Multiple vaccine doses have resulted in up to 145,000 child deaths in past 20 years Study Confirms.

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 05:08 PM
link   
According to data compiled from the government's Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), as many as 145,000 children or more have died throughout the past 20 years as a result of this multiple vaccine dose approach, and few parents are aware of this shocking fact.

Every new additional vaccine also increased the death rate.Also multiple vaccines given at the same time also increased the death rate.

The team found that the more vaccines a child receives during a single doctor visit, the more likely he or she is to suffer a severe reaction or even die. According to Heidi Stevenson from Gaia Health, for each additional vaccine a child receives, his or her chance of death increases by an astounding 50 percent -- and with each additional vaccine dose, chances of having to be hospitalized for severe complications increase TWO FOLD.

To sum it all up, the overall size of the vaccine load was found to be directly associated with hospitalization and death risk, illustrating the incredible dangers of administering multiple vaccines at once.

www.naturalnews.com...

"Our findings show a positive correlation between the number of vaccine doses administered and the percentage of hospitalizations and deaths reports to VAERS," wrote the authors in their conclusion.


gaia-health.com...


VAERS is recognized to contain only a small percentage of all adverse vaccination events. As GS Goldman and NZ Miller point out,

[A] confidential study conducted by Connaught Laboratories, a vaccine manufacturer, indicated that ‘‘a fifty-fold under-reporting of adverse events’’ is likely. According to
David Kessler, former commissioner of the FDA, ‘‘only about one percent of serious events [adverse drug reactions] are reported.

If, according to the study’s report above, only 1 to 2 out of 100 adverse events is reported, then the numbers reported by VAERS need to be multiplied by 50 to 100!

Check the graph on the second link.

Everyone should print this out and shove it in the face of all the doctors and vaccine pushers like "health workers" who are brain washed by vaccine makers.




posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by beckybecky
According to data compiled from the government's Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), as many as 145,000 children or more have died...



BOGUS

Reading the VAERS report, "the team" found no such numbers, or anything even remotely like it.



What actually happened was that some gaia people read the boring report and...

- made a number up off the top of their head the the numbers were possibly 100 times higher than reported
- assumed that ALL cases of "adverse reaction" resulted in the death of the child
- assumed that 99 percent of childrens deaths linked to immunisations were not reported.

...and hey presto, HUGE SCARY numbers, great for headlines.



Edit - and might I say that naturalnews keeps up its 100 percent sensationalist false lies reporting record.
edit on 24-1-2013 by alfa1 because: (no reason given)
edit on 24-1-2013 by alfa1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by beckybecky
 



as many as 145,000 children or more have died throughout the past 20 years as a result of this multiple vaccine dose approach


And they didn't even have a cause of death! One minute they were alive and the the next -poof- magically died.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 05:33 PM
link   
Short version...

VAERS: Some children have died due to vaccines.
GAIA: But these numbers could be massively undereported, the actual numbers could be HUGE!!1!1!
Naturalnews: Vaccines CONFIRMED to kill hundreds of thousands of babies!1!!!



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 05:37 PM
link   
OP, expect the same cast of characters to come out and bash you on your thread.

However, S & F for you, for putting this out there. The whole vaccine myth is flawed, but since there is so much money in it, it is to the benefit of the manufacturers to continue to push it.

Don't let 'em derail this thread by attacking the source, or telling you that you do not understand "real science", etc. The sources they would accept as "reputable" are the same ones that are Pharma-supported.

Vaccines are not all that safe, otherwise there wouldn't be a VAERS and a "special tribunal" set up to shield the manufacturers from all the lawsuits.


Federal law protects pharmaceutical companies from lawsuits by parents who claim that vaccines harmed their children, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.

The court ruled 6 to 2 that going before a special tribunal set up by Congress is the only way parents can be compensated for the negative side effects that in rare instances accompany vaccinations.

The majority said that Congress found such a system necessary to ensure that vaccines remain readily available, and that federal regulators are in the best position to decide whether vaccines are safe and properly designed.

www.washingtonpost.com...

When federal regulators, such as those in the FDA, were previously employed by Pharma, and there is an established revolving door in which FDA employees can go work for Pharma and vice versa, you can be sure the regulators will always side with the corporation.

If those who believe in vaccines wish to get them, and inject their children and grandchildren, then fine. However, the push to vaccinate everybody is suspect to me.

If vaccines work so well, then those who get them should have no fear of those who do not.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by beckybecky
According to data compiled from the government's Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), as many as 145,000 children or more have died throughout the past 20 years as a result of this multiple vaccine dose approach, and few parents are aware of this shocking fact



That is probably because it isn't fact....gross speculation and manipulation at it's finest.
I wonder how much "the team" got paid for that piece of fiction?

