Vaccination Information ....

[reAllytee]

Im starting this thread not to cause controversy or arguements.
We have/had a few threads for those against vaccinations as well as threads where we have debated about vaccinations or whether we have or have not vaccinated.
I find we have various websites being thrown around that have scare tactics & many false claims. Many keep speaking of wanting facts so ive taken some time to start sorting some info & researching various things & will continue to do so. This will mean i will keep adding to this thread to give different information & various studies & links.
Im getting help from my lovely DP who can understand a lot of medical jargon more than i can heh, my mum a polio survivor & her network of friends & their resources.
So please bare with me as i update as i can & piece many things together.
This is something ive started to help give many parents information as they want it, a place that has things for them to read in front of them without the hard work so to speak.
Anyways im hoping i can help in some way to those who need help :)

I will start with this on MMR fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_controversy.

A few points :


Vaccines have saved more lives than any other form of medical intervention. Among the most striking successes are the worldwide destruction of smallpox and the near eradication of polio.

Vaccines prevent epidemics in vulnerable areas. When vaccination against polio was recently halted in Nigeria, for instance, the number of cases significantly rose. A recent measles outbreak in 2005 in Indiana was attributed to lack of vaccination among children whose parents refused vaccination.

Critics of vaccination often lack relevant qualifications, may be ideologically opposed to mandatory health programs, and are commonly associated with fringe views about alternative therapies and the achievements of drug-based medicine.

Other critics of vaccination, such as Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Andrew Wakefield, are part of a plaintiffs' lawyers' campaign to generate contingent fees from litigation against vaccine manufacturers using junk science.

If individual or multiple vaccinations were to "weaken the immune system", then they would be expected to increase hospitalization for other infections following immunization. Epidemiological surveys give a probability below one in a thousand that this happens. The statistical power of the study —given the Cohort size— is too small to reduce uncertainty further.

Controversy has arisen regarding the safety of the MMR vaccine, because a handful of scientists and parents argue that the vaccine is the cause of the increased incidence of autism noted in western countries and Japan, and bowel disorders such as Crohn's disease. A theory advanced by proponents of the link is that the MMR vaccine overwhelms an immune system they assert is already struggling from the effect of thimerosal contained in previous vaccines. They assert that live measles virus in the formulation of the MMR is detrimental to susceptible individuals in a fashion in which wild measles never was.

It also noted that in Denmark Thimerosal is eliminated as a factor in any relationship between MMR and autism.

In February 1998, a group led by Dr. Andrew Wakefield wrote a paper ( which almost all the other authors later retracted ), Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children published in the respected medical journal The Lancet. The report analysed the cases of twelve children with developmental disorders admitted to the Royal Free Hospital in north London in 1996-1997, described a collection of bowel symptoms, which Wakefield asserted was evidence of a possible novel syndrome, which he would later call autistic enterocolitis, and recommended further study into the possible link between the condition and environmental triggers, i.e., the MMR vaccine. The paper proposed links between gastrointestinal symptoms and developmental disorders in twelve children that were alleged to be associated in time with MMR vaccination. No conclusions about causal links, such as that MMR could lead to autism, were reached. However, at a press conference before the paper's publication, Dr Wakefield said that he thought it prudent to use single vaccines instead of the MMR triple vaccine until this could be ruled out as an environmental trigger, given that parents of eight of the twelve children studied were said to have blamed the MMR vaccine, saying that symptoms of autism had set in within days of vaccination at approximately 14 months. He declared, "I can't support the continued use of these three vaccines given in combination until this issue has been resolved." In a video news release, issued by the hospital to broadcasters in advance of the press conference, he called for MMR to be "suspended in favour of the single vaccines."

The paper, press conference and video sparked a major health scare in the United Kingdom. The subsequent debate became polarised. Wakefield's research was misused by parties from both sides of the argument. The controversy was seized upon by some UK newspapers, which argued that separate vaccines ought to be available on the National Health Service (NHS). It can be argued that these newspapers may have been serving their own interest by promoting this "health scare story" up the news agenda.

In February 2004, it emerged that when Wakefield had published The Lancet report, £55,000 funding was received by the Royal Free Hospital from lawyers seeking evidence of any link between autism and the MMR vaccinne. According to a Sunday Times investigation, several of the parents quoted as saying that MMR had damaged their children were also litigants. Although Wakefield maintains the funding was properly disclosed from the outset, allegations have been made that the funding was not revealed to either The Lancet or Wakefield's co-researchers. On February 20, 2005, The Lancet said it should have never published Wakefield's study, which was "flawed" because Dr Wakefield had "a fatal conflict of interest." Several of Dr. Wakefield's co-researchers also strongly criticised the lack of disclosure.

The investigation which led to 10 of the 13 authors of the 1998 Lancet paper formally retracting the claim of having found a possible link between MMR and autism was carried out by Brian Deer for The Sunday Times of London. Deer continued his investigation in a British television documentary, MMR: What They Didn't Tell You, broadcast on November 18, 2004. This alleged that Wakefield had applied for patents on a rival vaccine to MMR, and knew of test results from his own laboratory at the Royal Free hospital that contradicted his claims.

Epidemiological research continues to show a dramatic increase in the incidence of autism, but whether the increase is real, rather than an artifact of diagnosis and reporting, is unknown, and no causal connection has been demonstrated to the MMR vaccine. Since Wakefield's paper, there has been substantial clinical research investigating his claim to have found measles virus located in the gut of proportion of children, much of which has been financed by litigation, with the results not reported on legal grounds.

