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

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-13-2013, 01:43 PM - Thread Starter
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,828
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 144 Post(s)

It came up in a thread recently and I quoted a statistic I remembered that 99.999% of children (since 1989 in the USA it turns out) have no serious side effects from vaccines. 

 

 Quite rightly I was asked to back up my statistics - and here's where I got it from: http://informedparentsofvaccinatedchildren.wordpress.com/2012/11/17/99-9999-usa-babies-just-fine/

 

It's based on the fact that since 1989 there have been 14,000 claims filed with the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (note that almost 10,000 of those claims were dismissed), and during that time almost 100 million US children have been vaccinated.  


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  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 02-13-2013, 02:43 PM
 
Pookietooth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 5,016
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Funny, I googled that statistic and got a couple of links that stated that 99.999% of guns are not used for violence (though I would bet that doesn't include hunting). Yet that doesn't stop many from being scared to death of guns. See: http://www.dailypaul.com/266567/99999-of-guns-owned-in-america-are-not-used-for-violence-here-are-some-objective-stats

 

That article you cited contained some broken links used to verify its calculations. For example, are there really 4 million children born in the US every year since 1960? Hasn't it gone down since the baby boom ended in 1964?

 

I am sure that you will dismiss this, but I just wanted to point out that many whose children have serious side effects are told that it is a coincidence. Also, the statute of limitations is quite short -- adverse events must be reported quickly. I have more to say but my kids need me. 

Here are a couple of links:

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/12/13/why-vaccine-injured-kids-are-rarely-compensated.aspx

(this one is not about safety per se, more about efficacy):

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/herd-immunity-flawed-science-and-mass-vaccination-failures


Jen 47 DS C 2/03  angel.gif04/29/08/ DD S 10/28/09 DH Bill '97.

mighty-mama and her sister Kundalini-Mamacandle.gif

Pookietooth is offline  
Old 02-13-2013, 02:45 PM
 
Pookietooth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 5,016
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

One more quick thing: it would help if the post had done statistics on the likelihood of getting a particular disease (or all diseases) and the percentage of those who have adverse events from those diseases (not including the vaccinated ones, of course).


Jen 47 DS C 2/03  angel.gif04/29/08/ DD S 10/28/09 DH Bill '97.

mighty-mama and her sister Kundalini-Mamacandle.gif

Pookietooth is offline  
Old 02-13-2013, 03:39 PM
 
Dakotacakes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 153
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pookietooth View Post

That article you cited contained some broken links used to verify its calculations. For example, are there really 4 million children born in the US every year since 1960? Hasn't it gone down since the baby boom ended in 1964?

 

I am sure that you will dismiss this, but I just wanted to point out that many whose children have serious side effects are told that it is a coincidence. Also, the statute of limitations is quite short -- adverse events must be reported quickly.

While it is true that family size dropped dramatically after 1964, the number of children are still over 4 million every year.  The end of the baby boom slowed the rate of growth.  But because there were so many children born that when they had their children (also known as the baby boomlet) it was still over 4 million.  Some years it is slightly under, others over but always around 4 million (the average).  For example in 2010 there were 3, 999,386 children born in the United States.  In 2009 there were 4, 130, 665, according to vital statistics.  They are probably low because some people do not get birth certificiates for their children.

 

The Statute of limitations is not that short.  It is 3 years from the onset of symptoms.  I don't consider 3 years quick, but that I supose depends on your interpretation of quick.

Dakotacakes is online now  
Old 02-13-2013, 04:01 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
I don't click on mercola links since he posted something denying the link between HIV and aids. Not a very reliable source.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
Old 02-13-2013, 04:33 PM
 
MichelleZB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,018
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I don't click on mercola links since he posted something denying the link between HIV and aids. 

Really? Oh my god that's pretty appalling.

MichelleZB is online now  
Old 02-13-2013, 04:40 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Yes. To be fair, he wasn't the author, but he hosted it.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
Old 02-13-2013, 05:10 PM
 
fruitfulmomma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Between the Rockies and a Flat Place
Posts: 4,198
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)

Sorry,  but he doesn't get to claim my 6 totally unvaxxed kids in his claim that 99.99% of kids don't react to vaxxes. Of course they didn't, they've never had one. 

