NWI Family Ruined after taking Vaccine

[SavageEagle]

Vaccines are bad, natural cures are good. It's your choice, not mine. That sums up my position. Next?

 

[Indy317]

not taking any vaccines.

just dont cry to me when you get polio.

The problem is that I believe there are good vaccine and bad ones. Somethings could affect millions. A very small number of women die from cervical cancer, yet Merek pushed for mandatory vaccine laws in almost every state. It is sickening that a for-profit business pushed for a law that would only save a few thousand, but put billions of dollars in their bank accounts. Don't tell me Merek or any other drug maker doesn't have a vested interest in hiding the few really bad issues with their products. Why do these companies test in third world countries that are packed with over a billion people. Do you think it is easier to cover sever negative reactions in a Calcutta ghetto, or one in Indy? Why does the government want to give civil immunity to vaccine makers if their products are not dangerous?

I am suspicious about these new wonder drugs. It seems drug makers are making such complex chemicals to solve our health issues, that we might be doing more harm than good. Look at the push by government for people to get flu shots. I have never seen such madness. It is all about one thing: The economy. If they can get 250,000,000 to shell out $15-$35 for a shot, that makes the revenues of big pharma that much higher, and will paint a picture of an economy on the path of recovery. If your one of the few who get sick from the vaccines, federal law won't let you sue on your own. There is a special process set up that pays out funds from a pool. So while your daughter, husband, wife, etc. is in a coma, take solace in the $50K "sorry" money you get from the government.

I think we have to be careful in declaring all vaccines are bad. I think we quickly forget how bad polio, smallpox, typhus, diptheria were in this country before these vaccines made them rarely seen in this country.

Vaccines for things that are really wide spread are one thing. Pushing for vaccines, making them mandatory for some people (or they lose their job) is another. Big pharma has run out of really bad things to fight against, so they are not focused on these things like "restless leg syndrome" WHAT? Are you serious? Oh, now we have to have mandatory HPV vaccines because 4,000 women die/year from cervical cancer. Oh, and the vaccine won't necessarily prevent cervical cancer either. Come on, no we are so worried about aliments that affect just 4,000 people that we need to force tens of millions to submit to forced medication?

Even more sickening is that these private companies can give to politicians. Like they are not going to have _any_ bias at all? Come on. Then you have universities come out with studies were are told to take as non-bias, then you go to the university and see the names of a big pharma company on some donation plaque/wall. So some company donates $100K+ to a university and people are supposed to believe there is no bias into the research of the companies drug by the university?

Gardasil is the name of the vaccine,....

Some people are calling it GardaKill. Another Merck wonder drug. Hey Merck, how is Vioxx going for yea?

I don't really want to jump in the fray here, but I don't subscribe to the tinfoil theory on vaccines. I am sure that there are cases where vaccines can cause harm, and I would be utterly devastated if it were my child. But vaccines have saved millions of lives in this country.

What if an overwhelmingly majority of parents decided not to vaccinate their kids? Think about it. Think about what could happen. It is safe to make a decision to not vaccinate your child (mostly safe) because almost all the other children around him/her are vaccinated. You can comfortably make this decision because other parents have made a different one.

The aliments we vaccinated could affect millions. Where are the massive deaths from cervical cancer? Is 5,000 deaths from cervical cancer per year enough to mandate Gardasil or other HPV vaccines? Look at the H1N1 flu hype. We _might_ have 90K dead, yet in Indiana, only five people have died, yet government and the medical community is pushing vaccination to no end. So, do you roll the dice on HPV and H1N1 vaccines or don't you? To me it is a personal issue. I have no problems getting vaccines for those aliments that could kills millions, but I do have an issue with wonder drugs that _might_ stop aliments that only affect a very, very small subset of the population.

I will not minimize a vaccine related complication, but man, you are massively minimizing the health impact of HPV in this statement.

HPV is said to cause _some_ cervical cancers. Gardasil only protects against a few HPV strains, though they are said to be responsible for something like 80-90% of HPV. The fact is, less than 5,000 women die per year from cervical cancer. Using that logic, we should be banning alcohol _today_. Alcohol related auto crashes result in 10,000+ dealths per year. Yet we are more focused about the forced medication of tens of millions when the simple act of banning alcohol might cause drunk driving to fall significantly, and thus save more lives than cervical cancer takes.

