Jump to content

Menu

Brave ex police officer speaks out against parent's getting the blame for vaccine damages


Jasperstone
 Share

Recommended Posts

One thing that needs to be understood is that scientists and medical personal are very aware that vaccines cause harm in some cases. There really is no one out there claiming that vaccines never do damage, never result in illness or even death. It happens, we know it happens, scientists and doctors track and study such issues and try to minimize them.

 

We vaccinate not because vaccines are 100% safe and effective but because they result in far, far less illness, disability, and death than do diseases circulating in the wild.

Yes.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point in all of this is that babies can get damaged by vaccines, and sometimes parents get the blame.

 

And when it does happen, then I'm glad that some go against the pharmaceutical indu$try and support the parents- like that brave policeman.

 

Do you guys believe that it is just too bad when it does happen, they will just need to sacrifice themselves for the *greater good*?

 

Imagine if this scenario happened to you, or someone close to you? I'm sure you wouldn't be this supportive of the industry then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing that needs to be understood is that scientists and medical practitioners are very aware that vaccines cause harm in some cases. There really is no one out there claiming that vaccines never do damage, never result in illness or even death. It happens, we know it happens, scientists and doctors track and study such issues and try to minimize them.

 

We vaccinate not because vaccines are 100% safe and effective but because they result in far, far less illness, disability, and death than do diseases circulating in the wild.

The problem is that when a person is injured by a vaccine, we so badly want to believe that it's "so rare" that it couldn't possibly be the reason the person got sick. I read an article a while back about a mother accused of child abuse when her child died. She was eventually able to get an autopsy done that confirmed her child had died because of a severe adverse reaction to a vaccine. But not until after her life was made a living hell.

 

Yes, severe reactions are rare. But rare does not equal never. So instead of dismissing concerns about adverse reactions to vaccines, we need to be learning how to identify them and learn to identify which children are at a higher risk. For some kids, their initial reaction to the vaccine wasn't that bad, but yet still beyond what should be considered "normal." But with each round, their immune systems react even more strongly and they are at risk of permanent damage or death. And yet doctors can be dismissive about vaccine reactions when there really may be cause for concern.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that when a person is injured by a vaccine, we so badly want to believe that it's "so rare" that it couldn't possibly be the reason the person got sick. I read an article a while back about a mother accused of child abuse when her child died. She was eventually able to get an autopsy done that confirmed her child had died because of a severe adverse reaction to a vaccine. But not until after her life was made a living hell.

 

Yes, severe reactions are rare. But rare does not equal never. So instead of dismissing concerns about adverse reactions to vaccines, we need to be learning how to identify them and learn to identify which children are at a higher risk. For some kids, their initial reaction to the vaccine wasn't that bad, but yet still beyond what should be considered "normal." But with each round, their immune systems react even more strongly and they are at risk of permanent damage or death. And yet doctors can be dismissive about vaccine reactions when there really may be cause for concern.

 

But because they are rare (and severe ones are extremely rare), when a doctor hears hoof beats they will look for a horse before a zebra.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point in all of this is that babies can get damaged by vaccines, and sometimes parents get the blame.

 

And when it does happen, then I'm glad that some go against the pharmaceutical indu$try and support the parents- like that brave policeman.

 

Do you guys believe that it is just too bad when it does happen, they will just need to sacrifice themselves for the *greater good*?

 

Imagine if this scenario happened to you, or someone close to you? I'm sure you wouldn't be this supportive of the industry then.

 

It's reasonable to assume swelling in the brain is caused by physical trauma like shaking. Sadly, it's not uncommon.

 

It's reasonable to pursue evidence that shows otherwise.

 

It's reasonable to support people who are unjustly targeted, whether they're being targeted by individuals or groups of people. 

 

It's reasonable to support people who, through no fault of their own, have unlikely and unfortunate consequences to things most of us never really have to think too hard about.

 

It's reasonable to work to avoid future suffering as much as possible. It's compassionate and charitable to do that work for others. 

 

If you want to reduce suffering for others, I would encourage you to learn how vaccines work so you don't have to rely on emotionally charged stories to motivate you. Learn the facts. Learn the details. Make connections that can be shown to exist. Find others and add your voice to the chorus of those advocating for change. 

 

It's just not reasonable to continually provide irrational, delusional rants insofar as they agree with and validate your fears. It's not reasonable to promote these rants as science. And I can't believe it's healthy, emotionally or mentally. You deserve to not live in fear. You can empower yourself with information, but you have to know the facts, and people are trying to show you that you're not yet referring to facts. 

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems like there's a lot of money in making vaccines. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-independent-are-vaccine-defenders/

 

And I don't think it's unreasonable to wonder about the objectivity of people who profit from vaccines...couldn't they also be motivated to look for something to blame, other than their vaccine?

No more likely than those who make money from blaming vaccines.

 

And while our system isn't perfect, there are numerous non-manufacturer funded studies on vaccines. I know it may come as a shock to some, but the vast, vast majority of those in the medical field don't want to see children suffer either.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So your point is doctors should pursue the least likely source the same as the most likely?

Nope. Never said that. But denying the existence of zebras, or declaring them so rare that they refuse to consider that an option, is also problematic. It's not just an "oops, we didn't get that diagnosis right." Parents are facing potential jail time for a crime that didn't happen.

