GOP debate puts vaccinations back in the spotlight

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Pardon?

Personally, in my eyes though, one death is too many.

Which is exactly the argument anti-vaxxers make about vaccines.

I once looked up the rate of death caused by vaccinations at the CDC. I believe they attributed something like 121 in 2012, if I recall correctly.

121 deaths CAUSED by the vaccinations themselves.

*drops the mic*

*picks the mic back up again*

You don't recall correctly, sorry.
I think you may also be mistaken about the alleged number of deaths from vaccines.
And also mistaken about where you "looked up" those numbers.
And the number varies from 100 to yours depending upon which meme you see.
The most common number I've seen is 108.

However, these numbers are taken directly from VAERS which is a passive reporting database.
The main problem with VAERS is that it doesn't show any causality, just a report of an event happening in a time-period post vaccination.
Pretty much anyone can report to VAERS, they don't have to be medically trained to submit it.
If you were to look at bit deeper and find the individual reports of these deaths you will find that not one of them has been caused by vaccination.
www.politifact.com...

And here's a good piece explaining the unreliability of passive reporting systems when looking at vaccine mortality rates.
www.skepticalraptor.com...

So yes, one death from a vaccine preventable disease is one too many (in fact, I'd go as far as to say that one incidence of a vpd is one too many.

Would you like the mic back?

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I once looked up the rate of death caused by vaccinations at the CDC. I believe they attributed something like 121 in 2012, if I recall correctly.

121 deaths CAUSED by the vaccinations themselves.

To be more specific, 121 would only represent those deaths that the CDC acknowledged were caused by vaccines. No doubt at least some deaths are mistakenly attributed to a different cause. And many think some deaths are deliberately attributed to other causes.

For example, I recently read that some doctors think vaccine deaths are falsely attributed to Shaken Baby Syndrome. The article I read focused on men in prison for killing their babies by shaking. I haven't checked it out enough to have an opinion yet, but I have some links bookmarked to check it out further when I have the time...

a reply to: Pardon?

From the CDC website:

"VAERS data contains coincidental events and those truly caused by vaccines."

So...just because each case has not been 'signed off' as a death from a vaccination, it does not mean that some were not caused by vaccinations AND the CDC found all the VAERS deaths should included in the dataset because the timing, symptoms, and relationships of the fatal adverse effects are the most compelling proof of causation available.

And it was 122 cases in 2014 that I read.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

According to VAERS, vaccines turn you into The Incredible Hulk. You can't seriously cite a collection of unverifiable anecdotes as evidence of anything.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: MotherMayEye

According to VAERS, vaccines turn you into The Incredible Hulk.

Wow. Well, there's no sense in having a discussion with someone who reframes legitimate reports of adverse effects, like that.

Even my pediatrician informs me of many well-known adverse effects before I consent to vaccinations -- becoming the Incredible Hulk is not one of them, but the rare incident of death is.

EDIT: All three of my kids experienced fever and redness, swelling and/or fluid build up at the injection site. And I doubt my pediatrician reported them to VAERS -- some I didn't even bother reporting to my pediatrician because I had been informed they might happen.

I wonder how many other adverse reactions don't get reported. I am sure most do not.

a reply to: Pardon?

For the record, according to your standards even one death from unvaccinated people is too much. There is no arguing that there have never been deaths due to improperly stored and tainted vaccines, so if your reason for supporting government mandated/coerced vaccinations is that one death due to unvaccinated people is too much, then you are guilty of having a double standard.

The fact is, there are not enough deaths to point to -- on either side of this debate -- to warrant giving the government that kind of power. It's an overreach and a knee-jerk reaction to fear-mongering.

As I weigh the risks argued by both sides, anti-vaxxers and mandatory vaxxers, what shakes out as the most risky FOR ME, is the idea that the government would be in control of the regulation and administration of vaccines. It's a fear-based policy which is toxic in our society -- because it is so effective.

As I said, I vaccinate my kids because based on the information I have sought out or has reached me. I feel comfortable with that decision. But I do not begrudge another parent the right to make their own decisions -- even if I disagree with them. I already know the risk of unvaccinated kids/people. I accepted it long ago because it is just not that scary to me and I refuse to be fear-mongered into believing it is.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

As I weigh the risks argued by both sides, anti-vaxxers and mandatory vaxxers, what shakes out as the most risky FOR ME, is the idea that the government would be in control of the regulation and administration of vaccines. It's a fear-based policy which is toxic in our society -- because it is so effective.

