How common are serious vaccine reactions? - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 157 Old 05-16-2012, 07:10 AM - Thread Starter
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
I'm trying to get a fix on how common serious vaccine reactions are. It is certainly the case that some people are seriously injured by vaccines, but is it 1 in 100? 1 in 1000? 1 in 1,000,000? I thi this question is at the root of a lot of vaccine controversy.

For the sake of clarity, even though most of us know this, in the US vaccine reactions are monitored in severalways. Two are the vaccine adverse event reporting system (VAERS) and vaccine safety datalink (VSD). VAERS is a passive monitoring system, any member of the public Congo to the website and report an adverse event. There are problems with it because things get reported that aren't actually related to vaccines and things that are related to vaccines never get reported. VSD is an active monitoring system.several (around a dozen) HMOS participate and medical records of patients in those HMOS are intoned for certain things, like increased primary care or urgent care visits after a vaccine. This system has a lot less "noise," but is still imperfect, of course. There are a few other monitoring systems, and other countries have similar systems.

You can read more about monitoring here: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Vaccine_Monitoring/Index.html

Several studies have attempted to use VAERS data to determine how common serious diverse events are. One can be found here: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5201a1.htm

This study found an adverse event was reported for 11.4 out of every 100,000 vaccines administered. Most of those were minor (fever, rash, etc). 14.2% of reports were serious, where serious meant death, hospitalization, lifelong disability, etc (see the link for more details).

Does this mean 14.2% of vaccines resulted in a serious adverse event? No!! 14% of 11.4 out of 100,000 did. 14% of 11.4 is 1.6. So 1.6 out of every 100,000 vaccines given resulted in a serious adverse event, or .0016%. That means for an individual child who receives around 25 vaccines (counting all the doses and calling each shot one vaccine for the sake of consistency) they have around a .04% chance of a serious reaction.

Hard to say how good that data really is, but there's one whack at it, at least.

I found some other info, one PDF from that same expert and independent panel in Australia that has been getting so much love around here lately: http://www.public.health.wa.gov.au/cproot/432/2/FS%20Vaccine%20Side%20Effects.pdf it breaks down the risks by reaction and vaccine.

I have some other stuff I want to post later, but I have to go get some work done for now!
Rrrrrachel is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#2 of 157 Old 05-16-2012, 07:50 AM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,314
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)
It is literally impossible to determine how common serious adverse reactions to vaccines are, because the "first responders" to such events (pediatricians, nurses, and ER personnel) are not trained in recognizing such reactions, and fail to report them as such simply because they don't realize that that is what they are dealing with. Most of them don't even realize that such reactions are possible.

This was my personal experience for 4 separate reactions that I had, followed by 4 separate events with my children.

Even after our reactions were recognized as such, they were still not reported by the doctors.

Most parents are not aware that they can report a reaction themselves; most, as I did, believe the doctors when they say that "vaccines don't cause such reactions," so why would they report it?

And those that are aware that they can report it are also keenly aware that nobody is following up on such reactions, and that most doctors and researchers don't take VAERS seriously anyway (which is probably why they don't bother to report).

So, looking for an accurate number of severe vaccine reactions is a great idea, but currently made I possible by the fact that accurate reporting of such events does not yet exist.

That's part of the reason some of us are shouting our histories as loud as we can--because our reactions weren't reported, and the "experts" are still broadcasting that such reactions either don't happen or are vanishingly rare.

Enough of us have who have had such reactions have met each other, and know that the "experts" are wrong. And something must be done about that,
Taximom5 is online now  
#3 of 157 Old 05-16-2012, 08:18 AM - Thread Starter
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)

Just some quick studies.  Science is never conclusive, but I feel like these supply some more information about the prevalence of various serious side effects:

 

 

Active surveillance for adverse events: the experience of the Vaccine Safety Datalink project.

 

 

 

 

Lack of association between childhood immunizations and encephalitis in California, 1998-2008.

 

 

Lack of association between acellular pertussis vaccine and seizures in early childhood.

 

 

Lack of association between measles-mumps-rubella vaccination and autism in children: a case-control study.

