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

HazleNutt - I reckon that the majority of those who actively reject vaccination either simply don't believe that their child will ever be exposed to polio/measles/mumps etc, or they believe that these diseases are so harmless that they can't possibly cause a problem to an individual with a good immune system.

They're quite probably right on the first one, thanks to herd immunity, but not so much on the second.

Anyone who doesn't vaccinate their otherwise perfectly healthy child is directly putting at risk those children who for various medical reasons (having conspiracy-nut parents doesn't count) can't be vaccinated.

Herd immunity is a thing.

They're also putting at risk adults with compromised immune systems.

And newborns, too young to be vaccinated.
sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/stories/8259732/getting-the-point

OP, no-one has said that vaccine damage doesn't exist. It does. Sadly, some children suffer severe reactions to vaccination and some die. Not one person on this thread denies it. Some children also react badly and even die to every other kind of medication that is routinely administered to them. This is no more so the case for vaccines than any other drug. You are welcome to avoid all medications for your entire life to mitigate this risk. The rest of us will continue to carry out risk/benefit analyses and as long as the odds continue to be overwhelmingly in our favour, we will probably continue to vaccine our children. The alternative, if everyone stopped vaccinating, is far, far worse. At the moment the non-vaxxers are mostly protected by people who do vaccinate. But there will be a tipping point where herd immunity breaks down. And then there will a serious number of deaths; certainly enough to get that media attention that you think the topic of vaccination deserves. But it won't be telling stories that support your side of the story, I can assure you.

You know what makes me weep? Not reading about 13 babies out of 72 million who had an adverse reaction to vaccination. It's tragic, but ultimately everyone was acting in the best interests of the child and society. What makes me weep is reading about children who die because some selfish prick decided not to vaccinate and passed a preventable disease on to a newborn or a child with a compromised immune system.

The link between vaccines and autism, however, has been widely disproved, so you won't get very far trying to convince anyone on that point.

Exactly Wakefield's research was withdrawn by The Lancet - it takes a lot for them to do that!

The random comparator was just the start of his problems, Auntie Stella. Starts off well, by saying that 97% of deaths occurred in the first 10 days and only 3% in the following 10 days. And that deaths were highest on the day of vaccination and then gradually fall. It's an interesting point and one that bears further investigation. If he'd thought about it for half a second he would have realised what a pp pointed out about the GSK paper. These are not deaths recorded as follow up. They are not the total number of deaths in the 20 days after vaccination, only those that are reported by hcps and or parents to the regulatory bodies as being linked to the vaccine. Adverse event Y is more likely to be linked to event X the closer they are. So babies that die on the day or 2 after vaccination are more likely to be reported than a death in a baby that has been well and dies from SIDS 3 weeks later. He needs some sort of prospective cohort study to make the claims he does, but he doesn't consider it he just carries on randomly taking the lower number as a base rate but not giving the rationale for why.

It is not a very well written paper.

Sidge - Thanks for your comment. This thread is talking about why arent we being told by our medical professionals.

Really? I thought you were discussing babies dying from a vaccine, which nobody told you about.

Well I'm a HCP who vaccinate babies weekly and I wouldn't tell you about 1, a vaccine we don't use here in the UK and that I won't be giving your baby and 2, babies dying that may or may not be related to a vaccine they received previously, with no supported evidence to suggest their death was attributable to the vaccine, that oh I'm not actually giving...

Yes of course as a HCP I will advised you what I intend to do to your baby. That's why we obtain informed consent and get so strict about unrelated adults bringing babies for vaccination. I will also advised you of the vaccines I'm going to give as well as the potential side effects. You are welcome to take the information sheet that comes with the vaccine and I will happily answer any questions or concerns you may have. However I am not a research scientist, or an immunologist, or work for a pharmaceutical company, so I am probably not the best person to have a debate with about Big Pharma conspiracies.

I could share with you a story about having to nurse a 15 year old girl who suffered epiglottitis and encephalitis after catching measles, which led to her being profoundly brain damaged. Or the baby I cared for who was admitted with whooping cough at 4 days old and transferred to ITU.

Vaccination is a very personal decision and I totally respect that. But make that decision based on evidence and not speculation.

Sophie, I'd read half the thread, it was getting repetitive - I've moved on. Fear not.

Sidge, you tell us about the 4 day old baby transferred to ITU with whooping cough, that's a very sad case. However, that baby couldn't be protected with a vaccine because the first vaccine isn't given until 2 months old. To protect that baby, someone else has to vaccinate their child, in effect, I have to risk (because everything carries a risk) my child at 2, 3, 4 months and then again at 3.5 years, a time when whooping cough is rarely a problem for that particular child.

Maybe we need to find a whooping cough vaccine for new born babies because it is new born babies who most need protected. The vaccine is offered to pregnant women but uptake is nowhere near 100%, can we conclude that the pregnant women don't want to risk themselves for their babies? In that case, why am I risking my child for someone else's baby?