 

I've had the zebra diagnosis. (A non-vaccine related zebra, however) And I know how frustrating it is for a medical professional to insist it's a horse when it's not.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know anything else about the OP's husband to give an opinion, but the connection between vaccines and auto-immune disease is pretty well accepted. So I don't automatically assume her story is "conspiracy theory."

 

Absolutely. I think within a few years we'll have more solid research into this, with the conclusion being those with a history of autoimmune disease shouldn't vaccinate.

 

Many rheumatologists already advise caution with vaccines for auto-immune diseases.

 

We know that many are triggered, though we don't always know how. It stands to reason that if vaccines can aggravate established auto-immune disease, it could also trigger it. It's going to be fascinating to find out more. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point in all of this is that babies can get damaged by vaccines, and sometimes parents get the blame.

 

And when it does happen, then I'm glad that some go against the pharmaceutical indu$try and support the parents- like that brave policeman.

 

Do you guys believe that it is just too bad when it does happen, they will just need to sacrifice themselves for the *greater good*?

 

Imagine if this scenario happened to you, or someone close to you? I'm sure you wouldn't be this supportive of the industry then.

 

 

I generally do not wade into these discussions because I feel my opinions are invalid due to the fact that we had an aberrant experience with vaccines.

 

However, I feel like I have to say this:

 

I nearly lost my son at 18 months old.  I held him thinking these were his last breaths because of a reaction to a routine vaccine.  Not at that time, or any time since, have I thought that the entire vaccine industry was to blame, but rather that in the smallest of odds that anything would go wrong, we were unfortunate to draw a short straw.

 

I still do not blame the vaccine industry, nor do I think routine vaccinations are suspect.  I support vaccinations.  I just know that, for us and for a very few others, we have to be very careful about the issue and take extra care with selection of vaccines.  We have a very good, understanding and supportive medical team to help us with that.  Our GP was the one who spotted ds's initial reaction and did, indeed, save a dying child in my arms with his expert and swift actions.  He is very much invested in keeping my ds both safe and healthy.   I fully believe that any decent doctor would and does do the same for their patients, too.  It makes me angry to hear people blame doctors and vaccine makers. 

 

I take a lot a sh!t for not vaccinating my kid from people who don't know what happened.  I rarely bother to say more than "we vaccinate selectively on the recommendation of our physician" and I just walk away when I get crap for the gaps in ds's vaccines.  There are some he is just never going to be able to have.  I'm grateful that others can have those vaccines.  That is what herd immunity is for -- to protect the whole herd, including the ones that can't be protected themselves. And I'm willing to listen to lectures on what an irresponsible ingrate I am to not vaccinate him thusly.  But I'm not willing to sit and listen to people use our aberrant experience as an excuse to condemn vaccinations on the whole.

  • Like 39
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I generally do not wade into these discussions because I feel my opinions are invalid due to the fact that we had an aberrant experience with vaccines.

 

However, I feel like I have to say this:

 

I nearly lost my son at 18 months old. I held him thinking these were his last breaths because of a reaction to a routine vaccine. Not at that time, or any time since, have I thought that the entire vaccine industry was to blame, but rather that in the smallest of odds that anything would go wrong, we were unfortunate to draw a short straw.

 

I still do not blame the vaccine industry, nor do I think routine vaccinations are suspect. I support vaccinations. I just know that, for us and for a very few others, we have to be very careful about the issue and take extra care with selection of vaccines. We have a very good, understanding and supportive medical team to help us with that. Our GP was the one who spotted ds's initial reaction and did, indeed, save a dying child in my arms with his expert and swift actions. He is very much invested in keeping my ds both safe and healthy. I fully believe that any decent doctor would and does do the same for their patients, too. It makes me angry to hear people blame doctors and vaccine makers.

 

I take a lot a sh!t for not vaccinating my kid from people who don't know what happened. I rarely bother to say more than "we vaccinate selectively on the recommendation of our physician" and I just walk away when I get crap for the gaps in ds's vaccines. There are some he is just never going to be able to have. I'm grateful that others can have those vaccines. That is what herd immunity is for -- to protect the whole herd, including the ones that can't be protected themselves. And I'm willing to listen to lectures on what an irresponsible ingrate I am to not vaccinate him thusly. But I'm not willing to sit and listen to people use our aberrant experience as an excuse to condemn vaccinations on the whole.

I am so sorry you had that experience. I do think your story is important to share, however. (when you want to share it, of course!) From talking to people IRL and even on this thread, there are those that consider vaccine reactions to be so rare that they might as well not exist. So rare that they believe no one could possibly have a valid enough to stop or selectively vaccinate. And that's not helpful at all.

 

We know that some people, thanks to the right combination of DNA and environmental factors are more susceptible to vaccine injury. People would be a lot less leery of vaccines if a) the medical community didn't dismiss legitimate parental concerns and b) more was being done to identify those at risk BEFORE we start vaccinating the day they are born.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am so sorry you had that experience. I do think your story is important to share, however. (when you want to share it, of course!) From talking to people IRL and even on this thread, there are those that consider vaccine reactions to be so rare that they might as well not exist. So rare that they believe no one could possibly have a valid enough to stop or selectively vaccinate. And that's not helpful at all.

 

Who?

