Link to U.S. Court of Federal Claims Vaccine Cases that are UNPUBLISHED - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 51 Old 08-05-2013, 09:36 AM - Thread Starter
 
MissCee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 83
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Not sure if this has ever been posted, but I found this gem of a website today on Facebook and had to share:

 

http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/opinions_decisions_vaccine/Unpublished

applejuice, BeckyBird and Taximom5 like this.

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  
#2 of 51 Old 08-05-2013, 07:26 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,103
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)

I've just spent an hour or so reading some of those cases.  huh.gif  If you click on the case name, each case comes up.  

 

What is most disturbing is that, even when there is a financial award, the Department of Health and Human Services denies that the vaccine caused the alleged complaint, even when the complainant furnishes testimony from every doctor involved with the case, saying that they could think of no other reason for the sudden severe illness except for the vaccine.

 

Now, I did see at least one case that did look pretty weak, and I wasn't surprised to see that one denied.

 

But the other cases I looked at clearly satisfied the criteria for proving causation in fact:

 

 

  1. a medical theory causally connecting the vaccination and the injury;
  2. a logical sequence of cause and effect showing that the vaccination was the reason for the injury; and
  3. a showing of a proximate temporal relationship between vaccination and injury.

 

There was even one doctor who testified that he'd seen a previous case of a similar vaccine injury, which meant that that petitioner provided a theory that was both supported by medical records and was supported by a sound and reliable physician.

 

Yet the DoH, in every case, denied that the vaccine caused the illness. In many cases, they made an offer to the complainant--while still denying that the vaccine caused the illness.  In other words, they are paying the injured parties (or in some cases, the survivors) to shut up and go away.  Perhaps it's more telling that, by stipulation in these cases, the particulars of the case--the medical records, the doctors' testimony that vaccines caused had--remain sealed. 

 

Over in the Debate forum, we have someone insisting that severe vaccine reactions are vanishingly rare.  Meanwhile, the rest of us are staring at proof that our government is denying that those very reactions are happening, and engaging in a cover-up of the records, even as they agree to pay compensation for such reactions.

Taximom5 is offline  
#3 of 51 Old 08-06-2013, 01:30 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,707
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
If these are vaccine court claims that got granted compensation then they are in the 1 in a million statistic which has been given before. That was based on the number of compensated cases compared to the total number of vaccinations given.

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  
#4 of 51 Old 08-06-2013, 01:58 AM
 
davisam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 13
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Well said, Taximom5
applejuice likes this.
davisam is offline  
#5 of 51 Old 08-06-2013, 05:16 AM
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 1,838
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

If these are vaccine court claims that got granted compensation then they are in the 1 in a million statistic which has been given before. That was based on the number of compensated cases compared to the total number of vaccinations given.


The "one in a million" statistic is based on this? Compensated cases: total vaccines given........ Interesting.


               "Those who are able to see beyond the shadows and lies of their culture will never be understood, let alone believed, by the masses."

                ~Captain Hammer (j/k, it was Plato)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

beckybird is online now  
#6 of 51 Old 08-06-2013, 05:28 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 maintain that when 99% percent of folks use '1 in a million' it isn't even numerical, really, it is just a saying, one that is totally unsourced or @ best sourced from Slate magazine or some such. You can't even get a meaningful statistic from Vax Court awards because the vax injuries compensated would all have occurred in different years, with different vaxes. Plus, trying to get a statistic from these awards totally ignores the FACT that there are access & political issues with courts (and that the court denies that award = real injury). That would be like trying to get a handle on the exact number of joints smoked in the US/year from the amount of joint smoking convictions in a given calendar year, it would be laughably inaccurate because of the million & two issues that would stand between the J & a court conviction.
dinahx is offline  
#7 of 51 Old 08-06-2013, 06:34 AM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,297
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 156 Post(s)

Here one person broke down the math. Might be helpful is determining how people get that "1 in a million" number. 

 

 

 

" There are an estimated 4 million children born (pdf) in the U.S. every year. 

 

Therefore, since the NVICP was created, approximately 87.4 million children have been vaccinated at least partially, if not completely, according to the CDC recommendations.

 

The percentage of petitions to actual vaccines administered is therefore 0.016%. One one-hundredth of one percent of cases of vaccination have resulted in a petition being filed. The percentage of compensations to actual vaccines administered is 0.003%. Three one-THOUSANDTHS of one percent of cases of vaccination have resulted in compensation for injury.

