M
Myles_Falworth
Guest
Our numbers, unfortunately, are growing EXPONENTIALLY.
Catholic Teaching and Immunization Policy
- Thread starter blackforest
- Start date
- Status
P
pnewton
Guest
On that, I will take a wait and see position, unless you have data to back up exponential growth.
G
Gab123
Guest
It’s so easy to just brush concerns away with “researchers have looked” and “the evidence is not there”. So how do you explain the tiny print on the brand name PEDIACELvaccination documentation that states otherwise? It’s easy to steer the public on “campaigns to have children sleep on their backs” and have people believe that the cases of SIDS is due to a perfectly healthy baby that survived 9 months inside a womb will die because of sleeping on its back. One would think that stuff like that would have been figured out by mother’s having babies for thousands of years. What if it’s your son or daughter, and then you read this:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Last edited:
blackforest
Well-known member
The wording of this sentence is unclear, but are you asking for links to criticisms of the CDC’s conduct? You can pull this up as easily as I can by entering “CDC” in the search bar at bmj.com.
P
pnewton
Guest
No, I was asking, if the CDC is so misleading as to immunizations, where are these respected organizations picking up and proving them wrong. But thank you for the link, for those that see the CDC as a shadowy organization. The can look up what the BMJ has to say on the topic.
But I do have a question, didn’t you say that government should be in charge of research? It would seem your links show that this will be no solutions to bias in research.
blackforest
Well-known member
There’s no perfect solution to any problem; they all come with trade-offs. Moving not just the research, but the manufacturing itself, into the public sector will alleviate, (if not eliminate), the conflicts of interest.
Almost immediately after the vaccine manufacturers successfully lobbied for and got their indemnification in 1986, the vaccine schedule exploded. Vaccine recommendations would look a lot different today if consumers still had the right to sue manufacturers.
M
Myles_Falworth
Guest
Here’s a study which I invite all the medical and academic folks here to comment on.
P
pnewton
Guest
Do you think there would ever be a way to separate research from funding, like having all research done through an organization (like the CDC), but the projects and the funding coming from government, pharmaceutical companies, universities, or wherever, and not allowing the source of the funding be known to the researchers?
P
PetraG
Guest
Tell me what the maternal and infant mortality rate were “for thousands of years.” By the way, it is the babies who sleep on their backs who more rarely suffer from SIDS.
From Research on Back Sleeping And SIDS | Safe to Sleep
Compared with infants who sleep on their backs, infants who sleep on their stomachs:
Are less reactive to noise.
Experience sudden decreases in blood pressure and heart rate control.
Experience less movement, higher arousal thresholds, and longer periods of deep sleep.(5,6)
These characteristics might put an infant at higher risk of SIDS. The simple act of placing infants on their backs to sleep significantly lowers SIDS risk.
As stomach sleeping has declined in response to back-sleeping campaigns worldwide, statistics show that the contribution of side sleeping to SIDS risk has increased. Research shows that side sleeping is just as risky as stomach sleep position and, therefore, should not be used.(7)
Placing babies on their backs to sleep is not associated with risks for other problems. For example, there is no increase in aspiration or complaints of vomiting when babies are placed on their backs to sleep.8
You have essentially made it impossible to make a convincing argument that children who used to die or be permanently disabled are now healthy because of the HepB vaccine and adverse side effects rare. Really, if you aren’t “buying” the research with regards to SIDS, I do not know what sort of evidence would convince you. If you don’t want to believe, you won’t believe it, evidence or none, period.
As for the fine print, I found that the vaccine can cause an allergic reaction and that, as with other injectable medications, precautions are in order for those with bleeding disorders. In other words, pretty much what I would expect. What else did you find?
At any rate, if you’re going to resist looking at the research that looks into what is risky and what isn’t and yet accuse me of being a “fear-monger,” I think we need to just wrap this up. It will go nowhere.
