Freedom of Information New Release: Adverse reaction rates in the UK for all vaccines.

originally posted by: paraphi
I would be curious to know the percentage reaction rate and the number of people who actually died or who were permanently disabled as a result of these immunisations in the UK, against the likely rate of disease and ultimately death from a situation with no vaccines.

You can look up the death rates of certain diseases pretty easily. I'll tell you that it obviously depends on the country and their level of health care, but in a nation like where I live (U.S.), the death rate of something like measles is around 0.2% (according to the CDC during the period of 1985-1992). But then you consider that, before the vaccine, the average for 1958-1962 the death rate was 0.08%. Then following those numbers, the article says this:

Before measles vaccine was licensed in 1963, the CDC admits there was massive underreporting of measles cases and that “because virtually all children acquired measles, the number of measles cases probably approached 3.5 million per year (.i.e., an entire birth cohort).” Other doctors say it was more like 5 million cases of measles occurring every year.

Source

So, if 3.5M people had it, then that would put the average death rate at 0.01%. Being a realist, I assume that it's somewhere in between, so we'll go with 0.05%. That's a pretty miniscule number--I don't think you need to be concerned about not having the MMR vaccine. But that's just one example of a barely-deadly disease.

Also, we know that a very small minority of people have adverse reactions to vaccinations. In the UK is this above or below normal?

We know that the confirmed adverse reactions are a small minority--what isn't reported are the people who have reactions and either don't get them checked or their doctors refuse to consider the vaccines as the cause, the latter seeming to be a relatively common occurrence.

a reply to: InverseLookingGlass
The shingles vaccination….can it give someone Herpes, or an outbreak if they already have it, or a new strain of it?
tetra

a reply to: SlapMonkey

On measles. Leaving aside the fact that you may survive measles – and most people do completely unscathed – but end up with a range of life-long effects due to complications of the disease. Regardless, in the developed West, one in five thousand people who get measles will die from it (that’s the 0.02%). In the UK there are c. 700,000 births (so let’s assume these are the pot for infections) and in an unvaccinated population the rate of infection is pretty much 100%. Therefore 140 kids will die. In the USA there’s c. 4 million babies born and this equates to 800 deaths a year.

We know that in the 1980 the world-wide toll was estimated to be 2.6 million deaths attributed to measles. We know that due to vaccinations this has fallen to under 100,000 in 2013. Figures being widely available including from the World Health Organisation.

Are vaccinations worth it? Ask the living.

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass
Here's the source.

I couldn't find the UK Independent link to the material. Looks legit so far. Nice data but I want to see the percentages. I'm sure that was omitted for effect but whatev. What we can see is the Relative adverse reaction rates.

The purpose of this post is to ask one question. That's it.

1. Based on this list, clearly showing relative adverse reaction rates, which vaccines on this list should be mandatory?

What do you mean by "nice data"?

Also what has been included as an adverse event? A sore arm, low-grade fever, head exploded, what?
Have these adverse events been caused by vaccines or just correlated with them?


Before you can ask a question regarding mandating vaccines you need to provide this specific information otherwise you're just speculating (as usual).

originally posted by: Pardon?
Also what has been included as an adverse event? A sore arm, low-grade fever, head exploded, what?

The UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency uses a so called “Yellow Card Scheme”. Basically anything suspected can be recorded as an adverse effect, whether it’s legitimately linked to the vaccine or not. If you think there’s been a link, then report it.

The UK’s approach is to encourage people to feedback as this generates a rich data source from which intelligence can be derived. If you think a bout of burping ten days after being vaccinated is linked, then there's no shame in reporting it. You can imagine bored mothers doing just that. For example "my daughter was vaccinated six months ago and is now being naughty, so BINGO that's the cause. Must report it".

The anti-vaccine philistines will cite the large volume of reports as proof there’s a problem. Those who understand how the scheme works are less likely to abuse statistics to write cheap articles for the Independent.

> Link to MHRA
> Yellow card scheme Wiki

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: Pardon?
Also what has been included as an adverse event? A sore arm, low-grade fever, head exploded, what?

The UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency uses a so called “Yellow Card Scheme”. Basically anything suspected can be recorded as an adverse effect, whether it’s legitimately linked to the vaccine or not. If you think there’s been a link, then report it.

The UK’s approach is to encourage people to feedback as this generates a rich data source from which intelligence can be derived. If you think a bout of burping ten days after being vaccinated is linked, then there's no shame in reporting it. You can imagine bored mothers doing just that. For example "my daughter was vaccinated six months ago and is now being naughty, so BINGO that's the cause. Must report it".