Until scientists who develope these vaccines are perfect, some people will have adverse reactions.
Man can never make a perfect medicine, or do a perfect procedure.

The problem is "some people." How many are too many? 100 kids in a coma? 10,000 kids in a coma? 100,000 kids? 1,000,000? 10,000,000?

Then the question becomes: If these things are mandated, who should be paying for the fifty years of medical care for these kids? If they are pushed by government, in government schools, and the makers are given civil immunity, who should pay?

Complex medications scare me. I don't really blame big pharma that much. While a song writer gets decades of legal rights, companies who make a drug only get a few years to make a monopolistic profit from that drug. After a short time frame, any company can then make a generic. As such, there is a rush to make a new drug for _something_. Restless leg syndrome is one of those things that really makes me think "What is going on here, restless leg? What?" Folks need to watch "I am legend." Do I think a vaccine or drug could cause zombie like humans? No, but I do believe that if we are not careful, we could accidentally create something that ends up worse than the cure. There is a reason folks were protective gear in bio-hazard labs, it is so they don't _get_ something nasty. There are some scary things out there, and I believe the quest for more and more money could at some point cause a huge problem with a large % of the human population. Like in the movie, we easily could see millions die off. It is one thing to have a plague caused by nature, it would be really sad to have a plague caused by humans.

 

[haldir]

I just sense an awful lot of tinfoil hats in the anti-vaccine movement. Big Pharma has everyone bought off and is foisting off on the public drugs they know are dangerous, seems to be the attitude. Certainly everyone needs to research the issues and make decisions based upon the best scientific findings. But make it scientific. Don't make it, well I heard, some guy told me, i saw on some website. There is just way too much disinformation out there. Many of these people pushing "alternate" medicines are hucksters selling their version of snake oil. My child had a genuine reaction to his first DPT shot. The doctor decided to delete the pertussis portion of his shots from that point on. Unfortunately our schools no longer teach science or give students an appreciation for what the scientific method even means. We are too busy teaching how to use condoms and how to feel good about yourself.

The Gardasil vaccine actually seems to be a good example. There are questions on its safety and the scientific community is looking at it. With a simple Google search I discovered this was discussed just a few months ago in the Journal of the AMA. If it is dangerous or not effective, real scientists and doctors will discover it. Not some joker selling his homeopathy water. With the huge trial lawyers industry in this country, do you really think the drug companies are going to release drugs they know are dangerous. If they did that, the suits would be like a tidal wave. I don't know if anyone should currently take it or if they should wait for further study. That is up to each individual. I so think that to just say "well it's only 4000 women a year that dies" is a bit callous. I think it also discounts the misery that the 7-8000 women that get it and survive each year, the cost to their families emotionally.

 

[MrBogok]

No more shots for me ever again!!!

 

[LPMan59]

I just sense an awful lot of tinfoil hats in the anti-vaccine movement. Big Pharma has everyone bought off and is foisting off on the public drugs they know are dangerous, seems to be the attitude. Certainly everyone needs to research the issues and make decisions based upon the best scientific findings. But make it scientific. Don't make it, well I heard, some guy told me, i saw on some website. There is just way too much disinformation out there. Many of these people pushing "alternate" medicines are hucksters selling their version of snake oil. My child had a genuine reaction to his first DPT shot. The doctor decided to delete the pertussis portion of his shots from that point on. Unfortunately our schools no longer teach science or give students an appreciation for what the scientific method even means. We are too busy teaching how to use condoms and how to feel good about yourself.

The Gardasil vaccine actually seems to be a good example. There are questions on its safety and the scientific community is looking at it. With a simple Google search I discovered this was discussed just a few months ago in the Journal of the AMA. If it is dangerous or not effective, real scientists and doctors will discover it. Not some joker selling his homeopathy water. With the huge trial lawyers industry in this country, do you really think the drug companies are going to release drugs they know are dangerous. If they did that, the suits would be like a tidal wave. I don't know if anyone should currently take it or if they should wait for further study. That is up to each individual. I so think that to just say "well it's only 4000 women a year that dies" is a bit callous. I think it also discounts the misery that the 7-8000 women that get it and survive each year, the cost to their families emotionally.

what an excellent post. keep it scientific! if Drug A or Vaccine B is bad, then I want to see why.....give me articles from a solid peer-reviewed journal. Show me JAMA or NEJM. dont quote some website you found.if it ends in .com, it probably isnt a good site.

there are plenty of websites out there who push an agenda one way or another who offer little or no evidence to support their claim. while i agree that the OP was a tragic story, there are two very important things to remember.