 

Additionally, the NVICP claims are not limited to children, and the above calculations are by person, not by injection, so the actual safety rate is significantly higher than 99.997%. If you included all adult vaccinations, and counted number of injections rather than number of vaccinated persons, you’d get something that probably looks like 99.9999999999999999% of child and adult vaccinations resulting in no serious adverse events." 

 

http://www.doublexscience.org/calculating-vaccine-risk/


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#8 of 51 Old 08-06-2013, 06:43 AM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,103
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)

Oh, for heaven's sake, the number of petitions has absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the rate of severe adverse reactions.

 

Only a tiny fraction--estimates range from 1-10%--of severe adverse reactions are actually reported to VAERS.

 

Only a tiny fraction of those cases are ever entered as petitions.

 

For one thing, there is a 3-year statute of limitations. That's 3 years from the date of injury. Onset of symptoms can be significantly later than the actual injection, which means that in many cases, the doctors don't realize or can't confirm that it was indeed a vaccine injury for months or even years.  Patients and/or their guardians (or their survivors) often don't realize that they can enter a petition, and often don't wish to be engaged in any kind of court proceeding.  Those who have been through it, without exception, report that it is an extremely time-consuming and emotionally grueling process, during which they report being treated like criminals.

 

It is grossly misleading to attempt to paint the number of petitions as the number of events.

Taximom5 is offline  
#9 of 51 Old 08-06-2013, 07:35 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)
Oh my gosh I didn't literally mean 'go get the number directly from Slate magazine!'
dinahx is offline  
#10 of 51 Old 08-06-2013, 07:38 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)
You just canNOT conclude that no compensated petition equals no serious adverse event unless you are practicing something other than science (like maybe politics).

Not all serious adverse events even require ongoing care, which is the only reason to ever file a petition, because it is ONLY to pay for ongoing care & medical bills.

The author of that casual calculation has a BA & an MA. Neither of those degrees require any significant coursework in the sciences or in medicine. One wonders why she was even tapped to write 'Your Baby's Best Shot'.
dinahx is offline  
#11 of 51 Old 08-06-2013, 09:06 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 156
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinahx View Post

You just canNOT conclude that no compensated petition equals no serious adverse event unless you are practicing something other than science (like maybe politics).

Not all serious adverse events even require ongoing care, which is the only reason to ever file a petition, because it is ONLY to pay for ongoing care & medical bills.

The author of that casual calculation has a BA & an MA. Neither of those degrees require any significant coursework in the sciences or in medicine. One wonders why she was even tapped to write 'Your Baby's Best Shot'.


The scientists DO NOT conclude that. They conclude that THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP. Since they can't prove no causal relationship we can't say there is a causal relationship either. The most rational interpretation is that even if there is a causal relationship the effect may be so rare that it is difficult to quantify. Hence their estimate of no more than 1 in a million from a combination of reports, compensation and research findings.

 

Just because something was reported after a vaccine, it does not mean it was caused by it!!

bakunin is offline  
#12 of 51 Old 08-06-2013, 09:18 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)
Um, everyone here gets that, that is like 8th grade. But it doesn't mean it was a coincidence either. Science is collecting all the data & examining it, not steadfastly proclaiming your 'client's' innocence by any means necessary. That's why active data collection might help. But this author is using something even less effective than passive data collection, it is data collection by court cases?

No need for all caps. What scientists? The woman (so if anything scienTIST) doing this calculation (in the media, not in a peer reviewed journal or academic paper) is not a scientist in any way. Her highest degree is a Master of ARTS.
applejuice likes this.
dinahx is offline  
#13 of 51 Old 08-06-2013, 09:21 AM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,297
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 156 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

Oh, for heaven's sake, the number of petitions has absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the rate of severe adverse reactions.

 

Only a tiny fraction--estimates range from 1-10%--of severe adverse reactions are actually reported to VAERS.

 

Only a tiny fraction of those cases are ever entered as petitions.

 

For one thing, there is a 3-year statute of limitations. That's 3 years from the date of injury. Onset of symptoms can be significantly later than the actual injection, which means that in many cases, the doctors don't realize or can't confirm that it was indeed a vaccine injury for months or even years.  Patients and/or their guardians (or their survivors) often don't realize that they can enter a petition, and often don't wish to be engaged in any kind of court proceeding.  Those who have been through it, without exception, report that it is an extremely time-consuming and emotionally grueling process, during which they report being treated like criminals.

 

It is grossly misleading to attempt to paint the number of petitions as the number of events.

 

And? Even if you multiply that number many many times over it still would not come anywhere close to being considered not safe.

