99.999% of Children Have No Serious Side Effects from Vaccines - Page 3

[Wayne Rohde]

No one really knows is the point.  you are assuming that it is very low.  If it is indeed low, then why all the maneuvering by docs to conveniently not bring up VAERS or other reporting?

Why the denial of an adverse reaction that happened 3 days prior.  Too many of those stories that do not appear in any report.

[Rrrrrachel]

You're actually the one making assumptions.

[Wayne Rohde]

Cute, but not worthy of discussing the topic.  Come back when you want to discuss and actually look into the matter.

Many of us actually want to know. Sounds like you enjoy hiding behind it.

[Rrrrrachel]

I DO want to discuss. Which is why I asked you how high you thought it was. To which you responded you didn't know, but you're assuming it's high.


Where's the evidence the rate of serious adverse events is high? What's "high?" 1%? 10%?

I don't have the faintest idea what the "it" is I'm allegedly hiding behind, but I've attempted to started many discussions on this board about how high the rate of adverse events actually is. VERY few people are willing to offer any kind of concrete evidence of any kind of rate. Everyone seems to "know it's high."

[Rrrrrachel]

Wayne is this you?

http://nickslawok.blogspot.com/2009/06/wayne-rohde-father-with-cause.html

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

I DO want to discuss. Which is why I asked you how high you thought it was. To which you responded you didn't know, but you're assuming it's high.


Where's the evidence the rate of serious adverse events is high? What's "high?" 1%? 10%?

I don't have the faintest idea what the "it" is I'm allegedly hiding behind, but I've attempted to started many discussions on this board about how high the rate of adverse events actually is. VERY few people are willing to offer any kind of concrete evidence of any kind of rate. Everyone seems to "know it's high."

Where's the evidence that the rate of serious adverse reactions from vaccines is .001%?   What's acceptable?  1%? 10%? My child? Yours?

Rrrrrachel, you and psm have posted everything BUT scientific evidence.  You have posted an awful lot of propaganda from the industry that profits from the sale of the product that causes the events in question.  The OP of this thread is a perfect example, where the number of claims filed with the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is assumed to actually be identical to the number of adverse events, which is absolutely offensive, to say the least.

It certainly doesn't seem like you want to discuss. It seems like all you want to do is to defend the vaccine manufacturers, since you dismiss every scientist, doctor, and parent who find fault with them, you make an awful lot of posts about "antivax parents" and "getting them to admit that they don't know how many cases there are," and you keep quoting flawed government statistics about reactions, as though that is some kind of proof, in spite of the fact that the government seems to be aiding the vaccine industry in covering up those reactions.

If you really do want to discuss, great--please DISCUSS, by all means.  See if you have anything left to discuss once we take pharmaceutical and government propaganda off the table.

What we've been seeing over the last several months brings the word "disgust" to mind, rather than the word "discuss."

[Rrrrrachel]

I've been trying to discuss this for months. I can't get anyone to discuss it. All I get are personal comments, instead.

Great, you don't like the way these statistics are done. I don't think they're great, either. They're at least an attempt, though. Wat do you have to offer as an alternative? What's a better way to do it? How do you come up with your impression of the likelihood of adverse events?

In my world it's a discussion when one party puts forth a claim or theory, and then other party either refutes it or helps refine it. Just yelling propaganda at everything is not a discussion.

[Marnica]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

I've been trying to discuss this for months. I can't get anyone to discuss it. All I get are personal comments, instead.

Great, you don't like the way these statistics are done. I don't think they're great, either. They're at least an attempt, though. Wat do you have to offer as an alternative? What's a better way to do it? How do you come up with your impression of the likelihood of adverse events?

In my world it's a discussion when one party puts forth a claim or theory, and then other party either refutes it or helps refine it. Just yelling propaganda at everything is not a discussion.

How can ANYBODY give you the numbers you seek when adverse reactions are routinely denied? Ok now you want proof that adverse reactions are routinely denied right? Nobody can prove this. A parent knows when their child has a terrible reaction from a vaccine. Ok lets assume that SOME reactions that happen after a vaccine are not related. I would still be willing to bet you a million bucks (if I had it!) that MANY of not MOST (I know you love exact numbers so Ill throw out 85%) of reactions that parents feel are adverse reactions related top vaccines are actually just that. Nobody knows their child better than a parent does. Anecdotal I know - and anecdotes mean nothing - convenient isn't it? It's also convenient that adverse reactions are deemed "normal". So my lets say my child gets a vaccine and screams bloody murder for hours afterwards. We all know this is encephalitis but when the parents calls the doc, they are told it's a "normal" reaction. Until the industry decides to be honest about what an adverse reaction actually is and stops dismissing parents concerns - nobody can ever answer your question - again very convenient. This topic is one big circle jerk IMO. 

[Rrrrrachel]

I'm not expecting anyone to have the magic exact answer. But let's have a discussion about it based on SOME actual facts vs just speculation.

[Wayne Rohde]

What specifically do you want to discuss?  The lack of true and independent research and studies about the adverse reactions to vaccinations.  So does anyone else that wants to get to the truth.

And that is the problem today.  There is no independent review of adverse reactions.  Almost all so called studies are funded by Pharma.