I am saying that parents ought to accept every new vaccine that comes down the pike? No, I didn’t say that. As for HepB, though, it has been in use for a long time, over 30 years if I have my dates right.
Last edited:
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
I’m not sure what you are saying here: if you look at the causes of death after vaccination, they include drowning and car accident. Did the vaccine cause either of those? Then why conclude it caused any of the others? People die. Take any random group of 1,000 people…some will die of all sorts of things in the next year. So what? You need a causal connection.
And if you look at the parts about SIDS, what I see is that the death rate for those who took the vaccine is .4/1000; for the “open label” (whatever that is) it’s .8/1000; and the overall SIDS death rate in the US from 1985-91 is 1.5/1000. It seems to me that if you want to draw bogus conclusions, you could conclude that taking the vaccine actually cuts the death rate from SIDS from 1.5 to .04/1000!
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
Absolutely. You have to get the profit motive out of it. Of course there would still be problems, but you have a MUCH better chance of having the organization do the right thing.
Another example from the vaccine manufacturer where I worked: There was some anti-toxin (can’t remember the name) they bought from the US Army after WWII. At the time, the brilliant cost accountant said to himself, "Hmmm…we have to account for the storage costs (had to be held at a certain temperature and kept in suspension) and we have to account for the imputed financial costs (if we took the money we paid and put it in the bank we’d get 2% interest, so we need attribute that to costs). Fast forward a few decades…all those “costs” have compounded every year. Our “cost” for the product was (when I worked there) far ABOVE the retail price of any manufacturer. Did we ever sell any? Of course not. Was it a valuable product? Yes–it was used for outbreaks of a fairly rare disease, but the point was the disease had to be treated very quickly. Our stockpile was valuable because of where we were located. But no one wanted to write down the cost–not the corporation, not the operations dept., and certainly not marketing. Here’s an excellent example of the quest for profit being completely counter-productive. And it’s not an isolated case, by any means.
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
A good slide presentation on measles by the CDC–
p. 3: 1985 had 1.2 MILLION deaths worldwide from measles. By 2016 this number was <100,000; an estimated 20.4 MILLION lives saved, and deaths were reduced 84%.
p. 4: before 1963, in the US there were 48,000 hospitalizations from measles; 4,000 developed encephalitis; and there were 450-500 deaths a year.
You tell me: Does the vaccine work? Is it worth the small risk of a reaction to get the vaccine?
p. 3: 1985 had 1.2 MILLION deaths worldwide from measles. By 2016 this number was <100,000; an estimated 20.4 MILLION lives saved, and deaths were reduced 84%.
p. 4: before 1963, in the US there were 48,000 hospitalizations from measles; 4,000 developed encephalitis; and there were 450-500 deaths a year.
You tell me: Does the vaccine work? Is it worth the small risk of a reaction to get the vaccine?
G
Gab123
Guest
Court cases that ruled the vaccine played a role in the death of infants. For example, simply read the first statement of page two of this court case:
https://ecf.cofc.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2013vv0611-73-0
That case alone validates that vaccines can contribute to and cause SIDS deaths in infants. Yet campaigns that simply blame sleeping positions as the primary cause forcause for “sudden infant death deaths syndrome” seem to willingly want to be in denial about it. Yet the FDA itself confirms the contribution.
Last edited:
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
I read most of the case you cited. Does it “validate that vaccines played a role in the death of infants…”? No. Read it again. It’s very specific. It allows a LOT of wiggle room in regard to “cause.” No one knows what causes SIDS. “He got vaccinated. He died the next night.” You could also say “He ate dinner. He died the next night,” or any number of things. Where’s the link? The court case (judges and juries usually aren’t doctors…) proves nothing at all.
There were 3,700 SIDS deaths in the US in 2015. All were babies <1 year old. The odds of dying of SIDS are small, but real. The odds of dying of SIDS the day after a vaccination? Much smaller, but equally real. The chance that the death had nothing to do with the vaccinations? Simply calculate the number of babies that age divided into the number of SIDS deaths…a small percentage. But probability is a very interesting thing–go back to the classic question: How many people need to be in a room (randomly) for one of them to have a 50% chance of having the same birthday as another person in the room? 23. A much, much lower number than most people guess.