 

In the 25 years that the NVICP has been around how many vaccines do you think have been given to children and adults combined?  Hundreds of millions.  So even if that was a "tiny fraction" of reports  the number of people who don't have a severe reaction to a vaccine would still be 99.9999..... etc. 

 

I see all the time in comments, blogs, and forums anti vaccine proponents try to use the numbers from the NVICP as meaning that vaccines are dangerous when in actuality it shows the exact opposite. 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#14 of 51 Old 08-06-2013, 09:46 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 156
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinahx View Post

Um, everyone here gets that, that is like 8th grade. But it doesn't mean it was a coincidence either. Science is collecting all the data & examining it, not steadfastly proclaiming your 'client's' innocence by any means necessary. That's why active data collection might help. But this author is using something even less effective than passive data collection, it is data collection by court cases?

No need for all caps. What scientists? The woman (so if anything scienTIST) doing this calculation (in the media, not in a peer reviewed journal or academic paper) is not a scientist in any way. Her highest degree is a Master of ARTS.


I'm referring to the issue in general not the specific findings reported by the lady

bakunin is offline  
#15 of 51 Old 08-07-2013, 12:44 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 teacozy View Post

Here one person broke down the math. Might be helpful is determining how people get that "1 in a million" number. 

 

[... deleted ...]

 

The percentage of petitions to actual vaccines administered is therefore 0.016%. One one-hundredth of one percent of cases of vaccination have resulted in a petition being filed. The percentage of compensations to actual vaccines administered is 0.003%. Three one-THOUSANDTHS of one percent of cases of vaccination have resulted in compensation for injury.

 

[.... deleted ...]

 

http://www.doublexscience.org/calculating-vaccine-risk/

 

.016% = 160 / million = vax petitions filed

.003% = 30 / million = vax injuries compensation

 

Putting the above numbers in context, using:

- Trends in Infectious Disease Mortality in the United States During the 20th Century
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=768249

- Measles Mortality in the United States 1971-1975
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1619577/pdf/amjph00684-0032.pdf

- HPV rate from this thread

http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1387395/more-hpv-news

 

 

So, roughly, the figures in per million are:

0.2    - average annual measles mortality in 1971-1975

1       - official vax adverse side effect rate

10     - pre-vax polio mortality circa 1940
20     - pre-vax measles mortality ca 1940
30     - number of vax injury compensations
30     - pre-vax pertussis mortality ca 1940
30     - pre-vax diphtheria mortality ca 1940
100   - pre-vax measles mortality ca 1900
100   - pre-vax pertussis mortality ca 1900
160   - number of vax petitions filed
400   - diphtheria mortality ca 1900, pre-vax era
800   - pneumonia and influenza mortality ca 1940

1000 - HPV vax adverse events
6000 - pneumonia and influenza mortality, 1917 flu pandemic

 

 

Personally, these numbers give me a pause ... and they do - not - even include the possible under-reporting of vax side effects.


Pro rights (vaxes).
MamaMunchkin is offline  
#16 of 51 Old 08-07-2013, 06:27 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

 

.016% = 160 / million = vax petitions filed

.003% = 30 / million = vax injuries compensation

 

Putting the above numbers in context, using:

- Trends in Infectious Disease Mortality in the United States During the 20th Century
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=768249

- Measles Mortality in the United States 1971-1975
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1619577/pdf/amjph00684-0032.pdf

- HPV rate from this thread

http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1387395/more-hpv-news

 

 

So, roughly, the figures in per million are:

0.2    - average annual measles mortality in 1971-1975

1       - official vax adverse side effect rate

10     - pre-vax polio mortality circa 1940
20     - pre-vax measles mortality ca 1940
30     - number of vax injury compensations
30     - pre-vax pertussis mortality ca 1940
30     - pre-vax diphtheria mortality ca 1940
100   - pre-vax measles mortality ca 1900
100   - pre-vax pertussis mortality ca 1900
160   - number of vax petitions filed
400   - diphtheria mortality ca 1900, pre-vax era
800   - pneumonia and influenza mortality ca 1940

1000 - HPV vax adverse events
6000 - pneumonia and influenza mortality, 1917 flu pandemic

 

 

Personally, these numbers give me a pause ... and they do - not - even include the possible under-reporting of vax side effects.


