It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 12:31 PM
link   
here is a statistic for you :

" in 2010 - 420 people in the UK died as a direct result of contact with a specific chemical "

what conclusions do you draw from this ?

hint - its not off topic - and puts the entire adverse reactions data in perspective

lets see if any honest answers come out




posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass

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. .


No they don't.
They show exactly the same as VAERS in the US.
They are non-speific and not shown as being as being from a causal association.

Stop dressing it up as something it isn't.



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 01:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass

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?


Based on your willingness to use vaccine inserts as evidence I think that means you accept all data from "big pharma".
Correct?



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: InverseLookingGlass

This is the last paragraph on the original article (which was omitted in the article you've provided):


“Reports of PoTS following HPV vaccine remain under review by EU regulators. PoTS can occur naturally in adolescent girls and, at present, there is insufficient evidence to indicate that the vaccine is a cause. This will remain under review.”
www.independent.co.uk... cination-10286876.html


I have worked with oncology patients, and it is very difficult to see them embarrassed about their disfigurement and tortured by the pain their cancer caused, hence I really dislike disinformation. Gardasil helps prevent at least 6 types of cancer and it is safe. Some may have a reaction to the vaccine but, like I said on another anti-vaccine thread, all medication comes with side effects, even those we buy over the counter.

Here are some peer reviewed articles.

A large study with 200,000 females that shows no concerns: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Another study with almost 4 million females that showed no link between the vaccine and demyelinating diseases: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Every year 2 million new cancer cases are caused by infectious diseases and about one quarter of those cases are caused by the human papillomaviruses. The vaccine can help prevent more than half a million cases per year and maybe even end this type of cancer: deainfo.nci.nih.gov...

Is the small risk the vaccine carry worth it? Go to a hospital and asked those who have survived this type of cancer, they will tell you: yes.



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 04:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass

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. .


No they don't.
They show exactly the same as VAERS in the US.
They are non-speific and not shown as being as being from a causal association.

Stop dressing it up as something it isn't.




The fact that InverseLookingGlass cites a source that lists turning into The Incredible Hulk as a side effect says all you need to know about his intellectual honesty.



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 05:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass
You didn't answer the question.


Did you actually ask a question?

? You are attempting to invent a point by misreading my words. I understand the process, have read the article and can work statistics. Nothing to do with pharma marketing, because that accusation can be levelled at anyone who does not agree with you. You probably roll that one out frequently.

On vaccinations, I do have the capacity to make an informed choice. Nothing to do with me depriving anything from anyone, which is something else you are inventing.

Anyway, what is the point you are trying to make? In brief and without the righteousness.



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 06:00 PM
link   

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 TAKE IT you GET ALL YOUR INFO FROM CONSPIRACY SITES have a look at this thread then to see HOW easy it is to fool certain members on here.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 10:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
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


The adverse reaction rate statistics would be complete if the UK government had chosen to release them. They did not. Hard to tell if you are on the side of the Pharma companies and the technocrats on this issue. You are not honest enough to state that. In any case, consumers are left to connect the dots, which I am able to do fairly on a solid basis.

With the absolute adverse reaction rate of HPV being 8x the MMR2 which likely has the highest uptake. It is quite clear to see that the HPV is far more dangerous that the others. If you are being honest, you can see that HPV is different. If you are a "true believer" you demand consumers suspend common sense and the precautionary principle when bringing their kids into the Dr.

"Making crap up" is a standard response from media operatives and it is paper thin as is the correlation isn't causation canard. That brings us to your next gift to the world--- captive customers (e.g. mandatory vaccines). The Pharma PR machine is ramping up their lobbying to get HPV on the list of forced shots. You are assisting this human rights violation. Like the Pharma companies, you have 100% immunity from damage so rest well.



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 11:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
here is a statistic for you :

" in 2010 - 420 people in the UK died as a direct result of contact with a specific chemical "

what conclusions do you draw from this ?

hint - its not off topic - and puts the entire adverse reactions data in perspective

lets see if any honest answers come out


If 420 people died from drowning, out of the UK population of 64M than it's a minor threat. It's about 7:1000000. If 10:1000000 dies from Measles it is a national emergency. If 100000/year die from legally and correctly prescribed pharmaceutical products it's no big deal.



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 11:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass

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?


