|Posted on November 5, 2017 at 10:55 AM|
The absence of an adequately designed vaccinated versus unvaccinated study, which many have argued to be the ideal for assessing causality, led to a bill in Congress which sought to remedy this situation. Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) introduced HR 2832, the Comprehensive Comparative Study of Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Populations Act of 2007. It never became law. She reintroduced the bill in 2009. To date, the forces of political influence have not prevailed to support the passage of this proposed legislation.
This is where misunderstandings about what epidemiological studies can and can't do become crucial. The accepted position, promoted by the CDC, is that a study of vaccinated versus unvaccinated individuals can't happen because it would need to be an RCT. Of course, it wouldn't. What is needed is a well-designed prospective cohort study; there are no negative ethical implications of this type of study whatsoever. This does not preclude the importance of clinical studies, which are also of crucial importance, but a well-designed population study that identifies accurately defined exposure groups and compares their clinical and biomedical presentations would be extremely informative. No exposure manipulation is required, so there are no ethical issues to address in that regard. So why are these studies not being carried out?
Carol Stott (PhD, MSc [Epidemiology], CSci, CPsychol), and Andrew Wakefield (MB, BS, FRCS, FRCPath)
[The following are my comments, not from the book]:
RCT = Randomized Control Trial. A typical RCT has two groups: one receiving the treatment being studied, and the other group receiving a placebo. The individuals are randomly assigned to the groups to avoid selection bias. Although RCTs are widely considered the gold standard in clinical trials, CDC objects to their use in the case of vaccines. Because, they claim, it would be unethical to withhold vaccines from anyone.
But that isn't the real reason they refuse to allow the type of vaccine studies proposed by Ms Maloney. There are plenty of people who opt out (or want to) of the mandatory vaccination regime who would probably be willing to be part of the no-vaccine group. It wouldn't technically be an RCT, because the no-vaccine group would not be randomly chosen and they would not receive a placebo, but the basic principle would be the same. The real reason CDC/NIH reject this type of study for vaccines is that the CDC/NIH people are unwilling to risk an outcome that contradicts their nazi-like control over the mandatory vaccination process.
Categories: Vax Facts