 

 

Measles-containing vaccines and febrile seizures in children age 4 to 6 years.

 

 

H1N1 and seasonal influenza vaccine safety in the vaccine safety datalink project.

 
 

Placing the risk of seizures with pediatric vaccines in a clinical context

This one states that DTaP and MMR account for an additional 5-9 and 25-34 febrile seizures per 100,000 doses.  so between a .005 and 009% chance for DTaP and .0025 and .0034% chance for MMR.  It also says that we are still developing our understanding of the risks of extremely rare events.  It takes years of data to really understand these risks because the events are so uncommon.

 

Still working on this.

Rrrrrachel is offline  
#4 of 157 Old 05-16-2012, 08:26 AM - Thread Starter
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

It is literally impossible to determine how common serious adverse reactions to vaccines are, because the "first responders" to such events (pediatricians, nurses, and ER personnel) are not trained in recognizing such reactions, and fail to report them as such simply because they don't realize that that is what they are dealing with. Most of them don't even realize that such reactions are possible.
This was my personal experience for 4 separate reactions that I had, followed by 4 separate events with my children.
Even after our reactions were recognized as such, they were still not reported by the doctors.
Most parents are not aware that they can report a reaction themselves; most, as I did, believe the doctors when they say that "vaccines don't cause such reactions," so why would they report it?
And those that are aware that they can report it are also keenly aware that nobody is following up on such reactions, and that most doctors and researchers don't take VAERS seriously anyway (which is probably why they don't bother to report).
So, looking for an accurate number of severe vaccine reactions is a great idea, but currently made I possible by the fact that accurate reporting of such events does not yet exist.
That's part of the reason some of us are shouting our histories as loud as we can--because our reactions weren't reported, and the "experts" are still broadcasting that such reactions either don't happen or are vanishingly rare.
Enough of us have who have had such reactions have met each other, and know that the "experts" are wrong. And something must be done about that,

 

 

You're right that that is a huge problem.  This is what is good about VSD vs. VAERS. VSD doesn't require anyone to report anything, it automatically monitors for things like increased visits to the doctor, urgent care, or hospital and uses them as a red flag that something is going on, then investigates further.  

 

For example, if 500k kids are in this system (which is a number I've seen, but I'm not sure how accurate it is, but it makes for a good for instance) and they all get vaccinated (which they don't, but still, for the sake of this hypothetical) and then within a month of getting vaccinated 20% have a sudden uptick in doctor's visits, that's considered a "signal" that something is going on.  Or a certain percentage suddenly present with encephalitis, that would be a "signal," too, and then further investigation and analysis can be done.  This happens on a regular basis, that a signal shows up and then it's investigated.

 

There are also efforts to try and spot AE in clinical notes even when doctor's don't classify them as such: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19428833

 

This is a difficult thing to do, I agree.  Doctor's need more training in spotting adverse events to help our data get better, but I don't think the data we have is worthless.  I think we can at least ball park some of these things.  It helps that if we look at the overall population rate of something that is proposed to be caused by vaccines (like an autoimmune disease) and then think about maybe what percentage of that is caused by vaccines (I've heard most people say, for example, that they don't think all autism is caused by vaccines or even most of it, but it's triggered by vaccines in some cases).  That can give us some information, too.  I'd like to do that, next, but it's difficult to get information on exactly what conditions (other than autism) people think are caused by vaccines.

 

It's also important, at some point, to compare these risks to the risks from the actual diseases (because isn't that really the point?)  IMO it needs to be compared to the risks from the pre-vaccine era, although that has it's own apples to oranges elements since supportive medicine is likely much better now.

Rrrrrachel is offline  
#5 of 157 Old 05-16-2012, 11:54 AM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,314
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)
I will mention my experience again, because I have met countless mothers with the same experience.

When my child had a seizure reaction to the vaccine, the nurse told me (over the phone--she didn't even SEE my child) that I was over-reacting, tht vaccines didn't "do that," and that my child would not be seen if I brought him in.

Imagine if his reaction had been at night, if he was alone in a crib.

