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

[smokey]

Are vaccines not required for children to go to school in the UK? Children cant even attend pre-school here without being vaccinated.

I don't even want to get into the pro/anti-vaccine thing, lol. WAY too heated in my opinion.

No its completly a parents choice here although I think most do get them done, I did.
Im not realy sure what the statistics are for not getting them done but it deffinatly droped since the Andrew Wakefield admited he faked alot of hios reports and was struck off

 

[NG09]

Upsybetsy I think your about done on this thread I think it's best you avoid here on.

Reason:

Rudeness, flaming or trolling is not tolerated on, or about, BabyandBump or its members. Any member who is intentionally disruptive may have their account restricted or banned without warning.

Bolded text does apply to your activity on this thread.

Thank you so much Wobbles!

Upsybetsy...

The way you are acting is pathetic and childish, thats probably why no one is taking your opinion seriously. If you want to discuss something and get your point across you don't have to act the way you are, only one person who should have to leave this thread for rudeness!!!!!

 

[Blue_bumpkin]

Upsybetsy I think your about done on this thread I think it's best you avoid here on.

Reason:

Rudeness, flaming or trolling is not tolerated on, or about, BabyandBump or its members. Any member who is intentionally disruptive may have their account restricted or banned without warning.

Bolded text does apply to your activity on this thread.

Thank you so much Wobbles!

Upsybetsy...

The way you are acting is pathetic and childish, thats probably why no one is taking your opinion seriously. If you want to discuss something and get your point across you don't have to act the way you are, only one person who should have to leave this thread for rudeness!!!!!

There is a big difference between blatant rudeness and being offensive and pulling a slightly childish smilie.

I reported upsybetsy as depsite being on the same side of the fence I feel she attacked me personally in her posts. This is why she was removed from the thread. And i wasnt the only one to take offense with her replies.

I also personally dont feel like blutea has been offensive or rude in her posts. We share different views but that does not mean I'm disregarding anything she is saying, I just dont agree with it.

I'm enjoying discussing this and really like the debates section. I dont understand why people want to mess that up by being rude to one another and insulting (not singling you out btw just in general thats who I feel). Thats why threads like this end up getting locked

 

[blutea]

Upsybetsy I think your about done on this thread I think it's best you avoid here on.

Reason:

Rudeness, flaming or trolling is not tolerated on, or about, BabyandBump or its members. Any member who is intentionally disruptive may have their account restricted or banned without warning.

Bolded text does apply to your activity on this thread.

Thank you so much Wobbles!

Upsybetsy...[/QUOTE]

Didn't you just have a go at her for being sarcastic and childish?

Sure, I was teasing a bit but it's all in turn. After being torn down and offended by Upsybetsy I felt like I deserved a turn. I was definetly irritated by Upsybetsy and it looks like others were too.

aob- I'm sorry you felt she was right and that you thanked her for her rude and offensive post.

 

[blutea]

Upsybetsy I think your about done on this thread I think it's best you avoid here on.

Reason:

Rudeness, flaming or trolling is not tolerated on, or about, BabyandBump or its members. Any member who is intentionally disruptive may have their account restricted or banned without warning.

Bolded text does apply to your activity on this thread.

Thank you so much Wobbles!

Upsybetsy...

The way you are acting is pathetic and childish, thats probably why no one is taking your opinion seriously. If you want to discuss something and get your point across you don't have to act the way you are, only one person who should have to leave this thread for rudeness!!!!!

Did you read the post Upsybetsy was banned for? Did you read some of the other posts that were directed at me too? It doesn't seem like you did. You don't have to take me seriously...that's up to you. I really don't care what you think at this point.

 

[Vickie]

If you continue fighting over a member being removed from the debates section this thread will end up locked.

Let's get it back on track please

 

[blutea]

If you continue fighting over a member being removed from the debates section this thread will end up locked.

Let's get it back on track please

Okie dokie, sounds great to me (the stopping fighting part.)!

So, I think what we can all agree on is that being informed of the risks of vaccines and the risks of disease is important and that we all have to do what is right for our families...whatever that may be.

