Would you trust the h1n1 shot after this...

[lisaf]

You know, you could spin this around and say that we (man) fear disease so vaccines were created. Therefore, vaccines are a product of man's fear. I feel I am educated enough about disease to not fear it and not need vaccines. We don't know the long term effects of all these vaccines. I would much rather trust my God given immune system than take an injection that contains countless chemcials and toxis created by man, who fears disease.

I know you have done your research on the diseases and feel comfortable with the approach you are taking to your family's health. Many people only hear the rumors about vaccines and don't bother to learn the risks or follow misinformation or misperceptions about the risks of those diseases. Most of us fear disease with good reason... people die, and still die to this day even with the best medical care available from diseases that there are vaccines to prevent.

I know what the proven risks are of vaccines, and the odds of those are so much less than the odds of dying from or being seriously debilitated by the diseases we now protect against. Many children may survive the diseases unscathed, and they may never be exposed to the diseases thanks to the vaccines other get. So by not getting vaccinated, I dont' believe your child is at a huge risk of getting or being injured by the diseases. But as I've said before, my little sister died of a disease that there wasn't a vaccine for. I fear the death from disease a lot more than death or even injury from vaccination.
If I had been vaccine-injured I might feel very different. But I've never had more than some soreness or an itch (and I'm already prone to rashes) from vaccines. And I've seen death from disease.

So from my life-experience, disease IS scarier than vaccination. To me that is FACT and a very real and deadly one. If they proved that autism was linked to vaccines (which seems extremely unlikely from the medical journals and studies I have read) it still wouldn't be a 100% certainty and would still be a rare reaction. I'd still rather risk an autistic child than risk losing my child altogether. But perhaps that just because my mother has never ever been the same since the death of my sister... it destroyed part of her and she has never recovered from that. It messed up my brother pretty badly too as he apparently blamed himself for my sister's death for the past 20 years and never told a soul. As hard as it can be to raise a child with autism, there are still moments of joy.
I don't know if that statement is going to upset anybody, but its just how my life experience has shaped my view of the situation.

 

[UkCath]

Wow is this still going on.

This is good example of the damage anti-vaccine scares can do.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...threatens-plan-to-eradicate-polio-733175.html

It's an old story yes but I think it's still relevant to the debate. Note "257 Nigerian children had been paralysed by the polio virus since vaccination was suspended "

It was religious leaders who suspended the programme, probably because they thought along the lines you do BlueTea ie. "I would much rather trust my God given immune system than take an injection that contains countless chemcials and toxis created by man, who fears disease."

 

[blutea]

You know, you could spin this around and say that we (man) fear disease so vaccines were created. Therefore, vaccines are a product of man's fear. I feel I am educated enough about disease to not fear it and not need vaccines. We don't know the long term effects of all these vaccines. I would much rather trust my God given immune system than take an injection that contains countless chemcials and toxis created by man, who fears disease.

I know you have done your research on the diseases and feel comfortable with the approach you are taking to your family's health. Many people only hear the rumors about vaccines and don't bother to learn the risks or follow misinformation or misperceptions about the risks of those diseases. Most of us fear disease with good reason... people die, and still die to this day even with the best medical care available from diseases that there are vaccines to prevent.

I know what the proven risks are of vaccines, and the odds of those are so much less than the odds of dying from or being seriously debilitated by the diseases we now protect against. Many children may survive the diseases unscathed, and they may never be exposed to the diseases thanks to the vaccines other get. So by not getting vaccinated, I dont' believe your child is at a huge risk of getting or being injured by the diseases. But as I've said before, my little sister died of a disease that there wasn't a vaccine for. I fear the death from disease a lot more than death or even injury from vaccination.
If I had been vaccine-injured I might feel very different. But I've never had more than some soreness or an itch (and I'm already prone to rashes) from vaccines. And I've seen death from disease.