My other son's reaction involved a serious rash that covered his entire body. The pediatrician (whose sub-specialty was derm) couldn't believe it was a vaccine reaction, as he'd never seen one (he'd only been in practice a short time; this was his first job). He sent us to a dermatologist, who took one look and said, "this is a reaction to a medication; what is he on?"

He wasn't on anything. He'd had his 4-month vaccines 24 hours earlier.

My third child was unconscious--literally unconscious-- for over 2 days following a vaccine visit. The pediatrician did not want to see her, but told me over the phone that babies could be sleepy after a vaccine, and, as long as she had wet diapers, not to worry.

Do you think the VSD even saw this? For two of these events, I was told not to come in. For the third, it was listed by the pediatrician as a rash, not as a vaccine reaction.

Of course the VSD never saw this. Nor did they see the thousands of similar reactions. And even those who won their case in vaccine court complain, very bitterly, that not one person ever contacted them to take a closer look at what happened to their child, to study this phenomenon so that it wouldn't happen to another child.

Parents reporting a SIDS death hours after a vaccination are ALWAYS told that SIDS couldn't have nothing to do with their baby's death. They complain that "vaccine reaction" is never investigated, that "SIDS" appears on the death certificate, and the case is closed. They complain that VAERS is their only option to report, because the VSD refuses to get involved.

The "ball-parking" you are suggesting is ridiculous, especially coming from you.
Taximom5 is online now  
#6 of 157 Old 05-16-2012, 12:00 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,314
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Just some quick studies.  Science is never conclusive, but I feel like these supply some more information about the prevalence of various serious side effects:


Active surveillance for adverse events: the experience of the Vaccine Safety Datalink project.



 



Lack
 of association
 between childhood
 immunizations
 and encephalitis
 in California, 1998-2008.





Lack of association between acellular pertussis vaccine and seizures in early childhood.





Lack
 of association
 between measles-mumps-rubella
 vaccination
 and autism
 in children
: a case-control study
.





Measles-containing vaccines and febrile seizures in children
 age 4 to 6 years.





H1N1 and seasonal influenza vaccine safety in the vaccine safety datalink project.



 

On-time vaccine
 receipt in the first year does not adversely affect neuropsychological outcomes.




 

[URL=http:]Placing the risk of seizures with pediatric vaccines
 in a clinical context[/URL]



This one states that DTaP and MMR account for an additional 5-9 and 25-34 febrile seizures per 100,000 doses.  so between a .005 and 009% chance for DTaP and .0025 and .0034% chance for MMR.  It also says that we are still developing our understanding of the risks of extremely rare events.  It takes years of data to really understand these risks because the events are so uncommon.

Still working on this.

No need to bother. Since those studies are based on incomplete data due to lack of recognition/reporting, they are worthless.
Taximom5 is online now  
#7 of 157 Old 05-16-2012, 12:07 PM - Thread Starter
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
I understand what you're saying, taxi. It's wrong to pretend serious vaccine reactions never happen, and the way that nurse treated you was horrible. However, your experience doesn't really help me understand how common these vaccine reactions really are, which is what I need to get my head around to make an informed decision for my own child. For me the decision means weighing the risks of vaccinating vs the risks of the disease, which means understanding how common complications from the disease and serious reactions to the vaccine are. I understand that you think it's ridiculous, but it's important to me and I decided to do it publicly because I thought it might also help someone else.

I'm sorry if approaching it this way makes you feel marginalized, that is not my intent.

If you have taken your children to the doctor more often since their vaccine reaction than you would have otherwise, yes, VSD would catch that. It makes no difference if your doctor diagnosed it as a rash or as a vaccine reaction. VSD is designed to catch reactions that doctors don't think are connected to vaccines.

I don't mean this to be rude, but I don't think you understand how VSD works. Theirs not some kind of mobile pathology lab that comes out to your house. Actually they couldn't even if they wanted to because the information is anonymous. When they see a signal that something might be going on (like a greater incidence of SIDS in the months after a vaccine) they do a study to investigate that phenomenon. You wouldn't know if your case was part of a grouping that caused a signal, but that doesn't mean it wasn't investigated.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#8 of 157 Old 05-16-2012, 12:09 PM - Thread Starter
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Taxi, I appreciate that you think I am wasting my time. Maybe you could just leave it at that and let me get on with it since apparently it makes me happy, though.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#9 of 157 Old 05-16-2012, 12:10 PM
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Cover letter he!!
Posts: 6,387
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

I will mention my experience again, because I have met countless mothers with the same experience.