Based on your willingness to use vaccine inserts as evidence I think that means you accept all data from "big pharma".
Correct?



The vaccine inserts show the data that is accepted by the FDA (U.S.) I use vaccines insert information as accurate given the inherent bias to present best case data. Obviously the worst case is likely much much worse.



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 11:14 AM
link   
a reply to: paraphi




Did you actually ask a question?


I did. But you already know that if you are as clever as you represent.
If not, here is the question again.



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



You might have answered: I will take whatever my Dr tells me to take. At least that gives you logical standing to assert that everyone should be forced to play Russian roulette because you did. Moral standing is a different matter...



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 11:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass

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. .


No they don't.
They show exactly the same as VAERS in the US.
They are non-speific and not shown as being as being from a causal association.

Stop dressing it up as something it isn't.




The fact that InverseLookingGlass cites a source that lists turning into The Incredible Hulk as a side effect says all you need to know about his intellectual honesty.


Please request some better narratives. You are on vapors.



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 11:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass

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. .


No they don't.
They show exactly the same as VAERS in the US.
They are non-speific and not shown as being as being from a causal association.

Stop dressing it up as something it isn't.




The fact that InverseLookingGlass cites a source that lists turning into The Incredible Hulk as a side effect says all you need to know about his intellectual honesty.


Please request some better narratives. You are on vapors.


Speaks volumes though that you are more interested in narratives, particularly ones that involve blatant falsehoods, instead of cold, hard clinical data.



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 12:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Agartha

Number one, EU regulators and US VAERS do not release full data sets. As a medical professional, how do you explain that?

Number two, the Pharma companies are the purveyors of disinformation. Here is one example from the study of links to MS and immune system attacking the bodies native myelin.



Using nationwide registers we identified a cohort of all females aged 10 years to 44 years in Denmark and Sweden, followed up from 2006 to 2013,


The design was to look at incidence of MS and related diseases in the two year period following the vaccination and compare that with a two year period that followed. So it's the same cohort but they only registered a negative if the diagnosis was made withing two years of the vaccination. If the diagnosis was made in the interval year 2-4, then it decorrelates from the Vaccination.

This is slanted horribly in favor of no detection and the detections that do take place are heavily skewed towards the 20+ year old subjects.
Learn more about how difficult it is to diagnose MS



Most people are diagnosed between the ages of 20 and 50, although MS can occur in young children and significantly older adults.


Let's move on to the effectiveness at preventing cancer:
Statistical problems with Pharma sponsored studies

The link between HPV and cervical cancer is not a slam dunk and whenever the seek to prove that, the data is dodgy.

Peer review is corrupt, the medical journals are corrupt and above all, the FDA and CDC are corrupt. The Pharma companies are not corrupt. They are amoral profit machines, doing what they mechanically do.



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 12:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass


Peer review is corrupt, the medical journals are corrupt and above all, the FDA and CDC are corrupt. The Pharma companies are not corrupt. They are amoral profit machines, doing what they mechanically do.


I could link various articles here about studies that prove the effectiveness of the vaccine but your statement above tells me you won't believe any of them anyway and we are going to end up going round and round in circles.


We'll just agree to disagree.



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 01:26 PM
link   
a reply to: InverseLookingGlass

Crickey. There I was thinking a wider discussion on the overly bias Independent article was also in the offing. After all, if you are using as your source a poorly written article that simplifies the results, then that needs to be mentioned.

Anyway. I think that the evidence of good from vaccinations outweighs - by an order of magnitude - the risk of life-changing and real adverse effects. While I am not one to force vaccinations on people, I think it is incumbent on people and parents to be informed. This includes not listening the ill-conceived pseud science of the anti-vaccine brigade, including people like Wakefield.

The Russian roulette you mention, is not the having a vaccination.
edit on 7/6/2015 by paraphi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 01:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
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


The adverse reaction rate statistics would be complete if the UK government had chosen to release them. They did not. Hard to tell if you are on the side of the Pharma companies and the technocrats on this issue. You are not honest enough to state that. In any case, consumers are left to connect the dots, which I am able to do fairly on a solid basis.

With the absolute adverse reaction rate of HPV being 8x the MMR2 which likely has the highest uptake. It is quite clear to see that the HPV is far more dangerous that the others. If you are being honest, you can see that HPV is different. If you are a "true believer" you demand consumers suspend common sense and the precautionary principle when bringing their kids into the Dr.

