This is why there is vaccine-hesitancy

Log in / Sign Up

List of Forums + New Post Recipe Box Usergroups Following My Posts Bookmarks

Private Messages Advanced Search Rules New User Guide FAQ Advertise Contact Us

Forum -> Children's Health -> Vaccinations

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next

View latest: 24h 48h 72h

amother

Fri, May 03 2019, 10:15 am

https://finance.yahoo.com/news......html

A rare admission. I expect it to be pulled when the big Pharma advertisers force it off, so here is the full article.
Let's argue with facts, please. Not fear mongering.

AUSTIN, Texas, May 2, 2019 /PRNewswire/ -- In another significant legal win for vaccine risk awareness non-profit Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN), a new Freedom of Information Act disclosure from the Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has revealed that the MMR vaccine was licensed based on clinical trials which in total had less than 1,000 participants and far more adverse reactions than previously acknowledged
"It's alarming that an appeal was required to get this information, but it's more alarming that every time ICAN prevails in obtaining a FOIA disclosure from the FDA, CDC or HHS, we learn about another serious shortcoming in their duties to assure Americans' health and health care," says Del Bigtree, ICAN founder and host of the weekly fact-based medical news show "The HighWire."

The MMR vaccine is at the heart of the vaccine debate. The following are some of the key facts learned from the clinical trial reports produced by the FDA, which the agency relied upon to license the MMR:

There were eight clinical trials that in total had less than 1,000 individuals, out of which only 342 children received the MMR vaccine
The safety review period only tracked 'adverse events' for 42 days after injection
More than half or a significant percent of all participants in each of the eight trials developed gastrointestinal symptoms and upper respiratory infections
All adverse events were generically described as 'other viruses' and not considered in safety profile of licensure
The control group received other vaccines for either rubella or measles and rubella, and none of the controls received a placebo (an inert substance such as a saline injection)
Bigtree, an Emmy-Award winning producer, and director of the documentary "Vaxxed: From Coverup to Catastrophe," says the reason for increased vaccine hesitancy is not unreasonable fear, but a growth in awareness of the corruption, secrecy and obvious overt propaganda surrounding vaccines and the pharmaceutical industry.

"Thanks to the laws in this country that for now at least permit access to various government records, we now know the MMR vaccine was licensed using an irresponsibly small and limited group of children," says Bigtree.

"But what's even more alarming is learning about the serious adverse events that were known and acknowledged, yet ignored in order to license the MMR vaccine," Bigtree adds, noting "This was after only tracking adverse events for 42 days after injection – imagine what they might have found had they tracked safety for three years against an appropriate control, like they do for drugs." .

ectomorph

Fri, May 03 2019, 10:16 am

I think anti vaxxers should not be allowed to use amother. Lets see their propaganda machine

amother

Fri, May 03 2019, 10:20 am

ectomorph wrote:

I think anti vaxxers should not be allowed to use amother. Lets see their propaganda machine

I actually rarely post on imamother about vaccines and this is why.
I posted a link that the science behind this specific vaccine was flawed.
And your response was a hysterical reaction to nothing in the article.
Can you just read it? Protocol was not followed, and this is only exposed due to FOIA. READ THE DANG ARTICLE.

Sebastian

Fri, May 03 2019, 10:22 am

I read the article it quoted an anti vax group and that's it
I need to see the study they were quoting to really comment bc their conclusions are likely incorrect

amother

Fri, May 03 2019, 10:23 am

You know, there was another thread on "why are people antivaxx?" and the responses were all like "well, they hate science" or "they are crazy" or "they don't mind murdering people."
Yet here, we are giving you an actual answer based on actual science and based on actual lawsuits and your response is "we should be banned." So you want an answer or not? Listen to yourselves.

amother

Turquoise

Fri, May 03 2019, 10:27 am

Kabel es ha'emes me'me she'omro.
Dismissing concerns that are brought up doesn't make your case stronger. Rather, address the issues or the fallacies in the process. You can help educate.

I, for one, gained a lot from the scientific and non-emotional, non-bashing dialogue here on imamother. (Shout-out to JoyInTheMorning) But when posters bash the person, ignore the essence of the discussion, or post emotional hyperbole, it makes me wonder of which truth they are afraid to confront. For the sake of your pro-vax position, you're better off being quiet if you can't contribute something substantial to the topic.

amother

Fri, May 03 2019, 10:28 am

Sebastian wrote:

I read the article it quoted an anti vax group and that's it
I need to see the study they were quoting to really comment bc their conclusions are likely incorrect

Thank you for reading the article and commenting on it. I don't take that for granted.

Here is the actual study results that were only released due to lawsuit:

https://icandecide.org/governm.....A.pdf

Sebastian

Fri, May 03 2019, 10:28 am

And I am telling you this article is quoting an anti vax group cherrypicking a study. They don't quote any real dr just the anti vax group. Sorry but that is not science. I need to read the whole study.

amother

Turquoise

Fri, May 03 2019, 10:30 am

Sebastian wrote:

I read the article it quoted an anti vax group and that's it
I need to see the study they were quoting to really comment bc their conclusions are likely incorrect

It's not so difficult to get to the source of the information. Here is a link to it:
https://icandecide.org/governm.....A.pdf

SixOfWands

Fri, May 03 2019, 10:30 am

OMG! Nearly 50 years ago, some kids got colds or stomach bugs within a 2-month period after receiving MMR! MMR must be the cause of autism!

Because, you know, no kid EVER gets a cold, or a stomach bug, unless she's vaccinated.

