99.999% of Children Have No Serious Side Effects from Vaccines - Page 4 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#91 of 110 Old 03-09-2013, 03:27 PM
 
chickabiddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,493
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post


Can you name a specific case of this happening--that is, a reaction much more severe than "soreness at the injection site?" Is there a news story that you actually believe? Can you name a name or put a face to a reaction, or are severely vaccine-injured children more of a nebulous and anonymous abstraction to you?

I hear and believe terrible news stories of children getting vaccine-targeted diseases, (although I don't always agree with the spin, eg blaming unvaccinated children for a child's pertussis case). But despite acknowledgement that vaccine reactions occur, it seems to be the assumption that absolutely every reaction we hear about is a coincidence.

I don't mean to single you out with this question. You were just the most recent person to make this point, and I was waiting to ask someone...


I'm sorry.  I can't think of a specific case in which I can state for sure that the reaction was due to a vax and there were no complicating or mitigating circumstances.  I've read accounts here that certainly seem convincing, but I am not comfortable naming names (because any name I don't name could infer that I think she's a liar, when it could just be that I have a poor memory).  But basically, I believe the pharmaceutical companies when they acknowledge that there are risks.  I am not really sure what kind of answer you're looking for, and I'm not willing to start fights about certain cases either on the boards or in the news when there's no way to know for sure.


Carseat-checking (CPST) and WAH mama to a twelve-year-old girl.
chickabiddy is online now  
#92 of 110 Old 03-10-2013, 02:18 PM
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,073
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
No, there's no need to "start a fight." I'm just curious, in part, if people believe the conclusions leading to VICP claims.

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
#93 of 110 Old 03-10-2013, 02:54 PM
 
Cathy2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 6
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

As of March3-4, 2011 minutes of the Childhood Commission on Childhood vaccines transcripts, 26% of claims filed were with Gardasil vaccine.  Going through Vaccine Court is not an easy process as the number of certified vaccine attorneys number less than 100 in the country.  Harder to find are medical experts who are willing to testify against the government.  These doctors are

"black balled" by the pharmas and if they are into research, they sure will not jeopardize any research funding.  In the case of newer vaccines, there is the post marketing stage that goes beyond the initial trials that were conducted by the pharma.  In the case of Gardasil, it was fast-tracked to the public in 50% less time than any other vaccine.  Further, the placebo used in the clinical trials were not a saline placebo; but an aluminum adjuvant.  To me, that in itself is flawed.  In post marketing, via the flawed VAERS system (where less than 5-10% adverse events are reported), the number of adverse events relating to Gardasil outnumber any other vaccine.  CDC and Merck contend that this is a safe vaccine, yet there are over 128 deaths and almost 29,000 reports filed.

The VAERS reporting system is so flawed, that many medical professional are not aware of it.  Further, parents are not aware of it.  It is not until your child (my child) has been injured that I investigated.  After speaking with many professionals in the medical field; including er physicians, nurses, nurse practitioners and many local doctor's offices; I was amazed at how many did not know that there is a vaccine reporting system.  Now that was my "unscientific" method of finding out how knowledgeable the professionals are about reporting an adverse event.  Based on my local observations and experiences and relating it to the broader discussion of vaccine safety, as a parent, it is imperative to be knowledgeable and investigate more thoroughly today than any time in the past.  Vaccine court is in existence since 1988,  In 1983, 10 vaccines were given to children prior to age 6.  Today, I believe the number is around 38 vaccines before age 6.  Is it any wonder that the vaccine requirements have almost quadrupled since the inception of Vaccine Court.  Vaccine Court puts the burden of causation on the vaccine injured victim with off-table injuries.  Another clever way for the government to make it more difficult for the suffering victim.  So now that you have a vaccine-injured victim, there is no recourse to go to the mfr. for a faulty product.  There is now no accountability for multi-billion dollar pharmas to worry too much about side effects.  Because now that they are exempt from being sued, they can continue to market, research, sell, sell, sell

vaccines without any risk of suit.  If an auto mfr. produced a car with faulty brakes and there were accidents resulting in death, there would be a recall and accountability.  Before we know it, in efforts to increase their profitability, the pharmas will prepare a wonder vaccine to prevent in-grown toenails (this is an exaggeration).  My point is, simply this regarding the drug that I am most familiar with.  A pap smear never killed anyone, Gardasil has.
 