1) you dont know the whole story
2) while tragic, this could be an outlier (ie see #1).

neither of these things lessens the family's suffering and i realize that. but if a gun fails and kills someone you love, should we ban guns? if a car fails and kills someone, should we ban cars? if one person has a reaction to morphine, Phenergan, Coumadin, etc, should we ban those drugs? of course not! but if a statistical trend can be found, then the manufacturer does a recall and fixes the problem or scraps the idea.

 

[Indy317]

The Gardasil vaccine actually seems to be a good example. There are questions on its safety and the scientific community is looking at it. With a simple Google search I discovered this was discussed just a few months ago in the Journal of the AMA. If it is dangerous or not effective, real scientists and doctors will discover it. Not some joker selling his homeopathy water. With the huge trial lawyers industry in this country, do you really think the drug companies are going to release drugs they know are dangerous. If they did that, the suits would be like a tidal wave. I don't know if anyone should currently take it or if they should wait for further study. That is up to each individual. I so think that to just say "well it's only 4000 women a year that dies" is a bit callous. I think it also discounts the misery that the 7-8000 women that get it and survive each year, the cost to their families emotionally.

Shouldn't we determine if drugs are dangerous _before_ they are approved for use? The research has already been done, so why do we need to continue to look at new data? The drug has either been tested and rendered safe, to which it should be made available, or it hasn't to which use needs to stops.

Trail lawyers? I am not sure about Gardasil, but with H1N1, the federal government has blocked all lawsuits. Any damage claims will be handled in a special way. No million dollar payout for putting someone's kid in a coma.

Again, if we are going to force medicate people for 4,000 deaths from _whatever_, and the treatment of another 8,000 from whatever...we need to apply that logic to _everything_. That means we need to once again ban alcohol, or reduce the amount of alcohol an establishment is allowed to serve to any given person (only two servings per day per person say?). When a product is banned or restricted, usage goes down. Obviously a black market will appear, but I believe that if alcohol were once again banned, most people would just consume it in private residences and the incidents of DUI would be reduced significantly. So, lets ban alcohol to save 4,000 people that die every year because of DUI. Not only will we likely save 4,000 people, we will also save the costs, both financially and emotionally, to those who are injured due to DUI.

As far as the natural cures folks, you are right. They are in the business to make money, so if you dismiss their claims on the basis of greed, you may as well dismiss those of big pharma as well. It isn't like the FDA has never blocked a drug for sale, or pulled one from the market. There is plenty of evidence, in my opinion, that there was a Vioxx cover-up. There are plenty of people that cover-up things that may mean they end up out of a job, get sued, and/or get demoted. Once again, it is all about greed.

In this case, if Merck just owned up and said "Yes, Gardasil could be a likely factor in this case." I think people would have more respect and trustworthiness of big pharma. They could easily say that such issues are rare (and they more than likely are, as with millions of doses already given, if the stuff was that bad, more girls would be in comas and such). My worry isn't so much immediate, serious issues with these drugs. I don't think _any_ big phama company wants something that will comatose even 1% of the people that take the drug. That being said, what happens long term, that might not be serious or immediate? What if Gardasil is linked to causing girls to become sterile after 10 years? Will tens of millions of sterile young women be worth it to save the lives of a few thousand from cervical cancer?

Really, there isn't much we can do. The money is big and there will always be greed. There will be another wonder drug come out that the FDA will OK, then turn around and pull from the shelves. There will be a drug that ends up with horrible, non-life threatening side affects years after it is administered. What happens then is anyone's guess. Some can just blindly follow the masses, others will not. In the end, life keeps on going. In a very short 80 years, it is likely that every member of this board will be dead anyway.

 

[Glock21]

I love it! I wear a tinfoil hat if I listen to any independent doctors opinion who thinks vaccines do more harm than good - and I should, instead, listen to all the doctors who have a stake in the use of vaccines. I should leave it to GOVERNMENT and drug companies to tell me what is good for me, and to question their directions makes me some sort of conspiracy nut.