 

Who says harmful vaccine reactions are so rare they might as well not exist?

 

Which posts?

 

Can you please link one?

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like vaccines. I think they're awesome, and have saved countless more lives than they have harmed.

 

Shoot me up, Scotty!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that when a person is injured by a vaccine, we so badly want to believe that it's "so rare" that it couldn't possibly be the reason the person got sick. I read an article a while back about a mother accused of child abuse when her child died. She was eventually able to get an autopsy done that confirmed her child had died because of a severe adverse reaction to a vaccine. But not until after her life was made a living hell.

 

Yes, severe reactions are rare. But rare does not equal never. So instead of dismissing concerns about adverse reactions to vaccines, we need to be learning how to identify them and learn to identify which children are at a higher risk. For some kids, their initial reaction to the vaccine wasn't that bad, but yet still beyond what should be considered "normal." But with each round, their immune systems react even more strongly and they are at risk of permanent damage or death. And yet doctors can be dismissive about vaccine reactions when there really may be cause for concern.

I agree with this, too. I think more information is getting out about what to watch for after vaccinations, and the standard information sheets are actually quite good - I know this is a huge topic in continuing ed with both my pharmacists and ANPs in this state. People care, they want to help, and they want consumers to be empowered. Information is power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who?

 

Who says harmful vaccine reactions are so rare they might as well not exist?

 

Which posts?

 

Can you please link one?

Oh I don't know. When people use the term "delusional" and "conspiracy theory" in an attempt to shut down conversation and belittle the OP, it's pretty dismissive. I get you don't like her sources but it comes as comes across is disbelieving there could be any truth to it.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh I don't know. When people use the term "delusional" and "conspiracy theory" in an attempt to shut down conversation and belittle the OP, it's pretty dismissive. I get you don't like her sources but it comes as comes across is disbelieving there could be any truth to it.

 

"Delusional" and "conspiracy theory" =/= "vaccine reactions to be so rare that they might as well not exist." 

 

It means the arguments presented are delusional and paranoid, not the fact about risks with vaccines that no one has argued against and continue to acknowledge. 

 

Dismantling anti-science rants isn't "shutting down" a conversation. It's responding to arguments with reasonable counter-arguments. 

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh I don't know. When people use the term "delusional" and "conspiracy theory" in an attempt to shut down conversation and belittle the OP, it's pretty dismissive. I get you don't like her sources but it comes as comes across is disbelieving there could be any truth to it.

 

 

I don't like her sources either.  When you are arguing with peer reviewed studies, you need to back your argument with other peer reviewed studies, not unscientific observations of dubious correlations.

  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like her sources either.  When you are arguing with peer reviewed studies, you need to back your argument with other peer reviewed studies, not unscientific observations of dubious correlations.

 

Exactly. Peer reviewed scientific journals avoid basing arguments on the old fashioned, "Are so! / Are not!" style of figuring out how the world works. It's not rude or inappropriate to expect objective information rather than subjective opinions. Not that subjective opinions are bad, but they don't have the same level of reliability because of things like personal bias, missing information, not taking into account variables, analyzing data erroneously, and any number of things one person can and often will miss. The whole point of peer review is to have fresh eyes looking at these things that the author may simply have missed or miscalculated. It also assures a greater number of people having access to studies, for the purpose of exploring details further, as well as sussing out any other information that was overlooked or offered illusory but mistaken answers at first. It's so much more effective to have teams and teams of people working on the details, figuring out both that these details are accurately understood and that hypotheses that explain how they relate to each other are valid. This uncovers trends in knowledge, and provides opportunities for thousands of minds to work together to solve a problem, one piece at a time. A single person making a connection between two events simply does not have the track record of accuracy that an entire community of scientists, working in conjunction with scientists in other, related fields can provide. I hope that people like Jasper and Desert can understand that it's not a personal insult to dismiss the personal opinion of one individual, or even a dozen, or a hundred, when their arguments are shown to be based on assumptions rather than facts. It just makes better sense, based on centuries of knowledge. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My youngest had a reaction to the 2month vaccines,  they never did an MRI but suspected brain swelling which caused the non stop shrill crying, and she lost all skill she had gained, stopped making eye contact etc.  Luckily for me the nurse we saw about it recognized it as a vaccine injury and treated it as such.  And I got fortunate that the CDC did classify it as a vaccine injury.  In our case we did no more vaccines until she was 2 years old and then she got attacked by a strange cat.  She needed the TiG and then follow up with the regular Tdap vaccine.  At 7.5 she is now fully vaccinated, but it was done extremely slowly with the CDC monitoring before and after each one and they do annual check ins with the public health nurse about dd7s health etc.  I could not imagine going through what we did with her and then being blamed for such a horrible crime on top of it.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with this, too. I think more information is getting out about what to watch for after vaccinations, and the standard information sheets are actually quite good - I know this is a huge topic in continuing ed with both my pharmacists and ANPs in this state. People care, they want to help, and they want consumers to be empowered. Information is power.

