72 babies died within 20 days of receiving GSK Infanrix hexa Vaccine

[andersonsophie89]

72 babies died within 20 days of receiving GSK Infanrix hexa Vaccine.
They reported that the deaths of these children were due to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) and Sudden Unexpected Death Syndrome (SUDS) unrelated vaccination. WHAT??? What cant

Infanrix hexa combines vaccines against 6 diseases [namely Diptheria, Tetanus and Acelluar Pertusis (whooping cough), Hepatitis B, inactivated Poliomyelitis and Haemophilus influenza type B] in a single vaccine.

Why arent we informed of problems

england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/homelessness/emergency_accommodation_if_homeless/womens_refuges

You talk as if not vaccinating your children is keeping them safe. Choosing to risk them contracting potentially fatal illnesses does not keep them safe. I just don't get it.

Well, the idea of one of my children suffering death or serious injury from a preventable disease is one of the most horrifying things I can imagine.

Having done my research, I conclude that the risk of that happening is far greater than the risk that they will be harmed by a vaccination, which is an incredibly rare event.

HTH.

OP: can you link the actual published papers in question, not media/website accounts of them?

If you've read the book "Bad Science" you'll know how important it is to see the actual numbers and methods used, and to ensure that nothing is being misrepresented.

As pointed out, without more information on the total numbers, it is impossible to contextualise any particular event within that population.

And of course, causation is a totally different question unless you are convinced that margarine leads to divorce

CDC study showing no increase of SIDS in vaccinated children

Metanalysis showing immunisation tend to reduce rate of SIDS

I recommend this link very highly:

aattp.org/this-magnificent-comic-strip-lays-waste-to-the-anti-vaxxer-movement-so-completely-it-may-never-recover/

What makes you think that the powers that be should be worried about a link?
Afaik thousands of people die every day , most brushed their teeth that morning. Should we be investigating toothpaste?

Actually I think if these stories were real, the DM would be all over it.

Sad faces agogo....

Link to a reputable site and I'll think about reading it....

Paper from 2014, again assessing safety of the hexa vaccine

OP: is this the GSK document you mean? (1,271 pages)

If there were that many deaths directly as a result of the vaccine, it would have been withdrawn immediately. Why would the government be trying to hide it if it was killing babies?
There is no proof at all that these babies died because of the vaccine. If you think back to when thalidomide was used to treat morning sickness, as soon as it was found that it could cause birth defects, it was stopped from use in pregnancy. It sounds like the OP thinks that the government know all these babies have died, but are choosing to not tell anyone and carry on using it, for what reason?

Yes exactly pullthecracker, WHY would the government (or whoever) be hiding it? It makes no sense.

Such a shame - this scaremongering does so much damage

Why do MN have policies on all sorts of posts not being allowed (some quite controversial) and yet they allow these anti vaccination posts to stand? Fortunately there are a lot of very well educated posters who debunk them. However, I am sure they still put some people off using some of the safest and most beneficial prophylactics ever invented.

By allowing a topic called 'vaccinations', MN is endorsing the fact that vaccination is a debatable subject. It isn't.

Once again wishing mn had a like button.

MN is endorsing the fact that vaccination is a debatable subject. It isn't

^this^

Vaccines work. They save lives. They prevent devastated families. I grew up in one of those families.

I don't think a medical professional has ever told me that vaccinations are safe and not to worry, they have never (to me) denied risks and potential side effects.

Choosing to vaccinate is always a balance of risks, in my opinion the risks of not vaccinating are significantly higher than the risks of vaccinating but you are entitled to feel differently for your own child.

I have been involved in many SIDS studies and they have asked about vaccinations and do right across the country. They ask about everything from feeding to living conditions to pregnancy and everything in between so there will be statistics somewhere.