Looking at the stats is definitely the way to go. However, there is grave issues with many of the numbers provided:

1 in a million - estimated upper bound of serious adverse events of a given vaccine (say MMR but this differs by vaccine)

30/ million - estimated rate of compensation FOR ALL vaccine related injuries since the NVICP was created (25 years)

 

I haven't checked the adequacy of the 30/million estimated, but for proper comparison with MMR you would need to use the total compensation numbers of MMR and then divide by 25 (years). Assuming each vaccine has the same chance of causing leading to compensation (which is NOT TRUE but for the sake of this argument is fine), the yearly compensation is 30/25/number of vaccines that required compensation. Assuming the compensation was required from the use of 10 vaccines leaves use with a 0.12/million year compensation for MMR, far below the estimated risk provided by CDC.

 

Other numbers also have some issues. Like proscience commented in the referenced mothering link, the HPV numbers of the website are incorrect.

Finally, many of the rates you provided (without checking for accuracy), say the measles mortality rate in 1940, are rates by year. But the 30/million estimated is not by year and it's a lump sum of all vaccines.

 

The results provided in your reference http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=768249 are wildly considered as the effect of 20th century medicine. Two technologies dramatically increased the life expectancy of people (which roamed around the 30s for thousands of years): antibiotics and vaccines.

 

It is important to stay on top of things when it comes to vaccines (yes companies are greedy), but up until now, vaccines have provided more benefit than harm

bakunin is offline  
#17 of 51 Old 08-07-2013, 06:37 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)

Compensation &/or Petitions do and canNOT again NOT equal serious adverse events. Not all that experience serious adverse events will ever seek compensation or could necessarily benefit from it, even those who receive medical treatment. Not all serious adverse events require follow up medical treatment. Like a seizure is a serious adverse event, but it might not ever require treatment or follow up care. Or if my kid's seizure did require some follow up care, but didn't have lasting sequelae AND I had decent insurance, why would I go after the VICP for compensation? It would still be defined as a 'serious adverse event'. 

 

For example the ENTIRE Anabaptist faith does NOT resort to the state courts for redress, almost ever. There are just a million and one ;) reasons that someone might not even file a VAERS report for a Vaccine Injury (starting with the fact that many either don't believe in them or believe they are 'vanishingly rare'.)  But VAERS reports are a more reliable data collection device (even if it is passive rather than active) than ONLY considering cases that appear before the court. Do you think, for example, you could get a reliable handle on Domestic Violence in the US by ONLY looking @ cases where assault charges are filed? Of course not, that would be totally laughable! 

 

I posted a 14 year study that attempted to determine the actual rate of serious adverse reactions to MMR and it NOWHERE ever mentioned 1 in a million as any type of number, let alone an upper limit. The number they stated as a 'upper limit' was 3.2/100G, or roughly 32 in a million vax doses. I was generous and didn't list the 5.4/100G vaccinees that that paper also established.

BeckyBird likes this.
dinahx is offline  
#18 of 51 Old 08-07-2013, 08:08 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 156
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinahx View Post

Compensation &/or Petitions do and canNOT again NOT equal serious adverse events. Not all that experience serious adverse events will ever seek compensation or could necessarily benefit from it, even those who receive medical treatment. Not all serious adverse events require follow up medical treatment. Like a seizure is a serious adverse event, but it might not ever require treatment or follow up care.

 

For example the ENTIRE Anabaptist faith does NOT resort to the state courts for redress, almost ever. There are just a million and one ;) reasons that someone might not even file a VAERS report for a Vaccine Injury (starting with the fact that many either don't believe in them or believe they are 'vanishingly rare'.)  But VAERS reports are a more reliable data collection device (even if it is passive rather than active) than ONLY considering cases that appear before the court. Do you think, for example, you could get a reliable handle on Domestic Violence in the US by ONLY looking @ cases where assault charges are filed? Of course not, that would be totally laughable! 

 

I posted a 14 year study that attempted to determine the actual rate of serious adverse reactions to MMR and it NOWHERE ever mentioned 1 in a million as any type of number, let alone an upper limit. The number they stated as a 'upper limit' was 3.2/100G, or roughly 32 in a million vax doses. I was generous and didn't list the 5.4/100G vaccinees that that paper also established.


We've had this discussion about the 3.2/100,000 before here http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1384366/bioethicist-says-parents-who-dont-vaccinate-should-face-liability-for-consequences/160 (post 164)

The original paper can be found here http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/11144371/ That paper is very clear: "giving an incidence of serious adverse events with possible or indeterminate causal relation with .....3.2 per 100,000 vaccine doses".