Mirzam, dbsam, Marnica and 2 others like this.
Cathy2 is offline  
#94 of 110 Old 03-10-2013, 05:54 PM
 
Devaskyla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: in my great new home
Posts: 4,693
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Why are vaccines the only medicine that adverse events are virtually always written off as "coincidence"? Every other medication, you are told to report anything which could be a reaction. If it happens to your body near the time of the drug, it is assumed it could be related. If it's serious, you are advised to never take that drug again. There is no bs of taking the drug in the ER in case you react again. There is no crowd of parents, doctors and media telling you it's up to you, the injured person (or parent of the injured person) to PROVE that the drug caused the harm or you're just a conspiracy nut. Reactions which were known, admitted and considered severe and a total contraindication to repeated use of the drug aren't magically declared "normal" because so many patients were having them. The way vaccine reactions are ignored would be unacceptable for any other drug and no one would ever consider saying something like "Oh, you got a migraine after "x" drug? Must just be a coincidence." "You can't move your arm after "y" drug? Must just be a coincidence." So why on earth do some many otherwise sane, rational people not only accept this nonsense for vaccines, they encourage it and denigrate those who refuse to allow vaccine reactions to be treated differently than other drug reactions? Vaccines are drugs, they have side effects, they cause damage and we will never, ever know how much damage as long as reactions are dismissed as coincidence. It should be assumed something is a reaction until it is proven otherwise.

 

As for those going on about how it would show up in increased doctors visits, how could reactions possibly do that? Especially long term reactions. Our society is so used to sick children and auto-immune disorders that more visits would never even be noticed. We accept as "normal" diseases that didn't even exist, or didn't exist in children/young adults 30, 40, 50 years ago. Did vaccines cause all of them? We don't know. We will never know unless we stop assuming reactions are rare, that parents are hysterical or lying or influenced by celebrities or whatever the excuse du jour is. We NEED a long term study comparing the health of vaccinated and unvaccinated children. And not just for minor diseases; for autoimmune diseases, for cancer, for psychiatric disorders and yes, for autism. Or to be more precise, that constellation of symptoms classed as autism, which we know for a fact is sometimes caused by heavy metal poisoning (eg it's admitted high lead levels can cause autism symptoms) or other issues.

 

It is truly amazing to me that anyone, anywhere, can claim that a drug which has never been tested for whether it causes cancer, mutations or fertility issues (as ALL vaccines admit they have never been tested for) is "safe". And all of those are long term issues which certain people seem to think could never, ever be connected to vaccines. All evidence (*cough* SV40 in tumours *cough*) to the contrary.

Mirzam, BeckyBird and Jennyanydots like this.

mom to all boys B: 08/01ribboncesarean.gif,  C: 07/05 uc.jpg, N: 03/09 uc.jpg, M: 01/12 uc.jpg and far too many lost onesintactlact.gifsaynovax.gif

Devaskyla is offline  
#95 of 110 Old 03-10-2013, 06:00 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,377
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 103 Post(s)
Quote:
As for those going on about how it would show up in increased doctors visits, how could reactions possibly do that?

hey, good luck with that question!

 

isn't it time to change the subject again? Raw Tuna anyone? eat.gif


 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
#96 of 110 Old 03-10-2013, 10:41 PM
 
pek64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,502
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post

hey, good luck with that question!

isn't it time to change the subject again? Raw Tuna anyone? eat.gif

joy.gif.
pek64 is offline  
#97 of 110 Old 03-11-2013, 04:49 AM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,377
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 103 Post(s)

could it be a coincidence no replies to Devaskyla or mine? 


 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
#98 of 110 Old 03-11-2013, 05:17 AM - Thread Starter
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,793
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 127 Post(s)

There have been studies comparing the wider health of vaccinated and un vaccinated children. They are ignored by most people on here because they find no evidence of any significant difference in the long term health. 

 

Here's a thread where we discuss one (and a link to the study itself). 

