or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › How Rare is Rare?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

How Rare is Rare?

post #1 of 84
Thread Starter 

In regards to vaccination injury, we are told they exist but are rare? So, how rare is rare? How often do you believe they happen?

post #2 of 84

Doctor Sears is the only one I am aware of that has tried to actually quantify this. It is in the Vaccine Book . . . I know that 1 in a million is thrown around a lot, but that can't possibly be @ all accurate, it is just somone's numerical sounding guess.

post #3 of 84

I would think it would be impossible to accurately calculate true injuries, since drs refuse to report them, and parents are left on their own to persue the NVICP, and on their own to retain legal counsel as well.  If we're going to go with  injuries the cdc keeps records of, then again, those records are not entirely accurate, as again, not all drs report anything.  Even reactions during the trials are dismissed, and not counted.  

 

So, if some kind of questionairre were to come out every time, following vaccines being given no matter where they were given, and that questionairre was sent to an independent source for analysis, we might be able to assess what kind of injuries are occurring, and to what degree they occurr with each vaccine, and then begin to learn how the vaccine correlates to the injury.   Which ingredient could be responsible, which combo of ingredients are responsible, and so on, and so forth. 

 

Until injury stops being denied by all media, gov entities, and the medical association as normal in kids, society will continue to accept this as the norm for children.  I believe it is much more common that parents think, and since more parents are questioning the aggressive vax schedule, efforts have been ramped up to denounce exemptions, delaying, and generally questioning vaccines on the forefront.  Denial again.

post #4 of 84
Thread Starter 
Quote:
I know that 1 in a million is thrown around a lot

 

I've heard that before too. I find it hard to believe that they are actually that rare, but assuming that they are, what are the chances of a population of about 100,000 having 3 vaxx injured people in it (30x their claim!) and my husband being one of them, just happens to meet the other two?

 

ETA: I know, denial. That is the only way to explain it.

post #5 of 84

I think it is very easy to claim something is rare when you categorically deny that the thing that is "rare" exists except to say that it is rare. 

post #6 of 84

We do not know how rare is rare.  It is a huge reason I do not vaccinate.  How can you do a risk assessment if you do not know how common vaccine reactions (both short and long term) are?  

 

As per 1/1 million, I think it refers almost exclusively to anaphylactic reactions.

 

People have what - 50 vaccines by age 6?

 

50/1000000 = 1/ 20 000.  Is that what the risk is?   

post #7 of 84

How rare would it have to be for you to accept it as a reasonable risk? 

 

What do you count as a reaction and what not? Clearly what the medical profession counts many of you think is not enough.... but what is a reasonable time period to count for reactions? How do you account for coincidental occurrences. You cannot possibly deny that they would never occur in a large population. 

 

kathymuggle - I don't think each of the vaccines is independent event so you cannot combine the probabilities in that way - 1/1 million would include risk factors, so if you're good the first time it'll be a lot less than 1/1 million in future events, and a lot higher in the case that you have a reaction first time. 

 

Nice philosophical debate though. I like this question. :) 

post #8 of 84

For me, it doesn't matter how rare the reactions are, I would have to be satisfied that EVERY effort was being made to avoid reactions and make the vaccines absolutely as safe as possible, putting children and not profits first. 

 

I don't find that to be the case @ all, with the persistence of aluminum, with the AAP recently deciding to support Thimerisol and come out against a ban, etc.

 

I think the rate of reactions has to be calculated by BRAND and dosage and age of recipient. For example, the rate of reaction to Daptacel would be different in a 2 month old than a 6 year old . . . 

 

Then it would have to be calculated for the entire schedule. And also for the potential combinations.

 

I just don't see this work being done or thought about. For example there IS published research that Pentacel is more reactive than the vaccines it combines given individually, even in the same visit, but parents are still not informed of this fact and given a choice, typically.

 

I think ALL reactions must be tracked and then compared to a group who did not receive the intervention (At ALL), and then compared, statistically. I think the time period for observing reactions varies by formulation, brand, reaction, etc. But it would never just be a few days, @ minimum I would accept a month.

post #9 of 84
Thread Starter 
Quote:
How rare would it have to be for you to accept it as a reasonable risk?

 

For us personally, my husband has reacted to several vaxxes. For me to accept vaxx as a reasonable risk for *my* children, the actual death rate of the diseases would have to be a whole lot higher than they currently are right now in *our* area.

post #10 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

 

 

kathymuggle - I don't think each of the vaccines is independent event so you cannot combine the probabilities in that way - 1/1 million would include risk factors, so if you're good the first time it'll be a lot less than 1/1 million in future events, and a lot higher in the case that you have a reaction first time. 

