MovieChat Forums > Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe (2017) Discussion > CDC's Own Data: Vaccine-Infant Death Lin...

CDC's Own Data: Vaccine-Infant Death Link


The CDC's own research has found that the long denied vaccine-SIDS link is real.

If you believe the official pronouncements of top governmental health agencies like the CDC and FDA, all the vaccines in the present day schedule are a priori safe and effective.

Not only are you told that they can't harm you, but that not taking them can kill you.

Parents are under even more pressure. They are told that refraining from vaccinating their infants or children will greatly increase their risk of dying or being disabled. Worse, they are increasingly labeled as 'crazy' and 'irresponsible' anti-vaccine zealots who are putting the lives of others in danger.

But what happens when the actual evidence from the scientific and clinical literature produced by these very agencies contradicts their own vaccine policies?

This is exactly what has happened with the publication of a new study in the Journal of Pediatrics titled ,"Adverse Events following Haemophilus influenzae Type b Vaccines in the Vaccine Adverse Event ReportingSystem, 1990-2013," wherein CDC and FDA researchers identify 749 deaths linked to the administration of the Hib vaccine, 51% of which were sudden infant death linked to the administration of Hib vaccine.

The CDC has boldly denied that there is any evidence supporting a causal link between vaccines and infant death, despite the fact that their own webpage on the topic acknowledges that "From 2 to 4 months old, babies begin their primary course of vaccinations. This is also the peak age for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)." Written off as coincidence, the CDC suggests that stomach sleeping is the primary modifiable risk factor.

Because SIDS is the 3rd leading cause of death in infants, and because the U.S. has one of the highest infant mortality rates in the developed world, one would think that more progress would have been made toward understanding its causes. Perhaps, as explored in this past article, the signal of harm is being ignored. Neglect and suppression of available data has recently been exposed with the confession of a top CDC vaccine scientist who was compelled to covered up data revealing an autism-MMR link in African-American boys.

In the new study, the CDC and FDA researchers themselves acknowledge "the scarcity" of postlicensure safety data on HiB vaccines in today's vaccination schedule. They evaluated reports involving the currently licensed Hib vaccines received from January 1, 1990, through December 1, 2013 available on the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

Presently, the CDC recommends 4 doses of the HiB vaccine at the following ages: 2 months, 4 months, 6 months, 12 months through 15 months.

The HiB vaccine is described on the CDC website as "very safe" and "effective" at preventing HiB disease, which it states can be deadly. They list "most common side effects as usually mild and last 2 or 3 days," including "redness, swelling, and warmth where the child got the shot" and "fever". Nowhere is there listed death or disability as a possible side effect.


In stark contrast to these statements the study uncovered the following highly concerning results:



VAERS received 29,747 reports after Hib vaccines; 5179 (17%) were serious, including 896 reports of deaths. Median age was 6 months (range 0-10.22 months). Sudden infant death syndrome was the stated cause of death in 384 (51%) of 749 death reports with autopsy/death certificate records.

The most common nondeath serious AE categories were neurologic (80; 37%), other noninfectious (46; 22%) (comprising mainly constitutional signs and symptoms); and gastrointestinal (39; 18%) conditions. No new safety concerns were identified after clinical review of reports of AEs that exceeded the data mining statistical threshold.

Consider also that VAERS is a passive surveillance system, which suffers from profound underreporting. According to the VAERS site's own disclaimer:

"Underreporting" is one of the main limitations of passive surveillance systems, including VAERS. The term, underreporting refers to the fact that VAERS receives reports for only a small fraction of actual adverse events. The degree of underreporting varies widely. As an example, a great many of the millions of vaccinations administered each year by injection cause soreness, but relatively few of these episodes lead to a VAERS report.

According to Barbara Loe Fisher, founder of the National Vaccination Information Center, underreporting may result in overlooking 99% or higher of all vaccine associated injuries:

"Former FDA Commissioner David Kessler estimated in a 1993 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association that fewer than 1 percent of all doctors report injuries and deaths following the administration of prescription drugs. This estimate may be even lower for vaccines. In one survey that our organization conducted in New York in 1994, only 1 doctor in 40 reported to VAERS."

Considering the influence of underreporting, these deaths represent only the tip of the iceberg of vaccine-induced infant morbidity and mortality caused by HiB vaccines. The study also mentioned an earlier analysis which found that infant death is the most common cause of death reported by all vaccine linked reports on VAERS, "accounting for almost one-half of all deaths reported."

