Reporting of Vaccine Reactions - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 9Likes
  • 3 Post By sassyfirechick
  • 2 Post By prosciencemum
  • 4 Post By Turquesa
  • 1 Post By applejuice
  • 1 Post By serenbat
  • 2 Post By emmy526
  • 2 Post By serenbat
  • 1 Post By sassyfirechick
  • 1 Post By Chicharronita
  • 2 Post By Deborah
  • 1 Post By sassyfirechick
  • 3 Post By Deborah
  • 3 Post By Taximom5
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 16 Old 05-21-2014, 09:54 AM - Thread Starter
 
sassyfirechick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,534
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)

This article was passed along to me and I thought I'd share with the group.

 

http://www.wptv.com/money/consumer/pet-owners-say-annual-vaccines-caused-reactions-in-their-pet-but-some-vets-say-they-are-needed

Quote:
 In a 2011 review of vaccine protocols, The American Animal Hospital Association said bad reactions are uncommon. The Association admitted that they can cause unpredictable effects that may be underreported.

While the USDA regulates vaccines, their scope is limited. They don't require reporting of adverse reactions, and won't release any reports publicly.

The AAHA latest vaccine protocol for vets recommends most main vaccines only need to be given every three years.

Bolding the interesting parts here.  There are no requirements for reporting vaccine reactions, and because of this reactions may be under-reported, yet they still claim that reactions are uncommon.  But how do you know?  How does one claim something doesn't occur if there is no tracking system in place.  Yet they have changed protocols to recommend every 3 years instead of past recommendation for yearly boosters. Why?  You would think such a change would come from information gathered by tracking....

 

Now according to the CDC:

Quote:
 Anyone who gives or receives a licensed vaccine in the U.S. is encouraged to report any significant health problem or unexpected event (even if uncertain that the vaccine caused the event) for any vaccine. The Reportable Events Table (RET) lists and explains injuries and conditions that are believed to be caused by vaccines, and time periods in which the first symptom must occur after receiving the vaccine. It is used by the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, which is operated by the U.S. Health Resources and Services Administration. Health care providers are required by law to report to VAERS any conditions on the RET, vaccine adverse events that are listed in the manufacturer's package insert, and clinically significant or unexpected events following vaccination.

Notice on one hand they are encouraged, while on the other it says required. (Here's the link for the VAERS RET: https://vaers.hhs.gov/resources/VAERS_Table_of_Reportable_Events_Following_Vaccination.pdf

 

So where does everyone stand on vaccine reaction reporting:

 

1. Mandatory by physician only.

2. Mandatory by physician and/or individual (family in the case of a minor).

3. Voluntary by physician or individual.

4. Other....

 

I understand there's a large difference in opinion of what even constitutes a vaccine reaction never mind their frequency.  So to bridge that gap, let's define reaction:

1. Any adverse event that is listed on a vaccine insert.

2. Any table injury as defined by the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (here's the table for reference: http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/vaccineinjurytable.pdf)

3. Any potential side effects as listed by the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm

4. Any reaction or adverse event for which requires hospitalization.

 

Note that this will include even minor reactions such as fevers, swelling and redness at the injection site.  Also note, we are not focusing on preconceived notions for how often reactions occur, rather the reporting of anything out of the ordinary following vaccination.  

 

And go!

applejuice, serenbat and BeckyBird like this.
sassyfirechick is online now  
#2 of 16 Old 05-21-2014, 03:18 PM
 
ss834's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 301
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I would support mandatory reporting by physicians, of any adverse events. Except that I don't think giving doctors/doctors offices more paperwork would be very well accepted.

 

I don't agree though that the underreporting of VAERS is a problem in identifying the probability of specific vaccine reactions. VAERS is a surveillance system that can be used as a signal for when research is needed on a specific reaction. The data from VAERS itself cannot be used because underreporting is an issue (that's why the warning about underreporting), so the number of VAERS cases are not directly used in research.