When my child had a seizure reaction to the vaccine, the nurse told me (over the phone--she didn't even SEE my child) that I was over-reacting, tht vaccines didn't "do that," and that my child would not be seen if I brought him in.
 
Why didn't you take him to ER?

Imagine if his reaction had been at night, if he was alone in a crib.

My other son's reaction involved a serious rash that covered his entire body. The pediatrician (whose sub-specialty was derm) couldn't believe it was a vaccine reaction, as he'd never seen one (he'd only been in practice a short time; this was his first job). He sent us to a dermatologist, who took one look and said, "this is a reaction to a medication; what is he on?"

He wasn't on anything. He'd had his 4-month vaccines 24 hours earlier.

My third child was unconscious--literally unconscious-- for over 2 days following a vaccine visit. The pediatrician did not want to see her, but told me over the phone that babies could be sleepy after a vaccine, and, as long as she had wet diapers, not to worry.
Again, why not take them to the ER?

Do you think the VSD even saw this? For two of these events, I was told not to come in. For the third, it was listed by the pediatrician as a rash, not as a vaccine reaction.

Of course the VSD never saw this. Nor did they see the thousands of similar reactions. And even those who won their case in vaccine court complain, very bitterly, that not one person ever contacted them to take a closer look at what happened to their child, to study this phenomenon so that it wouldn't happen to another child.

Parents reporting a SIDS death hours after a vaccination are ALWAYS told that SIDS couldn't have nothing to do with their baby's death. They complain that "vaccine reaction" is never investigated, that "SIDS" appears on the death certificate, and the case is closed. They complain that VAERS is their only option to report, because the VSD refuses to get involved.

The "ball-parking" you are suggesting is ridiculous, especially coming from you.

 

And, is it really "countless" other parents? Are these people you know IRL, or are they online? I believe that vax reactions occur, but you make it sound like it happens to everyone and that its so so so common that its to be expected. I just can't see that its THAT common - I know countless people who have never had any type of reaction to vaxes, and not a single person who has had a major reaction - I suppose its possible we just run in entirely different circles of people?

Super~Single~Mama is offline  
#10 of 157 Old 05-16-2012, 12:58 PM - Thread Starter
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)

Take SIDS, for example.  2300 infants a year die from SIDS.  Around 4 million babies are born each year.  Assume 95% of those babies are vaccinated (probably a little low) and they get 19 vaccinations (let's assume they get the flu shot and they get the third Hep B dose before they turn 12).  That's 3.8 million babies X 19 vaccines = 72 million vaccines.  2300/72 million = a really small risk of SIDS from vaccines, even if all cases of SIDS are 100% caused by vaccines.

 

(By the way, that connection has been investigated and isn't true.  Babies that have recently had a vaccine actually have a lower rate of SIDS than babies that haven't (although that's probably not causal but something called the "healthy child effect.")

Rrrrrachel is offline  
#11 of 157 Old 05-16-2012, 01:10 PM
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Cover letter he!!
Posts: 6,387
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Take SIDS, for example.  2300 infants a year die from SIDS.  Around 4 million babies are born each year.  Assume 95% of those babies are vaccinated (probably a little low) and they get 19 vaccinations (let's assume they get the flu shot and they get the third Hep B dose before they turn 12).  That's 3.8 million babies X 19 vaccines = 72 million vaccines.  2300/72 million = a really small risk of SIDS from vaccines, even if all cases of SIDS are 100% caused by vaccines.

 

(By the way, that connection has been investigated and isn't true.  Babies that have recently had a vaccine actually have a lower rate of SIDS than babies that haven't (although that's probably not causal but something called the "healthy child effect.")

