Mothering Forums - Reply to Topic

Thread: Are getting no vaccines right for us? Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

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.



  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
02-08-2012 03:57 PM
beckybird

Nailed it, Vforba! This bothers me too, and this is why there needs to be more research on vaccines!!

02-08-2012 01:59 PM
vforba

There is a genetic issue that many people don't know about or don't want to admit when it comes to vaccines. There is so much so much junk and dangerous stuff in them. There is a very good possibility that these vaccines are mutating dna and causing more defects. Because that's why when you see those who have not received vaccines with similar issues it could be something inherited from the parents. It may not cause the same issue in the parents, but because their dna has been damaged their offspring now has this damaged dna. Possibly causing all of these new issues, not only in the vaxxed kids but also in the non-vaxxed. And the more extreme issues are those that have multiplied problems.

vicky

02-07-2012 05:39 PM
kayak32

Quote:
Originally Posted by peds101 View Post

Look, I'm not trying to be a *itch on here. I'm not putting any of this on here is a condescending tone. I do discuss risks of vaccines. There is a federal law that mandates a VIS form be provided with all vaccinations. They list the common to rare side effects, including seizures. However, have you actually looked at all those "Deaths" on the VAERS reporting. You are not required to provide any actual information or evidence. There is a lot of third or fourth hand reporting. I'm not exactly sure how car accident deaths are due to a vaccine. Atrial rupture after a TV falling on a child is not likely due to the vaccine. I am not saying this is a bad system. I do think everything should be reported. Afterall, we don't always put leeches on people or drill holes in their head anymore. Medicine changes.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landau%E2%80%93Kleffner_syndrome

No, I have not personally examined Jenny McCarthy's child, but I have seen her later interviews after his seizure disorder is being treated.

There are also seizures in children who haven't been vaccinated.

 

Kathy, I don't know what to tell you. I'm not a liar. I can not obviously give out names due to HIPPA ,and well, I'm not going to due to patient confidentiality. I think we will see more of these diseases over the next few years. There are a lot of people who are afraid of vaccinating their children. When Michele Bachmann says things like, I know a Mom who told me HPV vaccine gave her child MR, how can you not be afraid. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/michele-bachmanns-hpv-claims-just-latest-in-gardasil-debate/2011/09/14/gIQA9FjESK_blog.html. Nevermind later she retracts by pointing out she's not a Doctor and you should really consult and discuss with your physician.

 

To clairify, I've seen 1 death due to Pertussis in the past 5 years. I've had 2 patients in the past 2 years test positive for Pertussis that didn't die. 1 acutally had the full DTAP series except for his 4 yr old booster. I've also had a patient with Hemophagocytic Lymphohystiocytosis which is Incidence is reported to be 1.2 cases per million persons per year. http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/986458-overview#a0199. I live in a midwest state, hardly exotic. I also have never seen a death that was thought to be vaccine related. I'm thankful for that. It's bad enough to see the ones that happen for other preventable reasons.



For me my child is not vax at all my doc was shocked when I mentioned it expecting him to want to while I did not.   Then at the age of 18 months my DD had a direct exposure to pertussis as did two others from our church.   The other 2 where both vaccinated however my daughter was the only one who did not come down with pertussis.  When my doc and I discussed it his response was let me guess they were both vaccinated.  He was not at all surprised that my DD was the only one who did not get sick.   There are so many variants of pertussis that the vax does not do anything for that it is a shot in the dark as to whether there would be protection even if vaccinated.  

 

 

01-28-2012 04:45 PM
beckybird

The "Blue Man" admitted he made his silver incorrectly.....when properly made, it will not cause argyria. The Blue Man (Paul Karason) also said he would continue to use colloidal silver, despite the fact it turned him blue!

 

01-28-2012 04:02 PM
purslaine

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie8681 View Post

If you eat too much food and become obese, you can go on a diet and lose it. Argyria is forever.



Ha!  Tell that to my fat cells….

 

Off to look up argyria...

 

 

01-28-2012 04:01 PM
Katie8681

If you eat too much food and become obese, you can go on a diet and lose it. Argyria is forever.

01-28-2012 01:54 PM
Taximom5

Quote:
Originally Posted by stik View Post

Well, it does cause argyria.  



That's like saying "food does cause obesity."

