or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › 99.999% of Children Have No Serious Side Effects from Vaccines
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

99.999% of Children Have No Serious Side Effects from Vaccines - Page 5

post #81 of 110
Thread Starter 
What I'm saying is that if there is a link it'll be in the data to be found. It cannot be hidden if there are medical records that make it into the long term health studies which are done.

That's different from agreeing to a link between a specific condition and vaccines. In fact I stand the statement that no link between autism and vaccine has been found - even though it has been looked for.
post #82 of 110
The VSD is just a collection of raw data. The way it has been manipulated is legendary. Simpsonwood, anyone?
post #83 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post

So, you are saying autism is directly connected to vac-right?

 

Those I know who have autism (and made that call right after a vac and couldn't get in- because it's NORMAL) end up going and going to the Dr (doctors!) ALL the time (as in your long term description here) so the connections has to be there!   

 

                                                                      joy.gifThanks for clearing that up for everyone! 

 

direction connection that is reported!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!joy.gif

 

How on earth do you get the direct connection?

post #84 of 110
Quote:
How on earth do you get the direct connection?

gee, I find it very simple - go by what both prosciencemum and Rrrrrrachel say 

 

you take what is said - 

Quote:
So I'm a bit confused by this argument. Surely if the dr is wrong to deny a first appointment but then there is some long term health impact for the child they will have apts about it going forward, which then make it into the kinds of statistical studies Rrrrrachel has pointed out do happen. So long term at least that reaction makes it into the data, even if never recognized by a dr as a reaction.

 that because children are being treated for long term health issues it is being "recognized" (regardless that no reaction is recognized it REALLY still does get counted as a reaction

 

and you add in the increase of autism per the CDC

 

http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html and the increase means a long term health impact for the child generating more apts and more tracking that makes it's way into statistical studies

 

so we must know according to what they say is going into the studies- where else is this going??

 

you know form prosciencemum and Rrrrrrachel point of view, reaction are part of these statistical studies, you have to acknowledge that it is known that a "reaction" took place to cause the need for treatment long term and ALL this is recored 

 

the same argument that prosciencemum and Rrrrrrachel state can be made for this as well-

http://www.cdc.gov/features/dscancerinchildren/index.html - we know cancer also has increase in children, causing the need for more appointments and according to both of them, it doesn't matter if a diagnoses (reaction) is recognized or not, it's counted!

 

                                                                                            if this isn't TRUE, than we really are just not counting are we?

 

 

you can't NOT recognized something if it's not happening but both are really saying it's happening thus the reason for  (some long term health impact for the child they will have apts about it going forward, which then make it into the kinds of statistical studies)

 

but maybe these "wonderful" statistical studies they rely soooooo heavy on are not all that the are promoted to be? could that be?

 

well, you could look at the "A Population-Based Cohort Study of Undervaccination in 8 Managed Care Organizations Across the United States" as a good source of how little the data pool really is (not like this one is much different from all the others-yet we hear how this represents the WHOLE truth as with their claim about vaccine reactions counting) - For inclusion, each child had to be continuously enrolled in their MCO from at least ages 2 to 12 months. Children were followed up for a maximum of 36 months, and follow-up stopped if a child’s enrollment in his or her MCO was discontinued…To help ensure that children were receiving primary care services within their MCO, they also had to have at least 1 outpatient visit by age 12 months.  Some great long term finding, yet with all the statistical studies evidence they try and present it's very clear that its only represent what ever the study groups wants, not really the cross section that many object to being excluded.

 

If you don't pool large and really follow up, you don't really have anything to acknowledge it's happening and in the case of prosciencemum and Rrrrrrachel they can't prove it's really in there because both can say it but offer no proof "reactions" evidence is in statistical studies.

post #85 of 110
You really need to learn about how vsd and managed care work. No amount of underlining will make up for ignorance.
post #86 of 110
Quote:
You really need to learn about how vsd and managed care work. No amount of underlining will make up for ignorance.

ah, where's your proof that reactions are included? nice to keep repeating it over and over and not proving proof 

post #87 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post

you can't NOT recognized something if it's not happening but both are really saying it's happening thus the reason for  (some long term health impact for the child they will have apts about it going forward, which then make it into the kinds of statistical studies)

 

I acknowledge that some children have long-term health issues, which may include autism.

 

I acknowledge that some vaccinated children have long-term health issues, which may include autism.

 

I have seen no proof that vaccines CAUSED these long-term health issues, and specifically no evidence that vaccines cause autism.

 

I do believe that some children do have vax reactions.  I don't think anyone claims otherwise. 

post #88 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickabiddy View Post

I do believe that some children do have vax reactions.  I don't think anyone claims otherwise. 