This so called study doesn't confirm anything....except why it's important to do your own research and not buy into everything you read!
Even if there may be any finding's at all that remotely touch on the truth you quite simply CAN NOT pass off your own speculative figure's as fact and confirmation of anything...that is NOT how you prove anything or make any cause credible.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 05:51 PM
link   
Regardless of the poor reporting by two websites, what the study did find is a correlation in infant deaths and taking vaccines in large doses. The Study


The 1133 reported male deaths out of a total of 20,174 male cases and 723 reported female deaths out of 17,630 female cases yield mortality rates of 5.6% (95% CI, 5.3–5.9%) and 4.1% (95% CI, 3.8–4.4%), respectively. The male-to-female mortality RR of 1.4 (95% CI, 1.3–1.5) is statistically significant


Reading the report can actually be quite alarming, if you look at how much data they had to exclude because the ages, doses, etc were incomplete. They did a statistical analysis of the data they had access too, threw out files that were incomplete, took files that were complete, and applied apples to apples and oranges to oranges.

For 20 years worth of data, the sample size is extremely small.

Personally I feel vaccines are dangerous, especially at the age they give them, and in the amount of doses they give them. I have had too many friends have children adversely affected by vaccinations.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 05:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by FissionSurplus
OP, expect the same cast of characters to come out and bash you on your thread.

However, S & F for you, for putting this out there. The whole vaccine myth is flawed, but since there is so much money in it, it is to the benefit of the manufacturers to continue to push it.

Don't let 'em derail this thread by attacking the source, or telling you that you do not understand "real science", etc. The sources they would accept as "reputable" are the same ones that are Pharma-supported.

Vaccines are not all that safe, otherwise there wouldn't be a VAERS and a "special tribunal" set up to shield the manufacturers from all the lawsuits.


Federal law protects pharmaceutical companies from lawsuits by parents who claim that vaccines harmed their children, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.

The court ruled 6 to 2 that going before a special tribunal set up by Congress is the only way parents can be compensated for the negative side effects that in rare instances accompany vaccinations.

The majority said that Congress found such a system necessary to ensure that vaccines remain readily available, and that federal regulators are in the best position to decide whether vaccines are safe and properly designed.

www.washingtonpost.com...

When federal regulators, such as those in the FDA, were previously employed by Pharma, and there is an established revolving door in which FDA employees can go work for Pharma and vice versa, you can be sure the regulators will always side with the corporation.

If those who believe in vaccines wish to get them, and inject their children and grandchildren, then fine. However, the push to vaccinate everybody is suspect to me.

If vaccines work so well, then those who get them should have no fear of those who do not.


Are you suggesting that we not question an extremely biased source that is known for crappy reporting?

The study says that from 1990-2010 there were 39,082 infant cases reported. Of those, there were 6279 hospitalizations and 1881 deaths. Not 145,800 deaths. There is absolutely no evidence to even remotely support the claim of 145,800 deaths.

Distribution of infant cases reported as hospitalized or as a death to Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) by year, 1990–2010. Note: 1990 was a partial year of VAERS reporting.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 05:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by tnhiker
Regardless of the poor reporting by two websites


You mean the entire premise of this thread? Ok.

/end thread



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 05:49 AM
link   
The IOM just released (another) study about a week ago confirming that the childhood vaccination schedule is, in fact, safe. I think they are slightly more reputable than NaturalNews.

books.nap.edu...



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by alkali

Originally posted by FissionSurplus
OP, expect the same cast of characters to come out and bash you on your thread.

However, S & F for you, for putting this out there. The whole vaccine myth is flawed, but since there is so much money in it, it is to the benefit of the manufacturers to continue to push it.

Don't let 'em derail this thread by attacking the source, or telling you that you do not understand "real science", etc. The sources they would accept as "reputable" are the same ones that are Pharma-supported.

Vaccines are not all that safe, otherwise there wouldn't be a VAERS and a "special tribunal" set up to shield the manufacturers from all the lawsuits.


Federal law protects pharmaceutical companies from lawsuits by parents who claim that vaccines harmed their children, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.

The court ruled 6 to 2 that going before a special tribunal set up by Congress is the only way parents can be compensated for the negative side effects that in rare instances accompany vaccinations.

The majority said that Congress found such a system necessary to ensure that vaccines remain readily available, and that federal regulators are in the best position to decide whether vaccines are safe and properly designed.

www.washingtonpost.com...

When federal regulators, such as those in the FDA, were previously employed by Pharma, and there is an established revolving door in which FDA employees can go work for Pharma and vice versa, you can be sure the regulators will always side with the corporation.

