What is going on at CDER? My part of the industry is more affected by CBER (immunotherapy and oncology...and wow, an antivax biotech exec opthamologist? Could it actually get worse than Prasad?), but I'm concerned about that vacancy.
Why do you object to revising the scope of the ACIP committee to include: “cumulative exposure to vaccine components,” a re-analysis of safety and efficacy, and the evaluation of “risk and benefits of tailoring immunization practices.”? What is the concern you have with looking at cumulative exposure to vaccines components? Or re-analyzing the safety as well as the risks and benefits after doing that analysis?
These things are already done. As a scientist who actually knows how drug development and safety and efficacy testing work, my problem with it is people who clearly don't understand a thing seeking control over others for their own warped, ignorant ideologies and wellness industry grifting. And personally, I've had to face the terror of my infant possibly not getting her scheduled vaccines, and having a very real and unwelcome delay this past year, in the midst of what's still a pandemic illness and nearby measles cluster. Hope that helps you to understand.
A solid analysis of the cumulative exposure to vaccine components has NOT been done. If you disagree, I would invite you to post links to the various studies that would support that belief.
Even so, assuming you are correct, what is the issue with increasing the scope of the ACIP committee to include such analysis?
Hello- it is clear you are not approaching this discussion in good faith. For those that are here are some great sources that look at the cumulative exposure question. Conclusion: the vaccine schedule is safe and effective.
• Institute of Medicine (2013), "The Childhood Immunization Schedule and Safety: Stakeholder Concerns, Scientific Evidence, and Future Studies" — the consensus review of exactly this question. Full text: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK206938/
• Glanz et al., JAMA 2018 — cumulative vaccine antigen exposure through 23 months and risk of non-vaccine-targeted infections; no increased risk. Full text: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5885913/
• Mitkus et al., Vaccine 2011 — pharmacokinetic modeling of aluminum from vaccines vs. dietary intake; vaccine-derived aluminum stays well below toxicity thresholds across the full schedule. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22001122/
Thanks. It's good to know. But I still can see all the replies to this post. It says there are 10, but I only see 5 and I can't see the ones I was notified about previously. Only yours.
Like any subject area, President Bone Spurs only policies are simply whimsical or non existent!!!me, I’m still figuring out how to get all the vaccines I need to protect myself.
But Erica Schwarz is competent!?! What's going on?
What is going on at CDER? My part of the industry is more affected by CBER (immunotherapy and oncology...and wow, an antivax biotech exec opthamologist? Could it actually get worse than Prasad?), but I'm concerned about that vacancy.
Why do you object to revising the scope of the ACIP committee to include: “cumulative exposure to vaccine components,” a re-analysis of safety and efficacy, and the evaluation of “risk and benefits of tailoring immunization practices.”? What is the concern you have with looking at cumulative exposure to vaccines components? Or re-analyzing the safety as well as the risks and benefits after doing that analysis?
These things are already done. As a scientist who actually knows how drug development and safety and efficacy testing work, my problem with it is people who clearly don't understand a thing seeking control over others for their own warped, ignorant ideologies and wellness industry grifting. And personally, I've had to face the terror of my infant possibly not getting her scheduled vaccines, and having a very real and unwelcome delay this past year, in the midst of what's still a pandemic illness and nearby measles cluster. Hope that helps you to understand.
A solid analysis of the cumulative exposure to vaccine components has NOT been done. If you disagree, I would invite you to post links to the various studies that would support that belief.
Even so, assuming you are correct, what is the issue with increasing the scope of the ACIP committee to include such analysis?
I don't engage with sea lions and antivaxers. If you are in hood faith, you can do the work yourself. If you aren't, you're simply shameless. Bye.
Hello- it is clear you are not approaching this discussion in good faith. For those that are here are some great sources that look at the cumulative exposure question. Conclusion: the vaccine schedule is safe and effective.
• Institute of Medicine (2013), "The Childhood Immunization Schedule and Safety: Stakeholder Concerns, Scientific Evidence, and Future Studies" — the consensus review of exactly this question. Full text: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK206938/
• DeStefano et al., J Pediatr 2013 — cumulative antigen exposure in the first 2 years and autism risk; no association. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23545349/
• Glanz et al., JAMA 2018 — cumulative vaccine antigen exposure through 23 months and risk of non-vaccine-targeted infections; no increased risk. Full text: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5885913/
• Mitkus et al., Vaccine 2011 — pharmacokinetic modeling of aluminum from vaccines vs. dietary intake; vaccine-derived aluminum stays well below toxicity thresholds across the full schedule. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22001122/
Testing because I can't read the replies to this comment.
Hello! I think your comments are going through just fine!
Thanks. It's good to know. But I still can see all the replies to this post. It says there are 10, but I only see 5 and I can't see the ones I was notified about previously. Only yours.
Like any subject area, President Bone Spurs only policies are simply whimsical or non existent!!!me, I’m still figuring out how to get all the vaccines I need to protect myself.