The anti-vaccine philistines will cite the large volume of reports as proof there’s a problem. Those who understand how the scheme works are less likely to abuse statistics to write cheap articles for the Independent.

> Link to MHRA
> Yellow card scheme Wiki

The (in)famous "vaccines turned me into the hulk" reported in the US version, VAERS, springs to mind.
leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk...


Using data like these shows a complete lack of understanding of how adverse event reporting is used in assessing medicine safety.
It's also abused quite frequently by the anti-vax/pro-disease brigade in a very dishonest manner to try to fool people.
This is the result and seemingly what they aspire to do...
elpais.com...

originally posted by: paraphi
If you read the original article the words used at "spontaneous suspected" adverse reactions. Words conveniently missed by the panic stricken article.

I would be curious to know the percentage reaction rate and the number of people who actually died or who were permanently disabled as a result of these immunisations in the UK, against the likely rate of disease and ultimately death from a situation with no vaccines.

Also, we know that a very small minority of people have adverse reactions to vaccinations. In the UK is this above or below normal?

You didn't answer the question. I read the article. Spontaneous suspected events following a vaccination are likely caused by the vaccination. It's common sense. If you have bought into Pharma marketing and PR then correlation and common sense should be ignored. I'll assume from your comment, "I am curious" that you believe you have the capacity to make an informed choice, thus you support informed consent for yourself. If you would deprive others of the right to make that same choice, you are a hypocrite.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: InverseLookingGlass

without the required additional data - the statistics presented are utterly meaningless

the ommitted data is :

1 number of patients vacinated over the same period

2 morrbidity rates for each illness in unvaccinated polulations

3 mortality rate for each illness

without the above - the stats mean nothing

You are incorrect. The numbers as presented do mean something. They show relative adverse reaction rates. It's rudimentary statistics. I join your call for the UK government to release all information. They have chosen not to. Why? I could quote you a number of prevaccine infection and morbidity rates but why bother? The fact that you want more information, means you support informed consent for yourself. If you would prevent others from having that right, you are a hypocrite.

originally posted by: whismermill
The numbers of ADRs are meaningless as such, you need to know the severity of the reported suspected adverse event, and the actual number of doses distributed. 8000 ADRs may seem high, but if the number of doses distributed is 1 billion, the risk is rather low. In contrast, 50 ADRs reported may seem low, but if the actual number of doses distributed is only 100, you have a problem.

Missing the rudimentary statistics. You believe they are meaningless. The vaccine inserts themselves contradict your belief. They use relative statistics to license bundling of vaccines. The compare ARR to the bundle vs. the standalone vax. Based on your willingness to analyze data at all, I think that means you support informed consent for yourself. How about others?

originally posted by: Nowornevertill
a reply to: InverseLookingGlass

I've heard that big pharma is fighting tooth and nail to suppress information on vaccines including hiring elaborate online programs and people.

The partial data in the OP was obtained by FOI request. The UK gov does not release most data. After this release, I'm sure Merck has contacted the Gov to pull it, so as not to hurt the prospects of making HPV mandatory.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: Nowornevertill

i have heard that anti-vaxxers make crap up

That's intellectually dishonest isn't it? You will change your tune.

originally posted by: Nowornevertill

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: Nowornevertill

i have heard that anti-vaxxers make crap up

Lol

Thank you for identifying yourself as MSM follower.

I will politely ignore you in the future

I applaud you for being polite. Anti-vaxxer comes straight from the shill handbook. Pharma does an outstanding job of marketing. They spend more on marketing than R&D. It pays.

originally posted by: foxhound2459
a reply to: ignorant_ape

Hope that was sarcasm IA,

I take all my vaccine's because they are free on the National Health here in the UK,

I have nothing more than a bit off a runny nose and slight nausea.

As stated a bit off fear mongering from MSM,

Strange as MERS / SERS originated from Saudi lands from Camels I would have thought over the generations the people would be naturally immune.

You didn't answer the question but it sounds like you support informed consent for yourself. I support informed consent for everyone.

originally posted by: SecretFace
Ok, this whole anti vaccination movement is a joke at best, a dangerous cult at worse. There is no plot to suppress your immunity through vaccination, please take it from me, there is none, zero, nothing! There are many other conspiracy theories that do, loosely, contain elements of truth, but this is not one and is extremely dangerous.