Obviously, this is an appalling study. The death of even 1 child for a potentially ineffective medical intervention designed to prevent a rarely fatal illness is a tragedy. Nor can any single vaccine be proven to have prevented any single case of disease because the clinical outcome (end point) is a non-event. This is not the case, however, for vaccine side effects which can be linked directly to the vaccination event with plausible scientific mechanisms.

What is perhaps most astounding is the researcher's conclusion:

"Review of VAERS reports did not identify any new or unexpected safety concerns for Hib vaccines."

This callous disregard for the evidence -- evidence that clearly shows the CDC misrepresents the safety of the HiB vaccine -- speaks to the blind investment in vaccine policy decisions over human wellbeing. Millions of parents have listened to the CDC and FDA and believed that these vaccines not only work but are safe. Informed consent requires those undergoing a quasi-mandatory medical intervention like vaccination to know the true risks associated with it. Failing to do so is clearly a violation of this medical ethical protection against being abused, and in some cases disabled and even killed.


http://bit.ly/1JLtqrq





reply

A report to VAERS generally does not prove that the identified vaccine(s) caused the adverse event described. It only confirms that the reported event occurred sometime after vaccine was given. No proof that the event was caused by the vaccine is required in order for VAERS to accept the report.

reply

Another inconvenient truth the powers that be would like to squelch. The fascists are trying so very hard, but luckily information travels faster these days

reply

Too bad that a lot of people are not able to understand information and just make stuff up.

reply

You don't sound very knowledgeable, so why don't you go troll elsewhere.

reply

Why don't you just go away?

reply

zwergin - normal people do not spend time on message boards for films or topics they do not agree with. Normal people go to places where they are in support of the topic. You are clearly a nuisance and a troll.

reply

This is not a fanboard. And some people can survive outside their echo chamber.

reply

You have brought nothing of value to this board. You have no knowledge or insight and are clearly unable to have a civil discourse, thus you are a troll.

reply

Whatever makes you happy.

reply

yeah.....troll someplace else.

reply

Hmm....no.

reply

[deleted]

Maybe less personal attacks and less exclamation marks would make you look less like a lunatic?

reply

[deleted]

Who verified me? Do I get a badge for that?

reply

[deleted]

No, thats not what normal people do. what you describe is echochamber behavior. Normal people do go to places where theire beliefs can be challenged in order to improve themselves.

------------------------------------------------
The spirit of abysmal despair

reply

Criminal and unreal. What is happening in our world?

reply

This is exactly what has happened with the publication of a new study in the Journal of Pediatrics titled ,"Adverse Events following Haemophilus influenzae Type b Vaccines in the Vaccine Adverse Event ReportingSystem, 1990-2013," wherein CDC and FDA researchers identify 749 deaths linked to the administration of the Hib vaccine, 51% of which were sudden infant death linked to the administration of Hib vaccine.


That article does exist.

The abstract is found here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25598306

It concludes:

Review of VAERS reports did not identify any new or unexpected safety concerns for Hib vaccines.


Hardly surprising that, among many millions vaccinated in a 24-year period, some would die some time after receiving a vaccine. Or after any given event.


 Entropy ain't what it used to be.

reply

The CDC's own research has found that the long denied vaccine-SIDS link is real.

If you believe the official pronouncements of top governmental health agencies like the CDC and FDA, all the vaccines in the present day schedule are a priori safe and effective.

Not only are you told that they can't harm you, but that not taking them can kill you.

Parents are under even more pressure. They are told that refraining from vaccinating their infants or children will greatly increase their risk of dying or being disabled. Worse, they are increasingly labeled as 'crazy' and 'irresponsible' anti-vaccine zealots who are putting the lives of others in danger.

But what happens when the actual evidence from the scientific and clinical literature produced by these very agencies contradicts their own vaccine policies?

This is exactly what has happened with the publication of a new study in the Journal of Pediatrics titled ,"Adverse Events following Haemophilus influenzae Type b Vaccines in the Vaccine Adverse Event ReportingSystem, 1990-2013," wherein CDC and FDA researchers identify 749 deaths linked to the administration of the Hib vaccine, 51% of which were sudden infant death linked to the administration of Hib vaccine.

The CDC has boldly denied that there is any evidence supporting a causal link between vaccines and infant death, despite the fact that their own webpage on the topic acknowledges that "From 2 to 4 months old, babies begin their primary course of vaccinations. This is also the peak age for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)." Written off as coincidence, the CDC suggests that stomach sleeping is the primary modifiable risk factor.