So from my life-experience, disease IS scarier than vaccination. To me that is FACT and a very real and deadly one. If they proved that autism was linked to vaccines (which seems extremely unlikely from the medical journals and studies I have read) it still wouldn't be a 100% certainty and would still be a rare reaction. I'd still rather risk an autistic child than risk losing my child altogether. But perhaps that just because my mother has never ever been the same since the death of my sister... it destroyed part of her and she has never recovered from that. It messed up my brother pretty badly too as he apparently blamed himself for my sister's death for the past 20 years and never told a soul. As hard as it can be to raise a child with autism, there are still moments of joy.
I don't know if that statement is going to upset anybody, but its just how my life experience has shaped my view of the situation.

I do understand your fear. Did you ever find out what your sister died from? I thought you mentioned that no vaccine was available for it?

 

[blutea]

Wow is this still going on.

This is good example of the damage anti-vaccine scares can do.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...threatens-plan-to-eradicate-polio-733175.html

It's an old story yes but I think it's still relevant to the debate. Note "257 Nigerian children had been paralysed by the polio virus since vaccination was suspended "

It was religious leaders who suspended the programme, probably because they thought along the lines you do BlueTea ie. "I would much rather trust my God given immune system than take an injection that contains countless chemcials and toxis created by man, who fears disease."

Yep, that article is old and misinformation. It has been proven that the oral polio vaccine they were giving was actually causing polio outbreaks. They were givnig an oral live polio vaccine that we had stopped using here in the US for that exact reason. That article is not valid and they had every right to suspend the vaccine due to this reason.

It's too bad you are attacking my belief about vaccines. You are assuming and assuming incorrectly.

 

[lisaf]

I do understand your fear. Did you ever find out what your sister died from? I thought you mentioned that no vaccine was available for it?

I forgot to ask my mom when I was telling her this weekend. Thanks for the reminder, I will email her and ask her to send me information on it. I am almost positive it was a pneumococcal, but in reading up on that, there are 80 varieties of infections. According to the site I looked at, they came out with the first pneumococcal vaccine in 2000 that covered 7 of the pneumococcal bacteria.... the current vaccine covers 23 of those bacteria. I'm not sure which one my sister died from. She was 14 months old when she died, so although I want to do a delayed vaccination schedule, I will probably do my child's pneumococcal vaccination on time. I believe the one that covers 7 bacteria can be given to infants, but I don't think the 23 version can.

They say the 7 vaccine covers 80% of the pneumococcal illnesses that infants/toddlers come down with.
But I know the one my sister had was considered rare, so its probably not one of those

 

[KandyKinz]

I avoided this thread for awhile and boy did it ever grow and grow! But now I just wanted to add my two cents for what it's worth!

One thing that caught my eye was the potential link between immunizations and SIDS. I had never heard of that association and I would be hightly appreciative if anyone could lead to me any references about the "Japan study" or anything else that suggests that immunizations increase the risks to SIDS. I may have just missed the link when I was skimming through all the posts, there was alot to go through.

I also wanted to comment on the causes of autism.... First off, to this day the cause remains unknown and the onset of symptoms vary from early to late onset. From everything I read I don't necessarily think that all individuals with autism are born with it. I believe some are... but some aren't. Because autism consists of such a wide spectrum of severities I wouldn't be surprised at all to find out that the diagnosis of "autism" actually relates to several different disorders with different "triggers" with similar outwardly symptoms. And with that said I strongly believe that there are many many factors involved in autism and I believe that some individuals are more susceptible to these factors than others. Genetics is a BIG one and there has been solid evidence suggesting that heredity plays a role. I have both a brother and first cousin who have been diagnosed with autism which quite admittingly is somewhat scaring me away from immunizations. But there are some diseases that scare the sh*t out of me too! But there could have definitly been other factors at play in my brother having autism. On our street alone 2 other boys his age were diagnosed with aspergers syndrome (so there could have definitly been an environmental component!) and my brother was born with a congenital vertebrae abnormality which resulted in my mother requiring several extra ultrasounds during pregnancy (and ultrasound exposure has also been speculated to increase the risk of autism... or maybe his "autism" is just another component of his congenital defect??) plus he received all of his immunizations on schedule (so that may have contributed too) Or maybe it was everything mixed together.... Regardless it is my opinion that they will never be able to create a study that will adequately look at all these factors... There's just too many confounding variables and diagnosis is still missing several children with "high functioning autism." Although, I don't necessarily see this as being a big problem as often the label is worse then the disorders itself....