01-28-2012 01:50 PM
beckybird

It can cause argyria if you make it incorrectly.

01-28-2012 11:35 AM
stik

Well, it does cause argyria.  

01-28-2012 10:50 AM
vforba

I think another part of the problem, is that they take the same standard procedures treating any of these diseases. Most people have now idea how important a good diet is, how important the correct vitamins are. Have any of you seen how much a difference vitamin C makes? There was a video on Youtube about a guy in Australia who got the Swine flu, was literally on deaths door, on life support and they said they were going to turn him off. His wife happened to find some info about how essential Vit C is for fighting the flu. She finally got the drs to give him Vit C via IV and literally within days this guy is off the ventilator, is starting to talk etc.. Well then the drs say, we can't give this too him anymore. It supposedly only the fact that they rolled him over that caused his almost immediate recovery. Which is garbage. The wife then had to take the hospital to court to get them to give him the Vit C again, but they would only do so in very low doses. His recovery was slow, but he did recover and once he was able to take liquids she would come in and give him a liquid vit C supplement on her own and they he really started to improve.

So while we all are being told that they can't help these people, that they are going to dye, have we really exhausted all our resources and is there a better way. Not just drugs but natural ways to heal even faster. I know their is. I've seen it with my own eyes. I've seen how good colloidal silver works, Even though most would have you believe it's toxic poison.

01-28-2012 05:44 AM
stik

OK - caught up on the USA Today article.  Wyeth makes Prevnar.  GSK makes Synflorix.  Pneumonia kills babies, though it is not necessarily the cause of death in the 14 infants who died in this trial.  

 

I agree with Sotamayor's concerns.  At least in this case, market competition seems like it could be part of the answer.  

01-28-2012 05:35 AM
stik

The trial in Argentina is being conducted by GSK. Are we talking about the same trial?

01-28-2012 05:30 AM
Taximom5

If the old vax caused deaths, permanent disabilities, hospitalizations, life-threatening conditions, if there are documented safety issues with production, and if the manufacturer has demonstrated a clear pattern of disregard for the human suffering caused by its products, it should no longer be used in testing or in the recommended vaccine schedule.

 

All of the above "ifs," of course, are true.

 

Remember, vaccine manufacturers have blanket liability protection in the US for ALL vaccines.  They cannot be sued in the US even if the vaccine is known to be defective, because the Supreme Court has ruled that vaccines are "unavoidably unsafe."  As Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor wrote in her dissenting opinion:

 

"The majority's decision leaves a regulatory vacuum in which no one - neither the FDA nor any other federal agency, nor state and federal juries - ensures that vaccine manufacturers adequately take account of scientific and technological advancements.... The vaccine market will often have little or no incentive to improve the designs of vaccines that are already generating significant profit margins." (bolding mine)

 

With more and more parents electing to delay or refuse Prevnar because of safety issues, as US parents realize that they will be completely on their own if their child does have a severe reaction, it is clear from the Argentina trials that Wyeth is looking to boost those profit margins rather than improve safety.

 

 


 

01-28-2012 04:47 AM
stik

Wires crossed, wrong disease.  Nonetheless, the new vax should be tested against the old vax so we know it's safer and works better.  

01-27-2012 08:41 PM
Taximom5

Quote:
Originally Posted by stik View Post

I realize you disagree with vaccines, but that is how researchers typically see the issue of testing new stuff when there is old stuff available to treat or prevent the condition under study.  The researchers conducting these trials DO believe the vaccine is necessary, and we're talking about infants in Argentina here, who have been described as possibly having parents who are illiterate, which implies poverty.  These are probably not parents who can easily deal with a sick baby, or get the child medical attention quickly, which increases the risks of measles.  Sanitation and good nutrition are not necessarily given.  

 

You wouldn't want them to test against a placebo only to settle on a vaccine that is less safe and effective than what we've currently got.  It makes sense to compare.

 

I don't want to let them off the hook for anything unethical they have done, and apparently they did something, and have been fined a pathetically small amount.  But it does actually make sense to test a new vaccine against the old one.

 

 

 

 


Whether or not I agree with vaccines is irrelevant, and you shouldn't be putting words in my mouth, anyway (a mistake you have made more than once on this forum).  I have never said that "I disagree with vaccines."

