Chris von Csefalvay, Head of epidemiology at CBRD (2014-present)
Short answer: NO.
I’ve spent more time arguing with anti-vaxxers than is strictly healthy for one’s mental health. The fact is, there already is an abundance of research on the safety of vaccines, and anyone who still doubts them will be no more convinced by study n+1 than they were by study n.
Studies are expensive. In medical research, the scarce commodity of research funding quite directly translates into life and death. A dollar spent on a study to prove what’s already been proven a million times is a dollar that will not go towards researching ALS, muscular dystrophy, AIDS, ebolaviruses, transverse myelitis, or the egregiously underfunded area of childhood cancers. For this reason, I refuse to apply for grants to research on vaccine efficacy. When someone has made up their mind that vaccines are unsafe in the face of the current abundance of evidence to the contrary, safe to say it won’t be that one study that’ll convince them. Or ten. Or a hundred.
In the end, there’s simple psychology here at play. When you refuse to believe something, you’ll always generate a reason for why you refuse to believe it, and no amount of studies or research will sway you.
To an extent, anti-vaxxers admit it. They either want studies that make no sense, such as the insistence on saline ‘placebos’, or are unethical, like prospective double-blind vaccinated vs unvaccinated studies. In the end it’s not about studies anymore — it’s about wanting a study to fit their views
Vaccines should be double blind tested, against saline, which means vaccinated versus unvaccinated. There are double blind tested vaccines, but they are not on the CDC list. Vaccines – An Attorney Viewpoint – Washington Politics
From Daniel Garcia:
Yes. Studies compare select health outcomes of highly vaccinated to other highly vaccinated children making it nearly impossible to determine what the cumulative effect of vaccines is and whether or not vulnerable sub-groups are at risk from vaccine injury.
No one would think that comparing the health of people smoking 9 cigarettes of a certain brand a day to people smoking 10 cigarettes of another brand a day would yield much useful information but for some reason when it comes to vaccines those studies are considered to be bulletproof.
When it comes to certain problems such as neurodevelopment there are only studies for 1 single vaccine but over 10 different vaccines are given to children. That means that for over 90% of the vaccine schedule there are no studies available. Neurodevelopmental problems have been studied more than any another possible effect that implies that for most possible problems there is little science available.
Before we can make the claim that vaccines are very safe we also would need very good science something that we don’t have.
From Chris von Csefalvay:
With all due respect, 1) I will not abide you extending the trolling of every single possible question that involves vaccines with your ambulance-chasing article, 2) you should take a class in elementary clinical trial ethics, then come back and explain why a saline (or ‘inert’) placebo is unethical. I welcome disagreement, but not disagreement based on an absolute and complete ignorance of principal doctrines of medical ethics, such as therapeutic equipoise. I’d also suggest you pay for your own advertising like other lawyers do, rather than contaminate the waters on a site intended to distribute information and insight, not your hastily copied link and stock text you paste under every question that has the word ‘vaccine’ somewhere in it. Whoever told you this is a good idea: fire them.
From Attorney Deal:
1) I am an officer of the court and a member of the Washington Bar in good standing. I do not troll. Telling the truth is not trolling. When people say false statements, giving full, unquestioning blessing of all the CDC vaccines, I speak up. You on the other hand harass with personal attacks. This is not proper debate. Your comments seem designed to stir up animosity instead of informing readers. For example, you accuse me of profiteering off my posts, referring to me of writing ambulance chasing articles. You have nothing substantive to say, so you make up arguments about ambulance chasing. I do not take vaccine cases. I am a real estate attorney and broker.
2) You do not understand what I said about double blind testing. Or maybe you do not understand double blind testing. A vaccine should be compared for safety and effectiveness with groups A and B. Group A receives vaccine X. Group B receives a shot of saline. This is the proper way to do it and any drug not tested in this way is illegal. None of the CDC childhood vaccines is double blind tested in this way. Group A receives the full vaccine X. Group B receives a different CDC approved vaccine. Or Group B receives a version of vaccine X which contains all the excipients but no antigens.
You mentioned equipoise but did not apply the rule correctly. It requires double blind testing against saline. It is necessary to administer mere saline to Group B. Once it is proven that the drug is safe and effective, the ethical thing to do is to give the drug to Group B also. The debate is to what level of certainty must the safety and effectiveness of the new drug be proven. Both the safety and effectiveness of the CDC vaccines are questionable, and so true double blind tests should be done.
The problem I see with those who support all CDC vaccines without question is that they are trapped in a maze and unable to find their way out.
Trapped in a Maze – Washington Politics
All of us change our minds about various beliefs, so maybe there is hope for these folks. But it is hard to give up a pet theory grounded only in blind faith. Mark Twain said it is easier to fool someone than to convince him that he has been fooled.
10 Things You Might Not Know About Vaccines – Washington Politics
Frank Bartlo, Property Inspector (2004-present)
I was under the impression the Nuremberg conventions that followed the concentration camp atrocities in World War II prohibited forcing medical treatments on people without their consent.
Vaccines can and do cause serious injuries, even deaths, and the manufacturers have no liability beyond a fund that throws a few pieces of silver at the victims or their families.
In 2016 alone, over 400 deaths and over 1000 permanent disabilities were reported among adverse events associated with vaccinations in the US, and even the CDC acknowledges that such injuries may be under-reported by a factor as great as 100. So the actual figures could be into tens of thousands of deaths and hundreds of thousands of permanent serious disabilities. I’ve read an article by an ER nurse who says he’s the only staff member of about 500 who reports ER visits that follow vaccinations, and that the doctors routinely report such incidents as “of unknown cause”. So evidently there’s an active cover-up among the “faithful”.
In any case, “anti-vax” sentiment didn’t just come out of thin air. I know a number of people who have experienced such adverse reactions. Probably about 1 in 50 among people I know have experienced a vaccine injury to a family member or their self. My own mother had serious heart issues nearly killed that developed soon after she got an extra-strength flu shot; to which for all we know the shot may have contributed. As far as I know none of these incidents were reported to the CDC.
So, I say absolutely not!
But what I really would like to see is much more thorough reporting and investigation of such injuries and the health conditions of those who have had such reactions, so we can better know who are at highest risk for such adverse reactions before it’s too late, so people can make more informed decisions.
James Robert Deal , Attorney & Broker
PO Box 2276 Lynnwood WA 98036
Law Office Line: 425-771-1110
Broker Line: 425-774-6611
Cell and Text Line: 425-670-1405
KW Everett Office Line: 425-212-2007
Cell phone real estate app: app.kw.com/KW2V4HP64/
Desktop real estate app: jamesrobertdeal.kw.com