There's so many things out there that can have the potential to harm our children and it's absolutely impossible to avoid them all. But the way I see it is if we can avoid unnecessary risks we should.... Unfortunately sometimes we can't avoid a risk without taking on another which is the case with immunizations. There's absolutely no right answer for this one. Whichever one we choose we're doing it to protect our children from potential harm and therefore we should respect eachother for that decision regardless of what rationale was used to get there.

 

[UkCath]

Wow is this still going on.

This is good example of the damage anti-vaccine scares can do.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...threatens-plan-to-eradicate-polio-733175.html

It's an old story yes but I think it's still relevant to the debate. Note "257 Nigerian children had been paralysed by the polio virus since vaccination was suspended "

It was religious leaders who suspended the programme, probably because they thought along the lines you do BlueTea ie. "I would much rather trust my God given immune system than take an injection that contains countless chemcials and toxis created by man, who fears disease."

Yep, that article is old and misinformation. It has been proven that the oral polio vaccine they were giving was actually causing polio outbreaks. They were givnig an oral live polio vaccine that we had stopped using here in the US for that exact reason. That article is not valid and they had every right to suspend the vaccine due to this reason.

It's too bad you are attacking my belief about vaccines. You are assuming and assuming incorrectly.

Yes you re right there was a problem with a vaccine related strain of polio in Nigeria, but that wasn't actually enough to derail the vaccine programme thankfully. Latest news on the topic here.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...makes-gains-in-polio-eradication-1917207.html

 

[Blue_bumpkin]

As i stated the links I posted were just some of the ones published. There has been numerous on this topic. None of it is BS and an exact cause of SIDS will be extremely difficult to prove, definitively.

We have seen in the past that threads such as this go nowhere. Provaccine or anit vaccine, either way there are risks with both.

I personally would rather risk vaccinating as i feel, worst case scenario id rather live with the consequences of this than not vaccinating.

 

[Justagirlxx]

I could say that vampires cause SIDS and until you prove to me otherwise, i'm going to hang garlic around all the windows in my nursery to keep them out. And you know? that would be my choice. Fearing something does not make it, in reality, a real concern.
I'm not trying to make light of vaccine fears, just that the logic applied is so faulty at times it drives me crazy.

Yes, if vampires were visiting our children at 2 months and 4 months of age and tens of thousands of children were dying immediately after their visit, I WOULD suspect the vampires had something to do with the deaths. Your analogy is extremely unfitting. I am not just suggesting some completely random cause.

Lisa, you keep repeating the same fear that misinformation will lead a mother to not vaccinate. I think you should understand that most people who dont vaccinate do so after extensive thought and research. This is because not vaccinating is not any easy choice whatsoever. Here in the US your doctor can and will refuse to treat non-vaccinated children, many of us have to search for and find pediatricians who will treat our non-vaxed children, and often travel much farther to see hem. Also we have to sign waivers and obtain religious or philosophical exemptions to get them into daycare and school. Not to mention having to deal with the negativity from friends, family, and doctors about our decision not to vaccinate. All of these things make it extremely unlikely for someone to not vaccinate based on a few misinfo articles.

The agencies who produce and distribute and develop vaccines are VERY conscious of the consequences of a dangerous product and have passed countless safety protocols to even make it on the market. You put lotion on your skin that has passed far fewer protocols and may have unknown effects. You put sunblock on your child that has chemicals in it that are known to be dangerous on some level.
There is always going to be SOME danger. That does not mean you avoid everything in life.

If a lotion or sunblock came out with an extensive warning label of adverse reactions that include paralysis and death (Have you seen the adverse reactions listed on vaccines?) you can bet your ass I would not be using it.

 

[Blue_bumpkin]

I could say that vampires cause SIDS and until you prove to me otherwise, i'm going to hang garlic around all the windows in my nursery to keep them out. And you know? that would be my choice. Fearing something does not make it, in reality, a real concern.
I'm not trying to make light of vaccine fears, just that the logic applied is so faulty at times it drives me crazy.

Yes, if vampires were visiting our children at 2 months and 4 months of age and tens of thousands of children were dying immediately after their visit, I WOULD suspect the vampires had something to do with the deaths. Your analogy is extremely unfitting. I am not just suggesting some completely random cause.

Vaccines don't cause SIDS. If they do then why doesn't every child vaccinated fall victim to it? SIDS is so rare that when compared to the number of people vaccinating their children, I cant see how anyone could definitively deduce cause and effect.

Many studies conducted have concluded that some children who have died from SIDS actually had slight abnormalities in the regions of the brain that control breathing etc.. These abnormalities are something, these children are born with.

The anitbodies a child inherits from its mother start to dwindle from 8 weeks, which is why it is thought that the risk peaks between 2-4 months and also why breastfeeding and vaccination reduces the risk. Statistics also show that several victims had been ill, even if only slight, in the few weeks prior to death.

And thats not even taking into account prenatal factors that increase the risk.

Like I said, definitively proving a cause for SIDS will be near impossible. People can only do what they feel is right. For every positive there will be a negative. im sure almost every person does their own research and makes an informed decision for their child that is neither right nor wrong.

For people who have been directly affected by SIDS, its difficult to accept without being able to lay blame or find an actual cause or reason for the loss.

SIDS on the whole is random and unexplained.

This is taken from the bupa website:

Causes of cot death
Identified causes
A specific cause is identified in around one in 10 cot deaths. Possible causes include serious infection, accident, or a previously unknown problem that the baby was born with (a 'congenital' condition) such as a heart defect or lung problem.

SIDS
If no specific cause can be found to explain the death, it's defined as SIDS. Research has suggested that a number of different factors may be linked to SIDS. It's believed that these factors don't actually cause SIDS, but may make a baby more at risk. These factors include:

allergies
bacterial and viral infections
unknown genetic conditions
problems in the area of the brain that controls breathing
irregular heartbeat
accidental suffocation
overheating

Until 'Recent vaccination' is listed as a risk factor then, personally, I am not going to worry.

I respect everyone elses decision though and wish those who are still currently deciding the best of luck with it

 

[Justagirlxx]

I could say that vampires cause SIDS and until you prove to me otherwise, i'm going to hang garlic around all the windows in my nursery to keep them out. And you know? that would be my choice. Fearing something does not make it, in reality, a real concern.
I'm not trying to make light of vaccine fears, just that the logic applied is so faulty at times it drives me crazy.

Yes, if vampires were visiting our children at 2 months and 4 months of age and tens of thousands of children were dying immediately after their visit, I WOULD suspect the vampires had something to do with the deaths. Your analogy is extremely unfitting. I am not just suggesting some completely random cause.

Vaccines don't cause SIDS. If they do then why doesn't every child vaccinated fall victim to it? SIDS is so rare that when compared to the number of people vaccinating their children, I cant see how anyone could definitively deduce cause and effect.

Many studies conducted have concluded that some children who have died from SIDS actually had slight abnormalities in the regions of the brain that control breathing etc.. These abnormalities are something, these children are born with.

The anitbodies a child inherits from its mother start to dwindle from 8 weeks, which is why it is thought that the risk peaks between 2-4 months and also why breastfeeding and vaccination reduces the risk. Statistics also show that several victims had been ill, even if only slight, in the few weeks prior to death.

And thats not even taking into account prenatal factors that increase the risk.

Like I said, definitively proving a cause for SIDS will be near impossible. People can only do what they feel is right. For every positive there will be a negative. im sure almost every person does their own research and makes an informed decision for their child that is neither right nor wrong.

For people who have been directly affected by SIDS, its difficult to accept without being able to lay blame or find an actual cause or reason for the loss.

SIDS on the whole is random and unexplained.