This ^^^. Thank you!

It deserves repeating.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I once looked up the rate of death caused by vaccinations at the CDC. I believe they attributed something like 121 in 2012, if I recall correctly.

121 deaths CAUSED by the vaccinations themselves.

To be more specific, 121 would only represent those deaths that the CDC acknowledged were caused by vaccines. No doubt at least some deaths are mistakenly attributed to a different cause. And many think some deaths are deliberately attributed to other causes.

For example, I recently read that some doctors think vaccine deaths are falsely attributed to Shaken Baby Syndrome. The article I read focused on men in prison for killing their babies by shaking. I haven't checked it out enough to have an opinion yet, but I have some links bookmarked to check it out further when I have the time...

When you do finally get round to doing it, check out who these "doctors" are.
The main one is someone called Dr Viera Scheibner who is a retired paleontologist (yes, you read that right).
She has her own site if you wish to check (you can buy stuff from her site. You can ALWAYS buy stuff from their sites).

Another and probably the most vile is a "man" called Dr Harold Buttram. He's a retired primary care doctor but more importantly he's a paid expert witness in shaken baby syndrome cases. Naturally his testimony always absolves the murderer and focusses on the vaccines.
Now having seen one case of shaken baby syndrome in the PICU I used to work in, I find it abhorrent and sick that people have such a hate for vaccines that they can blame a dreadful attack on a baby on them and secondly that by doing so they consider the person who did it to be innocent.
It has to be the most vile example of anti-vaxxers imaginable and highlights the supreme depths that they will go to.
However, they are but two (well one) doctors. Admittedly there are a few more out there who cautiously "agree" with them but their number is probably less than ten. And none of whom are actively involved with vaccines nor are they practising paediatricians.
In reality, that should tell you something...
But if it doesn't have a read of this.
www.sciencebasedmedicine.org...

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Pardon?

From the CDC website:

"VAERS data contains coincidental events and those truly caused by vaccines."

So...just because each case has not been 'signed off' as a death from a vaccination, it does not mean that some were not caused by vaccinations AND the CDC found all the VAERS deaths should included in the dataset because the timing, symptoms, and relationships of the fatal adverse effects are the most compelling proof of causation available.

And it was 122 cases in 2014 that I read.

It's not a case of the deaths being "signed off" as you so glibly say, it's a case of them being investigated to determine the cause of death.
These causes of death are not recorded in VAERS as it's a first line reporting system.

And, conveniently, you forgot to post the paragraph which followed on from your paraphrasing of it (highlighted and the extremely important word in your paragraph is "available". Think about it).
"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. VAERS accepts all reports without judging whether the event was caused by the vaccine.

DISCLAIMER: Please note that VAERS staff follow-up on all serious and other selected adverse event reports to obtain additional medical, laboratory, and/or autopsy records to help understand the concern raised. However, in general coding terms in VAERS do not change based on the information received during the follow-up process. VAERS data should be used with caution as numbers and conditions do not reflect data collected during follow-up. Note that the inclusion of events in VAERS data does not imply causality."

And where did you read about the 124 deaths in 2014 as I've just searched VAERS and there's nowhere near that number reported?
wonder.cdc.gov...;jsessionid=7E3F905FEA9ED2251CD94EA96359850D

It would be useful if you posted links.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: MotherMayEye

According to VAERS, vaccines turn you into The Incredible Hulk.

Wow. Well, there's no sense in having a discussion with someone who reframes legitimate reports of adverse effects, like that.

Even my pediatrician informs me of many well-known adverse effects before I consent to vaccinations -- becoming the Incredible Hulk is not one of them, but the rare incident of death is.

EDIT: All three of my kids experienced fever and redness, swelling and/or fluid build up at the injection site. And I doubt my pediatrician reported them to VAERS -- some I didn't even bother reporting to my pediatrician because I had been informed they might happen.

I wonder how many other adverse reactions don't get reported. I am sure most do not.

