or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Bioethicist says parents who don't vaccinate should face liability for consequences
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Bioethicist says parents who don't vaccinate should face liability for consequences - Page 10

post #181 of 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by bakunin View Post
Moderate and mild reactions are more common, but neither lead to long term complications.

How can you even make this claim???

post #182 of 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinahx View Post

Yeah, they said that because they had already ruled out the bulk of the adverse reactions & 3.2/100,000 Vax doses were what was left after they did that. It is obviously a very ProVax paper, & still came up with a rate of 3.2/100,000G, which is a FAR cry from 1 in 1 million (for the entire schedule).

Contracting measles is not the same as experiencing a serious adverse event from measles. Let us compare apples to apples.

Allow me to rephrase, when the authors wrote: "events with possible or indeterminate causal relation with MMR vaccination" they mean its INCONCLUSIVE. The KEY phrase is "or indeterminate" meaning it could be one or the other BUT THEY CAN'T EXPLAIN WHICH. After that paper written in 2000, STILL NO CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN PROVEN

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

Translation:  "I have provided industry-generated, flawed statistics and slapped the label 'scientific references!' on them to imply that they are actually evidence of something.  When people question the validity of these statistics, referencing the fact that the manner of gathering those statistics is deeply flawed,  I ask them to prove that there are other statistics.  Since there is only the one, flawed reporting system, I will pretend that the lack of adequate reporting system simply doesn't exist! And I will refuse to discuss it any further, so I won't have to admit that I'm wrong!"

 

Needing no translation:  "I will only welcome people to look at the scientific references provided in earlier posts."ROTFLMAO.gif  (Never mind that the consensus amongst the vaccine critics is that those references are neither accurate nor scientific.  We are welcomed by bakunin to look at them!!)

On post #57 I stated that most of 67 papers you used to claim a link of vaccines and autism in fact were NOT PROOF, since many of the papers do not even discuss vaccines. On the other hand I provided you with a list of over 40 papers debunking the autism vaccine link http://www2.aap.org/immunization/families/faq/vaccinestudies.pdf So those papers are not scientific huh? Do you have any idea how difficult it is to get published in some of these journals? The peer review process may take sometimes as long as two years, as scientists deconstruct and put back together the research. Feel free to provide a new proper scientific list, I've been practically begging for members to post them to basically no avail.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

200 deaths from measles vs 3.2 adverse events from the vaccine per 100 000.  

Added in the per 100 000 - as you forgot it. 

As stated in my first reply in this post (and in post 164) the 3.2/100,000 is NOT a rate of adverse events. It's more a rate of incidences that the authors are not sure what to make of as they stated QUITE clearly

post #183 of 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by bakunin View Post
Moderate and mild reactions are more common, but neither lead to long term complications.

How can you even make this claim???

Can't. It is all supposition.

post #184 of 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post

How can you even make this claim???


Here's one example where it is stated. The site discusses side effects. The personnel there will be happy to provide you the most appropriate references :)

http://www.chop.edu/service/vaccine-education-center/a-look-at-each-vaccine/mmr-measles-mumps-and-rubella-vaccine.html

post #185 of 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post

Can't. It is all supposition.


Incorrect! See previous post. In this thread I've provided over 50 scientific references. Hardly supposition. Feel free to provide your own scientific evidence :)

post #186 of 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post

Can't. It is all supposition.


I just saw your vactruth link. They are using references that were 'hidden from the public'. How convenient ..... for them. That way you can say anything you want. And those pop-up windows trying to sell me some of their 'evidence'   ...... quite convincing I must say.

 

In fact, unicorns exist but the governments and powerful people have been hiding the facts for thousands of years. The evidence is all documented and is available in a cave in the greek island of Crete, where Zeus was born.

post #187 of 412
3.2/100,000 is the rate of serious adverse events when the authors went through the original pile of many more adverse events & eliminated every one they possibly could through any other means.

The ProVax authors tacked on a little we stiiiiil don't knooooow @ the end but basically they DID put a rate down on paper at the end of their FOURTEEN year study.