 

[NG09]

Upsybetsy I think your about done on this thread I think it's best you avoid here on.

Reason:

Rudeness, flaming or trolling is not tolerated on, or about, BabyandBump or its members. Any member who is intentionally disruptive may have their account restricted or banned without warning.

Bolded text does apply to your activity on this thread.

Thank you so much Wobbles!

Upsybetsy...

The way you are acting is pathetic and childish, thats probably why no one is taking your opinion seriously. If you want to discuss something and get your point across you don't have to act the way you are, only one person who should have to leave this thread for rudeness!!!!!

Did you read the post Upsybetsy was banned for? Did you read some of the other posts that were directed at me too? It doesn't seem like you did. You don't have to take me seriously...that's up to you. I really don't care what you think at this point.

No wonder after the way you have represeted yourself. Anyway, who cares, I have a lovely little boy that I'd far rather be spending my time with.

 

[blutea]

Upsybetsy I think your about done on this thread I think it's best you avoid here on.

Reason:

Rudeness, flaming or trolling is not tolerated on, or about, BabyandBump or its members. Any member who is intentionally disruptive may have their account restricted or banned without warning.

Bolded text does apply to your activity on this thread.

Thank you so much Wobbles!

Upsybetsy...

The way you are acting is pathetic and childish, thats probably why no one is taking your opinion seriously. If you want to discuss something and get your point across you don't have to act the way you are, only one person who should have to leave this thread for rudeness!!!!!

Did you read the post Upsybetsy was banned for? Did you read some of the other posts that were directed at me too? It doesn't seem like you did. You don't have to take me seriously...that's up to you. I really don't care what you think at this point.

No wonder after the way you have represeted yourself. Anyway, who cares, I have a lovely little boy that I'd far rather be spending my time with.

Yes, I agree that no one cares! Moving on...

 

[blutea]

If anyone is interested, here is an interesting video commentary on this situation-

https://socioecohistory.wordpress.c...ng-up-to-3587-miscarriages-from-h1n1-vaccine/

 

[Blue_bumpkin]

If anyone is interested, here is an interesting video commentary on this situation-

https://socioecohistory.wordpress.c...ng-up-to-3587-miscarriages-from-h1n1-vaccine/

But I still don't see how these figures illustrate anything without the whole number to make a comparison iykwim, and that'd be pretty difficult to tally up.

For example, if a newspaper said that burglaries had increased by 150% from the previous year that would look terrifying, but would it be so terrifying if the number of burglaries the previous year, for the whole of the uk was just 2?

there needs to be something to compare it to to gain some perspective. Those 3,000 odd could have been a tiny percenatge of tens of thousands of miscarriages and similarly there could have been just as many amongst the unvaccinated population

 

[Wobbles]

Upsybetsy I think your about done on this thread I think it's best you avoid here on.

Reason:

Rudeness, flaming or trolling is not tolerated on, or about, BabyandBump or its members. Any member who is intentionally disruptive may have their account restricted or banned without warning.

Bolded text does apply to your activity on this thread.

Thank you so much Wobbles!

Upsybetsy...

The way you are acting is pathetic and childish, thats probably why no one is taking your opinion seriously. If you want to discuss something and get your point across you don't have to act the way you are, only one person who should have to leave this thread for rudeness!!!!!

Did you read the post Upsybetsy was banned for? Did you read some of the other posts that were directed at me too? It doesn't seem like you did. You don't have to take me seriously...that's up to you. I really don't care what you think at this point.

One of the reasons we ask members to NOT discuss banned members is because more than often it's wrong.

Upsybetsy was not de-activated for any of the posts on this thread.

 

[Aidan's Mummy]

I agree you need to compare it because otherwsie you have nothing to show how it is affecting others etc

xx

 

[blutea]

If anyone is interested, here is an interesting video commentary on this situation-

https://socioecohistory.wordpress.c...ng-up-to-3587-miscarriages-from-h1n1-vaccine/

But I still don't see how these figures illustrate anything without the whole number to make a comparison iykwim, and that'd be pretty difficult to tally up.