Japan provided a natural experiment, combined MMR vaccine was introduced in 1989, but the programme was terminated in 1993 and only single vaccines used thereafter. In March 2005 a study of over 30,000 children (278 cases) born in one district of Yokohama concluded "The incidence of all autistic spectrum disorders, and of autism, continued to rise after MMR vaccine was discontinued. The incidence of autism was higher in children born after 1992 who were not vaccinated with MMR than in children born before 1992 who were vaccinated. The incidence of autism associated with regression was the same during the use of MMR and after it was discontinued." Autism rose (from 46-86 cases per 10,000 children, to 97-161/10,000). The authors concluded: "The significance of this finding is that MMR vaccination is most unlikely to be a main cause of ASD, that it cannot explain the rise over time in the incidence of ASD, and that withdrawal of MMR in countries where it is still being used cannot be expected to lead to a reduction in the incidence of ASD." It should be noted that this study did not question whether or not both MMR and separate vaccines were capable of contributing to ASD, Crohns and other disorders, with separate vaccines, rather than MMR, being responsible for a more severe effect.

[cosmic]

Great idea, Ally. :thumbsup: So those with research articles that support NOT vaccinating are welcome to post them here too? I just read an interesting article about the Whooping Cough vaccine that I think would be worth sharing when I get the time.

[Ponyboy]

Just a point about wikipedia - anyone can add anything to wikipedia without needing authority and the content is not monitored in anyway. This is not to say that everything on wikipedia is not true - I'm just warning people should they get information from the internet (any web site) please check for the authoritiveness of the information.

Things to look for include:


Does the site belong to a reputable organisation/association
Does it have an author
Does it have a date of last updated
Does it have contact details for the creator/author
Is the author well known in their field


That's just a few of the points (that I can remember at this time of the morning) to look out for.

If you wish to find authoritative information, you may like to try your local library or accessing your local library webpage which may have access to reference tools such as indexes/databases. :)

[dragonflyblu]

This is a great idea. I have real concerns about the "research" being cited in the non-vaccine threads. I am a non-vaxer but the decision needs to be made on actual University/hospital research and not on hearsay or conspiracy magazines. However, in saying that we need to be aware that often 'research' is conducted by a university or hospital that is funded by a company or a governemmtn body with an agenda. The results of research may or may not be released immediately depending on if it supports the company agenda. So I would not disregard research simply because the funding body/company decides to disregard it. It is such a difficult issue, what is 'scientifically proven' is so subjective! Thanks for starting this thread and thanks for all the work you have put into it already.

[Freddyboy]

From a report in the british medical Journal. http://www.bma.org.uk/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hib infection on the rise in children despite vaccination programme http://www.news-medical.net/?id=4852

Child Health News
Published: Friday, 17-Sep-2004

Cases of the Hib infection (haemophilus influenzae type b) among children and adults have risen in recent years, despite a vaccination programme which initially proved successful, say researchers in this week's bmj.

The Hib vaccine became part of the routine immunisation programme for babies in 1992, cutting deaths from the disease amongst children significantly and reducing infection rates. In 1992 for instance 21.91 cases per 100,000 children were reported, dropping to 0.65 by 1998.


Adults - most of whom were not immunised - also benefited, with Hib infections in the population at large also dropping - from 0.17 cases per 100,000 to 0.03 in the same period. Although infection in adults is rare, infection rates are higher among the age groups in regular contact with children, suggesting that adults usually catch infection from these young children, say the authors.


From 1998 however Hib cases in children started to rise significantly, mostly among those who were immunised in the programme as babies - though infection rates remain well below those seen before vaccination was introduced. Among adults rates have now reached levels higher than before the vaccination programme was introduced (0.27 cases per 100,000 in 2003, compared with 0.17 in 1992.)


The apparent fall in the effectiveness of the initial vaccination programme for children may be due to several factors, say the researchers, including issues with the vaccine used, which has now been changed. For adults the situation was more complex. They had initially benefited from 'herd immunity' say the authors, where the drop in infection rates among children resulted in reduced exposure to the disease for adults, and consequently fewer infections. But adults' reduced exposure to the disease also meant their antibody levels - or 'natural' immunity - was no longer being boosted. When the disease began to rise once again amongst children, some adults found themselves less equipped than before to fight the infection.


Monitoring the Hib immunisation strategy quickly exposed trends and problems with the programme, say the authors, prompting swift corrective action - in this case resulting in the implementation of a national booster vaccination programme for children younger than four years, which should once again benefit adults. Such high quality surveillance systems are vital, say the authors, in the fight against immunisable diseases.

[Duchessa]

Great thread Allyoo! Its really important that people who want information know how to get it.

Here is an excerpt from a letter to Brit Med Journal, written by L Travis Haws, that outlines some relevant vaccination information in a fairly succinct form that removes a lot of the hard work you were talking about. As you are looking for well documented research, I have included his references at the end for if people want to follow anything up further. Its a bit long so I've chopped it into a few posts...


"... Let's have a GLIMPSE at the efficacy/benefit vs. risk/safety of vaccination for some individual vaccines.