Can you name a specific case of this happening--that is, a reaction much more severe than "soreness at the injection site?" Is there a news story that you actually believe? Can you name a name or put a face to a reaction, or are severely vaccine-injured children more of a nebulous and anonymous abstraction to you?

I hear and believe terrible news stories of children getting vaccine-targeted diseases, (although I don't always agree with the spin, eg blaming unvaccinated children for a child's pertussis case). But despite acknowledgement that vaccine reactions occur, it seems to be the assumption that absolutely every reaction we hear about is a coincidence.

I don't mean to single you out with this question. You were just the most recent person to make this point, and I was waiting to ask someone...
post #89 of 110
Uh, Hannah poling? The other 3000+ people who've been compensated by vicp? I don't assume by any means that every reaction is a coincidence. The difference is I don't assume none of them are, either. I know for a certainty that at least some are coincidences. I can't look at a particular instance and say that it isn't a coincidence anymore than I can say it for certain it is.
post #90 of 110

you switched the subject again

 

 

 

if you believe in science the way you claim, disprove what I am saying and prove what you are with real facts

 

 

Quote:

You really need to learn about how vsd and managed care work. No amount of underlining will make up for ignorance.

ah, where's your proof that reactions are included? nice to keep repeating it over and over and not proving proof 

 

 

3000+ (deaths included) so they must have been in the data with the statistical studies surely the vsd and managed care has this info......  can you  provide the proof or can you only keep repeating it?

post #91 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post


Can you name a specific case of this happening--that is, a reaction much more severe than "soreness at the injection site?" Is there a news story that you actually believe? Can you name a name or put a face to a reaction, or are severely vaccine-injured children more of a nebulous and anonymous abstraction to you?

I hear and believe terrible news stories of children getting vaccine-targeted diseases, (although I don't always agree with the spin, eg blaming unvaccinated children for a child's pertussis case). But despite acknowledgement that vaccine reactions occur, it seems to be the assumption that absolutely every reaction we hear about is a coincidence.

I don't mean to single you out with this question. You were just the most recent person to make this point, and I was waiting to ask someone...


I'm sorry.  I can't think of a specific case in which I can state for sure that the reaction was due to a vax and there were no complicating or mitigating circumstances.  I've read accounts here that certainly seem convincing, but I am not comfortable naming names (because any name I don't name could infer that I think she's a liar, when it could just be that I have a poor memory).  But basically, I believe the pharmaceutical companies when they acknowledge that there are risks.  I am not really sure what kind of answer you're looking for, and I'm not willing to start fights about certain cases either on the boards or in the news when there's no way to know for sure.

post #92 of 110
No, there's no need to "start a fight." I'm just curious, in part, if people believe the conclusions leading to VICP claims.
post #93 of 110

As of March3-4, 2011 minutes of the Childhood Commission on Childhood vaccines transcripts, 26% of claims filed were with Gardasil vaccine.  Going through Vaccine Court is not an easy process as the number of certified vaccine attorneys number less than 100 in the country.  Harder to find are medical experts who are willing to testify against the government.  These doctors are

"black balled" by the pharmas and if they are into research, they sure will not jeopardize any research funding.  In the case of newer vaccines, there is the post marketing stage that goes beyond the initial trials that were conducted by the pharma.  In the case of Gardasil, it was fast-tracked to the public in 50% less time than any other vaccine.  Further, the placebo used in the clinical trials were not a saline placebo; but an aluminum adjuvant.  To me, that in itself is flawed.  In post marketing, via the flawed VAERS system (where less than 5-10% adverse events are reported), the number of adverse events relating to Gardasil outnumber any other vaccine.  CDC and Merck contend that this is a safe vaccine, yet there are over 128 deaths and almost 29,000 reports filed.

The VAERS reporting system is so flawed, that many medical professional are not aware of it.  Further, parents are not aware of it.  It is not until your child (my child) has been injured that I investigated.  After speaking with many professionals in the medical field; including er physicians, nurses, nurse practitioners and many local doctor's offices; I was amazed at how many did not know that there is a vaccine reporting system.  Now that was my "unscientific" method of finding out how knowledgeable the professionals are about reporting an adverse event.  Based on my local observations and experiences and relating it to the broader discussion of vaccine safety, as a parent, it is imperative to be knowledgeable and investigate more thoroughly today than any time in the past.  Vaccine court is in existence since 1988,  In 1983, 10 vaccines were given to children prior to age 6.  Today, I believe the number is around 38 vaccines before age 6.  Is it any wonder that the vaccine requirements have almost quadrupled since the inception of Vaccine Court.  Vaccine Court puts the burden of causation on the vaccine injured victim with off-table injuries.  Another clever way for the government to make it more difficult for the suffering victim.  So now that you have a vaccine-injured victim, there is no recourse to go to the mfr. for a faulty product.  There is now no accountability for multi-billion dollar pharmas to worry too much about side effects.  Because now that they are exempt from being sued, they can continue to market, research, sell, sell, sell

vaccines without any risk of suit.  If an auto mfr. produced a car with faulty brakes and there were accidents resulting in death, there would be a recall and accountability.  Before we know it, in efforts to increase their profitability, the pharmas will prepare a wonder vaccine to prevent in-grown toenails (this is an exaggeration).  My point is, simply this regarding the drug that I am most familiar with.  A pap smear never killed anyone, Gardasil has.
 

