New systematic review assesses ALL the serious risks of US childhood vaccines - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 57Likes
  • 3 Post By serenbat
  • 4 Post By kathymuggle
  • 3 Post By samaxtics
  • 1 Post By Deborah
  • 1 Post By prosciencemum
  • 2 Post By kathymuggle
  • 2 Post By kathymuggle
  • 2 Post By samaxtics
  • 1 Post By serenbat
  • 1 Post By serenbat
  • 1 Post By samaxtics
  • 3 Post By Mirzam
  • 3 Post By Taximom5
  • 4 Post By Deborah
  • 2 Post By Taximom5
  • 3 Post By Mirzam
  • 1 Post By Deborah
  • 7 Post By Deborah
  • 3 Post By serenbat
  • 7 Post By Taximom5
  • 6 Post By Deborah
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 24 Old 07-01-2014, 12:57 PM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,528
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 388 Post(s)
New systematic review assesses ALL the serious risks of US childhood vaccines

http://www.redwineandapplesauce.com/

She goes into the new study and is generally not too controversial or "snarky" when writing about vaccines.

What do you guys think?

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is online now  
#2 of 24 Old 07-01-2014, 02:26 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,369
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 101 Post(s)
You mean this? http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...rare/11779521/

Like all drugs, vaccines can cause serious side effects.

The new report notes that some vaccines, including flu shots and the combined vaccine against measles, mumps and rubella, are associated with an increased risk of fever-related seizures in small children. Although these seizures can be frightening for parents, they're typically benign and cause no long-term problems.

According to the analysis, vaccines against rotavirus – a common cause of severe diarrhea and dehydration in children – increase the risk of a serious type of intestinal blockage called intussusception, in which part of the intestine telescopes into itself. The vaccines against it, RotaTeq and Rotarix, can cause an additional one to five cases of intussusception for every 100,000 doses given, the analysis says.

In an accompanying editorial, Byington notes that recent medical school graduates are more skeptical about the effectiveness of vaccines than older doctors, who have been around long enough to have treated children for measles and meningitis. In Washington state, a study found that more than half of medical providers were willing to consider untested, alternative immunization schedules that skip or space out vaccines.

 

 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 


Last edited by serenbat; 07-01-2014 at 02:33 PM.
serenbat is offline  
#3 of 24 Old 07-01-2014, 03:25 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,130
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 180 Post(s)
"When parents have questions or concerns about vaccines, they are often seeking certainty, even if they do not consciously recognize that is what they want. They want a guarantee that the vaccines they give their children are completely safe and effective, a completely understandable desire – but one which science can never deliver.

Neither can science deliver certainty that their child will not catch a disease and suffer serious consequences, or death, from it. Science is in the business of uncertainty, but in that sea of uncertainty it offers solace in the consensus, the coming together of study after study after study which, taken together, can provide the fullest picture possible of a particular issue."

She had me to the bolded.

I think vaxxing or not vaxxing is a crap shot - ergo I don't vax. Sin of ommision versus sin of commision for me To each their own.

I do not find any solace in consensus. Historically, consensus has not meant much. Moreover, I do not overly trust the sources upon which this consensus is built. Industry based studies, conflicts of interest, blah, blah, blah. It isn't conspiracy theory - it is cautiousness.

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  
#4 of 24 Old 07-01-2014, 03:43 PM
 
samaxtics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 536
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 100 Post(s)
Not the consensus thing again?!

How much value does it have if they don't have the complete picture? They just came to know that the infant immune system is more robust than the adult one. It just doesn't have the same memory. (that's me paraphrasing because I'm rushing this)

Remember when fat was good and then it was bad and now it is good again?

Check out this documentary. Yes it's at Mercola's site but at least he screens these documentaries for free. There's only a couple of days left to view it for free.
Cereal Killers:

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar...ry_facebookdoc

To be impressed by consensus is to be easily impressed.
applejuice, Deborah and serenbat like this.
samaxtics is online now  
#5 of 24 Old 07-01-2014, 07:34 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,614
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 169 Post(s)
The authors may not have accepted pharma money, but is that true of the studies they are assessing? Garbage in, garbage out definitely applies when it comes to vaccine "science."
Mirzam likes this.
Deborah is online now  
#6 of 24 Old 07-01-2014, 10:38 PM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,785
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)
That's an excellent blog post reviewing a review. The alphabetised discussion if studies searching for links with adverse events is a great resource. Good to see all the studies included were reviewed for rigour including the existence of a control sample of unvaccinated children.