PERTUSSIS
EFFICACY: 1300 cases were reported in Kansas, in 1986. Of patients with known vaccination status, 90 percent were vaccinated. (6) Ehrengut, in 1978, points out that "in 1970-71, there were more than 33,000 cases of pertussis with 41 fatal cases among the very well immunized British child population...whereas in 1974/75 with a declining rate of vaccination, a pertussis epidemic caused only 25,000 cases with 25 fatalities." (7,13) An outbreak in Ohio, in 1993, occured with 82% of children having had regular vaccine doses. (8) Let's not forget when Sweden stopped vaccination of whole cell pertussis in 1979 (unfortunately they began testing other vaccines out later). This was because after more than 10 years absence, a resurgence of whooping cough became endemic, despite generalized vaccination. A subsample(620 cases) of the 5,140 cases, verified by bacteriological lab testing, showed 84% vaccination "success". (9)
SAFETY: Studies have shown that babies die at a rate 7 times greater than "normal" within 3 days of the pertussis jab. (10,11) William Torch found that out of 103 SIDS cases, 70% of them had been vaccinated with pertussis within three weeks. (12) Scheibner found stress induced breathing to the point of cessation of breathing following DPT vaccination, where there were no such patterns prior to the jab assault. There was a high time associated correlation between "SIDS" fatalaties and peaks of stress induced breathing following vaccination. (13) Pertussis vaccine can cause severe reactions such as fever to 106, projectile vomiting, high-pitched screaming (encephalitic cry), convulsions, seizures, collapse, breathing problems, brain damage, and SIDS. (14,15) Another study showed severe reactions such as grand-mal epilepsy and encephalopathy to occur as frequent as one in 600. (16) One study demonstrated severe reactions to occur in 1 in 875. However, each child had received 3-5 jabs, so the rate becomes more like 1 in 200. (17) The JAMA published data in 1994 showing that children with asthma were 5 times more likely to have received pertussis vaccine than not. (18) A 1989 Pediatrics study found that using acellular pertussis DTaP decreased mild reactions, but, serious reactions (i.e. encephalitis) increased to a rate of one in 106. (19)


TETANUS
EFFICACY: Prior to tetanus vaccine development, the cases of tetanus had declined by 92 percent. (20) Most likely due to more proper wound care. How many infants do you know are stepping on rusty nails, or getting open wounds in the thicket? In the U.S. 95% of fatal cases occured in adults 50 years of age or older; only 5% of cases occured in people less than 20 years and were rarely fatal. (21)
SAFETY: The IOM, stated a causal relationship between tetanus toxoid, Guillain-Barre Syndrome and brachial neuritis. The IOM also reported several cases of anaphylactic reactions, inability to breathe, shock, collapse or death within four hours of tetanus vaccine injections. (22) It has been shown that T-lymphocyte levels drop below normal following tetanus vaccine. The greatest decrease lasting up to two weeks. The levels were similar to those found in "HIV" and AIDS victims. (23)


MUMPS
EFFICACY: Do we need to discuss efficacy of MUMPS vaccine as it usually only requires palliative treatment. The natural disease confers permanent immunity. An outbreak in Minnesota in 1987 was in a population of 82% previously vaccinated. (21) In 1991, in Tennessee schools, of the 68 cases, 99% had been vaccinated. (24) MUMPS complications are much worse in teens and adults. I'm glad I got the natural version of MUMPS as I don't think I'd appreciate experiencing ORCHITIS.

SAFETY: Several cases of diabetes and pancreatitis has been noted following mumps vaccination. (25) "In 1992, 180 European doctors jointly noted that the mumps vaccine "can trigger diabetes, which only becomes apparent months after vaccination." (21,26) Japan pulled the vaccine after realizing it caused encephalitis in 1 of 1044 people vaccinated. (27) The IOM recognized aseptic meningits as a cause of mumps vaccine when mumps- vaccine virus strains were isolated from patients that were neurologically impaired following vaccination. (22)
6) Vaccine bulletin, 1987 p. 11
7)Ehrengut W. Whooping cough vaccination. Comment on Report from Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. Lancet 1978; Feb 18: 370- 71
8) Christie D.C. et al. The 1993 epidemic of pertussis in Cincinnati: resurgence of disease in a highly immunized population of children. New Eng J of Medicine. July 1994 pp. 16-20
9) Trollfors B. Rabo E., Whooping cough in adults. British Medical Journal 1981 283: 357-9
10) Walker A.M. Does pertussis vaccine cause sudden infant death? Presentation for Institute of Medicine Workshop on Possible Adverse Consequence of Pertussis and Rubella Vaccines. Washington DC May 14, 1990
11)Fine and Chen. Confounding in studies of adverse reactions to vaccines. American Journal of Epidemiology 1992 (136): 121-35
12) Torch W.C. Diptheria-pertussis-tetanus (DPT) immunization: A potential cause of the sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) American Academy of Neurology, 34th Annual Meeting, Apr 25 - May 1, 1982. Neurology 32(4), pt. 2
13) Scheibner V. Vaccination 100 Years of Orthodox Research shows that Vaccines Represent a Medical Assault on the Immune System. McPherson's Printing Group. Copyright 1993 by Dr. Viera Scheibner
14) Vaccine insert pp. 32-34
15) Whooping Cough, the DPT Vacine and Reducing Vaccine Reactions (Vienna, VA., National Vaccine Information Center 1989), pp. 10-16
16) Immunization: Survey of Recent Research, (United States Department of Health and Human Services, April 1983), p. 76
17) Nature and the Rates of Adverse Reactions Associated with DTP and DT Immunizations in Infants and Children. Pediatrics. November 1981, Vol 68 No. 5
18) Odent M. et al. Pertussis vaccination and asthma: is there a link? JAMA August 24-31 1994. pp. 592-93
19) Blennow M. et al. Adverse reactions and serologic response to a booster dose of accellular pertussis vaccine in children immunized with accellular or whole-cell vaccine as infants. Pediatrics 1989; 84: 62-67
20) Mortimer E. Immunization against infectioius disease. Science 1978 May 26 p. 905
21) Miller N.Z. Vacciines Are They Really Safe and Effective? New Atlantean Press. Copyright 2002 by Neil Z. Miller p. 24
22) Institute of Medicine. Adverse Events Associated with Childhood Vaccines: Evidence Bearing on Causality. Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1994"