Because SIDS is the 3rd leading cause of death in infants, and because the U.S. has one of the highest infant mortality rates in the developed world, one would think that more progress would have been made toward understanding its causes. Perhaps, as explored in this past article, the signal of harm is being ignored. Neglect and suppression of available data has recently been exposed with the confession of a top CDC vaccine scientist who was compelled to covered up data revealing an autism-MMR link in African-American boys.

In the new study, the CDC and FDA researchers themselves acknowledge "the scarcity" of postlicensure safety data on HiB vaccines in today's vaccination schedule. They evaluated reports involving the currently licensed Hib vaccines received from January 1, 1990, through December 1, 2013 available on the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

Presently, the CDC recommends 4 doses of the HiB vaccine at the following ages: 2 months, 4 months, 6 months, 12 months through 15 months.

The HiB vaccine is described on the CDC website as "very safe" and "effective" at preventing HiB disease, which it states can be deadly. They list "most common side effects as usually mild and last 2 or 3 days," including "redness, swelling, and warmth where the child got the shot" and "fever". Nowhere is there listed death or disability as a possible side effect.


In stark contrast to these statements the study uncovered the following highly concerning results:



VAERS received 29,747 reports after Hib vaccines; 5179 (17%) were serious, including 896 reports of deaths. Median age was 6 months (range 0-10.22 months). Sudden infant death syndrome was the stated cause of death in 384 (51%) of 749 death reports with autopsy/death certificate records.

The most common nondeath serious AE categories were neurologic (80; 37%), other noninfectious (46; 22%) (comprising mainly constitutional signs and symptoms); and gastrointestinal (39; 18%) conditions. No new safety concerns were identified after clinical review of reports of AEs that exceeded the data mining statistical threshold.

Consider also that VAERS is a passive surveillance system, which suffers from profound underreporting. According to the VAERS site's own disclaimer:

"Underreporting" is one of the main limitations of passive surveillance systems, including VAERS. The term, underreporting refers to the fact that VAERS receives reports for only a small fraction of actual adverse events. The degree of underreporting varies widely. As an example, a great many of the millions of vaccinations administered each year by injection cause soreness, but relatively few of these episodes lead to a VAERS report.

According to Barbara Loe Fisher, founder of the National Vaccination Information Center, underreporting may result in overlooking 99% or higher of all vaccine associated injuries:

"Former FDA Commissioner David Kessler estimated in a 1993 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association that fewer than 1 percent of all doctors report injuries and deaths following the administration of prescription drugs. This estimate may be even lower for vaccines. In one survey that our organization conducted in New York in 1994, only 1 doctor in 40 reported to VAERS."

Considering the influence of underreporting, these deaths represent only the tip of the iceberg of vaccine-induced infant morbidity and mortality caused by HiB vaccines. The study also mentioned an earlier analysis which found that infant death is the most common cause of death reported by all vaccine linked reports on VAERS, "accounting for almost one-half of all deaths reported."

Obviously, this is an appalling study. The death of even 1 child for a potentially ineffective medical intervention designed to prevent a rarely fatal illness is a tragedy. Nor can any single vaccine be proven to have prevented any single case of disease because the clinical outcome (end point) is a non-event. This is not the case, however, for vaccine side effects which can be linked directly to the vaccination event with plausible scientific mechanisms.

What is perhaps most astounding is the researcher's conclusion:

"Review of VAERS reports did not identify any new or unexpected safety concerns for Hib vaccines."

This callous disregard for the evidence -- evidence that clearly shows the CDC misrepresents the safety of the HiB vaccine -- speaks to the blind investment in vaccine policy decisions over human wellbeing. Millions of parents have listened to the CDC and FDA and believed that these vaccines not only work but are safe. Informed consent requires those undergoing a quasi-mandatory medical intervention like vaccination to know the true risks associated with it. Failing to do so is clearly a violation of this medical ethical protection against being abused, and in some cases disabled and even killed.


http://bit.ly/1JLtqrq


reply

It doesn't become any more true by repeating it...

reply

Notice how these anti-vaxxers only use CDC when it's seemingly convenient to them-- usually they're not to be trusted because they're a bunch of Big Pharma liars or some BS of that ilk. This taxicab fallacy and the general fearmongering only further proves at BEST these people are beheaded chickens. At BEST.

reply

Big Pharma can also not be trusted unless the list of ingredients for a vaccine contains the name of the (randomly chosen) toxin of the day.

reply

Brilliant.

