What kind of safety studies are being done, and how often?

Vaccines are a commercial pharmaceutical product. All pharmaceuticals carry two risks; the risk of harm, and the risk of failure.

 Which is worse?

I suppose that the answer will vary depending on who you ask. The gold standard of testing, double-blind, placebo studies conducted over many years, seems to not have been done. I found information stating this would be unethical, and withholding vaccines from children in the interest of this study would put them at unnecessary risk. I agree. I'm not sure most parents would be comfortable not knowing if they had received the vaccine or the placebo. It would affect the way they travel or handle early symptoms.
So what are they doing, and how often?

The CDC, FDA and Pharmaceutical companies tend to conduct their own studies. Is this a conflict of interest, or a trusted source? I'm on the fence.
The Vaccine manufacturers threatened to pull out from vaccine production unless the government protected them from liability.  You can find a copy of the 1986 law here.
I came across this related court document, which I found to be pretty compelling. The Health and Human Services haven't filed a single vaccine safety study with the government since it was mandated in 1986. Keep in mind this doesn't mean they never did one, but it is unfortunate they failed to report even a single one.

Seatbelt companies have legal liability. Why not the people who make vaccines? People who win court cases through the correct channels can win settlements, but it is funded via taxes paid on every vaccine sold, not by the company producing the product.

Credibility should be of the utmost importance to the federal government, but more and more corruption passes for real concern every day. In fact, CDC director Robert Redfield MD has been accused of scientific misconduct for selecting data in favor of the AIDS vaccine he was helping develop in the early nineties. Is the concern for his honestly regarding vaccine safety data valid? Maybe not, but it truly influences his credibility to the public. It certainly is controversial.

Parents who claim vaccine studies are not up to snuff seem to say one of several things:

• Too many chemicals in vaccines ( excipients and adjuvants)
• No tests for carcinogenic or mutagenic properties (I found statements to the contrary)
• Conflict of interest with organizations doing their own studies (This is true)
• objectionable or immoral ingredients (unfortunately, true. pork, bovine, and human DNA)
• Possibility of heavy metal poisoning (I did find studies on PMID to support this)
• some vaccines are untested on populations they are recommended for* (see below)

This study tells us aluminum is a neurotoxin that isn't sufficiently researched. Aluminum is a popular adjuvant in vaccines. Injection of something has the potential to go to the brain, whereas ingesting it is processed by our body filters, Liver, gall bladder, spleen... They've removed Thimerisol (mercury) from almost all vaccines, but it is still in a couple.

wait..

Aluminum and Mercury are in some vaccines?

I hope that's not happening on even the most microscopic of levels!

There is so much information out there. I could literally argue both sides with credible sources and find good information and statistics to support both sides.

I think we should offer vaccines with honesty. Yes, there is a risk, but they are also a significant advance in medical science. Are they sufficiently studied? No. The science is never settled.


*it is true that they use "post-market" data to assess the safety of some vaccines because it would be unethical to have studies involving those demographics, such as pregnant women. This is unnerving because the DTAP recommended to all pregnant women is used to collect data this way.




Human and Experimental Toxicology, 31(10) 1012–1021, DOI: 10.1177/0960327112440111,