Well, I beg to differ.

Lets ask ourselves a simple question - what sounds more like the mindset of a crazy person?

A- "Hmmm....I only have one body and one life on this planet, perhaps I should really take seriously any substence I put into my body if my plan is to stay healthy for as long as possible. And given the track record of government telling the truth, and the amount of medications that have been pulled off the market over the years because of side effects and deaths caused, maybe I should look at everything government and pharma tells me with a grain of salt."

or

B "Hey, ya know what - I just saw a government "official" on the "news" say that flu shots are a good thing, so here's what I'm gonna do: Today, I'm gonna go to a place I've never been before, and have a person I've never met, take a vial of I don't know what, made I don't know where by I don't know whom, and direct inject it into my blood stream, and then I'm gonna PAY them for it!!!!! Yippie!!!!! I'm so smart!!!!!


I ask again, which person sounds like they need psychiatric help? Which one sounds like the kind of person you'd want backing you up in a fight? Which one sounds like the kind of person you could trust?

The last stats I saw now have autism in boys at more than one in 100 - so just to be clear, that's a 1% chance your son will develope autism. Now, I know the drug companies claim that the shots aren't related. but just for arguments sake, lets say they are [and I think there is plenty of eveidence to suggest a connection.] And lets compare it to the other things we do in our lives.

Is there a less than 1% chance you will be in a car wreck today? Is there a less than 1% chance you will be violently attacked? YEP! But for some reason, most of us will wear seatbelts and most of us will carry guns....And why will we do that? Because the consequences of not doing it, should the event happen, are so severe that we're not willing to risk it. Well, perhaps you can cut us "anti shot" people a little slack considering we see side effects and reactions from shots are a higher probability than your chance of needing your gun today.

My best freinds daughter has suffered major asthma and respiratory problems since A FEW HOURS after she received a round of shots as a baby. Lots of military people my age have sufferd from Gulf War Syndrome from the first Gulf War, and they attribute it to the "experimental" vaccine they were given. My grandparents get the freekin flu shot every year...and then get the flu.

Sorry, I'm unimpressed with all those doctors and scientists thus far.

 

[rambone]

The comparison between mass vaccinations & private gun ownership is flawed.

Innocent people are harmed from firearms when some negligent, accidental, or homicidal intentions are used.

Innocent people are harmed from vaccines when they are used exactly as directed. And then you are lied to and told it was genetics that caused your spontaneous illness.

My best freinds daughter has suffered major asthma and respiratory problems since A FEW HOURS after she received a round of shots as a baby.

Now she has a lifetime worth of asthma attacks, inhalers, struggles in sports, etc. Hopefully it is some consolation to know that she may or may not get Chicken Pox later in life.

 

[SavageEagle]

I had the Pox vac's. I still ended up getting them. Bad.

 

[Glock21]

The comparison between mass vaccinations & private gun ownership is flawed.

Innocent people are harmed from firearms when some negligent, accidental, or homicidal intentions are used.

Innocent people are harmed from vaccines when they are used exactly as directed. And then you are lied to and told it was genetics that caused your spontaneous illness.




Now she has a lifetime worth of asthma attacks, inhalers, struggles in sports, etc. Hopefully it is some consolation to know that she may or may not get Chicken Pox later in life.

I was comparing odds of needing to use a gun vs odds of a shot harming an individual. I was actually saying that gun owners who carry because they might need to defend themselves have a much better chance of suffering a side effect from a vaccine than they will of needing a gun.

 

[theweakerbrother]

I feel sick knowing the shots I received as a shot potentially came from harvested aborted fetus tissue, formaldehyde and monkey parts...

 

[Blue Tile Spook]

Haldir,

I am only addressing this to you because you have written the closest to the point(s) that I want to bring up here. I mean you no offense.

In a different area of healthcare - mental health - Senator Grassley in the US Senate has done some investigation over the last year into the "big whigs" of the mental healthcare movement and has found that those doctors heavily promoting particular meds for particular health conditions have been paid handsomely by the Pharma companies. Those companies have been found to have ghostwritten many of the research studies while paying those same well-known doctors for the lending of their names to those papers. Then, those same doctors have found to have lied to the respective universities or hospitals that employ them by accepting more monies from the Pharma companies that what the ethics portions of their employment contracts allows.