If those who believe in vaccines wish to get them, and inject their children and grandchildren, then fine. However, the push to vaccinate everybody is suspect to me.

If vaccines work so well, then those who get them should have no fear of those who do not.


Are you suggesting that we not question an extremely biased source that is known for crappy reporting?

The study says that from 1990-2010 there were 39,082 infant cases reported. Of those, there were 6279 hospitalizations and 1881 deaths. Not 145,800 deaths. There is absolutely no evidence to even remotely support the claim of 145,800 deaths.

Distribution of infant cases reported as hospitalized or as a death to Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) by year, 1990–2010. Note: 1990 was a partial year of VAERS reporting.


But you are totally wrong and misrepresenting the facts.Why?

look:-


[A] confidential study conducted by Connaught Laboratories, a vaccine manufacturer, indicated that ‘‘a fifty-fold under-reporting of adverse events’’ is likely. According to
David Kessler, former commissioner of the FDA, ‘‘only about one percent of serious events [adverse drug reactions] are reported.

If, according to the study’s report above, only 1 to 2 out of 100 adverse events is reported, then the numbers reported by VAERS need to be multiplied by 50 to 100!


do you what factor of 50 means?

google it.

But you conveniently "forgot" the UNDER REPORTING of vaccine deaths by 50 times.Explain that.
edit on 25-1-2013 by beckybecky because: more facts.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 02:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by beckybecky
confidential study conducted by Connaught Laboratories, a vaccine manufacturer, indicated that ‘‘a fifty-fold under-reporting of adverse events’’ is likely.



One can imagine that parents may not always bother to report a small event, but it is rather harder to suppose that the DEATH of a small child would ever go unreported.
Certainly not 1 in 50 of them.

And let us also remember that while the study says that from 1990-2010 there were 1881 deaths... there are thousands, often tens of thousands of deaths every year from just influenza alone (in the USA).



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 06:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by beckybecky
But you are totally wrong and misrepresenting the facts.Why?

look:-


[A] confidential study conducted by Connaught Laboratories, a vaccine manufacturer, indicated that ‘‘a fifty-fold under-reporting of adverse events’’ is likely. According to
David Kessler, former commissioner of the FDA, ‘‘only about one percent of serious events [adverse drug reactions] are reported.

If, according to the study’s report above, only 1 to 2 out of 100 adverse events is reported, then the numbers reported by VAERS need to be multiplied by 50 to 100!


do you what factor of 50 means?

google it.

But you conveniently "forgot" the UNDER REPORTING of vaccine deaths by 50 times.Explain that.
edit on 25-1-2013 by beckybecky because: more facts.


I'd be happy to explain.

To begin with, both of those studies you quoted are speculative (google it). If you multiply the numbers reported to VAERS by 50 or 100, the number of children who experienced an adverse event would be 1,954,100 or 3,908,200, respectively. The number of births in the US is approximately 4,000,000 per year. This would suggest the percentage of children that experience an adverse event is, at the very least, near 50% and could be as high as 98%. No peer-reviewed studies, using real numbers, have shown anything remotely close to this.

Furthermore, had you read the actual study you would have come across this:

Accuracy of reports
VAERS is a passive surveillance system, and the large number of reports to VAERS increases the likelihood that some reports may not be adequately checked for accuracy, especially the less serious ones. Some reports to VAERS do not include full medical record documentation and may contain errors. The VAERS forms often have missing or incorrect data, including age, sex, vaccines administered, and adverse events.

Also, you would have noticed that the sentence directly after what you quoted says this:

Less serious vaccine adverse events (e.g., swelling, fever, or redness at the vaccination site) are more underreported than more serious vaccine adverse events (e.g., hospitalizations and death).

So, what can we gather from this? First, the adverse events that are under reported tend to be less serious. As it turns out, death does not fall into the "less serious" category. Being so, you cannot draw a parallel between under reported adverse events and deaths. Second, the data from VAERS is inaccurate to begin with, so reaching conclusions such as "145,000 infant deaths have resulted from vaccines" is extraordinarily ignorant.
edit on 26-1-2013 by alkali because: typo



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 01:27 AM
link   
reply to post by beckybecky
 

In the spirit of honesty and being that I expect others to admit when they're wrong, I must confess that I made a rather large error in my assessment of the data. My screw up was in the following paragraph:


To begin with, both of those studies you quoted are speculative (google it). If you multiply the numbers reported to VAERS by 50 or 100, the number of children who experienced an adverse event would be 1,954,100 or 3,908,200, respectively. The number of births in the US is approximately 4,000,000 per year. This would suggest the percentage of children that experience an adverse event is, at the very least, near 50% and could be as high as 98%. No peer-reviewed studies, using real numbers, have shown anything remotely close to this.

