Link to U.S. Court of Federal Claims Vaccine Cases that are UNPUBLISHED - Page 2 - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#31 of 51 Old 08-08-2013, 05:19 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 156
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

Bakunin's "really cool article" reads like a marketing gimmick. The author takes great care to mention one study that appears to refute each listed concern about vaccine safety, without even mentioning the fact that conflicting studies exist. It's deliberately misleading, from start to finish. If Bakunin finds that "really cool," then...wow.

The COI statement provides for a bit of amusement, anyway:
"The author indicates that he does not have any conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: Work on the manuscript was supported by funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Immunization Program, through Cooperative Agreement U66/CCU719217-01 to the Society of Teachers of Family Medicine Foundation. Dr. Kimmel is a member of the speaker's bureau (immunizations) for GlaxoSmithKline and serves on the Adult Vaccine Advisory Board for Merck & Co., Inc."

Yep. Really cool.


Taximom5, a while back I provided an AAP list of over 40 papers debunking much of the serious side effects you have speculated. Furthermore I pointed out that the link you provided claiming to have 67 papers showing a vaccine-autism link had a majority of papers that weren't even about vaccines. I invited you to provide adequate references. This was, what, 2 weeks ago? Obviously the evidence of the rates you posted in post 28 does not exist (those rates appear to be out of a hat), and you have failed to challenge with science the over 40 papers (just a short list by the way).  You think you could do your homework (as I've surely done with all the links I provide as proof) and provide some scientific consensus verifying your claims?

bakunin is offline  
#32 of 51 Old 08-08-2013, 05:57 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,826
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)

bakunin…..

 

I would be interested in reading your answer to Taxis' question:  at what point would the risks outweigh the benefits for you (number, please).

 

I have a number in my head for both serious adverse events of any kind that I am perfectly willing to share, but only if you are as well.  I don't feel like writing a paragraph and putting my own thoughts out there if others will not play as well.


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  
#33 of 51 Old 08-08-2013, 06:21 AM
 
dinahx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,144
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Remember what I posted about 'consensus science'? wink1.gif
dinahx is offline  
#34 of 51 Old 08-08-2013, 06:30 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,826
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinahx View Post

Remember what I posted about 'consensus science'? wink1.gif

Yes.  It doesn't matter.  Even if everyone agress on a number ( ROTFLMAO.gif)  that does not mean it is correct.  

 

OT - and I have to run - but once upon a time I asked some pro-vaxxers to prioritise vaccines.  They refused.

 

I am asking one to give us a number - we shall see what he does.  I will reciprocate in kind.

 

If he doesn't - fine.  His call.  

 

I have less interest in discussing things with people who don't want a real discussion, though, and only want to soabox.  It gets old and makes me wonder what I am doing here.  

BeckyBird likes this.

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  
#35 of 51 Old 08-08-2013, 06:37 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,677
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)

One comment on the discussion - a couple of posters are using the standard tactic of only discussing mortality rates of measles to "show" that vaccines didn't do anything....

 

Also the rates compared serious reactions to vaccines to deaths from measles. We should compare deaths from vaccines to deaths from measles, or serious reactions to vaccines to serious health issues from measles.

 

Here's the plots showing death rates and case rates for measles.

 

Case rates: 

*

 

Death rates (although note that this data has to stop around 1974 once case rates were so low it was basically impossible to measure any more). 

 

 

 

No-one disagrees that medical advance pre vaccine were improving the chances of measles sufferers so they were less likely to die from the disease, but we do not know if that decline would have continued, or the death rate remained at about the 3/1000 case it had reached in 1965. All the data collected since is consistent with 1-3/1000 cases of measles resulting in death (so if all of the 4 million babies born in the USA each year were to catch measles that'd be ~4,000-12,000 deaths from measles annually). 

 

And to answer taxi mom/kathymuggle's question about what's an unacceptable reaction rate - well OPV is, for current levels of polio in my opinion. Good thing most health agencies agreed and OPV was stopped and replaced with the safer IPV in most countries. :)


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  
#36 of 51 Old 08-08-2013, 06:57 AM
 
dinahx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,144
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I basically agree with you PSM, except that it took a LOT of parent advocacy & mothers speaking out to get that OPV change made. And G*tes & co give it worldwide still with very little attention to the victims.

As far as comparing death/debility rates of measles to measles Vax, well Vaxes are not supposed to be bearers of any type of death or debility, @ least that is the PR. So I would personally compare: chance of catching disease w/o Vax and then experiencing debility to chance of experiencing debility from Vax.

There is also a strategy IMO of 'expectant management'. That does rely on some faith in adequate supplies, but I think outbreak tracking/informatics have improved greatly in the Information Age, so much so that a medically connected parent could respond to an outbreak fairly quickly, using the Nightly News. And if they use something high tech like Twitter, even better.
dinahx is offline  
#37 of 51 Old 08-08-2013, 08:05 AM
 
MamaMunchkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 355
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

bakunin…..

 

I would be interested in reading your answer to Taxis' question:  at what point would the risks outweigh the benefits for you (number, please).

 

I have a number in my head for both serious adverse events of any kind that I am perfectly willing to share, but only if you are as well.  I don't feel like writing a paragraph and putting my own thoughts out there if others will not play as well.

 

kathymuggle,

 

You're asking a poster that said something is wrong by a factor of 3 - and after shown the math it's actually 5000x, 50x, or 10x - the poster said "My "more than 3 times" comment? Sure, not precise but not wrong ..." in post#27

 

You seriously expect to get a serious answer?


