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

OP I suggest that if you want to subscribe to a view which flies in the face of current scientific understanding and research, you at least do your homework properly.

People also die from surgery. Should we ban that too.

Im not too sure why we need to look to other websites to confirm what we believe, that vaccines dont cause death. When in this article, there is a link to the acutual document from the manufacturerer itself, says it does and here are the facts.

Op you are not listening.

No one has said the vaccine doesn't have side effects. No one has said the vaccine is 100% safe. But why don't the words "death by measles" "death by rubella" etc etc mean anything to you? Because it's a lot more likely that you'll die from measles if you aren't vaccinated than dying from a side effect of the vaccine.

Type your current state of mind into Google - "tired, worn down...." Any other combination of feelings experience by 95% of parents in the world at any one time. Bet you could diagnose yourself with something from some "helpful" website or other. Bet there's nothing wrong with you.

GraysAnalogy - Please read all my comments before posting. I have said I didnt want to ban vaccines. I am simply asking why arent we being told about the harm it can casue.

Oh and sitting in a doctors surgery ranting about aluminium makes you sound psychotic.

We are being told. I was told.

Comprendez?

The aluminium thing just shows you are follow the lastest antivax fad. It used to be mmr, then it was thermisal and now its aluminium, even though its been used for over 70 years and its in all our food including breastmilk. If it bothered you why didnt you research it first.?

But why didn't you do your own research?? That's what I don't understand. Did anyone tell you to research prams, or did you just decide to do it to find the one that's best for you? I didn't need anyone to tell me to research the risks of vaccination, as I was obviously going to do some research into something that was being injected into my tiny baby's body. I just can't get my head around the fact that you are willing to undertake independent research into prams, car seats and water births (?) but you need someone to tell you to research vaccinations!

sophie - the report doesn't say that at all? Have you actually read the report rather than just the crap on someone's blog.
autismoevaccini.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/vaccin-dc3a9cc3a8s.pdf

If you actually read it, it says during the reporting period during the dates 23rd Oct 2009 to 22nd October 2011, 12 babies died of SIDS. The numbers of babies vaccinated were between 6 million and 24 million. Since the risk anyway is 0.41 per 1,000 live births, if you work the numbers out this is as (or slightly lower) than expected.

There is NO evidence at all that vaccination causes autism, but lack of vaccination causes disability and even death and your scare mongering could hurt vulnerable children and babies.

but most parents aren't told as a matter of course.....

You go for any routine operation and the doctors have to tell you of every potential possible outcome however remote. In fact one doctor told me that "If I haven't scared you ...I haven't done my job..."

You take your baby for a routine vaccination and nothing is said! I have 2 DS and no doctor/nurse has ever said a thing to me.

they told me when I delayed a routine jab that I was putting them at risk ...but not that the vaccine itself was a risk (however small).

that is because they treat parents as idiots who cannot make a rational decision, when in knowledge of facts.....

...or maybe because it is so cost effective to jab babies with so many vaccines at once (regardless of the chances of them encountering some of the diseases) ....they don't want anymore "problem parents" than neccessary!

Some HCPs are more competent than others.

The competent ones, as many of us know from direct experience, will take the time to discuss treatments and procedures (not just immunisations).

The incompetent ones might not (and their incompetency probably isn't limited to just immunisations).

So there is a worthwhile message - if you think your individual HCP has not allayed your concerns (whether about immunisations or any other treatment or procedure), seek a second opinion. The information on immunisations is all available.

I'm not sure engaging here is worthwhile. Just let Darwinism take its course.

So what did you do jazz? Did you go ahead and let the doctors vaccinate, despite not having read any research or had any information, or did you seek a second opinion?

I think there Oxford project i linked to above are looking into doing research like that Fluffing.

No, I researched and formulated my own opinions. In fact I researched this long before I had children.....

You assume too much..

I pointed out that in my experience HCP are very quick to point out the negatives of not vaccinating. I have never come across one who has said ...."but you need to be aware of this....." - they hate it when you query the standard line......"you need a tetanus jab" ....."but my baby is not actually moving anywhere...."

Perhaps this is because vaccinations fall into the grey area of preventative medicine - which is hard to get people to sign up for if full facts are disclosed.

Most parents however (other than the smug ones on Mumsnet) do not do independent research. HCP do not expect you to do this either ...

..but is it so wrong to expect them to provide a parent with all the relevant details...

No, it's not wrong at all jazz.

jazz - you may not have been told about possible vaccine side effects by your doctor / nurse. The OP may not have been told about possible vaccine side effects by her doctor / nurse. As meditrina points out, some HCP are more competent than others.

However, you really can't assume that most parents aren't told about possible side effects just because you weren't.

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

Oh yes it is. Not for you possibly butlarrygrylls who the hell do you think you are suggesting that debate on such an important albeit sometimes emotional subject is censored?

It's a matter of significant interest to many though few seem to be able to keep a civil tongue towards anyone who doesn't follow party line. Regrettably, whether it's by virtue of vaccination or natural selection there are some deeply unpleasant people remaining in the gene pool and rarely are they more apparent than during an MN discussion on vaccination.

I think you can't assume either way actually.....

..apart from the fact that most GP surgeries receive payments based on the number of targets achieved!

It's not in anyone (other than the unknown 1 in a million parent's) interests to look too closely into the act facts and figures. For most it is a non-issue.

If you raise a question - they would be obliged to answer it - but for those blindly following the "best for all schedule" for example - my betting is - they don't seek to rock the boat. The chances are there will be no problem whatsoever - certainly not one that can't be put down to coincidence!

I do not believe that Mumsnet is a particularly representative sample of the population as a whole.....

But why would anyone vaccinate 'blindly'? It just makes no sense to me.