 

Probability statistics come from follow-up research which doesn't have the same limitations as VAERS data.

ss834 is offline  
#3 of 16 Old 05-21-2014, 04:13 PM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,711
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 63 Post(s)
I think mandatory report of reactions is an excellent idea. It's very important to make sure we have the statistics correct on the frequency of reactions.
BeckyBird and kathymuggle like this.

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 offline  
#4 of 16 Old 05-21-2014, 04:22 PM
 
chickabiddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,473
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)

I support mandatory reporting of serious reactions.  I don't consider a low fever or redness/swelling to be a reaction worth reporting, or even "out of the ordinary" following vaccination.


Carseat-checking (CPST) and WAH mama to a twelve-year-old girl.
chickabiddy is online now  
#5 of 16 Old 05-21-2014, 06:30 PM
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,050
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Part of the problem is that there are doctors who believe they are the gatekeepers to the VAERS database. "Oh, I'm not going to report that. I'm sure it was just a coincidence." I not only believe in mandatory reporting, but I also believe that it should be treated as the mandatory reporting of child abuse, That is, if a mandated reporter suspects child abuse, s/he has to report it. Period. Similarly, if there's a report from a patient of an adverse event following a vaccine, the doctor doesn't get to make the judgment call or play detective. That's for the authorities to do.

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
#6 of 16 Old 05-21-2014, 11:04 PM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 18,650
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)

I have read here or elsewhere that doctors can get in trouble for reporting too many vaccine side effects. 

 

Is that true?

serenbat likes this.

"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie, deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic."
applejuice is offline  
#7 of 16 Old 05-22-2014, 04:38 AM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,137
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 44 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by applejuice View Post
 

I have read here or elsewhere that doctors can get in trouble for reporting too many vaccine side effects. 

 

Is that true?

I heard that as well. I have also heard they are judged based on the number that are up to date too.

applejuice likes this.

 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

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

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

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

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

serenbat is offline  
#8 of 16 Old 05-22-2014, 04:43 AM
 
emmy526's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,651
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
 

I heard that as well. I have also heard they are judged based on the number that are up to date too.

i've also heard if the dr's patients are not up to date, the drs office receives letters from the ins co, urging them to 'talk to parents' about getting caught up.  Our pedi is very candid with us and told me about all the ins co crap he has to put up with...

applejuice and serenbat like this.
emmy526 is offline  
#9 of 16 Old 05-22-2014, 04:47 AM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,137
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 44 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyfirechick View Post
 

This article was passed along to me and I thought I'd share with the group.

 

http://www.wptv.com/money/consumer/pet-owners-say-annual-vaccines-caused-reactions-in-their-pet-but-some-vets-say-they-are-needed

Bolding the interesting parts here.  There are no requirements for reporting vaccine reactions, and because of this reactions may be under-reported, yet they still claim that reactions are uncommon.  But how do you know?  How does one claim something doesn't occur if there is no tracking system in place.  Yet they have changed protocols to recommend every 3 years instead of past recommendation for yearly boosters. Why?  You would think such a change would come from information gathered by tracking....

This is what I have found wakes most people up to vaccines, loosing a pet. They are made by the same companies and tested on lab animals, yet we keep believing it's not happening in people.

Now according to the CDC:

Notice on one hand they are encouraged, while on the other it says required. (Here's the link for the VAERS RET: https://vaers.hhs.gov/resources/VAERS_Table_of_Reportable_Events_Following_Vaccination.pdf

 

So where does everyone stand on vaccine reaction reporting:

 

1. Mandatory by physician only.

2. Mandatory by physician and/or individual (family in the case of a minor).

3. Voluntary by physician or individual.

4. Other....

 

I understand there's a large difference in opinion of what even constitutes a vaccine reaction never mind their frequency.  So to bridge that gap, let's define reaction:

1. Any adverse event that is listed on a vaccine insert.

2. Any table injury as defined by the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (here's the table for reference: http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/vaccineinjurytable.pdf)

3. Any potential side effects as listed by the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm

4. Any reaction or adverse event for which requires hospitalization.

 

Note that this will include even minor reactions such as fevers, swelling and redness at the injection site.  Also note, we are not focusing on preconceived notions for how often reactions occur, rather the reporting of anything out of the ordinary following vaccination.  

