Vaccination question - are vaccinations not tested for ill effects?

Hello everyone - I've been a long time lurker here, but today I ran into a big enough question that I decided to join so that I could ask. I know the great minds found here will set me on a good path to seek the answer I am looking for. I realize there has been a huge amount of topics on vaccination and that it's been talked to death about, but it hasn't been easy to find answers to this very specific point. One reason I'm concerned is because I have a young one, and I want to be as educated as possible about the choices I am making for them. So far I haven't believed vaccines to be the monster some paint them to be, and do not believe they are linked to autism. That being said, here is something that concerns me..

fda vaccine link

Here's a link to an approved vaccine, right on the fda website. Under "product information" you will see a link to a "package insert" pdf. My question is about section 13.1

335 13 NON-CLINICAL TOXICOLOGY
336 13.1 Carcinogenesis, Mutagenesis, Impairment of Fertility
337 DAPTACEL has not been evaluated for carcinogenic or mutagenic potential or impairment of
338 fertility.


What does this mean, exactly? Does this literally mean that vaccines don't have to be tested for safety, or am I missing context?

Thank you, in advanced, for your replies.

Just Read this

It answers your question I think.

IMHO, there is no way they can test these drugs the way they need to. We still do not know the long term affects of most of the new drugs on the market. I guess that's why the warning labels are so long. They try to cover all of the "what ifs".
Quad.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

I will read that when I have time, thank you. A quick scan doesn't tell me exactly what I need to know, but once I have time to read 40 pages I will do so.

a reply to: JustAnotherSkeptic

Mandrake!



Vaccines are polluting our bodily fluids!

Yes they are tested.

No, vaccinations are not tested on babies. It is illegal in the united states to test anything on babies.
The doctors find out what an adult can handle and then give babies a small % of that.

I trust vaccines, I trust doctors . I do not like how vaccine amounts are decided upon when it comes to babies.

originally posted by: JustAnotherSkeptic
What does this mean, exactly?

Re-train as a bio / chemists / pharma-type. Then you will be able understand.

Succinctly, modern medicines cannot be tested against everything. They are complex and the body is complex. The scale of likelihood is the thing that helps focus testing.

a reply to: paraphi

So wouldn't you say that means something has been evaluated, though? If it's been tested in the ways it can be - wouldn't there at least be a clue of knowing whether or not these things are say carcinogens?

a reply to: JustAnotherSkeptic

I'm sure there is a 97% consensus among peer reviewed doctors that vaccines are safe.

a reply to: JustAnotherSkeptic

I think that a better question would be: How thoroughly are they tested for short-term and long-term effects before being approved for (and almost forced) the general population?

In my research on the topic, which has been admittedly light, there isn't much, especially concerning long-term issues.

And even then, predicting how a vaccine will personally affect you (not 'the average person') is nearly impossible. But, hey, they're more than happy to take your money, shoot you up, and send you on your way.

Sure, odds are that a vaccine will do what it's meant to do will little-to-no side effects, but then again, odds are for most of the things that they want you and your kids vaccinated against, they will have little-to-no lasting side effects either.

So, basically, I weigh it like this: Put unknowns (yes, they list ingredients, but how accurate is that list?) into my body "just in case" I contract a relatively harmless disease, or focus on staying as healthy as possible and let my body react to life's illnesses naturally? Of course, there are some vaccines worth getting, but most are relatively pointless, IMO. I prefer the immunities and strengthening of the immune system provided by natural contraction and fighting of illnesses versus "immunities" that don't last and require booster after booster, lining the pockets of the Big Pharma companies.

But that's the beauty of America...we still generally have the ability to choose.

Generally.

You can test on 100 million people. That doesn’t mean the 100 million and one person won’t have a reaction. All of us are different in our biology and there is no way to test the 7 billion folks in the world and make a vaccine for each to 100% insure no reaction. Given the numbers they use, I am confident in science, vaccine testing, and distribution (US facilities). I have probably received well over hundreds of vaccines in my lifetime, to include the 6 round anthax battery and both the old and new smallpox, Never, not once, did I have a reaction.

My perspective is that I will use every defense mechanism to survive (which was especially true while deployable in the military). To me, I would rather risk having a reaction to a vaccination than contracting the disease it’s meant to prevent. This has become even more critical with the potential for bio weapons or infected (intentionally or otherwise) world travellers...

a reply to: JustAnotherSkeptic


You bring up some great points JAS

I too worry about the safety and efficacy of many vaccines being pushed. Certain immunizations may be lifesaving, but there is always a risk when taking any medication. People in general take far too much medication. So overmedicating people for non-issues or minor issues is a huge concern to me.

Conveniently, they have not been tested for anything that they consider not pertinent.

There has been testing on them though, the fertility one can be a problem, also some pregnant women should not get a flu shot, there is some evidence that in certain conditions it can cause a miscarriage.

It means just what it says it means--the product has not been evaluated.

When the product is used on the public, the public becomes guinea pigs, which is more or less the case with all drugs.

That's why when we are bombarded with ads for all these different drugs on Month One, by about Month 24 or less we are bombarded with ads from lawyers seeking users for class action law suits.

a reply to: JustAnotherSkeptic

Yes they are tested. You get informed of the side effects which are possible WHEN you take them. Buyer beware etc

originally posted by: JustAnotherSkeptic
Hello everyone - I've been a long time lurker here, but today I ran into a big enough question that I decided to join so that I could ask. I know the great minds found here will set me on a good path to seek the answer I am looking for. I realize there has been a huge amount of topics on vaccination and that it's been talked to death about, but it hasn't been easy to find answers to this very specific point. One reason I'm concerned is because I have a young one, and I want to be as educated as possible about the choices I am making for them. So far I haven't believed vaccines to be the monster some paint them to be, and do not believe they are linked to autism. That being said, here is something that concerns me..

fda vaccine link

Here's a link to an approved vaccine, right on the fda website. Under "product information" you will see a link to a "package insert" pdf. My question is about section 13.1

335 13 NON-CLINICAL TOXICOLOGY
336 13.1 Carcinogenesis, Mutagenesis, Impairment of Fertility
337 DAPTACEL has not been evaluated for carcinogenic or mutagenic potential or impairment of
338 fertility.