This is taken from the bupa website:

Causes of cot death
Identified causes
A specific cause is identified in around one in 10 cot deaths. Possible causes include serious infection, accident, or a previously unknown problem that the baby was born with (a 'congenital' condition) such as a heart defect or lung problem.

SIDS
If no specific cause can be found to explain the death, it's defined as SIDS. Research has suggested that a number of different factors may be linked to SIDS. It's believed that these factors don't actually cause SIDS, but may make a baby more at risk. These factors include:

allergies
bacterial and viral infections
unknown genetic conditions
problems in the area of the brain that controls breathing
irregular heartbeat
accidental suffocation
overheating

Until 'Recent vaccination' is listed as a risk factor then, personally, I am not going to worry.

I respect everyone elses decision though and wish those who are still currently deciding the best of luck with it

So basically your arguement is that since not every child vaccinated dies from SIDs, that proves there is no link? That makes no sense at all. Why doesn't every child who is vaccinated fall victim to an adverse reaction?? Not every child vaccinated has a vaccine reaction but that doesn't mean it doesn't cause one in SOME children. Also SIDS is NOT uncommon. It is actually the leading cause of death in children under the age of one.

Also, there is absolutely no reason why we shouldn't be able to find an exact cause for SIDS someday. We know the exact cause of many other diseases.

 

[Blue_bumpkin]

I could say that vampires cause SIDS and until you prove to me otherwise, i'm going to hang garlic around all the windows in my nursery to keep them out. And you know? that would be my choice. Fearing something does not make it, in reality, a real concern.
I'm not trying to make light of vaccine fears, just that the logic applied is so faulty at times it drives me crazy.

Yes, if vampires were visiting our children at 2 months and 4 months of age and tens of thousands of children were dying immediately after their visit, I WOULD suspect the vampires had something to do with the deaths. Your analogy is extremely unfitting. I am not just suggesting some completely random cause.

Vaccines don't cause SIDS. If they do then why doesn't every child vaccinated fall victim to it? SIDS is so rare that when compared to the number of people vaccinating their children, I cant see how anyone could definitively deduce cause and effect.

Many studies conducted have concluded that some children who have died from SIDS actually had slight abnormalities in the regions of the brain that control breathing etc.. These abnormalities are something, these children are born with.

The anitbodies a child inherits from its mother start to dwindle from 8 weeks, which is why it is thought that the risk peaks between 2-4 months and also why breastfeeding and vaccination reduces the risk. Statistics also show that several victims had been ill, even if only slight, in the few weeks prior to death.

And thats not even taking into account prenatal factors that increase the risk.

Like I said, definitively proving a cause for SIDS will be near impossible. People can only do what they feel is right. For every positive there will be a negative. im sure almost every person does their own research and makes an informed decision for their child that is neither right nor wrong.

For people who have been directly affected by SIDS, its difficult to accept without being able to lay blame or find an actual cause or reason for the loss.

SIDS on the whole is random and unexplained.

This is taken from the bupa website:

Causes of cot death
Identified causes
A specific cause is identified in around one in 10 cot deaths. Possible causes include serious infection, accident, or a previously unknown problem that the baby was born with (a 'congenital' condition) such as a heart defect or lung problem.

SIDS
If no specific cause can be found to explain the death, it's defined as SIDS. Research has suggested that a number of different factors may be linked to SIDS. It's believed that these factors don't actually cause SIDS, but may make a baby more at risk. These factors include:

allergies
bacterial and viral infections
unknown genetic conditions
problems in the area of the brain that controls breathing
irregular heartbeat
accidental suffocation
overheating

Until 'Recent vaccination' is listed as a risk factor then, personally, I am not going to worry.

I respect everyone elses decision though and wish those who are still currently deciding the best of luck with it

So basically your arguement is that since not every child vaccinated dies from SIDs, that proves there is no link? That makes no sense at all. Why doesn't every child who is vaccinated fall victim to an adverse reaction?? Not every child vaccinated has a vaccine reaction but that doesn't mean it doesn't cause one in SOME children. Also SIDS is NOT uncommon. It is actually the leading cause of death in children under the age of one.