Pro rights (vaxes).
MamaMunchkin is offline  
#38 of 51 Old 08-08-2013, 08:17 AM
 
MamaMunchkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 355
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

One comment on the discussion - a couple of posters are using the standard tactic of only discussing mortality rates of measles to "show" that vaccines didn't do anything....

 

Also the rates compared serious reactions to vaccines to deaths from measles. We should compare deaths from vaccines to deaths from measles, or serious reactions to vaccines to serious health issues from measles.

 

Here's the plots showing death rates and case rates for measles.

 

....

 

It's important to have data - before - 1940's. 

 

Readers, lurkers, undecideds - whenever someone shows you a plot proving something declines/increases etc - please, please always ask yourself ... what happens outside the time-frame that's plotted?  In other words, what does the plot look like before/after?

 

In this case - what does the plot look like - before 1940?  This is from a paper by CDC scientists with data from 1900-1996:

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=768249

 

Figure 4. Crude Mortality Rates for 10 Infectious Diseases

 

 

 

 

 

Here's another plot, also from CDC:

Achievements in Public Health, 1900-1999: Control of Infectious Diseases
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4829a1.htm

 

 

1000

 

 

 

Do vaxes contribute?  Yes.  Antibiotics?  Yes.  Hygiene?  Yes. 

It's - not - just one or the other, it's all of the above.

prosciencemum likes this.

Pro rights (vaxes).
MamaMunchkin is offline  
#39 of 51 Old 08-08-2013, 08:35 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,826
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MamaMunchkin View Post

 

You seriously expect to get a serious answer?

I do not expect to get an answer.  I am open to being proven wrong, however.  


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  
#40 of 51 Old 08-08-2013, 09:06 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,826
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

One comment on the discussion - a couple of posters are using the standard tactic of only discussing mortality rates of measles to "show" that vaccines didn't do anything….

 

I suspect people talk about morbidity because it is a very clean figure to graph and compare.  It is also the figure people worry about the most.

 

Talking about severe reactions,either to vaccines or a disease, are messy.  In the several days we collectively have been debating this, no one has really defined serious reaction to either vaccines or diseases and they certainly have not reached a consensus on how often they occur.  I would say that in my opinion, when someone speaks of a severe vaccine reaction they usually mean a reaction that has long term consequences.  The same cannot be said for diseases.  While some disease do have long term consequences (I was looking up mumps earlier - 1/20 000 go deaf from mumps) people usually are fine, even if they have a severe case of XYZ. 

 

 

 

 

 

And to answer taxi mom/kathymuggle's question about what's an unacceptable reaction rate - well OPV is, for current levels of polio in my opinion. Good thing most health agencies agreed and OPV was stopped and replaced with the safer IPV in most countries. :)

 

So - why is OPV unacceptable?  Is it because it gives Polio to healthy individuals or because another safer alternative exists?  Or is it a rate of reaction issue?  What happens if you think a vaccine has too many issue before the government does (the cogs of science and bureaucracy can turn slowly!) - do you then stop advocating for it?


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  
#41 of 51 Old 08-08-2013, 10:00 AM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,089
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Bakunin, you replied to post #29, but you must have missed post #28, in which you were asked to answer some specific questions, reposted below.

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

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

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

Please tell us the exact tipping point of acceptable risk for you.
Taximom5 is online now  
#42 of 51 Old 08-08-2013, 10:00 AM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,089
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Bakunin, you replied to post #29, but you must have missed post #28, in which you were asked to answer some specific questions, reposted below.

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

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

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

Please tell us the exact tipping point of acceptable risk for you.
Taximom5 is online now  
#43 of 51 Old 08-08-2013, 10:02 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 156
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MamaMunchkin View Post
 

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post


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

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

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

This request (also made by kathymuggle) is baffling:

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

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

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

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

 

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

bakunin is offline  
#44 of 51 Old 08-08-2013, 10:24 AM
 
dinahx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,144
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
If the evidence shows that serious side effect risk of MMR is 1 in 1million,

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

However, since you steadfastly cling to the 1 in a million number, even tho I posted primary long term research establishing the rate as much higher (32x higher) I am going to take your answer to be that you find 1 in a million to be the acceptable rate of Vax reaction (so awesome that it is a round number & a common phrase too!!!) & that you find 32 in a million to be so unacceptable that it can not, in fact, ever be accepted.
dinahx is offline  
#45 of 51 Old 08-08-2013, 10:50 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,826
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)

 

 

nm


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  
#46 of 51 Old 08-08-2013, 10:54 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,826
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bakunin View Post

 

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

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

 

1/250 000?

1/50 000?

1/20 000?

1/10 000?

1/5000?

1/1000?

1/500?

 

Thanks.


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  
#47 of 51 Old 08-08-2013, 01:15 PM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,677
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
It's a great distraction to push for an answer to find the unacceptable level of risk.

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

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

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

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  
#48 of 51 Old 08-08-2013, 01:27 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,826
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

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


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

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

 

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

 

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


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  
#49 of 51 Old 08-08-2013, 02:13 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 156
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

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

 

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

 

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


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

bakunin is offline  
#50 of 51 Old 08-08-2013, 03:02 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,089
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bakunin View Post


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

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

We await your answers with bated breath!
Taximom5 is online now  
#51 of 51 Old 08-08-2013, 03:12 PM
 
KistheMum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 173
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

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

MamaMunchkin, MissCee and Taximom5 like this.
KistheMum is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
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