"events with possible or indeterminate causal relation with MMR vaccination" they mean its INCONCLUSIVE. The KEY phrase is "or indeterminate" meaning it could be one or the other BUT THEY CAN'T EXPLAIN WHICH. After that paper written in 2000, STILL NO CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN PROVEN

 

In another post in that thread (post 191) I also brought another important point:

"The[re] is also something important that has gone amiss in the argument. On the 1999 paper I referred to in post 159 (only one year before the 2000 paper), it was stated that: unvaccinated children age 5-9 had a 10.62/100000 rate of contracting measles http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=190649

Therefore, even with the 3.2/100,000 you are using of serious side effects (which is wrong), CLEARLY the benefits outweigh the risks. Doesn't that jama paper (one of the most prestigious medicine journals by the way) make the benefit quite clear?"

bakunin is offline  
#19 of 51 Old 08-07-2013, 08:41 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 bakunin View Post


Looking at the stats is definitely the way to go. However, there is grave issues with many of the numbers provided:

1 in a million - estimated upper bound of serious adverse events of a given vaccine (say MMR but this differs by vaccine)

 

If one considers the possibility of under-reporting, then 1/million would be a lowerbound.

 

 

30/ million - estimated rate of compensation FOR ALL vaccine related injuries since the NVICP was created (25 years)

 

This was the rate given in post #7 above.

 

 

I haven't checked the adequacy of the 30/million estimated, but for proper comparison with MMR you would need to use the total compensation numbers of MMR and then divide by 25 (years). Assuming each vaccine has the same chance of causing leading to compensation (which is NOT TRUE but for the sake of this argument is fine), the yearly compensation is 30/25/number of vaccines that required compensation. Assuming the compensation was required from the use of 10 vaccines leaves use with a 0.12/million year compensation for MMR, far below the estimated risk provided by CDC.

 

The stats are given to provide some context - it's not about MMR. 

 

If one were to follow the full-vax schedule, the rate of compensation for all vaxes may be useful.

 

 

Other numbers also have some issues. Like proscience commented in the referenced mothering link, the HPV numbers of the website are incorrect.

Finally, many of the rates you provided (without checking for accuracy), say the measles mortality rate in 1940, are rates by year. But the 30/million estimated is not by year and it's a lump sum of all vaccines.

 

Rate by year - one can do rates by decades, by months, by weeks - all valid as long as the numerator and denominator are from the same time period. 

 

The HPV rate, 6000/6 million = 1000/million, was from this post by prosciencemom in the referenced link - it's from post #3 in the "More HPV news thread" ...

quoting as posted by prosciencemom

...

"It's my opinion that this is fear mongering rubbish - distoring the truth to try to give people references which say HPV is more dangerous that all the credible reports say it is. I'll repeat again - over 4 years of routine HPV vaccination in the UK, 6 million doses have been given with 6000 reports of adverse events - that means 99.9% of girls get this potentially life saving vaccine with absolutely no problem at all....."

...

end quote

...


Pro rights (vaxes).
MamaMunchkin is offline  
#20 of 51 Old 08-07-2013, 09:19 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)

There has been NO paper published that established 1 in 1 million as any type of rate of anything. There was an ARTICLE published in a subsection of Slate Magazine, by a Psychology MA. Sorry, doesn't count.

 

Yes, they didn't definitely establish a casual relationship, they used SCIENCE to eliminate all the adverse events that could possibly be attributed to ANYTHING else or have ANY other contributing factor. Otherwise the rate would have been like 70/100G! (Or 700 in 1 million doses).

 

The number of adverse reactions to measles doesn't TRULY matter here, what matters is that some posters are engaging in an erroneous campaign of vaccine injury denialism. No one is attempting to block distribution or lower the rate of vaccination, what I am trying to do is establish that there IS a reaction rate, it HAS been studied, and it has nothing to do with any fictional number comparing the overall rate of vaccination with the number of cases that actually make it through the VICP.

Mirzam, Marnica and BeckyBird like this.
dinahx is offline  
#21 of 51 Old 08-07-2013, 10:32 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
 

Sure we don't have to focus on MMR. But that's not the point. The point is that comparisons must be made with consistent measures. If you want to compare rates of compensation vs serious adverse events estimates, how can you have the former lumped over all vaccines and 25 years, and the latter for one vaccine and a per year rate? Performing a comparison over lumped results would be much more difficult than performing it per vaccine. Under reporting affects BOTH adverse events and infection rates making a debate about it virtually useless.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dinahx View Post

There has been NO paper published that established 1 in 1 million as any type of rate of anything. There was an ARTICLE published in a subsection of Slate Magazine, by a Psychology MA. Sorry, doesn't count.