 

The researchers conducting this trial are not comparing it to a vaccine previously in use in Argentina.  Here is the pediatric vaccine schedule in Argentina: http://www.faerac.org.ar/vacunas_eng.php.  Synflorix is not a measles vaccine, so I don't know why you write about the risk of measles, unless you are trying to confuse the issue.

 

It appears to be slated to replace Prevnar in the US.  So if they were comparing it to Prevnar, it is worth noting the VAERS statistics on Prevnar:

 

Data from the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) - which include "coincidental" events as well as those truly caused by vaccines - reveal a total of 28,317 adverse reactions to the Prevnar since the PCV vaccine was approved in 2000. These adverse reactions included:

  • 558 deaths
  • 555 life threatening conditions
  • 238 permanent disabilities
  • 2,584 hospitalisations
  • 101 prolonged hospitalisations
  • 8,166 emergency room cases and
  • 16,155 "not serious".
  •  

A little research reveals some major problems with Prevnar: http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/articles/whistleblower/wyeth-00187.html

http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/02/29/wyeth-dogged-by-prevnar-manufacturing-lawsuits/

 

According to a former Wyeth employee, Prevnar is processed with cyanide, leading one to wonder if an improperly made batch or vial may have poisoned the infants in Argentina.

 

01-27-2012 05:12 PM
stik

I realize you disagree with vaccines, but that is how researchers typically see the issue of testing new stuff when there is old stuff available to treat or prevent the condition under study.  The researchers conducting these trials DO believe the vaccine is necessary, and we're talking about infants in Argentina here, who have been described as possibly having parents who are illiterate, which implies poverty.  These are probably not parents who can easily deal with a sick baby, or get the child medical attention quickly, which increases the risks of measles.  Sanitation and good nutrition are not necessarily given.  

 

You wouldn't want them to test against a placebo only to settle on a vaccine that is less safe and effective than what we've currently got.  It makes sense to compare.

 

I don't want to let them off the hook for anything unethical they have done, and apparently they did something, and have been fined a pathetically small amount.  But it does actually make sense to test a new vaccine against the old one.

 

 

 

 

01-27-2012 03:13 PM
Taximom5

Quote:
Originally Posted by stik View Post

Technically, denying a child a vaccine would also be unethical for a clinical trial.  

You're making one HECK of an assumption:  that the vaccine is necessary.  Not something that may be good, or may help avoid disease, but NECESSARY.  

 

Obviously, many argue that vaccines are unnecessary, but I think what's more relevant is that the necessity of most recent vaccines is debatable.  There are valid arguments that it's not necessarily the disease that needs to be avoided, but complications from that disease, and that other factors are more important in avoiding both complications and spread of disease than vaccinations (such as sanitation, clean water, proper nutrition, etc).

 

It's rather similar to saying, "denying someone cold medication would be unethical for a clinical trial of a new cold medication."  

 

You're also assuming that the risks are only what the vaccine manufacturers tell us (redness and sorenes at injection site, mild fever, irritability).  Given the history of the corruption and ethical misconduct amongst pharmaceutical companies, it is naive at best to believe what the vaccine manufacturers tell us.

 

 

01-27-2012 03:03 PM
Taximom5

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bokonon View Post



Furthermore, since they illegally and unethically enrolled infants in the study, how can we trust that they are being honest that the babies who died WEREN'T given the trial vaccine?  Because lying would be wrong?



My own opinion is that it doesn't matter whether they gave the babies the trial vaccine or the placebo--either way, they gave vaccines that have a much higher chance of causing severe adverse effects than they let on.

 

We know darn well that most of the time, they don't let well-educated, high-income parents know what the REAL risks are in the US.  It's a given that they are not going to let low-income, illiterate parents that there are ANY risks; pharmaceutical companies standard MO in drug trials is to make the participant or the minor participant's parent feel lucky that the big-city, smart doctors are giving free medicine.

01-27-2012 02:32 PM
purslaine

Quote:
Originally Posted by stik View Post

 

14 babies with a fatal vaccine reaction out of 7500 is well in excess of the kind of vaccine reaction rate that would be expected with the vaccines currently in use (I divided the 15,000 baby study group in half to just look at the control group that these infants were part of, but 14 out of 15,000 would still be huge).  I think it would be interesting to know what these infants died of.  And like any other entity, GSK should face serious penalties for any violations of ethical standards.  From the information available at this time, however, it seems unlikely that the deaths were caused by the vaccine. 



how many died in the other group?

