Warning All Pregnant Women: Miscarriages From H1N1 Vaccine As High As 3,587 Cases

[blutea]

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm

Unlike the websites you have linked to... the sources that are often blamed of hype and propoganda are held to certain standards and cannot just say whatever they want. The official sources must have proof to back up their claims.
Or at the very least support from the medical community.

I am familiar with the CDC. Even the CDC website explains that only about 10% of adverse reactions are reported. So, unfortunately, their data isn't entirely accurate. The problem is they don't show the accurate risk of disease either.

 

[lisaf]

they do list the risks to CATCHING the disease.
It is impossible to give you a statistic on your chance of contracting the disease because that is completely unknowable.

All it takes is one person catching the disease in another country and bringing it back to your area for you to be exposed in a way they cannot calculate or predict.
And if they told you the risk was small and your kid got it anyway, you'd be mad at them for misleading you.

 

[lisaf]

Let me clarify... it lists the risks to you if you contract the disease.


BnB is acting up right now, sorry for any delays or errors

 

[blutea]

they do list the risks to CATCHING the disease.
It is impossible to give you a statistic on your chance of contracting the disease because that is completely unknowable.

All it takes is one person catching the disease in another country and bringing it back to your area for you to be exposed in a way they cannot calculate or predict.
And if they told you the risk was small and your kid got it anyway, you'd be mad at them for misleading you.

Just a thought: If less than 1% of children entering school each year being unvaccinated can cause epidemics, it doesn't say much for the effectiveness of the vaccines given to the other 99%, does it?

 

[blutea]

And if they told you the risk was small and your kid got it anyway, you'd be mad at them for misleading you.

Sure, just like a person would be mad when the CDC says the risk of severe adverse reaction is small and it happens, anyway.

 

[lisaf]

There are people, like you, who are not eligible for vaccinations due to health conditions/known reactions.
Then there are usually about 3% of people who the vaccine might not have given them full protection.
It also puts those at risk who are too young to vaccinate, or whose childhood vaccination has worn off and who hasn't gotten their booster shots. Those people in turn will carry it to others...
so yes... I don't know what exactly you are reading that said that though so its a little hard to counter that.

 

[lisaf]

And if they told you the risk was small and your kid got it anyway, you'd be mad at them for misleading you.

Sure, just like a person would be mad when the CDC says the risk of severe adverse reaction is small and it happens, anyway.

And I don't blame them... but when the reaction only happens to 1 out of every 100,000 people who are vaccinated... someone with no reason to believe they would have a reaction might be avoiding a beneficial vaccine out of the fear that they will be the 1 unlucky person.
If 1,000 people skip the vaccine out of being fearful that they will be that 1 person, does that mean that any of them would have been the unlucky one? Nope.
If someone skips the vaccine and their child does not get the disease does that mean that they would have therefore been harmed by the vaccine or that the vaccine was an unneccesary risk? Nope again...
Catching the disease or having a vaccine reaction is pretty much a numbers game. There is a risk to either choice.

Is that their choice? Absolutely, but it doesnt meant that vaccines are not neccessary or helpful for the majority of the population.

I object mostly to the unfounded claims that vaccines don't work or weren't responsible for erradicating diseases.

 

[lisaf]

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm

Unlike the websites you have linked to... the sources that are often blamed of hype and propoganda are held to certain standards and cannot just say whatever they want. The official sources must have proof to back up their claims.
Or at the very least support from the medical community.

I am familiar with the CDC. Even the CDC website explains that only about 10% of adverse reactions are reported. So, unfortunately, their data isn't entirely accurate. The problem is they don't show the accurate risk of disease either.

I think thats because if my kid got a small rash or soreness from an injection I wouldn't bother to report it. If he had a serious one, I would though.
So just because they don't believe most people report reactions doesn't mean that all the unreported reactions are bad ones.

 

[blutea]

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm

Unlike the websites you have linked to... the sources that are often blamed of hype and propoganda are held to certain standards and cannot just say whatever they want. The official sources must have proof to back up their claims.
Or at the very least support from the medical community.

I am familiar with the CDC. Even the CDC website explains that only about 10% of adverse reactions are reported. So, unfortunately, their data isn't entirely accurate. The problem is they don't show the accurate risk of disease either.

I think thats because if my kid got a small rash or soreness from an injection I wouldn't bother to report it. If he had a serious one, I would though.
So just because they don't believe most people report reactions doesn't mean that all the unreported reactions are bad ones.

And it does not mean that they are NOT bad reactions. I did not know I could report my injury until years later. Many people tell their doctors but their doctors does not have time or forget to report the reaction.

 

[lisaf]

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm

Unlike the websites you have linked to... the sources that are often blamed of hype and propoganda are held to certain standards and cannot just say whatever they want. The official sources must have proof to back up their claims.
Or at the very least support from the medical community.

