But there weren’t any double blind controlled studies.
And I know 2 people who actually GOT polio (and not mild cases either) from the vaccine (live virus one). One spent time in an iron lung and the other had to relearn how to walk.
“I know 2 people who actually GOT polio (and not mild cases either) from the vaccine “
Then we are in agreement. My point was, unlike the original post which was suggesting it is evil for the government to require proof of safety, that these things can be quite dangerous, and safety is important. Unfortunately, the short term studies done are often inadequate to determine safety. Which is even more in opposition to the original post.
There is a small risk from developing a polio-like disease from the vaccine. In areas where polio is endemic, that risk is judged acceptable, since the live attenuated vaccine gives stronger immunity than the killed vaccine, thus is more likely to stamp out a polio outbreak or epidemic. When polio is eradicated from an area, the purpose of a vaccine is to prevent reintroduction, not stamp out an outbreak, so the risk changes and the killed vaccine is used, even though it induces weaker immunity. Combination vaccine regimens have been tried, too, using the killed and then the attenuated to induce strong immunity and avoid the small chance of vaccine-induced polio.
Polio vaccines studies are still on-going, btw. A search for "polio vaccine" just now on PubMed returned over 7,000 articles.
It is because of weak testing standards in the past that allowed unsafe drugs to be approved that we now have the multi-phase clinical trial process. We test now because, in the past, anyone could sell anything claiming it to be a cure, and many people were injured or died from those snake oils. Where the testing process has proven inadequate, the procedures and regulations have been revised to address the inadequacies.