"Making crap up" is a standard response from media operatives and it is paper thin as is the correlation isn't causation canard. That brings us to your next gift to the world--- captive customers (e.g. mandatory vaccines). The Pharma PR machine is ramping up their lobbying to get HPV on the list of forced shots. You are assisting this human rights violation. Like the Pharma companies, you have 100% immunity from damage so rest well.


These are reported events.
There's no causality, just correlation.
Surely you understand the difference?

"Making crap up" is part of being pro-disease.
It's all you have so you have no choice other than to do it to try to justify your belief.



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 01:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass
a reply to: Agartha

Number one, EU regulators and US VAERS do not release full data sets. As a medical professional, how do you explain that?

Number two, the Pharma companies are the purveyors of disinformation. Here is one example from the study of links to MS and immune system attacking the bodies native myelin.



Using nationwide registers we identified a cohort of all females aged 10 years to 44 years in Denmark and Sweden, followed up from 2006 to 2013,


The design was to look at incidence of MS and related diseases in the two year period following the vaccination and compare that with a two year period that followed. So it's the same cohort but they only registered a negative if the diagnosis was made withing two years of the vaccination. If the diagnosis was made in the interval year 2-4, then it decorrelates from the Vaccination.

This is slanted horribly in favor of no detection and the detections that do take place are heavily skewed towards the 20+ year old subjects.
Learn more about how difficult it is to diagnose MS



Most people are diagnosed between the ages of 20 and 50, although MS can occur in young children and significantly older adults.


Let's move on to the effectiveness at preventing cancer:
Statistical problems with Pharma sponsored studies

The link between HPV and cervical cancer is not a slam dunk and whenever the seek to prove that, the data is dodgy.

Peer review is corrupt, the medical journals are corrupt and above all, the FDA and CDC are corrupt. The Pharma companies are not corrupt. They are amoral profit machines, doing what they mechanically do.


If a peer-reviewed study was published in The Lancet which proved that vaccines caused harm you would cite it.

You've cited plenty of studies which fit the description above in other threads.

Cherry-picking springs to mind.



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass
a reply to: Agartha

Number one, EU regulators and US VAERS do not release full data sets. As a medical professional, how do you explain that?

Number two, the Pharma companies are the purveyors of disinformation. Here is one example from the study of links to MS and immune system attacking the bodies native myelin.



Using nationwide registers we identified a cohort of all females aged 10 years to 44 years in Denmark and Sweden, followed up from 2006 to 2013,


The design was to look at incidence of MS and related diseases in the two year period following the vaccination and compare that with a two year period that followed. So it's the same cohort but they only registered a negative if the diagnosis was made withing two years of the vaccination. If the diagnosis was made in the interval year 2-4, then it decorrelates from the Vaccination.

This is slanted horribly in favor of no detection and the detections that do take place are heavily skewed towards the 20+ year old subjects.
Learn more about how difficult it is to diagnose MS



Most people are diagnosed between the ages of 20 and 50, although MS can occur in young children and significantly older adults.


Let's move on to the effectiveness at preventing cancer:
Statistical problems with Pharma sponsored studies

The link between HPV and cervical cancer is not a slam dunk and whenever the seek to prove that, the data is dodgy.

Peer review is corrupt, the medical journals are corrupt and above all, the FDA and CDC are corrupt. The Pharma companies are not corrupt. They are amoral profit machines, doing what they mechanically do.


Lucija Tomljenovic & Chris Shaw?
Really?

From the full "study" (please note that Luc & Chris don't actually perform real studies as they're not qualified to do so, this paper comes under what is commonly known as "dumpster-diving". Some people call it cherry-picking...).

"This work was supported by the Dwoskin, Lotus and Katlyn
Fox Family Foundations. LT and CAS conducted a histological
analysis of autopsy brain samples from a Gardasil-suspected death
case.
"

Dwoskin, Lotus & Katlyn Fox Foundations

They also based some of their conclusions (and methods) on brain samples from a SUSPECTED case.
That's not good science.
That's bad.



posted on Jun, 8 2015 @ 01:27 AM
link   
a reply to: InverseLookingGlass

and the number of deaths from vaccine reactions in the UK is ??????????????




top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join