post #94 of 110

Why are vaccines the only medicine that adverse events are virtually always written off as "coincidence"? Every other medication, you are told to report anything which could be a reaction. If it happens to your body near the time of the drug, it is assumed it could be related. If it's serious, you are advised to never take that drug again. There is no bs of taking the drug in the ER in case you react again. There is no crowd of parents, doctors and media telling you it's up to you, the injured person (or parent of the injured person) to PROVE that the drug caused the harm or you're just a conspiracy nut. Reactions which were known, admitted and considered severe and a total contraindication to repeated use of the drug aren't magically declared "normal" because so many patients were having them. The way vaccine reactions are ignored would be unacceptable for any other drug and no one would ever consider saying something like "Oh, you got a migraine after "x" drug? Must just be a coincidence." "You can't move your arm after "y" drug? Must just be a coincidence." So why on earth do some many otherwise sane, rational people not only accept this nonsense for vaccines, they encourage it and denigrate those who refuse to allow vaccine reactions to be treated differently than other drug reactions? Vaccines are drugs, they have side effects, they cause damage and we will never, ever know how much damage as long as reactions are dismissed as coincidence. It should be assumed something is a reaction until it is proven otherwise.

 

As for those going on about how it would show up in increased doctors visits, how could reactions possibly do that? Especially long term reactions. Our society is so used to sick children and auto-immune disorders that more visits would never even be noticed. We accept as "normal" diseases that didn't even exist, or didn't exist in children/young adults 30, 40, 50 years ago. Did vaccines cause all of them? We don't know. We will never know unless we stop assuming reactions are rare, that parents are hysterical or lying or influenced by celebrities or whatever the excuse du jour is. We NEED a long term study comparing the health of vaccinated and unvaccinated children. And not just for minor diseases; for autoimmune diseases, for cancer, for psychiatric disorders and yes, for autism. Or to be more precise, that constellation of symptoms classed as autism, which we know for a fact is sometimes caused by heavy metal poisoning (eg it's admitted high lead levels can cause autism symptoms) or other issues.

 

It is truly amazing to me that anyone, anywhere, can claim that a drug which has never been tested for whether it causes cancer, mutations or fertility issues (as ALL vaccines admit they have never been tested for) is "safe". And all of those are long term issues which certain people seem to think could never, ever be connected to vaccines. All evidence (*cough* SV40 in tumours *cough*) to the contrary.

post #95 of 110
Quote:
As for those going on about how it would show up in increased doctors visits, how could reactions possibly do that?

hey, good luck with that question!

 

isn't it time to change the subject again? Raw Tuna anyone? eat.gif

post #96 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post

hey, good luck with that question!

isn't it time to change the subject again? Raw Tuna anyone? eat.gif

joy.gif.
post #97 of 110

could it be a coincidence no replies to Devaskyla or mine? 

post #98 of 110
Thread Starter 

There have been studies comparing the wider health of vaccinated and un vaccinated children. They are ignored by most people on here because they find no evidence of any significant difference in the long term health. 

 

Here's a thread where we discuss one (and a link to the study itself). 

 

 

Thread: http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1353634/vaxxed-vs-unvaxxed-study/20

 

Study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3057555/

 
I already answered how reactions would show up in increased health visits - if the reaction causes long term chronic health issues for the child that child will have more doctors visits (unless the parents decide not to treat the long term chronic health issues). What's not clear about that? If you're concerned about the US - well let's consider monitoring in Europe or other parts of the world with better access to health care for all and similar vaccination programmes.
 
The main difference with vaccines and other drugs is that as they are given to healthy children they are subject to higher safety standards and more monitoring. 
post #99 of 110
Quote:
 
I already answered how reactions would show up in increased health visits - if the reaction causes long term chronic health issues for the child that child will have more doctors visits (unless the parents decide not to treat the long term chronic health issues). What's not clear about that? If you're concerned about the US - well let's consider monitoring in Europe or other parts of the world with better access to health care for all and similar vaccination programmes.
 

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? 

post #100 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

There have been studies comparing the wider health of vaccinated and un vaccinated children. They are ignored by most people on here because they find no evidence of any significant difference in the long term health. 

 

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. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › 99.999% of Children Have No Serious Side Effects from Vaccines