The safety of vaccines: The pharmacovigilance L'elenco dei "danni da vaccino" che gli antivaccinisti presentano è lunghissimo, ma in realtà è puro terrore psicologico (volevo almeno per una volta usare una loro espressione che mi viene rivolta spesso) perché si tratta di eventi avversi raccolti in modo passivo con la vaccinovigilanza, come per esempio quello degli USA, il
Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System ( VAERS). Questi dati vengono frequentemente citati dagli oppositori alle vaccinazioni con l'intento di spaventare i genitori.
Nella pagina delle
domande frequenti del VAERS website reads:
are all adverse events reported to VAERS caused by vaccines ?
No. The VAERS receives reports of many adverse events that occur after vaccination. Some occur randomly following vaccination, while others may be caused by vaccines. Ad hoc studies can help determine if a vaccine really caused a particular adverse event . Just because event against happened after a person has been vaccinated , does not mean that the the vaccine caused . Other factors , as medical history the patient other medicines that were taken near the time of vaccination could be the cause . E ' important to remember that many adverse events reported to VAERS may not be been caused by vaccines .
Being a passive collection and uncontrolled, just a temporal relationship to end on this list, without proof of causation. The aim is to monitor the safety of vaccines. For example, if the experts noted that control the data that an event is reported more often than expected, knowing the frequency of this in the normal population or in vaccinated, this is interpreted as a signal to be explored. However, all cases of serious adverse events are investigated by the staff of the VAERS. You contact your physician, requires medical records and other information and carefully examine each of these events to see if there is a causal relationship to the vaccine or the particular batch used.
then used, as with the vaccinia regularly and shamelessly for many years, these data demonstrate the "dangerousness" of vaccines is extremely unfair.
Even the side effects that you can read the package inserts (i Bugiardini) vaccinovigilance derived from passive, and adverse events may be listed there without proof of causation, but only because they occurred after vaccination. They are placed in the package insert for legal reasons, not for medical reasons.
A similar thing happens with regard to breastfeeding. For legal reasons in almost all the medicines you read that breastfeeding is a contraindication. So if you only read the leaflet, or waiver to take the medicine or you decide to quit - without any real justification - to breastfeed. To find out if you can take a medicine while breastfeeding you should turn to other sources
and not just read the leaflet.
It 's interesting to note that sometimes the same people that give this right to counsel breastfeeding mothers, think that the list of adverse events written in the leaflets are all really caused by the vaccine.
So to know the side effects of a vaccine should not use the list written in the leaflet but talk to your doctor or medical clinics in the vaccination of ASL. But I have often heard and read by the skeptics that the medical clinics of ASL vaccine are "poorly informed" because they do not know that vaccines can cause (and there is listed a number of diseases taken from reports of vaccinovigilance).
This is not to say that the damage from the vaccine do not exist. There is nothing that is 100% secure and this naturally also applies to the vaccinations. The risk of a serious side effect is very low and is not very fair pay much attention to these risks completely ignoring the great benefits of vaccines.
would be like one when it comes to the bees, said that if they bite can kill a person allergic and are therefore a public danger, without considering
1) how often this happens and
2) that the bees are vital to our survival for their very important role in pollination
The passive collection of adverse events is designed to monitor the safety of vaccines on large numbers. Even the best studies that are made before the approval of a vaccine are able to identify very rare reactions but only those that occur more often. Only when you vaccinate millions of people you notice any of these risks of the vaccine, just because they are extremely rare. Then you have to weigh these risks with the risks of the disease that the vaccine prevents.
For example, if the X
disease against which the vaccine is a direct cause death per 1000 patients and
the first case of encephalitis vaccine vaccinated every 1,000,000 (which is the same frequency as in non-vaccinated, so we think now is not caused by the vaccine), the benefit of the vaccine is obvious. 1,000,000 cases of disease X cause - no vaccine - 1000 dead. Now just take the place of the letter "X"
the word "measles" .
So, to return to the adverse events that are collected with the vaccinovigilance, you might as well decide to collect and report all adverse events that occur
- a Friday, 17 (venerdìdiciassettevigilanza)
- after visiting his grandmother ; (visitadallanonnavigilanza)
- after a walk in the woods (passeggiatanelboscovigilanza)
- after a trip on the bus (viaggiosullautobusvigilanza)
etc.
The list of adverse events that were obtained with this collection would be very similar to that of vaccinovigilance (apart from those of lesser directly caused by vaccines such as fever, local pain etc,). If you used the same reasoning of vaccinia, suddenly would be very harmful to our health perfectly harmless activities such as visiting grandma, walking in the woods, eating chocolate, traveling on the bus etc. ..
Imagine a child whose symptoms began asthma two weeks after the visit by her grandmother. Of course no one would connect these two facts to say that since the first attack of asthma after paying a visit to her grandmother, this visit has caused, even if the first child was fine. Yet when it comes to vaccines, this reasoning is done. I can understand the parents, because it is the human search for a "guilty" and since the vast majority of children are vaccinated several times, chances are high that you will find this correlation.
But this reasoning is correct? Just something that really happens after another thing to have
proof of causation? Of course not, try for a causal relationship we want something else! Yet on this very banal error it is based around the anti-vaccine movement. The vaccinia use the data collected to "prove" that vaccines can cause hundreds of diseases, they say almost all those that exist.
Likewise, you could create such an anti-guided-by-grandmother. It 's simple: just do a collection of all events that happen from now until an unspecified date after visiting his grandmother. You could create an association, for example Co.mo.da.v.no. (Coordination world damaged by a visit from her grandmother), publish an online form that can be compiled by anyone and regularly update the list of events adverse. It should also publish the opinions of the people who wrote that he decided not to bring more children to visit his grandmother, to prevent serious damage. Offer letters kind of justification that can be personalized and sent to her grandmother. It 's absurd, but unfortunately with the vaccines exactly this is happening for many years, in spite of scientific evidence. But
reasons: it is likely that virtually all diseases disappear forever, accidentally starting the day on which it is expected the vaccine? Evidently the vaccinia think, since for them any adverse event that occurs from the time of vaccination on, is necessarily caused by the vaccine, and woe to contradict them!
The vaccines protect
instead "only" from infectious diseases against which they are direct and not cheap. All others continue to make their course as they had always done naturally and can also happen accidentally close to the date of vaccination (even a little earlier, not only soon after ...). Neither the vaccine nor the visits grandmother can least influence.
The anti-vaccine movement is dangerous because it is based on false and absurd statements very cleverly divert attention from the enormous benefits of vaccines in preventing some very dangerous diseases. In this way, unfortunately, more and more parents are convinced to leave their children unprotected. Germs are so continuously enough ground to multiply and to circulate, causing serious damage.