What does this mean, exactly? Does this literally mean that vaccines don't have to be tested for safety, or am I missing context?

Thank you, in advanced, for your replies.

Vaccines have apparently not been tested for the effect of changing the taste of orange juice, like after using toothpaste.

The reason for this, and which is the same reason as the issue in your OP.
There has to be some concrete scientific evidence suggesting a link otherwise where do you stop testing (or even start for that matter)?

Like all therapeutic drugs, vaccines are subject to several stages of trial prior to release and the vast majority of them don't even make it past stage 1 (there are generally 4 stages).
If a vaccine gets through the first 3 stages and is released it is then subjected to post-licensure monitoring (vaccine safety datalink, VAERS etc) and/or phase IV trials which continually monitor the safety and efficacy of the vaccines.
If there is suspicion that a vaccine is causing any adverse effects, however small, this is then studied in depth to find out whether it is the vaccine or something else.
If it's the vaccine then it will be recalled and withdrawn as happened in the case of Rotashield, a vaccine protecting against rotavirus.
If it's not the vaccine, anti-vaxxers will still think it is and use as much misinformation and lies as possible to bolster their mistaken belief system.

Vaccines because of their very nature (i.e. a medicine generally given to healthy people) are THE most studied medicines on the planet.

originally posted by: Quadrivium

IMHO, there is no way they can test these drugs the way they need to. We still do not know the long term affects of most of the new drugs on the market.

Such as? Please elaborate so we can discuss those new drugs you mentioned. Most vaccines have been used for decades.

I guess that's why the warning labels are so long. They try to cover all of the "what ifs".
Quad.

Vaccine inserts have lists of contraindications and possible side effects, in detail and as long as every insert for every type of medication, even aspirin. In fact I have never seen a boxed warning on a vaccine insert, like I have seen with many other drugs.

a reply to: rickymouse

>Conveniently, they have not been tested for anything that they consider not pertinent.

Such as...?

If you are interested in vaccines and their effects on humans, you should simply go to Youtube, make a query like "Dr Russell Blaylock"+"vaccines", and then spend the day listening to what Dr Blaylock has to say about them.

He is the only person I've run across who has a comprehensive theory for vaccine-induced auto-immune diseases like autism spectrum disorder. And before you have your child vaccinated, do this.

Blaylock is the foremost authority on vaccines' effects on the human brain and immune systems. And if you watch only one of his videos you will never have your child vaccinated a gain. He is a retired, board-certified brain surgeon. He retired after 27 years and has devoted his work since then to research and speaking. He knows the brain. He knows vaccines. He knows what causes autism, and he knows how vaccines so negatively affect the human immune system, permanently, for life.

Also, Robert DeNiro and Robert Kennedy Jr are leading a war against vaccines. I know one of Kennedy's children ended up with autism following a vaccine.

I know someone whose child took a series of vaccines and shortly thereafter was diagnosed with Type 1 diabetes, which was not in his family. And this is a know result of vaccinations.

Anybody who takes a vaccine, other than possibly the rabies treatment, might want to have their head examined.

originally posted by: JustAnotherSkeptic
335 13 NON-CLINICAL TOXICOLOGY
336 13.1 Carcinogenesis, Mutagenesis, Impairment of Fertility
337 DAPTACEL has not been evaluated for carcinogenic or mutagenic potential or impairment of
338 fertility.


What does this mean, exactly? Does this literally mean that vaccines don't have to be tested for safety, or am I missing context?

What is means is that the finished/packaged vaccine itself has not been tested to see if it reliably causes cancer or impairs pregnancy. In the case of the latter, it's not easy to test. In the case of the former it would take a lot of lab animals to figure out.

However, this is the FDA we are talking about. They have a TON of restrictions for the materials used in vaccines. OSotC found the list of materials used in the product:

Each 0.5 ml dose of vaccine contains the following:
Active Ingredients:
10 μg Pertussis Toxoid (PT)
5μg Filamentous hemagglutinin (FHA)
5 μg Fimbriae 2 & 3 (FIM)
3 μg Pertactin (PRN)
15 LF Diphtheria toxoid
5 LF Tetanus toxoid
Adjuvant: 0.33 mg aluminum
Excipient: 0.6% 2-phenoxyethanol

The adjuvant and excipient both have specific chemical criteria that they must meet, and specific limits they cannot exceed in an FDA approved vaccine. The active ingredients that interact with the recipient must likewise meet strict criteria before they can be blended into the final product. The FDA also keeps track of complaints in the markeplace, and if enough people complain about a vaccine to meet a certain threshold it will trigger further investigation and possibly a special inspection of the manufacturer.

EDIT: I should have also mentioned that every vaccine, no matter its protection claim, is tested for the following criteria:

Sterility/Purity - no live infectious organisms
Safety - as in, does not cause adverse reactions in test animals
Potency/Efficacy - does it have as much if not more than the minimum active ingredients that were shown to be efficacious in clinical trials, and in some cases is it lower than a possible upper limit that could be deemed dangerous
Some other tests like - moisture content, identity, preservatives, etc.