I am familiar with the CDC. Even the CDC website explains that only about 10% of adverse reactions are reported. So, unfortunately, their data isn't entirely accurate. The problem is they don't show the accurate risk of disease either.

I think thats because if my kid got a small rash or soreness from an injection I wouldn't bother to report it. If he had a serious one, I would though.
So just because they don't believe most people report reactions doesn't mean that all the unreported reactions are bad ones.

And it does not mean that they are NOT bad reactions. I did not know I could report my injury until years later. Many people tell their doctors but their doctors does not have time or forget to report the reaction.

Very true

 

[blutea]

And if they told you the risk was small and your kid got it anyway, you'd be mad at them for misleading you.

Sure, just like a person would be mad when the CDC says the risk of severe adverse reaction is small and it happens, anyway.

And I don't blame them... but when the reaction only happens to 1 out of every 100,000 people who are vaccinated... someone with no reason to believe they would have a reaction might be avoiding a beneficial vaccine out of the fear that they will be the 1 unlucky person.
If 1,000 people skip the vaccine out of being fearful that they will be that 1 person, does that mean that any of them would have been the unlucky one? Nope.
If someone skips the vaccine and their child does not get the disease does that mean that they would have therefore been harmed by the vaccine or that the vaccine was an unneccesary risk? Nope again...
Catching the disease or having a vaccine reaction is pretty much a numbers game. There is a risk to either choice.

Is that their choice? Absolutely, but it doesnt meant that vaccines are not neccessary or helpful for the majority of the population.

I object mostly to the unfounded claims that vaccines don't work or weren't responsible for erradicating diseases.

I am sorry that you misunderstood. I never said vaccines don't work. I said that they have not been proven safe or effective. I believe their usefulness has limitations and risks. They were not solely responsible for eradicating disease. Vaccines were usually introduced at the end of an epidemic and their effect on that epidemic was minimal because disease naturally waxes and wanes.

 

[PreggyEggy]

Oh honestly, not another person who believes that diseases are eradicated by hygiene and healthy eating only? Seriously?

I also have to say, I hate this phrase "vaccine injured". I've only ever heard it in conjunction with anti-vaccine propaganda, and I think the reason behind using such a phrase is clear. It's like saying "weapons of mass destruction" instead of just bombs, it's a phrase intended to add a negativity without you even realising. I also find your use of it a little odd, blutea, since you say there is no way to prove a vaccine saved a persons life. Surely there is no way to prove categorically that a vaccine made you sick either?

 

[Blue_bumpkin]

The title of this very thread is a prime example of scaremongering. You claim to want to help others make informed decisions yet look at the wording you have chosen: 'warning' 'miscarriages from H1N1 vaccine' - those are words that will strike the fear of god into any pregnant woman that has had or is going to have that vaccination and you knew that upon posting - yet you accuse fellow posters of dramatizing their replies?..

Why is it that the very people wanting to 'educate' everyone about the H1N1 vaccine, never provide evidence from both sides of the fence? Aren't there risks from not vaccinating? Of course there are, there are risks on both sides. Why can't people just accept that? Noone is right or wrong in the decision they make. We do not need the risks of this vaccine rammed down our throats everytime a discussion like this crops up.

The 'miscarriage link' angers me to say the least. I had a previous miscarriage. I done all the things I should have and none of what I shouldn't. What caused mine? The extra slice of cheese I had that night? Or the shower gel I used that morning? Or perhaps that child was just never meant for this world and nothing I done would have mattered anyway. Im sure there are lots of women all over the world who ate cheese and miscarried or used that shower gel and miscarried. Those coincidences do not prove cause. Similarly there are those who do all the things they shouldn't do and have a gorgeous little bundle to show off at the end of their pregnancies. Miscarriage, by in large, is random and cannot be explained. One of the reasons it is such a hellish thing to endure. There is absolutely NO supporting evidence that the H1N1 vaccine contributed to those miscarriages. It is true that it may have done, but similarly those miscarriages may have happened regardless of those women vaccinating. We will never know. There are risk factors that should be taken into account here which may have painted an entirely different picture (smoker/non smoker, age etc). Where are the stats for miscarriage amongst those not vaccinated? Are those not relevant? Surely those are required for a suitable comparison to be made? The stats you cited could have been a tiny percentage of the women who vaccinated while pregnant.

I agree that a little more respect should be shown to science in general. You say that science/vaccines alone haven't eradicated diseases, that it is one piece of a puzzle including better sanitation, living conditions and exercise (amongst others) yet what do you think taught people of their importance? Science and research, trial and error is the only way of gathering reliable information. Not magazines, google and the odd newspaper article.