Note that they gave the baby an Advil that night. How many deaths per year from Advil and other NSAIDs? 16,000 in in 2005. Risk of Harm from Motrin, Aleve, Advil - Better Odds in a Crap Shoot
And yet the court seemed to pass over that. Why?
Last edited:
P
PetraG
Guest
Yes, there is a compensation fund set up for injuries due to vaccination. Those are rare, not impossible.
I don’t know what campaigns “simply blame sleeping postion.” Find me materials that say your child cannot die of SIDS if sleeping on their back, can’t contract hepatitis if vaccinated, or can’t possibly suffer from a side effect of a vaccination. No one says that. No, you were saying
as if babies never suffered from unexplained deaths before there were vaccinations. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Infant mortality used to be so high that no one was surprised when a baby died in its first year; in 1900, 1st year mortality was about 100 deaths per 1000 births.
Exactly. There is a compensation fund set up to compensate families in a case where vaccination could be reasonably possible as a cause of death. No one is saying these things are impossible.
Last edited:
blackforest
Well-known member
I haven’t considered that possibility. I realize that funding is hard to come by for researchers. I also know from the research that some funding sources can taint academic freedom and scientific results. http://www.cochrane.org/MR000033/METHOD_industry-sponsorship-and-research-outcome
For whatever it’s worth, I’ll also throw out an anecdote. A friend of mine left her PhD program in chemistry because her advisor ordered that she continue to re-run an experiment until it (poof!) produced the results demanded by the grantor. She can’t be the only ethical scientist who finds this practice frustrating.
For whatever it’s worth, I’ll also throw out an anecdote. A friend of mine left her PhD program in chemistry because her advisor ordered that she continue to re-run an experiment until it (poof!) produced the results demanded by the grantor. She can’t be the only ethical scientist who finds this practice frustrating.
blackforest
Well-known member
To be fair, I think you’re confusing her with me. I’m actually the one who found your case for mandatory, routine childhood Hep B vaccination fear-based, so send your flames my way, please.
Last edited:
P
PetraG
Guest
I did not say vaccinations ought to be mandatory. I said that it is a sensible choice for most people because the risk to everyone generally is far lower with a very high vaccination rate than without one. The method still works if some patients are not vaccinated, provided the fraction is not too high, or if some fraction of people who get the vaccination don’t personally mount an immulogic response (as is usually the case).To be fair, I think you’re confusing her with me. I’m actually the one who found your case for mandatory, routine childhood Hep B vaccination fear-based, so send your flames my way, please.
If, on the other hand, a large fraction of the population is too suspicious to comply with voluntary immunization, then there will be too many people who are disabled or die from preventable diseases because someone else wasn’t terribly good at risk assessment.
Not wanting unvaccinated children in daycare is reasonable. They bite each other; they scratch each other. There is a reason to consider them a risk for spreading communicable diseases.
Last edited:
M
Myles_Falworth
Guest
This is a study which SHOWS that vaccinated children have a higher incidence of several chronic illnesses, such as ADHD, and Autism. I am asking any doctor, nurse or scientist to read this study and please let me know what you think of it.
Edit: I’ve since learned that this study was retracted - possibly since the persons who completed the surveys were not identified. Please disregard my prior comments on this study.
Edit: I’ve since learned that this study was retracted - possibly since the persons who completed the surveys were not identified. Please disregard my prior comments on this study.
Last edited:
P
pnewton
Guest
If you want a comment, I noticed the methodology is self-reporting by home-schoolers as to the illnesses. I also noticed that those who do not vaccinate were less likely to use a dentist or to take a child to regular check-ups. A parent reporting a doctor’s diagnosis will be less for those who do not seek a doctor for diagnosis.
- Status