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

Thanks ShadowSpiral, I was jumping to the conclusion that a study would be double blind with children (and parents) not knowing if the jab was a vaccine.

bruffin- It looks like you make a lot of claims, without anything to back it up.

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
And what do you do for a living?

I didn't know humans had chicken/Pig virus in their body? Formalin is a solution of formaldehyde gas in water, and formalin is used as a disinfectant and as a preservative of biological samples. Next time I am in the lab, I will surely say buffin says this chemical is so natural you don't need to wear gloves. It's okay if the chemical goes seeps through your skin and into your bloodstream. It's found in your body, it's so natural. [http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol88/index.php The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)] classifies formaldehyde as a human carcinogen , these people don't understand science. [National Cancer Institute www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/formaldehyde] and [http://www.epa.gov/teach/chem_summ/Formaldehyde_summary.pdf EPA] have document infomring the public to limit to indoor and outdoor esposure Formaldehyde and why, obviously they also dont understand science.

And mumps regularly killed children in the western world before vaccination, it was also the leading cause of deafness. Luckily I retired and still remember when mothers use to get their kids to measle and mumps parties. I am sure there were kids who became permanent deaf, but I dont know any. And from a quick google search it is 1 in every 20,000. Autism is 1 in every 50 / 88, depending where you are.

I'm sorry, are people with autism being hospitalised and having condolences offered now?

Best get me to thee ambulance.

BTW your link to the Robert Koch Institute Vaccination Status and Health in Children and Adolescents is a known flawed study. Although it makes an interesting read, it was not been taken as fact by either the vax or unvax community. I am not sure if you have read it, or just posting something up just because you feel most people do not have the time to read to confirm or deny your conclusion.

In the paper, the investigators examined the hypothesis that vaccines did not increase the risk of allergies and immune system dysfunction by looking at atopic disorders. The study found this to be correct. Although the reason why it was a flawed study for many reasons. Here are just a 3 of them.

1- it compared the health outcomes of 94 unvaccinated children versus 13,359 vaccinated children. Anyone who has any sense will be able to pick up on that straight away. We know that girls are tougher than boys. This is why we see more boys suffer from allergies, health problems, learning difficulties. With a sample of just 48 girls and 46 boys, it is absolutely impossible to draw any conclusion from it.

2- the study did not look at totally unvax vs totally vaxed. If a child had just 1 vaccine, then they are put into the vaxed category. The child might of had a flu vaccine at 7 years old, compared to 2 months old. Or had one vaccine rather than multiples at the same time. The timing of when the vaccine is administer is crucial to the development of atopic disorders. Reason 1- Bearing in mind the baby's body develop at an exceptional rate in the first year to 3 years. Reason 2- blood brain barrier is thinner newborn brain. Reason 3- ability to excrete toxins out it body and immune function is not developed enough in the 1st year of life.

3- This was a questionnaire, it did not look at the medical records. This is open to bias. Who is filling out the questionnaire? Vaxers and non-vaxers alike, will feel like they have made the right choice and their kid should have got it worse. Therefore impacting the response they give, opening the survey to bias.

As far as I am aware, vaxer and anti-vax communities are calling for this study.

SlicedAndDiced, your insensitivity is disgusting. OP has explained in page 6 the situation where her nephew was taken to hospital and now being in a care home.

I am glad someone find this comical. Now I understand why some threads comment on pro-vaxers being arrogant and insensitive.

miimilovell - not sure what you are trying to prove, but the rate of autism has absolutely nothing to do with the outcomes of mumps and measles.

Mumps

"Mumps is a leading cause of acquired sensorineural deafness among children, affecting approximately 5/100 000 mumps patients" Because you didnt know any doesnt mean it didnt happen, i dont know anyone who died of measles but prior to vaccination, but 100 deaths a year in the uk , in the US in the 1960s there were 50 odd deaths a year due to mumps. I am old enough to have got measles at the time they started rolling out the measles vaccines (i was not allowed to have it because my sister had what is now known as GEFS+)

WHO

reportable diseases 1950-2011 US

measles measles notifications 1940-2013 uk

Formaldehyde

"Formaldehyde is also produced naturally in the human body. It is essential for the production of some basic biological materials, such as certain amino acids. Amino acids are necessary for important life processes as they are the building blocks of proteins in the body."