 

If it was nowhere near 14 (nowhere near how many kids would die naturally during that period) then something is off.  It does not automatically mean it was the vaccine, but it might have been, and I hope further investigations are going on to figure out what went wrong.

01-27-2012 01:59 PM
Bokonon

Here's a longer, older article about the case:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/topstories/2008-08-14-1644565299_x.htm

 

"Ana Maria Marchesse, who heads one of two groups that notified the national food and drug administration, told The Associated Press that she'd witnessed "poor ethical management" of patient recruitment.

"They didn't explain to the parents that this was an experimental vaccine, and a lot of the parents who signed consent forms were illiterate," said Marchesse, a pediatrician who heads the Health Professionals' Labor Association in the northern Argentine province of Santiago del Estero, where she said seven of the 14 children died.

"In some cases, they first gave them the vaccine and then gave them a 13-page consent form to sign that I had to read three times to understand," she added."

01-27-2012 01:53 PM
Bokonon

Quote:
Originally Posted by stik View Post

Where did you hear about the study's enrollment procedures?  I didn't see that in the article you linked.


From the article:

"A source in Judge Marcelo Aguinsky's office said consent forms were signed by illiterate parents or people who did not have custody of the children."

01-27-2012 01:43 PM
stik

Where did you hear about the study's enrollment procedures?  I didn't see that in the article you linked.

01-27-2012 01:39 PM
Bokonon

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

 

Kelly1101, I think you are mistakenly assuming that it's not possible for placebo vaccines to have killed those 14 babies.


Perhaps you are not aware that GSK, like all vaccine manufacturers, does not use a true placebo (such as saline or sugar water) during vaccine trials.

 

They use another vaccine--a vaccine with antigens, adjuvants, preservatives, and all the other potentially problematic ingredients.  It is very misleading for them to conclude that the vaccine being tested does not cause significantly more adverse reactions than the "placebo" if they don't bother to report that the "placebo" caused a significant number of adverse reactions.

 

The question we should be asking is, "What vaccines were given to the 14 babies who died?"

 

The next questions should be, "What exactly was the cause of death?" and "What reactions were reported for those 14 babies? Have similar reactions been reported in use of that particular vaccine?"



Furthermore, since they illegally and unethically enrolled infants in the study, how can we trust that they are being honest that the babies who died WEREN'T given the trial vaccine?  Because lying would be wrong?

01-27-2012 12:48 PM
stik

Technically, denying a child a vaccine would also be unethical for a clinical trial.  If there was an outbreak of the disease, the placebo participant would then be completely unprotected and much more likely to suffer serious complications.  So what they actually should be doing in this case, given that they are supposed to follow some ethical standards, would be giving one group "standard treatment" - in this case the old vaccine that has already been tested and shown to be effective and all that jazz, and another group the "experimental treatment" - the new vaccine.  A similar approach is used to test new treatments for diseases - rather than recruiting a study group for something like breast cancer and giving one-half the study group no treatment at all (and thus basically guaranteeing that they all die), one group gets the current standard of treatment and one gets the experimental version. 

 

14 babies with a fatal vaccine reaction out of 7500 is well in excess of the kind of vaccine reaction rate that would be expected with the vaccines currently in use (I divided the 15,000 baby study group in half to just look at the control group that these infants were part of, but 14 out of 15,000 would still be huge).  I think it would be interesting to know what these infants died of.  And like any other entity, GSK should face serious penalties for any violations of ethical standards.  From the information available at this time, however, it seems unlikely that the deaths were caused by the vaccine. 

01-27-2012 12:32 PM
Taximom5

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelly1101 View Post

Um... From the article?

 

 

 

 

Quote:
The Buenos Aires Herald reported that 14 children died during the study, but GSK said the babies were given placebos and that no links were found between the vaccine and the deaths - a position supported by Argentine health officials.

"Any deaths in the study have been thoroughly and independently investigated, and it has been concluded that none of the deaths were related to the vaccine they were given," a GSK said in a statement.

"ANMAT has also concluded that there was no causality between the administration of the vaccine and the deaths that have occurred in the study. We offer our full sympathy to their families."