What we got here is... failure to communicate!


reply

Don't fall for the hyper-conspiracy nonsense. If you look at the actual studies on PUBMED you will see the lies that (not a doctor) Wakefield tells. He was an unsuccessful doctor with a failing practice and decided to lie and con the public because he knew how to scare them, he is making twenty times the money he made as a doctor by lying and fear mongering.

If you deny your children vaccines based on this conmans demonstrable lies, you are condemning them to blindness, deafness, sterility, brain damage, maybe even death.

I am 46 years old and have an allergy to eggs, my brother had the same allergy, we could not get vaccinated. Measles left me with only 30% vision and mumps left me sterile, I will never have children.

German measles was not so kind to my brother, it caused sever kidney and liver damage, he died when he was 18 after 14 years of hospitals, dialysis, medication, basically hell.

If you want to torture your children and watch them die, by all means, DO NOT GET THEM VACCINATED.

THERE IS NO LINK BETWEEN VACCINES AND AUTISM. ZERO.

And too the above BS from this brand new member, learn how to read a scientific paper. Your conclusions are incredibly biased and completely unfounded.

My PHD's are in molecular genetics, molecular biology, and virology.

WHATS YOURS IN, moron.

Listen to real doctors, not quacks. Wakefield is a quack, a very dangerous quack. It is almost like he wants to kill your children, but all he wants is to make a buck, and to hell with everyone else.

reply

THERE IS NO LINK BETWEEN VACCINES AND AUTISM. ZERO.


Can you prove that?

reply

How could he? When a study shows just that people say it was bought by BigPharma. But even the survey that was paid by an anti-vaxx organisation didn't find a significantly increased risk. I mean if they can't find it, maybe it's just not there?

reply

🌎🌠

I mean if they can't find it, maybe it's just not there?

Like Russells's Teapot?

reply

I have no more reason to believe in the teapot than I have to belive that vaccines cause autism.
Scientific studies: No increased risk of autism in vaccinated people
Survey paid by anti-vaxxers: No increased risk in vaccinated people
So I don't know what else people expect should be done.

reply

Scientific studies: No increased risk of autism in vaccinated people

That is unverifiable.

Can you verify the distance from the earth to the moon?

reply

So how exactly do you think we should go on about life?
Somebody says: Candy causes autism, Ok we all stop eating candy.
The next person says: Eating causes autism, OK we all stop to eat.
The next person says: Drinking causes autism, Ok we all stop to drink and will be dead in two weeks.
Should we just stop doing something because somebody makes baseless claims about it?

reply

THERE IS NO LINK BETWEEN VACCINES AND AUTISM. ZERO.
VACCINES ARE 100% SAFE.
Should we just stop doing something because somebody makes (baseless)[?] claims about it?
Should I blindly take a drug just because a drug company tells me it's safe?

That list of re-called/bad/dangerous/non-safe drugs just keeps getting longer and longer.

There are never-ending nagging rumors of "something" going wrong "sometimes" after a tot gets a shot.
Not really THAT "baseless" a claim.

Are all these rumors/claims just "false news?"

So how exactly do you think we should go on about life?
Frankly, I really don't know.
But judging from what is in the "news" these days, who can one trust?

reply

There are also rumours that witches and ghosts exist and this has been going on for much longer. Doesn't prove much.
There are rare cases when a vaccine can cause a (serious) reaction. But I mean rare and not: every second child has a vaccine injury and every third catches autism. I don't think anything can be 100% safe, always, all the time, under all circumstances, for everybody.
And as I said, studies have compared vaccinated and unvaccinated people and the incidence of autism was similar. Sometimes a bit higher in vaccinated, sometimes a bit lower, not significant either way so I would say that is just normal variance.
And even people who think there is a link (and I still haven't heard of any real, believable mechanims behind that) and paid for a survey to find one, couldn't find an increased risk (OK they were trying to spin the data in a different way but the raw data speaks for itself).
If both sides of the argument can't find a link that goes beyond anecdotal evidence (which I wouldn't base decisions on), then why not believe that?

reply

If both sides of the argument can't find a link that goes beyond anecdotal evidence (which I wouldn't base decisions on), then why not believe that?

All research starts with "anecdotal."