While the vaccine created to combat H1N1 carries with it some risks, it has also saved lives like all the other vaccines out there. There will always be exceptions to the rule. The risks have to be accounted for and warned about in advance hence the information leaflets provided with the vaccine itself. The risks are not hidden away for noone to see. They are out there for people to inform themselves.

Let people make up their own minds. It is their life and their decision and it is a very tough decision at that - I know this myself as I had to make it last year whilst in 3rd trimester. I wish everyone luck with whatever they decide to do

 

[smokey]

The way I see it is somthing happens after any vaccine then chances are it was because of a defect and was going to happen anyway, for every 1 person affected 100,000 are saved so ill stick with those odds.

Edit... forgot to say I had mine last year while pregnant and im all good

 

[Blue_bumpkin]

The way I see it is somthing happens after any vaccine then chances are it was because of a defect and was going to happen anyway, for every 1 person affected 100,000 are saved so ill stick with those odds.

Edit... forgot to say I had mine last year while pregnant and im all good

Thats kind of what I was trying to say only I'm a babbler!

 

[lisaf]

I am sorry that you misunderstood. I never said vaccines don't work. I said that they have not been proven safe or effective. I believe their usefulness has limitations and risks. They were not solely responsible for eradicating disease. Vaccines were usually introduced at the end of an epidemic and their effect on that epidemic was minimal because disease naturally waxes and wanes.

You laugh that people can still get a disease even if vaccinated against it... how is that not saying that they don't work?
You claim better hygiene would have kept the disease on the decline yet you acknowledge that disease naturally waxes and wanes... in that case, smallpox should have had some big surges over the decades and it hasn't....
why do we not see huge recurrances of measles except in places where people don't vaccinate as regularly?

I do wish you would own your opinions.

 

[blutea]

Oh honestly, not another person who believes that diseases are eradicated by hygiene and healthy eating only? Seriously?

I also have to say, I hate this phrase "vaccine injured". I've only ever heard it in conjunction with anti-vaccine propaganda, and I think the reason behind using such a phrase is clear. It's like saying "weapons of mass destruction" instead of just bombs, it's a phrase intended to add a negativity without you even realising. I also find your use of it a little odd, blutea, since you say there is no way to prove a vaccine saved a persons life. Surely there is no way to prove categorically that a vaccine made you sick either?

I never said that disease was eradicated by hygiene and health only. I said that there are many factors besides vaccines that eradicated disease.

I don't care that you hate the phrase vaccine injured...that is only your opinion. You are being dramatic but I will go easy on you because you don't know any better. I was indeed injured by a Tetanus vaccine when I was 25 years old. I received the injections shortly after sustaining a very minor work injury. Within a few hours I lost complete motor function of my left arm and I had severe pain shooting from my shoulder to my fingers. I could not even lift a pencil without dropping it. I went to the doctors two days later and it was diagnosed as a severe vaccine reaction/injury- severe nerve damage. The pain and nerve damage lasted for 6 months. I have mostly recovered but I will never subject myself to that again. I was injured by a vaccine.

 

[lisaf]

You are being dramatic but I will go easy on you because you don't know any better.

I think this was a little condescending on your part?
I agree with everything else in your post, but please don't condescend like that.
We are all trying to inform each other.

I think the problem with the term vaccine-injured is that it gets overused by some. I would not consider a rash to be an 'injury' but I would agree that what you experienced was definitely 'injury'. So I get frustrated when someone had a sore arm after an injection and calls it a vaccine-injury.

Severe adverse vaccine reaction is quite a mouthful too, lol..

 

[blutea]

I am sorry that you misunderstood. I never said vaccines don't work. I said that they have not been proven safe or effective. I believe their usefulness has limitations and risks. They were not solely responsible for eradicating disease. Vaccines were usually introduced at the end of an epidemic and their effect on that epidemic was minimal because disease naturally waxes and wanes.

You laugh that people can still get a disease even if vaccinated against it... how is that not saying that they don't work?
You claim better hygiene would have kept the disease on the decline yet you acknowledge that disease naturally waxes and wanes... in that case, smallpox should have had some big surges over the decades and it hasn't....
why do we not see huge recurrances of measles except in places where people don't vaccinate as regularly?

I do wish you would own your opinions.

Stop assuming. I am not laughing. I do own my opinions. Disease does wax and wane and it is a key factor in why vaccines do fail.

 

[blutea]

You are being dramatic but I will go easy on you because you don't know any better.

I think this was a little condescending on your part?
I agree with everything else in your post, but please don't condescend like that.
We are all trying to inform each other.

I think the problem with the term vaccine-injured is that it gets overused by some. I would not consider a rash to be an 'injury' but I would agree that what you experienced was definitely 'injury'. So I get frustrated when someone had a sore arm after an injection and calls it a vaccine-injury.

Severe adverse vaccine reaction is quite a mouthful too, lol..

I was responding to her condesending tone. I was defending myself.