Histrionics and fear-mongering at its worst. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the anti-vax movement has blood on its hands. Not only from the people who have needlessly suffered or died due to the lack of immunity. But also for drawing millions and millions of dollars away from real research into autism, and forcing it to follow down a rabbit hole caused by falsified research conducted on behalf of people who wanted to sue vaccine makers.

crust

Fri, May 03 2019, 10:30 am

Why don't they provide links to documents from where they draw their conclusions?

Who's PRwire? What's their agenda?

How come this article is only on Yahoo?

amother

Fri, May 03 2019, 10:30 am

Sebastian wrote:

THE LINK THAT I POSTED IS THE PRINTOUT OF THE ENTIRE STUDY FROM THE FDA.
Nothing is cherry picked. IT IS AN FDA PRINTOUT. Did you read it?

amother

Turquoise

Fri, May 03 2019, 10:32 am

SixOfWands wrote:

Your response isn't any less histrionic. Can we please address the specific information presented?

amother

Turquoise

Fri, May 03 2019, 10:33 am

crust wrote:

Why don't they provide links to documents from where they draw their conclusions?

Who's PRwire? What's their agenda?

How come this article is only on Yahoo?

They do.

amother

Turquoise

Fri, May 03 2019, 10:34 am

amother [ OP ] wrote:

THE LINK THAT I POSTED IS THE PRINTOUT OF THE ENTIRE STUDY FROM THE FDA.
Nothing is cherry picked. IT IS AN FDA PRINTOUT. Did you read it?

It's from 1978. I would think there have been additional studies since. Can anyone post?

amother

Orchid

Fri, May 03 2019, 10:34 am

amother [ Turquoise ] wrote:

It's not so difficult to get to the source of the information. Here is a link to it:
https://icandecide.org/governm.....A.pdf

This is a 1978 report. MMR was initially approved for use in 1971. Accordingly, this report doesn't relate to the initial studies of MMR.

SixOfWands

Fri, May 03 2019, 10:37 am

amother [ Turquoise ] wrote:

Your response isn't any less histrionic. Can we please address the specific information presented?

Sure. The information presented is that some participants had colds or gastro bugs within an approximately 2-month period after receiving MMR, that were determined not to be related to MMR.

You conclude that means that all studies of MMR are fraudulent, and that notwithstanding nearly 50 years of use, the vaccine is unsafe. Which, of course, it doesn't.

amother

Bronze

Fri, May 03 2019, 10:38 am

This guy is behind ICAN using a Holocaust-era yellow Star of David to promote their cause.

https://www.jta.org/quick-read.....cause

amother

Lilac

Fri, May 03 2019, 10:39 am

amother [ OP ] wrote:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/mmr-vaccine-licensing-called-following-131500482.html

A rare admission. I expect it to be pulled when the big Pharma advertisers force it off, so here is the full article.
Let's argue with facts, please. Not fear mongering.

AUSTIN, Texas, May 2, 2019 /PRNewswire/ -- In another significant legal win for vaccine risk awareness non-profit Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN), a new Freedom of Information Act disclosure from the Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has revealed that the MMR vaccine was licensed based on clinical trials which in total had less than 1,000 participants and far more adverse reactions than previously acknowledged
"It's alarming that an appeal was required to get this information, but it's more alarming that every time ICAN prevails in obtaining a FOIA disclosure from the FDA, CDC or HHS, we learn about another serious shortcoming in their duties to assure Americans' health and health care," says Del Bigtree, ICAN founder and host of the weekly fact-based medical news show "The HighWire."

The MMR vaccine is at the heart of the vaccine debate. The following are some of the key facts learned from the clinical trial reports produced by the FDA, which the agency relied upon to license the MMR:

There were eight clinical trials that in total had less than 1,000 individuals, out of which only 342 children received the MMR vaccine
The safety review period only tracked 'adverse events' for 42 days after injection
More than half or a significant percent of all participants in each of the eight trials developed gastrointestinal symptoms and upper respiratory infections
All adverse events were generically described as 'other viruses' and not considered in safety profile of licensure
The control group received other vaccines for either rubella or measles and rubella, and none of the controls received a placebo (an inert substance such as a saline injection)
Bigtree, an Emmy-Award winning producer, and director of the documentary "Vaxxed: From Coverup to Catastrophe," says the reason for increased vaccine hesitancy is not unreasonable fear, but a growth in awareness of the corruption, secrecy and obvious overt propaganda surrounding vaccines and the pharmaceutical industry.

"Thanks to the laws in this country that for now at least permit access to various government records, we now know the MMR vaccine was licensed using an irresponsibly small and limited group of children," says Bigtree.

"But what's even more alarming is learning about the serious adverse events that were known and acknowledged, yet ignored in order to license the MMR vaccine," Bigtree adds, noting "This was after only tracking adverse events for 42 days after injection – imagine what they might have found had they tracked safety for three years against an appropriate control, like they do for drugs." .

OP, or someone, can you explain this? I don't understand how a trial of MMR can have only about a third of participants getting MMR. Even with placebo, wouldn't it be half and half?

amother

Fri, May 03 2019, 10:39 am

SixOfWands wrote:

So much to unpack here, but I will just say this:
The MMR vaccine was not tested against a placebo.
It was not tracked for the same amount of time that all drugs must be tracked.

These are facts. People who are hesitant to inject substances in their bodies and need convincing to do so want these specific points addressed.

You've all actually proven my point.

The provax crowd (99% of the world) is hysterical and can't have a conversation about it.
The antivax crown (the remaining 1%) are calmly focused on facts. Let's try to stay focused on them. Can anyone find a study that showed that the MMR was tested against a placebo, for starters? That would be a fact-based conversation. Thanks.

Page 1 of 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next