Be a part of the community.
It's free, join today!
...Is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity?
A study was done in the early 1980s that showed a correlationship between the incidence of the DPT shot and SIDS at UCLA by Dr. Larry Baraff. Thirty years ago, the same thing. Those who do not learn from their mistakes ....
http://het.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/05/04/0960327111407644.full.pdf+html
http://het.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/05/04/0960327111407644
I swear, if someone chimes in with "correlation does not equal causation", I'm going to scream! So, what then is responsible for the increase in infant deaths? It cannot be vaccines, right? It can be anything else in the world--hey, let's blame bad genes!--but no, we can't ever blame vaccines. They are magical Holy medicine, that can never cause anything bad to happen. They are only used for good, don't you know?
Seriously....at least people are continuing with the research. If vaccines are not responsible for at least some of the increase in deaths, I would love to know what is responsible. That's not a joke--I do want to know. Vaccines are so widely used, and they need to be studied and studied, then studied more. If we are going to use a drug, we should demand to know exactly what every single ingredient can do. There is still much more to learn about vaccines and their effects on people!
First of all, let me say that I selectively vaccinate my son, and I waited to have him vaccinated at all until he was past the greatest SIDS danger (12 weeks).
However, to play devil's advocate, there are many factors that could lead to an increase in infant deaths and decrease in IMR.
Age of mother
Age of father
Increase in premature babies' survival due to better premature care (in other words, more babies survive prematurity, but are at a great risk for SIDS after going home)
Lack of prenatal care
Infertility treatments
Socioeconomic status
Changes in how deaths are reported
I've read two articles recently, one of which discusses the high rate of increase of allergies and asthma in children in the United States (vs. European countries) due to an INCREASE of cleanliness and hygiene, along with the excessive use of antibacterial products. This may also carry a SIDS link. Another article discusses recent research in which babies who die of SIDS have been discovered to have slight abnormalities of the brain stem due to a previously undetected birth defect.
I swear, if someone chimes in with "correlation does not equal causation", I'm going to scream!
Really? Then I guess I'm glad I'm not within earshot, because correlation seriously does not equal causation. Also, seriously, who is Neil Miller and why should anyone believe what he says? Even assuming that he did his research correctly and his statistical analysis is correct and his assumptions are valid, etc., there are plenty of reasons these things could be correlated but not causally related. As an example, we could look at the study by Baraff, which showed an association between clinic visits and subsequent death from SIDS, appearing both in infants who got the DTP vax and those who went to the clinic but did not get the vax.
Of course I know that correlation does not always equal causation. I just knew that someone would read the article, then post, using the "correlation causation" spiel.
I was right LOL! I won't really scream though. That part was just a joke!
It is humorous to me, the lengths folks will go to deny that vaccines can cause any adverse health reactions. It can be anything else, but never vaccines. Vaccines only cause extremely rare reactions, one in a million, I guess. It is kind of annoying when people don't fully understand something--like SIDS---yet they are so sure of what does NOT cause it--like vaccines. Do I know for sure that vaccines cause every case of SIDS? No way! But at least I don't pretend that I do know what causes SIDS. Does anybody really know? So, how can you say vaccines aren't involved?
Sandy, you are willing to look at other possible causes, and I like that. When we are talking about life and death, nothing should be ruled out. My mother has always been suspicious of the antibacterial soap craze, and maybe she has a point. I would also like to learn more about the birth defects of the babies who died from SIDS. Maybe we can find out how to deal with the defects, to help prevent future cases of SIDS.
Of course I know that correlation does not always equal causation. I just knew that someone would read the article, then post, using the "correlation causation" spiel.
I was right LOL! I won't really scream though. That part was just a joke!
It is humorous to me, the lengths folks will go to deny that vaccines can cause any adverse health reactions. It can be anything else, but never vaccines. Vaccines only cause extremely rare reactions, one in a million, I guess. It is kind of annoying when people don't fully understand something--like SIDS---yet they are so sure of what does NOT cause it--like vaccines. Do I know for sure that vaccines cause every case of SIDS? No way! But at least I don't pretend that I do know what causes SIDS. Does anybody really know? So, how can you say vaccines aren't involved?
You're putting a lot of words in my mouth that have never been there. It would be totally silly for me to claim that vaccines only cause reactions once out of every million doses, considering that the CDC recognizes that minor reactions occur commonly. It would be totally silly for me to pretend that I know what causes SIDS, or to say that vaccines could not have anything to do with any case of SIDS ever, considering that I'm not an expert in SIDS and even experts in SIDS don't fully understand SIDS. Ridiculous.
In fact, it would be just as ridiculous as it would be for you (or anyone else) to look at the two studies cited above and, on that basis, claim that a correlation between vaccines and SIDS means that vaccines cause SIDS.
I don't vaccinate my kids and I do believe that vaccinations are responsible for some infant deaths. However, it is ALSO true that correllation does NOT equal causation and in something as complicated as infant mortality, we do need to be very cautious in drawing conclusions from something such as this.
There are SO many factors that relate to infant mortality, as a previous poster mentions.