FDA - formaldehyde

As for the KIGGS study the antivax sites loved it and were misreporting it everywhere. I get the impression no study will ever satisfy antivaxers as they keep shifting the goalposts, it was mmr, no it was thermisal, no it was the aluminium and so on and so on.

I am going to have to hide this thread because people who don't vaccinate their children because they think it is linked to autism give me the rage.

Equally those who don't vaccinate who have no sound medical reason not to give me the rage. I use the word rage because I'm trying to be polite but what they really are is selfish and ignorant.

Hides thread

More stuff about SIDS and vaccinations.

www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/cdcs-own-data-vaccine-infant-death-link

"Next time I am in the lab, I will surely say buffin says this chemical is so natural you don't need to wear gloves. It's okay if the chemical goes seeps through your skin and into your bloodstream."

Would you also say, 'you drink coca cola, therefore put your hands into this vat of neat phosphoric acid?'

Oh do get over yourself mimi.

I have autism, my daughter is being observed as she probably has autism.

Vaccines don't cause autism, autism doesn't put people in hospitals.

mimi - I know 2 adults who are deaf as a result of catching measles as children (before a vaccine was available). It may be a rare complication, but it can and does happen.

Not personally knowing someone who's been killed or permanently affected by an infectious illness doesn't make that particular illness a harmless one for everyone.

And mumps regularly killed children in the western world before vaccination, it was also the leading cause of deafness.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I didn't think that mumps was a notifiable disease in the UK until the MMR vaccine came along? If this is so, although it might have been possible to identify mumps as a cause of death in some cases, no one would be in a position to say what percentage of the population it was - whether it 'regularly killed children' who caught mumps or whether it occasionally was fatal for the unlucky few.

TheCrimsonQueen, I object to be being called ignorant but I can live with that.

The thing is, for many people, there is no medical reason, not to vaccinate, until, you discover, after the vaccine, that your child is irrevocably damaged, and, oh, in light of that, maybe there was a medical reason not to vaccinate.

For me, the dangers of the vaccines, and, yes, as this thread is about, the 72 babies dead within 20 days, is too big a risk for me, compared to the benefits as I see them.

I do not wish to vaccinate my child to protect another child, and if that makes me selfish then so be it. How many parents really would risk their child to protect another child? When my child is vaccine damaged, will the parents whose children needed to be protected by my child having the vaccine be along to provide around the clock care for my child. Hmmmm, I don't think so.

I read time and again, about parents slating other parents for not vaccinating their children to protect the children who can't have a vaccine, never once have I read, someone actually thanking parents who vaccinated their child to protect a child who can't be vaccinated. But, I don't need or want thanks, I'm acting in the best way I know how, to protect my child , it is my duty to do so, I'm happy with my decision.

it is NOT 72 babies dead within 20 days. It is 72 babies dead for 99 million vaccine doses distributed.

Could they even definitely link up those 72 deaths to the vaccine?

I had the flu jab in November and miscarried shortly afterwards. It was my seventh mc.

Some nutter who I thought was normal tried to tell me it was all the jabs fault and that my doctor should have warned me Nothing to do with my womb abnormality then?

It didn't go down well.

If my googling brought me to the right answer, mumps has been a notifiable disease in US since 1968 and in UK since 1988.

CDC information leaflet on mumps, including rates of complications from the disease

Thanks meditrina - if that date is correct (and I can only find govt. data for mumps from 1989 onwards so it would seem to be) it proves that mumps was not a notifiable disease until the MMR vaccine came along.

From the NHS website:

"Since the MMR vaccine was introduced in 1988, it's rare for children in the UK to develop these serious conditions."

I can understand the govt. introducing vaccines for serious illness, but for ones which they didn't think important enough to collect data, rather suggests that they weren't all that concerned about mumps.

I had already read the CDC leaflet and it's not particularly informative: "and was one of the most common causes of aseptic meningitis and sensorineural deafness in childhood." What evidence is there to back up this statement? How much deafness was there? I would rather see figures of x number of children were diagnosed with deafness of which % were caused by mumps, lesser % caused by something else.

That is also in the USA which may have differing disease patterns to the UK.

CatherineJTV, does that mean, then, that those 72 babies don't matter? I'm sure they matter to their families. I agree that it is a very small amount but nevertheless it is still 72 babies.