Since the vast majority of adverse events are what you've described what would be the point of reporting them?
It would just swamp the database.
From the VAERS site itself.
"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. Physicians and patients understand that minor side effects of vaccinations often include this kind of discomfort, as well as low fevers. On the other hand, more serious and unexpected medical events are probably more likely to be reported than minor ones, especially when they occur soon after vaccination, even if they may be coincidental and related to other causes."
vaers.hhs.gov...

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Pardon?

For the record, according to your standards even one death from unvaccinated people is too much. There is no arguing that there have never been deaths due to improperly stored and tainted vaccines, so if your reason for supporting government mandated/coerced vaccinations is that one death due to unvaccinated people is too much, then you are guilty of having a double standard.

The fact is, there are not enough deaths to point to -- on either side of this debate -- to warrant giving the government that kind of power. It's an overreach and a knee-jerk reaction to fear-mongering.

As I weigh the risks argued by both sides, anti-vaxxers and mandatory vaxxers, what shakes out as the most risky FOR ME, is the idea that the government would be in control of the regulation and administration of vaccines. It's a fear-based policy which is toxic in our society -- because it is so effective.

As I said, I vaccinate my kids because based on the information I have sought out or has reached me. I feel comfortable with that decision. But I do not begrudge another parent the right to make their own decisions -- even if I disagree with them. I already know the risk of unvaccinated kids/people. I accepted it long ago because it is just not that scary to me and I refuse to be fear-mongered into believing it is.

No there's definitely no argument against deaths being caused by improperly stored and/or administered vaccines.
Pretty much like there's no argument against deaths and illness being caused by improperly stored and/or cooked meat.
It's not the vaccines per se that were the problem was it?
It would have happened with any medication which had to be stored in a specific way wouldn't it?
So no, no double standards from me.

In principal, I don't agree with any medical procedure being made mandatory.
I believe that people should make an informed choice.
However, as you and a couple of others in this thread have proven, there is so much misinformation and dishonesty being pushed that it's extremely difficult for the average person to make that choice based upon solid information.

You talk about the "fear-based" policy which the government use yet you cite incorrect "facts" regarding the number of deaths caused by vaccines and make a very strong suggestion that SBS is possibly caused by vaccines.
How fear-mongering are you trying to be?
THE main reason why some vaccinations in some situations are being made mandatory are because there are too many people falling from the dishonesty, lies and fear-mongering the anti-vax brigade are pushing.
So you can blame the anti-vaxxers for the government intervention.

And why you focus on deaths is beyond me.
Is not morbidity a concern?
Are not the complications from VPDs a concern?
And if the current vaccination rates fall there will undoubtedly be more deaths.
I mean, you DO understand why morbidity rates have plummeted over the past few decades don;t you?
graphics.wsj.com...

Fine, distrust the government, I don't trust them either. Never have.
But to overcome the science you need to either disprove it or prove what you say.
And if you can't then by definition you have to accept the science.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: MotherMayEye

According to VAERS, vaccines turn you into The Incredible Hulk.

Wow. Well, there's no sense in having a discussion with someone who reframes legitimate reports of adverse effects, like that.

Clearly you're not familiar with VAERS:

Like other spontaneous reporting systems, VAERS has several limitations, including underreporting, unverified reports, inconsistent data quality, absence of a control group that is not vaccinated, and inadequate data about the number of people vaccinated. Indeed, an autism activist named Jim Laidler once reported to VAERS that a vaccine had turned him into The Incredible Hulk. The report was accepted and entered into the database, but the dubious nature thereof prompted a VAERS representative to contact Mr. Laidler, who then gave his consent to delete the report.[4]

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: Pardon?

Now having seen one case of shaken baby syndrome in the PICU I used to work in, I find it abhorrent and sick that people have such a hate for vaccines that they can blame a dreadful attack on a baby on them and secondly that by doing so they consider the person who did it to be innocent.
It has to be the most vile example of anti-vaxxers imaginable and highlights the supreme depths that they will go to....

I have in fact had that thought... I have also had the opposite thought as well: I would find it abhorrent and sick that people would blame a vaccine reaction on a dreadful attack on a baby, and secondly that by doing so they consider the parent to be a murderer.