And that rate was pretty flipping far from your one in a million idiom, even for one single vaccine on the schedule.
post #188 of 412

Here's a scientific reference for ya bakunin

 

Neurologic adverse events following vaccination

Sienkiewicz D.*, Kułak W., Okurowska-Zawada B., Paszko-Patej G.
Department of Pediatric Rehabilitation of the Medical University of Bialystok, Poland
 

 

 

Quote:

Reports in many Polish and foreign medical journals lead us to conclude that postvaccinal complications among children can be observed in sporadic cases and that they are disproportionate to the benefits of vaccination in the elimination of dangerous diseases in childhood.

 

 

Quote:
Doctors and researchers point to the worsening state of the health of the child population since the 1960s, which coincided with increasingly introduced vaccinations. Allergic diseases, including asthma autoimmune diseases, diabetes and many neurological dysfunctions-difficulty in learning, ADD, ADHD, seizures, and autism – are chronic conditions, to which attention has been brought.
post #189 of 412
Thread Starter 

I found this list of the adverse reactions of measles vs MMR.  Thought it might be helpful in breaking down the reactions. 

 

Effects of the disease:

  • ear infection (otitis media): seven percent
  • pneumonia: six percent
  • acute brain inflammation (encephalitis): one in 1,000
  • degenerative brain disease (subacute sclerosing panencephalitis or SSPE): 1 in 100,000
  • maternal measles increases risk for premature labour, miscarriage and low birth weight infants
  • overall death rate: one to two in 1,000

Side effects of the vaccine:

  • five to 15 percent experience a fever of 39.5 degress Celsius or more
  • five percent experience a rash six to 12 days after immunisation
  • acute brain inflammation (encephalitis): one in 1,000,000
  • idiopathic thrombocytopenia purpura: one in 30,000 doses
  • aseptic meningitis from the mumps component: one in 800,000 doses
  • anaphylaxis: one in 3,500,000 doses

 

- See more at: http://www.kidshealth.org.nz/measles-immunisation#sthash.nbdnc6cE.dpuf

post #190 of 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by bakunin View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post

Can't. It is all supposition.


I just saw your vactruth link. They are using references that were 'hidden from the public'. How convenient ..... for them. That way you can say anything you want. And those pop-up windows trying to sell me some of their 'evidence'   ...... quite convincing I must say.

 

In fact, unicorns exist but the governments and powerful people have been hiding the facts for thousands of years. The evidence is all documented and is available in a cave in the greek island of Crete, where Zeus was born.

The references were obtain from the FOIA, they were not made up. 

 

I don't appreciate your attempt at making non-vaxers out to be nut jobs. I guess the best you can do is to lash out. Not cool.

post #191 of 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinahx View Post

3.2/100,000 is the rate of serious adverse events when the authors went through the original pile of many more adverse events & eliminated every one they possibly could through any other means.

The ProVax authors tacked on a little we stiiiiil don't knooooow @ the end but basically they DID put a rate down on paper at the end of their FOURTEEN year study.

And that rate was pretty flipping far from your one in a million idiom, even for one single vaccine on the schedule.


One can't just re-interpret what the authors wrote. If they wrote "events with possible or indeterminate causal relation with MMR vaccination" then they mean its INCONCLUSIVE. How can you say that they meant something else? That's the true interpretation of their finding. Otherwise the would have stated: "events with causal relation with MMR vaccination" but they DIDN'T, NO CAUSATION WAS PROVEN so the author had no choice to provide the conclusion the way they did.

 

The is also something important that has gone amiss in the argument. On the 1999 paper I referred to in post 159 (only one year before the 2000 paper), it was stated that: unvaccinated children age 5-9 had a 10.62/100000 rate of contracting measles http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=190649

Therefore, even with the 3.2/100,000 you are using of serious side effects (which is wrong), CLEARLY the benefits outweigh the risks. Doesn't that jama paper (one of the most prestigious medicine journals by the way) make the benefit quite clear?

post #192 of 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by bakunin View Post
.

