Meningitis vaccine

She's not actually talking about an STD, nor something as harmless as the chicken pox. She's talking about Meningitis, which according to her article can be deadly to babies. And btw... the STD vaccine, I assume you're talking about the HPV vaccine? Is given to 9-26 year old girls and women, NOT babies, which is also a completely different story.

I agree we have a great deal of unnecessary vaccination in this country (Chicken Pox for example, I think is RIDICULOUS). I would also be a little leery of giving a two month old a vaccine. And yes, the drug companies are mostly concerned with making money. But there are still polio survivors around who I think would argue with the idea that all vaccines are unnecessary. Also, I don't think it's fair to say that the studies disproving a link between vaccines and autism are funded by drug companies. The one Roger reported on the other day for example: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/08/MNF7UAQI1.DTL doesn't seem to have been. I think an awful lot of the funding for autism research comes from families with autistic children (particularly tech job families who tend to be on the wealthier side and are also apparently more likely to have autistic children). I'm not implying that the studies are coming from this funding source either, but it seems likely that some of that money at least is going to looking for the cause. Do you have any examples of vaccine/autism studies that have been funded by drug companies? That's not accusatory btw... I'm wondering.

I'm not arguing with your experience or decisions, just some of your points. I wish you and your children the best of luck.

I retract my STD comments... I think you were actually referring to Hepatitis? Still, not what Jennifer is talking about.

I think people need to delve more deeply into the conflict of interests and funding that runs rampant in the pharmaceutical industry and affects how those scientific studies are conducted... some reading:

(it will be across two posts because there is more than 3 links)

1) A professor's perspective: http://www.todaysseniorsnetwork.com/stop_dr__lapdogs.htm

Professor: Doctors must not be lapdogs to drug firms

“If we remain dependent on pharmaceutical companies for sponsoring continuing medical education, then these courses will remain under the control of the drug industry. This control is not contractual, but it is enforced through psychological manipulation.”

2) FDA: http://www.laleva.org/eng/2004/09/fda_corruption_fda_resisting_antidepressant_probelawmakers.html

FDA Resisting Antidepressant Probe-Lawmakers (though not specifically targeting vaccines, it still shows the uncooperative manner of "protecing the public health".

2a) http://www.newstarget.com/021146.html

FDA may face serious reforms in 2007 under Democratic majority

Excerpts: 1) Senator Kennedy added, "There is also growing evidence that the dedicated professionals at the FDA have been pressured to trim their scientific views to the prevailing political winds. These are symptoms of a serious illness, and we should act without delay to provide the cure." 2) An independent science-based health advisors group called the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies stated last week in initial hearings that the FDA falls short on its drug safety mission due to chronic underfunding, revolving-door leadership, and a dysfunctional culture that ignores advice from staffers about drug safety.

And considering David Graham (Former FDA research scientist) has already testified to Congress as a whistle-blower that the FDA is incapable of stopping another Vioxx scandal.

TBC...

2b) FDA censorship, suppression of its own scientists is routine, survey reveals

http://www.newstarget.com/005032.html

The survey involved 846 FDA scientists with a near-50% participation rate. Of those who responded, 66% said they lacked confidence in the agency's ability to "adequately monitor the safety of prescription drugs once they are on the market." That's two-thirds of the scientists. This is interesting because Dr. David Graham, who is the most outspoken FDA scientist, had been singled out by the FDA as being a loose cannon, a sort of rogue scientist whose views were not widely accepted. But, as we see from the study, the vast majority of scientists within the agency heartily agree with Dr. David Graham.

3) NIH: Conflict-of-Interest Inquiry May Be Reopening at NIH; http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/30/AR2007033000310.html

Excerpts:

Federal investigators are reviewing the activities of 103 scientists who may have had improper links to pharmaceutical companies while they were employed at the National Institutes of Health, apparently resurrecting a conflict-of-interest inquiry that many in the agency thought was closed.