Re: Meningitis vaccine and GBS article

[Guest guest]

Headline of article: "Meningitis shot May Hold HIgher GBS Risk"

The article begins with the statement:

"Young people who get a new meningitis shot may be at a slightly higher risk of developing a paralyzing side effect, federal researchers said. Even so, federal health officials said the benefits far outweigh the risks of getting the rare condition Guillian -Barre syndrome. They are not backing off their recommendation that most students be vaccinated."

Though subtle, the distinction between "federal reseachers" who warn about "slightly higher risk" of Guillian-Barre syndrome and "federal health officials" who said the "benefits far outweigh the risks" is a remarkable admission these two federal public health bureaucracies disagree on the safety of this particular vaccine.

The article goes on to explain that "federal researchers" cautioned they remain uncertain about their risk estimate and have planned a larger study. Apparently, "federal health officials" have chosen to ignore the fact that risk estimates remain uncertain.

The question immediately arises: If risk estimates remain uncertain, who determines if the "benefits far outweigh the risks"? The federal researchers tasked with determining the risks of the vaccines, or, those federal health officials who have a vested interest in diminishing the risks on vaccines they recommended and approved?

Apparently, federal researchers are troubled that:

"The study data is believed to be flawed, in part because GBS reports are voluntary, meaning vaccine side effects may be underreported. Also, the natural rate of GBS is based on hospital data that may be flawed."

In any event:

"A larger study that would give a more accurate picture of the risk is being discussed with the vaccine maker, said."

The quoted is Dr. of the Centers for Disease Control, identified as one of the "study's authors" who noted "the risk of getting menningitis without the shot is far greater". It is not comforting to learn Dr. believes a "more accurate picture of the risk is being discussed with the vaccine maker". Why not his fellow "researchers"?