 

Well, I wonder about this because how many babies are vaccinated before SIDS occurs? I know that Hep B is recommended at birth (my ds was not vaxed at birth b/c the birth center did not administer vaccines), but that could hardly be considered "fully vaccinated" and then babies don't receive any more vaccines until the 2mo visit, which isn't always done right at 2mo. How old are the majority of SIDS babies? (I don't know how old, I have not spent any time researching SIDS)

Super~Single~Mama is offline  
#12 of 157 Old 05-16-2012, 01:32 PM - Thread Starter
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
The highest risk for SIDS is between 2 and 4 months. I felt iffy about my math because I wasn't confident I had the right denominator, but even if you divide 2300 by 4 million the risk is very small, like .04% or something.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#13 of 157 Old 05-16-2012, 01:51 PM
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Cover letter he!!
Posts: 6,387
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

The highest risk for SIDS is between 2 and 4 months. I felt iffy about my math because I wasn't confident I had the right denominator, but even if you divide 2300 by 4 million the risk is very small, like .04% or something.

 

Ok, thanks.

Super~Single~Mama is offline  
#14 of 157 Old 05-16-2012, 06:18 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,314
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)
Super-Single-Mama, the reason I didn't take my kids to the ER is that, EACH time, I was berated by either the nurse (during office-hours) or by the pediatrician (when it was after-hours phone-in) for "over-reacting."

I didn't know enough then to doubt their diagnostic ability.

In retrospect, it's a darn good thing I DIDN'T take my kids to the ER. From what I can understand, the parents who did take their vaccine-injured children to the ER had even worse experiences than I did. Their children were treated with the most aggressive interventions possible, as nobody really understood what was wrong with the children, but they didn't think "vaccine reaction," they thought "infection."

Massive amounts of antibiotics on top of a vaccine reaction doesn't seem to have a very good track record--many parents of autistic children--particularly autistic children with serious physical issues--report that their children were given such treatment, or that their children were constantly on antibiotics for recurring ear infections.

I know one child (IRL, not online) who had had a lymph node on his neck removed after such a reaction, because they didn't know WHY it was swelling up, so they thought it prudent to just remove it. He then had trouble fighting infections, and when another lymph node got infected, they had the mother rush him to the hospital, where they pumped him full of antibiotics, which led to seizures, so they put him in a medically-induced coma. He died in the hospital, not of the seizures or the coma, but from hospital-acquired MRSA.

I know plenty of people who have recovered from "vaccine-preventable" illnesses; I know plenty of people who have had vaccines with no issues whatsoever.

But I also know plenty of parents whose children never fully recovered from their vaccine reactions, and a few that didn't make it home at all. And I've never met anyone who didn't recover from a "vaccine-preventable illness."
Taximom5 is online now  
#15 of 157 Old 05-16-2012, 06:20 PM - Thread Starter
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Because, thanks to vaccines, vaccine preventable illnesses are so rare.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#16 of 157 Old 05-16-2012, 06:30 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,314
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Because, thanks to vaccines, vaccine preventable illnesses are so rare.

That's both an unproven assumption and an over generalization.

The vast majority of people survived both measles and polio, not to mention flu, with NO PERMANENT PROBLEMS. In fact, this is true of every supposedly vaccine-preventable illness.

We're not even sure that e same can be said about vaccines, because there is increasing evidence that vaccines are causing permanent problems (asthma, diabetes, thyroid disease, rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, MS, seizure disorder, bowel disorders, food intolerances, and other oautoimmune disorders, EVEN IN THOSE WHO DID NOT HAVE ANY OBVIOUS IMMEDIATE VACCINE REACTION.

You can follow the pharmaceutical companies' handbook on how to argue against every possible criticism of vaccines all you want; it does not change the truth.

Parents have finally educated themselves on these issues, and are not going to buy the lies, the half-truths, or the twisted truths any longer.
Taximom5 is online now  
#17 of 157 Old 05-16-2012, 06:34 PM - Thread Starter
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
It is a fact that vaccines have all but eliminated the many vaccine preventable diseases that used to kill people.