Also, there is absolutely no reason why we shouldn't be able to find an exact cause for SIDS someday. We know the exact cause of many other diseases.

Why are you so completely rude? Did you even read my entire post? If so then that is not 'basically my argument', my point was your talking as if vaccines do definitely cause SIDS which there is no proof for. And when I said why dont all vaccinated children fall victim that was a genuine question posed to you? The majority of children are fine post vaccination . While I agree there are risks to vaccinating, you dont seem to be able to accept that there are risks with not vaccinating. its quite clear you arent open to ANY kind of criticism whatsoever so what is the point in still arguing?

and fyi i said 'definitively proving a cause for SIDS will be near impossible' i didn't say we will never find a cause and that we shouldnt. i am not wasting anymore of my time on your posts.

With your selective reading you also failed to comment on the other points i made. Why is that?

i was very polite in mine and said i respect other ppls decision, why dont you do the same.

 

[BrandiCanucks]

We have discussed SIDS in my class a few weeks back. The definitions of SIDS is:

•The sudden and unexpected death of an apparently healthy infant during sleep

It is not "the accidental suffocation of"..., or "the accidental stoppage of..." In all cases, it is unexplained.

Not having bumper pads, or being born in December, or smoking, all these are only theories as to what increases the risk. When my son was born, he was born in December and we were told by the nurses to be careful because he was at an increased risk of SIDS because of his birthdate. We were told it was because children born in December are generally dressed too warm. We thought this was the most ridiculous theory EVER. Our son is perfectly healthy, unvaccinated, and slept on his belly from 3 weeks old.

The fact of the matter is, SIDS is the UNEXPLAINED death. This means that those children who have died of SIDS may have had an underlying condition that put them at a higher risk for cessation of lung function, or cessation of the heart beating. The truth is, no one knows if SIDS is actually caused by the heart stopping or by the breathing process stopping, which is why the causes remain unexplained. Until we know which is the actual function that stops, we will never know exactly what causes it, who is more at risk, or what lessens the risk of it happening. Until we know this information, no one, not one person, scientist, doctor, or parent, can say either way whether vaccinations increases or decreases the risk of SIDS.

EDIT TO ADD: I have a friend whose sister's 2-month-old child passed away 3 days after her first vaccination. I'm not saying either way whether this was a result of the vaccination because I really don't know, nor do I know what to believe. However, this little girl fell asleep on her mother's shoulder and her mother laid her down in her stroller. They were at their older child's baseball game in the middle of summer, wearing shorts and a t-shirt. Someone she hadn't seen in a while wanted to meet this new baby and when the mom went to get the baby, she could not rouse her. In a span on 30 minutes, in broad daylight, in her stroller, laying on her back, this little girl passed away of SIDS. It does not always happen in the middle of the night in a crib with bumper pads in the middle of December.

 

[tasha41]

Was going to read up on the original topic BUT hit last page or whatever and ended up here, reading about SIDS.

Recent research results:
https://www.nih.gov/news/health/feb2010/nichd-02.htm

 

[KandyKinz]

Not having bumper pads, or being born in December, or smoking, all these are only theories as to what increases the risk. When my son was born, he was born in December and we were told by the nurses to be careful because he was at an increased risk of SIDS because of his birthdate. We were told it was because children born in December are generally dressed too warm. We thought this was the most ridiculous theory EVER. Our son is perfectly healthy, unvaccinated, and slept on his belly from 3 weeks old.

Actually those factors are not just "theories" they have been proven by scientific studies to be asssociated with SIDS.... Not saying that they are the cause but they are associated. As a fake example, if 100 babies were exposed to the factor at question and 100 babies were not exposed... Only 1 of the unexposed babies may die of SIDS but 10 of the exposed baby's will die... If that makes sense. So yes... ALOT of babies who are exposed to a risk factor will be perfectly fine (whether it be sleeping on their bellies unattended or being vaccinated -- I am still waiting for some sources in this one people! I am terribly interested to read more about the potential SIDS/immunization link!!!!)... But more babies will die being exposed to the factor than had they never been exposed.