And I sometimes DO make decisions based on "anecdotal" alone.

Think Amazon - and ordering something....(esp for someone else)-
before I didn't - but now I always - read the comments and pay particular attention to the negative ones.
They're more telling.

Just like side effects and adverse reactions...

reply

But if the research ends there and nothing beyond anecdotal evidence can be found, maybe it's time to toss the hypothesis? Anecdotal evidence might be used to form a hypothesis but that is really as far as it goes.

What kind of negative comments are we talking about here?

"The sound quality of the DVD was quite bad, it also had no English/German/French/Whatever subtitles"
or
"That stupid show is soo stupid and the main actress isn't showing enough skin"
or (and this is one of my favourites, somebody after buying a DVD with a different regional code)
"That stupid DVD is broken, it doesn't work on my laptop or DVD-player"

I mean all these negative comments are telling you something but while the first one tells you something about the product and could be helpful, the other two (in my opinion) are telling you something about the reviewer and are really not that interresting or helpful when deciding what to buy.

reply

Negative comments that say something about the product, of course.
Not the reviewer's ignorance.
Advertising, like the push for immunizations for school kids (think Gardasil) make the vaccine or product sound great or even necessary.

But with customer feedback - sometimes a different picture emerges that you could not get from the hype alone.

Same with adverse effects, reactions, side effects.





reply

My guess would be that some things that look like comment 1 to you look like comment 3 to me.
VAERS collects adverse events, it is possible that unknown side effects might emerge from that but not everything reported is automatically a side effect of the vaccine. And the possibility of a link between vaccines and autism has been studied (same for SIDS), just not in a double-blinded study because that is problematic at best (who would volunteer for that, for example?). So I don't know what else people want, really. And I know I am repeating myself but if even a survey paid for by an organisation that thinks vaccines cause autism (so obviously not paid by Big Pharma) cannot find the increased risk of autism, maybe it is time to be convinced it is just not there?

reply

VAERS collects adverse events, it is possible that unknown side effects might emerge from that but not everything reported is automatically a side effect of the vaccine.
Of course not. One of the side effects of Gardasil is fainting/convulsions. A person who's just received a Gardasil shot might be standing near a banister on the 5th floor. If he/she faints and falls over the banister to their death - is that death due to the Gardasil?
Not directly, of course, but given that I do not see the long term benefits of this particular "pay for Vioxx" vaccine, this would be a concern for me. How soon afterwards does this fainting occur? It says to sit for 15 min or so - but what if there is a sort of delay mechanism? And this fainting/convulsions can occur after the 15 minute sit-down? So for this particular vaccine, which I consider totally unnecessary, this 'negative comment' (side effect) would be the deal breaker for me. Thanks, but no thanks.
And the possibility of a link between vaccines and autism has been studied (same for SIDS), just not in a double-blinded study because that is problematic at best (who would volunteer for that, for example?).

Yes, who would?
"So I don't know what else people want, really."
People want happy healthy babies/children. Having a child with autism and/or related/other neurological disorders can be extremely challenging at the very best. And Autism is a condition that lasts a life-time. No cure.
The deaths from chicken pox and measles, on the other hand, are grossly exaggerated. Millions have lived through them.
And I know I am repeating myself but if even a survey paid for by an organisation that thinks vaccines cause autism (so obviously not paid by Big Pharma) cannot find the increased risk of autism, maybe it is time to be convinced it is just not there?

Yes, it is rather redundant. But it's not time to throw in the towel. Nothing is "finished." Nothing is forever convincingly proven. Russell's Teapot may still be contentedly whistling around the sun; and Schroedinger's Cat may still be alive (or dead or both).
People, parents, have to be extremely vigilant. They are the watch dogs for their children. The governments (as we can plainly see) are not really on their side. Same goes for all the big "super-pacs."
Money is primary. Children are secondary.

FROM THE INSERT FOR THE VACCINE:
Postmarketing Experience; (Are these like Amazon ratings by customers?)
The following adverse events have been spontaneously reported during post-approval use of GARDASIL. Because these events were reported voluntarily from a population of uncertain size, it is not possible to reliably estimate their frequency or to establish a causal relationship to vaccine exposure. Blood and lymphatic system disorders: Autoimmune hemolytic anemia, idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, lymphadenopathy.

Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders: Pulmonary embolus. Gastrointestinal disorders: Nausea, pancreatitis, vomiting. General disorders and administration site conditions: Asthenia, chills, death, fatigue, malaise. Immune system disorders: Autoimmune diseases, hypersensitivity reactions including anaphylactic/anaphylactoid reactions, bronchospasm, and urticaria. Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders: Arthralgia, myalgia. Nervous system disorders: Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, dizziness, Guillain-Barré syndrome, headache, motor neuron disease, paralysis, seizures, syncope (including syncope associated with tonic-clonic movements and other seizure-like activity) sometimes resulting in falling with injury, transverse myelitis. Infections and infestations: cellulitis. Vascular disorders: Deep venous thrombosis.

Some of these 25 or so customer complaints seem rather serious to me.
If I were an Amazon customer reading these negative feedbacks - I would definitely not buy their product. If I were a parent - I would not have my child get the Gardasil.

reply

And the possibility of a link between vaccines and autism has been studied (same for SIDS), just not in a double-blinded study because that is problematic at best (who would volunteer for that, for example?).
Yes, who would?


I am asking you, since this is a demand often made by people who are sceptical of vaccines. Neither people who are for vaccines nor people who are against vaccines would participate in my opinion. So where would you get the participants?

Having a child with autism and/or related/other neurological disorders can be extremely challenging at the very best. And Autism is a condition that lasts a life-time. No cure.
The deaths from chicken pox and measles, on the other hand, are grossly exaggerated. Millions have lived through them.


The fact that autism is for life and people lived through measles would only be relevant if the vaccine and autism were connected. If two things are connected then obviously it has to be deliberated if the benefits outweigh the risks but since there is no evidence that they are connected this risk/benefit analysis is totally pointless in my opinion.

People, parents, have to be extremely vigilant. They are the watch dogs for their children. The governments (as we can plainly see) are not really on their side. Same goes for all the big "super-pacs."
Money is primary. Children are secondary.


The problem I see here is that in my opinion quite a few parents do not actually ask critical questions or educate themselves properly, they just go from believing a doctor to believing a quack. Who is in it for the money just as much as Big Pharma if not more so. Listening to them is not critical thinking or being vigilant.


Yes, it is rather redundant. But it's not time to throw in the towel. Nothing is "finished." Nothing is forever convincingly proven. Russell's Teapot may still be contentedly whistling around the sun;


With this kind of thinking humanity can never move forward and if people always thought like this we would still live on trees. And why is it so important to find something negative in everything? If after numerous studies nothing negative was found, why not conclude there is nothing there? (Even though long term studies are still conducted anyways to make really really sure). Why insist on saying we have to look again and again and again because there just has to be something negative? And why not use the product in the meantime, why reject the product on the hope/fear/assumption that something negative just has to be found eventually.

The following adverse events have been spontaneously reported during post-approval use of GARDASIL. Because these events were reported voluntarily from a population of uncertain size, it is not possible to reliably estimate their frequency or to establish a causal relationship to vaccine exposure


These are things that happened at some point after the vaccine. From what I understand for some of them a time frame is given (like: Anaphylaxis or anaphylactic shock :7 days) for others there is no time frame so they can happen much later and can still be reported. The list is not really telling me much about the actual customer complaint.
It could be: "I put the DVD in and 5 minutes later the DVD-player was on fire."
or: "I put the DVD in and 6 weeks later my house was on fire."
Both might end as: Adverse event: fire. I personally don't see the problem, especially if further studies have been done (which is the case when adverse events are reported more often or are particularly severe) and they didn't find a causal relationship.
The list of adverse events is really just a list of oberservations made at some point by someone (and really everybody can just report whatever) and they do not in any way prove that the vaccine caused these things.

reply

The fact that autism is for life and people lived through measles would only be relevant if the vaccine and autism were connected. If two things are connected then obviously it has to be deliberated if the benefits outweigh the risks but since there is no evidence that they are connected this risk/benefit analysis is totally pointless in my opinion.

"....but since there is no evidence that they are connected this risk/benefit analysis is totally pointless in my opinion."

Pointless?
There is anecdotal evidence - the customer feedback?
Is that irrelevant?

