Problem with Vaccine

Any parent who's not aware of vaccine and its politics would do well to do due diligence. There is no proof that immunization really really works. [I'll update this if someone can prove otherwise.]

Facts are (in the US):
  1. Drug makers are legally exempt from being sued. [Someone at Vox Day pointed out that abortion industry is the only other exempt one.]
  2. No controlled, long term (multi-decade), double blind tests have been done with vaccine. For deadly diseases it would be unethical to do so since those with placebo exposed to the disease would be supposedly sentenced to die. The only exemption would probably be in countries like Nazi Germany, USSR and Communist China [only 1 out of 3 exists today -- hmm....].
  3. No exact, scientific information is available on how effective it is. Booster shots are recommended but the frequency is arbitrary. [tetanus shot is a good example: some hospitals say every 5 years while others 10 years -- what kind of science is that?]
  4. Immunization is no guarantee that you won't catch the disease: for example, the recent mumps outbreak in Iowa, of those 245 with mumps, 80% of them had at least one shot of vaccine. [Can you get a refund from the drug makers? Probably not.] Flu vaccine is even more voodoo, since they change the formula every year: if you get sick they will claim that they didn't get the right mix for this year (you got the flu that's too new or not prevalent enough to be in the mix), even if it doesn't work at all. There is no way can you prove that flu vaccine didn't work for you. [Associating vaccine with voodoo may be insulting voodoo so I may edit this in the future.]
  5. Research is done with drug makers' money. [Last time I looked was 10+ years ago, so any updates would be appreciated.] Either directly funded by drug makers or the researcher(s) are on the board of directors and/or own stocks (directly or indirectly) of drug makers. How biased can the research be? [Even with government only money, it is highly suspicious since government has exempt the drug makers in the first place.]
  6. Drug makers are only interested in protecting themselves. If you read the proscribing information of a vaccine (see for example Daptacel), the warning section is an eye opener: they list the possible side effects but not any hard numbers on the risks of each one. The list is there to protect the drug makers, not how we parents can protect our children. Until they put the hard numbers in easy to understand format, the drug makers are only in CYA-mode.
  7. Parents who sincerely believe that their child was damaged by vaccine is put between a rock and a hard place. Drug makers can't be sued and the damage payout requirements are onerous. And any damage is not accorded a criminal investigation: no one will take the time to look into the claims unless one is rich enough to hire their own [medical] investigators.
For us, we didn't think much about our oldest son getting immunized and went with the program (except Hepatitis B since you don't normally get it on casual contact -- it is normally sexually transmitted, no something a baby will do other than getting it from mothers with Hep B). And even when he got a fever after one of the set of shots (in the first 1 or 2) we weren't worried, but when our doctor asked next time and we mentioned it, he reprimanded us for not reporting the fever right away. That's when we started getting worried and researching about vaccine and started reading about all kinds of problems that people went through, and how little tests (esp. the long term kind) and true double blind tests are not being done. Since this was before the web (early 90's), not a whole lot of info was out there and had to dig around alot. Fortunately, we were in San Jose so the public libraries had some anti-vaccine books. Which is how I got involved into supporting NVIC.

More about research: I'd prefer to see multi-generational studies since natural immunity is known to be passed from mother to child via breast feeding. What does it mean if vaccines are passed on to a baby (even if it is ineffective). Also the studies better be done across multi-culture and multi-race, just to make sure there is no other external effects (food, environment, genes, etc.) affecting the vaccine under test. Daptacel info has studies from Sweden and Canada but they are both short term and probably not racially diverse.

[I'm looking forward to hearing of any corrections and, if any, additions to my objections. (grin) ]