 

And go!

I support mandatory reporting but when you just go to a pharmacy and your reaction happens later, the person who gave it to you is not longer on, and off for a few days that can be a problem. And just how trained are some to even report? If you call up say you are having an issue, most likely they will say go to the ER, they didn't give it to you so you are now dealing with another person - a mess!

applejuice and sassyfirechick like this.

 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

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

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

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

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

serenbat is offline  
#10 of 16 Old 05-22-2014, 07:19 AM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 18,650
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by emmy526 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
 

I heard that as well. I have also heard they are judged based on the number that are up to date too.

i've also heard if the dr's patients are not up to date, the drs office receives letters from the ins co, urging them to 'talk to parents' about getting caught up.  Our pedi is very candid with us and told me about all the ins co crap he has to put up with...


I heard through the grapevine that the Dr Eisenstein practice was contacted by insurance companies not just because the vaccine rates were low, but asthma and other chronic conditions were not being reported either.  Interesting. Wonder why?


"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie, deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic."
applejuice is offline  
#11 of 16 Old 05-22-2014, 07:31 AM - Thread Starter
 
sassyfirechick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,534
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post

Part of the problem is that there are doctors who believe they are the gatekeepers to the VAERS database. "Oh, I'm not going to report that. I'm sure it was just a coincidence." I not only believe in mandatory reporting, but I also believe that it should be treated as the mandatory reporting of child abuse, That is, if a mandated reporter suspects child abuse, s/he has to report it. Period. Similarly, if there's a report from a patient of an adverse event following a vaccine, the doctor doesn't get to make the judgment call or play detective. That's for the authorities to do.

This was the case with our pediatrician who refused to report DD's reactions to VAERS.  While she admitted in one breath to me she had indeed suffered from vax reactions, in the next she denied the severity and offered a catch up shot visit....

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by emmy526 View Post
 

i've also heard if the dr's patients are not up to date, the drs office receives letters from the ins co, urging them to 'talk to parents' about getting caught up.  Our pedi is very candid with us and told me about all the ins co crap he has to put up with...

We have a local ped who was known for years to be vax friendly....until her Ins carrier caught on and threatened to drop her. She made a complete 180 and will no longer even accept new patients that do not vax 100% on schedule, and from what I've heard she's been encouraging long time no vax patients to change their minds as well.

applejuice likes this.
sassyfirechick is online now  
#12 of 16 Old 05-22-2014, 08:06 AM
 
Chicharronita's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: In the Candyland of my Imagination
Posts: 1,580
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyfirechick View Post
 

We have a local ped who was known for years to be vax friendly....until her Ins carrier caught on and threatened to drop her. She made a complete 180 and will no longer even accept new patients that do not vax 100% on schedule, and from what I've heard she's been encouraging long time no vax patients to change their minds as well.

 

I'm  counting the days until my anti-vax doctor stops accepting HMO insurance payments. As it is, he is no longer accepting any new patients because his practice is so busy. So are the practices of many anti-vax non-traditional M.D.s where I live. Most don't take HMO patients at all, because they don't need to. I guess I have to prepare for the day I will have to pay mine out-of-pocket. 

applejuice likes this.

Chicharronita is offline  
#13 of 16 Old 06-12-2014, 08:34 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,310
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)
I don't think it would be hugely burdensome to report all vaccine reactions if the system were properly designed.

There is an effort in place to create electronic record systems to be used by all doctors offices and they system would include vaccines. So the office would already be entering lot number, date, etc., etc., for each vaccine. All that would be needed would be one additional field to record adverse reaction(s) following the vaccines AND a trigger that transmits the info to the main database each time the reaction field is filled out. I think the criteria for reporting would be that a reaction was reported to the office or vaccine delivery location and that everyone who receives a vaccine would be offered info on possible reactions and advice on who to contact with a report.
applejuice and sassyfirechick like this.
Deborah is online now  
#14 of 16 Old 06-13-2014, 09:36 AM - Thread Starter
 
sassyfirechick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,534
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah View Post
I don't think it would be hugely burdensome to report all vaccine reactions if the system were properly designed.