 

I agree that more information is better. We've done all vaccines except Guardasil. Unfortunately, even being pro-vaccine, I find that the pediatricians with whom we've dealt don't really want to address concerns in a substantive way beyond handing me the info sheet. (I had one tell me they get tired of having the same conversation with parents. Well, tough cookies. That's part of your job.) Recently the pediatrician was pushing Guardasil and cited some figures for me. When I asked some specific follow-up questions (in an clarification-seeking, not confrontational way), he brushed me off. I realize doctors are quite busy. But they KNOW parents have concerns for a whole host of reasons. If they're going to cite statistics, at least be ready with the details behind it and be able to offer additional source material for interested people. Whether they're "valid" or not, concerns aren't going to go away any time soon. They need to be addressed head-on in a respectful way within the doctor-patient relationship.

 

I understand that many people have had very different, more positive experiences.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It means the arguments presented are delusional and paranoid, not the fact about risks with vaccines that no one has argued against and continue to acknowledge. 

 

Dismantling anti-science rants isn't "shutting down" a conversation. It's responding to arguments with reasonable counter-arguments. 

 

FWIW, reference to "anti-science" comes off as a pejorative in situations where there is disagreement and distrust over the adequacy of the currently available studies, particularly with regard to long-term unintended effects and the volume and timing of the current schedule.  I don't think anyone wants less science in this area, but on the contrary, more studies of higher-quality design.

 

Science on the immune system continues to develop.  As an aside, I noticed this random example this morning, a call for more research into a particular vaccine that was used in Europe:  http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/study-offers-clue-link-swine-flu-shot-narcolepsy-32162807 (discussing a particular H1N1 vaccine and cross-reactive antibodies).  Skimming, I happened to notice the following:

 

It's not clear how the antibodies could have gotten into the brain.

 

I guess the author missed the news (that geodob cited further upthread) that the lymph vessels directly to the brain were discovered earlier this year and announced just last month.

 

If y'all want to hear about vaccine-related conspiracy theories, there was the unfortunate passing of Dr. Bradstreet a week or two ago, due to an apparent "self-inflicted" (according to the sheriff's office, pre-autopsy) gunshot wound to the chest, in a river, following a raid on his clinic by federal authorities.

 

(Disclaimer:  my six kids are fully vaxed.  In the last year, we have discovered that both my former premies have immune deficiencies, one of whom has PANS/PANDAS, which itself is controversial.  For us, the currently available science is woefully insufficient for making evidence-based treatment decisions; the evidence may be decades away.  The factors and mechanisms that may be involved are extremely complex.)

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I generally do not wade into these discussions because I feel my opinions are invalid due to the fact that we had an aberrant experience with vaccines.

 

 

I still do not blame the vaccine industry, nor do I think routine vaccinations are suspect.  I support vaccinations.  I just know that, for us and for a very few others, we have to be very careful about the issue and take extra care with selection of vaccines.  We have a very good, understanding and supportive medical team to help us with that.  Our GP was the one who spotted ds's initial reaction and did, indeed, save a dying child in my arms with his expert and swift actions.  He is very much invested in keeping my ds both safe and healthy.   I fully believe that any decent doctor would and does do the same for their patients, too.  It makes me angry to hear people blame doctors and vaccine makers. 

 

I take a lot a sh!t for not vaccinating my kid from people who don't know what happened.  I rarely bother to say more than "we vaccinate selectively on the recommendation of our physician" and I just walk away when I get crap for the gaps in ds's vaccines.  There are some he is just never going to be able to have.  I'm grateful that others can have those vaccines.  That is what herd immunity is for -- to protect the whole herd, including the ones that can't be protected themselves. And I'm willing to listen to lectures on what an irresponsible ingrate I am to not vaccinate him thusly.  But I'm not willing to sit and listen to people use our aberrant experience as an excuse to condemn vaccinations on the whole.

 

As is often the case, Audrey provides a voice of reason. First, I'm sorry you have to take crap from people about selectively or not vaccinating. That's no more acceptable IMO than anti-vax people giving crap to those who vaccinate. I've been on the receiving end IRL more than once, including being called a sheep and told to my face that I drank the Kool-Aid. Still, I can imagine how it must feel in your situation, having been through that horrible experience.

 

Anyway, herd immunity only works when those who can vaccinate do. If those of us with children who can get vaccinations choose not to due to scare tactics and unsubstantiated fears we not only put our own children at risk, but children like Audrey's son and others who truly can't tolerate vaccines.

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW, reference to "anti-science" comes off as a pejorative in situations where there is disagreement and distrust over the adequacy of the currently available studies, particularly with regard to long-term unintended affects and the volume and timing of the current schedule.  I don't think anyone wants less science in this area, but on the contrary, more studies of higher-quality design.

 

I cannot control how any word "comes off" to any individual. I can only control what word I use. To the best of my ability, I use appropriate words. In the context of this thread, "anti-science" is appropriate, regardless of how uncomfortable it may make one feel hearing their views identified as such. 

 

I can't watch the video, but the OP's statement in the first post shows this isn't about volume or timing, this is about vaccines" "it's the vaccines causing the brain swelling!!!"

 

Further, this is a visible trend we can see in posts by the OP. This isn't a nuanced discussion about the volume and timing of vaccines, it's yet another warning against vaccines. 

 

For us, the currently available science is woefully insufficient for making evidence-based treatment decisions; the evidence may be decades away.  The factors and mechanisms that may be involved are extremely complex.)