-formula feeding vs. breastfeeding
-prematurity
-age of mother
-use or reproductive assistance
-life saving techniques for premature or sick babies
-classification as infant death vs. stillbirth vs. miscarriage.
-rates of smoking, alcohol abuse during pregnancy, or drug abuse during pregnancy
-race and socio-economic status
For example. the US has a high rate of vaccinations. It is also have a high rate of formula use (compared to other European developed countries in the study), high rates of prematurity, and high use of life saving techniques for premature or sick babies. For example. in the US, a baby born at say 22 weeks may live a few weeks before dying an be counted in infant mortality statistics, while in another country without the same techniques that baby may die shortly after birth and be counted as a stillbirth, and in still another country that same baby may be counted as miscarriage.
There are just SO MANY compounding factors in this.
I've love to see a study on rates of infant mortality between vaccinated and unvaccinated babies that adjusted for all those factors and maybe only studied healthy, full-term, breastfed babies, no birth/pregnancy complications, no smoking, no drug/alcohol abuse during pregnancy from parents of a similar socio-economic status.
Again, I do believe that vaccines carry risks, I just don't believe that infant mortality is so complicated that you can't draw definite conclusions from this type of study.
The nation of Japan's infant mortality and SIDS rates dropped when they switched to the aP and delayed vaccination to after the first year in the late 1980s.
And who is Dr. Larry Baraff of UCLA School of Public Health and why should anyone believe what he says? or Dr. Mendelsohn, or Dr. Eisenstein? or ... There are lots of doctors questioning vaccines. They see the reactions day after day.
[Factors as:]
Age of mother
Age of father
Increase in premature babies' survival due to better premature care (in other words, more babies survive prematurity, but are at a great risk for SIDS after going home)
Lack of prenatal care
Infertility treatments
Socioeconomic status
Changes in how deaths are reported
[or]
-formula feeding vs. breastfeeding
-prematurity
-age of mother
-use or reproductive assistance
-life saving techniques for premature or sick babies
-classification as infant death vs. stillbirth vs. miscarriage.
-rates of smoking, alcohol abuse during pregnancy, or drug abuse during pregnancy
-race and socio-economic status
All factors that blame the victim. Especially race! Why is it that only the medical and health care profession are allowed to blame health conditions on race and ethinicity? "Your child died because -
"You did not breast feed",
"You smoke",
"You are poor.",
So your baby died because it is all your fault. Bettleheim blamed autism on mothers in the 1960s. I guess this is called progress.
Huh?
It's not blaming the victim. It's a simple fact that smoking, prematurity, formula-feeding, etc increase the risk of infant death. Are we supposed to NOT mention those things or not take them into account because someone could construe it as blaming? Again it's a fact that rates of infant mortality are higher in certain racial groups, just like rates of skin cancer are higher aomong fair-skinned red-heads. It's just a fact, not blaming anyone.
.
We probably shouldn't tell people that smoking causes lung cancer or that breastfeeding decreases your risk of breast cancer or that an unhealthy diet contributes to disease.
Death and disease is not some totally random occurrence. Our behaviors, diet and genetic make-up DO affect it. That's just fact and common sense.
Originally Posted by miriam
And who is Dr. Larry Baraff of UCLA School of Public Health and why should anyone believe what he says? or Dr. Mendelsohn, or Dr. Eisenstein? or ... There are lots of doctors questioning vaccines. They see the reactions day after day.
Um. Well, those people are medical doctors, who are, at least, trained in the medical sciences. Personally, I think that makes any research they might do in the field of the medical sciences at least somewhat more credible than research done in the field of the medical sciences by someone without training in the field of the medical sciences. And Dr. Baraff appears (from my limited knowledge of him) to be unbiased about vaccines, which also makes his research more credible IMO.
Also, seriously, some diseases are related to race. Frankly, it sounds pretty racist to say that it is "blaming the victim" to attribute medical problems to race. How, exactly, is a person to blame for diseases that are associated with race??? It's just a fact that some diseases are genetic, and it's just a fact that some genes are more commonly found in some races. Acknowledging that isn't "blaming the victim"; it's just good medicine.
Um. Well, those people are medical doctors, who are, at least, trained in the medical sciences. Personally, I think that makes any research they might do in the field of the medical sciences at least somewhat more credible than research done in the field of the medical sciences by someone without training in the field of the medical sciences. And Dr. Baraff appears (from my limited knowledge of him) to be unbiased about vaccines, which also makes his research more credible IMO.
Also, seriously, some diseases are related to race. Frankly, it sounds pretty racist to say that it is "blaming the victim" to attribute medical problems to race. How, exactly, is a person to blame for diseases that are associated with race??? It's just a fact that some diseases are genetic, and it's just a fact that some genes are more commonly found in some races. Acknowledging that isn't "blaming the victim"; it's just good medicine.