Yes, I think that it is unethical to do trials where the parents are illiterate or not legal guardians.  But I also think that you deliberately misrepresented what happened, by implying that the vaccines had killed the infants.


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bokonon View Post



Stop with the condescension.  Your questions and tone say more about you than they do about any of the rest of us.  

 

I guess you missed the recent news of the 14 Argentinian infants who died while enrolled in a clinical vaccine trial whose parents were not aware of the trial.  What do I think vaccine manufacturers should do?  Start with having a shred of ethics.

http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/16142354

 

 

Yes, I think that it is unethical to do trials where the parents are illiterate or not legal guardians.  But I also think that you deliberately misrepresented what happened, by implying that the vaccines had killed the infants.


 



 

 

Kelly1101, I think you are mistakenly assuming that it's not possible for placebo vaccines to have killed those 14 babies.


Perhaps you are not aware that GSK, like all vaccine manufacturers, does not use a true placebo (such as saline or sugar water) during vaccine trials.

 

They use another vaccine--a vaccine with antigens, adjuvants, preservatives, and all the other potentially problematic ingredients.  It is very misleading for them to conclude that the vaccine being tested does not cause significantly more adverse reactions than the "placebo" if they don't bother to report that the "placebo" caused a significant number of adverse reactions.

 

The question we should be asking is, "What vaccines were given to the 14 babies who died?"

 

The next questions should be, "What exactly was the cause of death?" and "What reactions were reported for those 14 babies? Have similar reactions been reported in use of that particular vaccine?"

01-27-2012 11:54 AM
Marnica

Quote:
Originally Posted by stik View Post


Do you decline vaccinations in order to protest human rights abuses in the testing process?  I think that's an admirable moral position.  Can you share your evidence of illegal human testing of vaccines?  What do you think vaccine manufacturers should do to address this issue?  

 

As you say, my opinions are just opinions.  I'm not an expert on the topic.  I don't think there's anything wrong with being idealistic, and neither do you, apparently, or human rights abuses in the vaccine testing process wouldn't bother you.  I'm picky about my sources.  I won't be fixing anyone's views - I've been around long enough to know that no one changes their mind on the internet.  But since the purpose of this forum is to provide resources for people who haven't made up their minds yet, I think it's informative to ask people to show their sources, and to point out major issues with those sources where they go unremarked.   

 

 

 


http://articles.latimes.com/1996-06-17/news/mn-15871_1_measles-vaccine

 

I realize this is not the same as conducting clinical trials without participant consent, but IMO just as bad.
 

 

01-27-2012 10:54 AM
Marnica

Quote:
Originally Posted by WildKingdom View Post


 



 

Ummmm...perhaps you might want to read again. Your mea culpa came after what I wrote. 



 Ah you are right! Sorry! I get these subscription things and then I respond. sometimes makes it difficult to see where posts are when you are not reading all the posts in between when youu last posted. Thanks for pointing that out and my apologies namaste.gif

01-27-2012 09:54 AM
WildKingdom


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marnica View Post



 Umm didn't I pretty much acknowledge my mistake in my last response to you??

 

 

Yes I believe I did....perhaps yuou might want to read it again



 

Ummmm...perhaps you might want to read again. Your mea culpa came after what I wrote. 

01-27-2012 09:37 AM
TCMoulton
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marnica View Post



 Umm didn't I pretty much acknowledge my mistake in my last response to you??

 

 

Yes I believe I did....perhaps yuou might want to read it again


Pretty sure your acknowledgement came after the post you are quoting so there is no reason for you to be going after WilkKingdom in the above quoted post. Perhaps you may want to read the thread again to clarify.
01-27-2012 09:03 AM
Marnica

Quote:
Originally Posted by WildKingdom View Post



Ok.  What Marnica said is still not true.  She said that he was the  FDA Commissioner who approved Vioxx.  Even if he started at the FDA in 2002, he did not approve drugs as a deputy commissioner, and Vioxx was approved in 1999.

 

Not that I'm defending Crawford.  Clearly NOT a paragon of virtue.



 Umm didn't I pretty much acknowledge my mistake in my last response to you??

 

Quote:
My mistake .... But you are right - he had no hand in originally approving vioxx in 1999.

 

Yes I believe I did....perhaps yuou might want to read it again

This thread has more than 30 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

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