Hazards to appraise: Do all reviewed studies contain the same variables, and are the systematic reviewers using the same analyses as the original studies.
The panel accepted the work from the 895-paged 2011 IOM report, which these authors say they “augmented their work with new studies and additional vaccines” (Maglione et al., 2014, pg. 8). Do you remember the 2011 IOM report? This report claimed a causal relationship was seen but not limited to brain inflammation relating to the MMR vaccine (IOM, 2011). The IOM also claimed that the more serious vaccine adverse events occurred in “children with weakened immune systems” (IOM, 2011). The same flawed epidemiology evidence that was published in last month’s systematic review (Taylor et al., 2014) is also included in the 2011 IOM report. Further, there is not a single epidemiological study that addresses Untied States of America demographics, vaccines or schedules in this IOM report, but this made up the bulk of this new systematic review by Maglione et al.
Excerpt from the IOM 2011 report…
However, for the majority of cases (135 vaccine-adverse event pairs), the evidence was inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship. Overall, the committee concludes that few health problems are caused by or clearly associated with vaccines (IOM, 2011).
Other exclusions; letters, editorials, individual case reports, animal studies, mechanistic/in vitro studies, conference abstracts, vaccine efficacy studies that did not report the presence or absence or AEs, and non-english-language studies (Maglione et al., 2014, pg. 46)
You can review all the excluded studies in the back of this document, and I was certainly amazed that the weight of data that showed vaccine harm. When looking at the observational and pharmaceutical clinical trials that made it in I am not surprised by this documents findings, which seem biased.
The actual studies reviewed can be appraised beginning on page 60. I was unable to validate if indeed the controlled clinical trials used true placebos. They claim they are vaccinated verse unvaccinated yet the actual research inclusion appraisal list does state that the unvaccinated group could have “routine vaccines” (Maglione et al, 2014, pg. 244).
- The change in strength of evidence regarding the positive association between the MMR vaccine and encephalopathy/encephalitis that was clearly relayed in the IOM report, yet Maglione et al changed that finding without any basis to “insufficient evidence”.
- If you look at the end of this document and note all the excluded articles you can quickly see that a LARGE AMOUNT of controlled experimental toxicology reports that prove vaccines harm were purposefully dropped because they were conducted on animals. As if one can conduct such studies that include cadaver examination on recently injected infants. The copious amount of these positive associative studies could be a list to actually prove causation based upon true placebo controlled experimental toxicology.
- The final take away that I have is the media reports, which say this study proves vaccines are safe and effective, yet the study itself lists serious harms. I assume they mean that the risks are so low that the vaccines are safe, but what is that based off of, observational studies that cannot refute or prove causation, and manufactures limited clinical trail data in human trials, which are also largely observational.