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

[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?

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- 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.

Oh of course, I disagree with you, therefore I must be dramatic. Everyone with an opinion contrary to yours is dramatic, I've noticed. And of course, you are not being dramatic with this very thread and thread title!

I object very strongly to you telling me "I don't know any better". I do know better, and I certainly don't need you to "go easy on me" (how insulting! I am not a child who needs you to talk down to me.) I understand how language works, and how people can use it to affect another persons opinion without them even realising it. Your emphasis at the end of your paragraph, "I was injured by a vaccine" is another example.

It's terrible what you have experienced yes, but you can not categorically tell me that it wasn't caused by your accident instead of a vaccine. Another Doctor could have given you a different diagnosis. I'm only pointing out that you can not say with absolute certainty, just as it can never be 100% that a vaccine stopped a person from getting a disease.

 

[Blue_bumpkin]

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.

Swine flu was a pandemic, it may have 'waxed and waned' eventually but what do you suggest the WHO done instead of creating a vaccine? Sat twiddling their thumbs while people were dying and the disease was hopping between countries?

 

[PreggyEggy]

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.

Swine flu was a pandemic, it may have 'waxed and waned' eventually but what do you suggest the WHO done instead of creating a vaccine? Sat twiddling their thumbs while people were dying and the disease was hopping between countries?

Couldn't have said it better myself. Are we supposed to sit around, waiting to catch a disease that could kill us, and not fight it because what we use to fight it may potentially cause adverse reactions to some? I will never understand people who think that way, that's for sure.

There will always be a minority who is adversely affected by anything. It's just common sense. Peanuts can cause very bad adverse reactions in a minority of people, are we supposed to ban peanut butter to protect them?

 

[lisaf]

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?

This is the kind of quote that seems to me to be 'laughing'
it seems very snide and a 'aha! see? your way isn't as great as you say' in a very childish way.


And you always seem to think people have a 'tone' ... this is all written word here. Anytime someone has a sound, assertive pro-science, pro-vaccination statement, you think there is some 'tone' to what they are saying that is rude.

 

[Blue_bumpkin]

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.

Swine flu was a pandemic, it may have 'waxed and waned' eventually but what do you suggest the WHO done instead of creating a vaccine? Sat twiddling their thumbs while people were dying and the disease was hopping between countries?

Couldn't have said it better myself. Are we supposed to sit around, waiting to catch a disease that could kill us, and not fight it because what we use to fight it may potentially cause adverse reactions to some? I will never understand people who think that way, that's for sure.

There will always be a minority who is adversely affected by anything. It's just common sense. Peanuts can cause very bad adverse reactions in a minority of people, are we supposed to ban peanut butter to protect them?

To be fair I can understand people being wary. Especially where they have had bad experiences with vaccines in the past but its just the people pushing their fears onto others. I was not going to get the swine flu vaccine, but with the threat increasing particularly as the winter got harsher and more and more people were becoming ill I weighed up the risks of vaccinating against not vaccinating and for me, it was best to vaccinate.

it is a very personal choice, mud slinging on either side does not help hence why i hate threads like this. People who are vulnerable enough while making this decision will not be aided any by threads like this, it is more scaremongering than it is factual or informative and that is what's peeving me.

Well that and that i'm extremely tired!

 

[PreggyEggy]

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.

Swine flu was a pandemic, it may have 'waxed and waned' eventually but what do you suggest the WHO done instead of creating a vaccine? Sat twiddling their thumbs while people were dying and the disease was hopping between countries?

Couldn't have said it better myself. Are we supposed to sit around, waiting to catch a disease that could kill us, and not fight it because what we use to fight it may potentially cause adverse reactions to some? I will never understand people who think that way, that's for sure.

There will always be a minority who is adversely affected by anything. It's just common sense. Peanuts can cause very bad adverse reactions in a minority of people, are we supposed to ban peanut butter to protect them?

To be fair I can understand people being wary. Especially where they have had bad experiences with vaccines in the past but its just the people pushing their fears onto others. I was not going to get the swine flu vaccine, but with the threat increasing particularly as the winter got harsher and more and more people were becoming ill I weighed up the risks of vaccinating against not vaccinating and for me, it was best to vaccinate.

it is a very personal choice, mud slinging on either side does not help hence why i hate threads like this. People who are vulnerable enough while making this decision will not be aided any by threads like this, it is more scaremongering than it is factual or informative and that is what's peeving me.

Well that and that i'm extremely tired!

Ah, no I do understand being wary of having a vaccine if you've experienced a bad reaction to one previously, but I don't understand someone who has a bad reaction then going and making it their mission to scare everybody else out of having one. So essentially, I agree with you!

It is definitely a very personal choice, and I agree, threads like this only serve to scare, not to inform. If the purpose of this thread was to inform, then a more credible source, and an opposing source would have been right there, in the OP.

I'm tired too! It is very late, I'd better be off to bed! I was meant to be in bed ages ago, but I just had to peak in here, hehe.

 

[Vickie]

While this is a section that is to be used for debates and shouldn't be entered into unless people are ready for strong opposition to their opinions, mud slinging, name calling etc. (basic forum rules) do still apply.

