"Undone science" refers to areas of research that are identified as important by citizen groups but remain unfunded and uninvestigated due to potential conflicts with the interests of powerful stakeholders. This phenomenon is particularly evident in fields where findings could challenge the prevailing interests of influential entities such as pharmaceutical companies and government health agencies. One of the most contentious areas of undone science is vaccine research, especially regarding the investigation of potential adverse events associated with vaccines.
The following is just a short list of “undone science” when it comes to vaccine research.
The Role of VAERS in Vaccine Safety Monitoring
The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is a critical tool for monitoring the safety of vaccines in the United States. It allows for the reporting of any adverse events that occur after vaccination, providing data that can be analyzed to identify potential safety concerns. However, VAERS has significant limitations. Reporting to VAERS is voluntary, and healthcare providers are not compensated for submitting reports. Many doctors may also be hesitant to report adverse events, often attributing them to coincidence rather than potential vaccine-related causes. This results in considerable underreporting, with estimates suggesting that only one in ten, or even one in a hundred, adverse events are reported.
Improving VAERS Reporting
Improving the rate and quality of VAERS reporting could provide a more accurate picture of vaccine safety. A study proposed methods to enhance reporting accuracy and completeness, but the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the U.S. body responsible for vaccination recommendations, disengaged from the researchers without providing a clear reason. This decision has fueled concerns about the thoroughness and transparency of vaccine safety monitoring.
Biases in Epidemiological Studies
Critics argue that epidemiological studies on vaccine safety are often designed to show no correlation between vaccines and adverse events. These studies can be biased in various ways, including:
Using defective research methods
Relying on unsubstantiated data
Omitting essential data
Making meaningless calculations
Dismissing unwelcome findings
Exaggerating the significance of favorable results
These methodological flaws can obscure potential risks associated with vaccines and undermine public trust in vaccine safety assurances.
The Studies That Will Never Be Done
One of the most straightforward and compelling ways to investigate the overall safety of the vaccination schedule would be to conduct a comparative study of two groups of children: one that receives all recommended vaccines and another that receives no vaccines. This study would aim to measure both the benefits and risks of vaccination comprehensively, including any unforeseen effects, whether beneficial or harmful.
Such a study could offer powerful evidence to support the safety and efficacy of vaccines, potentially increasing public confidence in vaccination programs. However, medical authorities have never undertaken this type of study. (There are some small studies by vaccine critics showing unvaccinated children have better health.) The reluctance to conduct such research raises questions about the willingness of health agencies and pharmaceutical companies to pursue potentially uncomfortable findings.
How Could They Be Safe When the Science Hasn’t Been Done?
Undone science in vaccine research highlights the tension between public health objectives and the interests of powerful stakeholders. The limitations of VAERS, the biases in epidemiological studies, and the absence of comprehensive comparative studies all suggest that important research on vaccine safety remains unaddressed. Addressing these gaps could enhance the transparency and trustworthiness of vaccine safety monitoring, ultimately benefiting public health. However, achieving this requires a commitment to pursuing scientific inquiries without bias and with a focus on the public good, rather than the interests of powerful entities.