Prevenar 13 Pneumococcal Vaccine Damned in Belgium Media Reports - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 20 Old 12-27-2012, 09:09 AM - Thread Starter
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,357
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)

 

 

Quote:

Of the 470 children who received the Prevenar 13 plus a hexavalent vaccine, on the same day, and reported adverse effects, 163 had experienced neurologic reactions (163/470 = 34%!!).

It is therefore clear that the concomitant administration of several vaccines, particularly those recommended in the Belgian vaccine schedule (Prevenar 13 alongside Infanrix Hexa), multiplies the risk of neurologic reactions including serious and potentially irreversible adverse events!  This is precisely what we have been saying for years regarding the dangerous over-vaccination of infants.

 

http://www.ageofautism.com/2012/12/prevenar-13-pneumococcal-vaccine-damned-in-belgian-media-reports.html


Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

"If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings"~ Leonardo da Vinci

Mirzam is online now  
#2 of 20 Old 12-27-2012, 04:40 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Just want to point out, the denominator there is not all the children who got the vaccine, just the ones who got it and reported adverse events. Plus the usual cautions about self reported, yada yada.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#3 of 20 Old 12-28-2012, 11:23 AM
 
seaheroine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: California
Posts: 984
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

bigeyes.gif
 

seaheroine is offline  
#4 of 20 Old 12-28-2012, 11:37 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,729
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 79 Post(s)
How many children got vaccines that day? Just curious about the overall adverse reaction reporting rate. Presumably I could follow the lin and find out but I'm feeling lazy and watching Xmas tele!

Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is online now  
#5 of 20 Old 12-29-2012, 11:55 PM
 
lanamommyphd07's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everywhere, USA
Posts: 1,065
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

22 babies dead.  That part is amazingly scary to me.

 

ETA: Removed inaccurate comparison

kathymuggle likes this.
lanamommyphd07 is offline  
#6 of 20 Old 12-30-2012, 06:18 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,729
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 79 Post(s)
Where did you get 128k from? Genuine question.

I see the study is based on vaccines given in Italy over a 2 year period. is that just the bid rate in Italy multiplied by 2?

Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is online now  
#7 of 20 Old 12-30-2012, 06:47 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,009
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 148 Post(s)

nm - not worth it - not posting over here…..prosciencemum, it is in the OP.  Look it up.


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#8 of 20 Old 12-30-2012, 07:04 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
The infant mortality rate for Belgium is 4.28/1,000. So using your number of births per year, that's 4.28(128)=~548 deaths a year or ~1096 over two years or more than one a day. I'm not sure where the 22 number came from, but if its only a temporal connection a large part if not all of it could easily be explained by coincidence.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#9 of 20 Old 12-30-2012, 07:07 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
So the overall infant mortality rate is 4.28/1000 or about .4%. The number cited above, 1/11,636 is about .009%. Looks like we ought to be asking why fewer babies are dying in the recently vaccinated group than in the population at large.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#10 of 20 Old 12-30-2012, 07:27 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,009
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 148 Post(s)

 


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#11 of 20 Old 12-30-2012, 07:35 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,009
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 148 Post(s)

Sorry, Mizram, for any derailing I might have done.

 

I think the link is very interesting, a little jumbled, but well worth a read!  If I were a new mom I would definitely take the time to crunch the numbers about death rate from these vaccines versus death rates from the diseases.  I would also see if I could find these, or other useful numbers, elsewhere.  Looking just at this link, it seems not-vaccinating for these disease (and certainly not together!) is clearly safer.


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#12 of 20 Old 12-30-2012, 07:44 AM
 
lanamommyphd07's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everywhere, USA
Posts: 1,065
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I must admit that often I am irritated by how articles on this site are presented. I get the overall message, but it's not presented in a fashion that is what I'd call well-written. The random bolding and tone makes it look more like a rant than a valid story. That said, bringing to light the potential problems related to two jabs in a day makes sense. That's my takeaway, at any rate. Still, though, when a vax kills even one kid, I really think it's time to go back to the lab.

lanamommyphd07 is offline  
#13 of 20 Old 12-30-2012, 07:48 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post


Sorry. Wrong.

The original link studies adverse events in 2 and 4 month olds (I think, with all the excessive bolting, ads, etc it was a little hard to follow) so childhood mortality not so relevant.

If the vaccine causes deaths, then the death rate in the recently vaccinated cohort would be higher than in general. If they're the same, the vaccine doesn't cause deaths. If the vaccine cohort is lower, than the vaccine is protective in some way. So I'm not sure why you're saying its not relevant?

Think of it this way. If you randomly sample 1000 children under 1 and follow them for, say, five days, you should expect 4 of them to die from a variety of things. According to this data, if you followed a recently vaccinated group of 1000 children for five days, you should only expect .09 of a child to die, or none.

OR, this data doesn't actually say what people are clawing it says, which is what I actually suspect.

Snark aside, I don't think all vaccine reactions are coincidence. I've said over and over and over that serious vaccine reactions happen, they're tragic, and they're exceptionally rare. However, when you're talking about self reported adverse events or tracking all adverse events in a given time frame after a vaccine is administered, it is a statistical fact that SOME of them are caused by coincidence. Your refusal of this really belies your naïveté and lack of statistical understanding.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#14 of 20 Old 12-30-2012, 08:03 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
And, ftr, I think the data presented here is being taken way out of context and analyzed in a completely inappropriate way. My only point is that bad data leads to bad conclusions,and that aoa article is full of both. Now back to not clicking on aoa links.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#15 of 20 Old 12-30-2012, 08:21 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,729
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 79 Post(s)
Rrrrachel - that's not a very fair comparison though as the general infant mortality rate is over the whole year, while i assume the 22 must have happened close in time to the vaccine to be considered a possible reaction. Shall we say within 2 weeks? So then we should multiply the "reaction" rate by 26 to account for there being 26 periods of 2 weeks each year - but actually even then you only get 0.2%, so still half the general mortality rate.

So it's very sad anytime babies die, but I do agree with rrrrrachel that it seems a lot of these 22 could be unrelated to the vaccine.

Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is online now  
#16 of 20 Old 12-30-2012, 08:27 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
The percentages still hold, though, if you consider whatever period they looked at to be a random snapshot of the whole year. You would expect the same percentage to die in any random snapshot as you would over the whole year.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#17 of 20 Old 12-30-2012, 08:30 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,729
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 79 Post(s)
No I don't think so - it's a percentage rate, so the time period considered has to be accounted for.

Still it looks like the 22 deaths reported as possible reactions are the same as the general expected mortality in any random 4 week period throughout the year. I think being within 4 weeks of a vaccine is quite a long period to count a death as a possible reaction.

Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is online now  
#18 of 20 Old 12-30-2012, 08:35 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Well, agree to disagree I guess! It's definitely hard to tell what's what from the information in the original link.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#19 of 20 Old 12-30-2012, 09:27 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,729
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 79 Post(s)
Sure. I agree about the lim being hard to follow. I couldnt even find the 128k and I thought it was Italy, while Kathymuggle said it was Belgium!

Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is online now  
#20 of 20 Old 12-30-2012, 10:21 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
And I've thought about it more and now I think you're right.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

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


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may 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