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

a reply to: InverseLookingGlass

i can see one fooking glaring difference between 99 % of MMR patients and HPV patienents :

MMR patients cannot self report any symptoms they may or may not experience as a result of vaccination

all symptoms have to be spotted and interpreted by a 3rd party

OTOH :

HPV vaccine is only given to young adults and adults - who can self report a much greater range of possible reasctions


lastly - on the issue of making things up - please just keep relying - your posts demonstrate my claim better than anything i could write

a reply to: InverseLookingGlass

Regardless of the total numbers of people vaccinated being missing, which would allow us to determine a % rate of adverse effects to each vaccine, the REAL salient point to that entire article in your link is this:

Back in May of 2013, the U.K. revealed via FOI documents that there were 30 years of secret official documents showing that U.K. government vaccine/medical experts have: 1) known the vaccines don’t work; 2) known they cause the diseases they are supposed to prevent; 3) known they are a hazard to children; 4) colluded to lie to the public; and 5) worked to prevent safety studies! [5]

I read that report...and it vindicated our position on vaccines, the Government department and committees associated with them, and the pharmaceutical industry generally.

a reply to: MysterX

What was the source for the report

a reply to: MysterX

citation required

originally posted by: paraphi
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.

But you seem to be ignoring the point in my link that states that, pre-vaccine, the actual infection rates were more like 3.5-5 million people, with a death rate potentially being as low as the stated 482 per 5,000,000. That is a percentage at 0.00964--so, 0.00964% (potentially) of people in the late 50s and early 60s who contracted measles died from complications of the disease.

I fully understand that these are human lives that we're talking about, here, but those are odds that I'm willing to face head on. Did you know that 92 people die in fatal car crashes every day here in America? Yet, I still jump in my car and drive multiple times per day, knowing that there is that risk and that the risk is fully preventable.

Sometimes in life you weigh the risks, and the statistical potential of dying from the disease versus potential issues from jamming a bunch of junk (that we still don't really know what all is contained within the vaccines) into my body because a federal agency tells me I should is a risk I'm willing to take. You don't have to like that, understand it, or accept it, but at least respect the fact that it is a decision that has been arrived at through logical deduction and research--it has nothing to do with alarmism and Jenny McCarthy.

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.

That's great that vaccines have done that--and the massive majority of those deaths in the 80s were because of "third-world countries" and their nearly complete lack of access to good healthcare. In those instances, I would consider the option of getting a vaccine to being better than not.

But that's the difference, here--I know for a fact that I have a very effective immune system, I'm a very healthy person, and I live in a country where health care and medication is at my fingertips everywhere I turn. I can use this information to make the best decision for me. People in, let's say, the impoverished areas of Chad, Africa, may want to make a different decision for themselves based on their circumstances. I would expect that, and I would applaud it--but what I wouldn't do is try to pretend that, for someone in my circumstances, it's asinine not to get the MMR vaccine.

In case you missed it, there are many living people participating in this thread--ask them if vaccinations are worth it. Anyone with an objective opinion should respond with, "It depends."

a reply to: ignorant_ape

a reply to: wmd_2008

It's simple to find...copy and past the quote into your browser search bar and up pops quite a few.

Here is just one.

I neither confirm nor deny the veracity of the information, I'm just pointing out that a little effort would alleviate the need to ask for sources (although MysterX should have included one).

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: InverseLookingGlass

Regardless of the total numbers of people vaccinated being missing, which would allow us to determine a % rate of adverse effects to each vaccine, the REAL salient point to that entire article in your link is this:

Back in May of 2013, the U.K. revealed via FOI documents that there were 30 years of secret official documents showing that U.K. government vaccine/medical experts have: 1) known the vaccines don’t work; 2) known they cause the diseases they are supposed to prevent; 3) known they are a hazard to children; 4) colluded to lie to the public; and 5) worked to prevent safety studies! [5]

I read that report...and it vindicated our position on vaccines, the Government department and committees associated with them, and the pharmaceutical industry generally.

I bet you didn't read it.
I bet you've just read the parts of it which satisfied your belief and took them as gospel didn't you?

I've read it and it didn't take me long to realise it was full of unsubstantiated crap.
And there's loads of dead links in the original article to make it look legitimate (almost like someone was making crap up with the purpose of tricking people...oh it's our shill for Dwoskin et al, Lucija Tomljenovic again!).
And one of her citations is Wakefield's fraudulent study.
And another is from "professional vaccine-injury witness" (his words, not mine) Shoenfeld where she cites his made-up syndrome, ASIA.
Simply by using those two citations makes me think good ole Lucy isn't being very honest...


Here's a nice commentary about that article.
www.metabunk.org...

Anti-vaxxers, dishonest to their very cores.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

I'm just one person speaking out. I'd rather do it imperfectly than stay silent. The reality is that the pharma companies "making stuff up" and calling it legitimate science. I despise that vernacular (making stuff up) but will reciprocate your preference.

There's an army of people, including MD's figuring it out. A self certified chemical cocktail sold to you by a profit machine with 100% legal immunity from vaccine damage needs to be treated very skeptically and absolutely not be forced on people.



Leading researchers speak out on aggressive Pharma marketing of Gardisil

“The full extent of the Gardasil scandal needs to be assessed: everyone knew when this vaccine was released on the American market that it would prove to be worthless. Diane Harper, a major opinion leader in the United States, was one of the first to blow the whistle, pointing out the fraud and scam of it all.I predict that Gardasil will become the greatest medical scandal of all time because at some point in time, the evidence will add up to prove that this vaccine, technical and scientific feat that it may be, has absolutely no effect on cervical cancer and that all the very many adverse effects which destroy lives and even kill, serve no other purpose than to generate profit for the manufacturers. Gardasil is useless and costs a fortune! In addition, decision-makers at all levels are aware of it! Cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome, paralysis of the lower limbs, vaccine-induced MS and vaccine-induced encephalitis can be found, whatever the vaccine.” (source) – Dr. Bernard Dalbergue

Another doctor making noise regarding the HPV vaccine is Dr. Diane Harper. Dr. Harper helped design and carry out the Phase II and Phase III safety and effectiveness studies to get Gardasil approved, and authored many of the published papers about it. She has been a paid speaker and consultant to Merck.

“They created a huge amount of fear in mothers, and appealed to mothers’ sense of duty to get them to get their daughters vaccinated” – Dr Diane Harper

The 2008 FDA Closing Statement on Gardasil reports that 73.3% of the ‘healthy’ girls who participated in the clinical trials developed ‘New Medical Conditions. The list below highlights some of the ‘New Medical Conditions’ reported in the 2008 FDA Closing Statement on Gardasil.

Blood & Lymphatic System Disorders 2.9% = 1 in 34
Gastrointestinal Disorders 13.4% = 1 in 7
General & Administration Site Conditions 3.8% = 1 in 33
Immune System Disorders 2.4% =1 in 50
Infections & Infestations 52.9% = 1 in 2
Injury, Poisoning, & Procedural Complications 8.0% =1 in 12
Investigations 11.8% =1 in 9
Musculoskeletal & Connective Tissue Disorders 6.8% =1 in 14
Nervous System Disorders 9.4% = 1 in 10
Pregnancy, Puerperium & Perinatal Conditions 2.0% = 1 in 50
Psychiatric Disorders 4.4% =1 in 22
Renal Disorders 2.7% =1 in 37
Reproductive & Brest Disorders 24.8 % = 1 in 14
Respiratory, Thoracic & Mediastinal Disorders 5.5% = 1 in 18
Skin & Subcutaneous Tissue Disorders 7.4% = 1 in 13
Surgical Procedures = Appendectomy 10.2% = 1 in 10

source

“The decision to vaccinate with HPV vaccine is a personal decision, not one that must be made for public health. HPV is not a lethal disease in 95% of the infections; and the other 5% are detectable and treatable in the precancerous stage.”

Autoimmune reviews: On the relationship between the HPV vaccine and autoimmune disease.

“The number of viral matches and their locations make the occurrence of side autoimmune cross-reactions in the human host following HPV16-based vaccination almost unavoidable.”
Journal of experimental theraputics and oncology

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: InverseLookingGlass

Regardless of the total numbers of people vaccinated being missing, which would allow us to determine a % rate of adverse effects to each vaccine, the REAL salient point to that entire article in your link is this:

Back in May of 2013, the U.K. revealed via FOI documents that there were 30 years of secret official documents showing that U.K. government vaccine/medical experts have: 1) known the vaccines don’t work; 2) known they cause the diseases they are supposed to prevent; 3) known they are a hazard to children; 4) colluded to lie to the public; and 5) worked to prevent safety studies! [5]

I read that report...and it vindicated our position on vaccines, the Government department and committees associated with them, and the pharmaceutical industry generally.

I bet you didn't read it.
I bet you've just read the parts of it which satisfied your belief and took them as gospel didn't you?

I've read it and it didn't take me long to realise it was full of unsubstantiated crap.
And there's loads of dead links in the original article to make it look legitimate (almost like someone was making crap up with the purpose of tricking people...oh it's our shill for Dwoskin et al, Lucija Tomljenovic again!).
And one of her citations is Wakefield's fraudulent study.
And another is from "professional vaccine-injury witness" (his words, not mine) Shoenfeld where she cites his made-up syndrome, ASIA.
Simply by using those two citations makes me think good ole Lucy isn't being very honest...


Here's a nice commentary about that article.
www.metabunk.org...

Anti-vaxxers, dishonest to their very cores.

The untold resources spent on internet operatives is astounding, don't you think? Covering their tracks is a top priority.

"It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine." -Marcia Angell, MD ("Drug Companies and Doctors: A story of Corruption." NY Review of Books, Jan. 15, 2009.)

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: ignorant_ape

a reply to: wmd_2008

It's simple to find...copy and past the quote into your browser search bar and up pops quite a few.

Here is just one.

I neither confirm nor deny the veracity of the information, I'm just pointing out that a little effort would alleviate the need to ask for sources (although MysterX should have included one).

Well I do know how to search the reason I asked is because quite often the links lead back to sites like natural news who have edited reports in the past to their own agenda.

a reply to: InverseLookingGlass

A high incidence of serious reactions have been reported in the U.S ever since Gardasil was released there in 2006. Even the drug manufacturer’s own clinical trials reveal a 1 in 40 (2.5%) incidence of a serious adverse reaction*, yet Irish parents are still told by the HSE that Gardasil is ‘very safe’.

Families damaged by the HPV vaccine grouping up in Ireland.

The point of this thread is not to battle Pharma shills although I've done that a hundred times on a wide range of sites. The point is to drive home the point. If you want to make your own informed medical decisions you have to work to defeat the Pharma machines. I'm sure there are at least 4-5 paid operatives on this site based on a familiarity with their terms and talking points.
People using: (anti-vaxxers, Westfield + discredited) They also open with ad hominem attacks.

Some are just skeptics looking to hammer on the issues. To you that are amateur skeptics, I assert that you support informed choice for yourself. Don't be a hypocrite --support informed choice for all.

What I don't 'get' is why 'pro-vaxxers' quite literally hate anti-vaxxers?

I work in the health care industry. I refuse vaccinations citing absence of clinical evidence. All the consultants from the multi-disciplinary teams I work on openly support my stance.

Yet people further down the food chain quite literally shout me down and make wild claims that I am putting their health at risk by me not having the jab even though they are having the jab!? WTF?

If they want the jab......fine. I just object to me funding it and paying for their care later in life when they become ill in a degenerative manner (I live in the UK so I pay for their health care as well as mine throughmy tax etc.) .......but I don't shout them down and get angry.

I always leave them with this:

Is it a coincidence that the first generation to be mass vaccinated is also the first generation to suffer an epidemic of Alzheimers?

Of course no one knows the answer because long term studies into vaccinations are blocked at every pass.

Why's that then........?????????

originally posted by: HumberWarriorAll the consultants from the multi-disciplinary teams I work on openly support my stance.

If you're seriously suggesting that multi-disciplinary teams of health care professionals support your anti-vax stance of "absence of clinical evidence" then you are a terrible fibber.

Is it a coincidence that the first generation to be mass vaccinated is also the first generation to suffer an epidemic of Alzheimers?

The dramatic increase in people living to old ages where Alzheimers is most noticeable due to the wonders of modern medicine would have a lot to do with that. Not exactly a tough concept to wrap one's head around had you pondered for more than a split second before posting such an ignorant statement.

originally posted by: HumberWarrior
What I don't 'get' is why 'pro-vaxxers' quite literally hate anti-vaxxers?

I work in the health care industry. I refuse vaccinations citing absence of clinical evidence. All the consultants from the multi-disciplinary teams I work on openly support my stance.

Yet people further down the food chain quite literally shout me down and make wild claims that I am putting their health at risk by me not having the jab even though they are having the jab!? WTF?

If they want the jab......fine. I just object to me funding it and paying for their care later in life when they become ill in a degenerative manner (I live in the UK so I pay for their health care as well as mine throughmy tax etc.) .......but I don't shout them down and get angry.

I always leave them with this:

Is it a coincidence that the first generation to be mass vaccinated is also the first generation to suffer an epidemic of Alzheimers?

Of course no one knows the answer because long term studies into vaccinations are blocked at every pass.

Why's that then........?????????

It's not so much hating anti-vaxxers (or those who are pro-disease/anti-science as they're better described) as I don't know them personally to hate.

What I really dislike is their dishonesty and stubborn refusal to acknowledge the science and that by doing so they are deliberately putting people's health at risk.

What are the individual disciplines of the consultants in the MDTs you work with?

You say you cite "lack of clinical evidence" as a reason not to vaccinate.
Why do you believe there's a lack of clinical evidence?
What evidence would convince you?

You say there's no long-term evidence?
What's your definition of long-term?

A couple of statements you make lead me to believe that you don't really know what your talking about, namely;
"Yet people further down the food chain quite literally shout me down and make wild claims that I am putting their health at risk by me not having the jab even though they are having the jab!? WTF?
That shows a complete lack of comprehension as to how vaccines work.
This might help you understand.
shotofprevention.com...

Another;
"If they want the jab......fine. I just object to me funding it and paying for their care later in life..."
What's the clinical evidence you prove vaccines cause harm in later life?
You use that as a reason for not vaccinating so you MUST have some that shows this mustn't you?
A vaccination cost a couple of quid.
Treating someone for a disease costs a lot more.
Whilst I don't object to anyone being treated for any disease it does annoy me when it's so easily preventable.

As for your Alzheimer's connection...?
Really?
You're blaming vaccinations?
Again, please cite the clinical evidence supporting this.

It would be interesting to know what health-care role you have too as your statement "Yet people further down the food chain " leads me to believe you don't have the necessary compassion to be directly involved with patients.

In fact, your whole post leads me to conclude that you're not in fact a health-care worker at all.

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: InverseLookingGlass

Regardless of the total numbers of people vaccinated being missing, which would allow us to determine a % rate of adverse effects to each vaccine, the REAL salient point to that entire article in your link is this:

Back in May of 2013, the U.K. revealed via FOI documents that there were 30 years of secret official documents showing that U.K. government vaccine/medical experts have: 1) known the vaccines don’t work; 2) known they cause the diseases they are supposed to prevent; 3) known they are a hazard to children; 4) colluded to lie to the public; and 5) worked to prevent safety studies! [5]

I read that report...and it vindicated our position on vaccines, the Government department and committees associated with them, and the pharmaceutical industry generally.

I bet you didn't read it.
I bet you've just read the parts of it which satisfied your belief and took them as gospel didn't you?

I've read it and it didn't take me long to realise it was full of unsubstantiated crap.
And there's loads of dead links in the original article to make it look legitimate (almost like someone was making crap up with the purpose of tricking people...oh it's our shill for Dwoskin et al, Lucija Tomljenovic again!).
And one of her citations is Wakefield's fraudulent study.
And another is from "professional vaccine-injury witness" (his words, not mine) Shoenfeld where she cites his made-up syndrome, ASIA.
Simply by using those two citations makes me think good ole Lucy isn't being very honest...


Here's a nice commentary about that article.
www.metabunk.org...

Anti-vaxxers, dishonest to their very cores.

The untold resources spent on internet operatives is astounding, don't you think? Covering their tracks is a top priority.

"It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine." -Marcia Angell, MD ("Drug Companies and Doctors: A story of Corruption." NY Review of Books, Jan. 15, 2009.)

Your not wrong there.
The amount of money the Dwoskin Foundation et al have paid Lucja and Chris for fabricated "research" could have been put to much better use.
Don't you think?

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass
a reply to: ignorant_ape

I'm just one person speaking out. I'd rather do it imperfectly than stay silent. The reality is that the pharma companies "making stuff up" and calling it legitimate science. I despise that vernacular (making stuff up) but will reciprocate your preference.

There's an army of people, including MD's figuring it out. A self certified chemical cocktail sold to you by a profit machine with 100% legal immunity from vaccine damage needs to be treated very skeptically and absolutely not be forced on people.

Dierdre Little?
Really?
You lot will quote anyone to try to prove your beliefs won't you?
www.skepticalraptor.com...

a reply to: Pardon?

In other news Spain has just confirmed their first case of Diphtheria in over 30 years.
Thanks anti vaxxers...

www.thelocal.es...

Vaccines save lives....is any arguing against this? If not why anti vax?.

a reply to: HumberWarrior

Maybe because you cause outbreaks of diseases that should have been destroyed years ago. You give the chance of viruses changing so one day Measles will act more like smallpox.
It is about society as a whole.
As soon as an outbreak happens all the anti vaxxers will rush to get their kids vaccinated, happens every time.

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass
a reply to: ignorant_ape

Leading researchers speak out on aggressive Pharma marketing of Gardisil

“The full extent of the Gardasil scandal needs to be assessed: everyone knew when this vaccine was released on the American market that it would prove to be worthless. Diane Harper, a major opinion leader in the United States, was one of the first to blow the whistle, pointing out the fraud and scam of it all.I predict that Gardasil will become the greatest medical scandal of all time because at some point in time, the evidence will add up to prove that this vaccine, technical and scientific feat that it may be, has absolutely no effect on cervical cancer and that all the very many adverse effects which destroy lives and even kill, serve no other purpose than to generate profit for the manufacturers. Gardasil is useless and costs a fortune! In addition, decision-makers at all levels are aware of it! Cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome, paralysis of the lower limbs, vaccine-induced MS and vaccine-induced encephalitis can be found, whatever the vaccine.” (source) – Dr. Bernard Dalbergue

Another doctor making noise regarding the HPV vaccine is Dr. Diane Harper. Dr. Harper helped design and carry out the Phase II and Phase III safety and effectiveness studies to get Gardasil approved, and authored many of the published papers about it. She has been a paid speaker and consultant to Merck.

“They created a huge amount of fear in mothers, and appealed to mothers’ sense of duty to get them to get their daughters vaccinated” – Dr Diane Harper

Whilst Diane Harper was rightly concerned about the marketing of Gardasil she didn't mention "scam" or "fraud".
And she didn't think it "would be worthless" either.

www.badscience.net...

And just who is Dr Bernard Dalbergue?
www.skepticalraptor.com...