Vaccination & epidemic

[orthodoc]

The chart represents lawsuits filed and the subsequent settlements or dismissals, not number of cases. 'Deaths' means that a death occurred and a plaintiff has filed a suit claiming that the death was vaccine-related. This is not a chart that provides statistics about vaccine-related injury, it's a chart about lawsuits.

There were numerous lawsuits a few decades ago claiming that mishandling of deliveries by obstetricians caused cerebral palsy in infants. There were numerous enormous monetary awards from juries. The science demonstrated that cerebral palsy is not due to birth injury, but begins early in pregnancy. Nevertheless, the judgments stood.

I would look at CDC or WHO databases if I were looking for data on injuries. Even then, every negative sensation experienced by anyone who has received a vaccine within the past few weeks is recorded. There are no attempts to determine causation; it's a database that can, at most, provide information as to association.

Association does not infer causation.

[lumberjim]

https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!...ne/iE5Eop4FePs

Was this for real?

[orthodoc]

At this time of night, without having the time to devote further research to it ... this link is to a post by someone named 'John' on an unnamed board, who provided a nonfunctioning link to a court decision. We can only take 'John's' word for the summary.

The key phrase I see in the post is the reference to the 'Eggshell Skull Rule', and the admission that Benjamin 'may have had a genetic predisposition or a physiologic susceptibility' to intractable seizures, encephalopathy, and developmental delay.

I'm sorry, LJ, I'd have to look into this more fully before saying anything. If this child had normal health prior to the immunization, does that prove that the immunization caused his subsequent health problems? Would he have developed those problems regardless of immunization because he had a previously undiagnosed condition? Is there evidence that the vaccination specifically caused the subsequent health problem; is the effect reproducible; is it dose-dependent; is it biologically explainable/logical?

I will try to find information on this case tomorrow.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by orthodoc

I would look at CDC or WHO databases if I were looking for data on injuries. Even then, every negative sensation experienced by anyone who has received a vaccine within the past few weeks is recorded.

Did you miss-type this? I'd assume most parents who are up all night nursing their fever spiking babies through the vaccination process have already been told that they'll probably have a fever and their doctor will not welcome a call about something that has already been explained.

[tw]

Originally Posted by lumberjim

shut up, tw.

"lumberjim you ignorant slut." Even your own numbers demonstrate the MMR vaccine is near zero risk. You did not do valid research (ignored perspective) to put infants (not just your own) at greater risk. Now your only provided numbers are from lawsuits. Which have less relationship to science.

As orthodoc and others demonstrate, a specific number is hard to isolate. Too many variables (some defined earlier) result in various numbers. However we do know this. lumberjim's mistake and repeated denials is a poster child of the problem. Risks of not doing the MMR vaccines are many times greater than any adverse reaction. Those numbers are not in dispute. We know fears of autism (like so many other fears that preceded it) are completely misplaced.

The post from 'John' further demonstrates junk science. The concept says, "Once we have eliminated all other possibilities, then what remains must be the truth." One small problem. That MMR decision did not and could not eliminate so many other possibilities. So its logic was obviously flawed. Only junk science reasoning can create that resulting conclusion.

So lumberjim remains angry. The emotional (1. due to motivated reasoning and 2. not seeing what is obviously junk science reasoning) fear to learn from mistakes.

[Big Sarge]

tw - sometimes you just like to piss on the campfire don't you? Seems like you are determined to keep things on a personal level. Be glad Jim is a good man because you can push some folks too far. Just sayin'......

[orthodoc]

Originally Posted by Griff

Did you miss-type this? I'd assume most parents who are up all night nursing their fever spiking babies through the vaccination process have already been told that they'll probably have a fever and their doctor will not welcome a call about something that has already been explained.

Even when common side effects have been explained, parents may bring their child in to the ER if they can't settle the baby (especially first-time parents with a 2 month old). Or their physician will likely ask, at the next visit, whether there were any problems or side effects with the previous immunizations. Those things go into the databases.

[Clodfobble]

Or sometimes they don't bother. My daughter's only in the database because I put her there myself. The doctor felt that head-to-toe hives and explosive emerald green diarrhea with no end in sight were not severe enough reactions, apparently.