I also hate the way you said upthread 'putting it down to SIDS' like they can't be arsed to find the actual cause so took the 'easy' option of blaming deaths on SIDS. Its not just something they pluck out of the sky. My little boy couldn't have his funeral for over two weeks because of all the tests they were doing on his little body, my house was completely gone over by forensics teams, his bed was even taken and tested. Everyone I had been around that day was interviewed by the police. It was an awful time, but only after very extensive tests and police involvement was my sons death confirmed as SIDS.

Its not something 'easy' to blame the death of a child on and its always people with a conspiricy theory who bring up SIDS to back up their 'point' with no regard for who they might hurt in the process my son is not a statistic to make your point seem valid so please do not use him as such.

they have not done a study on vaccinated vs unvaccinated. Which makes you wonder why?

Because it would be massively unethical? By the way, there have been no controlled randomized double blind study of carseats. Why not? Because it is unethical to randomize some infants to be unbelted in cars simply so we can check how many will be injured and die.

forgot the link www.skepticalob.com/2009/10/latest-argument-of-vaccine.html

Vaccination is a balance of risks but most people are terrible at statistics. We are comparing risks of several percent dying or seriously disabled (unvaccinated population) vs several in a million (vaccinated population) possibly suffering ill effects.

In the GSK document (if it is the one linked) it says that 24,283,215 doses were distributed in the period covered, and 2408 adverse events notified.

As the document links several pieces of its own research, I hope OP will return to say exactly which of those are the ones she means.

So that's 72 deaths in over 24 million? Directly attributable?

OP if you chose not to research the pros and cons of vaccination then I'm afraid that's your fault. I chose to research them just as I choose to research anything to do with my baby's care. And as with everything (bf vs ff, when to wean etc etc) I weigh up the pros and cons and make an informed decision. I can't believe you would choose to research a pram but you wouldn't choose to research something that is being injected into your baby. FWIW, after extensive research I chose to vaccinate my DD as I believed it was best for her overall.

I don't know anyone who is naive enough to believe that vaccines are 100% safe. They're a drug, of course there will unfortunately be some people/babies who have adverse effects, including death. But most parents tend to decide that the benefits outweigh the (vanishingly small) risks.

There is no "conspiracy". What purpose would it serve? Most drug companies sell vaccines at a loss.

I'm somewhat baffled that someone would choose to research car seats and prams but not think twice about whether to research child vaccines.

FWIW, the NHS birth to 5 book I got when DS1 was born mentions side effects of vaccines. I'm pretty sure the leaflet about childhood vaccinations the HV gave us also discussed side effects, but I can't find that to check. When we went for the vaccination appointments, the nurse / doctor also told us about potential side effects before administering the vaccines.

No-one has ever said to me that vaccines are completely safe. There is absolutely nothing in this life that can be guaranteed to be 100% safe. But I thought about the risks vs the benefits, as I would with any decision involving the health of my children, and decided that the benefits far outweighed the risks.

Oh, and OP -

When I was wondering up thread about vaccinated vs unvaccinated SIDS death rates, I wasn't meaning to imply that there should be an official study where someone vaccinates x children, doesn't vaccinate another x children, and then waits to see which group has more SIDS deaths.

My thinking was more along the lines that it would probably be possible for researchers to look at the medical records of children who've died from SIDS and see what proportion had been vaccinated, and then compare that to the proportion of vaccinated children in the population.

I haven't looked at AuntieStella's links yet, but from the titles of her links that's probably the sort of thing I was wondering about.

You do know what vaccines are for? To prevent deaths from the actual diseases!

So say 50 children die from the vaccine out of 24 million. Ok, sure it's sad for those 50, but it's 50 out of 24 million!

Then you have:

Typus itself. Used to kill 1/5 children before the vaccine. So that's about 4.5 million children

50 v 4.5million. Ok. And you say vaccines are bad? They are saving millions and millions from various illnesses yearly, a very very tiny minority will be affected as that's how everything works.

The mainstream media doesn't report this claptrap because they actually fact check, and these 'facts' are bogus. It's not a conspiracy it's professional bloody standards. Even at the Daily Mail.