 

I hear you about more evidence being decades away. That's a very frustrating thing about science - the questions may not be answered in our lifetime. I don't agree with the implication that because these questions are not answered, the ones that are answered (ie, is it valuable for a society to vaccinate against MMR?), are therefore suspect.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW, reference to "anti-science" comes off as a pejorative in situations where there is disagreement and distrust over the adequacy of the currently available studies, particularly with regard to long-term unintended affects and the volume and timing of the current schedule.  I don't think anyone wants less science in this area, but on the contrary, more studies of higher-quality design.

 

Science on the immune system continues to develop.  As an aside, I noticed this random example this morning, a call for more research into a particular vaccine that was used in Europe:  http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/study-offers-clue-link-swine-flu-shot-narcolepsy-32162807 (discussing a particular H1N1 vaccine and cross-reactive antibodies).  Skimming, I happened to notice the following:

 

 

I guessed the author missed the news (that geodob cited further upthread) that the lymph vessels directly to the brain were discovered earlier this year and announced just last month.

 

If y'all want to hear about vaccine-related conspiracy theories, there was the unfortunate passing of Dr. Bradstreet a week or two ago, due to an apparent "self-inflicted" (according to the sheriff's office, pre-autopsy) gunshot wound to the chest, in a river, following a raid on his clinic by federal authorities.

 

(Disclaimer:  my six kids are fully vaxed.  In the last year, we have discovered that both my former premies have immune deficiencies, one of whom has PANS/PANDAS, which itself is controversial.  For us, the currently available science is woefully insufficient for making evidence-based treatment decisions; the evidence may be decades away.  The factors and mechanisms that may be involved are extremely complex.)

 

 

I agree that the current science is woefully insufficient. The human body in general is extremely complex, and the immune system is one of the most challenging bits to unravel.

 

Like so many areas of health science, we're making progress, good progress, but there is a very long way to go yet before we have anything approaching a comprehensive understanding.

 

If I could live a second lifetime of my choice I just might pick medical researcher, I find the field fascinating and there is so much left to discover.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hear you about more evidence being decades away. That's a very frustrating thing about science - the questions may not be answered in our lifetime. I don't agree with the implication that because these questions are not answered, the ones that are answered (ie, is it valuable for a society to vaccinate against MMR?), are therefore suspect.

 

Frustrating, definitely.  Unfortunately, the question on the value of MMR to society isn't the question that faces parents at the 12-month checkup.  The question is the value to the individual child for that shot at that moment.  Even without the large chasm of needed future research, more individual risk-elucidating info could be available, but it is not cost-effective to seek it at this point in time (i.e. testing of both genetics and the current state of the individual's immune system parameters).  The quantification of the risk is limited from a systematic standpoint and therein lies a good deal of the distrust.  Considering Audrey's example, hindsight is 20/20; that case represents but one of the effects that parents fear when they take an action that can't be undone.  On the one hand, there's bad luck, and on the other there's deliberate decision-making based on shallow risk quantification.

 

As for "swelling," I assume that is a slang reference to immune system activity (swelling = inflammation = antibody activity).  Literal enlargement may or may not be visible on various types of scans, depending on the part of the brain impacted.  My understanding is that certain types and/or areas of inflammation are typically not visible on MRI except in extreme circumstances; it depends.  Medicine's understanding of immune activity in the brain is truly in its infancy.

 

(To be clear, for my own kids there are many pieces to the puzzle.  For one piece, our immunologist indicated that a propensity for immune disfunction in premies is common knowledge in his world and he explained the mechanisms in detail, but that never came up when my premies were vaxed as infants.  If I had to do it over again for them, without going into too much detail, at a minimum I would have delayed hep B and MMR, due to specific info that has merely come up in passing, in hindsight and with some particular but rather limited evidence.)

 

I am not anti-vax, and it should be obvious that I am not anti-science, and FWIW, I have some understanding of the OP's sentiments.  I don't know whether this helps explain where I think those sentiments come from in part.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely. I think within a few years we'll have more solid research into this, with the conclusion being those with a history of autoimmune disease shouldn't vaccinate.

 

Many rheumatologists already advise caution with vaccines for auto-immune diseases.

 

We know that many are triggered, though we don't always know how. It stands to reason that if vaccines can aggravate established auto-immune disease, it could also trigger it. It's going to be fascinating to find out more.

But he only got an auto- immune disease after the vaccine. He was perfectly healthy before then. It caused the immunity to respond like that.

 

Also, how would anyone know if a day old baby has a weakness or not?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW, reference to "anti-science" comes off as a pejorative in situations where there is disagreement and distrust over the adequacy of the currently available studies, particularly with regard to long-term unintended effects and the volume and timing of the current schedule. I don't think anyone wants less science in this area, but on the contrary, more studies of higher-quality design.

 

Science on the immune system continues to develop. As an aside, I noticed this random example this morning, a call for more research into a particular vaccine that was used in Europe: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/study-offers-clue-link-swine-flu-shot-narcolepsy-32162807 (discussing a particular H1N1 vaccine and cross-reactive antibodies). Skimming, I happened to notice the following:

 

 

I guess the author missed the news (that geodob cited further upthread) that the lymph vessels directly to the brain were discovered earlier this year and announced just last month.