[Griff]

Yeah, in my experience they didn't want to hear about potential issues especially from someone who tried to open a discussion about stretching out the schedule. The politics seem to trump what is actually happening with the child. Picture a discussion with tw as if he made his living in medicine.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by lumberjim

https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!...ne/iE5Eop4FePs

Was this for real?

Probably NOT !

I've spent a while trying to find an original, reliable record of this "court case"... nothing.

This looks a lot like a plant on a Google forum database.
My searches turned up numerous web pages all referring back to this one post.
Those web pages (except for one newpaper) were obviously politically "anti-vaccine".
The newspaper also only reprinted information in the Google posting.

I found nothing new, beyond what is in LJ's link.
Maybe others can be successful, but I'll be surprised.

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by Big Sarge

tw - sometimes you just like to piss on the campfire don't you? Seems like you are determined to keep things on a personal level. Be glad Jim is a good man because you can push some folks too far. Just sayin'......

Well there you go, Big Sarge has diagnosed tw with Bendii Syndrome. Why hasn't medical science come up with a prevention for this?
Ortho,
Ortho,
Anyone?
Ortho.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

Probably NOT !

I've spent a while trying to find an original, reliable record of this "court case"... nothing.

This looks a lot like a plant on a Google forum database.
<snip>
Maybe others can be successful, but I'll be surprised.

Well, I am surprised... I found the court record of this case with this link which downloads a pdf file.

The child was born in June 2004 and had a medical record of developmental delay.
The MMR vaccine was given in November 2004.

28 pages later, the Special Master ruled in favor of the plaintiff,
and ordered compensation.

I apologize for my ineptitude in the previous posting.

[jimhelm]

There's a few YouTube clips of local news stories too but they phrase things suspiciously... I figured it would have been a big to do if it was legit.

[monster]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Why do you people hate clodfobble?

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Heh. I actually thought you'd moved this thread to a hidden forum, it went quiet so quickly before. It's cool though. I've been way, way, (WAY) less depressed in general since going on my kids' diet. I feel awesome for the first time in who knows how long, maybe ever. The thread popped up and my only thought was, "Huh, I can see it after all."

Still not going to participate in it, but I also don't feel compelled to, so that's good. You guys carry on if you want to.

I'm so sorry, clearly mybad, I obviously didn't read the entire thread closely enough and was looking for somewhere other than a new thread to park that article because I thought it might be of interest to those here who feel passionately about vaccinations (either way) but figured we'd done the actual debate to death so a new thread was not warranted. I should try not to think so hard about these things.

Myself, I'm in the middle of the field. We opt out of some vaccines, but do many for the good of the herd or because it's a requirement and not a battle worth picking. So I agree with most of you

[Lamplighter]

Some really good news for a change...

Rubella and rubeola share similar names. Both are caused by a virus.
Both cause a skin rash. And both are considered to be a type of measles.

Years ago a pre-marital blood test was required for syphillis...
and some public health labs also tested women for rubella immunity
Then the pre-marital tests were dropped, and the rubella test was given
when the woman was in her first pregnancy.
Now, I don't know what tests are being done for rubella, if any.

If a pregnant woman is exposed to rubella, it can cause birth defects in the unborn fetus and even miscarriage.
The person with rubella may not even have significant symptoms, making it harder for them to know if they are ill.
This is why it is extremely important that a woman of child-bearing age is immunized against rubella
It must however be done at least one month prior to becoming pregnant.
<snip>

Rubella (German measles) eradicated from Americas
BBC News = 4/29/15

North and South America have become the first regions of the world to eradicate rubella,
or German measles, after no home-grown cases in five years.

The virus - spread by sneezes or coughs - can lead to serious birth defects if contracted by pregnant women.
Up to 20,000 children were born with rubella in the Americas every year until mass vaccinations started.
But the last endemic cases registered in the region were in Argentina and Brazil in 2009.

The fact no new cases have been declared in five consecutive years, apart from those imported into the region,
allowed global health chiefs to declare the Americas free of the virus.

Eradication was "an historic achievement," said Carissa Etienne,
director of the Pan-American Health Organization, which is part of the World Health Organisation.

"The fight against rubella has taken more than 15 years," she said.
"But it has paid off with what I believe will be one of the most important
pan-American public health achievements of the 21st Century."