Now, let's imagine that the article had read:

72 babies who could NOT be vaccinated, dead, with 20 days of catching a vaccine preventable disease from an UNVACCINATED child.

Would you dismiss that as being a very small amount and not important?

No, I imagine you'd be criticising all the parents who didn't vaccinate their healthy children as stupid, ignorant, selfish.

Since the MMR vaccine was introduced in 1988, it's rare for children in the UK to develop these serious conditions

Volcan you are contradicting yourself, and i already provided a link which showed reportable disease which included deaths to mumps from 1960.

Sidefoot
Would you dismiss that as being a very small amount and not important

you are misunderstanding the situation. Those 72 children died of SIDS within 20 days of having a vaccine. The vaccine has not been proved to cause those deaths. Nobody is saying that those 72 cases of SIDS are any less important than any other case of SIDS.

Bruffin- that's a quotation from the NHS, so I assume that it's them who are being contradictory - after all the WHO data says that it "is generally a mild disease with fever".

Yes, a death certificate might show cause of death as being an initial infection from mumps. We could take the total number of child deaths per annum and compute what percentage were caused by an initial infection of mumps to see if that was a/the leading cause of death in children.

But, until it became a notifiable disease I don't see how anyone can have anything but anecdotal data as to the extent of the disease. So was there a lot of it about but it didn't affect most all that much, or was there very little around, but if you caught it, it was serious? The best we would have prior to 1988 would be anecdotal information which MNers are fond of telling us, is not data.

The word is generally therefore sometimes it is not mild, why cant you understand that.Nobody said it was a leading cause of death, but it did cause death and disablilty ie deafness and the consequences of encephalitis and subfertility.

From the IOM book i have looked to above and many times before

" Pancreatitis occurs in 4 percent of cases, and although it has not been proven, evidence suggests an association between mumps infection and diabetes mellitus (Sultz et al., 1975)"

"Neurological complications are more common in adults and occur three times more often in men than in women (Plotkin and Rubin, 2008). These complications include mumps meningitis, cerebellar ataxia, transverse myelitis and poliomyelitis-like disease, cranial nerve palsies, hydroencephalitis, and encephalitis, which occurs in less than 0.3 percent of cases, but is responsible for more than 50 percent of mumps-related fatalities (Bray, 1972; Cohen et al., 1992; Kilham et al., 1949; Lahat et al., 1993; Oldfelt, 1949; Oran et al., 1995; Plotkin and Rubin, 2008; Timmons and Johnson, 1970)."

"Hearing loss due to infection of the endolymph is also a potential complication of mumps infection (Tanaka et al., 1988). Short-term, high-frequency deafness occurs in approximately 4 percent of mumps cases, and permanent hearing loss occurs in only 1 per 20,000 cases and is usually unilateral (Litman and Baum, 2010; Plotkin and Rubin, 2008). Mumps arthropathy, more common in men than women, occurs most often in young adults (Plotkin and Rubin, 2008). It may manifest as arthralgias, polyarticular migratory arthritis, and monoarticular arthritis (Gordon and Lauter, 1984; Harel et al., 1990). Myocarditis is rare and generally self-limited, although some fatal cases have been reported (Chaudary and Jaski, 1989; Roberts and Fox, 1965)."

From the encephalitis society

"Mumps virus frequently infects the central nervous system. Before the MMR vaccine was introduced mumps used to be the most common cause of admission to hospital with Meningitis or Encephalitis, occurring in 1 in 200- 1 in 5,000 children. Mumps also causes deafness. MMR vaccine has had a dramatic impact and hardly any children are admitted to hospital with mumps these days. Outbreaks of mumps have occurred in recent years in older children and young adults who were too old to have received the two doses of MMR vaccine recommended before going to school."

The point I was making was that since it was not notifiable, they fail to have a frame of reference to compare pre and post vaccination.

I have not said anything about people not dying, or it not sometimes being serious - all I am saying is that until it became notifiable there was a large element of guesswork involved because they just didn't know who caught it or not. I can't see why that is difficult to understand either.

I very much doubt it was quess work, due you think they didnt do research because it wasnt a notifiable? The common cold is not notifiable, but they still know what the symptoms are This was a common disease that had consequences that were well known, it just needs a bit of commonsense to understand that if you regularly get children hospitalized