 

He can however have my husband who did have a serious reaction, never reported thus not in his court case total.

fruitfulmomma is online now  
Old 02-13-2013, 05:13 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
There are very very few completely unvaxxed children. Accounting for them would barely change the statistic.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
Old 02-13-2013, 05:16 PM
 
fruitfulmomma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Between the Rockies and a Flat Place
Posts: 4,198
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)

It is intelectually dishonest to include them whether it greatly changes the outcome or not.

fruitfulmomma is online now  
Old 02-13-2013, 05:27 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Or it's just a variable he neglected to take into account because its fairly negligible. Not everything is a massive cover up.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
Old 02-13-2013, 05:51 PM
 
Jennyanydots's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,374
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say 99.whatever% of children are not involved in vaccine injury litigation? Actual determination of injury rates would require a more complex and thorough investigation.

chicken3.gif mama to two teens and two tots partners.gif madly in love with DP guitar.gif

Jennyanydots is offline  
Old 02-13-2013, 05:59 PM
 
fruitfulmomma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Between the Rockies and a Flat Place
Posts: 4,198
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)

Yes, Jenny, that is exactly what his numbers show. He has no way of knowing without far more extensive research how many children have *actually* been seriously harmed. Or less seriously harmed.

fruitfulmomma is online now  
Old 02-15-2013, 03:11 PM
 
Pookietooth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 5,016
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

The VAERS database itself even says that it is not an accurate measure of the number of adverse events:

""Underreporting" is one of the main limitations of passive surveillance systems, including VAERS. The term, underreporting refers to the fact that VAERS receives reports for only a small fraction of actual adverse events."

https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/index


Jen 47 DS C 2/03  angel.gif04/29/08/ DD S 10/28/09 DH Bill '97.

mighty-mama and her sister Kundalini-Mamacandle.gif

Pookietooth is offline  
Old 02-17-2013, 01:47 AM
 
MissCee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 83
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I was also wondering how this "statistic" would account for even partially vaxxed kids? Or kids whose parents vaccinated them at first, but then stopped. 


Cecillia | 22 | Love Jesus | Happily Married | WTT #2: 2015

Breastfeeding, Babywearing, Gentle Parenting crunchy momma to an unvaxxed intact sweet boy.

novaxnocirc.gif goorganic.jpg

 

 

MissCee is offline  
Old 02-17-2013, 02:01 AM - Thread Starter
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,828
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 144 Post(s)

There are some great points being made about how this statistic might be biased. I love to see this skepticism (please practice applying it also to anti-vaccination statistics and "facts"). :)

 

Just wanted to point out though that even if this is off by a factor of 100, or 1000 (ie. catching on 1/100 or 1/1000 children seriously injured by vaccines) that's still demonstrating that 99.99% or 99.9% of children have received them without a serious problem.


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  
Old 02-26-2013, 01:45 PM
 
Cathy2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 6
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Less than 5% of vaccine reactions are ever reported in the case of adverse events.  The VAERS system is flawed in so many ways.  Some parents do not even realize that their child's health or new symptoms occurred after a vaccine.  Some valid vaccine injuries don't even make it to Vaccine Court because parents are not aware of it and do not seek out knowledgeable legal advice.

We did not put 2 and 2 together until after my daughter had her third shot of Gardasil in 2008.  Please investigate before you vaccinate.  The CDC has reported 126 Gardasil deaths and over 28,000 injuries, yet this drug is still on the market.  I thought since I had pre-cervical cancer that this would be a good option for my daughter.  She was a high performing athlete and now faces a lifetime of chronic health issues.  A pap smear never killed anyone... Gardasil has. 

 

If your child has been injured, please fill out a VAERS form and report it to the CDC.  For more information, visit NVIC and truthaboutgardasil.org.

Cathy2 is offline  
Old 02-26-2013, 01:48 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Where has the CDC reported those deaths and injuries?
Rrrrrachel is offline  
Old 02-26-2013, 02:12 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 Jennyanydots View Post

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say 99.whatever% of children are not involved in vaccine injury litigation? Actual determination of injury rates would require a more complex and thorough investigation.

Of course, it would be much more accurate.


But when there is an agenda in this world to make money from selling a product, accuracy takes a back seat to propaganda. And the propaganda spreads, to the point where it is often repeated by people who have no financial interest in the product, but believe and repeat the propaganda.