 

Yes, they didn't definitely establish a casual relationship, they used SCIENCE to eliminate all the adverse events that could possibly be attributed to ANYTHING else or have ANY other contributing factor. Otherwise the rate would have been like 70/100G! (Or 700 in 1 million doses).

 

The number of adverse reactions to measles doesn't TRULY matter here, what matters is that some posters are engaging in an erroneous campaign of vaccine injury denialism. No one is attempting to block distribution or lower the rate of vaccination, what I am trying to do is establish that there IS a reaction rate, it HAS been studied, and it has nothing to do with any fictional number comparing the overall rate of vaccination with the number of cases that actually make it through the VICP.

CDC has these 1 in 1 million bound based on VIS reports http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm

Now, before the CDC hate posts start pouring out, the agency is often conservative with its numbers. Truth is, that lower rates of serious side effects have been reported in studies. Furthermore, the benefits provided in CDC also tend to be conservative. For example CDC states that children with no pertussis vaccination are 8 times more likely to get the disease. http://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/about/faqs.html However, a 2009 study suggested that they are 23 times more likely to get the disease. Although in that 2009 study it is implied that their procedure leads to more precise estimates, consensus is still needed. Hence CDC has preferred to leave the less favorable '8 times' estimate on their website.

bakunin is offline  
#22 of 51 Old 08-07-2013, 12:19 PM
 
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 bakunin View Post

 

If you want to compare rates of compensation vs serious adverse events estimates, how can you have the former lumped over all vaccines and 25 years, and the latter for one vaccine and a per year rate? Performing a comparison over lumped results would be much more difficult than performing it per vaccine. Under reporting affects BOTH adverse events and infection rates making a debate about it virtually useless.

 

The comparison is consistent - the units are identical for all figures ... per million.


Pro rights (vaxes).
MamaMunchkin is offline  
#23 of 51 Old 08-07-2013, 01:00 PM
 
dinahx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,144
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
The CDC lists only 1 in a million as the rate for 'serious allergic reaction'. They both define servers adverse events like seizure as 'moderate' which is erroneous & list higher rates for other reactions. ALL severe adverse events (as CDC defines) would have to be included AND CDC is NOT a primary source. They are a secondary source, which is authoritative but deeply political, but conservative or not, they still have to CITE actual PRIMARY studies, which are really more authoritative than position or information statements for the general public (which is what was linked to).
Mirzam likes this.
dinahx is offline  
#24 of 51 Old 08-07-2013, 01:40 PM
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 comparison is consistent - the units are identical for all figures ... per million.


You just compared the rate of all vaccines vs a rate for ONE vaccine to imply that the 1 in a million estimate 'gives you pause'. The comparison is illogical for that reason alone. But there's much more that is wrong with the comparison:

- Compensation is given for moderate reactions too, not just rare ones (that have the 1 in a million rate) http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/vaccinetable.html

- Over 25 years, the aggregated effect ignores the use of different vaccines. For example DTaP was used over DTP starting in the 90s. DTP had more side effects!!

- The 25 year aggregation misses many other important facts too (some vaccines are more risky than others)

- Your mortality rates for at least some of the diseases are very, VERY wrong. For example some estimates place the mortality of measles at 1 in 1000, more than 3 times the rate you provided (table 1 http://www.aafp.org/afp/2002/1201/p2113.html)

bakunin is offline  
#25 of 51 Old 08-07-2013, 03:58 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,103
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bakunin View Post


You just compared the rate of all vaccines vs a rate for ONE vaccine to imply that the 1 in a million estimate 'gives you pause'. The comparison is illogical for that reason alone. But there's much more that is wrong with the comparison:
- Compensation is given for moderate reactions too, not just rare ones (that have the 1 in a million rate) http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/vaccinetable.html
- Over 25 years, the aggregated effect ignores the use of different vaccines. For example DTaP was used over DTP starting in the 90s. DTP had more side effects!!
- The 25 year aggregation misses many other important facts too (some vaccines are more risky than others)
- Your mortality rates for at least some of the diseases are very, VERY wrong. For example some estimates place the mortality of measles at 1 in 1000, more than 3 times the rate you provided (table 1 http://www.aafp.org/afp/2002/1201/p2113.html)

Let's put aside the fact that the CDC and the vaccine manufacturers play with estimates, statistics, and other numbers to make common, contagious diseases sound much worse than they really are.

Bakunin, what number of adverse effects from vaccines would you consider UNACCEPTABLE?

Because, when we remove all the smoke and mirrors, that's what it comes down to.

You deny the validity of reports of such reactions, and you present tweaked and misleading numbers--but your bottom line is, you think the current rate of severe reaction is acceptable, and you've even presented arguments for suing the families of unvaxxed siblings of vaccine-injured children.