Thanks for posting tea.
teacozy likes this.
prosciencemum is online now  
#7 of 24 Old 07-02-2014, 06:05 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,130
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 180 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post
That's an excellent blog post reviewing a review. The alphabetised discussion if studies searching for links with adverse events is a great resource. Good to see all the studies included were reviewed for rigour including the existence of a control sample of unvaccinated children.

Thanks for posting tea.
So the blogger said.

I would like to know exactly what this means - as truly unvaccinated children are rarely (never?) studied:

1. researchers claim the numbers are tiny and they are too hard to find

2. they believe it unethical to leave children unvaxxed for the sake of a study.
applejuice and serenbat like 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...


Last edited by kathymuggle; 07-02-2014 at 06:13 AM.
kathymuggle is online now  
#8 of 24 Old 07-02-2014, 06:07 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,130
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 180 Post(s)
Here is the original study - have fun (800+ pages )
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?re...13164&page=633
applejuice and serenbat like 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  
#9 of 24 Old 07-02-2014, 07:38 AM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,369
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 101 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
Here is the original study - have fun (800+ pages )
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?re...13164&page=633
YES, it certainly will make one see stars!

The Committee looked at VAERS reports to conclude their finding (and cause of reaction) and PRO-vaccers don't feel they are a good source! got-a LOVE it!

 

 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 


Last edited by serenbat; 07-02-2014 at 09:58 AM.
serenbat is offline  
#10 of 24 Old 07-02-2014, 08:34 AM
 
samaxtics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 536
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 100 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post
That's an excellent blog post reviewing a review.
I acknowledge the brevity of your review of the review of the review.
applejuice and serenbat like this.
samaxtics is online now  
#11 of 24 Old 07-02-2014, 10:05 AM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,369
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 101 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by samaxtics View Post
I acknowledge the brevity of your review of the review of the review.




First, the committee does not make conclusions about how frequently vaccine adverse events occur. Secondly, the committee concluded, for most analyses, that the evidence is inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship and some readers might interpret the committee’s language in different and inaccurate ways.

This report is not intended to answer the question “Are vaccines safe?”.

Because the committee did not find convincing evidence that the vaccine does cause the adverse event, the vaccine is safe.
Because the committee did not find convincing evidence that the vaccine does not cause the adverse event, the vaccine is unsafe. Neither of these interpretations is correct.

“Inadequate to accept or reject” means just that—inadequate.
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  
#12 of 24 Old 07-02-2014, 10:22 AM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,369
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 101 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post
Good to see all the studies included were reviewed for rigour including the existence of a control sample of unvaccinated children.
Are we talking here about a "different" study? Not the real study that Kathy posted?

Seems odd you are saying it's about--- ALL STUDIES included were reviewed for rigour including the existence of a control sample of unvaccinated children.

The study Kathy posted doesn't say that

Determining the rate of specific adverse events following immunization, in the general population or a subset thereof, is challenging. It would be possible, for example, to estimate a rate of the occurrence of a specific adverse effect in a vaccinated population or susceptible subgroup of interest. This could be done using a summary relative risk or absolute risk difference (e.g., estimated from a set of consistent reports reviewed by the committee) if there were large population-based studies of the occurrence of the adverse event in unvaccinated individuals (e.g., in the general popu-lation or susceptible subgroups of interest) who do not substantially differ from those vaccinated on any known, important confounders (e.g., age and exposure to other vaccinations or other agents or factors known to cause the adverse event). None of these preconditions is fully met for the adverse events reviewed in this report.
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 