The benefits of the whooping cough vaccine are skewed in favour of the child who is not having the vaccine, all the risk goes to the child having the vaccine. That is my objection to the whooping cough vaccine. I object in a similar way to other vaccines, particularly the rubella vaccine.

"I have to risk (because everything carries a risk) my child at 2, 3, 4 months and then again at 3.5 years, a time when whooping cough is rarely a problem for that particular child"

That's not quite right. Whooping cough can be fatal at any age. There is direct benefit to the immunised child, whatever age they receive it.

Side it was over 20 years ago when I was a student nurse. It was very sad.

Of course babies that young don't have their vaccines that early, the evidence now suggests that vaccinating pregnant women is having a very positive effect on reducing pertussis in very young babies. I believe the uptake is good, it's not 100% but it's certainly high in my area (about 90% I think).

I don't agree the benefit is skewed to a child NOT having the vaccine - they are still very vulnerable to pertussis. Of course if children and adults are vaccinated the levels of circulating pertussis are going to be lower so the non-vaccinated child will still benefit, but the vaccinated child still benefits hugely. I guess as with all vaccinations it's a case of weighing up the risks versus the benefits.

ShadowSpiral - Unfortuantely the CDC even admits that they have not done a study on vaccinated vs unvaccinated. Which makes you wonder why?

Because it would be unethical to do that research. That's a fairly big reason.

namely Diptheria, Tetanus and Acelluar Pertusis (whooping cough), Hepatitis B, inactivated Poliomyelitis and Haemophilus influenza type B

'inactivated Poliomyelitis' is not a disease, it may be part of the vaccine but it is to prevent Poliomyelitis.

sashh - somewhere up thread someone (I think AuntieStella? ) has linked to studies showing no increase in SIDS risk to vaccinated babies.

I believe these studies were more about comparing outcomes between vaccinated babies and babies unvaccinated (because of parental choice) and so did not involve doctors deliberately not vaccinating babies, which would of course be considered unethical.

My DS had his MMR the week before last and as well as being informed of any immediate and delayed side effects verbally, I also signed a form confirming I was happy to vaccinate despite any risks. At that point, it was highlighted that there were risks and had I any concerns I'm almost certain I could have asked for further details about the vaccination in question.

I have done this before every vaccination. Just as I have independently looked into what the potential risks and side effects would be.

I felt horrible when he had a raging temperature after his jabs but I know it was buggar all in comparison to the discomfort and risk of full blown measles or the pain my DS would go through if left infertile from catching mumps!

There are definitely ways to do it, but you are not allowed to do double blinded RCTs for obvious reasons. I'm certain there are a couple of studies looking at the rates of autism between vaccinated and totally unvaccinated children, presumably they either looked at medical records or spoke to parents.

I'm certain there are a couple of studies looking at the rates of autism between vaccinated and totally unvaccinated children
Are you sure of this? Or are you just assuming there are some studies, because it is an obvious study which should have and could easily be done. I cannot find one. I have been looking on anti-vax and vaxxers websites. The CDC has even stated they wont do that research. Please can you find the study for all of us to read.

Parents have literally been asking for this study for decades and public health officials a proper study comparing the health outcomes of vaccinated and unvaccinated children.

Agreed, this research by simply looking at medical records. In some countries all the medical records are on the system. There is no ethical issue here, the data is already on hand. It is just not being done.

KIggs vaccinated vs unvaccinated health outcomes No difference except unvaccinated get more vaccine preventable disease.
Some antivax websites have tried to do some telephone surveys but they really are not very reliable.
and for anyone that is interested the IOM book that looks at all the Adverse events of vaccines Evidence and Causality

A study looking at the autism incidence in the unvaccinated siblings of autistic children is soon to come out (and will show that vaccination doesn't play a role)

CatherinaJTV, I have to disagree with your statement. The study will not, indeed can not, show that there is no link. You can not prove a negative, the study can at best, show that there is no evidence of a link, but that is all.

Honestly heartisaspade, is that what you really think the pros and cons of vaccinting are? And vaxers call antrivaxers believing in tin foil hat brigade science.

Unfortunately the antivax argument is never based on any scientific understanding ie not understanding the dose maketh the poison etc or how much of these scary sounding ingredients are actually in our body etc

OP has started this thread claiming that the medical professionals weren't telling us the full story about vaccines or the about the ingredients in vaccines etc. I came across another thread where someone was seeking advice on eczema and OP had answered that steroids where bad for you and that you should chinese medicines etc because they were natural and made up of vitamins etc. However ignores the fact that Chinese medicine are completely unregulated and that you have no idea what is actually going into the medicines. The was research that found 8 out of 11 chinese prescriptions investigated actually contained very high doses of steroids up to 5.2 times the adult dose being given to children.