[Duchessa]

"...MEASLES
EFFICACY: International mortality statistics show a decline of mortality from measles, by 98% from 1915 - 1958 in both the U.S. and U.K. (1) "Dr. William Atkinson, senior epidemiologist with the CDC, admitted that "measles transmission has been clearly documented among vaccinated persons. In some large ourbreaks...over 95 percent of cases have a history of vaccination." (21)
SAFETY: The PDR has a litany or severe reactions to the measles vaccine, including but not limited to, encephalitis, febrile and afebrile convulsions, anaphylaxis, seizures, ataxia, subacute sclerosing panencephalitis, Guillain-Barre syndrome, ocular palsies, angioneurotic edema, retinitis, deafness, dizziness, optic neuritis, headache and death. (28) Following mass measles innoculation, it was revealed that infants of mothers born after 1963 (start of mass immunization with measles) were 7.5 times more likely to contract the disease than infants of mothers born prior to 1963. (29) Thus, vaccines have interferred with the passing of natural immunity from mother to child. Let's not ever forget what Andrew Wakefield has found--in relation to sky rocketing of autism.


RUBELLA
EFFICACY: Three years prior (1966,67 and 68) to vaccine introduction, number of CDC reported cases of congenital rubella syndrome were 11, 10, and 14 respectively. In 1970, there were 77 cases--greater than a 600 percent increase. (30) The cases remained much higher, through the 80's than pre-vaccine numbers. And, isn't the goal to protect the ever susceptible infants (i.e. congenital rubella syndrome)?
SAFETY: Several studies have implicated rubella vaccine in neurological disorders. (31,32,33) Others have linked CFS to the rubella vaccine. (34,35) Fifty-five percent of women vaccinated against rubella developed joint pain or arthritis within four weeks. (36) 78% and 91% of doctors and OBGYN's respectively refused to take the rubella vaccination.(37,38) Adults refuse to take the jab, but it's ok for our little infants?--Enough said!

23) Eibl M. et al. Abnormal T-lymphocyte subpopulations in healthy subjects after tetanus booster immunizations. New England Journal of Medicine Nov 26:1307-1313
24) Briss, P.A. et al. Sustained transmission of mumps in a highly vaccinated population: assessment of vaccine failure and waning vaccine- induced immunity. Journal of Infectious Diseases 1994; 169:77-82
25) Adler J.B. et al. Pancreatitis caused by measles, mumps and rubella vaccine. Pancreas 1991: 6:489-90
26) Albonico H. Klein P et al. The immunization campaign against measles, mumps and rubella--coercian leading to a realm of uncertainty: medical objections to a continued MMR immunization campaign in Switzerland. JAM 1992; 9 (1)
27) Sawada et al. Lancet 1993; 342:371
28) Physician's Desk Reference (PDR); 55th edition (Montvale, NJ: Medical Economics, 2001)
29) CDC. Babies of vaccinated moms more susceptible to measles. Pediatrics November 1999
30) CDC. Summary of notifiable diseases, United States, 1995. MMWR (October 25, 1996)
31) Kilroy A.W. et al. Two syndromes following rubella immunization. JAMA 1970; 214:2287-92
32) Schaffner W. et al. Polyneuropathy following rubella immunization: a follow-up study and review of the problem. American Journal of Diseases of Children 1974; 127:684-88
33) Institute of Medicine. Adverse Effects of Pertussis and Rubella Vaccines. (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1991)
34) Lieberman A.D. The role of the rubella virus in the chronic fatigue syndrome. Clincal Ecology 1991; 7(3):51-54
35) Allen A.D. Is RA27/3 rubella immunization a cause of Chronic Fatigue? Medical Hypotheses 1988; 27:219
36) Tingle A.J. et al. Rubella-associated arthritis. Comparative study of joint manifestations associated with natural rubella infection and RA 27/3 rubella immunisation. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases 1986; 45:110-14
37) Orenstein W.A. et al. Rubella vaccine and susceptible hospital employees: poor physician participation. JAMA 1981; 245(7):711-13
38) Sacks J.J. et al. Employee rubella screening program. JAMA 1983; 249:2675-78"

[Duchessa]

"...DIPTHERIA

EFFICACY: Again, the diptheria mortality rate seriously declined prior to vaccine administration. From 1911 to 1935 (long before the vaccine), there was an 88 percent decrease. (39) In 1975, the FDA and authorities noted that diptheria vaccine is not as effective as projected, that it may occur in vaccinated individuals and the conferring of permanent immunity is open to question. (40) Europe in the mid 1990's had diptheria outbreaks in which several of the effected were "successfully" vaccinated. (41,42) The FDA announced, in 1999, that the prior years vaccines were too "weak", but since diptheria is very rare in the U.S. and developed world, no new vaccine doses were recommended. (43)
SAFETY: Sounds like an all risk-no-benefit vaccine to me--especially in developed countries. And especially since there is a diptheria anti- toxin available and it's generally responsive to penicillin.


