99.999% of Children Have No Serious Side Effects from Vaccines - Page 2

[Cathy2]

VAERS reports
 

[Cathy2]

You are right, statistics really don't mean anything if your child has been injured.  The FDA and CDC have been notorious for advocating drugs that have eventually been removed "post marketing" incidents.   If this many people were injured or killed because of faulty brakes on a car, the manufacturer would be put to task and the Consumer Protection Agency would issue recalls.  Why is it that our youth can still be subjected to vaccines with serious side effects; such as Gardasil and there is no accountability?  Is my child part of that "acceptable" percentage of injuries?  When is death or injuries acceptable to any parent?  There are many sources you can "google" and find stories of healthy children and young adults whose lives have been changed by Gardasil. If I could persuade just one parent to investigate this vaccine and see that the risks of an adverse effect from Gardasil is greater than the risk of getting cervical cancer, I would be satisfied.  This vaccine was rushed to market.  The placebo used in trials was not saline; rather it was  an aluminum adjuvant.  Why use an aluminum adjuvant rather than saline?   There are so many questions and not enough answers with Gardasil. 
 

[prosciencemum]

Seemed relevant here - a blog post by Allison Hagood which discusses this same statistic: http://www.redwineandapplesauce.com/2013/03/05/a-look-at-the-numbers-in-vaccine-reactions/

[marsupial-mom]

99.9% have no adverse event...

Clearly. Just pay attention.

The vast majority of children in the US are vaccinated and rarely do we see or hear of adverse reactions.

[pek64]

Frequently there are stories of reactions. Getting any provax person or agency to admit they were caused by vaccines is another story.

[Rrrrrachel]

And getting an "antivax" person to admit they don't know for sure is practically impossible.

[pek64]

Balderdash! "Antivax" people frequently say, on these very boards, that they don't know, but they have doubts. If you can read these boards and come to the conclusion that you posted above, then you don't have the comprehension skills necessary for me to trust anything you post, Rrrrachel.

[Rrrrrachel]

Now now. No need to get personal.

[pek64]

Well, now, Rrrrachel, I only following your example and treating you the way you've treated me.

[rachelsmama]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

And getting an "antivax" person to admit they don't know for sure is practically impossible.

How about those situations when vax is one of several possible causes of injury?  Do you recommend going forward with further vaccinations because it hasn't been proven to be harmful to the individual, or would you say it might be a situation where stopping vaccinations, at least temporarily, is the prudent course of action? 

[Rrrrrachel]

Originally Posted by rachelsmama 


How about those situations when vax is one of several possible causes of injury?  Do you recommend going forward with further vaccinations because it hasn't been proven to be harmful to the individual, or would you say it might be a situation where stopping vaccinations, at least temporarily, is the prudent course of action? 

I think that depends on far too many variables for me to say. Speaking very generally, if there's a reasonable suspicion that a vaccine caused an injury yes I think it's prudent to stop until you figure out what's going on. I don't actually get very bent out of shape about delaying a vaccine a month or three.

However, I see way way too much of blaming anything that happens within two months of vaccination on vaccines, whether there's any empirical evidence or biological plausibility to it or not.

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 




However, I see way way too much of blaming anything that happens within two months of vaccination on vaccines, whether there's any empirical evidence or biological plausibility to it or not.

The latest studies are showing that vaccines can trigger autoimmune disorders--which often aren't identifiable until a few months have passed, PARTICULARLY when even obvious immediate symptoms are dismissed as coincidence.

In fact, even Merck's own website says that a large percentage of ADULT FEMALES who get the MMR are likely to develop arthritis/arthralgia as a "side effect" of the MMR.  As we know, it often takes months to even get a referral to a rheumatologist, by which time, the primary care provider would have forgotten all about the case, let alone reported it as a vaccine reaction.

The US vaccine court has also conceded that hepatitis B vaccine can cause lupus.  It often takes YEARS to get correctly diagnosed with lupus.

So if you say you see "way too much of blaming anything that happens within two months of vaccination on vaccines," perhaps you haven't learned enough of the possible adverse effects of vaccinations. 

Or maybe you just ignore the studies that have been posted here so often.

[Wayne Rohde]

The figures that Allison mentions are skewed.  Adverse reactions happen and more than the medical establishment wants to admit.  Most doctors will not admit to any type of reaction.  That is why there is a big push to redefine adverse reaction to what happens within the first 48 hours.  Anything after that is not related.

VAERS is helpful but only 2-5% of all reactions are reported.

What is missing is that most of the reactions are not defined clearly in the Vaccine Court as table injuries, so most petitions are dismissed because it is nearly impossible to prove causation in todays court.

Why are so many people have severe reactions to Gardasil, Influenza, Hep B?  Pharma and medical establishment refuses to study that subgroups of people should not be vaccinated because of underlying medical conditions.  Let's research why this is and to produce safer vaccines.

I wonder if Allison would be singing the same tune if something happened to her children?

[Rrrrrachel]

Wayne how frequent do you think adverse reactions are?

[Rrrrrachel]

And even if its not a table injury vicp doesn't require definitive proof of causation. They require proof it was more likely than not caused by vaccines.

[Wayne Rohde]

No one really knows.  And because of that, we all hide behind that fact.

[Wayne Rohde]

Actually, to prove causation, you have a high standard Althen v HHS plus having medical experts that are willing to testify.  

[Rrrrrachel]

Originally Posted by Wayne Rohde 

No one really knows.  And because of that, we all hide behind that fact.

So if you don't know why are you insisting at high?

[Rrrrrachel]

Originally Posted by Wayne Rohde 

Actually, to prove causation, you have a high standard Althen v HHS plus having medical experts that are willing to testify.  

Ok?

[Wayne Rohde]

In your comment, you infer that to prove causation, you just have to show a preponderance of 50% + a feather.  That is what the NVICP when established was to use as the causation standard.  And that is not even close in today's court, it is so adversarial, so hostile to the petitioner and even towards the medical experts that testify for the petitioner.  They have their medical reputation threatened, any research grants threatened.

Even the attorneys that represent the injured screen very aggressively, for any type of causation case.  They know that the court will withhold their legal fees.

And the Secretary has removed a few of the table injuries, forcing petitioners to go the route of causation.