or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Prevenar 13 Pneumococcal Vaccine Damned in Belgium Media Reports
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Prevenar 13 Pneumococcal Vaccine Damned in Belgium Media Reports

post #1 of 20
Thread Starter 




Of the 470 children who received the Prevenar 13 plus a hexavalent vaccine, on the same day, and reported adverse effects, 163 had experienced neurologic reactions (163/470 = 34%!!).

It is therefore clear that the concomitant administration of several vaccines, particularly those recommended in the Belgian vaccine schedule (Prevenar 13 alongside Infanrix Hexa), multiplies the risk of neurologic reactions including serious and potentially irreversible adverse events!  This is precisely what we have been saying for years regarding the dangerous over-vaccination of infants.



post #2 of 20
Just want to point out, the denominator there is not all the children who got the vaccine, just the ones who got it and reported adverse events. Plus the usual cautions about self reported, yada yada.
post #3 of 20


post #4 of 20
How many children got vaccines that day? Just curious about the overall adverse reaction reporting rate. Presumably I could follow the lin and find out but I'm feeling lazy and watching Xmas tele!
post #5 of 20

22 babies dead.  That part is amazingly scary to me.


ETA: Removed inaccurate comparison

Edited by lanamommyphd07 - 12/30/12 at 7:31am
post #6 of 20
Where did you get 128k from? Genuine question.

I see the study is based on vaccines given in Italy over a 2 year period. is that just the bid rate in Italy multiplied by 2?
post #7 of 20

nm - not worth it - not posting over here…..prosciencemum, it is in the OP.  Look it up.

Edited by kathymuggle - 12/30/12 at 7:41am
post #8 of 20
The infant mortality rate for Belgium is 4.28/1,000. So using your number of births per year, that's 4.28(128)=~548 deaths a year or ~1096 over two years or more than one a day. I'm not sure where the 22 number came from, but if its only a temporal connection a large part if not all of it could easily be explained by coincidence.
post #9 of 20
So the overall infant mortality rate is 4.28/1000 or about .4%. The number cited above, 1/11,636 is about .009%. Looks like we ought to be asking why fewer babies are dying in the recently vaccinated group than in the population at large.
post #10 of 20


Edited by kathymuggle - 12/30/12 at 7:41am
post #11 of 20

Sorry, Mizram, for any derailing I might have done.


I think the link is very interesting, a little jumbled, but well worth a read!  If I were a new mom I would definitely take the time to crunch the numbers about death rate from these vaccines versus death rates from the diseases.  I would also see if I could find these, or other useful numbers, elsewhere.  Looking just at this link, it seems not-vaccinating for these disease (and certainly not together!) is clearly safer.

Edited by kathymuggle - 12/30/12 at 7:51am
post #12 of 20

I must admit that often I am irritated by how articles on this site are presented. I get the overall message, but it's not presented in a fashion that is what I'd call well-written. The random bolding and tone makes it look more like a rant than a valid story. That said, bringing to light the potential problems related to two jabs in a day makes sense. That's my takeaway, at any rate. Still, though, when a vax kills even one kid, I really think it's time to go back to the lab.

post #13 of 20
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

Sorry. Wrong.

The original link studies adverse events in 2 and 4 month olds (I think, with all the excessive bolting, ads, etc it was a little hard to follow) so childhood mortality not so relevant.

If the vaccine causes deaths, then the death rate in the recently vaccinated cohort would be higher than in general. If they're the same, the vaccine doesn't cause deaths. If the vaccine cohort is lower, than the vaccine is protective in some way. So I'm not sure why you're saying its not relevant?

Think of it this way. If you randomly sample 1000 children under 1 and follow them for, say, five days, you should expect 4 of them to die from a variety of things. According to this data, if you followed a recently vaccinated group of 1000 children for five days, you should only expect .09 of a child to die, or none.

OR, this data doesn't actually say what people are clawing it says, which is what I actually suspect.

Snark aside, I don't think all vaccine reactions are coincidence. I've said over and over and over that serious vaccine reactions happen, they're tragic, and they're exceptionally rare. However, when you're talking about self reported adverse events or tracking all adverse events in a given time frame after a vaccine is administered, it is a statistical fact that SOME of them are caused by coincidence. Your refusal of this really belies your naïveté and lack of statistical understanding.
post #14 of 20
And, ftr, I think the data presented here is being taken way out of context and analyzed in a completely inappropriate way. My only point is that bad data leads to bad conclusions,and that aoa article is full of both. Now back to not clicking on aoa links.
post #15 of 20
Rrrrachel - that's not a very fair comparison though as the general infant mortality rate is over the whole year, while i assume the 22 must have happened close in time to the vaccine to be considered a possible reaction. Shall we say within 2 weeks? So then we should multiply the "reaction" rate by 26 to account for there being 26 periods of 2 weeks each year - but actually even then you only get 0.2%, so still half the general mortality rate.

So it's very sad anytime babies die, but I do agree with rrrrrachel that it seems a lot of these 22 could be unrelated to the vaccine.
post #16 of 20
The percentages still hold, though, if you consider whatever period they looked at to be a random snapshot of the whole year. You would expect the same percentage to die in any random snapshot as you would over the whole year.
post #17 of 20
No I don't think so - it's a percentage rate, so the time period considered has to be accounted for.

Still it looks like the 22 deaths reported as possible reactions are the same as the general expected mortality in any random 4 week period throughout the year. I think being within 4 weeks of a vaccine is quite a long period to count a death as a possible reaction.
post #18 of 20
Well, agree to disagree I guess! It's definitely hard to tell what's what from the information in the original link.
post #19 of 20
Sure. I agree about the lim being hard to follow. I couldnt even find the 128k and I thought it was Italy, while Kathymuggle said it was Belgium!
post #20 of 20
And I've thought about it more and now I think you're right.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Prevenar 13 Pneumococcal Vaccine Damned in Belgium Media Reports