 

If y'all want to hear about vaccine-related conspiracy theories, there was the unfortunate passing of Dr. Bradstreet a week or two ago, due to an apparent "self-inflicted" (according to the sheriff's office, pre-autopsy) gunshot wound to the chest, in a river, following a raid on his clinic by federal authorities.

 

(Disclaimer: my six kids are fully vaxed. In the last year, we have discovered that both my former premies have immune deficiencies, one of whom has PANS/PANDAS, which itself is controversial. For us, the currently available science is woefully insufficient for making evidence-based treatment decisions; the evidence may be decades away. The factors and mechanisms that may be involved are extremely complex.)

Another two more alternative Drs have died in weird circumstances since his passing. :'(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But he only got an auto- immune disease after the vaccine. He was perfectly healthy before then. It caused the immunity to respond like that.

 

Also, how would anyone know if a day old baby has a weakness or not?

 

My point wasn't made very clearly, maybe I can clarify. What I mean is, research indicates that some people are born with auto-immune disease. However they can go their whole life never having any symptoms until something out there triggers it. We know with Celiac's, it can be triggered by stress, child-birth, environmental factors, etc. 

 

I absolutely think auto-immune disease can be caused/triggered by vaccines. While it may not be that alone, or for every person, I do think research will prove it is for some. 

 

So what I'm saying is, I think the vaccination likely did trigger the Lupus. I'm sorry for that. Many members of my immediate family have auto-immune issues and it really sucks. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is we cannot know what the results will be WITHOUT the vaccine. I have permanent lung damage from a vaccine preventable illness*. We know that it is from that illness. We know that the vaccine prevents the illness in a majority of people. We know that not everyone will become as sick from the illness as I did. We know that some kids die from the illness. We know that the vaccine is effective. We know that there has been an upsurge of the illness because of anti-vaxers. We know that herd immunity works to protect vulnerable individuals.

 

Like others in this thread I am sorry that your husband has lupus. Maybe it was triggered by the vaccine. It could also have been triggered by a build up of stress if he is working three jobs. It could have been triggered by a combination of factors where the vaccine was the straw that broke the camels back. I agree that more research needs to be done. But that does NOT, let me repeat that, does NOT negate the fact that we know that vaccines help to prevent deadly illnesses.

 

 

 

*At the time when I contracted the illness children in my country were not vaccinated against the illness as the vaccine on the market at the time was not considered safe enough by Socialstyrelsen (FDA).

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that when a person is injured by a vaccine, we so badly want to believe that it's "so rare" that it couldn't possibly be the reason the person got sick. I read an article a while back about a mother accused of child abuse when her child died. She was eventually able to get an autopsy done that confirmed her child had died because of a severe adverse reaction to a vaccine. But not until after her life was made a living hell.

 

 

Links would be helpful. 

 

I searched google for examples of this.  This is the sort of page I ran into: http://healthimpactnews.com/2014/families-ripped-apart-by-false-accusations-of-child-abuse-vaccine-injuries-often-to-blame/

 

I did not, in the first page of google results, find anything that looked more credible than that.

 

I'm not doing an exhaustive search into this, but just out of curiosity, I looked up one of the cases listed at that site.  This is what I found: http://wagnews.blogspot.com/2005/05/convicted-baby-murderer-framed-says.html

There's no indication that a vaccine had anything to do with the death, although it may well be that the stepfather didn't cause the death. I could exhaustively research the others on that site, but I haven't got the time.  The fact that there is just one, however, that doesn't support their argument (out of only a few they post) makes one suspect that none of the cases are really relevant.

 

The posting of "I heard somewhere" stories doesn't help the argument you are trying to make. 

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Though this needs to understood as an 'adverse immune system response', that can also be triggered by a vaccination.

But it could also be triggered by the Herpes Simplex 1 virus, which a majority of the world's population carry.

Where a person can have this virus for years, and then suddenly one day it triggers an adverse immune response.

That can cause inflammation in the brain/ Encephalitis, and major brain damage.

The Streptococcus bacteria that lives in the back of most people's throat?

Can also trigger an adverse immune response, resulting in PANDAS (Paediatric Autoimmune Neuropsychiatric Disorder Associated with Streptococcus)

As well as the Borrelia virus from a tick bite, which generally just causes a rash.

But an adverse immune system response to it in some people, can also cause Encephalomyelitis.

 

Where the real issue, is with a compromised immune system.  

That is vulnerable to an adverse response, to any foreign bacteria or virus.

 

My 9 yo dd had a significant behavior change in the past several months and her pediatrician ordered many tests to try to figure it out, including a strep antibody test to rule out PANDAS. She was negative for that but positive for a relatively recent EBV (mono) infection, which is related to the herpes virus, and has also been suggested to cause neurological problems. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the lupus/vaccine issue is accepted in the medical community. Some vaccines are not recommended for people with lupus. If a person has a susceptibility to developing lupus (meaning the physical condition is there for it but nothing has yet triggered an actual flare), it would makes sense that they would want to avoid those vaccines, of course weighing the risks and benefits.

 

It is not disputed that there are triggers in causing lupus flares. Sunlight is the most commonly known one. If something as natural and commonly encountered as sunlight can trigger an abnormal immune response in some individuals, then it doesn't seem far-fetched to think a vaccine can do the same. After all, a vaccine's purpose is to trigger an immune response. So when a person has an underlying abnormal immune response, there's a risk. And we don't usually know beforehand who is predisposed to having that abnormal response, though if you have a strong family history of autoimmune disease, especially lupus, you might want to be careful.