The problem I see here is that in my opinion quite a few parents do not actually ask critical questions or educate themselves properly, they just go from believing a doctor to believing a quack. Who is in it for the money just as much as Big Pharma if not more so. Listening to them is not critical thinking or being vigilant.
An individual doctor does not usually make the BIG $$$$$ that a drug co does. And why do you assume "quackery" when someone does not side with vaccines? Knee-jerk reaction? Paid response?
With this kind of thinking humanity can never move forward and if people always thought like this we would still live on trees. And why is it so important to find something negative in everything?
It is not necessarily "negative" to question - rather, quite the opposite. Sometimes it behooves one to question what one is given. Think Adam and Eve. We'd still be in the garden (living around trees, if not in them), forever unaware of our nakedness, if Eve had NOT been goaded into trying something different. She chose to question. She chose to be like God. And voila!
If after numerous studies nothing negative was found, why not conclude there is nothing there? (Even though long term studies are still conducted anyways to make really really sure). Why insist on saying we have to look again and again and again because there just has to be something negative? And why not use the product in the meantime, why reject the product on the hope/fear/assumption that something negative just has to be found eventually
"And why not use the product in the meantime, why reject the product on the hope/fear/assumption that something negative just has to be found eventually."
Because of the FEEDBACK. There are ever increasing observations of things gone abysmally awry in the world of vaccines; a steady stream of "negatives."

Pregnant would-be-moms of the 50's trusted Thalidomide, their doctors, and the scientific community. Look at the tragic consequences of this pollyanish trust.
Was that trust warranted?
Would you, today, tell a nauseous woman-with-child to just take the T pill? "It won't harm your baby, trust me." Wouldn't the mother of a "flipper baby" wish that you had tested it "again and again and again?"
Ad nauseum?
The list of adverse events is really just a list of oberservations made at some point by someone (and really everybody can just report whatever) and they do not in any way prove that the vaccine caused these things.
Yes.
"Observations."
Exactly.
(and really everybody can just report whatever)
Yes - and they should.
Samsung phones caught fire. How many such fires had to be observed before recall was initiated?
How many air bags had to not be deployed before certain cars were recalled?
How many cases of Tylenol bottle tampering/death had to be observed before recall of 31 million bottles? - and eventual safety precautions were installed? (There were 7 in Chicago in 1982, 4 from same family). So 7 out of a population of 340 million? A mere 7 people was reason enough to recall all bottles of Tylenol? Wow. Yet parental observations about autism and vaccinations are poo-pooed.
If children were Samsung phones, how many children would have to burst into flames?
Would you still insist that the vaccination has no relationship whatsoever to the spontaneous "burst" of autism in previously healthy children?
Would you insist that parents are unreliable narrators?
Were the Samsung phone owners unreliable too?


reply

Pointless?
There is anecdotal evidence - the customer feedback?
Is that irrelevant?


If the anecdotal evidence is followed and no actual evidence can be found, no evidence that one thing actually causes the other thing and that it is anything but a temporal connection, then, yes, for me the anecdotal evidence is just anecdotes. I mean I have the feeling the checkout I am waiting at is always the slowest but I am pretty sure an objective analysis would not find any causative relationship between me and the speed of the line moving forward.


An individual doctor does not usually make the BIG $$$$$ that a drug co does. And why do you assume "quackery" when someone does not side with vaccines? Knee-jerk reaction? Paid response?


Not sure what you mean here. The drug companies don't make that much money from vaccines, they could easily survive without them. A person who specialized in treatment of non-existing conditions or conditions that cannot be treated usually has no other income. Anti-vaxx and quackery go hand-in-hand, that is my observation, and anecdotal evidence is the best, right?
I actually wanted to say in my last post that it is nice that you stopped with the "Who is paying you?" garbage, good thing that I didn't.

It is not necessarily "negative" to question - rather, quite the opposite. Sometimes it behooves one to question what one is given. Think Adam and Eve.


Nobody said it is negative to question, but it is negative to assume something negative and then ask one-sided, leading questions and do one-sided, biased "research". And I think that Adam and Eve would still sit in the garden if they had been anti-vaxxers or maybe they would have tried to sue the snake because the apple contains formaldehyde... For me anti-vaxxers are the people who blindly believe and follow, they just chose to believe in something else than science. Vaccines are not the natural, unquestioned state, they are the result of questions and research.




Because of the FEEDBACK. There are ever increasing observations of things gone abysmally awry in the world of vaccines; a steady stream of "negatives."