 

 

Thread: http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1353634/vaxxed-vs-unvaxxed-study/20

 

Study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3057555/

 
I already answered how reactions would show up in increased health visits - if the reaction causes long term chronic health issues for the child that child will have more doctors visits (unless the parents decide not to treat the long term chronic health issues). What's not clear about that? If you're concerned about the US - well let's consider monitoring in Europe or other parts of the world with better access to health care for all and similar vaccination programmes.
 
The main difference with vaccines and other drugs is that as they are given to healthy children they are subject to higher safety standards and more monitoring. 

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  
#99 of 110 Old 03-11-2013, 05:49 AM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,377
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 103 Post(s)
Quote:
 
I already answered how reactions would show up in increased health visits - if the reaction causes long term chronic health issues for the child that child will have more doctors visits (unless the parents decide not to treat the long term chronic health issues). What's not clear about that? If you're concerned about the US - well let's consider monitoring in Europe or other parts of the world with better access to health care for all and similar vaccination programmes.
 

you are just repeating the same thing and not show any proof - where is the proof? same old and not showing anything - ncbi just says they are doing it - just like they said for years the earth was flat- if you keep repeating a lie.........over and over.........

 

 

Since we now there has been at least some that have received acknowledgement (compensation) that they have caused damage, where is the proof that these children are being tracked in these studies, increased visits, trials, etc? 


 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
#100 of 110 Old 03-11-2013, 05:49 AM
 
rachelsmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 1,583
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

There have been studies comparing the wider health of vaccinated and un vaccinated children. They are ignored by most people on here because they find no evidence of any significant difference in the long term health. 

 

I don't ignore it.  It shows that vaccinating a healthy kid who has good access to sanition and heathcare doesn't really have a whole lot of benefit. 

rachelsmama is offline  
#101 of 110 Old 03-11-2013, 08:42 AM - Thread Starter
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,793
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 127 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post

you are just repeating the same thing and not show any proof - where is the proof? same old and not showing anything - ncbi just says they are doing it - just like they said for years the earth was flat- if you keep repeating a lie.........over and over.........

 

 

Since we now there has been at least some that have received acknowledgement (compensation) that they have caused damage, where is the proof that these children are being tracked in these studies, increased visits, trials, etc? 

 

I really fail to understand what proof you want or what you think would be possible to find in the way of proof.... there are studies which include representative samples of vaccinated and unvaccinated children. Not all vaccinated and unvaccinated children (since that would be next to impossible), a representative sample.... 


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  
#102 of 110 Old 03-11-2013, 08:45 AM - Thread Starter
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,793
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 127 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rachelsmama View Post

I don't ignore it.  It shows that vaccinating a healthy kid who has good access to sanition and heathcare doesn't really have a whole lot of benefit. 

 

Well it showed a detectable difference in VPD rates in the two groups (unvaccinated had more in case you were wondering), although both rates were low -  and it showed no detectable difference in any chronic issues they looked at (which included excema, asthama). 

 

 So I guess I agree that in this sample it showed very little benefit, and absolutely no harm. 


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  
#103 of 110 Old 03-11-2013, 09:34 AM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,377
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 103 Post(s)
Quote:
I really fail to understand what proof you want or what you think would be possible to find in the way of proof.... there are studies which include representative samples of vaccinated and unvaccinated children. Not all vaccinated and unvaccinated children (since that would be next to impossible), a representative sample.... 

i'll ask it again - where is it? Where is the info with the children what have suffered a reaction? Clearly if as you & others have stated, these children who do have a reaction are included - where is the proof they are? I'm clearly not talking about unvaccinated because they are not having a vac induced reaction.


 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
#104 of 110 Old 03-11-2013, 11:09 AM - Thread Starter
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,793
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 127 Post(s)
I'm still not understanding why you think they aren't included if a representative sample of vaccinated children is studied.

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  
#105 of 110 Old 03-11-2013, 11:38 AM
 
pek64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,502
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post

i'll ask it again - where is it? Where is the info with the children what have suffered a reaction? Clearly if as you & others have stated, these children who do have a reaction are included - where is the proof they are? I'm clearly not talking about unvaccinated because they are not having a vac induced reaction.

Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

I'm still not understanding why you think they aren't included if a representative sample of vaccinated children is studied.

Hey! I got multiquote to work!

Sorry. Back to my point.
If they haven't been vaccinated, they are not having vaccine induced reactions. No vaccine = no vaccine induced reactions.
pek64 is offline  
#106 of 110 Old 03-11-2013, 05:30 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,377
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 103 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View PostI'm still not understanding why you think they aren't included if a representative sample of vaccinated children is studied.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View PostI really fail to understand what proof you want or what you think would be possible to find in the way of proof.... there are studies which include representative samples of vaccinated and unvaccinated children.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View PostVaccine safety data link works through large managed care groups like kaiser permanente.  So yes, even if they dont' go to their regular doctor it still gets recorded in their medical records and would would be considered under VSDL.  It makes absolutely no difference if the doctor records it as a vaccine reaction or not.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View PostWe have things like vaccine safety datalink that looks in medical records for patterns of diagnosis, increased hospital admission or pcp visits, etc in time frames after vaccine administration. That's completely independent of whether something is actively recognized as a reaction or not.

There are some studies that look at the effects of vaccination years down the road.

 

SAME exact sentiment yet both of you have fail to show ANY proof this is occurring- you both keep stating the same line- Study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3057555/ and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/21502240/

 

neither say they are studying vaccinated children with REACTIONS and none of us (those who are not buying what you are selling) are talking about NON-vaccinated children, the ones with the reactions are the ones who have had vaccines 

 

both of you have offered nothing of what I and others have asked - I "assume" you both do not have any proof to back up what you both keep repeating, repeating it over and over doesn't make it real either

 

I am also sure I will hear both of you have no clue (once again) what I am talking about

 

question #1 - Where is the proof "reactions" are included when the Doctor or ER tells you your child is not having a reaction? You both have claimed it - please provide it.

 

#2 - Where is the proof children with reactions are included in the trials/studies, managed care, etc both of you claim?

 

#3 How do these with reactions (those who have received payouts- thus the govt found there was cause for them to receive $) show up in these trials/studies,etc, I assume these also do, would they not?

 

ETA- everyone of the families I know that have (what they believe to be) a child with a reaction to vaccine (s) have numerous dr, ER, specialist visit EACH year - dozens of them - IRL I only know one family who's child is not on private insurance any longer  and is now (because she is over 18) on govt assistance - so all have been in the private insurance system for years~managed cared

BeckyBird likes this.

 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
#107 of 110 Old 03-11-2013, 05:55 PM
 
chickabiddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,493
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)

Never mind.  Block is beautiful.


Carseat-checking (CPST) and WAH mama to a twelve-year-old girl.
chickabiddy is online now  
#108 of 110 Old 03-11-2013, 06:05 PM
 
pek64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,502
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickabiddy View Post

Never mind.  Block is beautiful.

Feeling ignored?
pek64 is offline  
#109 of 110 Old 03-11-2013, 06:23 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,377
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 103 Post(s)
Quote:
Never mind.  Block is beautiful.

since you didn't answer my questions, I assumed you couldn't


 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
#110 of 110 Old 03-11-2013, 10:30 PM
 
Devaskyla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: in my great new home
Posts: 4,693
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I think there's some talking past each other here.

 

What I'm saying, and I think seren is trying to get you to see as well, is that chronic disease is considered so normal and acceptable, even in children, even when it was non-existant 20-50+ years ago, that more visits for it will not be registered as due to a vaccine, even in the exceedingly rare event that a vaccine reaction is even recorded for the child. In other words, whatever monitoring you think is being done may very well register more doctor visits, but will NOT link those with vaccines.

 

And I can point to 2 different preliminary studies showing that vaccinated children have vastly more chronic disease than unvaccinated, but I'm sure you'll be as impressed by them as I am by your study link. We need a real, long term study, done by people with absolutely zero connections to pharma.

Mirzam, Marnica, BeckyBird and 1 others like this.

mom to all boys B: 08/01ribboncesarean.gif,  C: 07/05 uc.jpg, N: 03/09 uc.jpg, M: 01/12 uc.jpg and far too many lost onesintactlact.gifsaynovax.gif

Devaskyla 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