So the message is that only those trained in the medical sciences can speak about this issue because those who are not cannot possibly understand the avaliable information?? Perhaps this is not what you mean. Perhaps you are saying only medically trained persons should be conducting studies?? (such as the one the OP posted). This I agree with. However Neil Miller is not conducting research or studies, nor has he ever. Neil Miller has been a medical research journalist since 1984. All he is doing is gathering the already avaliable research/information (often the stuff that is not mainsteam and openly discussed in the media) and bringing it to the people so that they may follow up on their own. Have you ever read one of his books? Despite what he has discovered through his own research, he does not advise parents not to vaccinate their children. He encourages them to think for themselves and to do their own research - just as he did as a parent deciding whether or not to vaccinate his first child many years ago.
As for the other issue - I agree. Many diseases are associated with certain races - Sickle Cell disease for instance. It's not blaming - it just is. The other things - ie diet, formula feeding etc are all things that can absolutely impact a child and should be examined in relation to infant mortality statistics. It's not about blame - it's about understanding what effects what so that changes can be made. When we know better we do better. (sometimes!!)
"
So the message is that only those trained in the medical sciences can speak about this issue because those who are not cannot possibly understand the avaliable information?? Perhaps this is not what you mean. Perhaps you are saying only medically trained persons should be conducting studies?? (such as the one the OP posted). This I agree with. However Neil Miller is not conducting research or studies, nor has he ever. Neil Miller has been a medical research journalist since 1984. All he is doing is gathering the already avaliable research/information (often the stuff that is not mainsteam and openly discussed in the media) and bringing it to the people so that they may follow up on their own. Have you ever read one of his books? Despite what he has discovered through his own research, he does not advise parents not to vaccinate their children. He encourages them to think for themselves and to do their own research - just as he did as a parent deciding whether or not to vaccinate his first child many years ago.
Oh, no, certainly anyone can speak their mind, as evidenced by this forum. I'm not trained in the medical sciences, but I say what I think. No, that's not the point. My point is that this appears to be an article published by just some guy. The fact that he's been doing this type of thing for a while, and that he calls himself a "medical research journalist," don't mean much to me. Sure, he can write anything he wants, but I'm going to read it as one person's opinion, not as new or conclusive evidence of a link between SIDS and vaccines. If the same analysis had been done by a public health expert, a statistician, an expert in SIDS and/or infant mortality, and an expert in vaccines, I'd give it a great deal more weight.
http://sids.org/nmontharticle.htm
|
Title: Immunization Safety Review: Vaccinations and Sudden Unexpected Death in Infancy |
|
|
|
|
The Immunization Safety Review Committee was established by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to evaluate the evidence of possible causal associations between immunizations and certain adverse outcomes. This year they focused on sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) and sudden unexpected death in infancy (SUDI).
The issue of association between immunization and SIDS is based on the fact that vaccines are routinely given during the period of the highest incidence of sudden infant death syndrome, which is between 2 and 4 months of age. In this situation it is necessary to answer the question if the use of vaccines contribute to an increased risk of SIDS, or if it is just a coincidence. Although the rate of SIDS is declining dramatically, about 2,500 infants still die each year from SIDS in the United States. And there are those who believe that vaccinations are responsible for some of these deaths.
The experts from the Institute of Medicine reviewed the recent research on the relationship between immunizations and SIDS. The American Academy of Pediatrics currently recommends multiple doses of seven different vaccines during the first year of life. These vaccines include the combination Diphtheria-Tetanus-acellular Pertussis (DTaP) vaccine, Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) vaccine, Hepatitis B (HepB) vaccine, Inacticated Polio vaccine (IPV), and Pneumococus vaccine (PCV).
The Committee concluded that there is no evidence of a causal relationship between these vaccines and sudden infant death syndrome, sudden unexpected death in infancy, or neonatal death. For some vaccines there was a strong evidence of no causal relationship; for others, the evidence was inadequate to accept or reject causal relationship, which was due to a small number or no epidemiologic studies evaluating the relationship between vaccination and SIDS. For example, the Committee concluded that "the evidence is inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship between DTaP vaccine and SIDS." That was due to the fact that the epidemiologic "evidence" consists of only one uncontrolled observational study. The American SIDS Institute with the American Association of SIDS Prevention Physicians (AASPP) is addressing this issue by designing and sponsoring the controlled multi-center clinical trial on Prolonged Apnea and Prolonged Bradycardia Following DTaP Immunization in Preterm Infants. We expect to complete the study within a year.
Timely immunizations protect infants from many potentially dangerous infectious diseases. The report of the Institute of Medicine once again confirmed that there is no reason to believe that vaccines routinely given to infants during their first year of life contribute to an increased risk of sudden infant death syndrome, sudden unexpected death in infancy, or neonatal death.
191 infants is not a very big test group imo...
Eh, considering the methodology I was kind of surprised they had so many sign up & follow through. I'm super in favor of medical research & participate in studies whenever I can, but I don't think I'd agree to a randomized trial where my newborn would or would not receive a vaccine & then would be subject to 48 hours of intensive monitoring, especially if I had a preemie. It's a pretty decent size given those factors, IMO. (And it's a lot bigger than the numbers you see in many other studies.)