HIB
EFFICACY: Research has shown a decline in Hib antibodies following innoculation rather than an increase. (44,45) Other research shows that Hib vaccination can increase the risk of contracting Hib, up to 6 times, as compared with non vaccinated children. (46,47,48) Another study of children that acquired Hib post-vaccine, 70% developed meningitis. (49)
SAFETY: Other than the so called benefit increasing the odds of acquiring Hib, the literature is repleat with examples of severe reactions to Hib such as, transverse myelitis, aseptic meningitis, invasive pneumococcal disease, vomiting, seizures, erythema multiforme, fever, convulsions, death and diabetes. (50,51,52,53,54)


HEPATITIS B
EFFICACY: I'm not sure how to assess this as less than one percent of Hep B cases occur in the 15 and younger population. (55) Not surprising considering the natural "spread" of the disease. Additionally, surveys indicate that 87% of pediatricians do not feel the Hep B vaccine is needed for newborns. (56,57)
SAFETY: The potential adverse reactions following Hep B vaccination, listed in the literature: ocular and brachial plexus, central nervous system demyelination, lubar reticulopathy, autoimmune reactions, anaphylaxis, arthritis convulsions, neuropathy, optic neuritis, Bell's palsy, Rolf's Palsy, herpes zoster, vertigo, vomiting. (58,59,60,61,62,63)


CHICKENPOX
What a complete waste. Especially with the timely increase of pediatric shingles cases now.


39)Dublin L. et al. Twenty-Five Years of Health Progress New York: Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 1937 p. 60
40) Bureau of Biologics. Minutes of the 15th meeting of the panel of review of bacterial vaccines and toxoids with standards and potency. FDA Nov 20-21 1975
41) Hardy I. R. et al. Current situation and control strategies for resurgence of diptheria in newly independent states of the former Soviet Union. Lancet 1996; 347:1739-44
42) Prospero E. et al. Diptheria: epidemiological update and review of prevention and control strategies. European J of Epidemiology 1997; 13:527-34
43) Associated Press and Reuters. "FDA recalls diptheria vaccine found to be too weak. www.cnn.com/health/9901/29diptheria.recall
44) Daum R.S. et al. Decline in serum antibody to the capsule of Haemophilus Influenzae type b in the immediate postimmunization period. J of Pediatrics 1989; 1114:742-47
45) Marchant D.D. et al. Depression of anticapsular antibody after immunization with Haemophilus influenzae type b polysaccharide-diptheria conjugate vaccine. Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal 1989; 320: 75-81
46) Black S. et al. Efficacy of Haemophilus influenzae type b capsular polysaccharide vaccine. Pediatric Infectioius Disease Journal 1988; 7:149-56
47) Osterholm M.T. et al. Lack of efficacy of Haemophilus b polysaccharide vaccine in Minnesota. JAMA 1988; 260:1423-28
48) Hiner E.E. et al. Spectrum of disease due to Haemophilus influenzae type b occurring in vaccinated children. Journal of Infectious Disease 1988; 158(2):343-48
49) Gellis S.S. Pediatric Notes: The Weekly Pediatric Commentary Vol. 11:2 Jan 15, 1987
50) D'Cruz O.F. et al. Acute inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy after immunization with Haemophilus influenzae type b conjugate vaccine. Journal of Pediatrics 1989; 115:743-46
51) Vadheim C.M. et al. Effectiveness and safety of an Haemophilus influenzae type b conjugate vaccine (PRP-T) in young infants. Pediatrics 1993; 92:272-79
52) Milstien J.B. et al Adverse reactions reported following receipt of Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine: an analysis after one year of marketing. Pediatrics 1987; 80:270-74
53) Karvonen M. et al. Association between type 1 diabetes in children under 5 years in Oxford region: time trend analysis. British Medical Journal 1997; 315:713-16
54) Classen J.B. et al. Association between type 1 diabetes and Hib vaccine. British Medical Journal 1999; 319:1133
55) Alter M.J. Hadler S.C. et al. The changing epidemiology of hepatitis B in the United States. JAMA 1990; 263:1218-22
56) Freed G.L. et al. Reactions of pediatricians to a new Centers for Disease Control recommendation for universal immunization of infants with hepatitis B vaccine. Pediatrics 1993; 91:699-702
57) Freed G.L. et al. Family physician acceptance of universal hepatitis B immunization of infants. Journal of Family Practice 1993; 36:153-57
58) Morris K. et al. Nature and frequency of adverse reactions following hepatitis B vaccine injection in cheldren in New Zealand, 1985- 88. Presented at the Vaccine Safety Committee, Institute of Medicine, Washington DC, May 4, 1992
59) Herroelen L. et al. Central nervous system demyelination after immunization with recombinant hepatitis B vaccine. Lancet Nov 9 1991; 338:1174-75
60) Shaw, F.E. Graham D.J. et al. Postmarketing surveillance for neurologic adverse events reported after hepatitis B vaccination. American Journal of Epidemiology 1988; 127(2):337-52
61) Ribera E.F., Dutka A.J. Polyneuropathy associated with administration of hepatitis B vaccine. New Eng J of Medicine 1983; 309:614 -15
62) Classen, J.B. The Diabetes Epidemic and the Hepatitis B Vaccine. New Zealand Medical Journal May 24, 1996 p. 366
63) Manufacturers package insert"

[reAllytee]

Here is a great website : www.vaccinesafety.edu

They are the Institute for Vaccine Safety, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health all items are factual evidence without any misleading info.