 

My oldest dd has had a few elevated auto-antibodies related to lupus as well as some general health issues, but she is not diagnosed because she does not meet four of the eleven specific criteria required for an official diagnosis. When she had to get certain vaccines for going away to college, they had to be discussed and cleared with her rheumatologist. 

 

From a mom who vaccinates. :)

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No more likely than those who make money from blaming vaccines.

 

And while our system isn't perfect, there are numerous non-manufacturer funded studies on vaccines. I know it may come as a shock to some, but the vast, vast majority of those in the medical field don't want to see children suffer either.

This is what it comes down to for me. It's so easy to demonize the ubiquitous "They." But doctors, pharmecists, and scientists are frequently mothers, fathers, grandparents, aunts, uncles, godparents...they are not faceless, money-grubbing monsters who don't care if some children suffer and die. This is why manufacturers do take vaccines off the market if negative reactions are too frequent. Pharmecueticle companies have suspended or completely scrapped vaccines that cost millions (billions?) of dollars, due to how expensive the R&D is to even launch a new vaccine.

 

Would it be devastating to have a child die or suffer harm that is definitely (or maybe) due to a vaccine? Of course. But how would you feel if you rushed your baby to the ER as he turns blue from coughing, and the doctor says, "the baby has Pertussis"? What if your baby dies from a disease that could have been avoided by having the shot?

 

I think in many cases, parents today don't really grasp what it is like to contract these diseases because they have never witnessed them. Our grandmothers would not have questioned it though, because they probably saw friends and siblings sickened or dead due to diseases we have the luxury of never even seeing anymore. The reason we don't see how devastating some of these diseases are is because our grandmothers DID vaccinate by and large. We have all benefited from their compliance.

 

There is no denying that NO vaccine is 100% safe and effective for all people. But all medicine is this way. You could go under anestesia to have your wisdom tooth extracted and never wake up. It is possible, even if unlikely. Did you have a caesarean with any of your babies? (General "you") it is not risk free...but millions of lives have been saved since this procedure was implemented. All medicine carries risk. But I thank God there are vaccines, because here are certain knwn risks that I barely need to think about ever, because I and most of my community am immune to them.

  • Like 19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what it comes down to for me. It's so easy to demonize the ubiquitous "They." But doctors, pharmecists, and scientists are frequently mothers, fathers, grandparents, aunts, uncles, godparents...they are not faceless, money-grubbing monsters who don't care if some children suffer and die. This is why manufacturers do take vaccines off the market if negative reactions are too frequent. Pharmecueticle companies have suspended or completely scrapped vaccines that cost millions (billions?) of dollars, due to how expensive the R&D is to even launch a new vaccine.

 

Would it be devastating to have a child die or suffer harm that is definitely (or maybe) due to a vaccine? Of course. But how would you feel if you rushed your baby to the ER as he turns blue from coughing, and the doctor says, "the baby has Pertussis"? What if your baby dies from a disease that could have been avoided by having the shot?

 

I think in many cases, parents today don't really grasp what it is like to contract these diseases because they have never witnessed them. Our grandmothers would not have questioned it though, because they probably saw friends and siblings sickened or dead due to diseases we have the luxury of never even seeing anymore. The reason we don't see how devastating some of these diseases are is because our grandmothers DID vaccinate by and large. We have all benefited from their compliance.

 

There is no denying that NO vaccine is 100% safe and effective for all people. But all medicine is this way. You could go under anestesia to have your wisdom tooth extracted and never wake up. It is possible, even if unlikely. Did you have a caesarean with any of your babies? (General "you") it is not risk free...but millions of lives have been saved since this procedure was implemented. All medicine carries risk. But I thank God there are vaccines, because here are certain knwn risks that I barely need to think about ever, because I and most of my community am immune to them.

 

:hurray: Because clicking Like wasn't enough.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what it comes down to for me. It's so easy to demonize the ubiquitous "They." But doctors, pharmecists, and scientists are frequently mothers, fathers, grandparents, aunts, uncles, godparents...they are not faceless, money-grubbing monsters who don't care if some children suffer and die. This is why manufacturers do take vaccines off the market if negative reactions are too frequent. Pharmecueticle companies have suspended or completely scrapped vaccines that cost millions (billions?) of dollars, due to how expensive the R&D is to even launch a new vaccine.

 

Would it be devastating to have a child die or suffer harm that is definitely (or maybe) due to a vaccine? Of course. But how would you feel if you rushed your baby to the ER as he turns blue from coughing, and the doctor says, "the baby has Pertussis"? What if your baby dies from a disease that could have been avoided by having the shot?

 

I think in many cases, parents today don't really grasp what it is like to contract these diseases because they have never witnessed them. Our grandmothers would not have questioned it though, because they probably saw friends and siblings sickened or dead due to diseases we have the luxury of never even seeing anymore. The reason we don't see how devastating some of these diseases are is because our grandmothers DID vaccinate by and large. We have all benefited from their compliance.