 

 

I am not sure.  I know that people are more likely to have reactions (including severe) to DTaP as time goes along, and that anybody can develop an allergic reaction anytime. I am not disagreeing with you, just adding this caveat.  

post #11 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

How rare would it have to be for you to accept it as a reasonable risk?

 

This depends on the disease, our individual risk factors and its prevalence.  For example: 

 

If I lived in an area where diphtheria was rampant, given the fact it is fairly contagious and has a high mortality rate (about 10%)  I would be willing to accept a high vaccine severe reaction rate, even an unknown reaction rate.  Diphtheria would trump my concerns.  

 

There are certain disease where it almost doesn't matter how low the risk is  (even the mythical zero), I am not going to vaccinate.  Rota in a breastfed, not in daycare baby in a wealthy country is one.  Hep. B in an infant when the mother has tested Hep. B negative is another.  There are other risks to vaccination besides the vaccine - like the drive there and back and sitting in doctors waiting room with a newborn.  

 

What do you count as a reaction and what not? Clearly what the medical profession counts many of you think is not enough.... but what is a reasonable time period to count for reactions? Forever?  Really, if it turns out  people vaxxed with MMR as children are more likely to develop autoimmune disorders as adults, I want to know.   How do you account for coincidental occurrences. You cannot possibly deny that they would never occur in a large population. Of course coincidences occurs.  Let's say we are looking at febrile seizures.  I would like to know the rate of febrile seizure in people vaccinated recently for xyz compared to people who may have had other vaccines but not xyz and people who have never been vaccinated at all.  Until such time as we actually look at the rate of things in an unvaxxed population and everyone reports reactions (whether they think they are a coincidence or not - perhaps doctors being mandatory reporters will help) we will not get a good enough handle on vaccine reaction rates.  For tracking of short term reaction, I would expect about a month to 6 weeks.   

 

This may come as a surprise to you, but I only firmly count reaction rates as listed by the CDC and vaccine inserts.  Everything else is an unknown or maybe.  But you know what?  When the tetanus rate in Canada is so very low, I have no desire to take a chance with unknowns.  

 


Edited by kathymuggle - 7/18/13 at 7:35pm
post #12 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

How rare would it have to be for you to accept it as a reasonable risk? 

 

 

How common would it have to be for you to call it an unacceptable risk?

 

What's an acceptable number of vaccine-induced seizure reactions causing permanent brain damage to you?  How about vaccine-induced lupus? Rheumatoid arthritis? 

 

What if vaccines are a factor--not the single cause, but part of a multifactorial reaction that triggers autism in a subset of children.  Is that acceptable to you?  Does it depend on how big the subset is?  If so, how many would you think are acceptable?

post #13 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

How common would it have to be for you to call it an unacceptable risk?

 

What's an acceptable number of vaccine-induced seizure reactions causing permanent brain damage to you?  How about vaccine-induced lupus? Rheumatoid arthritis? 

 

What if vaccines are a factor--not the single cause, but part of a multifactorial reaction that triggers autism in a subset of children.  Is that acceptable to you?  Does it depend on how big the subset is?  If so, how many would you think are acceptable?

heres an article asking that very question--are vaccine injured children expendable?

http://www.ageofautism.com/2013/07/vaccines-benefits-outweigh-risks-implies-children-injured-by-vaccines-are-expendable.html

post #14 of 84

But the converse of that if you believe that the risks of serious reactions are unacceptable and that all vaccination should be stopped is that you're saying all children who would die of VPDs in an unvaccinated population are expendable.

 

You can't have it both ways.... Either you accept the risks of vaccination reactions, or you accept the risks that vaccine preventable diseases would introduce in an unvaccinated population (or you're a free loader on herd immunity and hoping that enough other people accept the risks of vaccination on your behalf). 

post #15 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

But the converse of that if you believe that the risks of serious reactions are unacceptable and that all vaccination should be stopped is that you're saying all children who would die of VPDs in an unvaccinated population are expendable.

 

You can't have it both ways.... Either you accept the risks of vaccination reactions, or you accept the risks that vaccine preventable diseases would introduce in an unvaccinated population (or you're a free loader on herd immunity and hoping that enough other people accept the risks of vaccination on your behalf). 

That is just RUDE.....nono.gif

post #16 of 84
Thread Starter 

So, no guesses then Pro on how often reactions occur? 