Their aim is to :


The Institute for Vaccine Safety was established in 1997 at the Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health - now the Bloomberg School of Public Health.

Our mission is to provide an independent assessment of vaccines and vaccine safety to help guide decision makers and educate physicians, the public and the media about key issues surrounding the safety of vaccines. The institute’s goal is to work toward preventing disease using the safest vaccines possible.


They provide great research & study info on each single vaccine as well as issues

[Pippi Longstocking]

Duchessa, thanks so much for that! See, that is the kind of info we need but is so hard to find in amongst the agenda-riddled drug-company-funded "studies".
It was great to read - concise, well-researched and well...scary as h3ll that little babies are at such great risk from something that is meant to be protecting them.


Great thread Allyoo! :thumbsup:

[1+1=5]

all i ask is that we keep anecdotal evidence out of this as there are cases on both sides and it frustrates me when people use that sort of 'evidence' to support their arguments. its weak in my opinion.
alyoo awsome idea to do this thread!

[Barry]

Here is an excerpt from a letter to Brit Med Journal, written by L Travis Haws, that outlines some relevant vaccination information in a fairly succinct form that removes a lot of the hard work you were talking about. As you are looking for well documented research, I have included his references at the end for if people want to follow anything up further.

I'd just like to point out that Dr L Travis Haws is a dentist and therefore not really qualified to speak about vaccinations.

Secondly, anyone can write a letter to the British medical journal, and hundreds of people do, as such these letters are not vetted for factual accuracy and this letter is an example of blind one sided evidence, and theories based on evidence which has since been disproved.

Thirdly, L Travis Haws is well know to be on a crusade to have vaccines banned worldwide as is actually helping to try and release a man who shook his baby to death under the guise it was a vaccine that killed the baby; despite there being no evidence of such.

Fourthly Dentist Haws credibility is further shaken by the fact he states “Let's not ever forget what Andrew Wakefield has found--in relation to sky rocketing of autism.”

Andrew Wakefield is another person who is on a crusade to have vaccines banned/ruled unsafe for the increase of his own personal wealth through litigation.

That and this letter completely fails to address that in the New England Journal of Medicine (2002;347:1477-82) which reviewed over half a million children for a link between measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccination and autism consequently found none. The senior deputy editor for NEJM actually wrote "This careful and convincing study shows that there is no association between autism and MMR vaccination."

Then there is the fact that Andrew Wakefield’s studies have even been shown to be corrupted, conflicted and funded by lawyers at times without proper disclosure in order to attempt to sue pharmaceutical companies. – I guess when you don’t have any facts you have to pay to make them up eh?

The lead author Dr Kreesten Meldgaard Madsen, an epidemiologist and expert on infectious diseases at the Danish Epidemiology Science Centre in Aarhus has stated that the study showed that the risk of autism was similar in children who were vaccinated and children who were not and personally I feel a research epidemiologist and expert on infectious diseases is more qualified to speak on vaccinations than a dentist who is trying to free baby killers to further his own agenda.

Yet the corner stone of Dentist Haws & the anti-vaccination crusaders, despite all research and factual proof otherwise is that autism is caused by vaccinations.

*** text deleted by moderator***

[Tannie]

Excellent post Barry!

Allyoo - your idea is commendable. [text removed by moderator]

T

[Duchessa]

I'd just like to point out that Dr L Travis Haws is a dentist and therefore not really qualified to speak about vaccinations.


As L Travis Haws (I don't believe he calls himself "Dr") is only quoting the research of others, and there for merely collating the said information, I thought it was a valuable contribution.

Noice to see you are recognising National Pirates Day, Barry ;).

[Pippi Longstocking]

anyone can write a letter to the British medical journal
Can anybody really write to the British Medical Journal? It doesn't sound right, but if so, I've got me some letter-writin' to do :D


Thirdly, L Travis Haws is well know to be on a crusade to have vaccines banned worldwide If he was on a "crusade" as you say, I can only assume he has valid reason, as summarised in Duchessa's post. It lists several very valid reasons IMO. I read the part in your post about lawyers having agendas but what agenda does a dentist have? I can see far more self-serving reasons for drug companies to fund pro vax studies than dentists and lawyers to fund anti vax studies. Drug companies make -rather- a lot of money out of the vaccination business, as I am sure you can imagine. Far, far more than a lawyer could make out of a possible litigation case. On that note, do you have any links to these studies funded by lawyers?



as is actually helping to try and release a man who shook his baby to death under the guise it was a vaccine that killed the baby; despite there being no evidence of such. How do you know the man shook the baby to death? Is there "evidence of such"? Is this relevant to the topic at hand or simply an attempt to discredit the man?



anti-vaccination crusaders For what it's worth, I am not an anti-vaccination crusader, although I might be interested if the position comes with a cape and a sidekick? :D 4 out of my 5 children are vaccinated. I empathise with parents struggling to make the decision to vaccinate or not. But I reject the attempts to silence those speaking up against the majority - parents have a right to read all opinions and form their own assesments. Barry, your post smacked of an attempt to ridicule a differing opinion to your own, which isn't really allowing all parents to make an informed decision.
In conclusion, I have no agenda either. Like I said, I fully empathise with people struggling to make a decision either way. My issue is more with people who blindly subject their children to these kinds of things without bothering to really research it. Which is why theads like these are valuable - it is a great idea to get a mix of opinions so that people can sift through and find their own truth.