 

I think both sides of the issue should be held to the highest standards of accuracy, and financial conflicts of interest should be pointed out whenever possible.  If one website, say, mercola.com, is deemed unacceptable because it sells products, maybe we should find out who is funding informedparentsforvaccination.

Taximom5 is offline  
Old 02-27-2013, 07:52 AM - Thread Starter
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,828
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 144 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cathy2 View Post

The CDC has reported 126 Gardasil deaths and over 28,000 injuries

 

I was trying to find the total number of Gardasil doses given in the USA since it was licensed in 2006 in order to put these numbers in context. Anyone have that to hand?

 

In my Googling I came across the CDC and FDA discussion on the safety of this vaccine, which also has some good references to follow for safety studies, and explanations of the total suite of safety checks the vaccine is subjected too. These links have slightly different numbers to the ones you quote for deaths and injuries, but may be slightly dated.

 

FDA: http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/ucm179549.htm

CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaccines/HPV/Index.html

 

Of course all of the statistics are irrelevent if it's your child who has the serious side effect, and I'm really sorry you suffered through that Cathy2. 


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  
Old 02-27-2013, 11:56 AM
 
Cathy2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 6
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

VAERS reports
 

Cathy2 is offline  
Old 02-27-2013, 12:14 PM
 
Cathy2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 6
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

You are right, statistics really don't mean anything if your child has been injured.  The FDA and CDC have been notorious for advocating drugs that have eventually been removed "post marketing" incidents.   If this many people were injured or killed because of faulty brakes on a car, the manufacturer would be put to task and the Consumer Protection Agency would issue recalls.  Why is it that our youth can still be subjected to vaccines with serious side effects; such as Gardasil and there is no accountability?  Is my child part of that "acceptable" percentage of injuries?  When is death or injuries acceptable to any parent?  There are many sources you can "google" and find stories of healthy children and young adults whose lives have been changed by Gardasil. If I could persuade just one parent to investigate this vaccine and see that the risks of an adverse effect from Gardasil is greater than the risk of getting cervical cancer, I would be satisfied.  This vaccine was rushed to market.  The placebo used in trials was not saline; rather it was  an aluminum adjuvant.  Why use an aluminum adjuvant rather than saline?   There are so many questions and not enough answers with Gardasil. 
 

Cathy2 is offline  
Old 03-06-2013, 02:31 AM - Thread Starter
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,828
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 144 Post(s)

Seemed relevant here - a blog post by Allison Hagood which discusses this same statistic: http://www.redwineandapplesauce.com/2013/03/05/a-look-at-the-numbers-in-vaccine-reactions/


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  
Old 03-06-2013, 05:43 AM
 
marsupial-mom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 807
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
99.9% have no adverse event...

Clearly. Just pay attention.

The vast majority of children in the US are vaccinated and rarely do we see or hear of adverse reactions.
marsupial-mom is offline  
Old 03-06-2013, 06:01 AM
 
pek64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,500
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Frequently there are stories of reactions. Getting any provax person or agency to admit they were caused by vaccines is another story.
pek64 is offline  
Old 03-06-2013, 06:20 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
And getting an "antivax" person to admit they don't know for sure is practically impossible.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
Old 03-06-2013, 06:25 AM
 
pek64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,500
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Balderdash! "Antivax" people frequently say, on these very boards, that they don't know, but they have doubts. If you can read these boards and come to the conclusion that you posted above, then you don't have the comprehension skills necessary for me to trust anything you post, Rrrrachel.
pek64 is offline  
Old 03-06-2013, 06:30 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Now now. No need to get personal.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
Old 03-06-2013, 06:47 AM
 
pek64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,500
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Well, now, Rrrrachel, I only following your example and treating you the way you've treated me.
pek64 is offline  
Old 03-06-2013, 07:07 AM
 
rachelsmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 1,560
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

And getting an "antivax" person to admit they don't know for sure is practically impossible.


How about those situations when vax is one of several possible causes of injury?  Do you recommend going forward with further vaccinations because it hasn't been proven to be harmful to the individual, or would you say it might be a situation where stopping vaccinations, at least temporarily, is the prudent course of action? 

rachelsmama is offline  
 
User Tag List

Thread Tools


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