or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Moya

I agree Tracy, but this is not an interview. This is a documentary style segment. CNN is documenting a chickenpox party and they will no doubt add talking heads to discuss the matter. It's a guarantee that the vaccine will be discussed. Documentary producers offer waivers all the time for this sort of thing.
Sabriya sounds like a very well-intentioned person and I make no claims as to her purpose. Her posts here are exactly what you'd expect from someone honestly wanting to do a simple piece on chicken pox parties and that may very well be the case. However her posts are also exactly what you'd expect from someone who has been assigned to do a fluff piece on the chicken pox vaccine. Why can't CNN offer a release that gives a parent the right to veto their own participation...
You could also ask CNN to sign a release that gives you a final veto right over your footage after seeing the completed segment. People ask and get them all the time. If CNN won't do that then that'd be a big clue that they don't expect you to like the segment or your role in it.
I have a different take on it. Even if it is true, it's not a reason to vaccinate. You should vaccinate (or not vaccinate) based on the current situation. Vaccines are not 100% safe. If adverse effects from the diseases are currently more rare than adverse effects from the vaccines then it doesn't make sense to vaccinate - regardless of whether the scarcity of disease is a result of vaccination. Your first duty in life is to the health of your child. You don't put...
I have to agree with Past VNE. If CNN is looking to do an honest report that's great. But I guarantee they've already decided what slant they want to take on it. And if they want to do a pro-vaccine piece then they're going to act respectful the entire time they film the chicken pox party and then they'll edit the film footage to make the chicken pox party parents look like nuts or worse, child abusers. They'll add some talking heads from the FDA or CDC to point out...
Ah yes, it's talking about when the cases occurred. Looking at only the quote I couldn't tell what "proportion of cases" referred to. It did seem weird that the authors would claim the vaccine was useless. Thanks for the clarification, CMI.
Quote: Originally Posted by mamakay The proportion of cases observed from July to September, the period in which maximum incidence usually occurs, varied from 28.7% among the DT recipients to 33.8% among the DTaP SB recipients, with no significant differences (P = .714). Now, I might be misreading that...probably am...how do you interpret that? If "proportion of cases" refers to cases of pertussis... then in reference to suseptibility to...
Call me cynical but I bet it gets reversed on appeal.
Well, you know, they're not really vaccine specialists. They're actually sales specialists. The sales reps don't have access to any of the proprietary information about the vaccines and it's never told to them. They don't have a clue as to what's going on in their own research departments.
It could be either measles or rubella virus that caused the rash (if the rash is from the vaccine). The timing is right and the vaccine viruses do cause rashes.
New Posts  All Forums: