GOP debate puts vaccinations back in the spotlight

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
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.

You are a clever woman but some people believe not all reactions are reported without understanding that even thought they looked horrific, they were not serious enough to be reported by a nurse or doctor. You wondered how many are not reported, well let me tell you that only the unusually adverse ones are reported as temperature (etc) for a couple of hours or days is not what would be considered serious.

originally posted by: Agartha

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
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.

You are a clever woman but some people believe not all reactions are reported without understanding that even thought they looked horrific, they were not serious enough to be reported by a nurse or doctor. You wondered how many are not reported, well let me tell you that only the unusually adverse ones are reported as temperature (etc) for a couple of hours or days is not what would be considered serious.

True. My youngest had fluid under her skin at the injection site for weeks after two vaccinations -- like a hard knot.

But, even that i did not consider serious or report.

And as I typed that, I just recalled that last year, my husband and I both received the flu mist while at the pediatrician's with our daughter. Within a couple of hours we both had what felt like a nasty sinus bug that lasted a couple of weeks. But, again, we didn't report it because we didn't think it was too serious. Perhaps we should have.

originally posted by: Boadicea

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.

There's no confusion whether vaccines are to blame for SBS.
There's no overlap in side effects caused by vaccines and the physical result of SBS.
Vaccines do not cause retinal detachment nor haemorrhage
Vaccines do not cause soft tissue contusions.
Vaccines do not break bones.

The fact that they're even mentioned in the same breath is abhorrent.

Read more of that piece (personally I think those who make the connection between SBS and vaccines deserve all the insults that can be thrown at them, but that's just my opinion...), click the links provided too.

As for the gold standard of testing safety and efficacy, no, vaccines have never been subjected to that.
Oh.
Wait.
www.infona.pl...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
www.med.upenn.edu...
clinicaltrials.gov...

They took me as long to find as it took me to type in "double blind placebo controlled study vaccines".
Do you understand now when I say that the information is there if only you would look for it?

However, even if there were these studies for every single vaccine, old and new, anti-vaxxers would still not believe them
Because there's is a belief system and not a science-based rationale.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Pardon?

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

Accept my apologies.

jlejf;aewkfh;awhfawio

I've been planning a trip overseas and I hear "Get your vaccinations Lolz"...

But in all seriousness, if I die due to not getting vaccinated, my lack-of-offspring will benefit the species as a whole. Survival of the fittest ya know?

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

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

That states 122 but then it explains why there weren't 122 deaths.
Which is that VAERS data shows no causality.
I don't know how many times I have to tell you before you get it.

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

No, it's something which is not specific to vaccines so any vaccine mandate has nothing to do with it whatsoever.
Like I said, it's more akin to the storage and preparation of food than it is to the actual vaccines themselves.
It not the vaccines causing problems in this instance, it's the failure to store and/or deliver them properly.
Ever had to store medication in a fridge before?
Same thing.

a reply to: cooperton

If you got the vaccinations and lived then your offspring and society as a whole will benefit as well.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: cooperton

If you got the vaccinations and lived then your offspring and society as a whole will benefit as well.

But then wouldn't the weakness in my genes be perpetuated to my offspring? Vaccines are like genomic casts... do we want to give birth to people with a crippled genome? I understand if you have children and are worried about them manifesting these diseases, but looking at it from the perspective of the species as a whole... it is irresponsible to deliver vaccines... by this, you are allowing weakness to propagate.

Just looking at it from an "evolutionary" perspective.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Agartha

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
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.

You are a clever woman but some people believe not all reactions are reported without understanding that even thought they looked horrific, they were not serious enough to be reported by a nurse or doctor. You wondered how many are not reported, well let me tell you that only the unusually adverse ones are reported as temperature (etc) for a couple of hours or days is not what would be considered serious.

True. My youngest had fluid under her skin at the injection site for weeks after two vaccinations -- like a hard knot.

But, even that i did not consider serious or report.

And as I typed that, I just recalled that last year, my husband and I both received the flu mist while at the pediatrician's with our daughter. Within a couple of hours we both had what felt like a nasty sinus bug that lasted a couple of weeks. But, again, we didn't report it because we didn't think it was too serious. Perhaps we should have.

If in any doubt, report it.
And as Agartha says, the likelihood of any reaction being reported is directly proportional to its severity.

And again, to cement its unreliability, look at the dataset I ran earlier.
I used two search parameters, "Death" & "Neonatal Death".
The majority of the results which are shown are incomplete which would lead me to think that they weren't filled in by a medical professional.
If you're reporting something as serious as that you don't skim over the details.

And that leads me to this.
scienceblogs.com...

a reply to: Pardon?

As you already well know, I have not studied the issue enough to have an opinion, but I do know that others with far more experience and knowledge do find a link between SBS and vaccinations. I do understand enough that no one can definitively know. So the more you claim as absolute fact that which you -- nor anyone -- can know as fact, the less credibility I find.

It's funny... I never had any problems with vaccines until the full frontal assault began on anyone who dared question vaccines, and (of course) the demand for mandatory vaccination. That was when I started researching, and realized the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth is not that easy to pin down. In large part because the information we need to know has been hidden by color of law.

I will check out your links though...

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Pardon?

As you already well know, I have not studied the issue enough to have an opinion, but I do know that others with far more experience and knowledge do find a link between SBS and vaccinations. I do understand enough that no one can definitively know. So the more you claim as absolute fact that which you -- nor anyone -- can know as fact, the less credibility I find.

It's funny... I never had any problems with vaccines until the full frontal assault began on anyone who dared question vaccines, and (of course) the demand for mandatory vaccination. That was when I started researching, and realized the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth is not that easy to pin down. In large part because the information we need to know has been hidden by color of law.

I will check out your links though...

There is no causation between vaccines and signs of SBS.
There is no correlation between vaccines and SBS.
The only association between SBS and vaccines are babies. That's it.

So no, they haven't found a link because there isn't one.
They have created one.
And why have they created it?
Well in Buttram's case he gets paid handsomely, win or lose (actually that should just be lose), for testifying in litigation cases.
There's no responsibility and no recourse for him testifying. He just gives his opinion and gets paid for it.
So what if a child abuser gets away with a crime. Harold gets his money and that's what's important to him.

Your sentence "I do understand enough that no one can definitively know. So the more you claim as absolute fact that which you -- nor anyone -- can know as fact, the less credibility I find." is definitive proof that you don't understand enough and/or your comprehension of the subject is obviously tainted with the belief system you adhere to as any evidence which challenges your belief will immediately be dismissed as to acknowledge them would destroy that belief.

a reply to: Pardon?

repeat after me: "vaccines are safe and effective", "vaccines cannot cause _________ disease", "your doctors (and their overlords big daddy pharma) are infallible"

This is pounded into the heads of the gullible masses, so of course the events won't be reported. 10% reporting of iatrogenic injury is fairly well established.

Here is a typical conversation "hello, my son just had some crazy s##t happen to him right after he had his shots" . "Ma'am, there is some virus going around right now that he probably got, vaccines are safe and effective, and vaccines cannot cause that crazy s##t". "Oh thank you doctor, well you know everything, its not like your entire medical schooling was paid for by the drug companies, and half your professors were on the payroll of pharma, while teaching you about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines which have never been tested against a non-vaccinated control, or with multiple shots given".

Oh wait you don't hear that last part, because it ends with repeating in your head "the doctor knows all".

Also parents are told to give their kids tylenol or NSAIDS to help the kids with the pain, but really its to cover the "minor" adverse reactions that occur in a very high percentage of vaccinations, though we don't know how high exactly because you must remember that vaccines are safe and effective...

originally posted by: zardust
a reply to: Pardon?

repeat after me: "vaccines are safe and effective", "vaccines cannot cause _________ disease", "your doctors (and their overlords big daddy pharma) are infallible"

This is pounded into the heads of the gullible masses, so of course the events won't be reported. 10% reporting of iatrogenic injury is fairly well established.

Here is a typical conversation "hello, my son just had some crazy s##t happen to him right after he had his shots" . "Ma'am, there is some virus going around right now that he probably got, vaccines are safe and effective, and vaccines cannot cause that crazy s##t". "Oh thank you doctor, well you know everything, its not like your entire medical schooling was paid for by the drug companies, and half your professors were on the payroll of pharma, while teaching you about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines which have never been tested against a non-vaccinated control, or with multiple shots given".

Oh wait you don't hear that last part, because it ends with repeating in your head "the doctor knows all".

Also parents are told to give their kids tylenol or NSAIDS to help the kids with the pain, but really its to cover the "minor" adverse reactions that occur in a very high percentage of vaccinations, though we don't know how high exactly because you must remember that vaccines are safe and effective...

Lots of words.
Minimal substance.
Par for the course.

a reply to: Pardon?

Okay... you have made your opinion known... repeatedly. I have made my position known. Maybe one of these days, just for you, I will write a whole thread about the connection some experts are making between SBS and adverse vaccination reactions, and then you can post all the links and information you want without derailing a thread... and then I can respond when I've at least done an appropriate amount of research to have an opinion!

originally posted by: zardust

Oh wait you don't hear that last part, because it ends with repeating in your head "the doctor knows all".