As stated in my first reply in this post (and in post 164) the 3.2/100,000 is NOT a rate of adverse events. It's more a rate of incidences that the authors are not sure what to make of as they stated QUITE clearly

Lol.  You quoted me, but it is really teacozy you are using all caps at.  She is the one who called it adverse events.  I just added in the per 100 000 part.  But you know - whatever.  You come across as  quite dismissive of possible vaccine reactions, adverse events, "incidences."  


Edited by kathymuggle - 8/5/13 at 4:23pm
post #193 of 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by bakunin View Post

In fact, unicorns exist but the governments and powerful people have been hiding the facts for thousands of years. The evidence is all documented and is available in a cave in the greek island of Crete, where Zeus was born.

 

They might.  Mary gave birth as a virgin - lots of people believe that as well. Are you always so dismissive of peoples belief systems?

post #194 of 412
I am not the one reinterpreting the author's results. The entire intent of the paper was to posit a plausible reaction rate for MMR & it was established @ 3.2/100,000 (Vax Doses) after all the reactions that could be eliminated were.
post #195 of 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

Lol.  You quoted me, but it is really teacozy you are using all caps at.  She is the one who called it adverse events.  I just added in the per 100 000 part.  But you know - whatever.  You come across as  quite dismissive of possible vaccine reactions, adverse events, "incidences."  

The original quote is from dinahx

post #196 of 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinahx View Post

I am not the one reinterpreting the author's results. The entire intent of the paper was to posit a plausible reaction rate for MMR & it was established @ 3.2/100,000 (Vax Doses) after all the reactions that could be eliminated were.


Except the unexplained ones, hence their statement

post #197 of 412
So based on this study what do YOU suggest the IRL serious adverse reaction rate is for MMR? 1 in a million maybe? wink1.gif
post #198 of 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by bakunin View Post


I'm afraid statistics is the best we've got in these situations with so many unknowns. As strange as the results sound statistics is useful. They are not fear based whatsoever. Decisions based on fear would not rely on the evidence. Like being concerned about adverse events that hardly ever occur (or sometimes are not scientifically linked to vaccines) smile.gif

Translation: "Rely on the "statistics" provided by the pharmaceutical industry/ government! They're incomplete, but they're the best we've got! They're not fear based whatsoever, even though the pharm/gov marketing hype continually bleats, "YOUR child could DIE without 55 vaccines by age 6!" "Delaying vaccines could KILL others!" And of course, the latest: "You could be SUED if someone else gets sick and you or your child is unvaccinated!"

(Yeah, that's not fear-based, no, not at all...)

"No need to be concerned about adverse events caused by vaccines, because they hardly ever happen! The people who suffer those events don't count! They're expendable! And their reactions might not even be scientifically linked to vaccines, so we'll just assume they aren't! Because we assume our invasive procedure is safe until the industry-controlled science says otherwise, and we assume that severe adverse reactions are non-existent until the industry admits them! Even though the Supreme Court declared them to be inherently unsafe! So no need to be concerned!"

You know, the major difference between our government and, say China or the former Societ Union, is that, in those countries, everybody KNOWS that the government is corrupt.
post #199 of 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinahx View Post

So based on this study what do YOU suggest the IRL serious adverse reaction rate is for MMR? 1 in a million maybe? wink1.gif

The scientific interpretation of the numbers in that study would be that they provide a good maximum number for the rate of serious reactions. Sounds like they tried hard to find all plausible reactions, then looked for other possible causes (I interpret that as good scientific method - to try to get rid of your result in order to convince yourself it's real - not a conspiracy to hide reactions). Anything they're left with might or might not be a reaction, but the rate cannot be higher than the number they give.
post #200 of 412
Correction - the Supreme Court said vaccines are "unavoidably unsafe", which doesn't mean they're really dangerous, just that was some level of unavoidable risk to them. As we all agree serious reactions can occur - even if we cannot agree with the rate of those reactions.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Bioethicist says parents who don't vaccinate should face liability for consequences