotsky]

36. You have yet to demonstrate why such a study needs to be done.

And more importantly, whether its results could be assumed to be the same for humans.

Dunning-Kruger. You are a living example.

[laconicsax]

37. +1

[mhatrw]

38. The question is why such a simple, obvious study has never once been done in the entire history of

medical science. The reason such a study should be done is to test the safety of our entire recommended vaccine schedule in a controlled manner.

What do you have against basic controlled experimentation?

[trotsky]

40. argumentum ad ignorantiam

I think scientists and epidemiologists and medical professionals know more about vaccination than you do. Call me crazy.

You've already been given tons of links addressing your question. You have ignored them all. All you have left is the argument from ignorance, and you wield it like a club.

[mhatrw]

41. How about a link to a controlled study of the safety of the entire recommended vaccination schedule?

How about it?

I want to believe many must have already been done or at least are currently being done. Can you help me out here?

[trotsky]

42. How about you answer a couple of questions:

1) Why do you think there supposedly hasn't been a study that matches your exact specifications?

2) If such a study WAS completed, and showed absolutely no difference between groups, would you accept it?

3) If such a study WAS completed, and all the monkeys who got vaccines died or developed monkey autism, would that PROVE vaccines would do the same thing to humans?

When you understand the answers to the above, you will understand why no one takes you seriously and all your threads get recced down.

[mhatrw]

43. 1) Because I've looked hard, but not found any. Please feel free to prove me wrong.

2) Accept it for what? It would certainly make me far more confident in the safety of the entire recommended vaccine schedule, as it should everyone. I have no preconceived notions about what such an experiment would demonstrate, if that is what you are getting at. That's why I want to see the results of this experiment: to find out what the experiment would show.

3) Of course not. This would simply make me far less confident in the safety of the entire recommended vaccine schedule.

Why are you against basic controlled safety research on our entire recommended vaccination schedule?

[trotsky]

44. No, you didn't answer #1.

Why do you think there aren't any?

2) Would you accept the study, and acknowledge that the vaccine schedule is safe? Answer honestly. Because should I find one, and present it to you, I want to know if you will accept its results. Simple.

3) Are you familiar with the countless studies showing physiological effects of something in mice, in pigs, and yes, even in monkeys, that end up having no effect in humans? You do realize that we are different animals, right?

Why are you against basic controlled safety research on our entire recommended vaccination schedule?

Have you stopped drowning puppies yet?

[mhatrw]

45. Look, we can't do controlled vaccine schedule experiments on humans.

So the next best proxy for testing the entire vaccination schedule would obviously be another primate.

If these experiments were to show the currently recommended vaccine schedule is harmless other primates, this would provide good evidence that this schedule is also harmless to humans in the same manner that basic toxicological experiments on mice provide this exact same sort of evidence. Would it prove the recommended vaccine schedule is harmless to humans? No. But it would provide good evidence to believe as much until shown otherwise.

If these experiments were to show the currently recommended vaccine schedule is harmful other primates, this would provide good evidence that this schedule is also harmful to humans in the same manner that basic toxicological experiments on mice provide this exact same sort of evidence. Would it prove the recommended vaccine schedule is harmful to humans? No. But it would provide good evidence to believe as much until shown otherwise.

Are suggesting that controlled vaccine experiments on primates would be worthless, thus ruling out any controlled experimentation on the safety of the entire vaccination schedule?

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[trotsky]

48. So why won't you answer #1?

What do you think is the REASON why there hasn't been the study you think needs to be done?

[mhatrw]

49. Who is going to fund this research? Experiments require funding.

It's a lose-lose proposition for vaccine manufacturers.

The CDC has already made up its mind about vaccine safety.

The NIH is in the business of developing new vaccines, not researching the safety of the entire schedule of already recommended vaccines.

[trotsky]

50. Yes, and...?

[mhatrw]

51. and bump

[trotsky]

52. You are making quite the serious accusations.

You're saying that the CDC doesn't care if vaccines are unsafe.

You're saying that the NIH doesn't care if vaccines are unsafe.

Do you realize the number of people at various levels of government, industry, AND education that would have to be cooperating - without a SINGLE individual developing a conscience and blowing the whistle - for the above to be true?

I imagine you must have ROCK SOLID evidence of this conspiracy of epic proportions - could you please provide it?

[mhatrw]

53. LOL. Read a history book sometime.

Was lead paint a "conspiracy of epic proportions"?

Was asbestos a "conspiracy of epic proportions"?

Was vermiculite a "conspiracy of epic proportions"?

[trotsky]

54. LOL. Check out the definition of "red herring" sometime.

"They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." -- Carl Sagan

If you don't see how those examples simply don't apply to vaccines, I'm sorry, but you are beyond reach.

[LeftishBrit]

55. And even if this conspiracy were happening...

what about all the other countries of the world that do NOT have the CDC or NIH; which in many cases have single-payer healthcare; and which use similar vaccination schedules?

[laconicsax]

56. IT'S A GLOBAL CONSPIRACY TO POLLUTE OUR PRECIOUS BODILY FLUIDS!!!

:scared:
:yoiks:
:hide:

[trotsky]

57. This should come as absolutely NO surprise...

but the John Birch Society is anti-vaccine. Their statements generally mirror what our friend in her various threads continues to scream.

[mhatrw]

59. Thanks adding so much to the discussion! n/t

[trotsky]

58. They're all in on it!

Duh!

[Tumbulu]

39. The precautionary principle is such a modern advanced idea

it seems. Why, why are all inventions innocent until proven guilty?

Reading the arguments presented above one is left speechless. Absolutely someone should have conducted some sort of safety study before recommending so many vaccines for the very young.

It is this very issue that turns people against life saving vaccines altogether, at least as far as I have observed. And it as ridiculous as it is counterproductive.

Vaccines are one of most important public health tools and to ignore real concerns like the timing of them or the effect of multiple doses serves no one. The studies should have been done before, but better late than never.