 

There is no denying that NO vaccine is 100% safe and effective for all people. But all medicine is this way. You could go under anestesia to have your wisdom tooth extracted and never wake up. It is possible, even if unlikely. Did you have a caesarean with any of your babies? (General "you") it is not risk free...but millions of lives have been saved since this procedure was implemented. All medicine carries risk. But I thank God there are vaccines, because here are certain knwn risks that I barely need to think about ever, because I and most of my community am immune to them.

 

:hurray:

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://m.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/parents-of-saba-button-who-was-victim-of-flu-vaccine-debacle-receive-payout-from-wa-government/story-fnhocxo3-1226945651845

 

This sad story came to my email inbox this afternoon. And I though these parents could have easily been blamed! Luckily for them, they weren't!

 

It seems to be happening a lot more than the *rare* event that some repeat over and over again.

Just by going on the ladies that have piped up here on this forum saying their child had an reaction, proves it's not that rare!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ETA-

 

Quote from a trailer of a film exposing Shaking Baby Syndrome:

 

 

Audrey Edmunds, mother of three, spent 11 years in prison for killing a baby she never harmed. And she is not alone. What happens when widely held beliefs based on junk science lead to the convictions of innocent people? The Syndromeis an explosive documentary following the crusade of a group of doctors, scientists, and legal scholars who have uncovered that Ă¢â‚¬Å“Shaken Baby Syndrome,Ă¢â‚¬ a child abuse theory responsible for hundreds of prosecutions each year in the US, is not scientifically valid. In fact, they say, it does not even exist. Filmmaker Meryl Goldsmith teams with Award-winning investigative reporter Susan Goldsmith to document the unimaginable nightmare for those accused and shine a light on the men and women dedicating their lives to defending the prosecuted and freeing the convicted. The Syndrome uncovers the origins of the myth of Ă¢â‚¬Å“Shaken Baby Syndrome.Ă¢â‚¬ It unflinchingly identifies those who have built careers and profited from this theory along with revealing their shocking pasts. Shaken baby proponents are determined to silence their critics while an unthinkable number of lives are ruined

 

 

 

 

 

http://thesyndromefilm.com/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't call that a very compelling argument, Jasperstone. To be honest, I skimmed. It read more like ad copy than your own original thoughts.

As *if* my original thoughts would carry any weight here!

 

I'm just happy that there are some very brave people out there exposing this!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Audrey Edmunds, mother of three, spent 11 years in prison for killing a baby she never harmed. And she is not alone. What happens when widely held beliefs based on junk science lead to the convictions of innocent people? The Syndromeis an explosive documentary following the crusade of a group of doctors, scientists, and legal scholars who have uncovered that Ă¢â‚¬Å“Shaken Baby Syndrome,Ă¢â‚¬ a child abuse theory responsible for hundreds of prosecutions each year in the US, is not scientifically valid. In fact, they say, it does not even exist. Filmmaker Meryl Goldsmith teams with Award-winning investigative reporter Susan Goldsmith to document the unimaginable nightmare for those accused and shine a light on the men and women dedicating their lives to defending the prosecuted and freeing the convicted. The Syndrome uncovers the origins of the myth of Ă¢â‚¬Å“Shaken Baby Syndrome.Ă¢â‚¬ It unflinchingly identifies those who have built careers and profited from this theory along with revealing their shocking pasts. Shaken baby proponents are determined to silence their critics while an unthinkable number of lives are ruined

 

 

 

 

 

http://thesyndromefilm.com/

 

It is helpful to indicate when you are quoting someone else.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you saying there is no such thing as shaken baby syndrome? That is simply not true. At all.

Nope, not at all!

 

Just that not all cases are. And that it would be horrific to be accused of something like that, if it wasn't your fault. Agreed???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope, not at all!

 

Just that not all cases are. And that it would be horrific to be accused of something like that, if it wasn't your fault. Agreed???

Your post says that shaken baby syndrome is a myth. That makes it sound like it doesn't exist.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your post says that shaken baby syndrome is a myth. That makes it sound like it doesn't exist.

I think they mean the labelling of the condition when there's no other physical signs of abuse.

 

I'm no expert, but shaking a baby back and forth would also result of damage to the neck, I would think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Audrey Edmunds, mother of three, spent 11 years in prison for killing a baby she never harmed. And she is not alone. What happens when widely held beliefs based on junk science lead to the convictions of innocent people? The Syndromeis an explosive documentary following the crusade of a group of doctors, scientists, and legal scholars who have uncovered that Ă¢â‚¬Å“Shaken Baby Syndrome,Ă¢â‚¬ a child abuse theory responsible for hundreds of prosecutions each year in the US, is not scientifically valid. In fact, they say, it does not even exist. Filmmaker Meryl Goldsmith teams with Award-winning investigative reporter Susan Goldsmith to document the unimaginable nightmare for those accused and shine a light on the men and women dedicating their lives to defending the prosecuted and freeing the convicted. The Syndrome uncovers the origins of the myth of Ă¢â‚¬Å“Shaken Baby Syndrome.Ă¢â‚¬ It unflinchingly identifies those who have built careers and profited from this theory along with revealing their shocking pasts. Shaken baby proponents are determined to silence their critics while an unthinkable number of lives are ruined

 

Is this a joke?

 

Shaken baby syndrome is a myth based on "junk science"?

 

What does this have to do with vaccines?

 

:huh:

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...