No, medical professionals don't know it all but they are the ones you trust if you have a medical emergency, right?
If you think you are having a heart attack or a stroke you'd go to see doctors and nurses, not a mechanic or a janitor.
So why mock people that have studied for so many years to understand pathophysiology to save people's lives?

originally posted by: Agartha

originally posted by: zardust

Oh wait you don't hear that last part, because it ends with repeating in your head "the doctor knows all".

No, medical professionals don't know it all but they are the ones you trust if you have a medical emergency, right?
If you think you are having a heart attack or a stroke you'd go to see doctors and nurses, not a mechanic or a janitor.
So why mock people that have studied for so many years to understand pathophysiology to save people's lives?

I'm not speaking for anyone but myself, but I don't trust "doctors." They can be a godsend... they can also do more damage than can be measured, often simply through not recognizing their own limitations and lack of knowledge. And when greed comes into it, patients are really screwed.

I can honestly say that I would be dead if I had trusted a couple doctors, instead of finding other answers. It used to be that we could get a second opinion; now, insurance companies don't want to pay for it, the original doctor often gets quite offended if you don't "trust" his opinion -- and being treated by a doctor that has a grudge against you is worse than eating in a restaurant where you pissed off the cook!

Doctors have managed to keep my daughter alive -- barely -- but couldn't fix what was broken. We found a remedy which seems to be working better than we ever dreamed... and it's illegal in 46 states because doctors decided it has no medicinal value. Thankfully, not ours.

We know better than to trust doctors. We learned the hard and painful way.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Pardon?

Okay... you have made your opinion known... repeatedly. I have made my position known. Maybe one of these days, just for you, I will write a whole thread about the connection some experts are making between SBS and adverse vaccination reactions, and then you can post all the links and information you want without derailing a thread... and then I can respond when I've at least done an appropriate amount of research to have an opinion!

I will look forward to that thread.
Feel free to message me when you've posted it.
Although the sum content from the "experts" won't add up to a very long thread.

And on the subject of derailing, you were the one that brought it up.
(Oh, what do you consider to be "an appropriate amount of research"?)

originally posted by: Boadicea


I'm not speaking for anyone but myself, but I don't trust "doctors." They can be a godsend... they can also do more damage than can be measured, often simply through not recognizing their own limitations and lack of knowledge. And when greed comes into it, patients are really screwed.

I can honestly say that I would be dead if I had trusted a couple doctors, instead of finding other answers. It used to be that we could get a second opinion; now, insurance companies don't want to pay for it, the original doctor often gets quite offended if you don't "trust" his opinion -- and being treated by a doctor that has a grudge against you is worse than eating in a restaurant where you pissed off the cook!

Doctors have managed to keep my daughter alive -- barely -- but couldn't fix what was broken. We found a remedy which seems to be working better than we ever dreamed... and it's illegal in 46 states because doctors decided it has no medicinal value. Thankfully, not ours.

We know better than to trust doctors. We learned the hard and painful way.

Well, I work with doctors, many of them and I see how they worry about patients and how they do their best to save them. Of course there are doctors out there that are not nice people and may be be driven by greed, they are humans after all, but the majority of doctors I know (and I have worked with a good hundred of them) do worry about patients and work really hard to improve their health.

And with some, we have also cried quietly when we have lost a patient.
The majority of health professionals have chosen their jobs to do good, not evil.

originally posted by: Agartha

The majority of health professionals have chosen their jobs to do good, not evil.

I don't doubt that. But that's little consolation to those who have been harmed by inappropriate or inadequate medical care, even when the doctor is doing the best they know to do. It isn't always enough. And when doctors do less than their best, the harm they can cause is unmeasurable.

Trust can only go so far. Doctors are fallible humans. They are not omnipotent and omniscient.

originally posted by: Boadicea

I don't doubt that. But that's little consolation to those who have been harmed by inappropriate or inadequate medical care, even when the doctor is doing the best they know to do. It isn't always enough. And when doctors do less than their best, the harm they can cause is unmeasurable.

Trust can only go so far. Doctors are fallible humans. They are not omnipotent and omniscient.

What do you suggest then? If one bad doctor makes them all bad, should we just ban all doctors?

Tell me something please, just to understand what you are talking about: let say a member of your family has an accident, what would you do? Would you call 999 and take them to the hospital? If you don't trust doctors then I guess you don't trust those working in ER and paramedics?

The way I see it, because I see it everyday is that doctors in general are not heartless people, they get punished heavily when they make even the smallest mistake and that we expect far too much from them.... like you say, they are humans, let's just respect what they do for us.