It took a lawsuit from Judicial Watch and others to get Merck to finally release documents about subsets of girls that show increased risk of adverse reactions to Gardasil.  This was not mentioned or disclosed to the FDA during the approval process.

It was two former Merck researchers that blew the whistle on Merck about the manipulation of data regarding the Mumps vaccine, showing how worthless it is and the billions of dollars the US Gov has spent buying that vaccine for nearly 20 years.

There are so many examples of lying, manipulation by Pharma regarding vaccine safety, do you really think that those who suspect that vaccine safety standards do not exist in the US and around the world? 

So why is Pharma and the CDC fighting efforts to clearly investigate medical outcomes, by expanding VAERS and using clinically standards to look at adverse events to research if it is indeed a drug reaction and why.

Why is that the Hep B, which has a poor track record of safety.  Since 1990 over 800 deaths have been recorded in the US as a result of the Hep B administered by itself or as a combination of vaccines.  How many children have died from Hep B since that date?  11

Several vaccines are necessary and should be safer.  But there is no real incentive to do that.

So where do you want to start?

[rachelsmama]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

I'm not expecting anyone to have the magic exact answer. But let's have a discussion about it based on SOME actual facts vs just speculation.

I don't think the discussions you crave are going to happen until/unless there's a LOT more research done by a much more varied set of investigators.  In the mean time, the discussions will probably continue to break down because of the difference of opinion about whether lack of proof of harm or evidence of safety is more important. 

[Marnica]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

I'm not expecting anyone to have the magic exact answer. But let's have a discussion about it based on SOME actual facts vs just speculation.

This is not possible - based on how the industry defines adverse reactions and how parents observations are ignored. Again convenient. 

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

I'm not expecting anyone to have the magic exact answer. But let's have a discussion about it based on SOME actual facts vs just speculation.

It should be obvious to you that the official "fact-collecting" is in the hands of the vaccine industry;  it should also be obvious to you (since it's been posted so many times, and it's common knowledge) that this industry has a long track record of LYING about the safety/efficacy of their products, and that their studies have been set up to hide adverse reactions.

That is one of the many reasons so many of us are passionate about wanting more independent research, and challenging the assumption that products are safe because the manufacturer (i.e. profiteer) says so.

There are more and more of us whose children had reactions that our doctors initially thought were impossible, because that's what they'd been taught. We are particularly upset at learning that recognition of these reactions has been purposely blocked by the industry, for the purposes of increasing profits.  It's heart-breaking to see other children--in exponentially increasing numbers--having similar reactions, because the recognition (and compensation) of those reactions has been hushed up (again, in the name of profits).

And most upsetting is to see people refusing in the face of all evidence to believe that this could be so, and choosing to rely on the marketing propaganda created by the vaccine industry.

[Rrrrrachel]

I don't think fact collecting is in the hands of the vaccine industry, at all. And I give a lot more credit to the current research for being independent than you do, apparently.

The current facts are flawed. That much I agree with. But they're a place to start. Its better than the whole lot of nothing that's being offered as an alternative.

Even if the adverse events as quantified by vicp are off by a factor of 1000 (so for every reaction it catches it misses 999) the number of vaccines that are administered safely is still over 99%.

[Rrrrrachel]

And I'm not "refusing in the face of all evidence," I'm refusing in the fce of no evidence whatsoever!

[Pookietooth]

Rrrrrrachel, the problem is this: Noboy is officially tracking vaccine reactions that are dismissed as a coincidence, and nobody has studied the long-term effects of vaccines. We ony have anecdotal evidence, therefore, which is easily dismissed.
Edited by Pookietooth - 3/9/13 at 4:08pm

[Rrrrrachel]

I don't think it's true that all we have is anecdotal evidence. 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.

We don't know everything, but we don't know nothing, either.

[serenbat]

Quote:

I don't think it's true that all we have is anecdotal evidence. 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.

Not to cross post but in the case of the other recent thread about a seizure 3 days later (sure you know what thread I mean-you posted on it) - if they (ER & others Drs who saw the child) don't think it could possible be no matter what- is that recored in your world?

I think not - so that can't be a reaction, so that is NOT counted under what you listed- a big zero, and how many of these cases are there? Well, we don't know- because they don't get counted, round and round and round we go! 

[Rrrrrachel]

I'm not totally clear on what you're saying.  I think you're asking if a reaction three days later that doctors insist is not related to the vaccine would show up in something like VSD.  The answer is absolutely.  Anything that's recorded in their medical chart counts.  Even just the fact that they had an extra visit to the doctor would show up.  
 

It's about patterns.  if there is an increased number of visits to the PCP or urgent care or er or whatever in children who have been recently vaccinated with whatever vaccine, that's the kind of thing that's going to show up.

[serenbat]

Quote:

I'm not totally clear on what you're saying.  I think you're asking if a reaction three days later that doctors insist is not related to the vaccine would show up in something like VSD.  The answer is absolutely.  Anything that's recorded in their medical chart counts.  Even just the fact that they had an extra visit to the doctor would show up.  
 

It's about patterns.  if there is an increased number of visits to the PCP or urgent care or er or whatever in children who have been recently vaccinated with whatever vaccine, that's the kind of thing that's going to show up.

no, your wrong

they saw no connect and it's not recorded - have you ever talked with someone who deals with this in an ER? I have, no connection- NO RECORD.