So babies being overdressed/overheated is a TRUE risk factors or SIDS.
Not breastfeeding is a true risk factors of SIDS (in fact formula fed babies are 50% more likely to experience SIDS)
Belly sleeping is a true risk factor of SIDS (though if you're there watching the little one it's perfectly fine)
Prenatal smoke exposure is a true risk factor
Postpartum second hand smoke is a true risk factor
Inadequate air circulation and bumper pads are true risk factors
Sleeping in a room by themselves is a true risk factor

I also wanted to not that pacifiers have actually been studied and shown to have a protective effect against SIDS... but since their use can be quite detrimental to breastfeeding initiation in some babies and the protective effect of breastfeeding is far far greater it's probably a good idea to ensure breastfeeding has been well established before introducing the soother.

 

[BrandiCanucks]

it decreases the risk for children in general, but does not decrease the risk for each individual child. This is why those recommendations remain theories. A scientist cannot take 10 children and say "These children out of these 100 are at an increased risk for SIDS, so do this and eliminate that and you will decrease the risk, or your child will not be affected by SIDS".

Until they can prove what the cause is and prove whether SIDS is cessation of the beating heart or cessation of lung function, they cannot make true recommendations based on scientific fact, only on scientific theory.

 

[Blue_bumpkin]

it decreases the risk for children in general, but does not decrease the risk for each individual child. This is why those recommendations remain theories. A scientist cannot take 10 children and say "These children out of these 100 are at an increased risk for SIDS, so do this and eliminate that and you will decrease the risk, or your child will not be affected by SIDS".

Until they can prove what the cause is and prove whether SIDS is cessation of the beating heart or cessation of lung function, they cannot make true recommendations based on scientific fact, only on scientific theory.

Its is very very difficult to prove anything for 'fact' in science. there are some variables that it is impossible to control, even under the strictest of conditions. This is why most recommendation, when it comes to medicine and health in general, are largely based on scientific theory.

This is why these experiments are conducted on large scales and repeated to reduce the error but unfortunately it will be hard to eliminate them completely.

Most things these days that we take as 'fact' are indeed only scientific theory. there is always the possibility that x, y or z contributed to the result as well.

 

[KandyKinz]

it decreases the risk for children in general, but does not decrease the risk for each individual child. This is why those recommendations remain theories. A scientist cannot take 10 children and say "These children out of these 100 are at an increased risk for SIDS, so do this and eliminate that and you will decrease the risk, or your child will not be affected by SIDS".

Until they can prove what the cause is and prove whether SIDS is cessation of the beating heart or cessation of lung function, they cannot make true recommendations based on scientific fact, only on scientific theory.

I think you're contradicting your no-vaccine self from a few posts back.

Anyways, You're right in that there is a big difference between associations and causal effect. I'm not in any way denying this from being true.... I was forced to take far too many stats courses through uni to not realize that. BUT associations are not necessarily theories... Theories are explanations for why the association or causal effect occurs... Eg, Babies who sleep in the same room as their parents for the first year of life are less likely to die of SIDS. It's not a cause and effect relationship... Babies who sleep in their own room won't always die of SIDS because that causal relationship is not there. But babies who do sleep alone in their own room are more likely to die of SIDS. The association IS there! It's been scientifically proven to be there. Why that association is there we don't know.. Could there be other factors involved... Ofcourse! But we know that by having babies sleep in the same room as their parents fewer babies will die. As to why that is... that's where theory comes in to play... The theory is that some babies for whatever reason can enter into such a deep sleep that their brain just becomes innactive and forgets to breathe... The thought is that if the baby is able to hear other people move and breathe in the room that they will be unable to enter into such a deep dangerous sleep level and therefore they will continue to breathe. Now that's just theory....

 

[lisaf]

I spoke to my mom about the disease/infection my sister died from. It was pneumococcal septicemia.