One of the reasons that we have been living longer lives is that the majority of illnesses that many decades back, would cause significant fatality rates, were cured through immunisation, or at least the chance of catching the virus was reduced to a very remote possibility. Yes we have a natural immunity, but it only develops against an illness, if we get that illness. Through vaccination, it was controlled, the alternative is actually contracting the illness, hope for a quick recovery time, that there are no complications and hope that you are not one of the fatality statistics, while at the same time hoping that nobody close to you catches it.

Vaccinations do not cause autism, there is no proof, nothing, correlation does not imply causation. Just because there are children who had vaccines that then went on to be diagnosed with autism, doesn't mean the vaccine caused it. The majority of vaccines are given before 5 years of age, autism can be diagnosed anywhere from two years old up to any age, just because children have been diagnosed with autism after vaccinations, doesn't mean autism wasn't already there.

I'm privileged to be exposed to a lot of information about what's going on in this world and some of what I read here is actually pretty much hitting the target, but this anti vaccination BS needs to stop. It puts babies, children and the elderly at risk through nothing more than ignorance. Illnesses that were eradicated are now coming back. There is no agenda behind vaccinations, no the state doesn't care about you as an individual, but it is of the states interest that it keeps a relatively work ready population in relatively good health.

Vaccinations are not evil, risking the lives of your child and others around you is.

Vaccinations are unavoidably unsafe. It's Russian roulette with babies. Vaccine technology is not evil. The people that force people to take these interventions against their will are evil. Immune disregulation diseases are ravaging our children. Making excuses while lives are devastated is evil.

originally posted by: InFriNiTee
a reply to: InverseLookingGlass

My opinion is this: For the most part, the human immune system works just fine! I think that the risks of "immunizations" far outweigh the "benefits". Paralysis, diabetes type 1, and so many others are the risks of vaccines! Stimulating the immune system with adjuvants and other poisons are a great risk (proven in MANY medical studies). I honestly don't think that ANY vaccines should be REQUIRED. This is coming from someone that came down with an irreversible autoimmune disease....shortly after getting vaccinated with the MMR shot.

I know that not everybody gets sick from vaccinations, but some do. The ones that do get sick from them often times live a lifetime of pain and suffering. Why not just let the body defend itself?

The money they make off of "treating" autoimmune diseases and all of the others is immense! I think that may be the real reason that they want people to get vaccines so badly! I know a lot of people on here will disagree with my opinion. Let's see them deal with a lifetime illness! They might change their tune then!

From your comments, it appears as if you support informed consent for everyone. You are on the right side of history.

originally posted by: yorkshirelad

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass
Here's the source.

I couldn't find the UK Independent link to the material. Looks legit so far. Nice data but I want to see the percentages. I'm sure that was omitted for effect but whatev. What we can see is the Relative adverse reaction rates.

The purpose of this post is to ask one question. That's it.

1. Based on this list, clearly showing relative adverse reaction rates, which vaccines on this list should be mandatory?

Absolute numbers like those are meningless without the context, for example :

2000 people react adversly every year due to vaccine X

But what if :

20000 people contract the preventable disease with lifelong complications and 1000 people die.

Is the vaccine bad now ?

Absolute numbers are usually used to frighten people who have this mistaken belief that everything medical is 100% or 0%. You are dead or alive, you are ill or not, your re cured or not. 2000 adverse reactions makes people instantly think that getting the vaccine will cause a reaction because they expect 100% cure and 0% reaction !

Relative statistics are used all the time for vaccine licensing. The FDA uses them. It's interesting you believe they are meaningless. HPV has an adverse reaction rate 5x that of MMR2. Pharma is lobbying hard to keep data secret, remove all liability and make all on this list mandatory.

a reply to: SecretFace there's a huge problem.....the three in one vaccine has mercury for a preservative...admitted
and the cases that have been settled big time for bad vacs....
and the information block by the evil AMA about other methods for stopping a virus from being able to get through a cell wall....elderberry, and then good old sunlight...Vit D.
The ama was taken over by evil by way of closing all the real but non-compliant med schools in the U. S. way back

originally posted by: GBP/JPY
a reply to: SecretFace there's a huge problem.....the three in one vaccine has mercury for a preservative...admitted

No it doesn't. And even if it did (which it doesn't), it would be ethyl mercury, not methyl mercury.

a reply to: InverseLookingGlass

please do not lie - the numbers show totals of all REPORTED adverse reactions

the rates given are NOT relative to anything the are absolute tabulations .

PS - your response also validates another reply of mine here - namely :

anti-vaxxers make crap up

a reply to: InverseLookingGlass

no its a painfull truth - which your own contribution to this thread demonstrates