Where is the increasing evidence that vaccines cause those things? Other than the phone survey that generation rescue did.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#18 of 157 Old 05-16-2012, 06:40 PM
 
Just1More's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,924
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

It is well and good to wonder about how many children are really harmed by vaccines.  Rachel, I appreciate your comments about the VSD, but it still is lacking in so many ways.  There is too much data, too varied in nature, in order to draw any conclusions about anything.  The system at first glance seems good, but it is terribly inadequate for the job.  If anyone administering a vaccine were required to report ANY call, visit, or inquiry for a 72 hour period following vaccination, then perhaps we could get somwhere.  The data would then be limited to children who were vaccinated, and something, anything, happened afterwards.  Some say this sort of thing would be unethical, but if parents were going to vaccinate anyway, it would at least be an honest way of gaining info.  If every parent were told to report ANYTHING unusual in their child, patterns would more likely emerge. 

 

But, even if you could get a good count on the immediate damage, there is no way to know how they effect our bodies for the rest of our lives.  Cancer, autoimmune diseases, birth defects, mental disorders, etc. 

 

And, I, personally (IRL), know of several vaccine injured kids.  And several more whose mothers would never ever consider their child had a reaction, yet are disturbed that their baby screamed for 24 hours afterwards... 

 

And, I know of one boy who got menegitis, and is now mostly deaf.


"If you keep doing the same things you've always done, you'll keep getting the same results you've always gotten."

Just1More is offline  
#19 of 157 Old 05-16-2012, 06:43 PM
 
Bokonon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,948
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

It is a fact that vaccines have all but eliminated the many vaccine preventable diseases that used to kill people.
Where is the increasing evidence that vaccines cause those things? Other than the phone survey that generation rescue did.

 

Is it a fact, or is it a correlation?


A, jammin.gif mama to a boy (2005) and a girl (2009)
Bokonon is offline  
#20 of 157 Old 05-16-2012, 06:44 PM - Thread Starter
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
It's a fact. I'm aware it's one not everyone believes in.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#21 of 157 Old 05-16-2012, 06:45 PM
 
Bokonon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,948
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

It's a fact. I'm aware it's one not everyone believes in.

 

What makes it a fact?  Historical charts?


A, jammin.gif mama to a boy (2005) and a girl (2009)
Bokonon is offline  
#22 of 157 Old 05-16-2012, 06:46 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,314
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

It is a fact that vaccines have all but eliminated the many vaccine preventable diseases that used to kill people.
Where is the increasing evidence that vaccines cause those things? Other than the phone survey that generation rescue did.

Or perhaps, like polio, the diagnostic criteria changed after introduction of the vaccine. Or perhaps there was confusion surrounding the diagnostic criteria, as we have seen with flu and h1n1.
http://www.bmj.com/content/312/7023/101.full

Many of us have posted peer-reviewed, mainstream science studies and case reports as evidence that vaccines and even specific vaccine ingredients are causally linked to the disorders I mention in my last post. Please feel free to look back at those citations, or to search on PubMed to find them yourself.
Taximom5 is online now  
#23 of 157 Old 05-16-2012, 06:47 PM - Thread Starter
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Just1more: I know it's not perfect, but I guess I give it more credit than you. Every drs visit is recorded, unless for some reason they didn't use insurance. In the computing age I'm not sure there is such a thing as too much data. I agree we haven't been able to do a lot long term yet, but this is a step in that direction. A lot of these people will be able to be tracked long term as they stay in the same HMO system. There are also ways of estimating long term effects by doing things like comparing rates of various things in older and younger generations to see if things have gotten more prevalent as we've administered more vaccines.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#24 of 157 Old 05-16-2012, 06:47 PM
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,342
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama View Post

 

And, is it really "countless" other parents? Are these people you know IRL, or are they online? I believe that vax reactions occur, but you make it sound like it happens to everyone and that its so so so common that its to be expected. I just can't see that its THAT common - I know countless people who have never had any type of reaction to vaxes, and not a single person who has had a major reaction - I suppose its possible we just run in entirely different circles of people?