I think we will have to disagree here (like usual ^^). I don’t see ever increasing observations of things gone abysmally awry in the world of vaccines. I see that more people are diagnosed with autism. Which can have several reasons, among the broader diagnostic criteria and better diagnosing. That this has something to do with the world of vaccines is just an idea somebody had at some point. I could claim just as well that it has to do with iphones, computers, organic food or whatever. That doesn’t make it so. Also it was first claimed it is because of mercury. Some vaccines never contained any mercury compounds, now only some flu vaccines contain it but there is still autism and it is not decreasing. Then there is the claim that MMR-vaccine is responsible and that giving individual vaccines would reduce autism (even though no real reason or mechanism behind this is given). Japan has individual vaccines, yet there is still autism and it is not decreasing. Some people claim it is the aluminum, others claim it is the foreign DNA from the cell lines. The only thing I see here is a steady stream of moving goalposts.
When one thing is refuted, another will pop up because it has to be the vaccines!


Pregnant would-be-moms of the 50's trusted Thalidomide, their doctors, and the scientific community. Look at the tragic consequences of this pollyanish trust.


I think that things have changed in the last 60 years and the Thalidomide story doesn’t really fit in my opinion anyway. It was first sold in 1957 (in my country) as an anti-emetic. (The FDA by the way never approved it). Because of reports and scientific research that linked Thalidomide and the malformations, it was taken off the market in 1961. It led to stricter regulations in drug testing, so companies and government authorities apparently learned something from it and now things are tested again and again. It also shows that actual problems will be reported and will be investigated and will have consequences, even back in the 50/60’s. It took 4 years in the case of Thalidomide (the first reports came even sooner), vaccines have been around for much longer. But for the consequences to happen, the investigations have to actually show something is happening. And people randomly blaming a different ingredient (when a previously claimed one didn’t work out) of the vaccine every week for one disorder or another is not something actually happening.

Yes.
"Observations."
Exactly.


So? I can also observe that it is always raining after I get a vaccine. This might be due to the fact that I get them in autumn where it often rains (at least where I live) but I can also attribute that to the vaccine if I really, really want to.


(and really everybody can just report whatever)
Yes - and they should.

But this also shows the limitation of the system. I can just report something, doesn’t even have to be true, as far as I know there is no verification process that has to be followed. There is also a study examining the distorting effect of litigation-related cases on reports to the VAERS database. There was also an increase after Wakefields study. Do you think that all of a sudden, because of the study, vaccines caused more autism? Or people believed it did and reported that (for me that is much more likely).

Samsung phones caught fire. How many such fires had to be observed before recall was initiated?
How many air bags had to not be deployed before certain cars were recalled?


I don’t think this works as a comparison.
The Samsung phone is on fire, it is rather obvious that a fire in a Samsung phone is caused by a Samsung phone being on fire. If there are no confounding factors like: “I was holding my Samsung phone over a bonfire when it caught fire”, the reason for the fire has to be the phone itself. If, on the other hand, you report that there has been a fire in your bathroom, 3 weeks after you bought the phone while the phone was in the living room, this makes it quite unlikely that the phone was the reason. If you report that 4 weeks after you bought the phone, the kitchen sink wasn’t working anymore, while your phone was still in the living room, I sincerely doubt that the company would recall their phones…

Also in general I would trust any layman (myself included) much more to diagnose a fire in a phone, bathroom or house (both the actual event as well as the time it started) than I would trust them with diagnosing neurological or other disorders. This makes the phone owner more reliable in his observation.

If your airbag doesn’t open in your car, it is obvious that this is caused by your airbag not opening in your car. If they are no confounding factors (“I poked holes in the airbag, I disabled the mechanism”) the not-open airbag is caused by the airbag in your car not opening. If, on the other hand, you report that 3 weeks after you bought the car, after bringing your cat to the vet, there was cat-pee on the backseat, it is very unlikely that the not-opening airbag is the cause. Also if you report that 4 weeks after you bought this car, the airbag in your other car was no longer opening, I sincerely doubt that the company would recall their cars…

How many cases of Tylenol bottle tampering/death had to be observed before recall of 31 million bottles?

If a deadly poison kills you, it is obvious that the reason for you being dead is that the deadly poison killed you.
From the Wikipedia article:
“Investigators soon discovered the Tylenol link”
See what happened here? They found a link.
Which is the opposite of finding no link.
And the Tylenol did not kill the people, potassium cyanide did. Which was not an ingredient of the Tylenol but something that was added and is known to kill people (and not only by anecdotal evidence and there is an actual known mechanism for this). Tylenol is still sold today because none of the actual ingredients of Tylenol cause death by cyanide poisoning.

reply