[reAllytee]

How do you know the man shook the baby to death? Is there "evidence of such"? Is this relevant to the topic at hand or simply an attempt to discredit the man?

Yes it is true although many are still trying to claim it was vaccinations that killed the poor baby yet its pretty obvious what did.
Im not going to go into it fully here as this isnt the right thread but the baby had horrific injuries & these persons are still trying to claim vaccinations did this. The man has a history of violence yet they over look this.
The reason this was brought up was to show that while it seems ok to question our government or out vaccination manufacturers it should also be a point to question those who are against or make various claims themselves.
Question everything & also look into more as to why they wish to be against vaccinations or for them. It has been found on many occasions that those against vaccinations have their own cause to look out for in litigation etc just as the companies who manufacture them have their own cause.
Its not a bad thing to question that post just as its not a bad thing earlier when a post i had made was questioned because i used wikipedia. The reason i used such a source was because its easy to read for many again like the post Duchessa made & because it had some great research & articles at the bottom of the page.

[Duchessa]

Question everything & also look into more as to why they wish to be against vaccinations or for them. It has been found on many occasions that those against vaccinations have their own cause to look out for in litigation etc just as the companies who manufacture them have their own cause.


So true, Allyoo, and so politely put :). It would be nice if we could keep your info thread from falling into accusations of lying and crusading... With positive contributions this thread could become an invaluable tool.

I think that on the whole the readers of this thread are more than able to check resources used by the various commentators and decide on the validity of the information for themselves.

[Mr. Ogyny]

As a new father I am always interested in what is best for my baby girl and this thread addresses one of my concerns.

Finding one place that is presenting views from both sides is great.

I do have a couple of concerns though.

First, the litigation question. Since this seems to be the main thrust of the pro-vax group in their attempts to discredit the anti-vax research I had a look at this first. I found an interesting site courtesy of the Institute of Vaccine Safety. Thanks for the tip Allyhoo.

In the home for mass tort litigation, the USA, it appears that there is already a mechanism in place for dealing with injuries caused by vaccines. Cases are judged on individual merits and heard before the Federal Court of Claims. The organisation is Health Resources and Services Administration http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/ . Have a look, it is quite interesting.

The first thing that hits you when you look at the statistics are the small number of cases that are successfully brought. Out of the 4259 cases that were brought between 1989 and 2006 only 1189 were deemed to have been definitively caused by vaccines. That is still 33% but 4200 is not a large number. For the interests of the lawyers fees arguement lets look at how much they received. On averagfe the lawyers made a miserly 4-6% of the settlement awarded. In an industry rife with 25-50% fees that is a very pitiful amount. And, more importantly it is set by the court and cannot be changed by the litigator.

I am, as you all are, aware of the bad name that lawyers have. Ambulance chasers etc. yet at the end of the day they are human too and some no doubt have children of their own that they would like to protect.

Should a direct causal link ever be found between vaccinations and autism I suspect that it is the parents that will be most relieved for finding out what is wrong with their children and not the lawyers who will have to work long and hard to get a case together to put before the Federal Court of Claims.

In Australia, large settlements are not the norm (look at the Hardie asbestos case) so I suspect that Aussie lawyers would be even worse off.

As far as autism goes I haven't found any direct link between it and vaccinations. I did find this though. It is from the Centre for Disease Control website. http://www.cdc.gov/nip/vaccine/side-effects.htm
Have a look, it's pretty scary, don't you think? The DTaP vaccine can cause seizures in one out of 14000 children. With MMR it falls to one in 3000. In Varicella it falls yet again to one in 1000. Last year there were 261400 births in Australia. If all those children were immunised with those three vaccines then 261 had seizures. Mediline Plus, an online medical dictionary defines a seizure as:
Main Entry: sei·zure
Pronunciation: http://www2.merriam-webster.com/images/primarystress.gifshttp://www2.merriam-webster.com/images/emacr.gif-zhhttp://www2.merriam-webster.com/images/schwa.gifr
Function: noun
1 : a sudden attack (as of disease); especially : the physical manifestations (as convulsions, sensory disturbances, or loss of consciousness) resulting from abnormal electrical discharges in the brain (as in epilepsy)
2 : an abnormal electrical discharge in the brain

Abnormal electrical discharges in the brain.


My baby's brain is still developing. I don't want abnormal electrical discharges affect it.

[reAllytee]

Duchessa - Just to note that that was actually part of the items we were looking at Barry is actually my DP its not that we are trying to make certain persons to be liars but more so to point out sometimes there are vested interests. Didnt think it would be a problem because im more than willing to take on board those with different info as much as im willing to accept a question about a persons reasons.
Anyways i really do hope this doesnt go down a back track i would rather this be kept open offering info for those who want it.

[reAllytee]

In Australia, large settlements are not the norm (look at the Hardie asbestos case) so I suspect that Aussie lawyers would be even worse off.

I beg to differ on this one my father died from mesothelioma a cancer cause by asbestos & lets just say it was amazing watching the sharks circle.

