"Serious Reactions to Childhood Vaccines are Rare"

Post Reply New Topic

..."Study Says"

http://news.yahoo.com/serious-reactions ... 21678.html

If vaccination reactions are so "rare," why is the U.S. Court of Federal Claims Office of Special Masters (http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/vaccine-p ... al-masters) still in business?

please read the article. it explains exactly what is meant by "rare."

Yes, it claims that "[s]erious reactions to vaccines are rare[,]" "serious side effects from the vaccines are extremely rare[,]" "these reactions are extremely rare[,]" and "the adverse events identified by the authors were rare[.]" I amn't saying that the reactions aren't relatively few compared to the number of overall vaccines and vaccinations performed annually in the United States and worldwide; statistics can do that. But, for those individuals and their families who have experienced severe reactions immediately after a routine vaccination, the assurance is weak at best. Informed patient consent isn't achieved by such generalizations about the rarity of effects.

But, the RAND Corp. (the trustworthy group that brought the world the famously leaked Pentagon Papers) study DOES admit that "some vaccines were linked with adverse reactions: the MMR vaccine was linked with an increased risk of fever-triggered seizures; flu vaccines were linked with an increased risk of gastrointestinal problems such as diarrhea; chickenpox vaccines were linked with an increased risk of complications for children with immune deficiencies; and the rotavirus vaccine was linked with an increased risk of a serious intestinal disorder called intussusception." The study no longer calls such reactions "rare" in these instances, describing them instead as "uncommon[.]" There is no detailed explanation of the related deaths, injuries, illnesses, intensities, reaction times, and longterm related effects and resolutions have had on the study subjects. Do those side effects not matter to the final conclusions?

It appears clear to me that the overview of the study that made it into the LiveScience.com (which also reports abut "spy tech[,]" "global warming" and how "Bigfoot DNA came from a raccoon") has clearly been "massaged" to reduce the admitted facts to something that is "rare" or simply misunderstood. Too bad, the result among nonnprofessional readers is the same, isn't it?

My question about how, if vaccine and vaccination reactions are so "extremely rare" according to a publication which reports about Bigfoot DNA, why is the U.S. Court of Federal Claims Office of Special Masters (http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/vaccine-p ... al-masters), AKA "the Vaccine Court," still in business is still valid.

The U.S. Court of Federal Claims Office of Special Masters still exists because people are morons who believe correlation equals causation and will fight to the death to be proven right despite being horribly wrong (in most cases). It is much easier to just pay them off so they shut up.

Citation?

That would be my own conclusion I reached from the mountains of studies that show no link between autism, the fact the thimerosal was removed from all childhood vaccines and is now only in multi-dose vials of the flu vaccine, and finally, because the doctor who first claimed a causative relationship between vaccines and autism admitted to falsifying the data and lost his medical license. Yet despite all that, anti-vaxxers are loud enough with their cause that they are now apparently outnumbering people with common sense who listen to the doctors who went to accredited medical schools (not the university of google).

The remaining actual cases of bad reactions fall under the 'rare' category that the above article already attributes to vaccines.

You might have noticed that in none of my comments about this topic did I imply a "link between autism" and vaccines and vaccinations. But, the deconstructionism and minimization by some researchers of this matter about their own facts (which are, not surprisingly, relegated to the journalistic equivalent of footnotes) is less than professional and suggests to me, at least, that an obvious degree of obfuscation.

The U.S. Court of Federal Claims Office of Special Masters continues to stand as the exclamation point to all that those who do believe that there are many various adverse reactions to common vaccines and vaccinations, and see the statistical plausibility of such a link. In this thread, at least, the hysteria and insults don't appear to be coming from the skeptics, but the proponents.