There must be more transparency and much more rigor in testing and approving vaccines. The CDC has devolved into the enforcement arm and drug dealer of Big Pharma to the detriment of Americans’ health and well-being.
They need to fire the entire management of the CDC and start over.
It is distressing that this is being rendered as “You believe in vaccines, or you don’t”.
I’ve practiced Infectious Diseases medicine since 1979. I have extensive experience with all types of immunotherapy, including vaccines.
Saying “I believe in vaccines” is EXACTLY like saying, “I believe in pills”.
Some vaccines are very important for child health. Obviously, we don’t know (yet) the long-term effects of NOT getting polio, measles, mumps, rubella as the population ages, but that’s not a serious argument against prevention, in my opinion (>95% of polio infections don’t cause paralysis, but the virus has high epidemic potential, and 5% of the non-immune population is a lot of paralysis).
But the vaccine paradigm changed in the 1990s and continues to change today. One flu shot in 1980 helped prevent flu in 1980. Do 45 annual flu shots since 1980 have any interesting, important cumulative effects? Who knows? More important, who is looking? And are they looking in the right place?
“Lifestyle” vaccines like hepatitis B and HPV seem to do what they are supposed to do, but so does avoiding risky behavior. It’s technically true, in a nursery full of babies, that we “just can’t tell” who is going to be a drug addict. It’s technically true that among girls in kindergarten, we don’t know who will be promiscuous. But it seems right that requiring these types of vaccine should involve parental consent.
Nobody who knows anything about vaccinology should be “Pro” or “anti” any therapy JUST BECAUSE IT’S A VACCINE. It’s like pills - some do good, some don’t work, some cause harm. Some work for some people and not others.
Mr mm just had a bone density scan done.
He had osteoporosis several years ago and tried Fosamax and hated the stuff so went off it.
Since then through diet, exercise, and supplemental Vitamin D he has completely reversed it. He last scan, this month, shows normal bone density.
I still wonder why virologist, Dr. Timothy Cunningham, suddenly stomped off the CDC complex in Atlanta still in his lab coat only to be found “drowned” in the nearby river while looking for pretty rocks.
Not to worry if you’ve missed a few jabs, they’ll be putting it in our food without our knowledge or consent. Heck, it’s probably already in it. I didn’t give Billy Boy consent to put his Apeel on my produce with and it can’t be washed off.
The CDC is involved with infectious disease research. This includes the development of the vaccine schedules, but not the research and development (R&D) aspects of vaccine development. The FDA, not the CDC, oversees the drug development process and makes the final decisions on whether a drug is approved for patient use or not. Yes, vaccines are a class of drug.
There actually is a lot of transparency regarding drug R&D. Prior to clinical testing, the drugs are described in publications in medical/scientific journals along with the results of the early testing in vitro, in cells, and in animals. The database to find articles detailing medical research is located at www.pubmed.gov. When the FDA allows the drug to advance to clinical testing, most researchers register their clinical trials at www.clinicaltrials.gov. They post the trial design, the method of soliciting volunteers for the trial, and often the preliminary results of the trials. Clinical Trials is a searchable website, so you can search for trials on any drug you want there, with a lot of search parameters to narrow down the search. And then, if you want to see the FDA's considerations concerning the approval of any specific drug, they maintain a website where you can access the decision papers along with the research data that led them to the decision. The website is www.fda.gov, but I'm not making that a link since you find the drug-specific pages more easily by doing an internet search, for example, for "pfizer Covid vaccine fda approval."
As far as rigor goes, I like to tell this story: when I oversaw a division of about 100 scientists, lab techs, students, and interns, we had one drug that we were particularly interested in advancing to clinical trials. But prior to human trials, it is necessary to test in animals. So the team responsible for that drug's development gave it to rabbits. One rabbit died. The FDA told us to immediately stop further testing on that drug until we could answer to their satisfaction why that rabbit died. We had to be able to demonstrate that the reason the rabbit died was because of a quirk of rabbit physiology that does not exist in humans. It took about six months to do that investigation and demonstrate to the FDA that humans would not die if given that drug. As I always like to point out, if the FDA is that concerned over a *rabbit* death, then how much more concerned are they about human health?
The issue is not that there is no transparency or rigor for testing and approving vaccines. The issue is that this is all highly technical data which most people do not know how to look up and do not have the specialized education needed to understand it.