So tell us, please--at exactly what point would you consider such reactions to vaccines unacceptable? What percentage? 1%? 10%% 50%

How does that translate into actual numbers of people? How many people have to have their lives ruined by vaccine reactions before you think it's enough? 1,000? 10,000? More?
Taximom5 is offline  
#26 of 51 Old 08-07-2013, 04:39 PM
 
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 bakunin View Post


You just compared the rate of all vaccines vs a rate for ONE vaccine to imply that the 1 in a million estimate 'gives you pause'. The comparison is illogical for that reason alone. But there's much more that is wrong with the comparison

- Compensation is given for moderate reactions too, not just rare ones (that have the 1 in a million rate) http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/vaccinetable.html

- Over 25 years, the aggregated effect ignores the use of different vaccines. For example DTaP was used over DTP starting in the 90s. DTP had more side effects!!

- The 25 year aggregation misses many other important facts too (some vaccines are more risky than others)

 

Nah - I've compared the rates of vax adverse effect (HPV) to plane/flight problems - not even to 1 vax, or 2 vaxes ... basically comparing it with something totally unrelated to vaxes (in the thread "More HPV News).  The point is to get some ideas how big/small something is - not about absolute numbers.

 

Here's the thing - these figures of petition and compensations rates (0.016% and 0.003%) were presented as "small" to support the idea that vaxes are safe.  Now, you're basically saying, no these figures are too "big".  Hey - we actually agree.  That was the - entire - point of this whole exercise.  These figures that looked "small" at first perhaps are - not - so "small" after all.  Again, I couldn't agree more.  energy.gif

 

 

- Your mortality rates for at least some of the diseases are very, VERY wrong. For example some estimates place the mortality of measles at 1 in 1000, more than 3 times the rate you provided (table 1 http://www.aafp.org/afp/2002/1201/p2113.html

 

 

Nope, my numbers are straight from the papers linked, unless the papers are wrong or I copied them wrong:

 

0.2 per million = average annual measles mortality in 1971-1975 --- from the 2nd link

20 per million = pre-vax measles mortality around 1940 --- from JAMA paper, Figure 4

100 per million = pre-vax measles mortality rate around 1900 --- from JAMA paper, Figure 4

 

Your number = 1 per 1000 = 1000 per million.

No, your number is - not - 3x mine.  All my numbers are - per million.  Your number is 5000x, 50x, and 10x bigger than mine.

 

The discrepancy is from the denominators.

Your number = (# of deaths by measles) / (# of measles cases)

Mine = (# of deaths by measles) / (# of population)

 

The 2 figures are related by the following:

(your number)  x (risk of catching measles) = (my number)

where (risk of catching measles) = (# of measles cases) / (# of population)

 

Hey, notice how the mortality rates decreased, even - before - MMR vax?  Anyway ...

 


Pro rights (vaxes).
MamaMunchkin is offline  
#27 of 51 Old 08-07-2013, 06:28 PM
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
 


Ok, I won't try explaining it to you any longer. I can't blame you if you don't understand the point. Statistics is a different 'language/science/art'.

An explanation is included for other members though. When you compare the rates of ALL vaccines vs the rate of serious side effects of one vaccine to argue general vaccine efficiency, as done in post 15 of this thread, this is analogous to comparing the amount of daily rain in a county in NY in a decade vs the amount of monthly rain in a different county in NY on a different decade to determine where it actually rains more ..... apples and oranges if one assumes no long term temporal variation (as done in post 15). Wrong by many accounts

 

My "more than 3 times" comment? Sure, not precise but not wrong, an extremely conservative estimate done while parked with a toddler in the backseat (related to 3 standard deviations rule of thumb but that's another story). Doesn't take away from the argument. The rates in post15 are wrong, specifically, they are outdated!!! (the rate I provided was from 2002, much more recent) and, as post 26 so eloquently stated, her estimate is per population. You see, the vaccines themselves have taken the incidence of measles dramatically down. Computing a rate based on the impact of vaccines to argue against vaccines is highly counterproductive. The most appropriate way to talk about of disease mortality in this scenario is per case of the disease, not by population. Don't think the decrease of measles is due to the vaccine? Think again. Not only did the measles vaccine greatly reduce the incidence of the disease (http://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/timelines/measles) but countries (notice plural) that for some reason have seen measles vaccination rates go down have experienced outbreaks. You can find info online about how this is occurring in UK, France and, oh yeah, the U.S.