Streptococcus pneumoniae, or pneumococcus, is a bacteria that causes many different kinds of infections in people, ranging from ear infections and sinus infections to pneumonia, meningitis, and sepsis.
Although the names (and bacterial genuses) are similar, S. pneumoniae is quite different from group A streptococcus (the bacteria that causes strep throat and rheumatic fever). S. pneumoniae infections are on the average much more serious -- pneumococcus is the most common cause of bacterial meningitis in the United States, and about 8% of children with pneumococcal meningitis die of the infection, while 1 out of 4 surviving children, or more, have neurologic damage.

My sister died of it at 14 months old, my brother had it a 12.5 months and survived and was seemingly fine afterwards... in his mid-to-late 20s started to develop signs that we later learned were signs of calcification in his brain (brain damage). This is supposed to be a hereditary condition but there is no history of it in our family and my mom thinks it might somehow be related to the infection he had when he was an infant.


People most susceptible to pneumococcal infections are those with spleen damage or sickle cell.... neither of which either my brother or sister had.
It looked like a cold with a bit of a fever, something most children get from time-to-time... when it was obviously much more serious than that, my mom drove my sister to the hospital.... a block away from our house she saw my sister wasn't breathing and pulled over at a fire station... they got an ambulence but my sister never survived the trip. And from what I understand, there wasn't much they could have done to improve her chances if she had been at the hospital sooner. From what I was told at the time, it was a pretty rare thing to have happen (or a rare variety of bacteria?). And to have 2 kids in one family have it is even more rare (they ran a ton of tests on me and my brother to try to figure this out). Apparently it does have a cycle of recurrance and seems to be especially bad every 10 years or so... my brother had his illness in 1979 and my sister was in 1989.

There is now a pneumococcal vaccine they can give as early as 2 months of age that protects against 7 varieties of pneumococcal bacteria... there is another version that protects against 13 varieties and I think they can give that pretty young. The version that protects against 23 varieties is only really effective in children 2 or older.

So anyway, I got the information and wanted to update those who are still reading this who said they were interested earlier.

 

[blutea]

I spoke to my mom about the disease/infection my sister died from. It was pneumococcal septicemia.

Streptococcus pneumoniae, or pneumococcus, is a bacteria that causes many different kinds of infections in people, ranging from ear infections and sinus infections to pneumonia, meningitis, and sepsis.
Although the names (and bacterial genuses) are similar, S. pneumoniae is quite different from group A streptococcus (the bacteria that causes strep throat and rheumatic fever). S. pneumoniae infections are on the average much more serious -- pneumococcus is the most common cause of bacterial meningitis in the United States, and about 8% of children with pneumococcal meningitis die of the infection, while 1 out of 4 surviving children, or more, have neurologic damage.

My sister died of it at 14 months old, my brother had it a 12.5 months and survived and was seemingly fine afterwards... in his mid-to-late 20s started to develop signs that we later learned were signs of calcification in his brain (brain damage). This is supposed to be a hereditary condition but there is no history of it in our family and my mom thinks it might somehow be related to the infection he had when he was an infant.


People most susceptible to pneumococcal infections are those with spleen damage or sickle cell.... neither of which either my brother or sister had.
It looked like a cold with a bit of a fever, something most children get from time-to-time... when it was obviously much more serious than that, my mom drove my sister to the hospital.... a block away from our house she saw my sister wasn't breathing and pulled over at a fire station... they got an ambulence but my sister never survived the trip. And from what I understand, there wasn't much they could have done to improve her chances if she had been at the hospital sooner. From what I was told at the time, it was a pretty rare thing to have happen (or a rare variety of bacteria?). And to have 2 kids in one family have it is even more rare (they ran a ton of tests on me and my brother to try to figure this out). Apparently it does have a cycle of recurrance and seems to be especially bad every 10 years or so... my brother had his illness in 1979 and my sister was in 1989.

There is now a pneumococcal vaccine they can give as early as 2 months of age that protects against 7 varieties of pneumococcal bacteria... there is another version that protects against 13 varieties and I think they can give that pretty young. The version that protects against 23 varieties is only really effective in children 2 or older.

So anyway, I got the information and wanted to update those who are still reading this who said they were interested earlier.

Thanks for the update, Again, I am so sorry for your family's loss.