There is an effort in place to create electronic record systems to be used by all doctors offices and they system would include vaccines. So the office would already be entering lot number, date, etc., etc., for each vaccine. All that would be needed would be one additional field to record adverse reaction(s) following the vaccines AND a trigger that transmits the info to the main database each time the reaction field is filled out. I think the criteria for reporting would be that a reaction was reported to the office or vaccine delivery location and that everyone who receives a vaccine would be offered info on possible reactions and advice on who to contact with a report.
I like the idea of this in some ways. While not a fan of electronic records in their entirety, I would love to see a more centralized way of reporting. If only the drug reps and docs could agree on a wider set of potential adverse effects and not just the standard "fever, swelling and redness" and we might be in a better place. I know for us, my DD's original ped first agreed with me that what occured was a vaccine reaction yet was quick to retract when she thought it would sway my opinion on vaccination and wanted me to continue on schedule.
applejuice likes this.
sassyfirechick is online now  
#15 of 16 Old 06-13-2014, 09:52 AM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,310
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyfirechick View Post
I like the idea of this in some ways. While not a fan of electronic records in their entirety, I would love to see a more centralized way of reporting. If only the drug reps and docs could agree on a wider set of potential adverse effects and not just the standard "fever, swelling and redness" and we might be in a better place. I know for us, my DD's original ped first agreed with me that what occured was a vaccine reaction yet was quick to retract when she thought it would sway my opinion on vaccination and wanted me to continue on schedule.
Required reporting of ANYTHING that a parent connects to a vaccination is what is needed to weed out medical bias. The system would not be messed up by a few too many reports, seriously.

The other advantage of properly recording all vaccine related stuff in the baby's record would be spotting trends both for the individual and for the group.

For example, do vaccine problems escalate? Do babies that start with getting sick after their two and four month vaccines escalate to screaming after their six month vaccines and then having seizures after their one-year doses? No one knows because there is no system for digging through the sequence of reactions. Or perhaps there are a lot of babies who react to one set and never before or after? That too would be helpful to know.

Can vaccine problems be connected to family history? Some people have linked vaccine reactions to a family history of auto-immune disease. The easiest way to find out would be a proper registry of vaccine reaction histories that could be researched in relation to family histories (with permission of course).

The reluctance of the authorities to dig into vaccine concerns just builds the number of people who distrust vaccination.
applejuice, Turquesa and Taximom5 like this.
Deborah is online now  
#16 of 16 Old 06-13-2014, 12:53 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,110
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah View Post
Required reporting of ANYTHING that a parent connects to a vaccination is what is needed to weed out medical bias. The system would not be messed up by a few too many reports, seriously.

The other advantage of properly recording all vaccine related stuff in the baby's record would be spotting trends both for the individual and for the group.

For example, do vaccine problems escalate? Do babies that start with getting sick after their two and four month vaccines escalate to screaming after their six month vaccines and then having seizures after their one-year doses? No one knows because there is no system for digging through the sequence of reactions. Or perhaps there are a lot of babies who react to one set and never before or after? That too would be helpful to know.

Can vaccine problems be connected to family history? Some people have linked vaccine reactions to a family history of auto-immune disease. The easiest way to find out would be a proper registry of vaccine reaction histories that could be researched in relation to family histories (with permission of course).

The reluctance of the authorities to dig into vaccine concerns just builds the number of people who distrust vaccination.
You raise many excellent points.

However, safety trials for vaccines are pretty limited to a few days or weeks of follow-up, mostly by parents filling out a checklist. So if a child's reaction produced symptoms that weren't on that particular checklist, or happened outside of the timeframe of those first few days, the symptoms would have gone entirely unrecognized and unreported.

Dr. Jacob Puliyel, head of pediatrics at St. Joseph's Hospital in Delhi, has written many commentaries and articles, complaining that the surveillance system for AEFI's (Adverse Events Following Immunization) is completely insufficient, and that babies are dying as a result. See http://jacob.puliyel.com
Taximom5 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