For some reason I was assuming that the number of cases reported to VAERS (39,082) was the number of cases annually. My assumption was incorrect, as this was the total number of cases from 1990-2010. Adjusting my assessment, the percentage of infants who have experienced adverse events would be 20% at the most, which is a much more reasonable number.

This was an honest mistake. You can see in my first post on this topic that I realized 39,082 represented the total number of infant cases reported to VAERS and not the number reported annually.

HOWEVER, I stand by the rest of my post. The numbers you quoted by Connaught Laboratories and David Kessler are speculative, under reported adverse events tend to be less serious, and the data from VARES is inaccurate. Therefore, reaching the conclusion that 145,000 infants have died from vaccines is absurd.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 06:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by alkali
reply to post by beckybecky
 

In the spirit of honesty and being that I expect others to admit when they're wrong, I must confess that I made a rather large error in my assessment of the data. My screw up was in the following paragraph:


T



HOWEVER, I stand by the rest of my post. The numbers you quoted by Connaught Laboratories and David Kessler are speculative, under reported adverse events tend to be less serious, and the data from VARES is inaccurate. Therefore, reaching the conclusion that 145,000 infants have died from vaccines is absurd.


You forgot to divide by 20.

145000 divide by 20.

so the figures are accurate after all.7200 a year die.so they are correct.you forgot to divide by 20.

it says 145000 killed over 20 years by vaccines.but you forgot that.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by beckybecky

You forgot to divide by 20.

145000 divide by 20.

so the figures are accurate after all.7200 a year die.so they are correct.you forgot to divide by 20.

it says 145000 killed over 20 years by vaccines.but you forgot that.

I didn't forget anything, you misunderstood. I was referencing the total number of deaths with the 145,000 number, not the annual deaths.

Total number of adverse reactions reported to VAERS from 1990-2010: 39,082
Total number of adverse reactions from 1990-2010 if multiplied by 50: 1,954,100
Total number of adverse reactions from 1990-2010 if multiplied by 100: 3,908,200
Total number of deaths reported to VAERS from 1990-2010: 1,881
Total number of deaths from 1990-2010 if multiplied by 50: 94,000
Total number of deaths from 1990-2010 if multiplied by 100: 188,100

I can't make it any clearer than that. Now that we have the numbers straight, we can move on.

The term "adverse reaction" includes everything from soreness to death. The vast majority of people do not report soreness, which is why minor adverse events are under reported. Death, however, is much more serious and therefore much more highly reported. Simply because adverse reactions are under reported does not mean deaths are under reported. There is no parallel between the under reporting of minor adverse reactions and death. Therefore, you cannot say that because minor adverse reactions are under reported that deaths are under reported by the same percentage. For all you or anyone else knows, every adverse reaction that was not reported to VAERS could have been a sore arm.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 02:47 AM
link   
All Vaccine makers have 100% immunity in America.

They CAN'T be sued.

You have to file a claim with the special court set up under the Department of Justice. The "Vaccine Court".

If that isn't proof enough that vaccines are bad.....I don't know what is. If Vaccines were safe they wouldn't be given 100% immunity in America.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 03:30 AM
link   
reply to post by alkali
 

so let me get this straight ... using your numbers, 94,000 (potentially) infant/youth deaths directly resulting from vaccines is acceptable ??

just checking



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 04:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by alkali
 

so let me get this straight ... using your numbers, 94,000 (potentially) infant/youth deaths directly resulting from vaccines is acceptable ??

just checking


Absolutely not. That's the number stated by beckybecky in this post if you multiply the number of infant deaths reported to VAERS by 50. I don't think the number of infant deaths is anywhere remotely close to 94,000.

As I said in my previous posts, I do admit that under reporting is likely (virtually certain), but the extent of under reporting is unknown. To say only 1 or 2 percent of adverse events (which includes everything from soreness to death) are reported to VAERS is entirely speculative and does nothing to pinpoint the rate of under reporting of each specific adverse event. Furthermore, the data that is reported to VAERS is inaccurate to begin with by their own admission. Making bold assumptions based off of speculation and poor quality data is irresponsible, absurd, and entirely meaningless.

More simply, just because adverse events are under reported does not mean that deaths are under reported by an equal ratio.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 05:03 AM
link   
Thank you for posting OP. Dont mind what the trolls have to say.

The severity of the trolls responses in inversly proportional to the truth your information holds.

At least youre getting the word out.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 





new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join