 

I gotta get ready to head out with my kids but you know some of us actually believe that parents should have choices, that vaxxes should be made safer, that it is not an all or nothing deal, and that there are many options to reducing widespread vpds amongst communities other than vaxx and that those communities deserve more than the band-aid approach we throw at them. 

post #17 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

But the converse of that if you believe that the risks of serious reactions are unacceptable and that all vaccination should be stopped is that you're saying all children who would die of VPDs in an unvaccinated population are expendable.

 

You can't have it both ways.... Either you accept the risks of vaccination reactions, or you accept the risks that vaccine preventable diseases would introduce in an unvaccinated population (or you're a free loader on herd immunity and hoping that enough other people accept the risks of vaccination on your behalf). 

I also don't think parents that choose not to vaccinate think they can have it both ways. I can only speak for myself, but I have done a thorough risk/benefit analysis for my family and the risks outweigh the benefits. That doesn't mean I don't think there are ANY  risks associated with being unvaccinated and I'm pretty darm sure no other parent here thinks that either. I just choose to accept those risks over the risks I know to be associated with vaccinating.

 

As for herd immunity, it has nothing to do with why the vast majority of parents make this choice. We are not "freeloaders" we are just unwilling to cause harm to our children for the good of "society". I suppose that makes us really good parents, but crappy members of society huh? Whatever..... I've devoted my life to helping others. It's what I do all day long and how I make my living getting really crappy pay I might add. I just choose to give back in other ways that do not involving doing something to my child that I believe would cause them harm. 

post #18 of 84

I looked up the term freeloader as it comes up a lot, and posted definitions below.

 

Concerning the first definition:

 

Do I take advantage of the generosity of others?

 

With the vast majority of vaccines, I do not think so.  I really do not care if everyone stopped the routine vaccination of infants for well, almost everything.  Most diseases are benign in childhood or rare and would be rare even if we stopped vaccinating.    I do think offering a vaccine if the person does not get CP, rubella, mumps  in childhood makes sense.  

 

The only 2 diseases that give me pause are Polio and (decreasingly) measles.  I don't think I am taking advantage of others generosity as I do not believe people vaccinate for others.  They do it for their own kid, and if it benefits society, that is what they see as a nice side -effect.  It is about protecting their child - not about generosity.  If it is primarily about generosity - well, that is messed up. No child should be put in the position of possibly taking one for the team, as mommy wants to do her bit for society.  Mommy's job is to protect her children first.

 

Moreover, even if you disagree with me on the bolded (which would be a logic fail duck.gif) generosity is something freely given, is it not? I also think it should be your child's to freely give or not, as it is their body, but whatever…. I don't give food to the foodbank and then whine when people use it.  If you see vaccinating as a generous thing, then stop putting strings on it.

 

As per the second definition, this one made me laugh.  I do not habitually depend on others for health.  I nursed long term, don't smoke, feed good food, wash my hands, don't go out when sick, etc, etc.  For the most part we make good health choices and that is how we endevour to stay well.  Health or ill health is not only or primarily about vaccines.  

 

ETA:  there was also an interesting thread a few months ago on the ways non-vaccination contributed to community health.  One was chicken pox - anytime a child gets chicken pox, those around him or her who have already had chicken pox get an immune boost that is thought to keep shingles at bay.  

 

 

 

 

free·load  (fremacr.gifprime.giflomacr.gifdlprime.gif)
intr.v. free·load·edfree·load·ingfree·loads Slang
To take advantage of the charity, generosity, or hospitality of others.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


freeloader [ˈfriːˌləʊdə]

n
Slang a person who habitually depends on the charity of others for food, shelter, etc.
freeloading  n
 
 

Edited by kathymuggle - 7/19/13 at 7:49am
post #19 of 84
False dichotomy. I don't think Vax should be halted & I accept that the majority love & want them. However, I think corruption & liability protection should be stopped, I think Thimerisol & Aluminum should be removed globally & I think reactive vaccines like OPV should be replaced. In short I think there should be less collateral damage.

I also think non-Vax does a community service by maintaining a control group. It is not our fault that our health outcomes are not studied & are minimized/dismissed. If every single child got vax'ed with a mushrooming schedule we would have no idea which effects were attributable to Vax. Sorta like M*ns*nto wants GMOs to infect the whole food supply so it is meaningless to say GMO free & pointless to study them.

As PPs point out, I contribute to 'herd immunity' in ways that others choose not to (nursing through childhood, non-use of immunocomprimising foods & pharmies, etc)
post #20 of 84

Interesting thread, and good discussion. Definitely something to think on this weekend. :)

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › How Rare is Rare?