You are free to debate your topic but let's not make it personal? if it comes to that the thread will end up closed and no one wants that right?

 

[lisaf]

Thanks Vickie. I think both sides here should make sure comments are not deliberately condescending or personal attacks.

I love that you guys made this area though! Thanks for that!

 

[Dopeyjopey]

I have read all of this and just wanted to add my 2p...

I do believe that some pharmaceutical companies are in cahoots with the government and that SOME research is hugely biased. For example, if the person funding the trial/research/test wants it proven that x does y, that's what is proven so they get their funding. If they can't prove it, no money!

However, I don't believe this is what happens with vaccines. There is impartial evidence to show that they work in reducing diseases, alongside the natural peaks and troughs.

As for the comment re vaccines not being effective if one unvaccinated person can spread the disease, i don't think it is as simple as that. If one unvaccinated person contracts an illness and passes it to one other unvaccinated person, who passes it to another unvaccinated... (you get the idea) then slowly it will mutate. I believe this is true of most viruses and bacteria, although am happy to be corrected if that is not the case. I am also unaware whether some diseases most people are vaccinated against can be carried by someone who is protected and passed on, although i would imagine it is a possibility.

OP, you say you don't tell anyone not to vaccinate and are just passing on information (albeit from what i consider to be a very unreliable source). I'm not sure posting across the trimesters was a good idea as it will 'stick' with a lot of people who may not be confident enough to do their own research.

Personally, I declined the vaccine whilst pregnant as I've never had flu and was confident that i was healthy enough to fight it if i did contract it.

Also, on a lighter note, I was in hospital with kidney stones a week ago and had two diclofenac injections in my bum. I now have a strange sensation where my hip joint is - the skin feels numb, bruised and sensitive all at the same time. I have a feeling it is to do with the diclofenac but even if this is permanent i would MUCH rather have this than have suffered renal colic for one more minute than I did.

 

[blutea]

It's terrible what you have experienced yes, but you can not categorically tell me that it wasn't caused by your accident instead of a vaccine. Another Doctor could have given you a different diagnosis. I'm only pointing out that you can not say with absolute certainty, just as it can never be 100% that a vaccine stopped a person from getting a disease.

All I'm going to say is that my doctor was certain, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the vaccine injured me. The minor work injury that I sustained was in an entirely different part of my body and would not have affected my arm. The only logical link was the vaccine. The severe adverse reaction I sustained has been documented as a side effect of the Tetanus shot. This I was told months after the fact, otherwise I probably would have declined the vaccine and taken my chances of about 1/100,000,000,000,000 odds of contracting Tetanus.

 

[ShanandBoc]

I

I do believe that some pharmaceutical companies are in cahoots with the government and that SOME research is hugely biased. For example, if the person funding the trial/research/test wants it proven that x does y, that's what is proven so they get their funding. If they can't prove it, no money!

Thats what worries me, how much of it is because there is money behind it?

Dont doctors get bonuses from pharmacuetical companies for selling their drugs.

Money is a driving force behind everything.

Makes u wonder what and who u can really trust?

 

[lisaf]

I've seen you quote those odds before blutea... can you please provide the backup for that? I actually thought that was a typo the first time I saw you write that but it seems impossible to come up with a statistic that low.

 

[blutea]

I've seen you quote those odds before blutea... can you please provide the backup for that? I actually thought that was a typo the first time I saw you write that but it seems impossible to come up with a statistic that low.

It was what my doctor told me for my specific situation. It certainly was not exact science. All he was trying to explain (and what I was trying to reiterate) was that it was very, very unlikely that I would have contract Tetanus.

 

[PeanutBean]

Dopeyjopey you're spot on about the mutations that then eventually render the disease different enough that the vaccination is no longer effective.

Whilst I understand people being sceptical of the pharma industry it's not correct that funding is only forthcoming is research provides the desired answer, funding has to come prior to research or it can't happen. It is if course entirely possible to just not publish negative results however without the appropriate evidence in favour a drug will not be accepted into clinical trial. There is an extremely long process in most novel drug development before drugs are released to the public which includes independent bodies. In the UK our NHS resources are limited so there is an extra process to ensure the best decision is made about any medication, millions of pounds are not spent lightly.

For the record tetanus vaccination in particular is well known to have certain risks of side effect if given within a certain time frame of having received it previously. This is why people are checked for when they last had a booster. Blutea if the risk of catching the disease was so utterly low given the nature of your work accident then probably you would do better diverting your attentions to suing for malpractice.

Every vaccination by it's nature carries a very low risk of encephalitis but it is very low. This is the logical risk to weigh up. Countless lives have been saved by vaccination programmes and this lobby without scientific evidence is jeopardising everyone's lives, vaccinated or not, due to the increased risk of mutation and then epi- or indeed pandemic. In the other thread blutea told me she thinks herd immunsation is a socialist principle. I think this rather demonstrates her motivation.

 

[PeanutBean]

Dopeyjopey you're spot on about the mutations that then eventually render the disease different enough that the vaccination is no longer effective.