Likewise, I would find it absolutely abhorent and despicable that people would so protect vaccines that the could blame an adverse reaction on a dreadful attack on a baby and secondly that by so doing they consider the person to be a murderer.

From my limited understanding of Shaken Baby Syndrome and adverse reactions by some babies to some vaccines, the symptoms can be the same and/or overlap, and I am not aware of any definitive diagnostic test for either. In other words, the symptoms for both can be the same, though not from the same cause.

However, they are but two (well one) doctors. Admittedly there are a few more out there who cautiously "agree" with them but their number is probably less than ten. And none of whom are actively involved with vaccines nor are they practising paediatricians.
In reality, that should tell you something...
But if it doesn't have a read of this.
www.sciencebasedmedicine.org...

I read the first few paragraphs, complete with multiple insults but no evidence of how or why the premise is even questionable much less false. I don't trust anyone who operates on that level, even if they put "science" and "medicine" in their blog title. Especially because from what I do understand, while the conditions/symptoms can be identified, the cause cannot. So I cannot trust anyone taking an all or nothing stand, and relying on mocking and insults to make their point, rather than "science based medicine."

Which brings us back to my real objection to mandatory vaccines: I cannot personally verify or confirm the "science," I don't trust those claiming as "science" that which has not and cannot be proven with the gold standard of clinical testing (double-blind placebo studies), I especially don't trust those who are making a profit off the industry, and I don't trust anything that anyone in government does any farther than I can see them.

But when I get to it, I will check out the names you provided, and I thank you for that. I will look at both sides.

a reply to: Pardon?

You talk about the "fear-based" policy which the government use yet you cite incorrect "facts" regarding the number of deaths caused by vaccines and make a very strong suggestion that SBS is possibly caused by vaccines.

I believe I was the only one to make that suggestion about SBS.... I'll take full blame (and/or credit) for bringing that into the discussion.

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: MotherMayEye

According to VAERS, vaccines turn you into The Incredible Hulk.

Wow. Well, there's no sense in having a discussion with someone who reframes legitimate reports of adverse effects, like that.

Clearly you're not familiar with VAERS:

Like other spontaneous reporting systems, VAERS has several limitations, including underreporting, unverified reports, inconsistent data quality, absence of a control group that is not vaccinated, and inadequate data about the number of people vaccinated. Indeed, an autism activist named Jim Laidler once reported to VAERS that a vaccine had turned him into The Incredible Hulk. The report was accepted and entered into the database, but the dubious nature thereof prompted a VAERS representative to contact Mr. Laidler, who then gave his consent to delete the report.[4]

en.wikipedia.org...

Ah. No I was not familiar with that story. Shame on him then.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Pardon?

You talk about the "fear-based" policy which the government use yet you cite incorrect "facts" regarding the number of deaths caused by vaccines and make a very strong suggestion that SBS is possibly caused by vaccines.

I believe I was the only one to make that suggestion about SBS.... I'll take full blame (and/or credit) for bringing that into the discussion.

Ah, thank you that answers that.

a reply to: Pardon?

As Boadicea pointed out, you are confused about who said what.

originally posted by: Pardon?

And where did you read about the 124 deaths in 2014 as I've just searched VAERS and there's nowhere near that number reported?

I believe I read it here on Politifact:

Source



As to tainted and improperly stored vaccines. That's not a problem that will suddenly be solved by government mandated/coerced vaccinations.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye


EDIT: All three of my kids experienced fever and redness, swelling and/or fluid build up at the injection site. And I doubt my pediatrician reported them to VAERS -- some I didn't even bother reporting to my pediatrician because I had been informed they might happen.

I wonder how many other adverse reactions don't get reported. I am sure most do not.

Mothermay, what seems like a really serious reaction to a mum, it's not serious for a medical professional. You need to understand that what may seem horrific to you, was in fact a normal reaction from a medical professional's standpoint. This is why the reactions your kids had were probably not reported, as only the serious ones are considered. And serious reactions are those with symptoms that do not go away after a couple of hours/days or weeks (depending on what they symptom is) and those that are dramatic and could be life threatening.

a reply to: Agartha

No, I did not think they were horrific reactions. That's why I didn't report most them to my own pediatrician.