or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Link to U.S. Court of Federal Claims Vaccine Cases that are UNPUBLISHED
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Link to U.S. Court of Federal Claims Vaccine Cases that are UNPUBLISHED - Page 3

post #41 of 51
Bakunin, you replied to post #29, but you must have missed post #28, in which you were asked to answer some specific questions, reposted below.

We await your answers with much curiosity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

Please answer the question instead of dancing around it. We are all considering benefits vs risks here, and for you to imply that we aren't is condescending, and seems like a deliberate insult.

At exactly what point would you think the risks outweigh the benefits? For example, if a vaccine has the potential to prevent 1000 cases of a disease that kills 3/1000, but the vaccine itself kills 1/1000, would that be an acceptable risk? What about lifelong disability that may be caused by a vaccine, like autoimmune disorders, seizures, or brain damage? How many of such vaccine-induced, non-death disorders are acceptable to you?

Please tell us the exact tipping point of acceptable risk for you.
post #42 of 51
Bakunin, you replied to post #29, but you must have missed post #28, in which you were asked to answer some specific questions, reposted below.

We await your answers with much curiosity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

Please answer the question instead of dancing around it. We are all considering benefits vs risks here, and for you to imply that we aren't is condescending, and seems like a deliberate insult.

At exactly what point would you think the risks outweigh the benefits? For example, if a vaccine has the potential to prevent 1000 cases of a disease that kills 3/1000, but the vaccine itself kills 1/1000, would that be an acceptable risk? What about lifelong disability that may be caused by a vaccine, like autoimmune disorders, seizures, or brain damage? How many of such vaccine-induced, non-death disorders are acceptable to you?

Please tell us the exact tipping point of acceptable risk for you.
post #43 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by MamaMunchkin View Post
 

The rate of serious side effects is PER USE of vaccine. Use of a rate for measles per population is inadequate to compare with serious side effects PER USE of vaccine. The right way to perform the comparison is by getting the measles death rate PER incidence of measles OR make the comparison with BOTH per population. Furthermore one must obtain the rates BOTH either per vaccine or by all vaccines. Remember, this is one of the grave mistakes related to post #24. The other points are just as important.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post


Please answer the question instead of dancing around it. We are all considering benefits vs risks here, and for you to imply that we aren't is condescending, and seems like a deliberate insult.

At exactly what point would you think the risks outweigh the benefits? For example, if a vaccine has the potential to prevent 1000 cases of a disease that kills 3/1000, but the vaccine itself kills 1/1000, would that be an acceptable risk? What about lifelong disability that may be caused by a vaccine, like autoimmune disorders, seizures, or brain damage? How many of such vaccine-induced, non-death disorders are acceptable to you?

Please tell us the exact tipping point of acceptable risk for you.

This request (also made by kathymuggle) is baffling:

- this issue has already been discussed in the 'vaccines more good than harm?' thread. What matters is to compare the benefits vs the risks (as a parent one must make this comparison per vaccine). Now, if the benefits far outweigh the risks, as the scientific evidence suggests, then why try to put a specific number on acceptable risk in general?

- I've provided evidence of the estimates concerning benefits and risks on many of the references provided in previous posts which everyone is welcome to double check.

- Why does my opinion about a specific rate of acceptable risk really matter? If the evidence shows that serious side effect risk of MMR is 1 in 1million, what is the use of putting a number or upper bound on risk?

- This requests is a ploy to avoid answering the requests I made a long time ago about scientific evidence (see my account record for more details on the exchange). Basically, instead of providing the scientific evidence about consensus, I'm asked to provide even more evidence (but of a personal tone now) on the subject. I think it's your turn (taximom5 and kathymuggle) to answer my request. I've been waiting over a week for you to do so.

 

I'll tell you what, the rate of serious side effects of MMR of no more than 1 in 1million is more than adequate.

post #44 of 51
Quote:
If the evidence shows that serious side effect risk of MMR is 1 in 1million,

You never actually established this. You linked us to a secondary, government source saying that the risk of SERIOUS ALLERGIC REACTION to MMR is 1 in a million. The link you provided both outlined other serious adverse events & other 'moderate' adverse events that were, en realidad, serious. Putting the total rate of adverse events @ greater than 1 in a million, even by YOUR source. (Love it when that happens!)

However, since you steadfastly cling to the 1 in a million number, even tho I posted primary long term research establishing the rate as much higher (32x higher) I am going to take your answer to be that you find 1 in a million to be the acceptable rate of Vax reaction (so awesome that it is a round number & a common phrase too!!!) & that you find 32 in a million to be so unacceptable that it can not, in fact, ever be accepted.
post #45 of 51

 

 

nm

post #46 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by bakunin View Post

 

I'll tell you what, the rate of serious side effects of MMR of no more than 1 in 1million is more than adequate.

Is a serious adverse reaction rate with MMR of 1/500 000 more than adequate (bakunins words)?  Is this per antigen, dose or person?

 

1/250 000?

1/50 000?

1/20 000?

1/10 000?

1/5000?

1/1000?

1/500?

 

Thanks.


Edited by kathymuggle - 8/8/13 at 1:27pm
post #47 of 51
It's a great distraction to push for an answer to find the unacceptable level of risk.

In fact it reminds me of the old moral dilemma - the train track lever. Do you pull the lever, divert the train from hitting a school bus and instead make it hit a single child. Logically yes - but is that child's death "acceptable". Of course not.

It's not "acceptable" to me that children die in car crashes, or crossing the street, or accidentally eating peanuts. It's not acceptable, but it's unavoidable.

Vaccines have and do save lives. And the evidence shows that the ones on the current schedule do more good (actually much more good) than harm. That's why I think the best educated, informed choice for the majority of people is to vaccinate. Everyone has to make their own decision though.
post #48 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

It's a great distraction to push for an answer to find the unacceptable level of risk.


It's not "acceptable" to me that children die in car crashes, or crossing the street, or accidentally eating peanuts. It's not acceptable, but it's unavoidable.
 

It is not meant as a great distraction (from what?)

 

No one finds childrens deaths acceptable - but they are a reality.  The cold truth is if you vaccinate, some will be injured or die - and if you do not vaccinate, some will be injured or die.

 

I can change the word "acceptable" in the earlier post so as not to get bogged down - but the question is still the same - what is the tipping point?   I think it is an important issue to discuss.  


Edited by kathymuggle - 8/8/13 at 1:48pm
post #49 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

It is not meant as a great distraction (from what?)

 

No one finds childrens deaths acceptable - but they are a reality.  The cold truth is if you vaccinate, some will be injured or die - and if you do not vaccinate, some will be injured or die.

 

I can change the word "acceptable" in the earlier post so as not to get bogged down - but the question is still the same - what is the tipping point?   I think it is an important issue to discuss.  


This is a request about perception. In this thread (and others) I've been making arguments based on the data not solely on my perception. The topic should be in a different thread.

post #50 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by bakunin View Post


This is a request about perception. In this thread (and others) I've been making arguments based on the data not solely on my perception. The topic should be in a different thread.

Done! Here is the different thread: http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1387972/questions-for-bakunin

We await your answers with bated breath!
post #51 of 51

Acceptable risk in North America = as long as it doesn't happen to my child, it's fine.
 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Link to U.S. Court of Federal Claims Vaccine Cases that are UNPUBLISHED