[Mr. Ogyny]

I'm sorry to hear about your father Allyhoo. I know that mesothelioma ia very nasty way to go. I'm looking for more information on the terms of the settlement but my eyes won't cooperate. I do know that Hardie will be paying $70 million a year for at least the next fifty years in compensation to a total of $4.5 billion with the possibility that it could climb to $8 billion. Where this rates on the settlement scale I have been unable to ascertain as yet. I stand by my statement though. The sharks may circle but it not they that decide the compensation and Australian courts have not followed the American ones with obscenely large judgements.

Have you had a chance to look at the sites I posted about?

I think that between our research skills Allyhoo, we'll have all the information here in no time :yes:

[reAllytee]

Sorry my brain isnt working too well either tonite had a horrible day & just recieved a wonderful phonecall anywhos i have this for you to read or anyone for that matter. It comes from The Post Polio Network ( yes yes my mum is part of this but im not spouting it as the end all be all so please understand that i find this of interest as may many others ). You have to scroll down towards the end of the page.
Its by Professor Stanley is Director, TVW Telethon Institute for Child Health Research and Professor of Paediatrics, The University of Western Australia. She delivered this Second Eleanor Shaw Lecture, on 29 August 1995 in Melbourne called : Litigation Versus Science: What's Driving Decision Making in Science?


http://www.post-polionetwork.org.au/news/ppn29.html



Did read the sites but again brain not working so im not sure if im meant to have a comeback :o :p

[Mr. Ogyny]

This isn't a question of comebacks. This is a discussion putting forward both sides of the immunization debate. You said so yourself.

Our court system is based on an adversarial process. That is, both sides have a chance to put their cases to the judge and jury and the aforementioned people base their decisions on what is presented to them. If lawsuits have been effectively brought against doctors and pharmaceutical companies then they were carefully considered, not just arbitrarily decided upon. I have studied law. I know how tedious it can be to read a judges decision on anything. Find a copy of the Australian Law Journal, open it to any page and start reading. You will see how carefully thought out each decision is.

[tweedledee*tweedledum]

Great thread Allyoo :thumbsup: . Duchessa, your info is specific to the U.S, is there anywhere that you can find the same info relevant to Australia?

[Duchessa]

Tweedledee, you will find that the bulk of vax research (and other medical research) centres on populations in the US, UK and various other European countries. Much of the information is relevant to Australia as in most cases the same vaccines are used and similar schedules. There is also a fairly concurrent disease status between these places (yes yes, not always the case, of course). Unfortunately due to the smaller population of Australia, the fact that there are fewer and smaller medical research facilities and less money available locally, we often miss the benefit of local research in all feilds. These reasons often push quality Australian researchers to work OS.

Fortunately we are all human or this would be a far greater issue!

[Duchessa]

I'd just like to point out that Dr L Travis Haws is a dentist and therefore not really qualified to speak about vaccinations.

Just like to quickly address that point. Just wondering what qualifications you think people need to collate and present information about vaccinations as very few of the people contributing to this discussion would meet your criteria, I'm sure. This is, afterall, just a discussion amongst interested and informed lay people and parents, hence why it is merely a passing on of other people's peer reviewed research, not our own.

You may not have noticed that Haws letter is well referenced with stats and data from very reputable journals and eminent researchers, much the same as I have done in the past, and you have done in your post.

Some of Haws sources include the American Academy of Neurology, National Vaccine Information Center, Paediatrics (journal), American Journal of Epidemiology, New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA, Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal, European J of Epidemiology, manufacturers information direct from their inserts, British Medical Journal etc etc... Hardly sources of "lies".


a dentist who is trying to free baby killers to further his own agenda

A very emotive and a rather irrational claim, IMO.

Perhaps a more productive way to further this discussion would be to contribute information rather than attempt to discredit others by vicious slandering...?

[reAllytee]

Ok i think im sadly going to close this thread ( maybe im being emotional but hey having a mother sent to hospital in the middle of the nite does that to you ).

I wanted this to be info for people wanting it & yes for people to question what was being given not for it to turn into " oh this is slander etc " its not a case of it being this when the facts are there to be found if you look hard enough. Many people are a man who shook his baby to death claiming it to be a reaction from vaccinations & this wouldnt be further from the truth they are trying to claim he is a hero which is rather sad in so many ways.
No one was trying to say that what was written was totally wrong but the fact of the matter is when its put down as though its coming from a certain source many would assume a medical one. Yes he used statistics, research & the likes to back up his statements but anyone can do that realistically because when you want to say the sky is black if you look hard enough you can find something that will back this up.
All that was being pointed out to people was to question what was written.
Again which i cant see as a bad thing because we question everything else why not something that even agrees with "our side" but of course we cant do that can we.
I question my doctors, i read what i can about anything i give my child but i will still question either way that im being told the truth. Yes its nice to have someobe agree with me & pat me on the back saying " yes what your saying is correct " but at the same time i also like to have someone question me so that it makes me look harder. Something i think many others need to take on board.
Many people think the likes of the AVN are a great organisation. Great im glad they feel happy with that but for me i question what they say just as much as i question the manufacturers.
Anyways i feel this will only end up some heated debate like any other thread about vaccinations on here which is odd considering out in the real world it never seems to happen like this.
Im going round in circles but thats from a lack of sleep so i shall leave it at that.
Please open another thread if thats what you feel will work.



Btw slander is the spoken word, libel was what you were looking for.