Last edited by serenbat; 07-02-2014 at 10:27 AM.
serenbat is offline  
#13 of 24 Old 07-02-2014, 11:20 AM
 
samaxtics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 536
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 100 Post(s)
Did I have a post removed from here? It was about page 111 and measles induced encephalopathy.
It would have been after my post above
applejuice likes this.
samaxtics is online now  
#14 of 24 Old 07-02-2014, 12:17 PM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,502
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)
Bottom line:

The "review" only reviewed "acceptable data" (166 studies out of a total of 20,478 titles, which is less than 1%). They only looked at single vaccines. They did not study vaccines as administered according to the CDC's schedule. They did not study vaccines as they are administered at the doctor's office at well baby checks. So for me, that means any conclusions they made are pretty much irrelevant. They did not study the real-word scenario, which as far as I know, has never been done.
applejuice, Deborah and serenbat like this.

Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

"If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings"~ Leonardo da Vinci

Mirzam is online now  
#15 of 24 Old 07-04-2014, 06:37 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,206
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 58 Post(s)
Teacozy, I assume you meant the link in serenbat's post, not the Red Wine & Applesauce post on C-sections, right?

Oh, for Pete's sake.

This "study" was supposed to examine the question of vaccine safety, and they didn't even LOOK at VAERS?

Yeah, let's look at all the pharma-funded, pharma-designed, pharma-controlled, pharma-interpreted, pharma-ghostwritten, and pharma-marketed safety studies; let's completely ignore the thousands of post-marketing reports of adverse effects, and say that all the vaccines are safe!

Oh, and does anybody remember the reason why Paul Offit voted Rotashield off the market *(coincidentally before he introduced his own rotavirus vaccine)?* Yes, it was because Rotashield raised the risk of intussusception. But so does Offit's Rotateq. Notice how Offit is quick to minimize that risk in his statements in this article. No concern about the side effects when they're caused by his own vaccine.

This "study" is just another marketing ploy, and won't fool anyone with critical thinking skills.

*Edit: please see correction below, by Deborah

Last edited by Taximom5; 07-04-2014 at 08:00 PM.
Taximom5 is online now  
#16 of 24 Old 07-04-2014, 07:38 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,614
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 169 Post(s)
Small correction. Offit actually voted in favor of Rotashield. When it came time to withdraw it he abstained from voting.

Why? Because even though this vaccine would be a competitor, sometimes being second can save money--less testing, fewer hoops--BUT if the first vaccine has a glitch, the second vaccine will take longer to get to market and require bigger studies and cost a lot more. All of these things happened because of the problems with Rotashield, plus there is still distrust of the rotavirus vaccines in the US. Even if people aren't altogether clear on what happened, there is a sense that there was a problem.

The thing that I find so irritating about the whole rotavirus story is that the high number of deaths in other countries is the REASON for the vaccine, but it was rolled out in the US because they have to actually sell it. Understandable, wanting to make money, but evil to talk and talk about all the deaths from the disease and then allow many years to pass and millions of babies to die until they finally get GAVI funding to tentatively start rolling out the vaccine in a few countries and meanwhile millions of babies continue to die AND we continue to hear about how important and valuable the vaccine is because it has the POTENTIAL to save millions of babies from dying of rotavirus but in the meantime...

And so on and so forth. Even if vaccines are all they are racked up to be, the current system totally sucks.

But incidentally, the results of the vaccine aren't all that spectacular in the countries that actually have a lot of babies dying from gastro infections.
Deborah is online now  
#17 of 24 Old 07-04-2014, 07:56 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,206
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 58 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah View Post
Small correction. Offit actually voted in favor of Rotashield. When it came time to withdraw it he abstained from voting.

Why? Because even though this vaccine would be a competitor, sometimes being second can save money--less testing, fewer hoops--BUT if the first vaccine has a glitch, the second vaccine will take longer to get to market and require bigger studies and cost a lot more. All of these things happened because of the problems with Rotashield, plus there is still distrust of the rotavirus vaccines in the US. Even if people aren't altogether clear on what happened, there is a sense that there was a problem.

