or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Paralysis Cases Continue to Rise; Experts Speak Out Against WHO and Gates
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Paralysis Cases Continue to Rise; Experts Speak Out Against WHO and Gates - Page 2

post #21 of 43

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

It's still much less dangerous than actual polio. 

 

How can this be, when cases of vaccine-induced polio are indistinguishable from those of wild polio?

post #22 of 43
Getting the vaccine is considered less dangerous because in a country like India you are far more likely to catch wild polio without the vaccine than you are to catch polio from the vaccine.

The reason polio rates are so low in India now is because of the vaccine. If they stopped vaccinating rates of wild polio would go right back up, especially given their proximity to Pakistan where polio is still epidemic.
post #23 of 43

F


Edited by member234098 - 5/25/12 at 10:41pm
post #24 of 43
I haven't seen that, but you're right, there's no known advantage and it's hardly ideal, to say the least. Amazing that the incidence of vaccine derived polio and vaccine associated afp are so low, really, given those conditions. just remarkeable.

I think it's interesting this idea of "their parents should have a choice and informed consent" keeps coming up. Well of course they should, but where's the evidence they don't? Is it that implausible that people who have seen thousands of children killed and maimed in their lifetime would opt for the relatively minute risk of vaccination over the alternative?
post #25 of 43
Q

Edited by member234098 - 5/25/12 at 10:42pm
post #26 of 43
I do take it seriously, but like I said, where's the evidence that families in India aren't getting it?
post #27 of 43

I

post #28 of 43
I don't see how that is relevant. Let's not make this about me. I ask again, why the assumption families in India aren't giving informed consent?
post #29 of 43

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I don't see how that is relevant. Let's not make this about me. I ask again, why the assumption families in India aren't giving informed consent?

 

For one thing, most families in the US aren't given informed consent. I know I wasn't ever told that  vaccines could cause autoimmune disorders, bowel disorders, food intolerances, seizures, and encephalopathy--but that's exactly what it caused in my family, and yes, those have all been diagnosed by mainstream medical doctors as vaccine reactions.  I was never given a package insert.  I was given a sheet of paper that said, "Reactions may include redness, swelling, and discomfort at the site of injection, fever, and fussiness."  When I asked for a package insert in 2004, AFTER my children had had reactions to thimerosal-containing vaccines, I was scolded by the nurse, even though it was a multi-use vial. I had to insist that  she get it, and when I showed her where thimerosal was clearly listed as an ingredient, she was speechless. She had no idea that multi-use vials were preserved with thimerosal.

 

Secondly, many adults in developing nations are illiterate even in their own language, let alone in English, which is the language of the package insert. 

Thirdly, do you honestly think parents aren't going to hesitate if they are told that something injected into their child by foreigners may cause seizures and death?  Are you really going to try to convince us that there is no proof that these families aren't given informed consent, so therefore they must have been given informed consent?

 

We already know that informed consent was never given in the cases of children who died in South American vaccine trials: http://en.mercopress.com/2012/01/04/gsk-argentina-fined-for-experimenting-vaccines-in-babies-from-poor-families.  In fact, GSK was FINED because they actually falsified parental authorizations.

 

 

post #30 of 43
The assumption is being made that they weren't, so I'm asking where the evidence is for that. That's all. I think a parent that understands concepts like relative risk will take the small chance of a seizure over the much much greater chance of polio in a heart beat, yes. I think this is probably particularly stark in a country where polio is still a very recent and horrible memory, vs. here where things like that almost don't seem real.

I agree informed consent is a problem in the US, too many people have become passive in their medical care. We need to be responsible for doing research and asking lots and lots of questions to make sure we are being given evidence based medical care.
post #31 of 43

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

The assumption is being made that they weren't, so I'm asking where the evidence is for that. That's all. I think a parent that understands concepts like relative risk will take the small chance of a seizure over the much much greater chance of polio in a heart beat, yes. I think this is probably particularly stark in a country where polio is still a very recent and horrible memory, vs. here where things like that almost don't seem real.
I agree informed consent is a problem in the US, too many people have become passive in their medical care. We need to be responsible for doing research and asking lots and lots of questions to make sure we are being given evidence based medical care.

 

Do you think that parents are being told that a risk of the OPV is vaccine-induced polio?

post #32 of 43
Yes.
post #33 of 43

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I haven't seen that, but you're right, there's no known advantage and it's hardly ideal, to say the least. Amazing that the incidence of vaccine derived polio and vaccine associated afp are so low, really, given those conditions. just remarkeable.
I think it's interesting this idea of "their parents should have a choice and informed consent" keeps coming up. Well of course they should, but where's the evidence they don't? Is it that implausible that people who have seen thousands of children killed and maimed in their lifetime would opt for the relatively minute risk of vaccination over the alternative?

 

Umm...did you even read the OP?

 

Maybe this article will help you grasp the severity of the problem? http://www.salem-news.com/articles/april182012/gates-vaccines-js.php

 

Quote:

“In 2011 there were an extra 47500 new cases of NPAFP [non-polio acute flaccid paralysis]. Clinically indistinguishable from polio paralysis but twice as deadly, the incidence of NPAFP was directly proportional to doses of oral polio received. Through this data was collected within the polio surveillance system, it was not investigated.”

 

post #34 of 43
Those statistics are very misleading. They list all cases of afp, whether they have anything to do with the vaccine or not.
post #35 of 43

I have received a couple of reports about this thread. Having read through it, it seems to be a pretty good discussion. When members have strongly opposing points of view it can be difficult to not assume negativity and ulterior motives, but please avoid personally-pointed remarks and accusations in the discussion. You can have this conversation without making it personal and keeping it within the forum guidelines. smile.gif

post #36 of 43

I'm really not sure how those numbers are misleading. There are 47,000+ EXTRA cases than would naturally be expected AND the incidence of both AFP and death increased as the number of vaccine doses increased. How does that not have anything to do with the vaccine?

post #37 of 43
There's no way those can reliably all be attributed to the opv.
Edited by Rrrrrachel - 4/27/12 at 6:22pm
post #38 of 43

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bokonon View Post

 

 

Do you think that parents are being told that a risk of the OPV is vaccine-induced polio?

 

i was not informed of them back in '87 when my first son was vaxed for it..nor was i told of reactions to the DTP...no sheets were handed out, no lectures about vaccines,  no information at all, other than "He's due for his dtp and oral polio."   

post #39 of 43
Thread Starter 

Predictable:

Deny the evidence. Deny some more.

Then deny again.

 

Everything related to vaccines is a-ok. No harm has ever been caused by a vaccine, and it ever will. The science of vaccines is final, more permanent than a Sharpie. Close the studies, move the funds elsewhere. There does not need to be any more research into the safety of any vaccine, whether it be new or old. Even the vaccines which have been proven to cause harm (OPV), well, that science was wrong. Because no vaccine can cause harm.

 

These new cases of paralysis must be genetic, or from tainted food, or something else. Anything else is to blame, but certainly not vaccines. It's only a coincidence, and nothing more.

 

 

 

post #40 of 43
No one has said that, certainly not me, but I'm not going to overreact to an article from an incredibly biased source, either. Especially when the story is different from more reliable sources actually inside the country.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Paralysis Cases Continue to Rise; Experts Speak Out Against WHO and Gates