99.999% of Children Have No Serious Side Effects from Vaccines - Page 6

[prosciencemum]

Originally Posted by serenbat 

you are just repeating the same thing and not show any proof - where is the proof? same old and not showing anything - ncbi just says they are doing it - just like they said for years the earth was flat- if you keep repeating a lie.........over and over.........

Since we now there has been at least some that have received acknowledgement (compensation) that they have caused damage, where is the proof that these children are being tracked in these studies, increased visits, trials, etc? 

I really fail to understand what proof you want or what you think would be possible to find in the way of proof.... there are studies which include representative samples of vaccinated and unvaccinated children. Not all vaccinated and unvaccinated children (since that would be next to impossible), a representative sample.... 

[prosciencemum]

Originally Posted by rachelsmama 

I don't ignore it.  It shows that vaccinating a healthy kid who has good access to sanition and heathcare doesn't really have a whole lot of benefit. 

Well it showed a detectable difference in VPD rates in the two groups (unvaccinated had more in case you were wondering), although both rates were low -  and it showed no detectable difference in any chronic issues they looked at (which included excema, asthama). 

 So I guess I agree that in this sample it showed very little benefit, and absolutely no harm. 

[serenbat]

Quote:

I really fail to understand what proof you want or what you think would be possible to find in the way of proof.... there are studies which include representative samples of vaccinated and unvaccinated children. Not all vaccinated and unvaccinated children (since that would be next to impossible), a representative sample.... 

i'll ask it again - where is it? Where is the info with the children what have suffered a reaction? Clearly if as you & others have stated, these children who do have a reaction are included - where is the proof they are? I'm clearly not talking about unvaccinated because they are not having a vac induced reaction.

[prosciencemum]

I'm still not understanding why you think they aren't included if a representative sample of vaccinated children is studied.

[pek64]

Originally Posted by serenbat 

i'll ask it again - where is it? Where is the info with the children what have suffered a reaction? Clearly if as you & others have stated, these children who do have a reaction are included - where is the proof they are? I'm clearly not talking about unvaccinated because they are not having a vac induced reaction.

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

I'm still not understanding why you think they aren't included if a representative sample of vaccinated children is studied.

Hey! I got multiquote to work!

Sorry. Back to my point.
If they haven't been vaccinated, they are not having vaccine induced reactions. No vaccine = no vaccine induced reactions.

[serenbat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by prosciencemum I'm still not understanding why you think they aren't included if a representative sample of vaccinated children is studied.

Quote:

Originally Posted by prosciencemum I really fail to understand what proof you want or what you think would be possible to find in the way of proof.... there are studies which include representative samples of vaccinated and unvaccinated children.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel Vaccine safety data link works through large managed care groups like kaiser permanente.  So yes, even if they dont' go to their regular doctor it still gets recorded in their medical records and would would be considered under VSDL.  It makes absolutely no difference if the doctor records it as a vaccine reaction or not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel We have things like vaccine safety datalink that looks in medical records for patterns of diagnosis, increased hospital admission or pcp visits, etc in time frames after vaccine administration. That's completely independent of whether something is actively recognized as a reaction or not.

There are some studies that look at the effects of vaccination years down the road.

SAME exact sentiment yet both of you have fail to show ANY proof this is occurring- you both keep stating the same line- Study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3057555/ and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/21502240/

neither say they are studying vaccinated children with REACTIONS and none of us (those who are not buying what you are selling) are talking about NON-vaccinated children, the ones with the reactions are the ones who have had vaccines 

both of you have offered nothing of what I and others have asked - I "assume" you both do not have any proof to back up what you both keep repeating, repeating it over and over doesn't make it real either

I am also sure I will hear both of you have no clue (once again) what I am talking about

question #1 - Where is the proof "reactions" are included when the Doctor or ER tells you your child is not having a reaction? You both have claimed it - please provide it.

#2 - Where is the proof children with reactions are included in the trials/studies, managed care, etc both of you claim?

#3 How do these with reactions (those who have received payouts- thus the govt found there was cause for them to receive $) show up in these trials/studies,etc, I assume these also do, would they not?

ETA- everyone of the families I know that have (what they believe to be) a child with a reaction to vaccine (s) have numerous dr, ER, specialist visit EACH year - dozens of them - IRL I only know one family who's child is not on private insurance any longer  and is now (because she is over 18) on govt assistance - so all have been in the private insurance system for years~managed cared

Edited by serenbat - 3/11/13 at 5:59pm

[chickabiddy]

Never mind.  Block is beautiful.

[pek64]

Originally Posted by chickabiddy 

Never mind.  Block is beautiful.

Feeling ignored?

[serenbat]

Quote:

Never mind.  Block is beautiful.

since you didn't answer my questions, I assumed you couldn't

[Devaskyla]

I think there's some talking past each other here.

What I'm saying, and I think seren is trying to get you to see as well, is that chronic disease is considered so normal and acceptable, even in children, even when it was non-existant 20-50+ years ago, that more visits for it will not be registered as due to a vaccine, even in the exceedingly rare event that a vaccine reaction is even recorded for the child. In other words, whatever monitoring you think is being done may very well register more doctor visits, but will NOT link those with vaccines.

And I can point to 2 different preliminary studies showing that vaccinated children have vastly more chronic disease than unvaccinated, but I'm sure you'll be as impressed by them as I am by your study link. We need a real, long term study, done by people with absolutely zero connections to pharma.