For example, if a newspaper said that burglaries had increased by 150% from the previous year that would look terrifying, but would it be so terrifying if the number of burglaries the previous year, for the whole of the uk was just 2?

there needs to be something to compare it to to gain some perspective. Those 3,000 odd could have been a tiny percenatge of tens of thousands of miscarriages and similarly there could have been just as many amongst the unvaccinated population

It seems to me the statistics that were gathered for the original article represent all they had access to. I wonder how someone could get a hold of the information to compare it? I'm thinking that would be information only the CDC has access to? I assume there would need to be studies conducted by the scientific community. I would love to see the statistics to compare it too but it needs to be available first.

 

[blutea]

Upsybetsy I think your about done on this thread I think it's best you avoid here on.

Reason:

Rudeness, flaming or trolling is not tolerated on, or about, BabyandBump or its members. Any member who is intentionally disruptive may have their account restricted or banned without warning.

Bolded text does apply to your activity on this thread.

Thank you so much Wobbles!

Upsybetsy...

The way you are acting is pathetic and childish, thats probably why no one is taking your opinion seriously. If you want to discuss something and get your point across you don't have to act the way you are, only one person who should have to leave this thread for rudeness!!!!!

Did you read the post Upsybetsy was banned for? Did you read some of the other posts that were directed at me too? It doesn't seem like you did. You don't have to take me seriously...that's up to you. I really don't care what you think at this point.

One of the reasons we ask members to NOT discuss banned members is because more than often it's wrong.

Upsybetsy was not de-activated for any of the posts on this thread.

I see.

 

[lisaf]

If anyone is interested, here is an interesting video commentary on this situation-

https://socioecohistory.wordpress.c...ng-up-to-3587-miscarriages-from-h1n1-vaccine/

But I still don't see how these figures illustrate anything without the whole number to make a comparison iykwim, and that'd be pretty difficult to tally up.

For example, if a newspaper said that burglaries had increased by 150% from the previous year that would look terrifying, but would it be so terrifying if the number of burglaries the previous year, for the whole of the uk was just 2?

there needs to be something to compare it to to gain some perspective. Those 3,000 odd could have been a tiny percenatge of tens of thousands of miscarriages and similarly there could have been just as many amongst the unvaccinated population

It seems to me the statistics that were gathered for the original article represent all they had access to. I wonder how someone could get a hold of the information to compare it? I'm thinking that would be information only the CDC has access to? I assume there would need to be studies conducted by the scientific community. I would love to see the statistics to compare it too but it needs to be available first.

Lots of miscarriages are not reported to anybody besides the woman's doctor, and not even then at times. So the problem is, accurate data doesn't even exist for a tally of all miscarriages with or without vaccines involved.
There is so much that can cause a miscarriage, most of it unknowable or most likely genetic/birth defect, that its impossible to tell what causes it.

I would think a woman who'd been vaccinated likely told her doctor she was pregnant and therefore was more likely to have a recorded loss. Because of scary articles like this, a woman who miscarries and thinks back and realizes she had the vaccine last week is more likely to report it also.
If that makes sense.

 

[smokey]

Also if you look at the statistics for miscarages about 4-5 years ago even with out this vacine the numbers where about the same, its just because now there is something else to pin the blaim on

 

[lisaf]

it would be interesting if statistic-wise women who got the vaccine were less likely to miscarry....
Would really mean anything of course without further study... but it would be interesting to find out nonetheless.

 

[smokey]

Well 20% of pregnancies end this way anyway (as high as 75% in the first few weeks then it lowers) those figures havnt realy raised since the jab came about so it doesnt realy show any relation or link to them, just that there is now somthing to write scary articles about

 

[smokey]

also does the statisics of this apparent link take into factor previous pregnancy history of the women involved?
2 previous mc has a 40% chance of a further one, 3 previous mc has a 60 % chance of another one plus take into count ages of women who have had these mc "linked" to the jab so when it all boils down to it its all just guessing, assuming, and clutching at straws that the jab even effected or had anything to do with those mc and the chances of them happening
.