some vaccine reactions not covered by vaers

[caned & able]

because they are under the anti-terrorism bill ... the vaccines are to protect the population in case of a terrorist attack. This little boy is in a wheelchair from a vaccine reaction.

http://www.wbaltv.com/r/22755325/detail.html

[heathergirl67]

VAERS is notoriously unreliable.

[13Sandals]

c&a - I found this http://www.hrsa.gov/gethealthcare/co...rmeasurescomp/

seasonal flu and H1N1 aren't covered by the NVIC, but it looks like, under very limited circumstances, compensation could be provided by the PREP act for H1N1. Looks to be pretty tough though, the PREP act also includes this:

Liability protections cover the manufacture, testing, development, distribution, or use of the designated covered countermeasure.

[caned & able]

Originally Posted by heathergirl67

VAERS is notoriously unreliable.

Any sources for this statement?

[13Sandals]

the VAERs issue is kind of a moot point in this case. C&A - I think you meant he's not eligible for the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program because this was an emergency pandemic vaccine, and the manufacturers were even more greatly shielded from liability than they usually are. Pharma was forced to work so quickly to save our lives, they couldn't guarantee a safe product. They simply refused to provide the pandemic vaccine unless governments signed off on the no-fault agreements. However, I wouldn't want to 'over-villianize' big pharma here. Its our government, too weak to stand up to big business, that leaves this family in the dark.

[amnesiac]

Moving to the main vax forum.

[heathergirl67]

Originally Posted by caned & able

Any sources for this statement?

http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/200...n-using-vaers/

That's just one example. Anyone can report anything as many times as they want.

[littlec]

how sad. how is it that this child's outcome is "worth the risk" to "prevent disease". I mean, yes, people get permanently injured and die from diseases, and we dont want that- but it's okay for people to get permanently injured and die from vaccines?? Are their lives less valuble??

And no, no one is saying that outright, but the "benefits of vaccines outweigh the risks" implies that it is worth it for some to suffer so others can be well.

[carriebft]

There are lots of treatments and prevention methods that have risk. Just today I was listening to the radio and heard an ad for a heart medication that also talked about serious liver side effects and even a "rare but deadly" side effect that they didn't name completely. Should it be off the market?

Look at birth control pills; they have risks and benefits. one of those risks is death from stroke or clot. should they be off the market?

I do not feel they should be taken away. I feel we need to continue to seek out safer drugs and preventative measures like vaccines and to monitor the ones that are out there.

I do not think making these choices makes anyone's life less valuable. I do not think that, because I feel these medications and vaccines should stay on the market, it also means I do not value each life.

I think we have to look at risks and benefits and choose; it will always be that way with medication I think.

I also do not think it's as black and white as "it's ok" vs "it's not ok". kwim?

[ema-adama]

Carrie, I quite agree. I do not think it is realistic to take a drug off the market just because it has risks. I do however think those risks need to be openly discussed, with parents essentially making the decision with regard to which risks they are more comfortable with. And we need more transparency on safety studies for all drugs (vaccines included) to ensure that the relevant data is accessible to those who are making decisions.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...-science/8269/ I found this a thought provoking read.

If I had a teenage daughter who was sexually active it would be a really difficult choice with regards to the pill for instance. I am quite sure that having a baby as a teenager is not an ideal situation (some people are able to succeed beautifully, but it is not something I would advocate for). And neither is putting a young girl on hormones ideal. These choices are hardly ever straightforward. And yet choices have to be made. And there will be repercussions for choices made.

With regards to VAERS. Passive surveillance is never going to be as reliable as active surveillance. And as long as there is a culture of denying vaccine reactions, passive surveillance is going to be even less reliable. Some doctors do not deny reactions when they happen. In my small personal experience through friends, it does seem to be fairly common to chalk anything unfavorable up to anything but the vaccine.

[Fyrestorm]

Originally Posted by carriebft

Look at birth control pills; they have risks and benefits. one of those risks is death from stroke or clot. should they be off the market?

The big difference here is that most people are aware that they don't have to take birth control pills or accutane or avandia. Most people are convinced that vaccines are mandated and you have to have them.

[caned & able]

carriebft, if you knew how birth control pills were researched and developed, you would not have used that comparison.

In Dr. Mendelsohn's book MalePractice, in the chapter, "It's Safer than a Pregnancy", he states,

The Pill was approved for sale by the FDA in 1960 after five years of research funded by ... Sanger and ... Searle. ...
FDA approval of the Pill was based on careless, inadequate studies that established its effectiveness but offered no valid scientific proof that it was safe for human use. One of the studies involved 132 Puerto Rican women who took the Pill for a year or more. Five of them died during the study, and no effeort was even made to find out why. On the basis of that kind of "scientific evidence" the FDA approved a drug that ultimately would be available to 50 million women all over the world.

Do you really think that if a 132 women were pregnant at any give time or place and five died, that no one would have tried to figure out why?

OTOH, maybe the BDP comparison is a good comparison for vaccines. Doctors knew then and fifty years later know that the Pill can cause strokes, liver damage, and gall bladder problems, and these side effects are still on the package insert, and no one has changed them. There are class action suits now for the YAZ patch.

[amnesiac]

Please remain on-topic for the forum regarding the vax issue. Oral contraceptive discussion is certainly interesting but please start a new thread in the appropriate forum if you would like to continue down that path.

[Arduinna]

Until the government makes it crystal clear that all vaccines are a choice we are free to get or not get without reprisal the comparisons of vax with any other drug or treatment is apples and oranges. We have a hodge podge of exemption laws, we have 1 state where medical exemption is the only one allowed, we have states like NY where your right to a religious exemption can be challenged. And we have a population where 95%+ don't even know about exemption and we are all subject to the constant campaign to get vaxed and the pressure of people being harassed by CPS for refusing vax.

Sorry there is no legit comparison to vax to heart medication and BC pills.

[carriebft]

erased all the length I wrote out.

just want everyone to know that just because someone chooses to vaccinate based on a risk benefit analysis for their family, it does not also mean that they feel the deaths of others are "worth it."

you can PM me if you need further explanation

[carriebft]

edited

[caned & able]

Arduinna:

Thank you for your thoughtful post. You are spot on.