This points to something important, imo. If you frequent online anti-vax communities (or RL groups with the same slant), of course you'll know lots of people who had problems, but that is because they self-select. To get a better sense of the prevalence in the population (on an anecdotal level, anyway), what you want to do is look at a group that would have no reason to self-select based on having suffered or not suffered a vaccine reaction. RL is much better for this, or perhaps an online group that has nothing at all to do with vaccines or with anything particularly crunchy. So if you take a look at everyone you know from work, school, your religious community, your neighborhood, old high school friends on Facebook, etc. and evaluate the rate of serious reactions in them and their families, typically you'd find that serious reactions are... rare. (How rare in numbers is harder to figure out.)

 

The online phenomenon of self-assortment in a way that we can never do IRL messes with our gut sense of how common a certain occurrence is.

erigeron is offline  
#25 of 157 Old 05-16-2012, 06:50 PM - Thread Starter
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
This is getting really off topic. I'm not really interested in rehashing the same conversations I've already had multiple times. If either of you would like to present some data that shows serious vaccine side effects are more common than I've said please do. Or even less serious ones. How common are they? I'll even take a gut guess. What percentage of people who get vaccinated do you think suffer serious or long term harm?
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#26 of 157 Old 05-16-2012, 06:54 PM
 
Bokonon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,948
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by erigeron View Post

Quote:

This points to something important, imo. If you frequent online anti-vax communities (or RL groups with the same slant), of course you'll know lots of people who had problems, but that is because they self-select. To get a better sense of the prevalence in the population (on an anecdotal level, anyway), what you want to do is look at a group that would have no reason to self-select based on having suffered or not suffered a vaccine reaction. RL is much better for this, or perhaps an online group that has nothing at all to do with vaccines or with anything particularly crunchy. So if you take a look at everyone you know from work, school, your religious community, your neighborhood, old high school friends on Facebook, etc. and evaluate the rate of serious reactions in them and their families, typically you'd find that serious reactions are... rare. (How rare in numbers is harder to figure out.)

 

The online phenomenon of self-assortment in a way that we can never do IRL messes with our gut sense of how common a certain occurrence is.

 

But to me it's more than serious reactions that are visible right away.  

 

It's that among kids I know that are grade-school age, most have some kind of chronic health issue or developmental delay.  Asthma, food allergies, autoimmune disorders, ASD, SPD, ADD/ADHD, severe speech delays.  None of my son's many friends are "healthy".  

 

Even something as seemingly minor as my friend's infant going on a nursing strike after her 6 month shots that almost derailed their breastfeeding relationship.  Doesn't sound like a big deal, but this probably happens quite often and puts those children at increased risk for all of the illnesses that breastfeeding helps prevent.


A, jammin.gif mama to a boy (2005) and a girl (2009)
Bokonon is offline  
#27 of 157 Old 05-16-2012, 06:57 PM
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,342
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bokonon View Post

 

It's that among kids I know that are grade-school age, most have some kind of chronic health issue or developmental delay.  Asthma, food allergies, autoimmune disorders, ASD, SPD, ADD/ADHD, severe speech delays.  None of my son's many friends are "healthy".  


A fair point. It's hard to know what is causing these problems.

erigeron is offline  
#28 of 157 Old 05-16-2012, 07:01 PM
 
Bokonon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,948
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by erigeron View Post


A fair point. It's hard to know what is causing these problems.

 

I agree, and I am not saying that vaccines are the sole cause, but it's a concern.


A, jammin.gif mama to a boy (2005) and a girl (2009)
Bokonon is offline  
#29 of 157 Old 05-16-2012, 07:04 PM - Thread Starter
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
So what percent of vaccinated children do you think suffer long term harm? Including things like add or cessation of nursing. All of them?
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#30 of 157 Old 05-16-2012, 07:10 PM
 
Bokonon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,948
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

So what percent of vaccinated children do you think suffer long term harm? Including things like add or cessation of nursing. All of them?

 

I could not and would not even venture a guess.  The problem is, we may never know, or if anyone is actually looking into these things, how many children will have already been harmed?  How can we possibly know what damage is going on inside an infant's body without an apparent reaction?


A, jammin.gif mama to a boy (2005) and a girl (2009)
Bokonon is offline  
Reply

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off