The thing that I find so irritating about the whole rotavirus story is that the high number of deaths in other countries is the REASON for the vaccine, but it was rolled out in the US because they have to actually sell it. Understandable, wanting to make money, but evil to talk and talk about all the deaths from the disease and then allow many years to pass and millions of babies to die until they finally get GAVI funding to tentatively start rolling out the vaccine in a few countries and meanwhile millions of babies continue to die AND we continue to hear about how important and valuable the vaccine is because it has the POTENTIAL to save millions of babies from dying of rotavirus but in the meantime...

And so on and so forth. Even if vaccines are all they are racked up to be, the current system totally sucks.

But incidentally, the results of the vaccine aren't all that spectacular in the countries that actually have a lot of babies dying from gastro infections.
Thank you for the correction--you are absolutely correct, on all counts.
applejuice and Deborah like this.
Taximom5 is online now  
#18 of 24 Old 07-05-2014, 09:28 AM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,502
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)
Here is a good review of the review from autismrawdate.net.

Desperation Seen In The New "Vaccines Don't Cause Autism" Study

Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

"If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings"~ Leonardo da Vinci

Mirzam is online now  
#19 of 24 Old 07-05-2014, 02:21 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,614
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 169 Post(s)
The most interesting part in that analysis is the claim that the IOM report that MMR caused problems was altered in this new version.
applejuice likes this.
Deborah is online now  
#20 of 24 Old 07-06-2014, 08:40 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,785
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)
I think any desperation is just based on the realisation that no amount of actual studies which find vaccines do much more good than harm will ever convince the hardcore anti vaxers.

But at least it's reassuring for those of us who do make an informed choice to vaccinate.
prosciencemum is online now  
#21 of 24 Old 07-06-2014, 08:46 AM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,614
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 169 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post
I think any desperation is just based on the realisation that no amount of actual studies which find vaccines do much more good than harm will ever convince the hardcore anti vaxers.

But at least it's reassuring for those of us who do make an informed choice to vaccinate.
That would make sense. Except that neither here, nor anywhere else I've tried can I get a discussion going on the actual science. I'm willing to be convinced.

For example, in the Fombonne study, on another thread, I showed that the MMR uptake rate came from a different area (Quebec City) than the PDD data (Montreal). Is that good science? The sort that should end discussion of autism and vaccines?
Deborah is online now  
#22 of 24 Old 07-06-2014, 02:13 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,369
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 101 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

But at least it's reassuring for those of us who do make an informed choice to vaccinate.

Did you read the study or just a blog post on it?

I really would love to know how one JUMPS from - This report is not intended to answer the question “Are vaccines safe?”.

Because the committee did not find convincing evidence that the vaccine does cause the adverse event, the vaccine is safe.
Because the committee did not find convincing evidence that the vaccine does not cause the adverse event, the vaccine is unsafe. Neither of these interpretations is correct.

“Inadequate to accept or reject” means just that—inadequate.
to reassuring for those who vaccinate

I'm under the impression and prosciencemum correct me and the rest of us here, if in "science" inadequate translates now to adequate? It must how else can one state a study that was NOT even intended to answer the question of "Are vaccines safe?" mean that they NOW are????? Really not getting the connection here at all.



I thought "science" meant knowledge and when you don't have that, thus you call it inadequate, meaning you didn't find one way or the other...... but now somehow that means something totally different! NEW science like fuzzy math??
Mirzam, applejuice and Taximom5 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 


Last edited by serenbat; 07-06-2014 at 02:38 PM.
serenbat is offline  
#23 of 24 Old 07-06-2014, 08:49 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,206
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 58 Post(s)
Even the title of this thread has it completely wrong: "New systematic review asseses ALL the serious risks of US childhood vaccines" (EXCEPT FOR THE ONES REPORTED TO VAERS, AND EXCEPT FOR THE ONES THE STUDIES WEREN'T SET UP TO CATCH)
Taximom5 is online now  
#24 of 24 Old 07-07-2014, 08:29 AM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,614
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 169 Post(s)
I closely monitor news around vaccinations and headlines are often far away from the study they are supposedly "about". We spent some time in library school struggling with "aboutness" which is essential in cataloging or tagging information. It is easy to get it wrong, but I don't think the misinformation in the headlines about vaccine studies is simply a failure to find the right terms.

I've got a tin-foil hat...
Deborah is online now  
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