So the doctors have a bit of trouble telling the complete truth about the meds that they suggest that we ingest.

Now, take Eli Lilly Co. from Indianapolis as an example of a typical Pharma company. IIRC, they just paid ANOTHER 24 (B)illion dollars in settlements with a couple states for mis-marketing Zyprexa. Side effects that EL said were non-existant were actually found to be quite prevalent in the patient population. Sales reps, with the accompanying documentation extending from the leadership of EL down to the supervisors, were "detailing" (selling) to doctors the use of Zyprexa for illnesses that the drug was never FDA approved for, which is a violation of Federal law. Senator Grassley's investigations turned up the use of money, travel, sex, food, cars and vacations to persuade the doctors to promote EL's meds over other Pharma meds.

One Pharma company, and I cannot remember the name at the moment, was found to have started its own medical journals (plural - not just one, and no information disclosed in any manner to say that the journals were written, printed or distributed by a Pharma company) similar to the New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, etc. which were entirely ghostwritten by the Pharma company, again buying the use of doctors' names to apply to the articles to give it a look of indepence. The journals, while written by an American company, were printed and distributed from another country to seemingly hide the fact that the information was a sham.

So Pharma has a bit of trouble telling the complete truth about the meds that they suggest that we ingest.

Now we have the .GOV's part in this. The FDA continues to claim, and maybe it is the complete truth, that they are under-staffed, under-budgeted and simply cannot give each new med the scrutiny and attention that it deserves to approve a med's release onto the health market.

So .GOV has trouble truly evaluating whether a med actually does what the Pharma company says it will do in a safe, efficient manner.

I have MEDICARE as part of my disability. MEDICARE puts together its allowable, or approved, treatment modalities based on "evidence-based medicine". If the .GOV cannot wholly trust the Pharma companies to be honest about the effects, side effects and efficacy of a med, and the doctors cannot be wholly trusted for their part in the evidence chain of the med, how do "we" get the correct information?

My belief is that there is a lot of "snake oil" being sold ("WOO" medicine is the slang term thrown around by mainstream medicine) as homeopathic medicine - WOO that at best doesn't hurt an individual but at worst that can lead to a worsening of a condition, permanent disability or even death. Do please remember that ANYTHING that we put into our body DOES have side effects so homeopathic medicine is NOT completely safe in that regard.

And SAVAGE, on that note, I am NOT ringing the death knell for homeopathic medicine. IMO, it does have its place in medicine, but it is very important to realize its limitations, just as we have to recognize the limitations of western medicine.

In my daily reading of the news around the world, the H1N1 guidelines have me confused. I won't directly quote sources in this post because it is long enough already. Recently in the H1N1 news on all the local TV channels it was suggested by the lead doctor:

- Young children get the vaccine
- Elderly get the vaccine
- Those with compromised immune systems get the vaccine

because those are the most at-risk for contracting H1N1. Then, in printed news:

- No young children
- No elderly
- No compromised immune systems

Because those people have the roughest time dealing with immunity issues so they should be cautious or stay away from the vaccine.

Who's right? Who's wrong? There were no disclaimers or conditions written or talked about that would suggest why there is conflicting advice for someone like me with a compromised immune system. I'm sorry, there WAS a disclaimer: If you have any questions then talk to your doctor. So I talked to three of my doctors. One said, "Oh, yeah, you definitely need to get the shot because of your med history." The second one said, "If you want it, we can schedule you for it. It's up to you." And my third doc said laughingly, "Yeah, get the vaccine if you want to die. With your med history? I don't think so."

So yeah, nice consensus there with my healthcare team.

With the H1N1 discussions in the news, the way I read it, the World Health Organization, along with the FDA and many other organizations, are taking a wait-and-see approach with regard to any side effects of the flu shot. I have not read where there was much research done into possible side effects, just the standard "you might feel like you have the flu", "you might still contract the flu", etc. Beyond that, it almost seems like they are waiting to see if this turns into another 1975 flu situation.

I understand that vaccines have knocked out some mighty nasty diseases over the last two centuries. I still dislike the "one-size-fits-all" approach to healthcare. If I had a daughter my wife and I would be having some very long and serious discussions about whether to vaccinate her with Gardasil or not.