Whilst I understand people being sceptical of the pharma industry it's not correct that funding is only forthcoming is research provides the desired answer, funding has to come prior to research or it can't happen. It is if course entirely possible to just not publish negative results however without the appropriate evidence in favour a drug will not be accepted into clinical trial. There is an extremely long process in most novel drug development before drugs are released to the public which includes independent bodies. In the UK our NHS resources are limited so there is an extra process to ensure the best decision is made about any medication, millions of pounds are not spent lightly.

For the record tetanus vaccination in particular is well known to have certain risks of side effect if given within a certain time frame of having received it previously. This is why people are checked for when they last had a booster. Blutea if the risk of catching the disease was so utterly low given the nature of your work accident then probably you would do better diverting your attentions to suing for malpractice.

Every vaccination by it's nature carries a very low risk of encephalitis but it is very low. This is the logical risk to weigh up. Countless lives have been saved by vaccination programmes and this lobby without scientific evidence is jeopardising everyone's lives, vaccinated or not, due to the increased risk of mutation and then epi- or indeed pandemic. In the other thread blutea told me she thinks herd immunsation is a socialist principle. I think this rather demonstrates her motivation.

 

[Dopeyjopey]

PeanutBean - i know that most trials are done fairly, but there are some that are hugely biased. Maybe it is more that the trial does not get published rather than funded. I didn't know it was done upfront, thanks for telling me there is a little more faith restored!

 

[upsybetsy]

[/QUOTE]I find your monologue to be quite fanatical and it represents the very attitude you claim to oppose. Fanatical? Really? Don't really get that one?You attribute vaccines for eradications but there are so many other factors to take into account. No there isn't. You are quite wrong on this and you will not be able to back that statement up. Smallpox, Polio and TB to name but a few have been eradicated via vaccine. The reason most children no longer get whooping cough, measles, german measles etc. is due to vaccine.Vaccines are only one piece of the puzzle. Without better health, nutrition, exercise...vaccine would not save your life. Wrong again. nutrition and exercise, although good for you, would not combat against smallpox, measles or polio. In all serious it wouldn't!Besides, you cannot prove a vaccine saved a life. Yes you can and quite easily. All you have to do is compare the number of deaths occuring from a disease before vaccine was available as opposed to afterwards (???)An individual can contract the very illness they have been vaccinated for and it has happened many times. No it hasn't.I am thankful for modern medicine but that does not mean I will take a vaccine when I have a family history of vaccine injury. I don't believe you can prove that you have.Vaccines are voluntary and everyone deserves the right to informed consent. Yes they do, however should the uneducated be protected from themselves?Everyone should know the true risks of vaccines According to you no doubt?and the true risks of disease. There are risks to vaccines and you are minimizing that fact and being dramatic.No there isn't and no I'm not.[/QUOTE]

This really is utter nonsense. As I said in my last post, if you have such strong concerns should you not defer them to someone with knowledge in this area i.e. a doctor or scientist. I don't know why scientists these days bother to devote their lives to medical advances... all they should do is ask the general public who know far better as they've googled all their research from biased conspiracy sites. But hey, at least we now know both sides of the controversy.

I suppose you'll be posting next week that you've discovered a gap in the theory of evolution that proves God exists.

 

[upsybetsy]

I do not dismiss vaccine. I'm just not fooled by all the pro vaccine hype and propaganda. I think it's important to be opened minded and to recognize that there are two sides to the issue. However, that does not mean everyone will agree.

Show me the warning packets and the list of known reactions available from reputable sources that you are refering to.

By all means be open-minded but not so open-minded your brains fall out!

There aren't two sides to the issue there is scientific fact and evidence versus unfounded hysteria and scaremongering.

 

[smokey]

I know some feel very strongly about these issues but there isnt a need to get personal.

I dont know if this has already been discussed but to the OP do you plan on getting your children their baby jabs?

 

[Blue_bumpkin]

I do not dismiss vaccine. I'm just not fooled by all the pro vaccine hype and propaganda. I think it's important to be opened minded and to recognize that there are two sides to the issue. However, that does not mean everyone will agree.

Show me the warning packets and the list of known reactions available from reputable sources that you are refering to.

By all means be open-minded but not so open-minded your brains fall out!

There aren't two sides to the issue there is scientific fact and evidence versus unfounded hysteria and scaremongering.

the bit bolded is rude and as vickie already asked us not to be insulting towards one another this is just not productive at all and uncalled for.

i also would like to point out, as we've gone through on another recent swine flu thread, that vaccine safety and effectiveness is not fact, per se.

these are theories supported by vast amounts of research and evidence but are not definitively proven, without a shadow of a doubt iykwim? hence some peoples concerns.

Id also disagree that there aren't two sides. there are, and it is about comparing the risks, weighing them up and doing what is best for you and you're family. there is no right or wrong. the risk with vaccination may be small but they are still there and people are well within their rights to ask about and research them.

i chose to get vaccinated but that doesn't mean those who don't are wrong for not doing so. there should be no judgement here.