 

To use stats, I recommend due diligence and to check the numbers carefully. Furthermore, they should be on the same scale, and depending on the intention of the argument, adequate time period. For example, you can compare the rate of disease in a county (say pertussis) with a rate of vaccine serious side effects estimated over the same time period in a different place to argue efficiency of vaccines.

 

Taximom5 wrote "at exactly what point would you consider such reactions to vaccines unacceptable". I think that one should consider the benefits vs the risks. Not everyone thinks this way. Some want the level of risk of vaccines to be exactly zero. Although optimal, unfortunately this just isn't the way things work in real life. I'm providing a link to a pretty cool article written a little over 10 years ago about parent perception of vaccines, rates of risk and benefit etc. http://www.aafp.org/afp/2002/1201/p2113.html

bakunin is offline  
#28 of 51 Old 08-07-2013, 09:58 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,103
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bakunin View Post

][

Taximom5 wrote "at exactly what point would you consider such reactions to vaccines unacceptable". I think that one should consider the benefits vs the risks. Not everyone thinks this way. Some want the level of risk of vaccines to be exactly zero. Although optimal, unfortunately this just isn't the way things work in real life. I'm providing a link to a pretty cool article written a little over 10 years ago about parent perception of vaccines, rates of risk and benefit etc. http://www.aafp.org/afp/2002/1201/p2113.html

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 offline  
#29 of 51 Old 08-07-2013, 10:08 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,103
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
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.
Mirzam, japonica and BeckyBird like this.
Taximom5 is offline  
#30 of 51 Old 08-08-2013, 04:55 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 bakunin View Post


Ok, I won't try explaining it to you any longer. I can't blame you if you don't understand the point. Statistics is a different 'language/science/art'.

lol.gif - no comment.  Back to substance.

 

 

An explanation is included for other members though. When you compare the rates of ALL vaccines vs the rate of serious side effects of one vaccine to argue general vaccine efficiency, as done in post 15 of this thread, this is analogous to comparing the amount of daily rain in a county in NY in a decade vs the amount of monthly rain in a different county in NY on a different decade to determine where it actually rains more ..... apples and oranges if one assumes no long term temporal variation (as done in post 15). Wrong by many accounts

 

 

Nah. I'll explain this again ...

 

You use a different denominator than what the rates I cited use.  Specifically, you use (# of years), or rather (duration of time).  Confusing different denominators - similar mistake as before with your measles rate and mine.

 

 

My "more than 3 times" comment? Sure, not precise but not wrong, an extremely conservative estimate done while parked with a toddler in the backseat (related to 3 standard deviations rule of thumb but that's another story). Doesn't take away from the argument. The rates in post15 are wrong, specifically, they are outdated!!! (the rate I provided was from 2002, much more recent) and, as post 26 so eloquently stated, her estimate is per population.

 

Both post#15 and post#26 are mine.   Wrong in post#15 but eloquent in post#26 - though both have the same contents?  OK, eloquent is nice - thanks.

 

You said 3x, math said 5000x, 50x, 10x --- not precise, but not wrong?  OK.

 

The figures on post#15 are from the papers cited - yes, I could have copied/pasted some numbers wrong, then show me which ones disagree with the papers.  The papers used - historical - data, unless some new documents/data from that period of time are unearthed, then, yes, these data are outdated by definition.

 

 

You see, the vaccines themselves have taken the incidence of measles dramatically down. Computing a rate based on the impact of vaccines to argue against vaccines is highly counterproductive. The most appropriate way to talk about of disease mortality in this scenario is per case of the disease, not by population.

 

Highly counterproductive?  For whom?  OK. 

 

 

Don't think the decrease of measles is due to the vaccine? Think again. Not only did the measles vaccine greatly reduce the incidence of the disease (http://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/timelines/measles) but countries (notice plural) that for some reason have seen measles vaccination rates go down have experienced outbreaks. You can find info online about how this is occurring in UK, France and, oh yeah, the U.S.

 

Decrease of measles?  Decrease of measles what?

Mortality?  Morbidity?  These are two - distinct - parameters.

 

Yes, I know how to do search on the internet - thank you.  Again, back to substance ... :sigh ...

 

Take mortality for the sake of discussion.  The question is not whether vax plays a role, but how much and how it compares to contributions from other factors.  In other words:

- what percentage of measles mortality is reduced due to vax? 

- what percentage of that reduction is due to antibiotics?

- what percentage of that reduction is due improved hygiene?  

- what percentage of that reduction is due to other factors?


Pro rights (vaxes).
MamaMunchkin 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